Salvation for Protestants who knowingly reject Catholicism? Is there salvation for Protestants who have researched, prayed, and ultimately rejected Catholic teachings?

Explanation: I am a Protestant aligning most closely with Baptists. I am engaged to a lovely Christian lady who was raised Catholic. In an attempt to unite us better, we have been researching and praying about what we have been taught and what we believe.

In my research and prayers, I have determined that I agree with some doctrines of the Catholic church but do not believe it to be the "True Church" it claims to be.

From the perspective of Catholic doctrine,  is salvation still available to me, or is it closed because I have knowingly rejected Catholicism? Please provide citations and references as you can.

EDIT: Let's enter this discussion post-Vatican 2. So, Catholics say that Protestants can be saved and are in partial communion with the Catholic Church. But does that concern only protestants who are ignorant of Catholic teachings or also those who understand those teachings and have rejected them?

2nd Edit:  "Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. (CCC 846)"  After reading this from catholic.com, my question can be best summarized like this: Can one be saved who has heard that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ and understands the justifications of that argument but rejects that claim, embracing instead Jesus Christ without the Catholic Church?

Father John O'Brien wrote in The Faith of Millions

  ... those who are convinced of the truth of the Catholic Church, but who for some selfish reason fail to profess their faith in her. It is only these ... who remain out of the Church, in bad faith, until death, that the Church teaches that the words of Christ apply: "He that believeth not, shall be damned."

I certainly hope you don't fall into that hole. I have some dead uncles who I hope didn't fall into that hole too!  That kind of obstinancy requires hard work and determination (or willful ignorance).  Fr. O'Brien goes on to write:

  it is the view of the Church that every person who, with an open mind and without prejudice investigates in a careful and impartial manner, the evidence of her claims to be the one true Church can scarcely fail to be convinced of the truth of those claims.

So, one would hope it is a learning process.  Few are convinced overnight. If you read Orthodoxy, by G.K. Chesterton, you'll have read the auto-biography of a man who was utterly convinced, but remained outside the Catholic Church for another 12 years.  He found the truths in the Catholic Church to be astonishing.  He admired it because it is a "Truth telling thing". Everyone, with a soul, applauds whem seeing truth spoken to power; but it makes power nervous.  When truth is spoken to everyone, everyone gets nervous - it's a natural consequence of our fallen nature. Chesterton has no more "Idea of becoming a Catholic than becoming a Cannibal"

Fr. O'Brien goes on to say that the reasons for not being convinced may stem from antagonism or prejudice taught in ones youth or some otger subjective circumstances.  Not that these are good things, but they're not salvation inhibitors.  Still Catholics would like to win you to 'their side' so that you can participate in the sacraments, which they find to be "sure signs of salvation". Namely, the Eucharist and Confession.

The last thing to consider is what you actually do beleive. Where did your morality come from.  Was the culmination of all of history with or without the Catholic Church?  Was it riding the momentum of the Church until the split and now it is coasting on it's own? Does it progess?  Does it have answers to the new attacks on religion?  Does it preseve the old truths? Fr. O'Brien claims that protestants and irreligious people are actually borrowing from that which has it's roots only in Catholicism today.  Basically, and arboralleally, you can't plant a sucker in the ground and expect an apple tree, you can only really graft it to another tree that has already got some roots.

So, the Catholic Church would exist with 0 living members and people would still be saved after death through the Grace of God. So  I think you need to re-evaluate what is meant by necessary. I doubt many people come to believe because the existence of the Church equals x in their faith equation x + Jesus = saved.  People believe what the Church teaches because it reveals Jesus in a way we couldn't do on our own. Pope Paul VI also showed in humanae vitae that the Church is the interpreter of the natural moral law.   Both of these things, a close relationship with Jesus and clear discernment of right and wrong, can sometimes be acheived sans-ecclesia, even perfect contrition can be attained without confession (says Fr. O'Brien).  But these things are made much easier with the spiritual grease that is Actual Grace which the Catholic Church spreads out on a table for you to partake of every day.

Pope Benedict XVI said, in an ecumenical dialouge at the Cologne World Youth Day that our divisions are "contrary to the will of Jesus" and he went on to make pathways to full communion for some sects.  Pope Francis is continuing that and speaks openly about ceasing divisions with the Orthodox Church.


What is the basis for the idea that the Song of Solomon is about the relationship between God and the church? I am familiar with the interpretation of Song of Solomon which suggests that it is love poetry written by (or at the behest of, or in honour of, or later attributed to) King Solomon and that it is about human romantic love.

I recently found out that as early as Origen it has also been interpreted as being about the relationship of God and his people. I am struggling to find out what case was made for this interpretation of Song of Songs.

What is the case that song of Solomon is about the relationship between God and the church and who came up with this interpretation?

Many interpretations argue that the Song of Solomon is about both the relationship between husband and wife and about Christ and his Church.  This stems in large part from Paul's words to the Ephesians:

  Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.  For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.  Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

  Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

  In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.  For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body.

  “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”

  This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.

  (Ephesians 5:22-32)

Paul quotes from Genesis 2 in his letter, referring to God creating woman from man in order to be one with each other:

  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.”

  Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.  And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

  (Genesis 2:21-25)

Paul's point is that husband and wife were created to be one body, just as Christ and his Church are one body, and the Church exists because of Christ.  With that in mind, you can see why Song of Solomon has been interpreted by the Church as referring to the relationship between Christ and his Church.

Even in the Old Testament, the relationship between God and His people was often compared to the marital relationship.  In the book of Hosea, for instance, God has Hosea take a prostitute as a wife to demonstrate to the people of Israel how they have committed adultery against the Lord (cf. Hosea 1:2).

Then, in the New Testament this is seen most fully in Revelation at the marriage of the bride (the Church) and the groom (Christ) where they are united in perfect communion for eternity.  See, for example, Revelation 19:7 and 22:2ff.

So, taken together, the marital relationship is good; it's God-ordained and provides us with an image of His relationship to His people.  Thus, Song of Solomon can be seen as both a love song between husband and wife and between Christ and his Church.


Explain the last sentence in Matthew 6:34 Matthew 6:25-34 gives Christ's admonition not to "give thought for your life" what to eat, drink or wear.  He says to trust God to take care of us, as He does the birds and flowers.  Verse 34 says,

  Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself.  Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

I don't quite understand this last sentence.  Does it mean that every day on earth contains some evil, in the world at large, if not in one's own behavior?  Is the evil a result of the morrow taking thought for itself?  Or is the evil produced in the taking thought for the morrow?  If so, how is that sufficient unto the day? I admit I haven't checked out any Bible commentaries, so I'll try that as well.

One of the perhaps lesser-known works of Thomas Aquinas is his Catena Aurea, the Golden Chain. This is a commentary on the Four Gospels, one verse at a time; Aquinas gives the verse, and after (nearly) every verse intersperses commentary on it—notably from Augustine, Jerome, and John Chrysostom; though other theologians, Church Fathers, and Doctors of the Church are included if they have anything to say on a particular verse.

Aquinas himself comments on Matt. 6:34:

  Having forbid anxiety for the things of the day, He now forbids anxiety for future things, such a fruitless care as proceeds from the fault of men, in these words, Be not you anxious about the morrow.

In addition to Aquinas' own gloss, he quotes a similar idea of Jerome:

  Sufficient for us is the thought of time present; let us leave to God the future which is uncertain. And this is that He says, The morrow shall be anxious for itself; that is, it shall bring its own anxiety with it. For sufficient for the day is the evil thereof. By evil He means here not that which is contrary to virtue, but toil, and affliction, and the hardships of life.

In other words, Jerome says that Christ means something like, "The future is going to have enough problems; worry about them as they arise, not now."

John Chrysostom says something similar:

  Has not every day a burden enough of its own, in its own cares? why then do you add to them by laying on those that belong to another day?

Aquinas also quotes Augustine of Hippo, Hilary of Poitiers, and an author known as Pseudo-Chrysostom. This unknown 5th-century author wrote a commentary called Opus Imperfectum In Matthaeum (Unfinished Work On [The Gospel Of] Matthew). These three apply a more metaphorical approach to the verse.

Augustine, for example, comments

  Tomorrow is said only of time where future succeeds to past. When then we work any good work, we think not of earthly but of heavenly things. The morrow shall be anxious for itself, that is, Take food and the like, when you ought to take it, that is when necessity begins to call for it. For sufficient for the day is its own evil, that is, it is enough that necessity shall compel to take these things.

In other words, he says, Jesus is warning us not to focus on the things of this world, the things we'll need from day to day. Instead we should focus on the things of Heaven. We should do what is necessary to survive in this world, but not allow it a greater place in our lives than that.

Pseudo-Chrysostom makes a similar comment:

  Why then should you be anxious about those things, time property of which you must part with? Sufficient for the day is its own evil, as much as to say, The toil you undergo for necessaries is enough, do not toil for things superfluous.

Finally, Hilary applies this comment to the necessity of repentance and the possibility of salvation:

  This is further comprehended under the full meaning of the Divine words. We are commanded not to be careful about the future, because sufficient for our life is the evil of the days wherein we live, that is to say, the sins, that all our thought and pains be occupied in cleansing this away. And if our care be slack, yet will the future be careful for itself, in that there is held out to us a harvest of eternal love to be provided by God.

"Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof", in this conception, means something like "You have enough to do each day in focusing on repenting for and avoiding the sins of the day."

That appears to be a reasonably complete survey of major views of Matthew 6:34.


Who bought the Field of Blood, Judas or the Priests? This is similar to another question "How did Judas Die", but is specifically addressing another aspect of the story.
In Matthew we have the priests purchasing the field:

Matthew 27:5-7 (NASB)
5 And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. 6 The chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, “It is not lawful to put them into the temple treasury, since it is the price of blood.” 7 And they conferred together and with the money bought the Potter’s Field as a burial place for strangers.

And in Acts we have Judas purchasing it:

Acts 1:16-18 (NASB)
16 “Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17 For he was counted among us and received his share in this ministry.” 18 (Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.

This seems a clear contradiction in the New Testament. What is going on here?

They both did - it just depends on perspective for application of the word "bought".

It was Judas' money, and it was the priests who used the money he returned to them to buy the field.  They bought the field because they could not accept blood money and return it to the temple treasury.

In essence, the priests bought the field on behalf of Judas.

This is just like when my mother would give me money to go to the store to buy some groceries; we both bought the groceries - I did the physical act and she did through providing the financial resource (and, back in the day of single income families, so did my Dad in earning the income to begin with).


What passages of Scripture were used by the popes and crusaders to justify the Crusades? What passages of Scripture were used by the popes and crusaders to justify the Crusades?

I am specifically interested what the individuals that were contemporary to the crusades were saying. For the purpose of this question, I am only interested in arguments based in Scripture.

St. Bernard of Clairvaux is perhaps the most well known promoter of the Crusades. He is credited for sparking the 2nd Crusade by writing very convincing letters to the Kings of Christendom. On Christmas Day, 1144, the Seljuk Turks captured Edessa, chief city of one of the Christian principalities set up by the First Crusade. Appeals for help went at once to Europe, for the position of all Christians in Syria was jeopardized. King Louis VII of France announced his intention of leading a new crusade, and the Pope commissioned Bernard to preach the Holy War.

Bernard sent a number of theologically charged letters to the various Kings and Queens of Christendom asking for support on behalf of the Church.  His main selling point was the biblically sound cause of liberating the Jews from Muslim oppression, and also for their protection from rogue Crusaders.

In a letter written in 1146AD to Eastern France and Bavaria, Bernard promotes the 2nd Crusade by appealing to the role of Jews in God's plan of salvation:

  Besides, brethren, I warn you, and not only I, but God's apostle,
  "Believe not every spirit." We have heard and rejoice that the
  zeal of God abounds in you, but it behooves no mind to be wanting in
  wisdom. The Jews must not be persecuted, slaughtered, nor even driven
  out. Inquire of the pages of Holy Writ. I know what is written in the
  Psalms as prophecy about the Jews. "God hath commanded me," says the
  Church, "Slay them not, lest my people forget."

  They are living signs to use, representing the Lord's passion. For
  this reason they are dispersed into all regions, that now they may pay
  the just penalty of so great a crime, and that they may be witnesses
  of our redemption. Wherefore the Church, speaking in the same Psalm,
  says, "Scatter them by thy power; and bring them down, O Lord, our
  shield." So has it been. They have been dispersed, cast down. They
  undergo a hard captivity under Christian princes. Yet they shall be
  converted at even time, and remembrance of them shall be made in due
  season. Finally, when the multitude of the Gentiles shall have entered
  in, then, "all Israel shall be saved," saith the apostle.
  Meanwhile he who dies remains in death.

Elsewhere, he writes to the Archbishop of Mainz:

  The fellow you mention in your letter [a monk named Raoul, who had
  urged violence against Jews as the Second Crusade was being organized]
  has received no authority from men or through men, nor has he been
  sent by God.

  Does he consider himself greater than our father Abraham who laid down
  his sword at the bidding of him by whose command he took it up? Does
  he consider himself greater than the Prince of the Apostles who asked
  the Lord: "Shall we strike with our swords?" He is a fellow full
  of the wisdom of Egypt which is, as we know, foolishness in the sight
  of God. He is a fellow who answers Peter's question differently to the
  Lord who said: "Put back thy sword into its place; all those who
  take up the sword will perish by the sword." Is it not a far better
  triumph for the Church to convince and convert the Jews than to put
  them all to the sword? Has that prayer which the Church offers for the
  Jews, from the rising up of the sun to the going down thereof; that
  the veil may be taken from their hearts so that they may be led from
  the darkness of error into the light of truth, been instituted in
  vain? If she did not hope that they would believe and be converted, it
  would seem useless and vain for her to pray for them. But with the eye
  of mercy she considers how the Lord regards with favor him who renders
  good for evil and love for hatred. Otherwise where does that saying
  come in, "Not for their destruction I pray," and "When the
  fullness of the Gentiles shall have come in, then all Israel will be
  saved," and "The Lord is rebuilding Jerusalem, calling the
  banished sons of Israel home"? Who is this man that he should make
  out the Prophet to be a liar and render void the treasures of Christ's
  love and pity? This doctrine is not his own but his father's. But I
  believe it is good enough for him, since he is like his father who
  was, we know, "from the first a murderer, a liar, and the father of
  lies."

Of course we know from history that the 2nd Crusade was an overall failure. It is debatable whether or not the Pope's commission for St. Bernard to preach this failure was a good idea. Whatever the case may be, St. Bernard carried out his mission as a loyal servant to both the Church and to Sacred Scripture, ultimately becoming a canonized Doctor of the Church.

The Crusades began with Pope Urban II's speech at the Church Council at Clermont in 1095. The Crusades, as institutionalized Holy War with papal sanction against the perceived enemies of Christendom, ended in 1798 with the expulsion of the Hospital of St John from Malta by Napoleon.

St. Bernard's story is just one little chapter in a long book...


What is the argument *for* prosperity gospel? Prosperity gospel, as I understand it, is the teaching that God wants to bless us with wealth and health. I can't really see this in the Bible. For example, Paul writes in 2 Cor 12:7-10 (ESV):

7 So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited. 8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me. 9 But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

Or, looking at what Jesus has said:

Matt 22:10 (ESV) and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.
John 15:20 (ESV) Remember the word that I said to you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.

What arguments (biblical or otherwise) can be used to support prosperity gospel? What does prosperity theology say about passages such as the ones I cited?

Some verses the prosperity gospel are built on are:

John 10:10 NIV The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.
Philippians 4:19 NIV And my God will meet all your needs according to the riches of his glory in Christ Jesus.
3 John 1:2 NIV Dear friend, I pray that you may enjoy good health and that all may go well with you, even as your soul is getting along well.

While I believe these all do say that Christ's death does allow us to have good in this life, I don't believe they should be our only focus.  As mentioned in your question, there are many verses which say we will also face adversity.
I also believe that the life and prosperity God wants for us is most likely not the prosperity of riches and glory on this earth that is being offered in this movement.
I do not pay too much attention to those that preach only prosperity, because it often seems dry and lacking to me.  I am just guessing, but I would bet that they avoid the passages you provide.  It just wouldn't make people feel good to know that they might have problems.  And of course, when people don't feel good, then it just causes more problems, so that wouldn't be good, right?


Does the Protestant Bible mention Satan punishing non-believers after death? I have always heard people say that when you die and haven't accepted Christ and go to hell, that you're going to be punished by Satan, and we have this great plethora of contemporary culture showing a red horned devil with a trident forcing people to punishment in hell, but where does the Protestant Bible say that this is the case?

If it doesn't say this, where did this belief originate amongst Protestant faiths?

Put simply, it doesn't.  Satan will not be the punisher in hell, but among the punished.  Satan is not any any sense the king of hell

  And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his
  prison and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four
  corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their
  number is like the sand of the sea. And they marched up over the broad
  plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the
  beloved city, but fire came down from heaven[b] and consumed them, and
  the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will
  be tormented day and night forever and ever.

  Revelation 20:7-10 ESV

So, the idea is a misconception.


"Conciliated your heavenly affections" (I hesitated over asking this here or on EL&U, but I suspect that the language is christianese, so I'm opting for here).

I've been attempting to 'translate' A.N.Groves' amazing letter to J.N.Darby (very worth reading) into more 'modern' English (as a prelude to getting it translated into French), and am stuck on two phrases (both on page 5) which look like they mean something, but I'm not sure what:

  and at the same time you conciliated their heavenly affections, by
  allowing all that really was of the Lord

  they, therefore, appealed from you to your common Head, both in
  behalf of themselves and their systems

I have not read the letter in full and have no idea what it is about but I have read so many volumes of old English theology that the language comes easy to me.

I think 'conciliating their affections' is straightforward.  It means pacifying their holy sense.  The context is in reproof.  While reproving someone's wrong you also satisfy their sense of right, if you acknowledge that the person being corrected has some good things in them.  It means while opposing things, they also knew deep inside to be wrong, Darby is described as accepting other things they knew were not wrong.  This pacified their heavenly or holy feelings while correcting their evil parts which their own consciences also did.

The next line about making an appeal to their common Head this also seems straightforward. The author seems to be saying that Darby no longer pacified their sense of right but judged them unfairly. Therefore they appeal to Darby to consider Christ which is the common Head of the body of Christ, i.e. the head of the invisible Church who judges all men fairly. Or more simply they appealed to Christ.

The whole section your are pondering seems to be saying Darby was rebuking someone and at first the rebuke was received, but then he went too far and lost his authority as an older brother.  Now those who were receptive of his rebuke and leadership were no longer. However as they did not have enough confidence to rebuke him back, as they seem to hold him in some kind of esteem, they appeal to Christ directly hoping that Darby might be smitten in his own conscience and might act like an older brother again.

This seem much like a dispute within a family.  Its about a struggle between respect and hurt feelings that need to be pacified if any restoration can be made in the relationship.


Are sermons from The Second Book of Homilies still read in Anglican Churches? In the 39 articles of faith, article 35 says the following:

  XXXV. Of the Homilies. The Second Book of Homilies, the several titles
  whereof we have joined under this Article, doth contain a godly and
  wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the former
  Book of Homilies, which were set forth in the time of Edward the
  Sixth; and therefore we judge them to be read in Churches by the
  Ministers, diligently and distinctly, that they may he understanded of
  the people.
  (http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html)

Do Anglican churches still read the Homilies aloud as per the 39 articles? If not, how do they justify not following the 39 articles?

Related: What is The Second book of Homilies mentioned in the Anglican 39 articles of faith?

tl;dr> No.

Quick insight to the lack of use of the Book of Homilies can be seen in the fact that the book itself has technically been out of print in England since 2003.

The Book of Homilies is primarily an artifact from a condition that is not nearly as prevalent today. At the time of the 39 articles (in the mid 1500s), two conditions conspired to make preachers scarce:

In order to preach in any church, you needed to be licensed. (Baptists, in particular, hated this!).
In order to be licensed, you needed an education.

While in modern America, neither of these is a requirement, in the England of the time of the 39 articles, these were rather significant hurdles.  Imagine not only the paucity of students devoting themselves to an education, but also the massive number of churches required when you couldn't just drive to the local megachurch, and one can quickly see why a lack of professional preachers was a problem.

To address this problem, the Anglican church printed books of homilies - pre-approved, biblical, sermon-like speeches that could be delivered by laymen acting in a priests' stead.  Much like how blessed elements could be distributed by Lay Eucharistic Ministers - a position that still exists today in many Episcopal churches, the Book of Homilies enabled instruction to be conveyed by those with less training.

Nowadays, with the Episcopal Church in decline in much of North America, the situation is exactly the opposite - there are too many qualified ministers.  As such, there is almost no need for these.  In my more than 5 years as a lay preacher in the Episcopal Church, I have never run across a church that still used them.


Hearing Bell sounds - What does the Bible say about bells? Recently I have heard many bell sounds during times of heavy spiritual warfare & physical troubles. I know i'm not crazy because I've had relatives and friends hear them as-well. They come from multiple directions and have been heard at multiple locations.

What is the biblical significance of bells and what symbolism does it carry?

As far as I can tell, the Bible mentions bells only in Exodus (chapters 28 and 39), where they formed part of the decoration of the robes of the Priests, and in Zechariah (chapter 14), where in the last verse it proclaims that the bells on horses will be engraved with "Holy is the Lord".

Bell sounds can travel quite a long distance, so that the sounds you are hearing may not necessarily be from your house. I once heard quite a delightful wind chime on the breeze, and upon exploration found that the chime was a couple of blocks away. Another thing to consider is that the sound may not be coming from an actual bell, but rather another piece of metal which is free to vibrate when struck.

Any spiritual significance of any bell comes from the hearer of the bell, rather than the bell itself. A case in point is bells rung on Sunday morning, and other times of the week. To some, the bells are calls to prayer, and sometimes for some people, a bell at a specific time is a call to a specific prayer. To others hearing the same sounds, the bells simply denote the time of day, and to still others, they sometimes are only a nuisance to be endured.


Do miracles violate the laws of physics? I asked a Christian today whether he believed that Jesus turning water into wine literally happened, or was just a metaphor. He said it literally happened, and also that other miracles literally happened, such as Jesus dying and coming back to life.

Some miracles described in the bible appear to violate the laws of physics. For example, in turning water into wine, I assume carbon atoms would have to appear where they did not exist before.

Do Christians have an opinion on what happened? Do they believe

The laws of physics were obeyed, and that our understanding of them is merely insufficient to understand what happened.
God does not break the laws of physics, but he changed the laws of physics temporarily such that those laws permitted certain miracles to occur.
God is not only able, but is willing, to break the laws of physics that he created?

The latter two sound like God being inconsistent, and the first one raises the possibility that if humans can understand the science fully, it may (or may not) be possible to replicate what he had done.

The laws of physics are certainly quite different from moral laws.  In fact, the Bible never refers to the laws of physics as "laws".  We see them as laws, because we are bound by them and are unable to break them.  We don't obey them based on our own volition.

Moral laws define what we ought to do, but we are under no compulsion to obey them.  We have a choice.

We obey the laws of physics because they bind us to them.  We obey moral laws because we bind ourselves to them.

So, the idea of God "obeying" what we describe as the laws of physics is really an absurdity.  These laws govern the physical universe--not the Maker of the physical universe.

This is a very significant distinction, because I have heard someone make the claim that if God breaks His own laws (of physics), then He is guilty of sin for breaking the law.  This is a completely false statement, though, because the laws of physics are distinct from moral law. Breaking a moral law is, by definition, immoral, but this is not true of the breaking of physical or natural laws.  Breaking a natural law would simply be "unnatural", or, more appropriately, "supernatural".

The Maker of the physical universe certainly has the power to create new matter according to His own will, as in the case of the Feeding of the 5,000.  He can change matter according to His will as well, as in the case of the Turning of the Water into Wine, the healing of the blind, the raising of the dead, etc.

Yet, His authority is not merely over the physical world, but over the spiritual realm as well, as demonstrated in Jesus casting out demons.

So, God is not confined by what we happen to refer to as the laws of physics.  They are laws the govern the physical universe.  They do not govern God Himself.


Is there a deeper meaning for the reason for the new translation of the "Sanctus?" In the New Translation of the Mass, the Sanctus changed from

  Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might. Heaven and earth are full of your glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he who
  comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest.

to

  Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of hosts. Heaven and earth are full of your glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he who comes in the
  name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest.

Now look at the comma in these words of the LORD on the cross in Luke 23:43 (RSVCE):

  43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

I believe the meaning changes with the shifting of the comma that followed to you:

  43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise.”

The question: In the new translation of the Sanctus, is there a deeper meaning regarding the change from Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might to Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of hosts?

I am interested in the comma shift but the fuller answer will also address the change from God of power and might to God of hosts.

The Sanctus, in Latin or Greek form, has apparently been part of the Mass since at least the 5th century. Doing a quick bit of research doesn't clarify for me whether or not commas existed either when it was written or when it reached its final form (in Latin). I need, therefore, to simply go back to the Sanctus as it's printed in the Latin Roman Missal:

  Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus Dominus Deus Sabaoth.

In English,

  Holy, holy, holy [is the] Lord God of Sabaoth.

(I'll come to Sabaoth in a minute.)

In the earlier phrasing which you refer to (the 1973 translation made by the International Committee on English in the Liturgy, or ICEL), we had

  Holy, holy, holy [is the] Lord, God of ...

The syntactic difference here is whether "God" is part of an appellation—"[the] Lord God"—or whether it's an appositive—"[the] Lord, [who is] God of ..." In the Bible, "Lord, God of ..." is typically (but not always) used to address God:

  LORD, God of hosts, who is like you?

(Psalm 89:9; this and subsequent quotations from the New American Bible, Revised Edition)

"Lord God of" is typically used to describe God:

  Today belongs to the Lord GOD of hosts ...

(Jeremiah 46:10)

But there's a bit of switching between the two, which leads me to feel that there's no significant syntactic difference between them.

Now let's get to Sabaoth. This is a transliteration (used in both the Greek and the Latin texts of the Sanctus) of the Hebrew word צְבָא֖וֹת, which is elsewhere translated "armies" (or "hosts", which can be used as a synonym)—see for example the BibleHub.com analysis of Deuteronomy 20:9 in Hebrew.

Though I cannot find a reference to the ICEL's reasoning in their translation, it seems fairly obvious that they were trying to find an equivalent to this word "armies"; they appear to have gone with a metaphor. There is some Biblical support for this interpretation in, for example, Judith 9:14:

  Make every nation and every tribe know clearly that you are God, the God of all power and might ...

as well as, more famously but less directly, Revelation 7:12:

  Amen. Blessing and glory, wisdom and thanksgiving, honor, power, and might be to our God forever and ever. Amen.

But "Lord God of hosts" is much more common, and actually appears in Isaiah 6:3, from which this part of the Sanctus appears to be taken:

  Seraphim were stationed above; each of them had six wings: with two they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they hovered. One cried out to the other: "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts! All the earth is filled with his glory!"

Thus "Lord God of hosts" appears to be the more exact translation, and is used in accordance with the norms of Liturgiam Authenticam, a document produced by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, which includes the following text:

  While it is permissible to arrange the wording, the syntax and the style in such a way as to prepare a flowing vernacular text suitable to the rhythm of popular prayer, the original text, insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses.


How did the world get populated according to Bible? Adam and Eve had only three sons (Cain, Abel, and Seth), but no daughters: how did the world get populated?

The Bible actually indicates that Adam and Eve did, in fact, have daughters.

  This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he
  made him in the likeness of God. 2 Male and female he created them,
  and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created. 3
  When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. 4 The days of Adam
  after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and
  daughters. 5 Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and
  he died.  Genesis 5:1-5

We also know that Seth was born after Cain had killed Abel:

  And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name
  Seth, for she said, "God has appointed for me another offspring
  instead of Abel, for Cain killed him."  Genesis 4:25

So, when Adam was 130 years old after Cain killed Abel, Eve became pregnant and gave birth to Seth.  So, did Adam and Eve have other children in between the time that Cain and Abel were born and Seth was born?  We can't say absolutely, but we can't say absolutely not either.  It certainly seems reasonable that other children would have been born during that time.

Genesis 5 does indicate that Adam and Eve had daughters as well (plural), though we are not told how many.  The very minimum would be three sons and two daughters.

Apparently Jewish tradition holds that Adam and Eve actually had 33 sons and 23 daughters.  This is not biblical, of course, but it aligns with the idea that Adam and Eve were probably extremely fruitful and multiplied greatly, as God had commanded them.  The genetics were quite pure as well as the environment at that time.  They lived a long time (Adam was 930 years old when he died according to Genesis 5), so they had a lot of time to have children.

Now, it should be noted that this doesn't completely answer the question of how the world got populated.  The Bible teaches that the world was destroyed by a flood and that only Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives survived.

  And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts,
  all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. 22
  Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life
  died.  Genesis 7:21-22

So, the world has become populated today as descendants of those 8 people.  Even Noah could possibly have had children after the flood as well as Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

  These are the clans of the sons of Noah, according to their
  genealogies, in their nations, and from these the nations spread
  abroad on the earth after the flood.  Genesis 10:32


Why was Zachariah punished while Mary was not? The gospel of Luke states that when the angel Gabriel appeared to Zacharia and told him that his wife Elizabeth would conceive John the Baptist, Zacheria doubts the prophecy and so is temporarily struck dumb till the day John would be born.

However even Mary expresses doubt at Gabriel's word that she would conceive Jesus. Why then is Mary not punished for doubting God's word unlike Zachariah?

There is a subtle difference in the responses of Zacharias and Mary.

Zacharias says, in Luke 1:18 (NASB)

  Zacharias said to the angel, “How will I know this for certain? For I am an old man and my wife is advanced in years.”

Zacharias is essentially asking the angel, "How do I know I can trust you? Prove it."  Furthermore, Zacharias's only basis of doubt was his and his wife's old age.  This was a miracle for which Biblical precedent had already been set (for Abraham, for example, in Genesis 18)

Mary, on the other hand, asks in Luke 1:34 (NASB)

  Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”

Mary is not asking "How will I know" (i.e., she's not asking whether she can trust God's word) - she is asking how it can be, in a spirit of amazement and wonder, rather than a spirit of doubt.

Also, note that in Luke 1:38, we read:

  And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

Mary may have expressed doubt by asking how this would be initially, but once she was given an answer to her question of how it could be, she did believe.


Are there sola scriptura inerrantists who reject sensus unum as a general hermeneutic? I have noticed that adherers to sola scriptura that defend biblical inerrancy nearly always argue from a sensus unum understanding of scripture as opposed to a sensus plenior understanding of scripture.

Those who argue for a sensus unum will say that a sensus plenior contradicts biblical inerrancy.

Are there any schools of Reformed thought (liberal or otherwise) which have rejected the sensus unum view and yet still affirm biblical inerrancy from a view of sensus plenior?
Or for that matter, are there any Reformed persons who argue for such a position?

I am answering the question :

  "Are there any reformed persons who argue for such a position" that is to say who "reject sensus unum and yet still affirm biblical inerrancy from a view of sensus plenior" ?

I define sensus unum as the concept that any biblical text has a plain meaning, an obvious meaning and a single meaning.

I define sensus plenior as the concept that any biblical text may have several layers of meaning, or multiple meanings.

I define myself as 'Reformed' in that I agree with the the doctrine and the practice (largely) of such as Martin Luther, John Knox and other such.

Scripture is referred to by Paul the Apostle as 'inspired' II Timothy 3:16, which word is θεοπνευστος theopneustos, 'God-breathed'.

But Peter declares that some persons - unlearned and unstable persons - 'wrest' the scriptures to their own destruction, II Peter 3:16.

It is perfectly clear that in the matter, for example, of the turning of water into wine at Cana of Galilee, that there is a meaning to the whole passage. Underlying the narrative, the statement of historical fact of water being poured into stone pots until they were full, then the water being drawn out; and in the drawing out of the water, it is found to be wine - there is clearly a meaning beneath.

This was not a display of supernatural ability just to demonstrate supernatural ability. It is clear from the development of the book written by John that a spiritual truth is being expressed by the miracle - or 'sign' as σεμειον semeion is better rendered.

What is being expressed can be seen from the context and from what has just happened in John's unfolding text and from what will follow in John's proceeding narrative.

There is a clear meaning - a single meaning - from the supernatural sign.

But buried in the narrative is the fact of water being 'made' wine, and the word ποιεο poieo is used to convey that fact.

Which is the same word used by Paul to convey that Jesus Christ was 'made' sin in the offering up of himself in sacrifice, II Corinthians 5:21.

The demonstration of water being made wine, that is to say the fact that water had something added to it, and thus it became other than it had been, that thus there was - suffused throughout the whole body of water - something else which changed the character of that body of water : conveys something profound in relation to the other use of the word ποιεο poieo in Paul's epistle.

Thus, as a 'reformed' person I would personally argue not that the Cana miracle has multiple explanations in and of itself (for there is but one true and spiritual explanation of the meaning behind the miracle) but that there is more in the text to be seen.

For it is God, the Spirit - the Divine Person - who has inspired these most holy writings. And his masterful, brilliant, sensitive, artistic and immensely competent ability is seen throughout the passages, the texts the words - and even to the very individual letters upon the page.

There are layers of revelation in these God-breathed scriptures, is how I would express the matter. Layers of revelation and depths of profundity are encapsulated within inerrant and infallibly communicated documentation.

But one must be wary, for many foolish and unlearned persons wrestle with these holy writings and, in so doing, they do injustice to the words and they do detriment to themselves.


According to the Catholic Church, do conjoined twins have two souls? Do conjoined twins have two souls or one? The Catholic position would be useful to know.

This is a pretty popular question on the web 2.0 Internet forums and apparently is still relevant in web 3.0 (or whatever StackExchange is).  But the Truths of the Church are still to be found on the old EWTN forums.
In the happy case where you have two distinct persons, you necessarily have two bodies (like Lake Michigan and Lake Superior are two bodies of water)

If two twins are connected physically, we still have two bodies with two  individual [sic] persons and, therefore, two souls. There has to be two souls if there are two persons involved. This situation is a mistake of nature, so to speak. So we may assume that at the resurrection of the body the twins will be in an ideal state of existing each on their own.
EWTN Q and A - Dr. Richard Geraghty - 1/23/2004

However, in the sadder case, there are instances where a second body was never formed where there is no concrete evidence that a second human was ever necessarily meant to exist:

A[n unformed] body, even though living but not having a head, is not a human being. So in this situation another human being was not killed.
EWTN Q and A - Dr. Richard Geraghty - 11/17/2007

Still, given the formation of the body or bodies God still has a plan in place, the natural function of twinning didn't fully take place.

Presumably, God would know about the upcoming twinning and would place both souls in the zygote and they would share a body for a time until they are separated [sic]. It certainly shouldn't be problematic to speak of two souls sharing a "body" because we conjoined twins. In essence they have never completed the "twinning" fully to the point of becoming two separate [sic] bodies
Jimmy Akin via Judie Brown - EWTN Q and A - 06/08/2006

You don't lack a soul simply because you were born with half pinky toes (I hope not, I've got half pinky toes).  But the opposite can happen too, even in the womb a body can be said to "not exist" because it was consumed (apparently as an act of healing by the rest of the cells)

In other words, the initial zygote can, under the right circumstances, dismiss a cell or group of cells that becomes that second baby (twin.) In the case of an anomaly that also occurs like the conjoined twins, we cannot say that two persons do not exist, but we can say that a circumstance has occurred [sic] which is tragic and, in the particular case you site, deadly.
Judie Brown - EWTN Q and A - 05/06/2002

So, there you have it,  conjoined twins have two souls, what they do with them is between them and God.

(just in case you were wondering, the people on EWTN's forum are "Experts" not shmoe's like me)

Dr. Richard Geraghty is a professor of philosophy.

Jimmy Akin is a "noted red-headed Internet apologist"

Judie Brown is the President of the American Life League


Do the Scriptures support the 'Simulated Universe' idea? If you were to Google "simulated universe" you'll find that major science institutions are starting to hypothesize that the universe is 'very possibly' a 'simulated environment' at the lowest level - where this simulated (created) environment supports all needed elements to facilitate true organic existence (they are not claiming that we are simulated). One article even went as far as referencing 'the being(s) behind the simulation'  (Creators)

Although these hypotheses vary, I've seen a few different schools that have studied the possibility (such as University of Washington) and are coming to the conclusion that it can even be simulated on a small scale within the near future.

My question is whether the Scriptures support such an idea? I've never studied the Word from this angle so I can't say either way.

Just to be clear, I know that we and even the universe are not digital simulations - but is there any way that the universe could have not just  formed by God's will,  but also that the formation is bound through God's constant will?

The bible is rather emphatic on the point actually. The universe we live in was not only created at God's command but it is sustained constantly through his active will. This sustainer is Jesus Christ:

  Colossians 1:15-17 (ESV)
  15  He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16  For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17  And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

This has serious implications for our understanding of the world we live in, including science. The apostle Paul explained it to the people of his day this way:

  Acts 17:28 (ESV)
  28  In him we live and move and have our being [...]

Everything we do, everything we touch, everything we measure is inside a construct both created and sustained by God. Science has often been played for the fool by presuming this is not the case. With the wrong presumptions about the origin and ongoing sustenance of the universe, it's possible to derive quite incorrect conclusions from otherwise meaningful data.

I'm not sure "simulated" is the right word, since our existence as both physical and spiritual beings is quite real, but it is interesting to hear science consider the possibility that there is not just an original but an ongoing creative will behind the world as we know it.


What reasons do Christians have to believe there is one God? Related to What reasons does Christianity give for "Why There Must Be A God?".

In my reading on apologetics, I have come across many arguments for Theism, but next to nothing for Monotheism. I've read the phrase, "the chaos of polytheism," without a more rational argument, though I firmly believe that one exists.

What arguments exist for Monotheism vs. other Theisms?

A common argument for theism is the Cosmological argument - that there must have been a first cause for the universe. Christians believe that everything that exists is the result of God, who is uncreated and self-existent.

If the universe has a single cause then it follows its existence is the result of a single self-existent being. Could there somehow be multiple self-existent beings? Well yes, but to be a single cause for the universe those beings must be in such a great unity. This could be argued to be the case for the Christian view of God, the Trinity, who is three persons in one being.

In many (perhaps most) polytheistic religions most of the gods were actually created from the original creator god. In my mind those gods don't deserve to be called gods - call them spirits instead.


What is the difference between a denomination and a movement? I grew up raised in an Apostolic(Oneness-)Pentecostal church that affirmed O.S.A.S., I was always told our denomination was Pentecostal, but I see some refer to Pentecost as a movement, and U.P.C. as a denomination. What is the difference? Is one an umbrella term for all who affirm a particular title in the name of their doctrinal beliefs group?

e.g. Would a Southern Baptist Church and a Calvary Baptist both be called: baptist in movement, but Southern Baptist for the denomination and Calvary Baptist for the denomination?

A denomination is a group of churches in a formal organisation. There is usually some kind of leadership, some kind of joint document that defines what they believe or do, and usually an official government registered corporation.

A movement is a group of Christians who share a particular history, set of beliefs, or set of practices. But they don't have to be united officially. There's no organisation that brings together all Protestants, or all pentecostals, or all baptists, or all creationists, or all those who are pre millennial. Some movements will define churches, others just some of the people in them.


What is the biblical basis against seeking medical advice? Which scriptures are used to deter Christians from seeking medical advice or the help of a doctor?

The overwhelming majority of Christians, based on their understanding of the Bible, see nothing wrong with seeking medical advice and help.
There are, however, a few passages which may deter people from seeking medical advice.

And Asa in the thirty and ninth year of his reign was diseased in his feet, until his disease was exceeding great: yet in his disease he sought not to the LORD, but to the physicians. 2 Chronicles 16 12
Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:James 5 14

In the first of these Asa sought the help of physicians but did not pray about it. In the next verse he died. In the second, prayer is recommended in the case of sickness.
These verses could be seen as saying that prayer is the best response to sickness. It is what Asa omitted to do, and what James urges his readers to do. There is no suggestion, in the text,  that Asa was wrong to seek the help of physicians, or that James was saying that prayer alone is needed. Some however have seen an either/or dichotomy here. Adherents of the Christian Science movement have traditionally held this view. Should we pray or should we go to the doctor? A relevant text in considering this possible dichotomy, if it exists at all, is:

Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'" Matthew 4 7

Any idea of avoiding medical help with the intention of seeing whether God will  perform a miracle, seems condemned here.
Another verse is worth mentioning here. It  concerns a lady who had been unwell for twelve years:

And had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse. Mark 5 26

This may deter some, or at least act as a cautionary tale, to be on our guard. Modern professional regulation may provide some assurance on this issue.
Finally there are some treatments which may be considered forbidden or unethical. Jehovah's Witnesses do not condone blood transfusion, for example. Also, many Christians consider abortion a sin and so requesting medical help to end a pregnancy would be considered wrong and counter to the commandment not to kill.


What is the basis for seeing Christ's words in the Gospels as part of the New Covenant? I see this topic pop up in certain Christian circles.

Certain people make the claim that the "Words in Red" in the Gospels (those regarded as the words of Jesus) are not part of the New Testament believer's covenant.  Because the new covenant began at the crucifixion with His blood, these people claim that Jesus' words were only for a 'transitionary period', for those Jews coming to faith who were yet under the Old Covenant, and therefore are not 'binding' upon the believer.

The teachings are regarded as good and valid, but only when understood in their proper context.  That is, according to this view, just as the Law in the Old Covenant is still read and we prosper by its understanding (2 Timothy 3:16), we do not apply it as binding upon the New Covenant believer.  Since the New Covenant began at the cross, they say, none of the 'Words in Red' are binding upon us today.

Among these people are EW Kenyon, Kenneth E Hagin, and others.

So, what are the arguments (Biblical or otherwise) for considering that the Words of Christ in the Gospels should be considered instructions for the New Testament?

The following is adapted from this book (of which I happen to be the rights-holder).  For anyone interested, the full text of the book is available both online in Google Books, as well as for download as PDF from the same site (simply hover over the EBOOK link on the left and click PDF to download).

  So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”

  John 8:31-32, NASB, emphasis added

The "Words in Red" are Jesus' instructions for all believers.  While some would claim otherwise, perhaps out of preference for the 'Pauline Revelation', scripture is actually quite clear about this topic.

Faulty Premise

The argument otherwise is first of all built on a faulty premise.  It is assumed by some that the Gospels are merely a history book, and not teaching.  However, one need only look to the end of the Gospel of Matthew to find otherwise.

  Then Jesus came to them and said, All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

  Matthew 28:18-20, NIV, emphasis added.

Jesus' instructions were to make disciples by teaching all of His commands.  Further, in the beginning of the book of Acts, immediately after Pentecost in chapter 2, we read,

  They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

  Acts 2:42, NIV, emphasis added

Of the four things that was the focus of the first church, the first of them was the apostle's teaching.  As this was the first months and years after Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension, the disciples would have had nothing to teach except what Jesus had taught them.  The gist of this, what they deemed most important, is what we have recorded in the four Gospels by way of their recording.

Further evidence that this was the intent of the writing of the Gospels can be found in the beginning of Luke's Gospel.

  Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

  Luke 1:1-4, NASB, emphasis added

What is contained within the Gospels, then, was for the instruction of new disciples.  The writing and subsequent learning, teaching, and reading of the Gospels is the fulfillment of the command in Matthew 28:20, to teach what Jesus had commanded them.

Confirmation of Jesus' Words in the Epistles

Paul, of course, was not one of the original apostles.  Being a devout Jew, he most likely heard of Christ, but was not a believer.  However, after his salvation experience, he clearly learned more of Him.  While some claim that the 'Pauline Revelation' supercedes the Gospels Words, Paul wrote differently.

  If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; ...

  1 Timothy 6:3-4, NASB, portion, emphasis added

If this was Paul's views of the teachings of Christ, those who claim a 'Pauline Revelation' should agree with his assessment of Jesus' Words.  But, Paul was not alone in this conclusion.  John wrote the same in his second Epistle.

  Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work.

  2 John 1:9-11 NIV

The witness from the epistles agrees.  But, what of Jesus Himself?

The Words of Christ

  Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

  Matthew 24:35 NIV

Jesus was the Truth (John 14:6).  Jesus pointed to His own words time and again, indicating their importance and immutability.  Indeed, at one point, Jesus said it was His Words themselves that would judge those hearing them (John 12:48).

  Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.

  Matthew 7:24-27 NIV, emphasis added

What does it mean to be someone's disciple? It means you do what they say. If Jesus' words were not binding on the church today, it would follow that we would not Christ's disciple--we would be the disciples of the one we did obey.

  Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

  Mark 13:31 KJV

Here, and above, Jesus Himself said His Words would never pass away.

  Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

  John 5:24 KJV

Jesus linked salvation to two things.  The first was hearing His Words, and the second was believing on the Father.  As hearing His Word is held as part of salvation, it seem highly unlikely that they would no longer be relevant to the world.

  Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

  John 10:7-10 KJV

Consider what it means to come in through Christ. Yes, it is salvation, through faith alone. Yet, He was what He taught— He was The Word Incarnate! You cannot “enter through Christ” without obeying what He said. All who try to enter another way are thieves and robbers.

  If ye love me, keep my commandments.

  John 14:15 NIV

Being observed, that it is impossible to keep something you don't have.

  He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.

  John 3:36 NASB, emphasis added

Here, belief is contrasted with obedience. Who is this Christ, the one John calls The Word? He is what He taught. If you want a portrait of Christ, study the Sermon on the Mount. If you love Him, you love it, and vice versa.

  Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.

  John 14:21 NIV

What are the “my commands” of this verse? It is what He was going around teaching, of course. This is the one that loves Him, the one who has and keeps these commands. Thinking in retrospect, if we come up with explanations of why the rest of His Words do not apply to us, shouldn't we come up with an explanation of why we think this one still should?

  If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

  John 15:7 KJV, emphasis added

The key to answered prayer is keeping the Words of Jesus within you. If you keep them, meditate on them, abide in them, you will have your prayers answered, whatever you ask.

  If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love.

  John 15:10 NASB, emphasis added

Again, if we keep His commands, we abide continually in His love, even as He abode in His Father's love. This is the great key, that we hear His Words, not words of the old letter of the law, but the Words of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, living by a new law, the law of His Spirit. But, these are His Words, which are Spirit, and which are Life (John 6:63).

  Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

  John 6:68 KJV, emphasis added

Simon Peter recognized the Words of Jesus. As He said, they are the words of "Eternal Life". Certainly, if another had been intended, we should follow them, but there isn't any.

  Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

  Colossians 3:16 KJV

Paul here again exhorts that the Word of Christ dwell in us, meaning His teachings as represented by what is recorded in the four Gospels. It is not the words of another, but particularly those of Christ. Even as Paul quoted a saying of Jesus in Acts 20:35 a statement that is not found in the Gospels, and as the Apostle John wrote that Jesus did and said many other things than those recorded for us (John 20:30). Paul was very clearly aware of what the Lord Jesus had done and said, and, being commissioned of the Lord to instruct us, exhorted us to obey Christ's teachings.

By Paul's own letters we understand that he understood that his exposition was secondary to the Word of Christ, the living Word.  Belief in Jesus, in His Kingdom, in His Way. As depicted in who He was, how He lived, and what He spoke.

  If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

  1 Timothy 6:3 KJV

Quoted above, as well. Paul, even in his letters, exhorts Timothy to the words of Christ, which are the wholesome words. This is the doctrine of the church. Paul merely expounded upon them, even as Jesus said, teachers of the Law instructed in the Kingdom would bring out of their storehouses old treasures as well as new (Matthew 13:52).

  And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

  1 John 2:3-6 KJV

Over and over, belief, obedience, and love are all connected to God's commands. If anyone says that obedience does not matter, the “apostle of love” differs with him in this verse.  And, you cannot obey His Words if you throw them out.

  Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.

  2 John 1:9 NASB

This was one of Christ's twelve apostles, speaking of the Words of Christ. Are they binding on the church? They are according to the one who leaned upon His breast. Whoever does not abide in them does not have God.

His Words and His Heart are inseparable. Belief and Obedience are two sides of the same cloth. His Words are the Words of the Kingdom, His Words were the Words of Life.


How do Jehovah's Witnesses explain Mark 1:1–3? Mark 1:1–3 from the NWT reads:

  The beginning of the good news about Jesus Christ, the Son of God:   Just as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: “(Look! I am sending my messenger ahead of you,* who will prepare your way.) A voice of one crying out in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of Jehovah! Make his roads straight.’”

Contextually, this is talking of Jesus, and saying that John the Baptist "will prepare your way," and then it quotes the prophecy from Isaiah that says "Prepare the way of Jehovah!"

How does Jehovah's Witness doctrine explain this? It seems that their own scriptures are suggesting that Jesus is Jehovah.

Mark 1:1-3 quotes two other passages from the Bible, so they must be taken into account to get the context of these verses in Mark. The first quote found in verse 2 is of Malachi 3:1 (quote in bold):

  “Look! I am sending my messenger, and he will clear up a way before me. And suddenly the true Lord, whom you are seeking, will come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant will come, in whom you take delight. Look! He will certainly come,” says Jehovah of armies.

This verse mentions three entities: "my messenger", "the true Lord", and "the messenger of the covenant". The first messenger must be John the Baptist, and Jehovah God is the "true Lord" whose "way" is being cleared up. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus accompanied Jehovah God as the "messenger of the [Abrahamic] covenant" to cleanse the temple and to first grant the opportunity of becoming Kingdom heirs to the Jews. —Insight, Vol. 2 pg. 385.

The second quote found in Mark 1:3 is from Isaiah 40:3:

  A voice of one calling out in the wilderness:
  “Clear up the way of Jehovah!
  Make a straight highway through the desert for our God.

This prophecy speaks of the "way of Jehovah", which is a common expression in the Bible that refers to a right and just way of living that is approved by God. This prophetic concept of a "highway" appears in several places: Isaiah 11:16; 35:8; 49:11; 57:14; 62:10; Jeremiah 31:21. It is clearly not a literal path which John the Baptist was calling to clear, but a figurative one. He was calling people to pure worship, preparing their hearts to obey Jesus' commandments, which come from Jehovah. (John 7:16-18) Jesus himself is known as "The Way". —Acts 9:1, 2; 19:9; 22:4.

Therefore, having a thorough understanding of the prophecies at play in Mark 1:1-3, we can show that John the Baptist's call to "clear up the way of Jehovah" is understood to refer to Jesus as Jehovah God's messenger and representative, and as the role model (or "Way") which God's people use to come to a close relationship with Jehovah God.


Is there any Catholic lay movement centered on building Intentional Communities? An Intentional Communities is

a planned residential community designed from the start to have a high degree of social cohesion and teamwork. The members of an intentional community typically hold a common social, political, religious, or spiritual vision and often follow an alternative lifestyle. They typically share responsibilities and resources. (Wikipedia)

Catholic monasteries are examples of such communities, as well as Christian denominations like the Anabaptists (with the Amish being perhaps the most well-known example). A Jewish example are the kibbutzim.
My question is about lay Catholic intentional communities organised systematically (perhaps with some form of Rule). All I can find are individual self-organised communities (for instance, here and here). Anyone aware of more formal groups around this?

Taize would fit the criteria. It is a community that includes Catholic monks but also others, and is definitely run as an intentional community.
I believe L'Arche might also fit your criteria. While not explicitly Catholic, it was founded by a Catholic, and is certainly an intentional community.


How to find bible verses? This is a question one of my Catechism students asked.  We were playing a Bible based board game where if you don't know the answer you look it up in the Bible.  That's pretty great, if you know how to find verses in the Bible.

But, given a standard super thick, thin paged Bible with no tabs and characteristically ignoring the index page like one would expect an eighth grader might, what mnemonic and memorization devices do people use to find the relative position of certain books in the Bible?

(I'd prefer Catholic answers using Catholic Bibles, but any wisdom is appreciated)

I learned this technique on Protestant Bibles but you could easily adapt it for any Bible. It works best if you have everyone use their own Bible so that they can see how the technique applies to the Bible they use most.

Psalms is usually at the center of most Bibles. If you're looking for Psalms you try to open to the middle of the book.
The New Testament tends to start around the last quarter of the Bible.
So let's say you're looking for John 3:16.

It's in the New Testament so it's in the last quarter of the Bible.
It's a Gospel so it's at the front of that last quarter.
Flip to about the last quarter of the book. If you land on John great.
If you landed somewhere else is it before or after John?

This also goes hand in hand with memorizing the order of the books which the best I can do is a song that I think I might still have somewhere on VHS but you can just hit up YouTube and find something your kids will like.

Even more helpful is understanding the sections of the Bible.

Law
History
Poetry & Wisdom
Major Prophets
Minor Prophets
Gospels
Pauline Epistles
General Epistles
Prophecy

So from the example above, if the open the Bible to somewhere other than John it goes:

What book are you on?
Is it before or after John?

Is it Old Testament or New? If it's old you move back. New could be either way.
What section is it in? If it's a Gospel, which one? (in this case any one means move back slowly)
If it's not at least one of the minor prophets then you're probably way too far ahead.
Likewise if you landed in Revelation then you're too far back. (This actually happens because of maps and other stuff they cram into Bibles these days.)

It plays out like a game of 20 questions. Every time you move you repeat the steps. I don't remember it taking long for us to pick this up but, the more time they spend using an actual Bible with no search aids, the faster they'll get it.


What evidence is there to show that John Wesley and John Calvin did not believe that Jesus is Michael? Upon seeing certain statements in John Calvin and John Wesley's writings some have concluded that these men believed Jesus is Michael. What evidence is there to show that John Wesley and John Calvin did not believe that Jesus is Michael?

Here are a few references to what John Calvin and John Wesley say.

John Wesley

  Daniel 10:13  Withstood me – God suffered the wicked counsels of Cambyses to take place awhile; but Daniel by his prayers, and the angel by his power, overcame him at last: and this very thing laid a foundation of the ruin of the Persian monarchies. Michael – Michael here is commonly supposed to mean Christ. I remained – To counter – work their designs against the people of God.
      Daniel 10:21 – Michael – Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes of the earth desert or oppose it. source

  Daniel 12:1 -   For the children – The meaning seems to be, as after the death of Antiochus the Jews had some deliverance, so there will be yet a greater deliverance to the people of God, when Michael your prince, the Messiah shall appear for your salvation. source

John Calvin

  "I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people." --
  J. Calvin, COMMENTARIES ON THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET DANIEL, trans. T. Myers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369.
  source but found here

  "Michael may mean an angel; but I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people....The angel...calls Michael the mighty prince. As if he had said, Michael should be the guardian and protector of the elect people"

  (Calvin, Commentary on Daniel 12:1, Lecture 65). source but found here

I'm pretty sure Wesley and Calvin did not actually believe that Jesus is Michael. Those two quotations you gave only show that in the verses they referred to, Michael typifies Christ, just as in many other places. Ie. Jonah typified Christ, or "you may refer Jonah in his being in the belly of the fish for 3 days and 3 nights as the person of Christ, who died and was resurrected in 3 days", but that doesn't mean that Jonah is actually Christ. So in those two passages you quoted, Wesley and Calvin are merely saying that Michael in those verses they were commenting on typifies Christ's person


How verses from OT are selected for Jesus There is a question similar to this but it is about Hebrews 1. When we read about crucifixion, there it is written that they did not break his legs and reference to Psalms 34:20

  he protects all his bones,
      not one of them will be broken.

If we read the Psalms 34, David is saying about the goodness of God. How come this verse is associated with Jesus? There are more verses like this which are associated with Christ but they fit in the context from where they are taken from.

Admittedly if the New Testament did not quote this passage as applied to Christ, I would be leery about understanding it as Messianic. I have not studied this Psalm carefully but it basically seems to be describing how God rescued David in a situation where some suffering was required. Yet his care, in David's suffering, is still evident in that not 'one bone was broken'. In other words as applied to the godly in their trials, it may seem that the world, or the Devil can harm us but yet even in our dire straights nothing can harm us, unless God allow it.  In our trouble we are yet divinely assisted, preserved and swallowed up in his ultimate plan of salvation, whereas the wicked are simply destroyed in the final end.  However, let us remember David was a prophet that foresaw the Christ and interwoven in his reflections on his own life he often predicted details of what was to come during the time of Messiah.

Given all this context of David and his predictions of Messiah, this instance should show us that we should not automatically discount things of similarity between his life as recorded in the scripture and the Messiah's predicted life. The fact that Christ was slaughtered like an animal, his blood shed for our sin, under the hands of his enemies...and yet not one bone broken! does unveil as it were a possible Messianic connection between the word's of David in the Psalm and the life of Messiah. Is it not the ultimate illustration in Christ's death that although the godly must suffer our suffering is under the protection of God and according to his design of salvation? Do we still not suffer in Christ, under his watchful care, as the world pours out its mad venom on every Biblical truth as taught by mocked-at preachers and teachers who have relied on his death for their  own salvation though simple bare faith? In conclusion, Christ is 'everywhere' preached in the law and the prophets but it is often very difficult to see him without careful review and consideration.

The intentional obscurity of these shadowy predictions can cause us to doubt their validity on occasions but when combined as a whole and compared to the only person in history that can even remotely be argued as matching them, the evidence is astounding. Jesus was predicted by scriptures. It is a literary miracle that no other book in history has been able to achieve. There are simply too many things, obscurely prefigured, that when compared to the life of Christ became a brilliant light of certainty.  The only reason why many Jews were not able to perceive these predictions properly was due to a veil that kept them blind. In contrast the prophets diligently looked into these things and I am sure many other holy men unknown to us, also genuinely looked forward to Christ with the same nature of faith which we have through these weak shadows.

It is also helpful to understand that before Christ died even the Apostles were not capable of connecting all the dots.

  He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. (NIV Luke 24:44-45 )


How does Catholic Church deal with priests who have since turned atheists? The other day, media brought up the news of Rev. Vosper who does not believe in God, but has been allowed to administer in the United Protestant Church of Canada. A Canadian Preacher Who Doesn’t Believe in God.

I am eager to know how the Catolic Church deals with priests who have since turned atheists . Is there an official procedure for the same ?

If the priest who apostatized and became atheist is obstinate in his heresy, he is to be deposed/defrocked:
1917 can. 2314:

§1. All apostates from the Christian faith and all heretics and schismatics:
1°. Incur excommunication ipso facto, and
2°. Unless they repent, shall be deprived of any benefice, dignity, pension or other charge which they may hold in the Church, and be declared infamous; clerics, after repeated warning, shall be deposed;


Why would Catholics believe that being kind to one's father will bring reparation for sins? Sirach 3:12-14 tells us:

  12 My child, support your father in his old age, do not grieve him
  during his life.

  13 Even if his mind should fail, show him sympathy, do not despise him
  in your health and strength;

  14 for kindness to a father will not be forgotten but will serve as
  reparation for your sins.

From a Protestant perspective (Protestants who hold to the Apostle's Creed, for instance), verse 14 goes against everything in scripture because it teaches that you can do a good deed and it will take care of your sins. But only God can forgive sins.

But Sirach is part of the Catholic canon as inspired by God. Do Catholics believe that a Catholic in good standing can do good to one's father as noted in Sirach and have his sins forgiven, or have I misunderstood the "reparation" part of this verse?

Consider this passage from the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 25 (as usual, emphasis is mine):

  34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

  35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

  36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

  40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me.

  41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

  42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

  43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

  45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me.

  46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Now, to someone who does not quite get the perspicuity of Scripture, this passage might be construed as arguing that the righteous are justified because (for, v. 35) they fed, gave drink, shelter, clothing, or visited "the least of these my brethren" (v. 40). And the others are condemned because (for, v. 42) they did not feed, give drink, shelter, clothing or visit "one of the least of these" (v. 45).

Now, Protestants clearly do not hold that this Gospel "goes against everything in Scripture". I believe the explanation is that those who do the Corporal Works of Mercy described in the Gospel are simply showing visible signs of their internal conversion, operated by faith — any Protestant brother, please correct me in the comments if that impression is mistaken.

By the same token, the passage in Ecclesiasticus (AKA Wisdom of Sirach) 3:14, when it says (re-quoting the KJV for consistency with the Gospel I quoted above):

  14 For the relieving of thy father shall not be forgotten: and instead of sins it shall be added to build thee up.

Here the Sacred Writer enjoins his readers to be kind to their parents because the kindness shown to the parents is also a Corporal Work of Mercy, which Jesus (this time the Son of God, not of Sirach) mentioned in his sermon in the Gospel, and "every tree is known by his own fruit; for of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes" (Lk 6:44). And a man who cannot respect his own father and mother will certainly not respect a complete stranger, nor the Father who is in heaven.

Furthermore, the Catechism says of the duties of children, in the section commenting on the Fourth Commandment (honour father and mother):

  2215 Respect for parents (filial piety) derives from gratitude toward those who, by the gift of life, their love and their work, have brought their children into the world and enabled them to grow in stature, wisdom, and grace. "With all your heart honor your father, and do not forget the birth pangs of your mother. Remember that through your parents you were born; what can you give back to them that equals their gift to you?"Sir 7:27–28

  2216 Filial respect is shown by true docility and obedience. "My son, keep your father's commandment, and forsake not your mother's teaching.... When you walk, they will lead you; when you lie down, they will watch over you; and when you awake, they will talk with you."Prov 6:20–22 "A wise son hears his father's instruction, but a scoffer does not listen to rebuke."Prov 13:1

  2218 The fourth commandment reminds grown children of their responsibilities toward their parents. As much as they can, they must give them material and moral support in old age and in times of illness, loneliness, or distress. Jesus recalls this duty of gratitude.Cf. Mk 7:10–12

    For the Lord honored the father above the children, and he confirmed the right of the mother over her sons. Whoever honors his father atones for sins, and whoever glorifies his mother is like one who lays up treasure. Whoever honors his father will be gladdened by his own children, and when he prays he will be heard. Whoever glorifies his father will have long life, and whoever obeys the Lord will refresh his mother.Sir 3:2–6

    O son, help your father in his old age, and do not grieve him as long as he lives; even if he is lacking in understanding, show forbearance; in all your strength do not despise him.... Whoever forsakes his father is like a blasphemer, and whoever angers his mother is cursed by the Lord.Sir 3:12–13.16

  2220 For Christians a special gratitude is due to those from whom they have received the gift of faith, the grace of Baptism, and life in the Church. These may include parents, grandparents, other members of the family, pastors, catechists, and other teachers or friends. "I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you."2 Tim 1:15

In conclusion, Catholics dispute that the passage in Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 3 is "against everything in Scripture", because there is plenty in Scripture (not just the Deuterocanonical books) where "justification by works" can be read into the text, like the Gospel passage first mentioned in this answer.


How was Abraham able to rescue Lot? Trouble began (in Genesis) when the Kings of Sodom and Gomorrah (and their allies) rebelled against their overlord, Chedoloamer, who swept down on them with an avenging army, killing or capturing everyone they could get their hands on, including Abraham's nephew Lot.

Genesis 14:14: "And when Abram heard that [Lot] was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan."

How was it that Abraham's private army of 318 was more than a match for the presumably thousands that accompanied the victorious enemy king? Was it because the enemy was too heavily laden with the spoils of war?

Or was this one of God's miracle victories like Gideon against the Midianites where a few hundred men were allowed to defeat thousands?

No explicit reason for Abram's victory is given, but the surrounding context can give some clues:

  Genesis 14:8-11 ESV Then the king of Sodom, the king of Gomorrah, the king of Admah, the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar) went out, and they joined battle in the Valley of Siddim with Chedorlaomer king of Elam, Tidal king of Goiim, Amraphel king of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar, four kings against five. Now the Valley of Siddim was full of bitumen pits, and as the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, some fell into them, and the rest fled to the hill country. So the enemy took all the possessions of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their provisions, and went their way. They also took Lot, the son of Abram's brother, who was dwelling in Sodom, and his possessions, and went their way.

Key facts:

Chedorlaomer's army had just finished doing battle (albeit victoriously) before kidnapping Lot. There may have been casualties, fatigue, POWs, issues with the treacherous lands, and whatever else.
The size of the Chedorlaomer's army (and his friends) isn't given.
They had just sacked a city and Abram executed a surprise attack at night. This can tip the scale.

With no further details about this we can surmise that this may have simply been a great victory against the odds. It might not have needed any miraculous intervention from God to happen--though I'm sure He helped:

  Proverbs 21:31 ESV The horse is made ready for the day of battle, but the victory belongs to the Lord.