On what do Mormons base their practice of proxy-baptisms on behalf of the dead? How does the LDS Church define their practice of performing baptisms on behalf of people who have died? I realize there is the following verse, but there seems to be few other Biblical references to the matter.

  1 Corinthians 15:29 (ESV)
  29 Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?

Is the Mormon practice of baptising on behalf of people who have died derived from this verse and on what sources do they base their interpretation?

Note: I am specifically looking for LDS doctrine and references used to interpret this verse. There is a related question here: How do Protestants interpret "baptized for the dead" in 1 Corinthians 15:29?

The practice is based on revelations given to the prophet Joseph Smith on the subject, explaining how it should be carried out.  The practice of baptism for the dead is not based directly on 1 Corinthians 15:29, since the biblical verse only alludes to the practice but explains nothing about the details of how it should be performed, but Latter-Day Saints use the verse as evidence that the practice did exist among early Christians.

The revelations explaining the practice are recorded today in various places, but the most important are found in sections 124 and 127 of the Doctrine and Covenants, where it's explained:

that the ordinance belongs to the House of the Lord and is to be performed in temples
that all baptisms must be witnessed and recorded to be valid
that it must be performed by someone with Priesthood authority
and that the practice is related to the concept of "that... whatsoever you bind on earth may be bound in heaven, [and] whatsoever you loose on earth may be loosed in heaven."

That's the basis of official LDS doctrine on the subject.  With regards to non-doctrinal references, several LDS scholars have done a lot of research on the historical basis for baptism (and salvation in general) for the dead, and the findings are interesting: not only did the practice clearly exist, but it just as clearly deviates and fades in people's understanding over time.

In Paul's time, it was familiar and uncontroversial enough to his audience that he saw no need to explain the practice, and was able to use it as a supporting argument in favor of something that his audience did find controversial: the literal resurrection of the body.  (See 1 Corinthians 15 for context.)

Tertullian, who lived a bit more than a century after Paul, knew about the practice:

  But inasmuch as some are also baptized for the dead, we will see whether there be a good reason for this. Now it is certain that they adopted this (practice) with such a presumption as made them suppose that the vicarious baptism (in question) would be beneficial to the flesh of another in anticipation of the resurrection; for unless it were a bodily resurrection, there would be no pledge secured by this process of a corporeal baptism. Why are they then baptized for the dead, he asks, unless the bodies rise again which are thus baptized?

  -- On the Resurrection of the Flesh, chapter 48

However, he did not seem to think that it should be interpreted literally, though he didn't really know what it did mean instead:

  What, asks he, shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not? Now, never mind that practice, (whatever it may have been.) The Februarian lustrations will perhaps answer him (quite as well), by praying for the dead. Do not then suppose that the apostle here indicates some new god as the author and advocate of this (baptism for the dead. His only aim in alluding to it was) that he might all the more firmly insist upon the resurrection of the body, in proportion as they who were vainly baptized for the dead resorted to the practice from their belief of such a resurrection.

  -- Against Marcion, book 5, chapter 10

The Marcionites, who Tertullian was writing against in the second quote, were a splinter group of Christians whose doctrine about the nature of God had gotten mixed with a bunch of weird Gnostic ideas.  However, they seem to have preserved the doctrine of baptism for the dead intact to this point.  A couple centuries later, however, we find John Chrysostom going after them and he brings up the practice again, which seems to have picked up a strange element of ritual along the way:

  ...will you that I should first mention how they who are infected with the Marcionite heresy pervert this expression? And I know indeed that I shall excite much laughter; nevertheless, even on this account most of all I will mention it that you may the more completely avoid this disease: viz., when any Catechumen departs among them, having concealed the living man under the couch of the dead, they approach the corpse and talk with him, and ask him if he wishes to receive baptism; then when he makes no answer, he that is concealed underneath says in his stead that of course he should wish to be baptized; and so they baptize him instead of the departed.

  -- Homily 40 on First Corinthians

Note the introduction: Chrysostom is explicitly writing this in mockery of the Marcionites, (to "excite much laughter"), before an audience that is potentially unfamiliar with them and their beliefs.  Human nature being what it is, it's possible that his description may have been exaggerated for greater effectiveness. Nevertheless, the example is instructive.

And in 393 AD, not long after Chrysostom, the synod of Hippo came out with a declaration which, among other things, expressly forbade performing the rites of baptism and the Lord's Supper for dead bodies, showing that by that time there were people around--and in large enough numbers to make it worth the notice of an official council--who still had some concept of the original idea, but had apparently lost the notion that it was supposed to be performed by proxy!  Four years later, the Third Council of Carthage reaffirmed the earlier synod's ruling on the subject.

The progression shows that the doctrine was gradually lost over time without apostles receiving revelation from God to keep the church on track, and demonstrated why it was necessary for the doctrine to be restored in purity through revelation and not simply interpreted from sparse Biblical references through the wisdom of man.


(LDS view) Do animals have a possibility to eternal life and is this dependent on Jesus atonoment applied to them? This is my other question that was inspired by what a quotation in this other question says about pre-existence prior to conception.

The highest rated answer quotes from The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, on the page Pre-Existence (Pre-Earthly Existence) that says:

  It is Latter-day Saint doctrine that living things existed as
  individual spirit beings and possessed varying degrees of intelligence
  in an active, conscious spirit state before mortal birth and that the
  spirit continues to live and function in the mortal body. [emphasis added]

While reading the previous quote, I noticed a link to this page titled "Animals" which states that:

  Latter-day Saints believe that animals, like humans, have spirits, in
  the form of their bodies (D&C 77:2). Like humans and plants,
  animals were created first as spirits in heaven and then physically on
  the earth (Moses 3:5). Mortal and subject to death, animals
  will be saved through the Atonement of Christ (TPJS, pp. 291-92). [emphasis added]

The last sentence refers to pages 291-292 of "TPJS" which is an acronym for the the book, "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith." In the aforementioned pages, the book says the following:

  I suppose John saw beings there of a thousand forms, that had been
  saved from ten thousand times ten thousand6 earths like this,—strange
  beasts of which we have no conception: all might be seen in heaven.
  The grand secret was to show John what there was in heaven. John
  learned that God glorified Himself by saving all that His hands had
  made, whether beasts, fowls, fishes or men; and He will glorify
  Himself with them.

  Says one, “I cannot believe in the salvation of beasts.” Any man who
  would tell you that this could not be, would tell you that the
  revelations are not true. John heard the words of the beasts giving
  glory to God, and understood them. God who made the beasts could
  understand every language spoken by them. The four beasts were four of
  the most noble animals that had filled the measure of their creation,
  and had been saved from other worlds, because they were perfect: they
  were like angels in their sphere. We are not told where they came
  from, and I do not know; but they were seen and heard by John praising
  and glorifying God.

This same thing is referenced in this August, 1972 Ensign article "The Gospel and Animals" which reads:

  While revising the Bible, the Prophet desired further understanding
  concerning the four beasts mentioned in Revelation 4:6 [Rev. 4:6].
  Section 77 of the Doctrine and Covenants contained the response from
  the Lord. The answer revealed that “heaven, the paradise of God,”
  contained beasts, creeping things, and fowls of the air, and “every
  other creature which God has created.” (D&C 77:2.)

I have a couple of questions I would like to ask about this:

1. Is it the LDS Church teaching that the value of Jesus' blood is also
    applied to save animals?

2. According to the LDS Church, do all animals live forever or is this
    dependent on them "accepting Jesus" or something like that?

Not much is written about animals going to heaven. In answer the OP quotes from EoM Animals and here is the whole first paragraph with answers (#1 bold, #2 italics):

  Latter-day Saints believe that animals, like humans, have spirits, in the form of their bodies (D&C 77:2). Like humans and plants, animals were created first as spirits in heaven and then physically on the earth (Moses 3:5). Mortal and subject to death, animals will be saved through the Atonement of Christ (TPJS, pp. 291-92). Humans and animals will eventually live in peace on this earth (Isa. 11:6-9; 2 Ne. 30:12-15; D&C 101:24-26). The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that animals will be found in heaven, in myriad forms, from myriad worlds, enjoying eternal felicity, and praising God in languages God understands (TPJS, pp. 291-92).

In summary, yes animals are saved through Jesus Christ's blood and animals will live forever (independent of their belief).


If I win the Powerball jackpot will Catholic Church accept a donation? LDS has a policy of not taking gambling winnings including lottery money as donations.
Over the years several other churches have refused as well.
Is there an official policy in Catholic Church about the donation of money won in lottery?

There is no prohibition of it in Canon Law.

St. Thomas Aquinas, in Summa Theologica II-II q. 32 a. 7 ("Whether one may give alms out of ill-gotten goods?"), mentions three ways in which money may be "ill-gotten" (illicite acquisitis), the last being

  not because the taking was unlawful, but because it is the outcome of something unlawful, as in the case of a woman's profits from whoredom. This is filthy lucre (turpe lucrum) properly so called, because the practice of whoredom is filthy and against the Law of God, yet the woman does not act unjustly or unlawfully in taking the money. Consequently it is lawful to keep and to give in alms what is thus acquired by an unlawful action.

Similarly with gambling: Although excessive gambling is unlawful, one may justly take the money obtained therefrom.

Thus, even if the money you won by the lottery was ill-gotten, it would still be permitted to give it as alms.

It would be difficult to give a large sum of money anonymously, thus a priest would very likely know the person who gave they money won by the lottery and hopefully make sure that person is not addicted to gambling.


How do non-trinitarians interpret John 14:26? John 14:26 (NRSV):

26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you.

My impression as I read this verse is that three distinct persons are identified, but I could very well be wrong. In the pursuit of having a well-rounded and unbiased view of this passage, I would like to get acquainted with the non-trinitarian perspective on it. Do non-trinitarians also identify three distinct persons being mentioned in John 14:26, and if so, how do they make sense of that?

One thing to remember when translating is that the original Greek didn't use upper and lower case or punctuation, and that (like French and Spanish) nouns have gender, so the word for "it" is the same as the words for "she" and "he". (French has "il" and "elle" for "he" and "she", but no word for "it".)
So the first part of this verse could have been translated as "But the helper, the holy spirit, …".
Most translations are made by people that either believe in, or accept for translation purposes, the doctrine of the Trinity.
So it is natural for them to treat the words as referring to a person and capitalize them.
If the verse instead said:

But the helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you.

there is no reason (other than doctrinal eisegesis) to treat the sentence any differently than:

But the Bible, the Holy Book, which the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you.

Most Christians would accept that sentence as true, without ever thinking that "Bible" and "Holy Book" are meant to refer to a person.
It's only when one is already aware of the Trinity doctrine that the other interpretation arises.
To those that have no reason to believe that "holy spirit" refers to a specific person, God's holy spirit is literally that: the spiritual power through which God works.
It has no more individual personality than does air or water.
Christians receive some of this spirit at baptism, and combined with their own human spirit it provides them with intimate contact with God.
The Power of the Holy Spirit | United Church of God is an example of this doctrine.


Distributing the bread before consecrating the wine Martin Luther's Deutsche Messe was first celebrated on October 29, 1525, and the text was published the following year. I was surprised to see that for the consecration and distribution of the sacrament, he uses the order

Consecrate the bread
Distribute the Body of Christ
Consecrate the wine
Distribute the Blood of Christ

as opposed to the more familiar (at least to me) 1, 3, 2, 4.

He writes in the preface that he is trying to emulate the order of events described in the Bible:

  Then the Office and Consecration proceeds, as follows: 'Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the same night' (i Cor. xi. 23 ff). I think that it would be in accordance with the Last Supper if the sacrament were distributed immediately after the consecration of the bread before the blessing of the cup. So say, both Luke and Paul: 'Likewise also the cup after supper.' Meanwhile, there might be sung the Sanctus in German or the hymn 'Gott sei gelobet', or the hymn of John Huss, 'Jesus Christus unser Heiland.' And after this should come the consecration of the chalice and its delivery, with the singing of whatever remains of the above-mentioned hymns, or of the Agnus Dei in German.

It seems that there are quite a few variations among Christians about what sequence is to be used. How should a church determine which order to follow? And, in particular, is there any reason to object to Luther's method here?

I don't think there is any problem with the order Martin Luther used, as it is the same as the order used by Christ in the Last Supper.  I do believe the 1324 order is likely used due to it scaling a little better when the bread and wine are distributed after consecrating them.

The Last Supper was only a few people, compared to a Sunday service which could be hundreds of people.  By receiving the bread and the wine at the same time, you can cut the time needed for communion to nearly half.

As @warren mentioned in his answer, my current church actually distributes the bread and wine/juice, then the pastor will say a blessing over the bread and we will consume it.  Then the pastor says a blessing over the wine and we consume that.  I believe this is similar to Martin Luther's method, except it is distributed (to hundreds) before the blessings.

On a smaller scale, I believe Martin Luther's ordering would be wonderful.


What is the highest position a married man can achieve in the Catholic church? If a man is married, but feels the need to formally take part in the day-to-day operations of his local Catholic church what would be the best post for him to apply to and what is the highest post he will be able to achieve?

What type of religious instruction does the catholic church provide for married men?

Since the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI has permitted married men to be ordained to the permanent diaconate. Pope Paul's Apostolic Letter SACRUM DIACONATUS ORDINEM was publish on June 18,1967.

Nevertheless married men can under certain circumstances be permitted to be ordained priests in the Roman Rite. It should be noted also that married men of the Catholic Eastern Rites are permitted to be ordained priests as is their tradition.

  In the Latin (Western) Catholic Church, since the Second Vatican Council mature married men who intend not to advance to priesthood may be ordained deacons and are referred to as "permanent deacons", but married men may not be ordained priests or bishops or even as "transitional deacons", nor may anyone marry after ordination. Since the start of the pontificate of Pope Pius XII (1939–1958), exceptions may be allowed for married Protestant ministers or Anglican clergy who convert to Catholicism and wish to become priests in the Catholic Church, provided their wives consent. The Catholic Church considers Protestant and most Anglican ordinations invalid, while recognizing Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and some Anglican ordinations as valid. In some cases, laicized Catholic priests are allowed to marry by special dispensation. Additionally, dispensations can be granted for deacons whose wives have died to marry a second time, especially if they have young children to look after.

  In Eastern Orthodox Churches, and Eastern Catholic Churches (which latter are in full communion with Rome), married men may be ordained to any order except as bishops, and one may not marry after ordination as a subdeacon. Clerical Celibacy (Wikipedia).

The Catholic Church does not permit married men to be ordained bishops and as such they cannot be named cardinal.  In 1962, Pope John XXIII set the norm that all cardinals be ordained as bishops, even if they are only priests at the time of appointment.

But who can be elected Pope?

According to canon law any baptized Catholic male who has reached the age of reason can be elected Pope (woman cannot become Pope because they cannot be ordained as priests). In practice, one of the cardinals in the conclave is elected as the new Pope.

  Canon 332 § 1 of the 1983 Code simply states that one already a bishop (nb: not necessarily a cardinal) who accepts legitimate papal election becomes pope immediately. One who is not yet a bishop (and the Church has elected several non-bishops to the papacy) can accept election, but must be immediately consecrated bishop. By implication, that would seem to require that a papabile (a) be male, and be willing (b) to be baptized, (c) ordained deacon, priest, and bishop, and (d) have the use of reason in order to accept election and, if necessary, holy orders. - In the Light of the Law


Did Jesus preach One God and follow the commandments to the Jews, and another message to the Romans? When reading the bible you read Jesus telling people to follow the commandments, whoever breaks even the least of the commandments will be in the lowest level in the kingdom.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/5-19-compare.html

  "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and
  shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven:
  but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the
  kingdom of heaven."

He is preaching One God, and to follow the commandments.

Did his message fundamentally change after his death to the Romans?

How to you reconcile these 2 very different messages?

I believe that you may be misreading the scripture.
These Scriptures elaborate on the subject:

Jas 1:25  KJV But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.
Jas 2:10  KJV For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

you may compare that to saying she was only a little bit pregnant. The meaning here being that you cannot be only slightly guilty of breaking the Law, any more than you not really a sinner because all you did was to tell a white lie.
I have taken the liberty of quoting a couple of the more prominent commentaries here
David Gusik's commentary:

Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments: The
commandments    are to be obeyed as explained and fulfilled by Jesus'
life and teaching, not as in the legalistic thinking of the religious
authorities of Jesus' day. For example, sacrifice is commanded by the
law, but it was fulfilled in Jesus, so we do not run the danger of
being called least in the kingdom of heaven by not observing animal
sacrifice as detailed in the Law of Moses.
Whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom
of heaven: The Christian is done with the law as a means of gaining a
righteous standing before God. One passage that explains this is Gal.
2:21: For if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in
vain. However, the law stands as the perfect expression of God's
ethical character and requirements.
The law sends us to Jesus to be justified, because it shows us our
inability to please God in ourselves. But after we come to Jesus, He
sends us back to the law to learn the heart of God for our conduct and
sanctification.

John Gill's commentary:

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments,....
Which are to be understood not of the beatitudes in the preceding
verses, for these were not delivered by Christ under the form of
commandments; nor of any of the peculiar commands of Christ under the
Gospel dispensation; but of the precepts of the law, of which some
were comparatively lesser than others; and might be said to be broke,
loosed, or dissolved, as the word here used signifies, when men acted
contrary to them.
And shall teach men so; not only teach them by their example to break
the commandments, but by express orders: for however gross and absurd
this may seem to be, that there should be any such teachers, and they
should have any hearers, yet such there were among the Jews; and our
Lord here manifestly strikes at them: for notwithstanding the great
and excellent things they say of the law, yet they tell us, that the
doctors of the sanhedrim had power to root anything out of the law; to
loose or make void any of its commands, for a time, excepting in the
case of idolatry; and so might any true prophet, or wise man; which
they pretend is sometimes necessary for the glory of God, and the good
of men; and they are to be heard and obeyed, when they say, transgress
anyone of all the commands which are in the law {h}. Maimonides says
{i}, that the sanhedrim had power, when it was convenient, for the
time present, to make void an affirmative command, and to transgress a
negative one, in order to return many to their religion; or to deliver
many of the Israelites from stumbling at other things, they may do
whatsoever the present time makes necessary: for so, adds he, the
former wise men say, a man may profane one sabbath, in order to keep
many sabbaths. And elsewhere {k} he affirms,
"if a prophet, whom we know to be a prophet, should order us לעבור על
אחת מכל מצות, "to transgress anyone of the commands", which are
mentioned in the law, or many commands, whether light or heavy, for a
time, we are ordered to hearken to him; and so we learn from the
former wise men, by tradition, that in everything a prophet shall say
to thee עבור על דברי תורה, "transgress the words of the law", as Elias
on Mount Carmel, hear him, except in the case of idolatry.''
And another of their writers says {l},
"it is lawful sometimes to make void the law, and to do that which
appears to be forbidden.''
Nay, they even {m} say, that if a Gentile should bid an Israelite transgress anyone of the commands mentioned in the law, excepting
idolatry, adultery, and murder, he may transgress with impunity,
provided it is done privately. You see what reason Christ had to
express himself in the manner he does, and that with resentment,
saying,
he shall be called, or be the least in the kingdom of heaven; meaning
either the church of God, where he shall have neither a name, nor
place; he shall not be in the least esteemed, but shall be cast out as
a worthless man; or the ultimate state of happiness and glory, in the
other world, where he shall not enter, as is said in the next verse;
but, on the other hand,
whosoever shall do and teach; whose doctrine and conversation,
principles and practices agree together; who both teach obedience to
the law, and perform it themselves: where again he glances at the
masters in Israel, and tacitly reproves them who said, but did not;
taught the people what they themselves did not practise; and so were
unworthy of the honour, which he that both teaches and does shall
have: for
the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven; he shall be
highly esteemed of in the church here, and be honoured hereafter in
the world to come. The Jews have a saying somewhat like this;
"he that lessens himself for the words of the law in this world, נעשה
גדול, "he shall become great" in the world to come {n},''
or days of the Messiah.

Hope this helps.


Strange take on the Parable of the 10 talents - Kids book I was recently reading to my children from a Bible storybook, which included the parable of the 10 Talents, specifically Luke 19:11-24 (roughly - it's very paraphrased).

After telling that the third man "made no money", this story said something like "The king was angry and greedy", then went on to say "Jesus was saying God's kingdom would be nothing like this."

I've never heard this interpretation before. Is there some actual scholarship behind it, or is this just a bad attempt to make a harsh story kid-friendly?

Update
Here are some specifics about the text. It starts with "Jesus taught the people in Jericho about earthly kingdoms through telling a story called a parable." It concludes with: "The third servant came forward, but hadn't made any more money. The king was angry and greedy. Jesus told the people this story because God's kingdom would be nothing like this man's kingdom."

This is the Deep Blue Bible Storybook by Abingdon Press - https://www.abingdonpress.com/product/9781501848612/

Oh, dear! Once we realise that this parable is about the coming kingdom of God, whose King is Christ Jesus, then any suggestion that “the king was angry and greedy” should ring spiritual alarm bells!  The parable contains warnings that Christians should heed, but trying to “soft-pedal” the message simply detracts from the reality that if we claim to be subjects of the coming King, then we have a responsibility to give him of our very best.
Remember that it is the nobleman who leaves in order to be made King.  During his absence his servants are given responsibility for making a financial profit on the money he gives them.  When the nobleman returns, he has become King.  Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem, knowing full well that he was going to die there (Luke 18:33).  He used this parable to show that the long-awaited kingdom was not going to happen any time soon, that it was some time future.  During the absence of the nobleman his servants and his subjects react differently. Here is one take on the parable:

In this parable, Jesus teaches several things about the Millennial Kingdom and the time leading up to it. As Luke 19:11 indicates, Jesus’ most basic point is that the kingdom was not going to appear immediately. There would be a period of time, during which the king would be absent, before the kingdom would be set up.
The nobleman in the parable is Jesus, who left this world but who will return as King some day. The servants the king charges with a task represent followers of Jesus. The Lord has given us a valuable commission, and we must be faithful to serve Him until He returns. Upon His return, Jesus will ascertain the faithfulness of His own people (see Romans 14:10–12). There is work to be done (John 9:4), and we must use what God has given us for His glory. There are promised rewards for those who are faithful in their charge.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/parable-ten-minas.html

The moral of the story is that when Christ Jesus returns as King he will judge those who scorn and reject Him but reward those who faithfully and gladly obey His instructions.


How do Congregationalists explain 1st Tim 1:3 and Titus 1:5? 1 Timothy 1:3, KJV
  As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into
  Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other
  doctrine

  Titus 1:5, KJV
  For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order
  the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had
  appointed thee

These two verses seem to indicate a certain "hierarchy layer" between elders and apostles. Paul is clearly an apostle and he appoints Titus to ordain elders in every city of the island of Crete. On one hand, Titus was appointed by Paul, which means that Titus is in  position of submission to Paul the Apostle. However, Titus has the power to ordain elders in cities of Crete, which means that those elders would be in position of submission to Titus. Thus, we have the following structure: elders -> Titus -> apostles.

I wonder how those Christian groups that deny any such hierarchy levels in their governance—for example, Congregationalists—explain these verses.

Christians who consider each congregation to have no higher authority structures than its own elders or ministers do not think that these verses suggest anything else. These were new churches, having just been started by Paul and his associates, but without sustainable endemic leadership, so they needed to be kickstarted by Timothy and Titus. Once they appointed the first generation of leaders in each congregation, those leaders would be responsible for appointing the next generation. Each generation teaching, training and appointing the next is the model given in 2 Timothy 2:2:

  And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others. (NIV)

The same thing happens today when missionary church planters start new churches. At the beginning they will form the leadership, but the goal for many of these church planters is that the churches will become self-sufficient and self-governing. (Though not if they are planting churches for an existing denomination of course.)


Request: Christian demographic statistics at the time of the reformation I suspect I won't be able to get any good answers but I think it's worth asking anyway.

I'm curious about what Christian demographics looked like at different points in history. For example what percentage of the Christian world was Roman Catholic and what percentage were Eastern Orthodox at the time of the great schism? I'm also interested in the fine-details, for example what percentage of Christians were Greek Orthodox, what percentage were Russian Orthodox, what percentage were Ukrainian Orthodox? etc.

To narrow down the period a bit, I'm curious about demographics at the time of the reformation and to be really specific, I'll make it the date that Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door in Wittenburg.

To reiterate: I'm looking for an exhaustive coverage of the entire Christian world at the time, including the Oriental Orthodox churches, the Church of the East, any minor heretical sects of the day. What was the population percentage of each respective group?

For an example of what I'm looking for, this page on wikipedia does an outstanding job of breaking down the demographic statistics for today. I'm wondering if there is anything similar for the time of the reformation?

Note: the reason I'm asking is because I was perusing the statistics for today, and I was completely blown away by the dominance of Latin-Rite Catholicism. Roman Rite Catholicism is in the majority by far, completely dwarfing the other communions and churches, and I was wondering if it has always been this way.

This is not exactly what you are looking for, but this Wikipedia page estimates population by country in the year 1000 AD.

Since the Byzantine Empire, Kievan Rus and Volga Bulgaria would have been countries under one of the four eastern Sees, we could estimate the total number of Christians following the eastern Rite to be around 20 million.

Those countries under the See of Rome would have included the Holy Roman Empire, the Kingdom of France, the Kingdom of Arles, the Principality of Hungary, Poland, the Kingdom of England, the Duchy of Brittany, the Kingdoms of Denmark, Sweden, and Scotland, and, finally, Norway and Iceland, which amounts to around 23 million.

This is very rough, since there were some who practiced the eastern rite within the west, and some who practiced the western rite within the east, and we are not counting Christians who lived within the Moslem countries, but a rough estimate seems to suggest that the breakdown was roughly 50-50 at the time of the Great Schism (1054).

Wikipedia provides population estimates by country for 1500 and 1600 as well, so one could extend this exercise for those periods as well.


Is seeing nudity a sin in Roman Catholicism? If someone saw a nude image ad once on the internet, would that be considered sin in the Catholic church? What about  a nude painting at an art gallery? Is it a mortal sin to see these? Or should one talk to their parish priest about the matter?

Is seeing nudity a mortal sin in Roman Catholicism?

The short answer is: Yes and No. It depends on the situation.

  In the Catholic Church, sins come in two basic types: mortal sins that imperil your soul and venial sins, which are less serious breaches of God’s law. The Church believes that if you commit a mortal sin, you forfeit heaven and opt for hell by your own free will and actions.

  Three conditions are necessary for mortal sin to exist:

  Grave Matter: The act itself is intrinsically evil and immoral. For example, murder, rape, incest, perjury, adultery, and so on are grave matter.

  Full Knowledge: The person must know that what they’re doing or planning to do is evil and immoral.

  Deliberate Consent: The person must freely choose to commit the act or plan to do it. Someone forced against her will doesn’t commit a mortal sin.

  Venial sins are any sins that meet one or two of the conditions needed for a mortal sin but do not fulfill all three at the same time, or they’re minor violations of the moral law. - Mortal and Venial Sins in the Catholic Church

Seeing nudity in itself is not sinful. But under certain circumstance it may be sinful and even mortally sinful.

It is not sinful for example to see your own naked body when you are bathing or taking a shower.

Spouses often see one another naked and no sin is ever committed. It is a natural part of Christian marriage

It is not sinful for a doctor to se a patient naked in his medical office or operating room while perform some medical procedure. It could be sinful if a doctor abuses his medical privileges for some sexual pleasure.

It is not a sin to see to an artistic piece of art of some personage in the nude. However it becomes sinful if one deliberately does so in order to arose themselves  sexually.

The Creation of Adam by Michelangelo

Watching pornography is always seriously sinful matter and is thus a mortal sin.

If someone saw a nude image ad once on the internet and did not deliberately remain looking at it, no mortal sin would have been committed. However, if one deliberately remained looking at it, one may have committed at least a venial sin. If one remained looking at it for some sexual gratification then a mortal sin would have been committed. It is always best to see a priest in the confessional to make sure one is in the state of grace at all moments.

Let us finish with the definition of sin and the differences between mortal sin  and venial sin. The Catechism of the Catholic Church should be a good source for this and it is given here in it's entirety.

  II. The Definition of Sin

  1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."

  1850 Sin is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight." Sin sets itself against God's love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become "like gods," knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus "love of oneself even to contempt of God." In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.

  1851 It is precisely in the Passion, when the mercy of Christ is about to vanquish it, that sin most clearly manifests its violence and its many forms: unbelief, murderous hatred, shunning and mockery by the leaders and the people, Pilate's cowardice and the cruelty of the soldiers, Judas' betrayal - so bitter to Jesus, Peter's denial and the disciples' flight. However, at the very hour of darkness, the hour of the prince of this world,126 the sacrifice of Christ secretly becomes the source from which the forgiveness of our sins will pour forth inexhaustibly.

  III. The Different Kinds of Sin

  1852 There are a great many kinds of sins. Scripture provides several lists of them. The Letter to the Galatians contrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit: "Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God."

  1853 Sins can be distinguished according to their objects, as can every human act; or according to the virtues they oppose, by excess or defect; or according to the commandments they violate. They can also be classed according to whether they concern God, neighbor, or oneself; they can be divided into spiritual and carnal sins, or again as sins in thought, word, deed, or omission. The root of sin is in the heart of man, in his free will, according to the teaching of the Lord: "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man." But in the heart also resides charity, the source of the good and pure works, which sin wounds.

  IV. The Gravity of Sin: Mortal and Venial Sin

  1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture, became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.

  1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

  Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

  1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:

  When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner's will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.

  1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."

  1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother." The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

  1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

  1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

  1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

  1862 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.

  1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul's progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."

  While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins which we call "light": if you take them for light when you weigh them, tremble when you count them. A number of light objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap. What then is our hope? Above all, confession.

  1864 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven." There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss. - The Catechism of the Catholic Church


Earlier use of this argument for the necessity of evil? I seem to recall hearing or reading that Augustine posited that perhaps evil as such did not exist, i.e., that evil is more a void or absence of existence.  I think this line of reasoning is used to indicate that God did not create evil as such.

Is there a documented extension of this reasoning along the following lines: In order for God to cause to be an other that is not God (the term begetting would presumably be used for causing to be an other that is God), some absence or void would be necessary and that this void is constrained to include evil (whether because any conceivable void of this nature is "unGodly"/evil or because God's will to maximize the glory of God "compresses" such a void [i.e., one could conceive of a non-Godly but not evil void but maximizing the expression of "Godlikeness" constrains the void to be evil] or perhaps some other reason)?

(This line of reasoning occurred to me and I wondered if anyone had already considered it and thought it plausible and worth recording.  It seems a basic enough extension of a known argument that it probably came to someone's mind at some point, though it might have been rejected as absurd or useless or just not worth recording.)

You are right that the idea of evil as the absence of good is traditionally associated with Augustine. As far as I understand your specific idea, you are positing that 'absence of good' is necessary for anything that is not God, or that nothing aside from God can be wholly good.

This reminds me, more than anything else, of the Gnostic world-view, wherein all created beings emerge as "emanations" from the Godhead, and are more and more corrupted as they get further out from the source, like light from a candle in a dark room. In particular, the material world is inevitably impure (but can be transcended through spiritual discipline, perhaps thanks to some spark of goodness from above that is embedded in each human soul). There are many nuances within Gnostic traditions, and a lot of mystical / esoteric stuff, but this is the broad thrust.

In relation to Christianity, there is a fascinating history of conflict - though as usual, we almost always get the orthodox perspective, which may not be entirely fair to what actually happened. The problems early Christians encountered with Gnosticism include:

Inherent sinfulness of the world, perhaps created by Satan / the Demiurge versus God's love for the world - he created it, nurtures it, and considers it good.
Unimportance of moral behavior in the physical realm versus Obligation to behave correctly and do good works
God as pure inaccessible Spirit versus Christ incarnate as a man (living, suffering, dying)
Esoteric practice (levels of initiation into mystical secrets) versus Exoteric (proclaim the gospel to all)

Ultimately, the difference in Christology was the key marker of Gnosticism as heretical. The Gnostic version of Christianity held to docetism whereby the incarnation was an illusion, the true Christ being only spirit. This belief is contrary to certain passages in Scripture which we believe to have been explicitly written against Gnostics (e.g. 1 John 4:2), and it was definitively rejected at the first ecumenical councils.


Where does the Bible stand on vegetarianism? The subject of vegetarianism (or dietary recommendations in general) appears to me to be a bit ambivalent in the Bible.

For example, Genesis 1:29 , Romans 14:21 and Isaiah 65:21-25 appear to endorse a plant-based diet, while passages such as Genesis 9:3 and Matthew 14:13-21 seem to suggest that animal-derived foods are to be included in our diet as well.

How should these (and any other similar) seemingly contradictary passages be interpreted?

Romans 14  as a whole doesn't endorse a vegetarian diet as necessary or otherwise better. Look at the beginning of the chapter for the context:

  Romans 14:1-4 (KJV)

  1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful
  disputations.

  2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak,
  eateth herbs.

  3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him
  which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

  4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master
  he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to
  make him stand.

What Paul is saying is that some believe it is better not to eat meat, and that if he is in such a case as to be a cause of temptation for such a brother, he would rather not eat meat at all so that his brother is not tempted. This is the same problem as wine in a way, in that wine is not bad in itself, but it is better to not drink wine if it will cause a brother or sister to stumble.

Paul is not saying that it is better to be a vegetarian, but he is warning to not let such fleshy matters be reasons for brothers or sisters to stumble. In other words, I'd say if you are eating with someone who believes being a vegetarian is better, don't argue on it, just go with it so it doesn't become a subject of stumble for this brother or sister.


Who uses the term "God-talk", and what do they mean? I've seen many books and articles that use the word God-talk. This seems, often, to be used as a friendlier alternative to theology, which comes from the Greek θεός (theos) for God, and λόγος (logos) for word, talk, discourse, etc., and therefore meaning something like God-talk. Some examples from a Google Books search are:

The End of God-Talk: An African-American Humanist Theology, Anthony B. Pinn (OUP, 2012)
Racism and God-talk: A Latino/a Perspective, Rubén Rosario Rodríguez (NYU Press, 2008)
Doing girlfriend theology: God-talk with young women,  Dori Grinenko Baker (Pilgrim Press, 2005)
Sisters in the Wilderness: The Challenge of Womanist God Talk, Delores Williams (Orbis, 1993)
Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a Feminist Theology, Rosemary Radford Ruether (Beacon Press, 1983)

It looks like this term is mainly being used by authors in feminist, womanist, and mujerista theology; African-American theology; LGBT and queer theology; and so forth.

I am curious about how this term originated and became popular, especially in relation to the communities just mentioned, and about what its connotations are, in contrast to "theology". (For example, I have a rough impression that "God-talk" covers any kind of talking about God in everyday life, as opposed to theology which is done in an academic or formal setting, but this is only an impression without evidence.)

I think you answered your own question in saying it was simply a "friendlier alternative to theology."

There could be many answers here, but I'm willing to bet those authors use the term God-Talk to come across more down-to-earth and less egg-headed. This is probably because their readership might feel intimidated by a book with the word theology in it.


What is the significance of Judas's name? The Old Testament has a question hanging over it: "Who will inherit the promises to Abraham?". Isaac is chosen over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau and (though in one sense all the sons of Jacob inherit) Judah is chosen over his brothers. Likewise Perez over Zerah and so on through the line of David.

There is a parallel theme of a 'remnant' surviving God's judgement on disobedient Israel, and the survival of Judah when Ephraim is destroyed is part of that theme. Though Judah is eventually sent into exile, it is the remnant of Judah that returns and Judah's line that ultimately leads to Jesus (though not through a human father).

In that light, what is the significance that the one disciple who betrays Jesus is named Judas (the Greek for Judah)? Is the intention to highlight that the old cycle of rebellion, judgement, 'repentance' and relenting has finally come to an end?

As you already stated, Judas (Strong's g2455) is simply a variation of the name Judah. Iscariot (Strong's g2469) translates to "man of Kerioth." Kerioth is one of the cities listed in Joshua chapter 15 as the allotment of the Promised Land for the tribe of Judah. So there doesn't seem to be a literal meaning behind the name, other than likely belonging to the tribe of Judah.
As for a non-literal significance, there is certainly a parallelism between Israel (and the kings of Judah in particular) rebelling and Judas-Iscariot betraying Jesus. Whether or not this parallelism has a further significance, I can't say.


What are the Biblical arguments against Transubstantiation? Catholics believe that the bread and wine in the communion change into the body and blood (and divinity) of the Lord Jesus Christ. They taught that the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine despite of the fact that it appears bread and wine. Rather, both are now 100% body and blood (and the divinity) of Jesus Christ himself. This change is specifically defined by Catholicism as a change of substance ( i.e. "Transubstantiation").

So, what are the Biblical arguments against Transubstantiation?

So, what are the Biblical arguments against Transubstantiation?

  Matthew 26:26-28  And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and
  blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said,
  Take, eat; this is my body.   And he took the cup, and gave thanks,
  and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;   For this is my
  blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission
  of sins.

There are two possibilities

Jesus changed the bread and wine actually into his own flesh and blood.
Jesus was using metaphor to describe his death as the means of life for us.

The second possibility gains strength as Jesus used his flesh as a metaphor for life giving sustenance previously.

  John 6:33  For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven,
  and giveth life unto the world.

That Jesus was not talking about physical eating was further strengthened by his contrast with the bread Moses provided.

That this illustration was not easily understood is seen by the reaction of Peter;

  John 6:67-68  Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
  Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast
  the words of eternal life.

Earlier Jesus emphasized the eating of his flesh and the drinking of his blood;

  John 6:53-54  Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto
  you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood,
  ye have no life in you.   Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my
  blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Here it would seem to bolster the argument for a literal eating and drinking of the body of Christ. However, the statement that if they did not eat and drink they would have “no life” in them shows a different kind of life than what most understood, eternal life.

  John 6:58  This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your
  fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread
  shall live for ever.

The literal view loses some support as Jesus emphasizes that it is the spirit that gives life.

  John 6:63  It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth
  nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they
  are life.

The best support for the metaphor view comes from the practice of communion in Corinth.

  1 Corinthians 11:21  For in eating every one taketh before other his
  own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

Apparently some were getting drunk at communion which would indicate it was not physical blood.

  1 Corinthians 11:29  For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily,
  eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's
  body.   For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many
  sleep.

However the best evidence would not be Biblical but forensic. If a sample of blood and wine were examined after transubstantiation, it could easily be proven to be real flesh and blood or not.


How do Protestants interpret "covers a multitude of sins" (James 5:19)? In the New Testament, in James 5:19-20, we read:

  My brethren, if anyone one of you strays from the way of truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that whoever turns back a sinner from the error of his ways shall save his soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins.

1 Peter 4:7-8 contains the same phrase:

  Now the consummnation of all is here. Be of sound mind, then, and sober in prayers: before all, have a sincere love for other among yourselves: for  love covers a multitude of sins.

Question

According to Protestants, what does "cover a multitude of sins" mean?

In James 5:20, the expression "shall cover a multitude of sins" means that the sins of the person who has strayed will be forgiven by God.  The significance is that if the sinful person listens and repents, eternal punishment will be averted. Linked to this is Jude verse 23:

"Rescue others by snatching them from the flames of judgment." (NLT)

1 Peter 4:7-8 is cross-referenced to Proverbs 10:12 which says:

"Hatred stirs up dissension, but love covers over all wrongs."

The emphasis here is on how love promotes forgiveness.
However, because Protestants don't distinguish between "mortal" and "venial" sins, then no reference is made to any explicit sin. All sin is rebellion against God and the Protestant view is that there is only one sin that can't be forgiven by God and that is the sin of rejecting Christ Jesus as Lord and Saviour.
Edit for clarification: The Protestant view is that all sins are mortal sins in that even one sin makes the offender worthy of eternal separation from God.
Here is a summary of the Protestant view of justification and salvation as expressed by John Stott:

I have been saved – in the past – from the penalty of sin – by a crucified Saviour: “For in this hope we were saved" (Romans 8:24).
I am being saved – in the present – from the power of sin – by a living Saviour: "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Corinthians 1:18).
I shall be saved – in the future – from the presence of sin – by a coming Saviour: "Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!"  (Romans 5:9)


Where does this famous St. Augustine quote about the repentant thief come from? There is a very famous quote in French Catholic circles that would be translated as something like:

  No, I had not studied the Scriptures, but Jesus looked at me on the
  cross and, in his gaze, I understood everything!

Most pages in French don't give the reference and the little bit of Latin that I know has not been very helpful in search the complete works of Augustine in Latin. Does anyone have an idea of where this quote might come from? Thanks and God bless!

According to Augustine: A New Biography by James J. O'Donnell,

  Samuel Beckett tormented his interpreters with a story he told one time, supposedly to help them understand Waiting for Godot. He used to read, he said, a lot of Augustine in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris and recalled one passage in particular: "Do not despair," he remembered Augustine saying, "one of the thieves was saved. Do not presume, one of the thieves was damned." Thinking of Vladimir and Estragon as the two thieves crucified with Jesus is intriguing, to say the least, and is wonderfully Beckett-like that the particular passage cannot be found anywhere in the surviving writings of Augustine or anywhere in the pages of Patrologia Latina, for all that language and tenor are quite perfectly Augustinian. Did Beckett make up the quotation? Is he the most modern of pseudo-Augustines?

When searching around, the quotation is usually appended to Augustine and it is through Beckett that it all started, though it is a growing consensus in academia that it was not Augustine that penned the phrase but Beckett.


How does the Swedenborgian Church explain passages where Jesus talks/prays to the Father? One of the key points in the theology of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) is that the traditional understanding of the Trinity - three persons in one God - is mistaken.  Instead, God is seen as having three "essential components." Lee Woofenden does a good job of explaining what this means in this article on his blog.

However, there are some passages in the Bible where Jesus prays to the Father, says he has incomplete knowledge, and so on, which would seem to suggest that he is a distinct person, at least at that time. This apparent personhood, distinct from the Father, is especially poignant in a passage such as Luke 22:42:

  "Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done."

Here Jesus seems to have his own personality, knowledge, desires, and so on. My question is, how are these sorts of passages explained within Swedenborgian thought?

From a Swedenborgian perspective, there is a simple answer and a complex answer to this question.
The Simple Answer
The simple answer does not require the theology of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) at all. It only requires common human experience:
Jesus was talking to himself.
People often talk to themselves. Sometimes they even do it out loud! I doubt anyone goes through life without talking to himself or herself on many occasions—perhaps many times a day. The Bible records a number of times when people talk to themselves. A simple search for "said to himself" on BibleGateway turns up seven instances in the Protestant Bible, and three more in the Apocrypha.
But more specifically from a Swedenborgian perspective:
Jesus was talking to his own soul.
In Swedenborg's theology, "the Father" is the divine soul, while "the Son" is the divine body, or human manifestation. (See my answer to the question, "What do non-trinitarians mean when they call Jesus the 'Son of God'?")
The Bible also offers an example of someone talking to his own soul, in Jesus' parable of the rich fool:

Then he told them a parable: "The land of a rich man produced abundantly. And he thought to himself, 'What should I do, for I have no place to store my crops?'
"Then he said, 'I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.'" (Luke 12:16-19, italics added)

So the simple answer, which doesn't even require Swedenborg's theology, but only a common understanding of human nature (which is an image and likeness of God's nature, see Genesis 1:26-27), is:
Jesus was talking to himself, and specifically, to his own soul, which was the Father within him.
The Complex Answer
The complex answer does require Swedenborg's theology of the Incarnation, which also has a solid basis in the Bible.
Jesus' dual nature while on earth
According to the two Biblical accounts of Jesus' conception and birth, which occur in Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-38; 2:1-7, Mary was Jesus' mother. However his father was not Joseph. Instead Mary conceived him "from the Holy Spirit," such that the child to be born of her would be called "the Son of God." The clear inference is that God was Jesus' father. And the New Testament commonly refers to God as the Father of Jesus.
This means that at birth, Jesus had a dual nature:

A finite human nature from his human mother Mary
An infinite divine nature from his divine Father

These two natures were arranged in him such that the finite human nature from Mary constituted his outer self, while his infinite divine nature, which was God, constituted his inner self. Swedenborg states this succinctly in Secrets of Heaven #1460:

His inner aspects were divine ones from Jehovah, his Father; his outer aspects were human ones from Mary, his mother.

According to Swedenborg's theology, it was through his finite human nature, which he received from Mary, that Jesus could be tempted by the Devil.
In fact, it was the very weaknesses and tendencies toward sin (not Original Sin—a non-Biblical Catholic doctrine that Swedenborg rejected) that made it possible for hell and the Devil to approach Jesus so that he could be "tempted in all ways just as we are" (Hebrews 4:15). The Devil could never approach God's divine nature directly. Such an encounter would annihilate the Devil—who, in Swedenborg's theology is a personification of all evil and hell.
Ironically then, according to Swedenborg's theology, the non-Biblical Catholic doctrine of Mary's Immaculate Conception (which is not the same thing as the Virgin Birth of Jesus), if it were true, would destroy the very reason Jesus took on a human nature through and from a finite human being. He took on that nature specifically to face the Devil on the Devil's own turf, which is the fallen human nature, subject to sin. In other words, the Incarnation required that Jesus receive from his human mother a finite, fallen human nature with inborn tendencies to evil and sin just like that of any other human being ever born.
Jesus' victory over the Devil through temptation
And yet, according to Hebrews 4:15, though he was tempted to sin in every way that we are, unlike any ordinary human being he never actually sinned. In line with this, Swedenborg states that during Jesus' lifetime on earth, every time the Devil approached him through his finite, human nature and tempted him, Jesus overcame in that temptation, and was victorious in his struggle against the Devil (or hell). This can be seen especially in Jesus' temptation by the Devil in the desert after his baptism (Matthew 4:1-11; Mark 1:12-13; Luke 4:1-13).
Through a lifetime of victories in all of his temptations, Jesus completely overcame the Devil, or the power of evil, subjecting it to his personal control, and reducing it to a state in which it could no longer overwhelm humanity.
This, according to Swedenborg was the essential and universal act of Redemption that Jesus accomplished during his lifetime on earth. If Jesus had not fought against and emerged completely victorious over the Devil, all people on earth would have suffered eternal damnation, because by our own strength we humans cannot possibly resist the overwhelming power of the Devil and hell.
Jesus' process of glorification
This victory over evil took place in the context of a process that Swedenborg calls "glorification," based on the usage of that word especially in the Gospel of John. (See, for example, John 7:39; 12:23, 28; John 13:31-32; 14:13.)
This process of glorification took place in two basic states that continued throughout his lifetime in an alternating cycle:

The first state was one of emptying out, or of expelling from himself the finite human nature from his human mother Mary.
The second state was one of being glorified, or of uniting his human nature with his inner divine nature, called "the Father" in the Bible.

Here is how Swedenborg describes this process, and its ultimate results, in True Christianity #104:

When the Lord was being emptied out he was in a state of progress toward union; when he was being glorified he was in a state of union itself. The church recognizes that the Lord had two states while he was in the world: one called being emptied out; the other called glorification.
The prior state, being emptied out, is described in many passages in the Word, especially in the Psalms of David, but also in the Prophets. There is even one passage in Isaiah 53 where it says, "He emptied out his soul even to death" (Isaiah 53:12). This same state also entailed the Lord's being humbled before the Father. In this state he prayed to the Father. In this state he says that he is doing the Father’s will and attributes everything he has done and said to the Father.
The following passages show that he prayed to the Father: Matthew 26:36-44; Mark 1:35; 6:46; 14:32–39; Luke 5:16; 6:12; 22:41-44; John 17:9, 15, 20. The following show that he did the Father's will: John 4:34; 5:30. The following show that he attributed everything he had done and said to the Father: John 8:26, 27, 28; 12:49, 50; 14:10.
In fact, he cried out on the cross, "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?" (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34). Furthermore, without this state it would have been impossible to crucify him.
The state of being glorified is also a state of union. The Lord was in this state when he was transfigured before three of his disciples. He was in it when he performed miracles. He was in it as often as he said that the Father and he were one, that the Father was in him and he was in the Father, and that all things belonging to the Father were his. After complete union he said he had power over all flesh (John 17:2) and all power in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18). There are also other such passages. (links added)

Why Jesus sometimes talked and prayed to the Father as if to a separate being
In other words, during his lifetime on earth Jesus went through two alternating states:

In one state, Jesus was more present in and aware of his finite human
nature from Mary. This was the state in which he could be tempted. It
was also a state in which he felt a sense of separation from the
Father, who was his own inner divine soul. It was in this state
that Jesus prayed to the Father as if to a separate being.
In the other state, Jesus was more present in and aware of his
infinite divine nature, which was God the Father. When he was in this
state, he said that he and the Father are one (John 10:30),
that those who have seen him have seen the Father (John
14:8-9), and that the Father within him does the works (John
14:10).

These alternating states of feeling separated from the Father (his own divine soul) when he was more conscious of his finite human side, and feeling one with the Father when he was more conscious of his infinite divine side, continued throughout his lifetime on earth, culminating in his final and greatest temptation, on the Cross, when he cried out (quoting the opening verse of Psalm 22), "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34).
Jesus' full union with the Father
That, according to Swedenborg, was the last time he was immersed in his finite human nature from Mary. Through his victory in that final and greatest temptation, he completely put off from himself the last vestiges of his finite human heredity from Mary, and fully united himself with the divinity of the Father within. After the Resurrection, and especially after the Ascension to the Father, there was nothing left of that finite human maternal heredity; he was fully divine, so that Swedenborg calls him the Lord God Jesus Christ.
One final passage illustrating this, from Swedenborg's True Christianity #102:

There is a belief that the Lord in his human manifestation not only was but still is the Son of Mary. This is a blunder, though, on the part of the Christian world. It is true that he was the Son of Mary; it is not true that he still is. As the Lord carried out the acts of redemption, he put off the human nature from his mother and put on a human nature from his Father. This is how it came about that the Lord's human nature is divine and that in him God is human and a human is God. The fact that he put off the human nature from his mother and put on a divine nature from his father—a divine human nature—can be seen from his never referring to Mary as his mother, as the following passages show: "The mother of Jesus said to him, 'They have no wine.' Jesus said to her, 'What do I have to do with you, woman? My hour has not yet come'" (John 2:3-4). Elsewhere it says, "Jesus on the cross saw his mother and the disciple he loved standing next to her. He said to his mother, 'Woman, behold your son.' Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold your mother'" (John 19:26-27). On one occasion he did not acknowledge her: "There was a message for Jesus from people who said, 'Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, and they want to see you.' Jesus said in reply, 'My mother and my brothers are these people who are hearing the Word of God and doing it'" (Luke 8:20-21; Matthew 12:46-49; Mark 3:31-35). So the Lord called her "woman," not "mother," and gave her to John to be his mother. In other passages she is called his mother, but not by the Lord himself.

So although Jesus did have a dual nature during his lifetime on earth, having a finite human side outwardly, but an infinite divine side inwardly, after his process of glorification on earth was complete, he was fully divine and human at the same time, his humanity having become fully divine. This is why another common expression that Swedenborg uses to describe the risen and glorified Jesus Christ is "the Divine Humanity."
So the complex answer is:
When Jesus talked and prayed to the Father as if to a separate being, he was doing so from the finite, human nature that he received from his mother Mary. However, by the time of his Resurrection and Ascension, none of that that finite nature was left in him. He had become fully divine, and fully one with the Father, so that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all essential components of one Divine Person, who is the Divine Humanity, or the Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ.


What is the protestant apologetic for James' explicit statement that we are justified by works? James 2:24, RSVC2E: You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Many times I've heard Protestants claim that James isn't really saying what he appears to be saying here. They will say something along the lines of "James isn't saying that we are justified by works, he is saying that works are the sign and fruit of faith. If you have faith, you will naturally do works"

I have no problem with saying that works are the fruit of faith and that if you have faith you will naturally do works, however that is not what this verse is saying. This verse very explicitly says that we are justified by works. That is, our works affect our justification in some way. My understanding of Catholic teaching is that we are supposed to just take the verse at face value and say that we can increase and decrease our justification via our good and bad works. In this view "Justification" is not a binary attribute which you either have or don't have, but instead a quantitative property which everyone has and which can increase or decrease as time goes by, such that someone can have more justification than someone else (and be rewarded in heaven appropriately).

What is the protestant explanation for this verse, without ignoring it or handwaving it away? Obviously works do justify us according to James 2:24, so in what sense?

According to the New Bible Dictionary, 2nd Ed., "Justifiction" entry, Paul used justify as a technical term, but James used it in a general sense of being vindicated, or proved genuine and right with God and man (p. 649).

  "James quotes Gn. 15:6 for the same purpose as Paul does -- to show
  that it was faith that secured Abraham's acceptance. But now, he
  argues, this statement was 'fulfilled' (confirmed, shown to be true,
  and brought to it appointed completion by events) 30 years later, when
  'Abraham (was) justfied by works when he offered his son Isaac upon
  the altar' (v 21). By this his faith was 'made perfect', i.e. brought
  to due expression in appropriate actions; thus he was shown to be a
  true believer" (p. 649).

Paul would have agreed with James when he wrote, "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). There should be a real change of life when believing that you are a sinner before God and have repented from it.

John echoes this point when he writes, "Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous" (1 John 3:7). Righteous is as righteous does. These are acting out what God has called them to be.

The children of God have been declared righteous and justified when they believed in Christ. But we can tell by their behavior afterward which ones took their faith seriously, no? This is what James seems to be saying. Those who are taking their faith seriously by their works are doing what Peter wrote, "Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you do these things [the fruitful works of vv. 5-8] you will never stumble" (2 Peter 1:10).


What are the main points of Mormons' teaching that this group of people consider contradictory to the Bible? Okay, before asking this question I want to establish the audience that I am about to address: people who consider themselves Christians and don't associate themselves with Mormons.

So here is the question:

What are the main points of Mormon teaching that a majority of those who consider themselves Christians, and not associate themselves with Mormons, consider contradictory to the Bible?

Please, refrain from mentioning here those points that did not originate from the Bible, but can't be either supported or disproved by the Bible - my question is not about that kind of points.

I think a simple chart answers this best, so you can look at http://contenderministries.org/mormonism/comparison.php
Here are a couple of Mormon beliefs and their reference. I believe D&C is Doctrines and Covenant, not certain what book Mormon Doctrine is, but this could give at least a small sample of teachings the run smack against what mainstream Christianity teaches.

God the Father has a wife, through whom he procreates spirit children.
"Implicit in the Christian verity that all men are the spirit children
of an Eternal Father is the usually unspoken truth that they are also
the offspring of an Eternal Mother.  An exalted and glorified Man of
Holiness (Moses 6:57) could not be a Father unless a Woman of like
glory, perfection, and holiness was associated with him as a Mother"
(Mormon Doctrine, 1977 ed., p. 516)
Man was also in the beginning with God.  Intelligence, or the light of
truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be"  (D&C 93:29)
"If there had been no atonement, temporal death would have remained
forever, and there never would have remained forever, and there never
would have been a resurrection.  The body would have remained forever
in the grave" (Mormon Doctrine, 1977 ed., p.63)
"Redemption from death, through the sufferings of Christ, is for all
men, both the righteous and the wicked" (Ibid., p. 65)


Has a Pope ever secretly canonized a saint? We know that at certain times a Pope has created a cardinal of the Catholic Church "in pectore" (in the heart). This simply means that the Pope, in creating a cardinal in such circumstances, chooses not to publish the new prelate's name publicly due to some political (or other) reason. His name remains known only to the Pope until such time as he can announce the cardinal's name publicly.

Has this same process ever been applied to the canonization of a saint "in pectore"?

No, such a thing would not be possible.

The Pope cannot unilaterally canonize anyone. That would completely miss the point of declaring someone a saint, which is to present their lives as a public example of heroic virtue for Catholics to imitate.

  By canonizing some of the faithful, i.e., by solemnly proclaiming that they practiced heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God’s grace, the Church recognizes the power of the Spirit of holiness within her and sustains the hope of believers by proposing the saints to them as models and intercessors.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 828)

  When we look at the lives of those who have faithfully followed Christ, we are inspired with a new reason for seeking the City that is to come and at the same time we are shown a most safe path by which among the vicissitudes of this world, in keeping with the state in life and condition proper to each of us, we will be able to arrive at perfect union with Christ, that is, perfect holiness.

(Lumen Gentium, section 50)

There would therefore be no purpose in canonizing someone if their life, and thus their name, could not be held up as an example from that moment.

Further,there is an extended process to be adhered to before anyone is formally declared a saint. This includes includes among other things arrangements for a formal investigation into the person's life, usually by the bishop of the person's diocese, a request for a declaration of sainthood by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, and a formal declaration by the Pope that the person is indeed a saint. (See the Wikipedia article for a reasonable summary of the process, with good source notes.) It's very difficult to see how such a process could be carried out without anyone but the Pope knowing the name of the one declared a saint.

There is a parallel process for the formal declaration of sainthood of someone who has long been considered a saint in some particular area; this is known as equipollent canonization (from Merriam-Webster: "equal in force, power, or validity"; that is, equally valid with the usual type of canonization). Nevertheless, being a canonization, it also requires a formal declaration from the Pope; and again, it's hard to see how this could be done without anyone knowing the person's name.


Were birthdays celebrated by believers anywhere in Holy Scriptures? Is there any mention of a birthday celebration among Old Testament Israelites or New Testament Christians in the Holy Scriptures?

Were birthdays celebrated by believers?  The answer would turn on one's definition of "celebrate".

Does "celebrate" mean only the inclusion of cake, ice cream, balloons, streamers, presents, friends, and family singing songs, showing pictures, opening presents, pinning the tail on the donkey, and blowing out candles?  Or how "celebrate" means only about dancing girls and beheading of enemies?  Or would it be more mundane, as in I "celebrated" my birthday last month, realizing my age on the earth?

If the latter, than of course, they "celebrated" their birthdays.  For example, they knew Jesus was 12 years old when He visited the temple.  They knew John the Baptist was 30 years old when he became a priest.  One can't know these things unless someone "celebrates" one's birthday.

Again, we don't know exactly what "celebrate" meant because it is not recorded exactly how they "celebrate" those birthdays, but we do know they didn't pretend the dates didn't exist or in fact were not material to their lives.  Birthdays were obviously "celebrated".

Subsequent to the New Testament, there is the account of the Martyrdom of Polycarp.  He knew he was 86 when he was tried in the fire and martyred.  Of course once you are dead, no one is observing your birthday on earth, but what is interesting is their thinking they might observe his birthday into death.

Other answers posted quote scripture examples.  There were obvious birthday "celebrations" too deviant, just as there might be today.  But there are other birthday "celebrations" in the right spirit.

PS To add, according to this site, Isaac the first Jewish baby was weaned at 24 months.  Abraham and Sarah had a great feast.  Tradition places it on his second birthday.


What is the Difference Between ROCOR-MP and ROCOR-A (ROCA) What differentiates the various synods within the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia aka ROCOR?
I met someone who stated that their particular synod was in communion with ROCOR-A (ROCA), but not ROCOR-MP, because the latter was in communion with Moscow and Constantinople.
A quick google search told me that there were in fact multiple ROCOR groups that are distinct from ROCOR-A (ROCA) and who are not in communion with ROCOR-MP. Comments on those groups would be appreciated but not necessary to answer the question.
ROCOR merged with the Moscow Patriarch (MP) in the last decade and is now referred to as either ROCOR or ROCOR-MP.
I think that ROCOR-A is identical to ROCA, which is the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, which broke with ROCOR when the latter merged with MP. ROCA and ROCOR used the refer to the same thing, but now they refer to two distinct groups, the differences of which I would like answered in this question.
Edit - From Wikipedia:

Critics of the reunification [of ROCOR and MP] argue that "the hierarchy in Moscow still has not properly addressed the issue of KGB infiltration of the church hierarchy during the Soviet period." It has also been noted that "some parishes and priests of the ROCOR have always rejected the idea of a reunification with the ROC [MP] and said they would leave the ROCOR if this happened. The communion in Moscow may accelerate their departure."
The signing of the act led to yet another small schism from the ROCOR, this time taking with it Bishop Agafangel (Pashkovsky) of Odessa and Tauria, and with him some of ROCOR's parishes in the Ukraine, which refused to enter the jurisdiction of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Agafangel was subsequently suspended by the ROCOR synod for disobedience. Despite censure, Agafangel persisted with the support of ROCOR parishes inside and outside of the Ukraine which had also refused to submit to the Act of Canonical Communion. Agafangel subsequently ordained Bishop Andronik (Kotliaroff) with the assistance of Greek bishops from the Holy Synod in Resistance; these ordinations signified the breach between ROCOR and those who would refused communion with Moscow. At a Fifth All-Diaspora Council (composed of clergy who did not accept the Act of Canonical Communion), Bishop Agafangel was elevated to the rank of metropolitan; he now heads the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad - Provisional Supreme Church Authority (ROCA-PSCA) as Metropolitan Agafangel of New York and Eastern America.

Prior to the Russian Revolution there were two branches of Orthodoxy in Russia that I am aware of.  The first and largest was the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) under the Moscow Patriarch (MP).  The second was a schismatic group called Old Believers (OB) that split away from the MP due to differences over Liturgical forms.  They are not relevant to the current discussion.

Until 1589, the Orthodox Church in Russia was governed by the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople.  In 1589, Russia was granted autonomy under its first Patriarch, Job.  Tsar Peter the Great forced the ROC to abolish the office of Patriarch in 1721 as part of his overall political reforms.  From that time until the time of the Russian Revolution, the ROC was governed by a Synod appointed by the Tsar that included both clergy and lay men (the "Most Holy Governing Synod").

One of the ironies of the Bolshevik Revolution was that it planted the seed for preservation of the Orthodox Church through Communism by ending all government involvement in the Orthodox Church.  As a result, the ROC was able to reinstate the office of Patriarch in 1917, the office having been vacant for 196 years.

By 1922, however, the Bolsheviks had begun to seriously persecute and infiltrate the ROC.  At that time there were very large number of Russian Orthodox clergy throughout the world, especially in Palestine and Serbia.  Believing the MP to be under undue interference from the Soviet Government, a number of hierarchs in Serbia established on their own a Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCA).  At some point the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad or Russian Church Abroad (ROCA) started to be called the "Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia" (ROCOR).

The situation with Russian Orthodox in America, as in other countries with diaspora, was complex.  For some time, individual parishes under ROCOR coexisted with parishes that remained under the MP, known as the "Metropolia".  ROCOR and the Metropolia had a tenuous communion in the United States.

In 1970, the MP granted the Metropolia "autocephaly" in the United States, thus establishing what is today known as the Orthodox Church in America (OCA).  The validity of this autocephaly was contested by ROCOR and other jurisdictions within the Eastern Orthodox Church.

By 2001, ROCOR's concerns about government influence over the MP began to subside. In 2006, ROCUR returned to the MP, leaving the canonical status of the OCA in doubt.

Since 2010, an Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the United States has been working to resolve, among other things, the division between the MP and the OCA.  It should be noted, however, that the individual jurisdictions are in communion with each other, despite the disputes over administration..


In Roman Catholicism, does an individual's history of miscarriage lead to different or more specific guidance on pregnancy prevention? As I understand it, Roman Catholicism teaches the following:

Life begins at conception and therefore abortion is wrong
Artificial birth control is wrong

Under normal circumstances these teachings seem complementary or at least unrelated.  But it seems to me that this combination might be problematic when considering the case of a woman who has a history of miscarriages.  Does the Roman Catholic Church specifically instruct such women differently than others?

For example, assume a woman who has had several miscarriages despite medical intervention, and no live births.  Would the RCC consider the deaths of the children in the womb of such a woman significant enough to instruct her to take one of the following approaches?

Abstention from sexual relations until menopause (eliminating the chance of miscarriage)
Mandatory use of natural family planning and/or artificial birth control (allowing the latter since it can prevent pregnancy more effectively than natural family planning alone)
Mandatory use of natural family planning only (reducing the chance of miscarriage, but not as much as previous options)

Or does the RCC not recognize a distinction in such a case?  From the perspective of the RCC, are such women just as free to pursue pregnancy as those with no history of miscarriage?

There are two ways of preventing miscarriages (spontaneous abortions):

Not conceiving at all

by abstaining from sexual intercourse (allowed)
by contracepting (forbidden)

Treating the underlying medical cause of recurrent miscarriage (allowed)

If #1 is intended, yet the husband and wife still engage in the marriage act, this is contraception, and the Church prohibits all forms of contraception (frustrating the procreative end of the marriage act). As Pope Pius XI said in his encyclical on Christian marriage Casti Connubii:

  [A]ny use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature.

Certainly, #1 could be intended by refraining from sexual relations, too, and the Church does not forbid this as long as both husband and wife agree to it.

The Catholic Church prohibits contraception in any form, regardless of other factors. If there is a serious reason for having marriage relations (e.g., to prevent a spouse from committing adultery), yet conceiving may be dangerous to her health (e.g., due to recurrent miscarriage), the couple can (and could even be obliged to) have marriage relations during the relatively more infertile period of her cycle. See, e.g., "Recourse to Infertile Periods" (§16) of Humanæ Vitæ.

Regarding #2, Catholics are certainly permitted to cure recurrent miscarriage, just as they are permitted and in some cases obliged, to cure any other disease. Failure to cure, if possible, a life-threatening disease could be a sin against the 5th Commandment. If curing the recurrent miscarriage produces some other undesired effect, like infertility, it might still be permissible to cure the recurrent miscarriage, as long as infertility is not intended; this is the principle of double-effect:

  The principle that says it is morally allowable to perform an act that has at least two effects, one good and one bad. It may be used under the following conditions:

  the act to be done must be good in itself or at least morally indifferent; by the act to be done is meant the deed itself taken independently of its consequences;
  the good effect must not be obtained by means of the evil effect; the evil must be only an incidental by-product and not an actual factor in the accomplishment of the good;
  the evil effect must not be intended for itself but only permitted; all bad will must be excluded form the act;
  there must be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect. At least the good and evil effects should be nearly equivalent.
  All four conditions must be fulfilled. If any one of them is not satisfied, the act is morally wrong.

  An example of the lawful use of the double effect would be the commander of a submarine in wartime who torpedoes an armed merchant vessel of the enemy, although he foresees that several innocent children on board will be killed. All four required conditions are fulfilled:

  he intends merely to lessen the power of the enemy by destroying an armed merchant ship. He does not wish to kill the innocent children;
  his action of torpedoing the ship is not evil in itself;
  the evil effect (the death of the children) is not the cause of the good
  effect (the lessening of the enemy's strength);
  there is sufficient
  reason for permitting the evil effect to follow, and this reason is
  administering a damaging blow to those who are unjustly attacking his
  country.

Usually recurrent miscarriage, like infertility, is a sign of some underlying medical issue that needs to be addressed. See ch. 12 "Recurrent Miscarriage" of Catholic OB/GYN Dr. Hilgers's The NaProTECHNOLOGY Revolution. Dr. Hilgers practices medicine in accordance with Catholic moral teaching.


Are there different views on the nature or/and understanding of the Trinity among Trinitarians? I think I've heard people describe the doctrine differently, maybe because they do not fully grasp the so-called "mystery". I've heard someone make an argument for the Trinity while maintaining the superiority of the Father, however others would maintain the "coequal" concept.

For instance in the view on tribulation, there are pre-trib, mid-trib and post-trib...

So are there established categories (so to speak) of Trinitarians?

Yes there are several important subdivisions of Trinitarian theology. If we start with the Nicene Creed as the baseline definition of the Trinity, then there were three early positions concerning Christology and the incarnation: Nestorianism (two persons in Christ), monophysitism/miaphysitism (one joined nature of Christ), and dyophysitism (two natures in the one person of Christ.) Dyophysitism is the position of the great majority of Christians today, but Nestorianism survives into the present in the Church of the East, and miaphysitism in the Oriental Orthodox Churches. A few centuries later, the debate developed into the debate over monothelitism, whether Jesus had one will or two. This may all seem like a debate over Christology, not the Trinity, but with monothelitism we saw that our Christology is dependent on questions of the Trinity: whether the faculties of God such as his will are possessed by the divine nature or by the persons of the Trinity, although at the time of Chalcedon they would not have phrased the debate in that way.

A second aspect in which Trinitarian theology can be distinguished is through the immanent and economic views of God. The immanent Trinity focuses on how God knows himself, while the economic Trinity is how God shows himself to us in his actions. Can we know anything of God as he truly is? If the economic Trinity is entirely arbitrary and the Spirit or the Father could have equally become incarnate then that implies the names or titles of God reflect only his roles and not his true identities. But if the economic reflects the immanent then the roles reveal the immanent to us, with questions of the nature by which the Father is the source of the Son or the Son is submissive to the Father. In this the categories are less well defined and debate continues.

One modern development is called Social Trinitarianism. I don't really understand it properly, so I'll quote Wikipedia to explain how it reinterprets the single divine essence of classical Trinitarianism: "this one essence can be thought of as the loving relationship between Father, Son, and Spirit." Debate continues on how strong a model and explanation this is and how compatible it is with the Nicene Creed.