According to the wider hope/inclusive framework, why does the church still exist? In the wider hope/inclusivist theological framework, very simply put, people who have not heard the Gospel are not necessarily lost and destined for hell.  Given that understanding, why does the Church exist and why has it lasted as long as it has?

For example, one commonly stated purpose of the church is to evangelize the lost.  But is that actually necessary in a wider hope/inclusive framework? (see related question)  If not, then what is the purpose?

Is the purpose that God is waiting to bring a certain number of people to salvation?  That doesn't seem to follow either, since he could have simply saved more people before the coming of Christ, or done a mass conversion the day of resurrection and then immediately enter into the next age.

Given the amount of suffering that has gone on for the last 2,000 years, it seems like God would need a good reason to allow the church age to continue the way it has.  But I don't see such a reason.  What do wider hope/inclusive theologians say about this?  To them, what is the purpose of the church and why has the church age lasted so long?

I can state what I believe are the Eastern Orthodox (my faith) answers to your questions.

  For example, one commonly stated purpose of the church is to
  evangelize the lost. But is that actually necessary in a wider
  hope/inclusive framework? (see related question) If not, then what is
  the purpose?

The Church (capital "C") is what Christ established for us on earth in order for us to work out our salvation (Philippians 2:12), making use of the Grace-given means of sanctification provided by it.  It is where all are gathered together in Christ (Ephesians 1:10).

The Orthodox Church has a much different understanding of sin, salvation, the nature of man, and his relationship to God, than the Roman Catholic and most, if not all, Protestant Christian confessions.  We believe in ancestral sin, which has damaged our nature, but we do not believe in ancestral guilt.  Thus, salvation is seen more as a process of healing - the word "save" in Greek really means "heal" - than of escape from punishment.  It is, if you will, a faith of restoration rather than retribution.

Orthodox believe, furthermore, that although we are only saved by virtue of God's grace, we must cooperate with that grace - a process known as synergy.  This cooperation of man's free will with God's grace was a subject of somewhat bitter debate in the early 4th century between Augustine and many (but not all) western bishops in the west, who held that man cannot do anything at all to enable his salvation; and other Church Fathers such as John Cassian who took the view that man cooperates with God.  The Augustinian view logically led to a somewhat dismal theology of predestination and salvation that has persisted to this day in the west.

To your statement,

  In the wider hope/inclusivist theological framework, very simply put,
  people who have not heard the Gospel are not necessarily lost and
  destined for hell.

I would say that this framework does not have a solid foundation in Scripture, unless one were to construct a logical chain of very specific pericopes.  The Gospels are very straightforward and very clear.  Unfortunately - in my opinion - western Protestant theology has tended to rely on interpreting the Gospels through the writings of Paul, rather than interpreting what Paul wrote through the Lord's own words.  The Lord Himself stated very clearly who would be lost and who would be saved:

  When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered
  all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a
  shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the
  sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. Then the King will
  say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit
  the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I
  was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink,
  I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I
  was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then
  the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry and
  feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a
  stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we
  see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’ And the King will answer
  them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these
  my brethren, you did it to me.’ Then he will say to those at his left
  hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for
  the devil and his angels;for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I
  was thirsty and you gave me no drink,I was a stranger and you did not
  welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and
  you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we
  see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in
  prison, and did not minister to thee?’ Then he will answer them,
  ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these,
  you did it not to me.’ And they will go away into eternal punishment,
  but the righteous into eternal life (Matthew 25:31-46)

In short, the Lord is stating how important love of our neighbor is for our salvation - something we see him emphasizing elsewhere in the Gospels (e.g. Matthew 22:34-40; Mark 12:28-31).

Why should I "go to church", one might ask, if according to the parable it doesn't even seem to matter whether I believe in Christ, or even God?  I would answer this by saying that given how the devil, the world, and our own sinful nature conspires against us, we cannot succeed in loving our brothers and sisters without the grace of God.  Some of us have a great gift available to us - the Church - that helps us to heal our souls and learn from the Lord Himself (viz. Matthew 11:29).  Others of us, however, do not for whatever reason have this gift available.  We must recall, perhaps with fear and trembling, however, that the Lord told us that we who have His Church available to us will be held all the more accountable for how we lead our lives.  Every one to whom much is given, He told us, of him will much be required (Luke 12:48).


How to know whether God truly spoke to you? In many churches nowadays, there are a lot of people claiming to have the gifts of the holy spirit(prophets, speaking in tongues etc). In my experience, most of them are just looking for personal gain that's why I started thinking they are all false prophets.

However, recently I had an experience which I believe truly is a message from God through a prophet(see first edit for more details).

That's why I am asking what are some biblical ways to test whether someone is speaking from God(guided by the Holy spirit) or by themselves?

Summary

The verses below tell you clearly what to do. Use logic and reason, consult with Christians wiser than you, and test this man's words. Praise God if he passes. Rebuke the man if he does not.

Modified from a previous answer of mine on testing prophets

The first thing I want to say is that if your wife is a Christian with a moderately strong faith you should tell her immediately. She should be your guide through this. That will be the extent of the personal advice I will give.

The Bible says a great deal about testing prophets and spirits. From your story, the man, whom you did not know, came up to you uninvited and told you information about yourself that he could not have known. I assume he also had a message for you of some sort, else what would be the point. He has performed an act of prophesy.

A similar situation from the Bible is when Jesus speaks to the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4. Jesus, using the give of prophecy, was able to know things about the woman and give her a message that she then likely told to the whole town (that message was that the messiah was here).

Now the following is from the Bible on how to test spirits and prophets. Much of this can be applied to your situation.

A spirit will confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.

  Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
  1 John 4

Although this verse says 'spirit' I think it is just as easily applied to prophets. Both are charged with speaking God's words.

This verse also not only says it is okay to test the spirits but implies that you should every time. You should be comfortable with the fact that this event has happened and even more comfortable that you are approaching it with a healthy amount of skepticism. Assuming you are a Christian, you are equipped to discern the divinity of this event, however, part of that equipping is consulting other Christians that you know. Proverbs 27:17

A person speaking by the spirit will claim Jesus is Lord

  3 Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. 1 Cor. 12:3

This is pretty straight forward. Did this person use any language that implies this? In the best case scenario you can question this person directly: "Is Jesus Christ the Lord of all?" He should be able to easily confess Christ is Lord and praise and worship Him with you. Since you were at a church that is a good sign, however, it would be best if you saw him worshiping or otherwise confessing the sovereignty of Christ.

A prophet will not contradict God's word

  20 Consult God’s instruction and the testimony of warning. If anyone does not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn. Isaiah 8:20

Praise God for giving us His word! Full of His wisdom! You have the Bible and can easily consult it concerning what this person told you. From your story, it seems like you are struggling with something, such as a difficult decision or perhaps how to reconcile a sin. The Bible has much to say on many topics. If there is anything that this person said that contradicts His Word, than I am afraid he was not speaking from the Spirit.

A prophet will not prove himself with wonders then ask you to worship other Gods

  If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. Deut 13:1-3

I very much doubt that occurred in your story, but just in case.

The predictions of a prophet must come to pass

  20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.”
  21 You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?” 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed. Deut 18:20-22

These verses imply that an already proven prophet can later be unproven. This backs up 1 John's claim to test them every time and not just the first time. Apparently saying God said something that He did not is a capital offense, so you could argue that a prophet of ancient times was very slow to speak.

Now, if this person said anything about what will be, that must come true. There is no exception. If his would be predictions do not come true he was not speaking from the Spirit.

A true prophet will live a righteous life

  15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. Matt 7:15-20

This will likely not help you much, but it is still worth noting. If you can learn something about his life and lifestyle then you can make a determination whether he was doing his best to live a Christian life.

Conclusion

This verses tell you clearly what to do. Use logic and reason, consult with Christians wiser than you, and test this man. Praise God if he passes. Rebuke the man if he does not.


Do conservative Presbyterians accept 4-point Calvinists? I realize that many conservative Presbyterian churches (PCA, OPC, etc.) have fairly basic standards for membership, not requiring much more than baptism and a basic affirmation of faith, although stricter doctrinal requirements are placed on people who become office-holders. What I'm wondering is, how involved would someone who is an Amyraldian 4-point Calvinist be allowed to be? (Or someone who denies double predestinarianism, for that matter.) Could someone who holds those beliefs comfortably attend a conservative Presbyterian church if they hold other Presbyterian beliefs (infant baptism, spiritual presence view of Communion, etc.), or would they be better off in a different denomination?

Conservative Presbyterian churches typically require their elders to subscribe to the Westminster Standards, which include the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Westminster Shorter Catechism, and the Westminster Larger Catechism. The lay members of the congregation are usually only required to submit to the teaching of the elders, which in practice means that a wider variety of beliefs are tolerated than what the Westminster Standards permit.
In addition, many Presbyterian denominations permit the taking of exceptions to the wording or entire articles of the Westminster Standards. The extent and permissibility of these allowed exceptions varies from denomination to denomination.

The Westminster Standards do not align with the Amyraldian position, so a potential office-bearer would not be able to honestly subscribe to the Westminster Standards and remain Amyraldian. However, there are some positions of Calvinistic hypothetical atonement which some argue are plausibly acceptable within the bounds of the Westminster Standards, such as those promoted by James Ussher and Richard Baxter.
The relevant sections in the Westminster Confession of Faith are Chapter 3, Article 6, and Chapter 7, Article 3. The relevant Westminster Larger Catechism question is Question 67. I quote them below:

Chapter 3, Article 6. As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto.Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.
Chapter 6, Article 3. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.
Q. 67 What is effectual calling?
A. Effectual calling is the work of God’s almighty power and grace, whereby (out of his free and special love to his elect, and from nothing in them moving him thereunto) he doth, in his accepted time, invite and draw them to Jesus Christ, by his Word and Spirit; savingly enlightening their minds, renewing and powerfully determining their wills, so as they (although in themselves dead in sin) are hereby made willing and able freely to answer his call, and to accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein.

Double predestination is more clearly supported in the Westminster Standards.
Chapter 3, and in particular Article 3 and Article 7 are clearly in support of double predestination:

Chapter 3 Article 3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.
Chapter 3 Article 7. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.

In answer to the involvement permitted, a conservative Presbyterian congregation or denomination would most likely not allow the ordination of someone who denies double predestination, but would potentially allow an exception taken on Amyraldianism, or alternatively the more permissible positions of Ussher and Baxter. Ordinary members would be otherwise comfortable, depending on their understanding of their membership oath to submit to the teaching of the elders of the church. Each congregation/presbytery/denomination will vary somewhat, though. Your mileage may vary.
There are two articles by Lee Gatiss, titled Shades of Opinion with a Generic Calvinism: The Particular Redemption Debate at the Westminster Assembly, and A Deceptive Clarity? Particular Redemption in the Westminster Standards which give a brief summary of what occurred during the debate of the Westminster Assembly on the issue of hypothetical universalism. The minutes of the debate are also available.


How many of each species went onto the Ark? "The animals went in two-by-two, hurrah, hurrah!" - we're taught this nursery rhyme from a young age, and go throughout life believing that one male, and one female of each species was present on the Ark in order to re-populate the world after the flood.

  Genesis 6:19 - "You are to bring into the ark two of all living
  creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of
  every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of
  creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept
  alive."

  Genesis 7:2 -"Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal,
  a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a
  male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male
  and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth."

I find the verses above somewhat confusing with regards to how many of each species would have been present on the Ark. How do people who take the Ark narrative literally interpret this?

In the KJV it might be hard to understand, but in the translation you used above I think its very clear.

There was "one pair" of each unclean animal, i.e. 2 of each of those species.

There were "seven pairs" of every clean animal and bird, i.e. 14 of each of those species.

So they did essentially go in "two-by-two" but for some species there was only one pair, and for others there were seven pairs.

If the problem is that Genesis 6:19 does not mention the seven pairs like Genesis 7:2 does, that is easily overcome by assuming that God would give Noah more specific instructions closer to the event than the general overview he gave earlier.  After all, notice that Noah is not tasked with rounding up the animals, but Genesis 6:19 says all these animals "will come to you."  So God may have initially made it sound like to Noah that only 2 of each animal would come, but for whatever reason later sent 14 of certain species, and explained it to Noah again when the animals arrived.


When we forgive our offenders, does it mean we do not want God to punish them anymore? On of the biggest issues i have had with easily forgiving is because of some (ill advised?) thought that  doing so automatically exempts the person from punishment, i know its naive,  but when one is young, that would be the best one could do. But  i think that this may not be the case. I read in a christian leaders webpage (iv since lost the link to the page) that refusing to forgive because of some form of fear that the other party will sort of get away with it  'reveals a flawed eschatology' he argued since  even Christ when just about to be crucified asked Peter to put back his sword, since if  he saw fit,  Christ would have asked for angels. From this he argued that we do not necessarily have to think the  person will not be  punished to forgive, rather we are letting God  deal with punishing them. (Im talking about dealing with unforgiveness of major events, stuff that we may struggle with over long periods).

What does it mean (or involve) to forgive?

1. Let them of the hook so they do not get punished.
2. Let them off the hook so God is the one to punish them.

I'd say that we forgive each other in order to more closely imitate Jesus. It doesn't have to do with letting them off the hook, nor do I believe it necessarily means we expect God to judge them later.

From Matthew 18:21-22,

  Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I
  forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?"
  Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven
  times."

Here Jesus' response was meant to indicate that our forgiveness towards each other should be endless.

And I feel more directly from John 13:34-35,

  "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so
  you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are
  my disciples, if you love one another."


Why do we use the order "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"? The three persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are united in an undivided Trinity, in which all are equal in stature, according to orthodox trinitarian Christianity. Given that our language is linear, it is clear that there are six ways that we could list these three persons. In fact, the order of "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" is overwhelmingly the dominant one - in the liturgy, especially for baptism (Mt 28:19), in creeds*, and so on. At a distant second is the Son-Father-Spirit order of 2 Corinthians 13:14,

  The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you. NRSV

which admittedly sees a lot of liturgical use, though still less than Father-Son-Spirit. I do not think that any other orders are used at all.

Why are other permutations of the three persons not used liturgically? Is there a theological reason why the standard order is the best one (aside from simple Scriptural precedent), or conversely is there some reason (aside from surprise) why a novel order would be wrong?

(I am looking for answers from 'mainstream' trinitarian Christianity.)

* e.g. the Nicene and Athanasian creeds, Reformation confessions (Augsburg, Belgic, Second Helvetic, Thirty-Nine Articles, Westminster), and more recent statements of belief like Baptist Faith and Message

I believe one reason for the order is because of the Great Commission in Matt. 28:19, in which it is written,

19 Therefore, go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
ΙΘʹ πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος TR, 1550

Ontologically, the Son is begotten by the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but the Father is neither begotten nor proceeding.
In the creed established at the First Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D., the Lord Jesus Christ is described as “he who was begotten of the Father” (τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα), while the Holy Spirit is described as “the one who proceeds from the Father” (τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον).
Furthermore, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (cp. John 15:26). Thus, the Father would be listed first, the Son would be listed second, followed by the Holy Spirit.


Was Apollos ever baptized in the name of Jesus? Regarding Apollos, the Bible states:

Acts 18:25 (ESV Strong's) 25 He had been instructed in the way of the
Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the
things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26
He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and
Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

However immediately after this episode we read of another set of believers only familiar with John's baptism who were then baptized in the name of Jesus:

Acts 19:3 (ESV Strong's) 3 And he said, “Into what then were you
baptized?” They said, “Into John's baptism.” 4 And Paul said, “John
baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe
in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing
this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Should we see these two episodes as complimentary and understand that Apollos was similarly baptized in the name of Jesus? Or should we instead see these as contrasts, and understand that Apollo was not again baptized?

I believe the question highlights an interesting point : that we should we see (by two different examples) that if someone is baptised (but in a limited way) then it is not essential that they be baptised again, but they could be.
After all, they have made a public profession through baptism which is one of the main features of baptism.
I say this because I was also baptised in a limited way and largely in ignorance, at the age of sixteen (over 50 years ago). But on later being received into a more enlightened congregation, they did not require me to be re-baptised.
However I had previously been 'christened' as an infant (although I remember it because, through circumstances, it was delayed until I was five) but I wanted to be baptised as an adult at the age of sixteen.
This was accepted by a congregation and they were willing to baptise me a second time, but as a converted adult. However, although sincere at the time, I was still very ignorant and I moved quickly from that congregation in my spiritual progress.
So, in the first case, I was 're-baptised' which was a necessary thing to do for doctrinal and fellowship reasons.
But in the second case I was not, for it was not deemed essential to do so.


Has there ever been an exorcism conducted by the Mormon Church? Has there ever been a recorded exorcism conducted under the authority of the Mormon Church?

Exorcisms aren't recorded in the LDS Church, in fact the ordinance itself isn't even documented, it's known unofficially as one of the, "Unwritten Ordinances" of the church, along with dusting your feet (see Matt 10:14) and other similar ordinances.

There are many stories which exist as Mormon urban legends, mostly involving missionaries serving in highly superstitious societies. I heard many serving as a missionary, one particularly prominent tale is of a, "haunted house" somewhere in South America, the juste of the story is there were many evil spirits dwelling in a single residence, and when the Elders commanded them to leave there was audible screaming and all the windows and doors in the house opened and slammed shut.

I myself was called to the homes of a couple families of ethnic origin (Haitian and Puerto Rican) because of paranormal activity. One was on account of a sighting of an evil spirit flying around in a kitchen, sticking it's tongue out at people, the other was to the home of a woman who was acting... not like herself/possessed. Both were very unsettling experiences, but neither resulted in casting out devils, though the thought had crossed my mind, instead we offered a blessing on the homes, which seemed to suffice in both instances.

The only officially documented instance of an exorcism is found in, History of the Church Volume 1:82-83, and is recorded because it was the first miracle performed in the restored church (read The Knight Family: Ever Faithful to the Prophet). The account goes like this:

  April 1830 In the month of April, 1830, Joseph Smith was visiting at
  the house of a Mr. Joseph Knight, at Colesville, Broome County, New
  York. This gentleman had rendered the prophet some timely assistance
  while translating the Book of Mormon, and he was anxious that Mr.
  Knight and his family should receive the truth. While in Mr. Knight's
  neighborhood the prophet held a number of meetings. Among those who
  attended regularly was Newel Knight, son of Joseph Knight. He and the
  prophet had many serious conversations on the subject of man's
  salvation. In the meetings held the people prayed much, and in one of
  the aforesaid conversations with the prophet, Newel Knight promised
  that he would pray publicly. When the time came, however, his heart
  failed him, and he refused, saying that he would wait until he got
  into the woods by himself. The next morning when he attempted to pray
  in the woods, he was over-whelmed with a sense of having neglected his
  duty the evening before, in not praying in the presence of others. He
  began to feel uneasy and continued to grow worse both in body and
  mind, until upon reaching home his appearance was such as to alarm his
  wife. He sent for the prophet, who, when he came found Newel in a sad
  condition and suffering greatly. His visage and limbs were distorted
  and twisted in every shape imaginable. At last he was caught up off
  the floor and tossed about most fearfully. The neighbors hearing of
  his condition came running in. After he had suffered for a time the
  prophet succeeded in getting him by the hand, when Newel immediately
  spoke to him, saying he knew he was possessed of the devil, and that
  the prophet had power to cast him out. "If you know I can, it shall
  be, done," replied the prophet; and then almost unconsciously he
  rebuked Satan and commanded him to depart from the man. Immediately
  Newel's contortions stopped, and he spoke out and said he saw the
  devil leave him and vanish from sight. (Joseph Smith Healings/Miracles)

The rest are kept secret, as are most miracles performed under the authority of the Priesthood.

  36 And he charged them that they should tell no man... (Mark 7:36)


How do non-Trinitarians who do not believe Jesus is God Almighty explain how Jesus can effect atonement for all of humanity? Non-Trinitarians who do not believe Jesus is God Almighty include Unitarians, Socinians, Arians, Jehova's Witnesses, etc. This would not include, supposedly, Modalists and LDS/Mormons.

The idea of atonement in the Old Testament was that a sinner would bring an offering to atone for his sin, and the death of that animal (and thus, its life) would take the place of the sinner's.

In his Temple, Its Ministry and Services, Alfred Edersheim wrote,

  The fundamental idea of sacrifice in the Old Testament is that of substitution, which again seems to imply everything else—atonement and redemption, vicarious punishment and forgiveness. The firstfruits go for the whole products; the firstlings for the flock; the redemption-money for that which cannot be offered; and the life of the sacrifice, which is in its blood (Lev 17:11), for the life of the sacrificer. Hence also the strict prohibition to partake of blood. Even in the ‘Korban,’ gift (Mark 7:11) or free-will offering, it is still the gift for the giver. This idea of substitution, as introduced, adopted, and sanctioned by God Himself, is expressed by the sacrificial term rendered in our version ‘atonement,’ but which really means covering, the substitute in the acceptance of God taking the place of, and so covering, as it were, the person of the offerer.

Now, this would be a 1:1 relationship, i.e. one sinner, one animal. If Jesus is just a man (or even an angel, another created being), even if he be a sinless man (just like the animal was sinless and was offered as an atonement), how can Jesus effect atonement for all of humanity (John 1:29) rather than just one person?

I would imagine that your question may have multiple answers depending on the specific variety of Unitarian that is answering it. For example, from my reading on Unitarian Universalism as compared to what I know about Jehovah's Witnesses, it is unlikely that the Unitarian Universalist perspective is similar to that of a Jehovah's Witness.

The best source I was able to find on the subject is Hosea Ballou in his "A Treatise on Atonement" available here.

The first important detail is that a Unitarian Universalist does not recognize atonement as meaning the same thing as most Trinitarians. This is from Chapter 5:

  I have already entered my protest against the necessity of atonement,
  on the principles upon which Christians have generally believed it, by
  showing the finite nature of sin, and the error of supposing that the
  law of God required the endless misery of mankind as a penal
  requisition.

  Atonement signifies reconciliation, or satisfaction, which is the
  same. It is a being unreconciled to truth and justice which needs
  reconciliation; and it is a dissatisfied being which needs
  satisfaction. Therefore I raise my inquiry on the question, Is God the
  unreconciled or dissatisfied party, or is it man?

He concludes that atonement is a synonym of reconciliation.

  To say that God loved man any less after transgression than before,
  denies his unchangeability; but to say that man was wanting in love to
  God, places him in his real character. As God was not the unreconciled
  party, no atonement was necessary for his reconciliation. Where there
  is dissatisfaction, it presupposes an injured party; and can it be
  hard to determine which was injured by sin, the Creator or the sinner?
  If God were unreconciled to man, the atonement was necessary to renew
  his love to his creature; but if man were the unreconciled, the
  atonement was necessary to renew his love to his Creator. The matter
  is now stated so plainly that no person who can read can mistake.

Assuming your question still stands: "How can Jesus affect atonement for all men?" Then his answer is essentially a statement of faith in scripture (quoted from Chapter 6):

  I next inquire, has the Mediator power or ability, to perform the
  great work of atonement, which is the reconciliation of the world to
  God? Those scriptures, with their connections, which I have quoted to
  prove the Mediator's dependency, abundantly prove the sufficiency of
  his power to accomplish the work in which he is engaged. If all power
  in heaven and earth be committed to Christ, no doubt can be
  entertained of its sufficiency. If the whole system of law in moral
  nature be subservient to the designs of the Redeemer, and if he holds
  in his hands the power of moral government, it certainly must be at
  his option, whether men shall be reconciled to God or not.

From what I was able to gather, he does not make much of an effort to understand the mechanism of how exactly this is accomplished, but given the nature of his understanding of "atonement" I doubt that it would be necessary to question the ability of Christ to effect this change in state.

Again, I would imagine that a Jehovah's Witness would have a very different idea of how this works, presumably based on a more "traditional" understanding of the concept of atonement. However, most sources I can find on the Jehovah's Witness view of atonement are from hostile sources and are therefore not reliable descriptions of what they actually believe.


Do the Adultery Pericope and Mark 16:9-20 disprove the inerrancy of the Bible? I have encountered a few instances when Bible critics and Muslims have tried to use the Adultery Pericope (John 7:53-8:11) and the extended ending of the Gospel of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) to disprove the inerrancy of the Bible and claim that the Bible has been corrupted. While I do agree that there's a lot of controversy surrounding these two parts of the Bible, there also seems to be strong arguments both for and against retaining them in the Bible, hence no one seems to be able to state for sure if these should be retained or removed from the Bible.

I don't intend to start a discussion as to whether they should or should not be retained in the Bible, but what I'd like to ask are these:

What is the best definition of 'inerrancy of the Bible'? What is meant by 'corruption of the Bible', if at all it is?
If at all the Bible is errant and/or corrupted, what constitutes an element or portion in the Bible that would render the Bible errant and/or corrupted?
In light of the answers to Questions 1 and 2, are the arguments of the Bible critics and Muslims justified when they cite the Adultery Pericope and Mark 16 controversies as evidences of the Bible's errancy and corruption?

I know not all Christians subscribe to the belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, but I do, and I'd like to hear from others more learned than me who also believe in the inerrancy of the Word of God with regards to the above questions.

The Adultery Pericope and the Long Ending of Mark prove no more than that they were additions to the gospels as originally written. They, by themselves, do not prove or disprove the inerrancy of the original compositions, and certainly not the spiritual essence of the Bible.

Since you believe in biblical inerancy, you would already have a definition for 'inerrancy' that suits you. However, Wikipedia says that biblical inerrancy, as formulated in the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", is the doctrine that the Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact".  Wikipedia goes on to say that some equate inerrancy with infallibility and others do not, and states that biblical inerrancy should not be confused with Biblical literalism.


Will we be able to eat anything in Heaven? Eating meat and potatoes for lunch after missing breakfast, I was thanking God for such delicious foods. Then I came up with a question; will we be able to eat in Heaven?
I love eating, and I wouldn't be able to stand not being able to eat chili-dogs for eternity in Heaven.
Is there any biblical backups that states whether or not will we be able to eat anything once we die?

A great deal of this is copy-pasted from my answer to another, similar question.

First off, Revelations 19 has a wedding feast.

  Revelation 19:9 (NIV)
  9 Then the angel said to me,   “Write this:   Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!”   And he added, “These are the true words of God.”

(Emphasis mine.)

You can't really have a feast without food or drink. There is also the promise of Jesus that He will not drink wine again until this very same feast.

  Matthew 26:29 (NLT)

  29 Mark my words—I will not drink wine again until the day I drink it new with you in my Father’s Kingdom.”

  Mark 14:25 (NLT)

  25 I tell you the truth, I will not drink wine again until the day I drink it new in the Kingdom of God.”

  Luke 22:18 (NLT)

  18 For I will not drink wine again until the Kingdom of God has come.”

This statement takes place immediately after Jesus offers wine and bread at the first Communion. Now, if there weren't any grapes in Heaven, could there be wine? Now, obviously, God could very easily simply produce wine on the spot, and a miracle should never be excluded from the set of possibilities.

Now to actually answer your real question: we can't really know. I know of no verse that talks about whether or not there is any food or drink being consumed in Heaven right now. That said, what is there to keep Jesus and other people already up there from enjoying the gift of eating that God gave them? I mean...I could totally imagine Jesus munching on some fish with Peter, James, and John right now...

I read a great book several years ago - Heaven by Randy Alcorn - that essentially showed from Scripture how the New Earth would be like the Old Earth in pretty much every way, just bigger, better, and without sin and its effects. I also recently read another great book - Beautiful Outlaw by John Eldredge - that developed the personality of Jesus far beyond a shallow reading of the Gospels.

For example, remember when Jesus met the two disciples on the road to Emmaus after His resurrection? (Luke 24:13-34) I mean, c'mon! "What things?" (Verse 19)? He had have been practically smirking there! This is the same Jesus that generously produced nearly a thousand bottles of wine at the wedding in Cana and the same Jesus that fed a total of about 25,000 people on two separate occasions.

The same God made our taste buds that allow us to enjoy the delicious food He provided for us. Also, we will have bodies in Heaven (2 Corinthians 5:3). Such enjoyment that we have now...why would He deny us that in Heaven? Ha! I'm gonna have my cake and eat it too! Probably with Jesus at some point! I promise you, you'll have your chili-dogs! :D


Matthew 11:3: Was John the Baptist losing his faith? How is Matthew 11:3 usually interpreted in Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and mainstream Protestantism?

  And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for
  another? (NIV, Matthew 11:3)

The very fact that John the Baptist asked such a question strikes me as a bit illogical. John knew that he came to prepare the way for the Lord. Even before he saw the Lord he said it clearly that the One "the straps of whose sandals he was not worthy to untie" was coming after him, the One who "surpassed him because He was before him".

When he first saw Jesus he right away proclaimed Him to be the Lamb of God who was going to take away the sin of the world. Later he said that Jesus was the true Bridegroom who "must be greater, while John must be less". All of these words send a clear message that John had no doubt in his mind about who Jesus was. However, when he was imprisoned he suddenly asked this kind of question.

I heard many different theories. One claims that this was John's way of asking Jesus to deliver him from prison.

Another one says that John was forced to ask this question by Pharisees in order to accuse Him later.

Another theory says that John was simply losing his faith in Jesus.

And yet another one that I don't remember well, says something about some Jewish tradition that, in fact, two Messiahs were supposed to come.

So, what is an overview of common interpretations that are given to this matter in the three main branches of Christianity?

The Eastern Orthodox interpretation of this passage is not that John personally asked this question because his faith was wavering; but rather that he sent his own followers to ask the question (11:2) so that they would begin believing in Jesus and follow Him.

The Gospel explanations by Theophylact, an 11th century Byzantine, are perhaps the best source of concise Eastern Orthodox interpretations of the Gospels.  [Commentaries were in Greek and often point out subtleties in the Greek text that are missed in most Bible translations].  The King James translators sometimes consulted Theophylact when they encountered a difficult passage.]  Theophylact was almost always summarizing much older commentaries from the Church Fathers, especially John Chrysostom.  He comments on this passage:

    Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, and said unto him, Art Thou He that cometh, or
    do we look for another?

  John did not ask as if he himself did not know Christ.  How could this
  be when he had borne witness to Him, saying, "Behold the Lamb of God"?
  [John 1:29].  But because his disciples were jealous of Christ, John
  sent them to acquire more evidence, so that by seeing the miracles
  they might believe that Christ is greater than John.  This is why he
  himself pretends to ask, "Art Thou He that cometh?" that is, He Whose
  coming in the flesh is awaited in the Scriptures.  Some believe that
  by saying, "He that cometh", he was asking about the descent into
  hades, as if not knowing the answer, John were questioning, "Art Thou
  He that goeth even into hades, or should we look for another?"  But
  this is foolishness, for how could John, who was greater than the
  prophets, not know of the crucifixion of Christ and the descent into
  hades, when he had called Christ the Lamb Who would be sacrificed for
  us?  John knew, therefore, that the Lord would also go down into hades
  in the soul so that even there, as St. Gregory the Theologian [Gregory
  of Nazianzus, 329-390] says, He might save those who would have
  believed if He had become incarnate in their day.  John did not ask
  this because he did not know the answer, but rather because he wanted
  to provide his disciples with the evidence of Christ's miracles.
  Look, then, how Christ answers the question ... [cf. Matthew 11:4-6]

  The Explanation of the Holy Gospel According to St. Matthew

Two questions have arisen regarding this explanation:

Why did John the Baptist needed to "pretend" instead of simply telling his disciples, "Go and look at all the miracles He performs"?
Why did Jesus asked the disciples to “go back and report to John..." (Matthew 11:4) while He knew that it was all about the John's disciples rather than John himself?

The answer to the first question lies in understanding that John's disciples were intensely loyal to him and jealous of the attention that Christ was receiving at, in their eyes, John's expense.  This is evident, John Chrysostom observes, in their earlier "complaints":

  And they came to John, and said to him, “Rabbi, he who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you bore witness, here he is, baptizing,
  and all are going to him.” (John 3:26)

  Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?” (Matthew 9:14)

Jesus Himself testifies of their obstinance when, knowing their lingering doubts, he concludes his talk to them saying And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in Me (Matthew 11:6).

John Chrysostom's explanation for the Baptist's feigned curiosity is that his disciples obstinance concerned him, since he would not be around much longer to guide them toward Christ.  Thus, he needed to do something that would require them to speak with Christ in person.  He writes:

  For as yet they knew not who Christ was, but imagining Jesus to be a
  mere man, but John greater than after the manner of man, were vexed at
  seeing the former held in estimation, but the latter, as he had said,
  now ceasing. And this hindered them from coming unto Him, their
  jealousy quite blocking up the access. Now so long as John was with
  them, he was exhorting them continually and instructing them, and not
  even so did he persuade them; but when he was now on the point of
  dying, he uses the more diligence: fearing as he did lest he might
  leave a foundation for bad doctrine, and they continue broken off from
  Christ. For as he was diligent even at first to bring to Christ all
  that pertained to himself; so on his failing to persuade them, now
  towards his end he does but exert the more zeal.

  Homily XXXVI on the Gospel According to St. Matthew

The second question is why did Jesus tell John's disciples to go back to him, since He would have known John's purpose in sending them.  The answer, I think, is that they were still not entirely convinced and needed additional reinforcement from their own teacher.  If the case were otherwise, Jesus would not have added And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in Me.  Theophylact paraphrases Christ's words, "'Tell John what you see, and certainly he will use the opportunity to bear witness more fully to you concerning Me.'"  John Chrysostom also further explains:

  For if He had said, "I am He," both this would have offended them, as
  I have already said; and they would have thought, even if they had not
  spoken, much as the Jews said to Him, You bear record of Yourself
  [John 5:31; 8:13].

  Ibid.

 Afterword

Since answering this question, it was modified to ask for interpretations of this Scripture by "the three main branches of Christianity".

I would submit that the "Orthodox" interpretation is essentially the (or at least "an") interpretation of the first millennium Church Fathers (at least that's what the Orthodox Church strives for).

John Chrysostom is a pre-schism Church Father and continues to be recognized as a Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church.  I assume that later Roman Catholic interpretations will be in concert with his.

Most prominent Protestant commentators, to my knowledge, also respect Chrysostom's opinions.  John MacArthur, for example, calls him "perhaps the greatest preacher of the early church".

Ellicott, however, allows that John the Baptist might have himself wavered, as "week after week passed without the appearance of the kingdom as he expected it to appear."  Matthew Henry expresses hope, but no firm opinion:  "We hope that John's faith did not fail."  The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges also enumerates three possible reason's for John's inquiry - (a) despondency; (b) to confirm the faith of his disciples (Chrysostom's interpretation); or (c) to force Jesus to declare Himself the Messiah -  but it does not indicate which of the three is the best interpretation.


Do Christian concepts of fellowship allow for a congregation to welcome atheists to participate in their community? Due to family issues, I have come to distance people from me, mainly because the family issues made me a rough person and I am not "easy" to hang around. For the same reasons, I was never close to the Church or God. Now, being an adult and understanding the world, I find it hard to believe in any kind of religious creed. I am, in fact, an atheist.

My question here is: is it considered wrong (by the same religious communities) to seek the company of religious communities (for example, going to the meetings of Jehovah's Witnesses) if it's for the sole purpose of feeling less lonely?

*I am not excluding that I may, with time, find that particular religion suitable for me.

Do Christian concepts of fellowship allow for a congregation to welcome atheists to participate in their community?

In the most general terms, yes - most congregations are open to non-member participation.  Saying that, it is possible different congregations have a nuanced stance in this regard - some of their meetings may be closed and it is best to ask the leaders of an individual community what their stance is.  Another consideration is that while a particular meeting may be open to non-members, some of the practices engaged in may be restricted to member (or visiting Christian) participation - e.g. taking Holy Communion - so your participation may be partial in that respect (as would be appropriate considering you would not believe all that the congregation members believe with respect to those practices).


What is the significance of Eve being created as a "helper fit for [Adam]?" The Bible appears to indicate that there was a specific purpose in the creation of Eve, from Adam, to be a helper fit for him.  It seems, then, that the design of Adam and Eve may be distinct, while they both bear the image of God.

Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone;
I will make him a helper fit for him..."   But for Adam there was not
found a helper fit for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to
fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed
up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from
the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.  Then the man said,
"This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man."  Genesis 2:18, 20b-23 ESV
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.  Genesis 1:27

So, what specifically is the significance of Eve's being created as "a helper fit for [Adam]" in the doctrines of Young-Earth Creationists, or those who take a literal interpretation of Genesis?  What does that mean about her specifically or the inner being of a woman?
I understand there can be some pretty emotional responses to this question, but I'm concerned with specific exegetical interpretations of this rather than reactionary or biased opinions.

The following is taken from a wonderful book called Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith by Marvin R. Wilson. It explains that an understanding of early Jewish culture helps to understand how they understood scripture. With this understanding, some scripture takes on a different meaning than we would expect today. Just as some phrases we understand to mean certain things during our time, like “I can dig it,” “That’s groovy,” “That’s fly,” etc. may not be recognized, or translated, to have the same meaning they had in the ‘70s, 2,000 years from now.

“Genesis 2:18, 20 state that the woman is created to be ezer kenegdo. Rabbi David Freedman has pointed out that the word ezer, often translated “helper,” actually means “power” (or “strength”), as demonstrated by its use elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, he takes kenegdo, an expression rendered “suitable for him” (NIV), as meaning one “equal to him,” a rendering based on later Mishnaic Hebrew. Thus, when God says he will make a “helper suitable for him (i.e., the man),” he likely means that woman is a power equal to a man; she is his match; she corresponds to him in every way. Indeed, “woman was not intended to be merely man’s helper. She was to be instead his partner.” Man and woman are symbolically matched to one another in a mutually dependent relationship — hence the expression “one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).”

I am not sure what you mean by significance of Eve being created “as a helper…” However, with an understanding of the original Hebrew text, the role of “helper” is significantly deeper than it seems on the surface. It appears, using the Hebrew text, that Eve was created to lift Adam up during times of weakness, or need, bringing him strength (or power), as an equal partner rather than taking the role of a servant as many interpret this passage today.

If “by the inner being of a woman” you are asking about her receiving the “breath of life”, or the ability to receive the Holy Spirit, I would have to respond that if she were not able to have full understanding, or receive these, then God would not have bothered to throw her out of the garden with Adam. She would have been treated like any other animal in creation. (You know, hit her with a rolled up newspaper, or something.)

I do accept literal interpretation (correct interpretation). I believe Eve was made a “power (or strength) equal to him” (ezer kenegdo).


Are "sin" and "transgression" different in LDS terminology? I noticed in the opening address at the October 2012 General Conference, that -- at least in the context of a speech -- the terms "sin" and "transgression" were stressed independently and each more than once.

The terminology used by the LDS church is often recognizably similar to that of other groups, but the exactly meanings given them is often different.

Is this just a a repetition to highlight the importance of the issue or do the terms have different shades of meanings according to LDS doctrine?

Yes they do have different meanings, though not consistently. Joseph Fielding Smith declared about the fall:

  I never speak of the part Eve took in this fall as a sin, nor do I accuse Adam of a sin. … This was a transgression of the law, but not a sin … for it was something that Adam and Eve had to do!

-Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56, 1:114–15

Dallin H Oaks, referring to the above quote, said:

  This suggested contrast between a sin and a transgression reminds us of the careful wording in the second article of faith: “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression”. It also echoes a familiar distinction in the law. Some acts, like murder, are crimes because they are inherently wrong. Other acts, like operating without a license, are crimes only because they are legally prohibited. Under these distinctions, the act that produced the Fall was not a sin—inherently wrong—but a transgression—wrong because it was formally prohibited. These words are not always used to denote something different, but this distinction seems meaningful in the circumstances of the Fall.

-http://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/11/the-great-plan-of-happiness

Further, It has been said that Adam and Eve merely transgressed the law because they did not yet know the difference between good and evil, and thus they were not accountable for sin. A similar argument is used to say that children cannot sin; they are not accountable. They do, however, trangress laws.

The distinction between the two terms is not always clear cut though and invariably the two will be used interchangeably despite the subtle difference.


Were Luther and Calvin Aphthartodocetists? Julian of Halicarnassus (d. 527) was condemned at a council in Constantinople in 536. In denying a distinction between ousia (common essence) and physis (particular nature), Julian was faced with the problem of explaining how the one nature of Christ (which was both human and divine) could suffer, since impassibility was a natural property of the divine nature. He argued that since the corruption of sin is the source of suffering and weakness, the Son took on human nature as it was before Adam's sin (a prelapsarian humanity), and therefore His body was incorruptible from the moment of the Incarnation—before as well as after the resurrection. He maintained that it was not the necessity of nature that compelled Christ to suffer the weaknesses of human nature, but that He had subjected Himself to them for the economy of salvation.
Many moderate Monophysites were uncomfortable with his extreme solution to this question, because it strongly suggested that Christ's humanity was only an appearance and seemed to lead to Gnostic docetism. Severus of Antioch, a Miaphysite, became one of Julian's most vocal critics, arguing that Christ's human nature before the resurrection was corruptible and passible because He took on our fallen human nature as it was after Adam's sin from the Theotokos.
In Lutheran and Calvinian Christology, although Christ took on human nature fully, it was a human nature without sin. Whereas Adam became subject to suffering, death and corruption after his sin, Christ was born of the virgin Mary, by taking on human nature as it was before Adam's sin. In this way He was not enslaved by sin, nor was His human body corruptible. From the very beginning of His Incarnation His sinless human nature was perfectly united with His divine nature without confusion or change, and for this reason one in being with God can be said of the Son. After His resurrection, Christ appeared glorified in the flesh. This glorification was not something which was added after the resurrection. Instead, it was only after the resurrection that His perfect humanity, which He had possessed from the very beginning of the Incarnation (and which was revealed to the disciples on Mount Tabor), became apparent to all.
Historically speaking only extreme Monophysites who hold Aphthartodocetism, even Severus a Miaphysite condemned this heresy. The basis of this heresy is not in the incorruptibility of Christ's flesh but in its insistence that He took on human nature as it was before Adam's sin. It's this later view which was held and shared by Luther and Calvin, including all early reformers.
Were Luther and Calvin Aphthartodocetists?
To answer this question I can think of two plausible approaches:
First by arguing to the contrary that they believe Christ took on human nature as it was after Adam's sin (a postlapsarian humanity)
Or:
By arguing that a belief in Christ took on a prelapsarian humanity is not Aphthartodocetic. Plausible difficulty one needs to face if choosing the first approach is to explain how from a Lutheran or Calvinian theology a postlapsarian Christology wouldn't make Christ guilty of original sin, while if choosing the second approach I believe it would be even harder to show.

[W]e want to discern what evidence we may find within the history of Christology and soteriology which would found, advance, and confirm our proposition that Jesus was born of the fallen race of Adam and that such a condition was absolutely indispensable for our salvation.
Thomas Weinandy, In the Likeness of Sinful Flesh: An Essay on the Humanity of Christ, 1993, p. 21.

The Augustinian tradition, going back to the early anti-Pelagian writing On Nature and Grace, distinguishes between the human nature and the defect of original sin. We have a defective nature, therefore, and that is what we pass on to our children, but Christ is still consubstantial with us even though He was always without sin. Sin is not part of human nature any more than cancer is part of human nature.

The Formula of Concord (the final Lutheran Confession, 1580) handles this well in its first article. Here's the part that's most immediately relevant:

  44] Now, if there were no distinction between the nature or essence of
  corrupt man and original sin, it must follow that Christ either did
  not assume our nature, because He did not assume sin, or that, because
  He assumed our nature, He also assumed sin; both of which ideas are
  contrary to the Scriptures. But inasmuch as the Son of God assumed our
  nature, and not original sin, it is clear from this fact that human
  nature, even since the Fall, and original sin, are not one [and the
  same] thing, but must be distinguished.

In the Aphthartodocetist controversy, the East phrased the matter in a typically Eastern way (in terms of corruption), just as Augustine phrased it in a typically Western way (in terms of sin). The East sees corruption (the vitiation of our natural powers) as hereditary and sin as the inevitable result in every child of Adam. The West sees sin itself as the hereditary corruption, and everything else as a symptom of that. You can say that Christ took a vitiated nature and lived a perfect life with it, but you can't say that Christ started out as a sinner and then lived a perfect life anyway.

The Lutherans and Calvinists and the whole Augustinian tradition do, however, affirm that Christ took His humanity from Mary, and not from some reservoir of abstract, unfallen Humanity. He is the Son of Mary and the Son of David, and hence also the Son of Adam on His mother's side, even though He is the Son of God on His Father's side (and hence coordinate with Adam, who is also called the son of God in Luke 3:38, and greater than Adam by as much as His Sonship is greater). As such, He took and made use of all the weakness that is characteristic of human nature as we know it, except that He did not yield to temptation. "Like us in every way, save without sin."

In your second-to-last paragraph you confuse Christ's glorification with the revelation of the perfect humanity He had always possessed. In Lutheran theology, at least, His glorification is the revelation of the divine prerogatives that He had always possessed, but had not made use of.


Could Jesus have been married? There are some that teach that Christ was married (usually to Mary Magdalene), yet there are others that teach that Christ was not married.

Does the Bible teach anything about Christ or His mission that would make it very unlikely that he was married?

Is there anything in the culture of Jesus' time that would shed light on the subject?

Note:

I am not looking for traditions passed down (statements by Popes, Apocryphal writings, etc), but those would certainly be acceptable (and interesting) to quote as secondary sources.

I am more interested in direct Bible verses or customs of Jesus' time that would give an indication one way or another.

As far as I know, none of the Apostles or other writers taught either case directly.

The Church is continually referred to as the 'Bride of Christ' in the NT, Revelation goes so far as to cast the final redemption of the church as the "Marriage Supper of the Lamb". While as an analogy it could have still been valid if Christ was married, I think that a married Christ would lessen the impact of the image and cause confusion amongst His followers. Additionally, many theologians agree that earthly marriage is actually the analogy, and that it represents Christ's relationship with His church as the 'real' marriage.


Does the Anglican Use have the capacity and resources to celebrate daily mass and if so, are there any Ordinariate communities which do? In the Roman rite we have the Tridentine liturgy (Extraordinary form) and the Novus Ordo liturgy (Ordinary form). Both of these liturgies have unique liturgical calendars, and unique cycles of scripture readings and liturgical prayers (aka "Propers") that cover every day of the year. The Tridentine Liturgy completes a cycle every year, while the Novus Ordo takes 3 years to complete a single cycle.

The important point is that it is possible for a priest to say mass on any day of the week on any day of the year using either of these liturgies and there will be associated prayers and readings specially selected for that particular day.

My question is, does the Anglican Ordinariate also have it's own exhaustive liturgical calendar, with set readings and prayers for every day of the year? Such that an Anglican Ordinariate Community could celebrate mass in the Anglican Use on any day of the week on any day of the year and still have their own unique set of readings and prayers for that particular day of the week?

And a follow up question, if the Anglican Use does have it's own cycle of prayers and readings, are there any Anglican Ordinariate communities who do indeed celebrate mass every day of the week, every day of the year according to this cycle of readings?

My question is, does the Anglican Ordinariate also have it's own
  exhaustive liturgical calendar, with set readings and prayers for
  every day of the year?

Yes.

Information about the ordinariate's missal is here.

  Such that an Anglican Ordinariate Community could celebrate mass in
  the Anglican Use on any day of the week on any day of the year and
  still have their own unique set of readings and prayers for that
  particular day of the week?

It's worth noting that this is a relatively recent innovation. The Extraordinary Form (Traditional Latin Mass) of the Roman Rite does not have a daily lectionary with different readings for each day of the week.

  are there any Anglican Ordinariate communities who do indeed celebrate
  mass every day of the week, every day of the year according to this
  cycle of readings?

Yes, some have daily liturgy. You can see a list of parishes and their liturgy times here.


What are the rules or laws a Catholic must follow if he/she has a website or blog? Are there any rules or laws (of the Code of Canon Law) that a Catholic must adhere to if he/she operates a blog or website in which he may teach or write about the Catholic faith?

Code of Canon Law, Book III The Teaching Function of the Church

  The Church, to which Christ the Lord has entrusted the deposit of
  faith so that with the assistance of the Holy Spirit it might protect
  the revealed truth reverently, examine it more closely, and proclaim
  and expound it faithfully, has the duty and innate right, independent
  of any human power whatsoever, to preach the gospel to all peoples,
  also using the means of social communication proper to it. (Can. 747 §1, emphases mine)

I think that about covers it.

(There's also quite a bit about publishing in Title IV Instruments of Social Communication and Books in Particular.)


What theological differences exist between Baptist and Evangelical Free denominations? What theological differences exist between Baptist churches and the Evangelical Free Church of America?

Where Baptist viewpoints might differ, assume American Baptist Churches USA as the specific Baptist denomination.

The EFCA is a loose association of independent churches who have gathered under this banner and agreed on basic fundamental doctrinal concepts although there could well be substantial differences between churches within this association.  To compare it to the ABC, one could consider only the EFCA doctrinal statement agreed upon by the churches as a whole.  When you look at the individual doctrinal statements on paper, they are very close with some notable differences such as the ABC allowing women in the pastorate.  In practice, the ABC tends to be a bit more liberal but that is somewhat subjective and difficult to measure.
The EFCA would compare more favorably to the SBC as they both emphasize fundamental doctrine to the exclusion of modern social mores.


Can people in Heaven communicate with each other? Can they communicate with each other?

For example, in Islam they believe that people in Heaven cannot talk or communicate to each other, because they are in some kind of "nirvana" (this is the wrong word, but I am not native EN speaker) or a happy-hybernated-statis state, and they can talk to each other. Something like in the movie The Matrix where the bodies are connected to a computer and they cannot move, but feel happy.

What does the Bible say about people in Heaven communicating with each other?

They can, it seems. The clearest example is from Luke 16:22-25:

  22 When the poor man died, he was carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and from the netherworld, where he was in torment, he raised his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.
  24 And he cried out, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me. Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering torment in these flames.’
  25 Abraham replied, ‘My child, remember that [...]

The rich man is in hell, suffering, and he cries out to Abraham. Abraham is dead and in a far-off and elevated place.

If even this person in hell can speak with Abraham, then surely Lazarus, who is right beside Abraham (and not secluded and separated from him like in the "Matrix" description you give), must be able to speak to Abraham.


Did St. Thomas Aquinas write anything about historiography? I was curious as to whether or not St. Thomas Aquinas every formally laid out any principles to be adhered to when writing/studying/interpreting history or ever elucidated a theory of the "nature" of history itself.

About historiography as a science, I am not aware of any statements from Thomas Aquinas. In the absence of others finding a better treatment, here is the most direct mention I could find.
In ST I, Q. 1, a. 10, "Whether in Holy Scripture a word may have several senses?", he includes a brief account of the literal sense of scripture, under which he includes a brief definition of its three components: history, etiology, and analogy.
The first two certainly belong to the idea of historiography:

illa tria, historia, aetiologia, analogia, ad unum litteralem sensum pertinent. Nam historia est, ut ipse Augustinus exponit, cum simpliciter aliquid proponitur, aetiologia vero, cum causa dicti assignatur, sicut cum dominus assignavit causam quare Moyses permisit licentiam repudiandi uxores, scilicet propter duritiam cordis ipsorum, Matt. XIX, analogia vero est, cum veritas unius Scripturae ostenditur veritati alterius non repugnare.
These three, history, etiology, and analogy, pertain to the one literal sense. For history, as Augustine expounds, occurs when something is presented on its own, while etiology is when the cause of the event is assigned, as when the Lord assigned a cause for why Moses permitted a bill of divorce, namely, because of the hardness of their hearts (Matt 19). It is analogy, on the other hand, when the truth of one scripture passage is shown not to be in conflict with the truth of another.

It is also worth noting that he cites Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History in a few places, so he certainly judged it worth reading.


What is the basis for the idea of 7,000 years of human history, expressed by Larkin and others? Clarence Larkin projects a 7,000 year timeline of human history with each 1,000 years tied to a day of creation.

What is the doctrinal or biblical basis for this theory?

Since you don't have any other answers at this point, I'll go ahead and throw out the ideas that I'm seeing play into this graph:

Young Earth Creationism

It would be hard to look at this chart written in 1919 and not start out with the realization that the author undeniably believes in Young Earth Creationism.

Young Earth Creationism is (essentially) the doctrine that states that the earth was (a) created and that it is (b) quite a young Earth (6,000 years old, or so).

See also: What is Young-Earth Creationism?
Anagogical interpretation of Genesis 1

This is a clearly less mainstream viewpoint.  The idea with anagogical interpretation is that we take events in the Bible and apply them towards eternity.

See also: What is anagogical interpretation and when should it be considered?

In this graph, Genesis 1 (the creation of the world in seven days) is being interpreted anagogically.  This interpretation is applying these seven days to seven millennia in human history.  (The six thousand years that Young Earth Creationism says the Earth has already seen and the millennium found in Revelations 21.)
Millennialism (compared to amillennialism)

This doctrine states that the one thousand years in Revelations 20 is a literal millennia (1,000 earthly years), rather than a metaphor or allusion to a time.
Dispensational Premillennialism

This is the idea that (1) Christians will be raptured (2) a seven year tribulation will occur (3) Jesus and the saints will return to Earth after the tribulation and (4) the literal one thousand year reign of Jesus on Earth will begin.  In that order and with those exact lengths of time.

Well, there are definitely many, many more doctrines at play in this.  For example:

Bible is the word of God and should be taken literally
Revelations should be taken literally and all timeframes found in it are actual, earthly timeframes
Jesus was resurrected
Jesus ascended into heaven

et cetera.

However, those above are the "big ticket" items that are not necessarily common or are potentially debatable.

Closing thoughts

Many of these doctrines were popular at the turn of the 20th century and many are popular now as well. The one that stood out to me as somewhat surprising was the anagogical interpretation of Genesis 1.  Outside of that, this really seems to be a pretty straight-forward conglomeration of many prominent doctrines.


How did the Holy Spirit come into existence? Who created the Holy Spirit? Did the Holy Spirit exist from the beginning or was it God who created the Holy Spirit? If it was God, then why is it said that the members of the Holy Trinity is independent of each other but form an eternal  Triune God?

According to mainstream Christianity, the Holy Spirit is a person of the Trinity - loosely speaking a part of God. Therefore he was not created. He is eternal, without beginning and without end. This is best (though not necessarily most understandably) summed up in the Athenasian Creed:

  Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated.

Something around 98% of Christians adhere to this view.

For those that do not believe in the Trinity, the Holy Spirit is usually considered to be an 'impersonal force', or the action of God, or simply another way of referring to God (as opposed to a separate person). In these cases there is also no question of "who created the Holy Spirit". He has always existed.


What Bible passage contains Satan and God where God rebukes Satan? I'm thinking of a Bible passage where the narrator has a dream/vision of being before the throne of God. Satan accuses him of being a sinner and unworthy and then God rebukes Satan and tells him to keep silent.

I can remember reading that story, but I don't remember where. Try as I might, I can't find it. Does anyone know where that story appears?

You may be thinking of Zechariah:

  Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him.  And the LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, O Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this a brand plucked from the fire?"

  Zechariah 3:1-2 (RSV)


Does a Mass intention have any value now, if the Mass will be held, possibly, a year later? Does a Mass intention have any value now (as expressed, submitted and donation made now), if the Mass will be held, possibly, a year later (due to long waiting list of intentions)?

I would like to submit the intention/prayers for the possible success of the development of the Covid-19 vaccine. Coronavirus treatment: Vaccines/drugs in the pipeline for COVID-19 is one list of ongoing projects, but there are other lists too), but I am afraid that the respective mass will be held after some half or full year from now, but our prayers for the all aspects of the development (scientific, political, business, economical, societal support) of vaccine are required exactly now!

The answer is, unequivocally, 'Yes'.
After we all receive our COVID-19 vaccines and we attend Mass in person again, there will be a huge backlog of intentions for those who suffered illness and death during the quarantine. Churches and God the Father will respect all of these intentions both presently and retroactively. The Bible teaches us that every human life is sacred, and this teaching will most certainly be upheld after we are all vaccinated.
I know that this time is difficult, but please hold on. God is looking down on all of us now, and He will be there for us after the quarantine is over.


How does scholars' denial of the possibility of NT autographs affect the Christian doctrines of biblical inerrancy and infallibility? Modern textual critics have adopted the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method as opposed to the traditional Local Text-Types Theory (reflected in the updated NA28 standard text). Along with this shift in approach to textual criticism comes a belief that it is impossible to reproduce an an "autograph" of any New Testament writing - only an "initial text" (Ausgangstext) can be constructed which is only the hypothetical reconstruction of a text that stands at the beginning of a textual tradition. How does this affect the traditional Protestant Christian beliefs in scriptural inerrancy and infallibility, particularly for those traditions that continue to use the Nestle-Aland (and future UBS) texts for scholarly study of the Greek New Testament?

It doesn't affect it at all. Inerrancy and infallibility are only attributed to the original autographs. It's not applied to translations, copies (even early ones) or modern versions. If it were applicable to translations then we'd have a bigger problem in the Wicked Bible.

The belief that we can't reproduce an original autograph doesn't mean there was no initial autograph. And it was only the initial autograph that is inerrant, doctrinally speaking.

Along with this, the Reliability of the translations, meaning we believe they are accurate enough to be trusted as doctrinal sources, is still defensible via manuscript evidence, so there is still no problem.

We have always accepted flaws in modern versions, and even the idea that our oldest known manuscripts are not likely perfect reproductions of the original manuscripts.  However, since we can reasonably reconstruct enough to understand the meaning, minor flaws in modern versions are inconsequential.

It's only the straw-man version of infallibility - the one that claims we think modern translations (or even old copies of the original manuscripts like the Textus Receptus) are inerrant - that is knocked down by this method of textual criticism.


In Catholicism, what does it mean for a priest to bless an object or person? Catholic priests bless water to make holy water and they bless the faithful at the end of Sunday masses. The Pope has a special apostolic blessing that he gives out sometimes. I know that it is good to be blessed in this way. But why? Does anything change in the receptor of the blessing? If so, what exactly changes?

Blessing expresses the basic movement of Christian prayer: it is an encounter between God and man. In blessing, God’s gift and man’s acceptance of it are united in dialogue with each other. The prayer of blessing is man’s response to God's gifts: because God blesses, the human heart can in return bless the One who is the source of every blessing.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2626)

  Blessing is a divine and life-giving action, the source of which is the Father; his blessing is both word and gift. When applied to man, the word "blessing" means adoration and surrender to his Creator in thanksgiving.

(Catechism, paragraph 1078)

In other words, the Catholic Church uses the word bless in two ways. We say that God blesses us when God gives us a gift (material or spiritual); in return, we bless God when we adore him as the source of all gifts.

When we ask a priest to bless an object, what we are actually doing is asking him to ask God to bless us in our interactions with the object; that is, we're asking God to make the object not simply an object, but a spiritual gift to us, an occasion of grace for us.

For example, a simple blessing of an Advent wreath is found on the website of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. The prayer of blessing includes the text

  Lord God,
   let your blessing come upon us
   as we light the candles of this wreath.
   May the wreath and its light
   be a sign of Christ’s promise to bring us salvation.

In other words, asking God to bless the wreath is actually asking God to bless us as we interact with the wreath, to give us the grace of remembering God's promises that He will save us.

That's how blessings work in general. To ask the priest to bless an object is to ask him to pray to God, requesting that God give us the gift of interacting with Him (giving us His grace) as we use this object.

Blessings of a person work similarly. We usually don't bless a person in an absolute sense, but in regards to a role they have—for example, one wouldn't bless Joe Blow as Joe Blow, but if Joe were a student, we might bless him as a student.

Again, there is a good example on the USCCB website: in this case, a blessing of parents expecting a child. There is a reading from Scripture (Samuel 1:19–20,1:24–2:1, recounting Hannah's expectant hope for the birth of her son), and then a prayer including the following text:

  Hear the prayers of N. and N.,
   Who await the birth of their child.
   Calm their fears when they are anxious.
   Watch over and support these parents
   and bring their child into this world
   safely and in good health,
   so that as members of your family
   they may praise you and glorify you
   through your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ,
   now and for ever.

Again, it's asking for God's gifts of calmness, patience, and hope for the parents, and of good health for parents and child, so that in return all of them may know the Lord's goodness and praise and thank Him for that.

It is not necessary for a priest to bless an object or a person; anyone can bless an object. And since anything can be a proximate occasion of God's grace (that is, God can use any thing or any occasion to pour out grace on us), it shouldn't be surprising that the Catholic Church has historically created prayers of blessing, and even liturgies of blessing, for nearly anything or anyone imaginable. I've asked God to bless my phone and my computer keyboard!


Self-Examination in Reformed Practical Theology I have the sense that the doctrine of self-examination figures large in the writings of the Puritans (and perhaps other old-school Reformed theologians); however, I do not know nearly as much about it as I would like, as I am only at the very beginning of my study of the old Reformed theologians. What did the old Reformed theologians, particularly the Puritans, teach about the Christian practice of examining oneself—how it is to be done, its importance, what its purpose and result is, and where it arises from the Scriptures? What works by the Reformers and the Puritans might I turn to to study this teaching further? I would also be pleased if any answers wanted to include some addition information about what other Christian traditions have said about it.

So far I have found the following works, but have not had time to study them:

The address on self-examination in Discourses Suited to the Administration of the Lord's Supper by John Brown
The Necessity of Self-Examination by Jonathan Edwards (apparently in audio form here)
Practical Religion by J. C. Ryle

I also found these sermons, but have not studied them yet either:

One by Joel Beeke, who has saturated himself in the Puritans.
A series which seems to be about Richard Baxter's treatment of self-examination, by a man I'm unfamiliar with
One by Charles Spurgeon, a Reformed Baptist with close affinities to the Puritans (this is a transcript)

I also intend to look up the relevant passages in Calvin's Institutes, his commentaries, and John Gill's and Matthew Henry's commentaries. I intend to report further...


What Apostles-Creed affirming groups claim priesthood of Melchizidek? I was looking at the online biography (perhaps an AOL or MySpace biography) of the friend of a relative some 20 years ago.  I was alarmed that my relative was associated with this person, based on some very immoral vices the person was proudly describing on their page.  One point that shocked me was that this person said they were "a priest of the order of Melchizidek."  It was the only religious statement on the page.

Q: Do any orthodox Christian groups (perhaps defined here as affirming the Apostle's Creed) use such language to describe themselves? Or would this be some sort of cult?

The LDS Church uses this phrase.  They divide the priesthood into Melchizedek Priesthood and Aaronic Priesthood.

Melchizedek Priesthood is described on their site as follows:

  “There are, in the church, two priesthoods, namely, the Melchizedek
  and Aaronic” (D&C 107:1). The Melchizedek Priesthood, which is “after
  the Order of the Son of God” (D&C 107:3), is the greater of these. It
  “holds the right of presidency, and has power and authority over all
  the offices in the church” (D&C 107:8). It also holds “the keys of all
  the spiritual blessings of the church” (D&C 107:18). It is named after
  a great high priest who lived during the time of the prophet Abraham
  (see D&C 107:2-4; see also Alma 13:14-19).

  The offices of the Melchizedek Priesthood are Apostle, Seventy,
  patriarch, high priest, and elder. The President of the High
  Priesthood is the President of the Church (see D&C 107:64-66).

  Men in the Church must be worthy Melchizedek Priesthood holders in
  order to receive the temple endowment and be sealed to their families
  for eternity. They have the authority to administer to the sick and
  give special blessings to family members and others. With the
  authorization of presiding priesthood leaders, they can bestow the
  gift of the Holy Ghost and ordain other worthy men to offices in the
  Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods.

  When a man receives the Melchizedek Priesthood, he enters into the
  oath and covenant of the priesthood. He covenants to be faithful,
  magnify his calling, “give diligent heed to the words of eternal
  life,” and “live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of
  God.” Those who keep this covenant will be sanctified by the Spirit
  and receive “all that [the] Father hath.” (See D&C 84:33-44.)

Specifically, John Taylor is quoted as saying  (Emphasis mine)

  Seventh—That while the power of the higher, or Melchizedek, is to hold
  the keys of all the spiritual blessings of the church; to have the
  privilege of receiving the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, to have
  the heavens opened to them, to commune with the general assembly and
  church of the firstborn and to enjoy the communion and presence of God
  the Father, and Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to preside
  over all the spiritual officers of the church, yet the presidency of
  the high priesthood, after the order of Melchizedek, have a right to
  officiate in all the offices in the church, both spiritual and
  temporal.


What are the avenues to developing a true strong faith and relationship with God? I'm a fan of and work in the popular Christian music scene. Not being religious, I still do appreciate the goodness, comfort and encouragement of the faith based music.

The question that arises is, does Christianity support the idea that a true strong faith can only come from brokenness and struggles in life? Many people are drawn into the faith via this avenue but can faith just as strong grow out of those with relatively less struggle and problems?

For example, here is a typical story of from an artist in the pop Christian music scene:

http://www.klove.com/music/artists/shawn-mcdonald/

and this pastors story

http://www.harvest.org/crusades/testimonies/a-road-less-traveled.html

Any ideas in what Christianity doctrine says abut this is much appreciated.

Thank you for any help.

One of the important elements of conversion is to admit my insuffieciency, to admit that I'm a poor sinner and I can't change it without God's grace. This is much easier to figure out if I'm a big sinner, if I'm broken and if I lose my struggles. There's a correlation between the conscience that I have been forgiven and love for God. In the story of Jesus and a sinful woman in Luke 7:36-50 there is an important remark:

  ...whoever has been forgiven little loves little.”

On the other hand, there are people who love a lot even though there are no clearly visible struggles they have been  saved from or sins they have been forgiven. St. Thérèse of Lisieux wondered a lot about the contrast between the Biblic passage linked/ cited above and her love for Christ with no previous time of struggles or sinfulness. After some time of meditations on this problem she got an answer: she have been forgiven before she could sin, God's grace saved her from any temptation she wouldn't resist.

Thérèse of Lisieux is an extreme, but there are people following this pattern. I know at least one guy who figured out he is Christian with no struggles, and he seems to love God a lot.


Did Jesus condemn contraception Are there any passages in the New Testament where Jesus himself condemns the practice of contraception? As a virgin and the product of a miraculous conception himself it would seem odd for Him to have a strong opinion on the subject.

No, there are no passages in the New Testament where Jesus even speaks about contraception.  Coincidentally, He never mention airplanes, computers, fast food, or cell phones either.  :)

All of these are modern inventions for which there was no vocabulary or context in which teaching could be given.  (While there were examples of contraceptives in ancient history, the Jewish people don't appear to have used any.)  The basis of the teachings of the Catholic church and others comes from arguments of design.  God's design of intercourse leads to reproduction--not all the time, of course, but that is certainly a reasonably common outcome.  Additionally, there is a specific command given to Adam and Noah to fill the earth and multiply upon it, so taking unnatural action to prevent reproduction seems to go against that to some extent.

Also, the idea that Jesus would not have a strong opinion on the subject, merely because He Himself was the product of a miraculous conception, ignores the Biblical teaching that Jesus was Himself the eternal Son of God who took on flesh 2,000 years ago.  The Son of God, through whom all things were created, certainly has a strong opinion on truth and morality.


Did Luther really use bar tunes for his hymns? The title sums it up: I often hear it said during the debates on liturgy and music styles that are appropriate for worship that even Luther used common bar tunes (equivalent to days pop songs) for his hymns. Is this true?

Nope, it's not, actually. Luther used a form of music "bar form", but he was actually opposed to use of common tunes (like Calvin) for his hymns. The following is from an essay called "Major Forms of BS" by T. David Gordon:

  I cannot count the number of times I have heard the common myth about
  Martin Luther employing the tunes of familiar “bar songs” in his
  hymns.  This is entirely false, and its utter falsehood is only
  partially explained by confusion, because Luther did indeed, at times,
  employ what musicians call “bar form” (an AAB structure), a common
  musical form in classical and sacred music.  Luther wrote many of his
  own tunes, and borrowed others from Gregorian chant and elsewhere, but
  not from taverns.  Here’s what the good friar actually said:

    “I too, with the help of others, have brought together some sacred songs, in
    order to make a good beginning and to give an incentive to those who
    can better carry on the Gospel and bring it to the people…And these
    songs were arranged in four parts for no other reason than that I
    wanted to attract the youth (who should and must be trained in music
    and other fine arts) away from love songs and carnal pieces and to
    give them something wholesome to learn instead.”

  [Emphasis mine, from
  the Forward, first edition, of Johann Walter’s Wittenberg Geistliche
  Gesangbüchen, 1524.  Cf. also the discussion of this matter in “Luther
  and Bar Song:  The Truth, Please!”, chapter 21 in Paul S. Jones,
  Singing and Making Music:  Issues in Church Music Today (P&R, 2006),
  pp. 171-178].