Can a secular government ever be a moral authority? Can a secular government ever be a moral authority?  For example, if there comes a day in the future that a secular government decrees that murder is no longer a criminal offense in that nation, should a Christian living in that nation feel confident that they do no wrong if/when they murder someone because they strongly believe that their secular government is a moral authority?

Furthermore, when that Christian dies and stands before God on Judgement Day and they tell God that they strongly believed that all the laws passed by the secular government were morally good, will God automatically forgive that person of the murder(s) they committed?

Normally we require questions like this to specify a particular denomination/tradition that they are asking about, because different Christian groups take different approaches. But in this case Christian groups take a remarkably uniform position.

The government is not and cannot be a higher moral authority than God. No government can declare something to be good that God has decreed to be bad, nor something bad that God has decreed to be good.

However one of the moral goods that God has commanded is to submit to secular authorities - within limits. For example, if the government says that you should not drive faster than 70mph, or consume certain drugs, then Christians should obey those while under the authority of that government. The existence of such a law does not make driving over 70mph bad per se, but nonetheless Christians should refrain from doing it.

Governments are not permitted to declare, for example, that worshipping God is illegal, or that someone else other than God must be worshipped. This principle is demonstrated many times throughout the Bible, in both Old and New Testaments, and Christians are expected to ignore those rules.

Governments are also not able to declare anything 'permitted' that is not permitted by God. So your example of a government that decreed murder to be legal would not make it so, and Christians could not for that reason commit murder. This is demonstrated by the governments that have - to an extent - done just that, by permitting abortion or euthanasia. Christian groups that consider those to be murder (of which there are many) have not at all permitted their members to carry out those acts just because the government says it is OK.

There are a small number of Christian groups that consider secular governments to have no authority at all over Christians. They would disagree with the above, but even they would generally expect their members to follow secular laws as a matter of practicality.


How do Protestants keep the Sabbath? Exodus 20:9–11 (ESV)
  Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is
  a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you,
  or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female
  servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates.
  For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that
  is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed
  the Sabbath day and made it holy.

What is an overview of Protestant views on the Sabbath?

(Caveat: I'm not interested in the Seventh Day Adventist position.)

Within Protestantism there are many views regarding the proper way to keep the Sabbath, even among those who generally agree that Sunday is the most appropriate day to observe it.  I'll provide a brief overview of three of the main views: Spiritual Sabbath, Continental Sabbath, and Puritan Sabbath.
Spiritual Sabbath
This view is held by many Protestants across denominational lines, particularly among those influenced by dispensational theology.  Proponents of this view, such as Michael G. Moriarty, argue that the Sabbath is not a creation ordinance; that is, God resting on the seventh day of creation was not meant to be a binding law on all humanity.  Instead, it first appears as a command in the Ten Commandments.  Defenders of the Spiritual Sabbath contend that passages like Hebrews 4, which refer to an eternal Sabbath rest, and Christ's claim to be "Lord of the Sabbath" (Matthew 12:8) indicate that Christ is the fulfillment of the Sabbath decree:

Jesus Christ is the eternal Sabbath rest. [...] When we trust in Christ alone we close the doors to works-righteousness and enter God's rest.  By our spiritual union with Christ, "we are already living in the seventh day, the eternal Sabbath of God."

Proponents of this view, holding that "every day is a Sabbath," suggest that "finding sufficient rest every day" can be seen as an implication of the New Testament Sabbath.  They also argue that weekly corporate worship is essential, citing Hebrews 10:24–25, but may not tie this requirement specifically to Sabbath-keeping.  Furthermore, recreation and other activities are permissible on the Lord's Day, as long as corporate worship is not neglected.
Continental Sabbath
The Continental Sabbath view, expressed by John Calvin and the Three Forms of Unity, sees two primary purposes of the command: ceremonial and moral.  The ceremonial purpose, proponents say, has been fulfilled in Christ, and thus the Sunday Sabbath, in and of itself, is not a divine institution.  However, the moral purpose remains, and requires us to set aside a day for corporate worship and rest from ordinary labor.  The choice of a seven-day cycle, with Sunday the designated day, is a practical matter, not a divine decree.  Recreation, so long as it does not hinder worship, is permissible.  The view is summarized well in the Heidelberg Catechism:

Q. What is God’s will for you in the fourth commandment?
A. First, that the gospel ministry and education for it be maintained, and that, especially on the festive day of rest,
I diligently attend the assembly of God’s people to learn what God’s Word teaches, to participate in the sacraments, to pray to God publicly, and to bring Christian offerings for the poor.
Second, that every day of my life I rest from my evil ways, let the Lord work in me through his Spirit, and so begin in this life the eternal Sabbath.

A number of denominations maintain a variant of this as their official view, such as the United Methodists and Southern Baptists.  Some denominations specifically hold to the Three Forms of Unity, such as the Christian Reformed Church.
Puritan Sabbath
The Puritan Sabbath view is most comprehensively expressed in the Westminster Standards and is primarily held in conservative Presbyterian denominations like the PCA and RPCNA. It holds that the Sabbath is a creation ordinance (Genesis 2:2–3, cf. Exodus 20:11), and continues through both Old and New Testament periods, with the only change being that the day of its observance changes from the seventh day to the first day.  It is a "positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages" (WCF, 21.7).
On that day, people are to turn from "their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations" (WCF, 21.8) and instead devote the day to holy rest:

The sabbath or Lord's day is to be sanctified by an holy resting all the day, [...] making it our delight to spend the whole time (except so much of it as is to be taken up in works of necessity and mercy) in the public and private exercise of God's worship. (WLC, A. 117)

References

Frame, John, The Doctrine of Christian Life (2008), 516–27
Moriarty, The Perfect 10 (1999), 94–104


What is the origin of the Orthodox belief that Sts. Joseph and Mary were betrothed but not married? The Orthodox refer to St Joseph as Joseph the Betrothed. They assert that he and the Virgin Mary were betrothed, but never married. This differs from the Catholic and Protestant belief that they were married. What is the origin and history of this belief?

In teachings about Joseph where the Orthodox and Catholic differ, the Orthodox seem to align with the Protoevangelium of James. However, I don't see a perpetual betrothal mentioned there. There are places where Joseph denies marrying Mary 'in stealth', but this occurs during her pregnancy with Jesus. I don't think those can necessarily be used to show that they weren't married later.

Related/Inspired by How old was St. Joseph when he married the Blessed Virgin Mary?.

To understand the difference in position, we need to understand Jewish marriage customs at the time of Mary and Joseph, and the ambiguity it already carries by considering betrothal as legally married but not yet as 'fully' married, i.e. consummated, the same ambiguity we see between the Orthodox and Catholic positions.

A marriage is started with betrothal, in which man and woman are legally 100% married, but without the sexual act. In this phase the woman remains at her parents’ house, as the man prepares the home they will be staying in. This phase can last up to 7 years. Then the marriage is consummated, the sexual act performed. After this, the groom takes the bride into his home, and the wedding is completed.

Biblical Marriage

There were three states of a marriage in the Bible:
Stage 1: signing the "ketubbah" contract (Creating the marriage bond)

The bride would choose her husband and her father would sign a legal contract with him called a "ketubbah".
Once this is signed the couple is 100% married but do not have sex yet.
Young children were often married, (arranged marriage) but did not consummate it until of age.

Stage 2: The "chuppah": sexual consummation.

Up to 7 years later, the groom is able to raise the money as set out
in the ketubbah contract and notifies the father of the bride, who
then sets a date to consummate the marriage at the bride's home.
The bride waits with her maidens, for the arrival of the groom and
his companions.
The couple enters the chuppah room and consummates the marriage while
the companions of the bride and groom wait and celebrate outside or
in the next room.
The groom hands the bloodied "proof of virginity cloth" to the
witnesses chosen by the bride's parents, who then give it to the
bride for safekeeping.

Stage 3: The wedding feast

After consummation, the entire wedding party walks to the house of
the groom in a procession for a wedding feast. (Could be skipped, see
Isaac and Rebekkah - the main point was bringing the bride from the
fathers house to the grooms house, upon which time all privileges of marriage would be enjoyed as well).
At the conclusion of the wedding feast, the couple has completed the
ancient ritual of marriage.

Orthodox position

Since Joseph never consummated the marriage, the marriage stopped at the first step.
So it appears that the distinction the Orthodox Churches make between their betrothal and marriage, is to stress that Joseph never consummated the marriage, but only acted as Mary's protector. By holding that they were only betrothed, the doctrine of Mary as Ever-Virgin was secured. They further support this claim by pointing out that Mary and Joseph are mentioned as betrothed, but that the actual marriage is never mentioned. Another source is tradition, stating that Joseph was an elderly widower, taking in a temple maiden with vow of chastity to protect her.

Apocryphal sources

“Proto-gospel according to James” (2nd century) Instead of the Matthew words “Do not fear to take Mary  your wife”, the proto-gospel of James has the Angel say to Joseph “Be not afraid for this maiden” (XIV, 2), indicating/suggesting that there was no marriage. It also states the charge of Joseph as: "Joseph, You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the virgin of the Lord", and not as wife.

"Pseudo-Matthew” (6th century?) has the priests who are giving Mary into his care say to Joseph: “to no other can she be joined in marriage” (VIII, 4), but only refer to Joseph as her custodian.

The "Book of Mary’s Nativity” and the “Story of Joseph, the carpenter”, however, do mention Joseph as Mary's spouse.

Church Fathers

I cannot find an 'earliest' source that specifically answers the question, but Jerome wrote in his Contra Helvidius that Mary, even though the Angel told Joseph to take her as his wife, does not necessarily cease to be betrothed:

  And although we find it said to Joseph in a dream, Fear not to take Mary your wife; and again, Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife, no one ought to be disturbed by this, as though, inasmuch as she is called wife, she ceases to be betrothed, for we know it is usual in Scripture to give the title to those who are betrothed.

And also:

  But just as we do not deny what is written, we do reject what is not written.  That God was born of a virgin we believe because we read it.  That Mary consummated marriage after her childbirth we do not believe because we do not read it.  Nor do we say this in order to condemn marriage, for virginity is itself a fruit of marriage, but because there is no license to draw rash conclusions about holy men.  For if we wish to take the mere possibility into consideration, we can contend that Joseph had several wives because Abraham and Jacob had several wives and that from these wives, the ‘brethren of the Lord’ were born, a fiction which most people invent with not so much pious as presumptuous audacity.  You say that Mary did not remain a virgin; even more do I claim that Joseph was virginal through Mary, in order that from a virginal marriage a virginal son might be born.  For if the charge of fornication does not fall on this holy man, and if it is not written that he had another wife, and if he was more of a protector than a husband of Mary, whom he was thought to have as his wife, it remains to assert that he who merited to be called the father of the Lord remained virginal with her.

Here we see more of that same ambiguity: Joseph had Mary as his wife, but never consummated the marriage. He even wrote "and if he was more of a protector than a husband of Mary, whom he was thought to have as his wife". The Catholic Church appears to have gone with the one interpretation, the Orthodox with the other.

Orthodox sources

The website Orthodoxinfo quotes a book from St. John (Maxomovitch), The Orthodox Veneration of Mary, The Birthgiver of God (Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1994), pp. 31-33:

  In the Gospel it can nowhere be seen that those who are called there the brothers of Jesus were or were considered the children of His Mother. On the contrary, it was known that James and others were the sons of Joseph, the Betrothed of Mary, who was a widower with children from his first wife. (St. Epiphanius of Cyprus, Panarion, 78.)

Orthodox Deacon Fr. John Whiteford wrote the following, supporting that the Orthodox Church affirms the union between Joseph and Mary as a betrothal and not a marriage in order to first affirm the holiness of Jesus through the virginity of Mary:

  This doctrine is not taught for the sake of upholding the sanctity of the Virgin Mary, but because of the uniqueness and holiness of her Son. Consider the following verse:

  "Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut." (Ezekiel 44:2).

  This has always been interpreted by the Fathers of the Church to be a typological reference to the Virgin Mary and the Incarnation. When we consider that God took flesh from the Virgin's womb, it is not difficult to imagine that this womb would remain virgin.

  The bottom line is this has been the consistent and universal view of the Church from the time of the Apostles until today.

Catholic position

Since Joseph had taken Mary into his home, and thus proceeded to the final step, he had accepted the full marriage, but in chastity (as he took this final step without first performing the otherwise prerequisite 2nd step of consummation). Therefore, the Catholic Church sees them as married (forming the 'Holy Family', traditionally of husband and wife in marriage), but just as the Orthodox Church upholds the status of Mary as ever-virgin in order to stress the sanctity and deity of Christ.

In conclusion:

It appears that the Orthodox Church affirms the same idea as the Catholic Church, but from a slightly different angle and interpretation. If Mary was ever-virgin, the marriage was never consummated and as such never officially took place in full, even though the fact that they were betrothed would bestow on them the full responsibilities of marriage, without the privileges. As such he bears the title "Joseph, the Betrothed".
Catholics argue that while the marriage was indeed not consummated, the fact that Joseph took her into his house (Mat 1:24) shows that they entered in a formal marriage, while skipping the step of consummation. As such, he bears the title of 'Chaste Spouse'.
Both, however, hold through their respective traditions that Mary was ever-virgin, as a way to point at the divinity of Christ.


What was the charge levied against Jesus in the courts? I read that Jesus was charged with the allegation that he claimed to be the "King of Jews". What is the evidence of this and other charges, if any, on Jesus?  I am only interested in the charges leveled against him in the (Roman) court, and if he pled guilty or not.

For the civil trial, Luke's account gives the most detail about the charges, Luke 23:2 (NIV):

  And they began to accuse him, saying "We have found this man subverting our nation.  He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king."

and Luke 23:5 (NIV):

  But they insisted, "He stirs up the people all over Judea by his teaching.  He started in Galilee and has come all the way here."

The "subverting our nation" charge may be a religious charge, in which Pilate is, of course, not concerned except with how it interferes with ruling the region.  The statement in Luke 23:5 seems to be the religious leaders pointing out that this is causing trouble about which the Romans should be concerned.  Anyone that could draw crowds of thousands of people in relatively remote places would naturally be a concern for established authorities, especially given the Jewish history of rebellion (e.g., see Esther 3:8--even after the Babylonian scattering, they were recognized as being non-conformists--and Ezra 4:12-16, speaking of Jerusalem as historically a rebellious city).

The payment of taxes charge is clearly a false charge.  Jesus' famous "render unto Caesar" statement (Matt. 22:21, Mark 12:17, Luke 20:25) makes that clear.

On the charge of being King of the Jews, Jesus states that this charge is effectively true (Matt. 27:11, Mark 15:2, Luke 23:3, John 18:37), but his statement recorded in John 18:36 points out that he is not a threat to Roman rule in the traditional political/military sense:

  Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world.  If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews.  But now my kingdom is from another place." (John 18:36, NIV)

As Affable Geek points out, Pilate knew that Jesus was not guilty but chose political expediency over truth (after all, "What is truth?").


Did a Seventh Day Adventist start the Jehovah Witness organization? I have a couple of friends who are JWs, and I mentioned to them about one of the founders having come from a Seventh Day Adventist background, and they acted like they never heard that before. I'm confused.

This page provides a brief history of early days of restorationist starting in the 15th century. As we get close to the mid 1800's certain names of persons  who would have some influence and association with Charles Taze Russell are mentioned.
One named George Storrs was a highly respected minister in the Methodist Episcopal Church. After he read a pamphlet penned by Henry Grew,that exposed the teachings of the immortality of the soul and hellfire as unscriptural, Storr began a diligent study of his own that at one point lead him to the teachings of the Adventist preacher William Miller.
It was Miller who:

was expecting the visible return of Christ in 1843. For about two years, Storrs was actively involved in preaching this message throughout the northeastern United States. After 1844, he would no longer go along with setting any date for Christ’s return, yet he did not object if others wanted to investigate chronology. Storrs believed that Christ’s return was near and that it was important for Christians to keep awake and spiritually alert, ready for the day of inspection. But he parted company with Miller’s group because they accepted unscriptural doctrines, such as the immortality of the soul, the burning of the world, and the absence of any hope for everlasting life for those who die in ignorance.
George Storrs died in December 1879, at his home in Brooklyn, New York, just a few blocks from what would later become the focal point of the global preaching campaign that he had so eagerly anticipated.

Storrs it seems is the only person mentioned in the history of Jehovah's Witnesses that had a brief association with Millerite Adventism.
2 things that should be noted:

Storrs is not a founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Millerite Adventism (Millerism) is not the same as Seventh Day Adventism.

Storrs was respected by  Charles Russell who said of him:

The Lord gave us many helps in the study of His word, among whom stood prominently, our dearly beloved and aged brother, George Storrs, who, both by word and pen gave us much assistance; but we ever sought not to be followers of men, however good and wise, but ‘Followers of God as dear children.’”
Yes, sincere Bible students could benefit from the efforts of men like Grew and Storrs, but it still was vital to examine God’s Word, the Bible, as the real source of the truth.

Another early restorationist named Jonas Wendell was a zealous Adventist preacher following in the spirit of William Miller.

Unknown to him, attendance at one of his presentations restored Charles Taze Russell's faith in the Bible as the true word of God, leading to Russell's ministry.

Still in answer to your question Russell was not at anytime an Adventist himself and in particular not SDA.


Is there any explanation from the early church Fathers as to why there is no record of the Apostles being baptized? I never really noticed this before but it does seem odd that everyone is to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, yet it does not appear that the Apostles were. At least there is no event of their baptism recorded in scripture.  Is there any early explanation of why from church Fathers?

Tertullian comments on this issue, at some length.  I confess, I don't quite understand what he is saying---if indeed he is saying anything or just blathering on aimlessly---but I will quote him entirely (source):

  When, however, the prescript is laid down that “without baptism, salvation is attainable by none” (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, “Unless one be born of water, he hath not life”), there arise immediately scrupulous, nay rather audacious, doubts on the part of some, “how, in accordance with that prescript, salvation is attainable by the apostles, whom—Paul excepted—we do not find baptized in the Lord? Nay, since Paul is the only one of them who has put on the garment of Christ’s baptism, either the peril of all the others who lack the water of Christ is prejudged, that the prescript may be maintained, or else the prescript is rescinded if salvation has been ordained even for the unbaptized.” I have heard—the Lord is my witness—doubts of that kind: that none may imagine me so abandoned as to excogitate, unprovoked, in the licence of my pen, ideas which would inspire others with scruple. And now, as far as I shall be able, I will reply to them who affirm “that the apostles were unbaptized.” For if they had undergone the human baptism of John, and were longing for that of the Lord, then since the Lord Himself had defined baptism to be one; (saying to Peter, who was desirous of being thoroughly bathed, “He who hath once bathed hath no necessity to wash a second time;” which, of course, He would not have said at all to one not baptized;) even here we have a conspicuous proof against those who, in order to destroy the sacrament of water, deprive the apostles even of John’s baptism. Can it seem credible that “the way of the Lord,” that is, the baptism of John, had not then been “prepared” in those persons who were being destined to open the way of the Lord throughout the whole world? The Lord Himself, though no “repentance” was due from Him, was baptized: was baptism not necessary for sinners? As for the fact, then, that “others were not baptized”—they, however, were not companions of Christ, but enemies of the faith, doctors of the law and Pharisees. From which fact is gathered an additional suggestion, that, since the opposers of the Lord refused to be baptized, they who followed the Lord were baptized, and were not like-minded with their own rivals: especially when, if there were any one to whom they clave, the Lord had exalted John above him (by the testimony) saying, “Among them who are born of women there is none greater than John the Baptist.” Others make the suggestion (forced enough, clearly “that the apostles then served the turn of baptism when in their little ship, were sprinkled and covered with the waves: that Peter himself also was immersed enough when he walked on the sea.” It is, however, as I think, one thing to be sprinkled or intercepted by the violence of the sea; another thing to be baptized in obedience to the discipline of religion. But that little ship did present a figure of the Church, in that she is disquieted “in the sea,” that is, in the world, “by the waves,” that is, by persecutions and temptations; the Lord, through patience, sleeping as it were, until, roused in their last extremities by the prayers of the saints, He checks the world, and restores tranquillity to His own. Now, whether they were baptized in any manner whatever, or whether they continued unbathed to the end—so that even that saying of the Lord touching the “one bath” does, under the person of Peter, merely regard us—still, to determine concerning the salvation of the apostles is audacious enough, because on them the prerogative even of first choice, and thereafter of undivided intimacy, might be able to confer the compendious grace of baptism, seeing they (I think) followed Him who was wont to promise salvation to every believer. “Thy faith,” He would say, “hath saved thee;” and, “Thy sins shall be remitted thee,” on thy believing, of course, albeit thou be not yet baptized. If that was wanting to the apostles, I know not in the faith of what things it was, that, roused by one word of the Lord, one left the toll-booth behind for ever; another deserted father and ship, and the craft by which he gained his living; a third, who disdained his father’s obsequies, fulfilled, before he heard it, that highest precept of the Lord, “He who prefers father or mother to me, is not worthy of me.”

Aquinas is much clearer.  He simply believed that John the Baptist's baptism was sufficient.  He wrote (source):

  Further, the apostles were baptized with John's baptism, since some of them were his disciples, as is clear from Jn. 1:37. But the apostles do not seem to have been baptized with the baptism of Christ: for it is written (Jn. 4:2) that 'Jesus did not baptize, but His disciples.' Therefore it seems that those who had been baptized with John's baptism had not to be baptized with the baptism of Christ.

You can continue to sift through the earliest sources by searching Google using this site on the Ante-Nicene Fathers.  A similar search on Augustine might be helpful also.


Does the triune God have will by nature, or by persons? Given the triune God, one nature and three persons, do they experience their will in their singular nature or in their separate persons?  That is, do they share one will, or does each have a separate will which is in perfect harmony with the others?

What have published commentaries said on this subject?

While I'm not 100% certain I understand your question. If you're asking what I think; Jesus implied that the will of the Father, Son, and Spirit are separate, as He spoke a lot about the Father's will.

John 6:40, NIV

  For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

Luke 22:42, NIV

  "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."

John 6:39

  And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

So I think Jesus clearly implied that He had the ability to disagree, but He chose to do the will of the Father.
I think the clearest statement of this is in John 8:27-29, NIV

  27They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father. 28So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am [the one I claim to be] and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. 29The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.”


According to the Catholic Church, what did Jesus mean by saying that the least in the kingdom of heaven in greater than John the Baptist? We read at Matthew 11:11 (NRSVCE):

  "Truly I tell you, among those born of women no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist; yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."

What exactly did Jesus mean by the above saying? Was He conveying that whatever the level of holiness one may achieve on earth, one needs to attain special grace to  be a member of the kingdom of heaven? Are there any official teachings on Matthew 11:11 available from the perspective of the Catholic Church?

I do not believe that there are official statements on the subject of Matthew 11:11, at least not at the level of involving papal infallibility. Nevertheless, there are some Catholic writers and Doctors of the Church who have written on the subject of St. John the Baptist as being the greatest born of women, yet remaining the below the least in the kingdom of heaven.
We see in the Psalms that man was made little less than the angels (Psalm 8:4-6).
St Thomas Aquinas quotes the passage of Matthew 11:11 several times in his Summa Theologica for various questions. We must also keep in mind that at the moment Our Lord spoke these words about St John, mankind had not yet been admitted into the kingdom of heaven because Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross had not yet occurred.
Now St. Thomas tells us in one of his  questions (Whether there are several orders in one hierarchy?): "The inferior angel is superior to the highest man of our hierarchy, according to the words, "He that is the lesser in the kingdom of heaven, is greater than he"---namely, John the Baptist, than whom "there hath not risen a greater among them that are born of women" (Mat. 11:11). Hence the lesser angel of the heavenly hierarchy can not only cleanse, but also enlighten and perfect, and in a higher way than can the orders of our hierarchy. Thus the heavenly orders are not distinguished by reason of these, but by reason of other different acts.'
Thus one can conclude that Our Lord spoke about St John in comparison with the angels who art in heaven.
In another question (whether Moses was the greatest of the Prophets), St Thomas stated: "Further, it is written (Matthew 11:11) that "there hath not risen, among them that are born of women, a greater than John the Baptist." Therefore Moses was not greater than all the prophets."
As Catholics we believe that, by a divine prerogative from God, Mary was conceived with no stain of original sin. It is not impossible that St. John, although he was not conceived immaculately may have been purified while still in the womb of St Elizabeth! Although not dogma , the Church has not yet pronounced on this subject.
"There is a solid tradition in the Church that says St. John the Baptist was purified of original sin shortly after he was conceived, while still in the womb of St. Elizabeth. So, this episode of the Gospel referring to the child in the womb hearing Our Lady’s voice, understanding her words and loving her is completely credible." - Professor Plino Correa de Olivra
Here is how Wikipedia puts it:

"Some Catholics have held to a belief that John the Baptist never sinned, though this has never been a point of doctrine and is not binding in belief upon any adherent as is the sinlessness of Mary. In her Treatise of Prayer, Saint Catherine of Siena includes a brief altercation with the Devil regarding her fight due to the Devil attempting to lure her with vanity and flattery. Speaking in the first person, Saint Catherine of Siena responds to the Devil with the following words:
...humiliation of yourself, and you answered the Devil with these words: 'Wretch that I am! John the Baptist never sinned and was sanctified in his mother's womb. And I have committed so many sins..." — Catherine of Siena, , A Treatise of Prayer, 1370.[85][86]" St Catherine of Sienna was declared a Doctor of the Church on October 3, 1970 by Pope Paul VI.

The Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say:

"Now during the sixth month, the Annunciation had taken place, and, as Mary had heard from the angel the fact of her cousin's conceiving, she went "with haste" to congratulate her. "And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant" — filled, like the mother, with the Holy Ghost — "leaped for joy in her womb", as if to acknowledge the presence of his Lord. Then was accomplished the prophetic utterance of the angel that the child should "be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb". Now, as the presence of any sin whatever is incompatible with the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the soul, it follows that at this moment John was cleansed from the stain of original sin. When "Elizabeth's full time of being delivered was come. . .she brought forth a son" (1:57); and "on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child, and they called him by his father's name Zachary. And his mother answering, said: Not so, but he shall be called John. And they said to her: There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name. And they made sign to his father, how he would have him called. And demanding a writing table, he wrote, saying: John is his name. And they all wondered" (1:59-63). They were not aware that no better name could be applied (John, Hebrew; Jehohanan, i.e. "Jahweh hath mercy") to him who, as his father prophesied, was to "go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; to give knowledge of salvation to his people, unto remission of their sins: through the bowels of the mercy of our God" (1:76-78). Moreover, all these events, to wit, a child born to an aged couple, Zachary's sudden dumbness, his equally sudden recovery of speech, his astounding utterance, might justly strike with wonderment the assembled neighbours; these could hardly help asking: "What an one, think ye, shall this child be?" (1:66)." - New Advent.

Now if St. John was in fact purified while in the womb of his mother he would the greatest of those born of women. Mary's immaculate conception still puts her above St. John in the eyes of the Church!


Will we experience heaven (or hell) with our consciousness? In Christianity, is heaven something we will comprehend with the consciousness we have now? Will we be the same consciousness, brain and memories of this world, or is it just the energy of our soul going back to its source – nothing that we will actually experience in terms of earthly experience?

Memories:

  Romans 14:12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to
  God

I am under the impression that yes we will have memories of our lives (because without such memories how could we give account?). We would not be able to give an account if we did not have consciousness.

Conscious Experience:

I think that this Scripture gives us a clear answer:

  Revelation 6:9-11 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar
  the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and
  the testimony they had maintained. They called out in a loud voice,
  “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the
  inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?” Then each of them
  was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer,
  until the full number of their fellow servants, their brothers and
  sisters, were killed just as they had been.

Not only did they have the ability to ask a question, they also remembered the way that they were killed and that they deserved justice. They also felt longing, which also supports that there is conscious experience in Heaven.

"Earthly" (Physical) Experience:

Please also keep in mind that when Revelation describes heaven there are references to many physical things. I don't believe such language would be used if we were just going to be spiritual beings returning to our source. Please read Revelation 21 & Revelation 22:1-5

I am sure that there are more evidences of this, but I am yet to search them out. I am convinced that Heaven will is not just some holding tank for souls, but rather a beautiful restoration of all creation.

God Bless!


Do Jehovah's Witnesses celebrate communion? Do Jehovah's Witnesses celebrate the Lord's Supper/communion?

If so what are their beliefs about the nature of the Sacrament? Do they believe in Transubstantiation or some variant of symbolism? Is participation optional or required and who decides? Is there an age limit? Are there times a member would be restricted from participation?

Symbolic meaning of the bread and wine

JW's do not accept transubstantiation (the unyeasted bread means/symbolizes Jesus' perfect and sinless body and the wine represents his blood he sacrificed to save humankind from the sinful state inherited by Adam and to seal the second covenant).

The biblical verses in the New World Translation (NWT), the translation JW's commonly use, also underline this symbolic meaning of the bread and wine. In Mt. 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20 and 1. Cor. 11:24-25 the NWT-committee translated the Greek verb 'estin' in these verses (literally: this 'is' my body; this 'is' my blood of the covenant) in a figurative way as 'means' (this 'means' my body, this 'means' my blood of the covenant).

The wine and bread are thus clearly considered symbols or emblems.

To answer your question properly, one has to understand the basic tenets of JW's doctrine.
JW's believe that throughout the entire Christian history God has selected only 144,000 to go to heaven where they will rule as kings and priests together with Christ (See Rev. 7:1-8 and 14:1-5). According to JW's it is God's holy spirit who convinces the individual that they indeed belong to the anointed class and have a heavenly call (Rom. 8:16-17) . Only with them Jesus has entered into a second covenant (see e.g. Luke 22:29-30).

God's Kingdom will however also rule over the earth, which will for ever be inhabited by a 'great crowd' of righteous ones/other sheep (JW's and non-JW's) which no man is able to number.  See John 10:16 and Rev. 7:9.

Partaking of the emblems: doctrinal restrictions

Only the ones who belong to the 144,000 anointed partake of the emblems (i.e. eat from the bread and drink from the wine). Thus they show they belong to the second covenant and are one with Christ. According to the Watchtower-doctrine, the anointed one is apparently under 'a command' to partake of the bread and wine (Gal. 6:16; Watchtower 1985, March 1, Question From Readers).

So in order to eat the bread and drink the wine in this day and age 'lawfully', you have to be (1) baptised as a Jehovah's witness, (2) 'in good standing', or at least not disfellowshipped and (3) believe you belong to the anointed class.

There are only a few thousands among the JW's today who still believe they go to heaven, the other JW's  ("great multitude of other sheep") believe they will live for ever on paradise earth. So the great majority of Jw's  do not drink from the cup of wine or eat the bread, but simply "pass" these emblems. Persons who are present at the memorial, but are no (baptised) JW's, are instructed not to partake of the emblems.

In most congregations of Jehovah's witnesses there are no anointed left, so the emblems are "merely passed" and left untouched.

The bread and wine only enjoy a special symbolic meaning during the memorials 'ceremony'. The leftovers have no special meaning at all, are certainly not holy and can be eaten by anyone or simply discarded of (and are thys considered just any other food product). See e.g. Watchtower 1976, February 1, 88.

Partaking of the emblems: time restrictions

The emblems are only passed once a year on 14th Nisan (last supper) and this in remembrance of Jesus and in accordance with his command (Luke 22:19 and 1 Kor. 11:20).
The emblems are only passed and taken by the anointed after sunset. So the exact time (hour) varies from place to place, but the memorial can only be held when the sun has set.

Only when an anointed person is ill and can't make it to the memorial or there is another valid reason for his or her absence, the emblems can be taken on another date than 14th Nisan (this is very rare, and I take it the emblem must then still be passed after sunset in a kind of a private "ceremony"). The anointed person could than partake of the emblems 30 days later than 14th Nisan (if possible). This is in accordance with the ancient laws of Israel when a man could not attend passover in case of 'force majeure'. See Numbers 9:10,11 and 2 Chron. 30:1-3, 15.

Partaking of the emblems: age restrictions

The JW doctrine has undergone a substantial change recently. JW's believed since the 1930's that the number of anointed ones was "sealed". This normally meant persons had to be baptised as a JW before the 1930's, if they claimed to be of the anointed class. Since JW's are not baptised as infants, but later when they are personally convinced that their religion is true, normally only persons who are born in 1920's or before could belong to the anointed. I say "normally" because in theory a younger person could belong to the anointed class if an older anointed person defected from the faith and the younger one fills in the place among the anointed that has become vacant (Rom. 11:17-22).

JW's now (Watchtower 2007, May 1, Questions From Readers) believe, however, that the number was never sealed in the 1930's, so every baptised JW could claim to belong to the anointed class.
The only age limit is connected with the fact that the person has to be baptised. In theory an exceptional child which has sufficient understanding, say of 9 years old, could be baptised and thus partake of the emblems and claim an 'anointed' status.
Such a decision would likely be highly controversial and probably met with some skepticism among JW's (See in this light: Watchtower 2011, August 15, page 22: 'A number of factors including past religious beliefs or even mental, or emotional imbalance-might cause some to assume mistakenly that they have the heavenly calling. We thus have no way of knowing the exact number of anointed ones on earth; nor do we need to know.').

I don't recall there are any special instructions how to deal with a minor anointed one who drinks the wine and might infringe on local (penal) laws.

Partaking of the emblems: formalities

The red wine (e.g. chianti, bourgogne or bordeaux, but no sherry, port, dubonnet, ...) is poured out in a cup and the unyeasted bread leaves are laid down on a plate.

The Jw's have given certain instructions about acceptable recipes, table decoration and flower arrangement (See e.g. Watchtower 1985, February 15, page 19).

The passing and partaking of the emblems (cup and plate) happen while you remain seated. So one does not "go" to communion.

It also means there has to be a person to your left and to your right (you accept the emblem from the person next to you and pass it to the other). For the person at the end of the row of the seats, there is no one seated to accept the emblem. This problem is solved by men who are standing at the end of a row of the chairs who accept the emblem and pass it to the next row of sitting persons. Somewhat peculiar is that these 'standing' men also take their seat afterwards and pass the emblems among them, this time while sitting.

Note

The memorial is the only time that the ones who partake of the emblems are counted: in that way the JW's organisation still keeps track of how many persons of the 144,000 anointed ones still remain alive today (therefore they are called the "holy remnant").

Persons who are no (longer) faithful Jehovah's witnesses and still do partake, are considered not genuine partakers and are not counted.

These figures are published every year, together with other statistics.
The anointed-statusdoes not have any other special effect (except that only anointed men are on the Governing Body) and the JW's now believe that the (exact) amount of anointed ones who remain, is no longer of particular interest.


What's the meaning of this quote by C. S. Lewis, regarding the heart and head? C. S. Lewis wrote:

  The heart never takes the place of the head: but it can, and should, obey it.

According to this, should we follow the heart or head?

Perhaps reading the context of the quote will help make more sense of it.  It is from The Abolition of Man:

  No emotion is, in itself, a judgement; in that sense all emotions and sentiments are alogical.  But they can be reasonable or unreasonable as they conform to Reason or fail to conform.  The heart never takes the place of the head; but it can, and should, obey it. (source)

Lewis here is discussing the difference between reason and emotions, and pointing out that in some cases, our emotions are out of line with reason – we may recognize that we ought to like something, but we don't feel any liking for it (or vice versa).  Lewis says that such discrepancies are defects in ourselves, like color blindness or tone deafness.

Thus this quote is saying that though the heart does not replace the head, it (the heart) can, and should, obey the head; or, put another way, we should seek to conform our emotions to reason.


How do Sola Fide adherents interpret 1 Corinthians 13:2? 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 (KJV)

  1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
  2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
  3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

Those verses are commonly interpreted to mean that charity is also necessary for salvation, even "though I have all faith." That interpretation opposes the doctrine of Sola Fide. How then do Sola Fide adherents interpret this passage?

Actually, this verse says that faith without love (agape) is dead, and it says the same of gifts of the Spirit and works exercised without agape love.
Therefore, reading this to imply that works are necessary for salvation is bad hermeneutics.  Now, James, on the other hand has some clear things to say about faith without works:

James 2:14-26 (ESV) (emphasis mine)
Faith Without Works Is Dead
14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! 20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"—and he was called a friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.


Does the Catholic Church explain why Jesus only appeared in short apparitions to his followers post-resurrection? The Gospels give the account of ten apparitions of Jesus, which he allowed his followers after the resurrection. The longest time he spent with them was perhaps during the co-journey to Emmaus, that too, in disguise. Given that he spent forty  days on earth between his resurrection and ascension, also given that he had 'descended into hell and preached' between the time of his death and resurrection, one is eager to know why Jesus did not spend much time with his disciples during the forty days prior to ascension.

My question, therefore, is: How does the Catholic Church explain the absence of longer periods of Jesus's stay with  his followers post-resurrection?

This is an argument from absence - Paul records a scene not recorded in the Gospels:

  1 Co 15:6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one
  time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.

John also explains the reason why not everything was recorded.

  John 20:30 NKJV - And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence
  of His disciples, which are not written in this book;

It's also not just the Catholic Church - all who profess to be followers of Christ, believe as Paul records in 1 Co 15:

  1 Corinthians 15:1-11 NKJV - Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the
  gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which
  you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word
  which I preached to you--unless you believed in vain. For I delivered
  to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for
  our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that
  He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He
  was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over
  five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the
  present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James,
  then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as
  by one born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles, who
  am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church
  of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward
  me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet
  not I, but the grace of God [which was] with me. Therefore, whether
  [it was] I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

This is central to faith - as I said in the thread on creationism. Faith is hope in the unseen. (Heb 11:1) if we could see, we'd be held to a greater judgment, and Jesus says this to Thomas, when Thomas declared that Jesus is God;

  John 20:27-29 NKJV - Then He said to Thomas, "Reach your finger here,
  and look at My hands; and reach your hand [here], and put [it] into My
  side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing." And Thomas answered and
  said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because
  you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed [are] those who have not
  seen and [yet] have believed."

Those who have not seen yet do believe, are blessed.


To a YEC, how does a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis 1-3 distort the gospel? In my conversations with Young Earth Creationists (YECs), I have on occasion heard the argument that I must interpret Genesis literally, otherwise the entire gospel, culminating at salvation, crumbles.

This has always sounded to me like the "slippery slope" argument--if I take the creation account as metaphor, why wouldn't I also take the resurrection as metaphor, for instance?

In this sense, I reject the slippery slope as a logical fallacy.

So beyond the slippery slope argument, what are a YEC's reason for believing that a metaphorical interpretation of the Genesis creation account logically and necessarily leads to a failure of the gospel account?

An extremely simple argument for this sense is to consider the following two questions:

Q1. Does the epistle of Romans assume and rely on an essentially literal* interpretation of the fall of man (cf. Genesis 1-3)?

Q2. How foundational is the epistle of Romans to a Christian understanding of the gospel?

It may be possible to argue these points to a certain degree from a non-evangelical perspective, but for the vast majority of YEC's the answers are evidently (and respectively):

A1. Unambiguously yes.

A2. It is critically important - our understanding of the gospel would be seriously undermined without it.

Conclusion: An essentially literal* interpreation of the fall of man (as seen in Genesis 1-3) is critically important to our understanding of the Gospel.

edit: Another issue that occurred to me regarding this: if you do not link (the initiaing of) physical death with the (inital) instance of sin, it significantly undermines what sense came be made of the Atonement in particular** - how can Christ's physical death have any impact on sin and it's consequences if the consequences of sin do not produce physical death (but are just the result of natural processes)?

*by this I mean that the 'essentials' of the story (no death before the fall, death comes as a consequence of the sin of the progenitors of the entire human race) are literal, overly literalistic obsession on minor details is not necessary.

**also (OT) atonement more generally - why should we have "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins"?


In light of Catholic Teaching, what is the Catholic explanation of "But who can discern his errors? Clear thou me from hidden faults." [Ps 19:12] From my understanding of Catholic Teaching on sin, a person commits sin when they choose deliberately - that is, both knowing it and willing it - something [gravely] contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man.

In light of this, what then is the Catholic explanation of Ps 19:12 (RSVCE)

  But who can discern his errors? Clear thou me from hidden faults.

where the Psalmist seems to imply that one can sin without knowing it?

Note: This is from the Responsorial Psalm, Sunday, September 27, 2015, Twenty-sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year B

  Yet who can detect failings? Cleanse me from my unknown faults!

While mortal sins require knowledge venial sins do not.

  One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

CCC #1862

Also, as Christians we should desire to do the right thing and to know what it is. While the act may not have been a sin - or a venial sin in our love for God we should desire to do his will. Jesus calls us to be perfect. Attaining perfection requires knowing what faults we have so that we can work on them.

A forgotten sin is forgiven during confession. Remembering them is not required for forgiveness. However, it is good to remember all your sins while in confession for the same reason that a sin should not be deliberately withheld (See quote). However I am not sure that it is independant of attaining perfection.

  Christ's faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some, place nothing before the divine goodness for remission through the mediation of the priest, "for if the sick person is too ashamed to show his wound to the doctor, the medicine cannot heal what it does not know."

CCC #1456


How are the different covenants related to or different from each other? In church traditions that subscribe to Reformed theology it is common to refer to God's relationship to men in terms of covenants -- agreements between God and His people in which God makes specific promises and demands.

Most commonly, a "covenant of works" and a "covenant of grace" are referenced. What are the defining features of these and how do they relate? Are they wholly different or variations on a theme? Also, what is the "covenant of redemption" and how does it relate to the other two?

Wikipedia's article on Covenant theology says the following:

Covenant of redemption is a covenant amongst the Godhead in which Christ was appointed to redeem mankind.
Covenant of works is a covenant between God and Adam (representing all mankind) that obedience would bring life and disobedience would bring death.
Covenant of grace "promises eternal life for all people who receive forgiveness of sin through Christ."

Through the covenant of grace, Christ fulfills the covenant of works on behalf of those who receive forgiveness. In this manner Christ also fulfills the covenant of redemption in which he was appointed to redeem mankind.

In my opinion they're not a variation on a theme. They all share the same purpose of salvation for mankind, but they have distinct agreements and expectations of those involved. The covenant of works and covenant of grace are also closely related in that they both promise eternal life, but the former involves God while the latter involves Christ, and the former requires works while the latter requires faith.


When a person speaks in tongues, do they understand what they are saying? As a follow-up to my other question: Can people speak in tongues today?, and specifically, this answer:

When a person speaks in tongues (either historically, or today), do they understand what they're saying?

And as a logical extension, I suppose if they do know what they're saying, then asking a person who has (allegedly) spoken in tongues what they said would be a test for the legitimacy of their having spoken in tongues... or no?

The most relevant passage I can find in the Bible is this:

  1 Corinthians 14:2 (ESV)
  For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.

I'd venture a guess that if a person is "uttering mysteries in the Spirit", they don't understand what they're saying.


Can Orthodox Church members be extraordinary ministers in the Roman Catholic rite? It is known that members of the Eastern Orthodox Church who are not formally joined to the Roman Catholic Church can receive Holy Communion and some other mysteries (such as Confession) without any obstacles.

Can the same members of the Orthodox Church who consciously receive Holy Communion and do confession in the Roman Catholic Church but are not formally joined to the Catholic Church take part in extraordinary ministry? If not, which Canons restrict them from doing so, and why?

I can find no specific rule forbidding it, but almost certainly not.
The document Immensae Caritatis, written in 1973 by what was then the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments first raised the possibility of lay extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist. The precise text used is:

In order, then, that the faithful who are in the state of grace and rightly and devoutly wish to share in the sacred meal may not be deprived of this sacramental aid and solace, Pope Paul VI has decided it opportune to authorize special ministers who will be empowered to give communion to themselves and others of the faithful, under the exact and specified conditions here listed.
I. Local Ordinaries possess the faculty enabling them to permit fit persons, each chosen by name as a special minister, in a given instance or for a set period or even permanently, to give communion to themselves and others of the faithful and to carry it to the sick residing at home:
a. whenever no priest, deacon, or acolyte is available;
b. whenever the same ministers are impeded from administering communion because of another pastoral ministry, ill-health, or old age;
c. whenever the number of faithful wishing to receive communion is so great that the celebration of Mass or the giving of communion outside Mass would take too long.
... The faithful who are special ministers of communion must be persons whose good qualities of Christian life, faith, and morals recommend them. Let them strive to be worthy of this great office, foster their own devotion to the Eucharist, and show an example to the rest of the faithful by their own devotion and reverence toward the most august sacrament of the altar. No one is to be chosen whose appointment the faithful might find disquieting.

This last sentence already raises a concern. If any of those receiving Communion is aware that the minister is not a Catholic, what will he or she think about the importance of being Catholic in the Eucharist? Might they conclude that anyone, regardless of their religion, could administer the Sacrament?
Ultimately, as this document says, it's the local ordinary (usually the bishop of the diocese) who has the final say. The bishops already have a say over who receives Communion—the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, for example, wrote a document in 1996 titled "Guidelines for the Reception of Communion". It states that

Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches.

The "discipline" referred to, that is, the Orthodox judgment of whether an Orthodox Christian may receive the Eucharist at a Catholic Mass, appears to be that such may not happen:

Orthodox Christians are not permitted to receive Communion in non-Orthodox communities, including the Roman Catholic. To do so would imply a unity that in fact does not yet exist.

("Communion in Roman Catholic Church", website of the Orthodox Church in America)
It would seem odd indeed if the Catholic Church would respect Orthodox wishes not to receive the Eucharist, and yet appoint a member of the Orthodox Church to distribute it.
Ultimately, the question is up to the bishop, who enjoys a great deal of latitude in these sorts of issues, but I'd be very surprised indeed if such a thing ever happened—if such a minister was ever appointed, and more so if the minister accepted.


What was the makeup of beliefs during the time of the 325 Councile of Nicaea Around the time of the 1st council of Nicaea (325), what was the makeup of Bishops at the time?

I read that 1800 people attending this council, but was this a fair cross-section of followers of Jesus or was it influenced in one direction or another?

I heard that at around 360, the dominant understanding of Jesus was more of an adoptionist belief, is this true historically?

After people were exiled and executed and books burned, when was the creed established as the dominant creed and pretty much no-one else believed otherwise?

Around the time of the 1st council of Nicaea (325), what was the makeup of Bishops at the time?

This was a first ecumenical church council, on which the bishops gathered together to settle the raging of the heresy of Arianism. It is recognized by Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholic churches as real ecumenical council. It was the first ecumenical council, although there are many other local councils, beginning with the first Apostolic council, were gathered to solve a various range of problem that stand before the Church of Christ in those times.

  I read that 1800 people attending this council, but was this a fair cross-section of followers of Jesus or was it influenced in one direction or another?

That was the real Jesus followers, i.e. people of His church, that have a valid rights to make a counsil in name of Christ. The main formulae of the councils was like the following:

It deigns to Holy Ghost, and to us.

That means that the council solution (of course verifyed by time) is not only from men, and from God too.

  I heard that at around 360, the dominant understanding of Jesus was more of an adoptionist belief, is this true historically?

If you mean the time between the two ecumenical counsils, the most of church's creations like Divine Liturgy, monastic orders, etc were developed or finally adopted in that time. However there are people that have the adoptionist belief of course, but such people was in all times including Apostolic.

  After people were exiled and executed and books burned, when was the creed established as the dominant creed and pretty much no-one else believed otherwise?

Although the state can execute and exile the people, I think there are really a little bit of them were executed at those time, even Arius has dead with his own death. The state really executed only those people, which it treats as dangerous for it, but the since the Church was under the state, anyway it tried to save many lives even heretics. Therefore I don't think that all of people lost their faith.


According to Catholicism, is it ever permissible to produce physical evil so that good may result? In Romans 3:8, Paul teaches that it is wrong to do evil to achieve good:

  And why not say—as we are accused and as some claim we say—that we should do evil that good may come of it? Their penalty is what they deserve.

This principle is explicitly reaffirmed by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1789. However, in Catholicism, a distinction is drawn between physical evil and moral evil. "Physical evil" is what St. Thomas Aquinas would call "corruption* and defect" ("corruptio et defectus"), corruption being the change from existence to non-existence.***cf. "What are “generation and corruption” in Aristotle's philosophy?"**Summa contra Gentiles III cap. 71 ("That divine providence does not entirely exclude evil from things")

According to Catholicism, is it ever permissible to produce physical evil so that good may result?

My understanding is that the answer is yes. For example, when performing a medical surgery, it is acceptable for the surgeon to intentionally damage the patient's skin (physical evil) as a means to saving the patient's life (a good end). I want to make sure I'm thinking about this correctly. I would most appreciate answers drawing on quotes from the Magisterium, but I'd also appreciate relevant quotes from Catholic theologians.

is it ever permissible to produce physical evil so that good may result?

Yes, it is permissible to destroy ("produce physical evil") in order to effect good. The human manner of creating things always involves destruction because we create with preexisting matter; only God can create something "out of nothing" (creatio ex nihilo). Creation in itself is morally neutral.

Think about Michelangelo sculpting a statue. He first has to destroy ("corrupt") the lump of marble in order to bring about a new form in it (with a lot of scrap marble he chiseled leftover!). God's mode of creation is much more perfect; He could simply bring the Statue of David into existence from nothing, with no preexisting marble (and no leftover debris!).

Also, it seems you're really asking about the principle of double-effect, which allows for doing harm in order that a greater evil not result (e.g., amputating a gangrene leg so that a person doesn't die). See Summa Theologica II-II q. 64 a. 7 or §2.5 "Moral Norms Especially Relevant to Health Care" of Health Care Ethics: A Theological Analysis.


Why do Saints Perform Less Miracles Over Time? Anything is welcome,
but I would prefer something in accordance with Catholic theology.

I think I already know the answer but perhaps I am wrong, and I'm sure many Christians are wondering.
I've been noticing that saints do miracles especially when canonization is on stand-by but then afterwards they tone it down.
I'm guessing it has something to do with the importance of canonization but also their merits as saints.

Rome sometimes publishes the miracle accepted for a canonization, but not always. Who knows how many Rome looked at? Besides that there is no data bank for gathering claims of miracles. Lourdes is an exception and all claims are investigated by a board of doctors.

Here is a list of approved miracles of Lourdes. Almost 7,000 cures have been documented at the waters of Lourdes. The Church has vigorously investigated and validated a mere 67 of them.


How does our work on this earth transfer into the new earth when God returns? I recently read Every Good Endeavor by Tim Keller and also Surprised by Hope by N.T. Wright.  Both are amazing books, focused on the resurrection theology that God will raise up a new heaven and a new earth, and we will dwell in the presence of God, not just sitting around, but living life with new redeemed bodies and doing redeemed work that isn't corrupted by sin.

The ideas of heaven are very exciting: that we won't be just sitting around playing harps, but will live much like we do currently, although without the corruption of sin and in the presence of God.

Another exciting theme in these books is that the work we do here matters towards the new heaven and new earth, and will be redeemed and made full when God comes.  While this is exciting to me, it is also very confusing. Can anybody shed some light into how the work we do here transfers to Gods kingdom, according to Keller and/or Wright, even if it is "secular" in nature?

John 3:5,6 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Jesus here is instructing Nicodemus, which in verse 10 He says: “Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?”  The interesting thing here is that Jesus is chastising Nicodemus for not knowing that one has to be “born again” before His (Christ’s) completed work on the cross.
In the book of Hebrews chapter 11 we know that those that lived before the cross received a good report by faith.

Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
First Corinthians 3:13-15 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

The Book of Life appears to be an eternal genealogy, where the “books” seem to record ones life works, either born of the Holy Spirit or conceived and born outside of the will of God the Father and of the Holy Spirit.
So in answer to the question: Fire is the agent that separates eternal substance from temporal substance, this is also true with our life works as well.  Fire typically depicts God's judgement.


Does John 6:44 imply that there is no free will when it comes to salvation? I was struck by reading this verse in John the other night:

  No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him

I've heard the term 'predestination', however it is unclear to me how free will is reconciled with it.

In the instance of free will, one has the choice to either listen or to ignore God's tap on the shoulder. This also leads to the question regarding predestination in general where religious doctrine is concerned.  What exactly is predestination?  Does it necessarily preclude the ability to choose as one wills?

Short Answer: No, John 6:44 does not imply that there is no free will when it comes to salvation.

What the text itself implies (theology aside) is that a person can only come to Jesus if the Father draws him. It says nothing about whether free will plays a part in salvation, or (if so) how it does. (In fact, it doesn't even really say anything about predestination.)

To illustrate, here are three possibilities for how free will might be understood with respect to this verse:

A) A person must, out of their own free will, desire to be reconciled to God, and then God must subsequently draw them to Jesus to get saved.
B) God must draw a person, and as He does so, the person must concurrently allow themselves to be drawn out of their own free will.
C) God must draw a person by convicting them of their sin and presenting them with the Gospel, and then the person, out of their own free will, must respond appropriately to the Gospel and be saved.

These are only a few possibilities, chosen to show that the answer is, in fact "no." (Each of these explanations are popular Christian positions.) There are other perspectives on free will and predestination as well, which yield different explanations of this verse. For example, some would say:

D) God must draw a person -- and must cause that person to be saved -- before they can have (or exercise) "free will." Note, however, that this perspective uses a different definition of "free will" than the colloquial meaning.

Summary

Essentially, all that this verse implies about "free will" is that our free will cannot be understood as the end of the story regarding salvation. It doesn't really imply anything about free will beyond that, and it can easily be reconciled with any major theology on free will, as shown above.


If Christ has all power to perform miracles, how is that that "he could there do no mighty work" save that He healed a few? If Christ has all power to act upon all his creations, including the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve, I would assume he could never be prohibited from performing miracles for them. Yet in Mark 6:5-6 it says that when Jesus came to his hometown:

  He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. He was amazed at their lack of faith. (Mark 6:5-6, NIV)

The Savior then addresses the people's unbelief perhaps in connection with this inability to perform mighty works. How does that work?

In John 6:29, "Jesus answered them, 'This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.'" Jesus did not do His healing works merely for the sake of healing. He came to restore faith in God as an expression of repentance. His ongoing message was, "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand" (Mark 1:15). He wasn't sent as a humanitarian to fix people's health problems.

Jesus first proclaimed the kingdom with words, then He vindicated the truth of the message (that the kingdom has come) with healings. He rewards those who have faith in Him. If His hearers did not believe, they did not get the benefits of those who believe: "According to your faith be it unto you" (Matthew 9:29).


Has there ever been a successful Catholic Christian rock or pop band since the Singing Nun? I'd say a successful band is one that sticks together for 10 years or so and has one of those TLA or first-name awards or a top-40 hit or is actually played on the radio.  I'm not into the music scene, but I noticed a discrepancy when checking out Pandora for Christmas tunes and finding an LDS station, but no specifically Catholic tunes.

Has there ever been a successful Catholic group or artist singing music you'd hear on your local Christian rock station?  Not just an artist in any genre who happens to be Catholic or an artist who was successful, converted to Catholicism and started appealing to a niche crowd (i.e. John Michael Talbot), but an artist or group like the Newsboys or Toby Mac.

I think this is an objectively answerable question, there's a wiki page for Roman Catholic Musicians but it is lacking both John Michael Talbot and The Singing Nun.

I edited the question to say, since the Singing Nun since Sister Smile would be an example of a "success" in the music business at least, but I've already got her record and I don't need another.

Matt Maher

From what I understand, his first record was released in 2007 but he'd been touring before that.

He uses rock and pop musical styles in a goodly portion of his catalog.  His focus is contemporary Christian music, but I'll say this about his live performances: his early work in jazz piano really comes out, and his band can rock it.  Their cover of Joe Cocker's feelin' alright had the whole place on its feet.

I've heard his song Hold us Together on a pop radio station, but it's been a few years.


Is there a scriptural basis for treating the non-Gospel books of the New Testament as scripture? Without citing any books of the New Testament besides the Gospels as evidence (since that would be self-referential), is there a scriptural basis (either in the Gospels or in the Old Testament) for treating any book of the New Testament besides the Gospels as scripture rather than as supplemental history/commentary/scholarship in the tradition of the Jewish Talmud?

Is there a scriptural basis for treating the non-Gospel books of the New Testament as scripture?

Short answer: yes.
Jesus commissioned 12 of his disciples as 'apostles' and gave them authority to teach. If you accept Jesus' words as scripture (as recorded in the gospels), you should accept the words of his apostles as scripture as well, as He said to them:

18 ...“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 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, 20 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)
Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” - John 20:21 NIV

Jesus specifically authorized His apostles to teach, and to do that in the authority that He Himself had received from His Heavenly Father. For this reason, the early church placed particular importance on what were judged to be authentic writings of the apostles (as well as their companions who were believed to have acted as scribes for them - e.g. Mark and Luke). The gospels themselves actually fit in this category - the early church trusted that the (canonical) gospels were accurate because of their author's apostolic credentials. For this reason, there is no legitimate basis for separating the gospels into a different category of 'scripture' that does not equally apply to the rest of the New Testament1.

1. In broad terms at least. There were some arguments about the authenticity of individual books that later came to be accepted (or excluded) from the New Testament canon. However these arguments centred around whether they were authentic in regards to their apostolic credentials. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antilegomena for further information on these disputes.


Does original sin have an impact on Jesus? Was Jesus subject to original sin or because he was born of the Holy Spirit and of Mary he was not born with a sin nature?

Does original sin have an impact on Jesus?

Like any coin worth it weight in gold, this question has two sides of an equation, just like a coin of great value.

The question is both yes and no!

Let me try to explain this.

On one side of the coin, Jesus was conceived without original sin and as such was spared from all stain of sin inherited from Adam’s disobedience.

It is true that some denominations believe that Mary was conceived without original sin by a unique privilege bestowed onto her by Almighty God. Catholics call this the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Furthermore, St. Thomas Aquinas maintains that it was indeed possible for Our Lord Jesus Christ to have been born of sinful woman; Christ's glory would not have been diminished thereby. But, he states elsewhere, it would have been inappropriate:

  God so prepares and endows those, whom He chooses for some particular office, that they are rendered capable of fulfilling it, according to 2 Cor. 3:6: "(Who) hath made us fit ministers of the New Testament." Now the Blessed Virgin was chosen by God to be His Mother. Therefore there can be no doubt that God, by His grace, made her worthy of that office. ... But she would not have been worthy to be the Mother of God, if she had ever sinned. First, because the honor of the parents reflects on the child, according to Prov. 17:6: "The glory of children are their fathers": and consequently, on the other hand, the Mother's shame would have reflected on her Son. Secondly, because of the singular affinity between her and Christ, who took flesh from her: and it is written (2 Cor. 6:15): "What concord hath Christ with Belial?" Thirdly, because of the singular manner in which the Son of God, who is the "Divine Wisdom" (1 Cor. 1:24) dwelt in her, not only in her soul but in her womb. And it is written (Wis. 1:4): "Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins."

  We must therefore confess simply that the Blessed Virgin committed no actual sin, neither mortal nor venial; so that what is written (Cant 4:7) is fulfilled: "Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee," etc. - Was the dogma of the Immaculate Conception formulated in response to someone challenging Mary's ability to bear a perfect Son?

Also according to St. Thomas Aquinas only Adam was responsible for transmitting original sin to the human race and thus it follows that only the Holy Spirit was responsible for preserving Christ from original sin, not Mary.

St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa clearly states that it was Adam and not Eve that was responsible for the transition of original sin. Now if Mary, the Mother of Jesus is the New Eve and Jesus Christ is the New Adam, it is obvious that the Immaculate Conception was not necessary for our salvation for the Holy Spirit can operate in that dwelling place He so chooses to. It the Holy Spirit that made it possible for Christ to be free of original sin and not Mary, the New Eve.

  The solution of this question is made clear by what has been said. For it has been stated that original sin is transmitted by the first parent in so far as he is the mover in the begetting of his children: wherefore it has been said that if anyone were begotten materially only, of human flesh, they would not contract original sin. Now it is evident that in the opinion of philosophers, the active principle of generation is from the father, while the mother provides the matter. Therefore original sin, is contracted, not from the mother, but from the father: so that, accordingly, if Eve, and not Adam, had sinned, their children would not contract original sin: whereas, if Adam, and not Eve, had sinned, they would contract it. - Whether if Eve, and not Adam, had sinned, their children would have contracted original sin?

Just as St. Paul states, Jesus is without sin.

  For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. (KJV) - Hebrews 4:15

Now on the other side of the coin, all mankind was stained with both original sin and actual sin and this did have an impact Jesus because he died saving sinful mankind from their sins.

Jesus Our High Priest was born in order to save man from their sins. Jesus suffered his Passion and Death for our salvation.  Only in this sense did original sin have any impact on Jesus who is called the Christ.

Although he himself had never been stained with original sin; he did suffer his Passion and Death for mankind who truly did suffer for original and actual sin.


According to Catholic Church, did the Eucharistic celebration of Early Church consist of an entire meal? We see St. Paul chastising the Corinthians for improper behavior during the Eucharistic meals, in 1 Cor 11:21-29 (NRSVCE):

When you come together, it is not really to eat the Lord’s supper.  For when the time comes to eat, each of you goes ahead with your own supper, and one goes hungry and another becomes drunk.  What! Do you not have homes to eat and drink in? ......... Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord.  Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves.

One is inclined to believe that the Eucharistic celebration of the Early Church  consisted of an entire meal, and not just receiving of small pieces of sacramental bread as we do today. Acts refers to the  custom as “breaking of the bread” (2:42 and  20:7).
My question therefore is: According to Catholic Church, did the Eucharistic celebration of Early Church consist of an entire meal?

Catholics do not receive "small pieces of sacramental bread", but the Body of Christ (i.e., consecrated Hosts), under the appearances of bread.
Cornelius à Lapide, S.J., on 1 Corinthians 11:21:

at the time of S. Paul, in imitation of Christ, who, after the common meal* on the Passover lamb, instituted the Eucharist, the Christians instituted before the Eucharist a meal common to all, rich and poor alike, in token of their mutual Christian charity.

*1 Cor. 11:25: "In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped…"Cornelius à Lapide on that verse: "the heathen offer their sacrifices after a banquet, as giving thanks to God for their feast, and offered Him libations and sang His praises crowned with garlands. […] The ancient ritual records of the Hebrews show that they did the same in the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb. […] Christ supped first and instituted the Eucharist last of all. Now, however, through reverence for so great a sacrament, the Eucharist, by Apostolic tradition, is always received fasting."
St. Paul is condemning those who do not believe in the Real Presence but think the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is no different than a common meal of ordinary food.


From the Baptist perspective: Does Leviticus 20:13 prove that God is advocating for the murder of homosexuals? Just to clarify, so we don't get any wrong ideas here. I am a baptist. I believe that faith in Jesus Christ ALONE will save you from death and that baptism isn't necessary for salvation. I study the KJV, although I acknowledge the MEV, NKJV, and ESV as legitimate translations of the Bible.

About a week ago, an acquaintance and I were having a discussion about God and about my faith in Jesus Christ. He was trying to find reasons to prove to me that God was not the loving almighty father that I believed him to be. He used the verse Leviticus 20:13:

  If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

to try and prove to me that God advocates for the murder of homosexuals. I told him it was untrue and after that my argument kind of fell apart. I didn't really know what to tell him without confusing him and proving his point. I told him I needed to study up on this and come back to him with a better answer.

I'm asking this because this passage has me incredibly confused. In the passage, God is giving the law to Moses so that the Israelites know what to do and what not to do. the Bible constantly refers to this as the Law of Moses. In the book of Romans, Paul goes on to say that the law is no longer relevant and that God freed us from the law when he died on the cross for us.

My question is this: is God advocating for the murder of homosexuals? And, how do I counter this argument without confusing the lost person that I'm debating with.

I will give you a quick answer for this, because I feel for you in your state of confusion! this can be a tough predicament, but this is really no predicament at all, like most seeming "contradictions" in the Bible, the problem is with our understanding, and not with the Bible itself.

A classic approach to attacking the Christian faith / Bible is to cherry pick verses out of the Mosaic Law that are particular out of place in our modern culture.

The idea is this, if the Christian agrees with the Scripture, then they are a labeled as hateful, bigotted, or possibly even criminal (which is what stoning a homosexual in the USA is, it is called murder.) So the Christian is put in a seeming dilemma, Either admit you are a murderous hateful biggot, OR admit that the Bible is wrong, and you are just a hypocrite. Either of these choices are ideal for the person who is attacking the faith/Bible.

But really we just need a better understanding of God's word to clear this all up.

Traditionally the Law of Moses is divided into 3 sections. The Ceremonial, Civil and Moral.

Basic over-view of each:

The Civil Law: Israel was LITERALLY a brand new nation. They needed laws, judges, and regulations of every kind. God gave this to them in a set of Civil laws, for the Jews, in the nation of Israel.
I am not a jew, but a Gentile, and I live not in Israel, but under another nation altogether, The United States. It is commanded clearly in the new testament that believers should behave orderly and not break the laws of the nation whenever possible. Think of Jesus statement about paying taxes, in

  Matthew 22:20-21
  And He said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?"
  21 They said to Him, “Caesar’s.”
  And He said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” NKJV

Also see Paul in

  Romans 13 :1-7 13 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

So as long as we are not ordered by the goverment to do anything immoral, and are not ordered against worshipping God (This is another question in itself) We are to honor the Government's laws as good citizens. Note that he also says "He does not bear the sword in vain" The "power of the sword" AKA the ability to take life in punishment of crime is reserved to the governing authorities. And not for us as individuals, or even as a church whole.

OK so that basically answers your question. The Bible, when taken as a whole, does NOT order Christians to kill homo-sexuals. Quite the opposite, we should count homo-sexuals as people who need god's grace and the forgiveness freely offered to men because of the death of the God Man, Jesus the Christ on the cross for the salvation of sinners of all stripes, Of whom i am the chief! Praise God!

Just for completeness we will touch on the other two aspects of the law.

Ceremonial. :
We no longer sacrifice sheep and goats have you ever noticed that? (would make for an interesting church service) This is because Jesus has FULFILLED the ceremonial portion of the law.

  Hebrews 10:12-14 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

Also,

  Colossians 2:16-17 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

Finally, the Moral Law.
Best shown in the 10 commandments. This aspect of the law stands for all time, Thats because it shows what God thinks is Good, and What is Bad. It is consistent with his Character, which never changes.

The Commandment says "You shall not bear false witness" Lying is wrong, because God is True.
The Commandment says "You shall not commit Adultery" Adultery is wrong, because God is Faithful. (adultery being unfaithful).
(You can find the 10 commandments in Exodus 20 if you are interested)

These things stand for all time!

Hope this helps you, and answers your question. Be encouraged, and continue to "Study to Show yourself approved"!


What is the justification for relying on faith healing over conventional medicine? Every so often, I read about Christian parents choosing faith healing over conventional medicine for their sick children, in some cases with lethal results. This usually results in the parents being convicted of either severe neglect or manslaughter. (Rightfully so, in my opinion)

I know there are several accounts of miraculous healing mentioned in the Bible, and I don't see a problem with prayer in addition to medicine, but what is the justification for opting to rely on prayer alone?

Is the answer different when it's an adult making the choice for themselves rather than for their child?

DISCLAIMER: I do not agree with this justification, I am merely answering your question.

The justification for relying on faith healing over conventional medicine comes from a belief that turning to man is diametrically opposed to turning to God.  In other words, you can either turn to God for help, or you can turn to man for help - but not both.  One passage used to support this is found in Psalm 118:

  It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man. -Psalm 118:8

One of the main passages used to support the application of this doctrine to healing is a story in the Old Testament about a king named Asa:

  In the thirty-ninth year of his reign Asa became diseased in his feet. His disease was severe, yet even in his disease he did not seek the Lord, but the physicians. So Asa slept with his fathers, having died in the forty-first year of his reign. -2 Chronicles 16:12-13

The "faith-healing" advocate would say that Asa's downfall was in turning to the doctor, and that we should turn to the Lord instead.

Of course, if you believe that turning to God can include receiving help from man, you would interpret the passage differently.  But now it should make more sense where this doctrine comes from.


Did Lactantius ever say why it was good for Christians to be ruled by a Christian emperor? Lactantius was a Christian who had been a part of the Roman government (which was hostile to Christians) prior to his conversion. Sometime between 303 and 311 he wrote a systematic theology, in which he wrote:

  When [God] might have bestowed upon His people both riches and kingdoms, as He had before given them to the Jews, whose successors and posterity we are; on this account He would have them [that is, "His people"] live under the power and government of others, lest, being corrupted by the happiness of prosperity, they should glide into luxury and despise the precepts of God; as those ancestors of ours, who, ofttimes enervated by these earthly and frail goods, departed from discipline and burst the bonds of the law.

But when Constantine converted to Christianity and became emperor, Lactantius became an advisor and hagiographer to Constantine, as well as a tutor to the emperor's son. It appears that he believed it good and right for a Christian to hold the highest post in the government, even though he had previously said that it was for Christians to live under a pagan emperor.

Did he ever say why it was good for Christians to live under a Christian government?

Edward Gibbon tells us, in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, (D.M. Low abridgement page 290), as soon as the defeat of Licinius had invested Constantine with total dominion of the Roman world, he immediately, by circular letters, exhorted all his subjects to imitate, without delay, the example of their sovereign, and to embrace the divine truth of Christianity. Lactantius was very possibly being pragmatic taking on the role of eulogist for an emperor who gave favours to those who became Christians.

Anders Cullhed says, in The Shadow of Creusa: Negotiating Fictionality in Late Antique Latin Literature (ebook) Lactantius saw an opportunity for covert, albeit legitimate Christian indoctrination. Cullhed says Lactantius considered it downright legitimate to treat truth as a contraband of sorts, concealing it by means of a lie. The siginificance of this is that we can never know whether Lactantius sincerely believed anything he said in support of any position he took. He knew that Constantine looked favourably on work that progressed the Christian cause in his empire and did not need any reason to do the emperor's bidding and would naturally say it was good for Christians to live under a Christian government.


Does 2 Peter 1:10 teach salvation can be gained through faith plus works? Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you ( 2 Peter 1:10 NASB)

2 Peter 1:10 teaches to make our calling and election sure not make our salvation sure.

calling is not our work- 2 Timothy 1:9

election is not our work-Romans 9:11

Therefore, if calling and election are both not our works then HOW are we to MAKE sure of it?

The answer is found in the Greek word " spoudasate" ( go fast by applying fully one's self with diligence) in the qualities said in v. 5-7.

Peter exhorts and reminds us redeemed persons to be diligent in those qualities because:

1.it is ours( v. 8a),

2.we have it (v. 8b) and

3.we are practicing it( note the present continuous tense of poiountes in v. 10).

By exemplifying those qualities we are making 'sure' not making ourself 'save', that is, that we are indeed called and chosen by God apart from our works.

Just like James 2:26 and Philippians 2:12, we must show forth our faith by our works. Faith alone in Christ saves but works proves real faith.