According to Catholic Tradition - Was Jesus' experience on Earth scripted? Or did human actors shape it? God does not play dice with the universe. - Albert Einstein

The Bible gives us reason to believe that God (presumably, God the Father) chose the time of Jesus' arrival on Earth.

My Question:

According to Catholic Tradition - Was Jesus' experience on Earth scripted? Or did human actors shape it?

Specifically:

According to Catholic Tradition - Were the people who came into contact with Jesus acting of their own free will? Or did God "move" them to act in a certain way to fulfill prophecies and lay the foundation for the Gospels?

For reference, a similar question was asked about Judas Iscariot.

First Answering

Q. According to Catholic Tradition - Was Jesus' experience on Earth scripted?
No it wasn't, but it followed a known 'script'.

Q. Or did human actors shape it?
Yes they did.

Q. Specifically: According to Catholic Tradition - Were the people who came into contact with Jesus acting of their own free will?
Yes they were.

Q. Specifically: Or did God "move" them to act in a certain way to fulfill prophecies and lay the foundation for the Gospels?
God moved - but did not force - those acting in accordance to his will, but not those acting contrary to his will. In the latter, the way it is described is 'he allowed' them to act they way they did. In both cases, the actors remain[ed] free.

  [T]here is no predetermination by the Divine of what the human will
  freely chooses; it is not because God foreknows (having foredecreed) a
  certain free act that that act takes place, but God foreknows it in
  the first instance because as a matter of fact it is going to take
  place[.] - Please see below.

[Attempted] Explanation Second

Starting with 'why is man free?'

  cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1743
  "God willed that man should be left in the hand of his own counsel
  (cf. Sir
  15:14),
  so that he might of his own accord seek his creator and freely attain
  his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him" (GS 17 § 1).

From Free Will | New Advent please note that:

  (2) Theology studies the questions of the existence, nature and
  attributes of God, and His relations with man. The reconciliation of
  God's fore-knowledge and universal providential government of the
  world with the contingency of human action, as well as the harmonizing
  of the efficacy of supernatural grace with the free natural power of
  the creature, has been amongst the most arduous labours of the
  theological student from the days of St. Augustine down to the present
  time.

The Jesuit school — with whom probably a majority of independent theologians agree, say:

  God knows in the scientia media what Peter would do if in given
  circumstances he were to receive a certain aid, and this before any
  absolute decree to give that aid is supposed. Thus there is no
  predetermination by the Divine of what the human will freely chooses;
  it is not because God foreknows (having foredecreed) a certain free
  act that that act takes place, but God foreknows it in the first
  instance because as a matter of fact it is going to take place; He
  knows it as a hypothetical objective fact before it becomes an object
  of the scientia visionis — or rather this is how, in order to
  safeguard human liberty, we must conceive Him as knowing it. It was
  thus, for example, that Christ knew what would have been the results
  of His ministry among the people of Tyre and Sidon. But one must be
  careful to avoid implying that God's knowledge is in any way dependent
  on creatures, as if He had, so to speak, to await the actual event in
  time before knowing infallibly what a free creature may choose to do.
  From eternity He knows, but does not predetermine the creature's
  choice. And if it be asked how we can conceive this knowledge to exist
  antecedently to and independently of some act of the Divine will, on
  which all things contingent depend, we can only say that the objective
  truth expressed by the hypothetical facts in question is somehow
  reflected in the Divine Essence, which is the mirror of all truth, and
  that in knowing Himself God knows these things also. Whichever way we
  turn we are bound ultimately to encounter a mystery, and, when there
  is a question of choosing between a theory which refers the mystery
  to God Himself and one which only saves the truth of human freedom
  by making free-will itself a mystery, most theologians naturally
  prefer the former alternative. - cf. The Nature and Attributes of
  God | New Advent

PS The Navarre Bible New Testament Compact Edition note on Mk 14:12-21 (RSVCE) is:

  Jesus' initiative in giving instructions for preparation of the
  Passover (vv. 13-16) and, particularly, the mysterious warning in v.21
  show how intricately God's plan and human actions connect up: "Jesus' violent death was not the result of chance in an unfortunate
  coincidence of circumstances, but is part of the mystery of God's
  plan, as St. Peter explains to the Jews of Jerusalem in his first
  sermon on Pentecost: 'This Jesus [was] delivered up according to the
  definite plan and foreknowledge of God' (Acts 2:23
  (RSVCE)).
  This biblical language does not mean that those who handed him over
  were mere passive players in a scenario written in advance by God"
  (CCC,
  599).


At what date in history was the last papal anathema officially applied through the death penalty in a papal court against a heretic or protestant? I was just wondering when in history the official papal death sentences really ended. I  am not interested in any killing that was not officially authorized by a pope (or his authorized representatives) as that would seem more like an potential unsanctioned action (even if done in the name of Catholic faith).

When official papal death sentence end? Never. Because it never started in the first place. Technically such a thing did not exist. Anathema was never officially meant death penalty.

But from your example of Jan Hus, I am assuming your question to be of the executions for holding heretical beliefs. Then the last person to be burned alive at the stake for that was Giordano Bruno, executed February 17, 1600. The last person to die (hanged to death) was Cayetano Ripoll, July 26, 1826.src

BTW the first one was Priscillian (d.385).

That said, I would like to make two points,

Technically Church itself did not kill anyone, they just handed down heretics to secular authorities. (The link about Jan Hus that you mentioned in the comment explicitly mentions that too) The secular authorities wanted to kill heretics to maintain law and order in a city, which in turn will help them to keep up their power. The main aim of those inquisition is to protect the heretics from them and give them a last chance.
Its not just the Catholics, protestants too did the same thing when they came to power. Thirty Years' War, Irish Martyrs, the English Martyrs, Boston martyrs, Salem Witch Hunt etc., are just examples. It is not to justify or defend any side's action, but just to say that the politics and culture is way too much different from ours today. And we cannot comprehend fully of what happened and why it happened to the fullest extend.


Making a vow and defaulting - is there forgiveness? Sometimes we make vows to God that are hard for us to keep and the Bible advised (I couldn't remember this portion: Hosea or Malachi - and Google didn't help too) that we should not be rash when making  a vow for every vow must be kept

  Ecclesiastes 5:4

  When you vow a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he has no
  pleasure in fools: pay that which you have vowed.

And there is another part that talked about it strongly (Hosea or Malachi) but I can't remember.

I made a vow many years ago (less than $5) and I could not fulfill it for a very long time. My finances went off balance until I realized I made a vow and after that peace came to me. Since then I have been cautious of making vows that I can't keep or I wouldn't make any at all.

My question is: Can God forgive someone if he asks for forgiveness after seeing he could not fulfill it or is it a must, you have to pay it?

Short answer: yes, He can forgive if we make a vow and fall short. I'd specify that this is from [insert denomination] perspective, but I think this is agreed upon by all mainstream denominations.

Longer answer, with support:

Yes. Even to those that believe you can "lose your salvation", you can repent and confess it. To those that don't believe you can lose your salvation, the "yes" is even more obvious. We believe that He has forgiven all our sins, past, present, and future.

The central message of Christianity is that the reason we need  savior in the first place is that we fall short and cannot save ourselves. We can't possibly be "good enough".

Finally, 1 John teaches that we all sin. If we try to claim otherwise, we're liars, and that instead if trying to claim we have no sin, we should just confess it, and know that He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.

  1 John (KJV)

  5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare
  unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6 If we
  say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie,
  and do not the truth: 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the
  light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus
  Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no
  sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess
  our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to
  cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10If we say that we have not
  sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

However, I'm with you on refusing to make vows to God. Scripture says it's better not to as well.

  Ecclesiastes 5:4-5 (KJV)

  4 When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no
  pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed. 5 Better is it that
  thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay.

And, in general, we are to keep our word, so of it is in our power to fulfill our vow, we should. There in nothing in Scripture that relieves us of our responsibility to pay what we owe, if it is within our ability to do so. I'd question whether "repentance" is genuine if the person in question failed to do whatever it takes to try to make it right.


Why are the wicked resurrected only to be destroyed and sent to the Lake of Fire? In Revelation 20 the resurrection of the wicked is detailed. They are then judged and thrown in the lake of fire.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. [The righteous only were raised to life first]
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God [the wicked are then raised for judgement]; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. [all the dead wicked are found and raised for judgement]
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. [then they die]

I personally take the Annihilationism perspective, where the wicked are completely annihilated after being judged; they will exist no more.
So from the other perspective, the traditional doctrine of Hell, how does it make sense that the wicked will be resurrected, only to be killed, then suffer eternal torment in Hell (Lake of Fire)? Less challengingly said, why are the wicked resurrected when it seems unnecessary?

I think the misunderstanding here is that the wicked are resurrected and then killed.  I'm not sure there's a Biblical backing for the idea that those who rejected Christ will again be separated from their bodies.  Their souls will be in bodies when they are cast into the lake of fire.  Therefore, the punishment is eternal, physical, punishment in the presence of God and the angels (Revelation 14:10).

The underlying belief here is that the soul was never meant to live without a body, and so it will not, for all eternity, but the question is, will the body be glorified, or will it not be?  From Romans 8:30, we see that the foreknown Christian is predestined, justified, sanctified, and glorified.

  And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called
  he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

So a Christian is glorified, but a non-believer will not be.

In 1 Corinthians 15:12-14, Paul specifically states that the dead are raised.  He doesn't say that only Christians are raised, but all are raised:

  Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of
  you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no
  resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if
  Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your
  faith is in vain.

Not only this, but Christ himself states that all people will be raised, in John 5:28-29:

  Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the
  tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to
  the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the
  resurrection of judgment.

So it's not only Christians who are resurrected, but ALL people, though their resurrection may be followed immediately by very different experiences.  All will worship, but only those who are written in the Lamb's Book of Life will be justified in the eyes of God.  All others will bear their own sin.

As for the underlying idea that annihilation might be preferable to eternal suffering, and eternal torment, I can only conjecture that the reason why eternal torment is taught instead of annihilation, is because annihilation is simply "not complete enough" of a penalty to pay for the sins that have been committed against an all-holy, perfect, just, and loving God.  The object of the transgression must be taken into consideration as well.  Whereas death may be a sufficient penalty here on earth when sins are committed against humans, it is not sufficient in eternity, when committed against an infinitely good God.

(As a side note, some of our discomfort with eternal torment in western culture comes from the western culture's over-emphasis on love and forgiveness at the expense of justice.  In Islamic cultures, they may find our emphasis on love and forgiveness somewhat offensive, preferring to value justice more highly.)


Why do Baptists even baptize in water at all considering their "spirit baptism" views? It is common for Baptists to take the position that any passage in scripture that sounds like its saying baptism is required for salvation is referring to "Spirit baptism." [Examples, Acts 2:38, Gal 3:26-27...]

If this is really their belief, why do they even administer the "ordinance" (their term) of "Water baptism" at all?  I mean if all references to baptism are really "spirit baptism" why even waste your time baptizing in water, and why make your beliefs about immersion and credo-baptism a distinctive to the point of calling yourself "Baptist" (and with a capital "B" to boot) if you don't think the baptism that is administered by men has any real relevance to salvation and that its only "spirit baptism" (which obviously can only be administered by God) that matters?

[Knowing my own perspective may help in formulating an answer I guess: I also believe in immersion and credo-baptism, and I believe that spirit baptism takes place in water baptism, never separate, neither before or after but always at the same time; the only exception being in Acts 10 when God diverged from the normative order to show Peter that Gentiles are acceptable candidates for baptism and not just Jews. Its possible, I suppose that Baptists mean the same thing(?) and so I guess knowing I believe this could help answer the question.]

Baptists practice baptism because it is something taught in Scripture.

Your question hits exactly on the distinction between those denominations that believe that baptism is necessary for salvation, and those that don't. Baptists don't see it as necessary for salvation.  Instead, it's seen as an outward expression of obedience.

The analogy is graduation.  getting your diploma doesn't impart knowledge onto you.  Getting an education - sitting through class, studying, etc. imparts knowledge.  Yet people participate in the graduation ceremony.  Similarly, Baptists, and other groups that believe that baptism is not a necessary component of salvation practice it as a celebration, or an outward expression of the fact that they are already saved, and have already been born again of the spirit.

Backing reference: Baptists: Believer’s Baptism

Excerpt:

  Baptists believe that the Bible teaches that baptism is important but
  not necessary for salvation. For example, the thief on the cross (Luke
  23:39-43), Saul on the Damascus road (Acts 9:1-18) and the people
  gathered in Cornelius’ house (Acts 10:24-48) all experienced salvation
  without the necessity of baptism. In his sermon at Pentecost, Peter
  urged those who had repented and believed in Christ to be baptized,
  not that baptism was necessary for salvation but as a testimony that
  they had been saved (Acts 2:1-41).

  Thus, baptism is symbolic and not sacramental. Baptists believe that
  the Bible teaches that baptism symbolizes that a person has been saved
  and is not a means of salvation. Baptism is not a means of channeling
  saving grace but rather is a way of testifying that saving grace has
  been experienced. It does not wash away sin but symbolizes the
  forgiveness of sin through faith in Christ.

  While baptism is not essential for salvation, it is a very important
  requirement for obedience to the Lord. Christ commanded his disciples
  to baptize (Matthew 28:19) and therefore baptism is a form of
  obedience to Jesus as Lord. Baptism is one way that a person declares,
  “Jesus is Lord.”


Is Pope Francis holding and professing different views (even personally) from any of the traditional Catholic Church doctrine? Is Pope Francis holding and professing different views (even on a personal level) from any of the traditional Catholic Church doctrines?
Two of the examples that are seen in the media are:

Pope Francis believes & profess that salvation is possible without faith in the God revealed in the Scriptures and faith in the Christ God sent. His public statements are said to have served in a way to give light that he has a difference in the view from that of the Traditional teaching of the Catholic church.

Pope Francis believe and profess that the sexual relationship between humans other than that allowed by the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church (between man and woman under the covenant of matrimony) can be allowed and not considered a sin.

A Reformed article named Papal Paganism’s Kiss of Death states so with citations.
Could someone clarify these issues, please?
Especially looking for answers from traditional Catholics.

In September 2016, four cardinals, with the support of many other clerics, questioned the orthodoxy of Francis's document on marriage and the family, Amoris Lætitia, in the form of five dubia ("doubts"):

It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio ["in a marital way"]?
After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia (304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 79, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?
After Amoris Laetitia (301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (Matthew 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, “Declaration,” June 24, 2000)?
After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 81, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?
After Amoris Laetitia (303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 56, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?

(emphases in original)
Briefly, they question if Francis supports

Communion for adulterous couples?
moral relativism?
living in sin?
there not being intrinsically evil acts?(e.g., homosexual acts, contraception, abortion, euthanasia, suicide, etc.)
private interpretation of moral norms?

After years of Francis refusing to address these dubia, Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke and four bishops issued the Declaration of the Truths relating to some of the most common Errors in the Life of the Church of our Time on May 31, 2019, which reiterates Catholic teaching on the

Fundamentals of Faith (#1-2)
Creed (#3-11)
Law of God (#12-29)
Sacraments (#30-40)

in 40 brief points (cf. their accompanying explanatory note).
For example, the Declaration of the Truths says, in response to dubia number

37. By virtue of the will of Christ and the unchangeable Tradition of the Church, the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist may not be given to those who are in a public state of objectively grave sin, and sacramental absolution may not be given to those who express their unwillingness to conform to Divine law, even if their unwillingness pertains only to a single grave matter (see Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 4; Pope John Paul II, Message to the Major Penitentiary Cardinal William W.  Baum, on March 22, 1996).

12. A justified person has the sufficient strength with God’s grace to carry out the objective demands of the Divine law, since all of the commandments of God are possible for the justified. God’s grace, when it justifies the sinner, does of its nature produce conversion from all serious sin (see Council of Trent, sess. 6, Decree on Justification, c. 11; c. 13).

22. Anyone, husband or wife, who has obtained a civil divorce from the spouse to whom he or she is validly married, and has contracted a civil marriage with some other person during the lifetime of his legitimate spouse, and who lives in a marital way with the civil partner, and who chooses to remain in this state with full knowledge of the nature of the act and with full consent of the will to that act, is in a state of mortal sin and therefore can not receive sanctifying grace and grow in charity. Therefore, these Christians, unless they are living as “brother and sister,” cannot receive Holy Communion (see John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, 84).

15. “No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God, which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church” (John Paul II, Encyclical Evangelium vitae, 62).  There are moral principles and moral truths contained in Divine revelation and in the natural law which include negative prohibitions that absolutely forbid certain kinds of action, inasmuch as these kinds of action are always gravely unlawful on account of their object. Hence, the opinion is wrong that says that a good intention or a good consequence is or can ever be sufficient to justify the commission of such kinds of action (see Council of Trent, sess. 6 de iustificatione, c. 15; John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 17; Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 80).

20. By natural and Divine law no human being may voluntarily and without sin exercise his sexual powers outside of a valid marriage. It is, therefore, contrary to Holy Scripture and Tradition to affirm that conscience can truly and rightly judge that sexual acts between persons who have contracted a civil marriage with each other, can sometimes be morally right or requested or even commanded by God, although one or both persons is sacramentally married to another person (see 1 Cor 7: 11; John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, 84).

(my emphases)
Since all these truths are interconnected, read the full document for a complete explanation.


Is the God Calvinists believe in unjust? Who I am: ex worship leader / lifelong "Christian" of 18 years, now agnostic.
Why I ask: If God is the way I am about to describe (unjust from a human perspective), why follow him?

From my understanding, the belief that God has predetermined those who will receive salvation is one held by many Christians, and in my experience has been mostly Christians with a Calvinist theological perspective.

This is what I mean by predestination: The belief that God has chosen/ predetermined those who will spend eternity in heaven with him and while not choosing others. In doing so, he has intentionally NOT chosen some to spend eternity with him.

Here is the problem. According to the Calvinists I have talked to, because of our sinful human nature that we've had since the fall, we are not deserving of heaven/ God's presence.  For example, if a child is born and dies the following day, its spirit will go to hell due to its sinful nature. Another example would be a person who has never accepted the gospel because they never heard it. Even if they have heard it, certainly no two people have had an equal chance to receive salvation (i.e. a pastor's son and a child raised in an atheist home). This is not even taking into account whether or not God has chosen them for heaven.

In no way are these things just from a human perspective. However, if this is the case, then there are both uninformed adult and newborn souls in hell who never had a fair opportunity to receive salvation (by a human standard). Why would anyone desire to be in the presence of a God who does not show mercy to certain people? It seems to me as though it would only be to escape the punishment of hell.

Please correct my misconceptions of this viewpoint or explain it is that God is just in this context.

I think the issue here is that you are trying to examine one point of doctrine outside of the context of the whole system of doctrines that it fits into. If you take the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination by itself and tack it on to a generic pseudo-protestant view of salvation, you'll end up with a problem such as the one you describe. God becomes unjust because your definition of justice is supported by a theological framework that Calvinistic theology would say is a broken framework. Even as a Calvinist I can see how people who try to examine a specific doctrine such as predestination can conclude it to be nonsensical or even offensive. However that is not the end of the story.

In order to judge such a doctrine, you must consider it in the context of all the same presuppositions and other related doctrines. This will be a very simplistic outline of some issues that need to be brought into the discussion rather than a full treaties on the issues, but I hope it helps provide a starting point.

First of all, predestination cannot be considered without also resolving the issue of original sin. According to a Calvinistic interpretation of scripture, the idea of original sin when traced through all of scripture paints a picture of man as totally depraved: in other words he will not (and cannot) on his own volition and power act or choose anything that is truly good in God's eyes. It's a hard pill to swallow because man's prideful nature always wants to defend himself to the last; yet I have come to believe this is both the true nature of all men and exactly the picture Scripture paints of him.

This leaves us with an unsettling conclusion quite different from the one you pose in your question. If the doctrine of total depravity is to be believed, no man on earth would ever, given an opportunity, voluntarily choose to follow God or believe in Christ as savior. The only just thing for God to do with such rebellious prideful people is to destroy them.

This creates a whole new problem. Suddenly God is not unjust for not saving some, he is unjust for saving any at all! The problem with justice, for a Calvinist, comes at the point of "unconditional election", whereby God opts to save some in spite of the fact that they have fulfilled no condition for deserving salvation such as believing or doing works or whatever. Now the Doctrines of Grace are starting to all play off of each other!

The problem of injustice -- that God would knowingly justify (make right) and acquit somebody who themselves had done nothing but wrong and of whom justice would demand punishment -- is resolved in the propitiatory act of Christ where somebody who had done no wrong and justly deserved life was "made sin" and put in our law place and punished on our behalf. Whose law place did he step into? Again according to the same set of interpretations one must understand Limited Atonement, or the idea that Christ choose to be the atonement for a specific set of people, his chosen. In a very real sense this choice is arbitrary because those people did not do anything specific to deserve it -- hence we cannot boast in any choice or act of our own but only in Christ who rescued us -- but it is not unjust for him not to choose other than he did. The alternative is that he died in an attempt to save more, but was ineffective in so much as it only "worked" for some people who had enough good sense to recognize the value of his work of their own accord (an idea ruled out earlier by Total Depravity).

The system can be rounded out with the other doctrines such as Irresistible Grace where God does not fail to lead those he has acquitted to repentance faith and repentance and holy lives being transformed to be like Christ; and Perseverance of the Saints whereby those he has saved and truly worked in cannot be pulled out of his hand by any force of Satan or shortcoming of their own.

Obviously these points need to be examined in the light of the Scriptures. They basically stand or fall together. If the Bible as God's inerrant word really is pointing in the direction of any of these points, it must also be consistent to tell us about the others. Great care must be taken in two areas:

Not to use some system that fails to take into account all the points in Scripture to interpret for us whether some doctrine is true or not. Predestination makes little sense to some theological systems, but it must not be thrown out because it doesn't fit a definition of justice that isn't the one defined by Scripture. This is the error I think you have made.
Not to read into Scripture some point not actually found in the text because it has to fit our system. Quite frankly this is the error Calvinists are more likely to fall into. If the interpretive framework fails to shed light on the whole of Scripture or is contradicted by it on any point, one must start over and examine it's presuppositions.

I am convinced that the only set of presuppositions and interpretive methods that leads to a framework that can consistently interpret the whole of Scripture is the one that leads to all of these Doctrine of Grace -- yet it is not a perfect system and we must remain humble in the knowledge that our limited understandings of God's works are always going to be flawed in so far as we have not yet been made perfect in glory!

Lastly I think it's worth noting that it is impossible to approach Scripture without some interpretive framework. There is no such thing as entirely unbiased reading. Even if the text in question was written in your own time and language, words are meaningless with out certain presuppositions. For example if you fail to presuppose that I wrote this post in English and rather assume it to be Bengali, it will be no more than gibberish. In testing it can be shown that reading the text using English grammar and vocabulary lead to a much more useful understanding. Likewise if we do not approach Scripture with certain assumptions about how it was inspired or is meant to be interpreted as a whole, we will not come away with as deep or true an understanding of it. While these are pre-suppositions (pre because they must be made first and tested later) they can be shown to make more sense when taken together as a whole.


Is there any Biblical basis for hating homosexuals? As I was raised: God is all-loving, and He wants us to be all-loving too.

But, as you may know, homosexuals—particularly in America—have been shown hatred, and even violence (1)(2)(3)(4) from some members of the Christian community. The Wikipedia article on Christianity and homosexuality suggests some of the views from various denominations, but it's largest claim remains unsupported (i.e. that "most Christian denominations welcome people attracted to the same sex, but teach that homosexual relationships and sexual acts are sinful." Check the references, they are broken links or only refer to the Methodist Church, so they don't speak for "most Christian denominations").

As I dug deeper into the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, I saw some passages which indicated that homosexuality might be a sin, but the articles are poorly written and lack verifiable citations. Either way, I wasn't able to find any indication that God condones violence by mankind towards homosexuals. You would think that those who so vehemently hate homosexuals would also think that homosexuals are going to Hell when they die; that their fate will be gruesome enough such that anything a human does to add to it prematurely would be like kicking someone who's already dead. Maybe they really haven't thought that one through?

So I'm curious if there is any Biblical support for the idea that God wants us to be cruel to homosexuals (or anyone for that matter). Please carefully note that I'm not merely asking if the Bible is against homosexuality; I'm asking if there is a basis for showing hatred towards others, particularly gays.

In general

  Romans 12:16-21 (ESV)
   16  Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. 17  Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." 20 To the contrary, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head." 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

If we have the choice, we should live in peace with all and be good to everyone. Even if they're evil. Even if they're our enemy.

Specifically regarding homosexuals

The Bible condemns homosexual acts, not having homosexual temptations. We can't judge anyone for what they didn't choose -- even Jesus was tempted, so temptations are not sin.

We don't know for sure if you can be born a homosexual, but it's certainly possible (even probable, science seems to tell us). That's all the more reason to try and be understanding with homosexual people. Do note that being born one way or another is no excuse for sinning, and we shouldn't act like the Bible approves of homosexual relationships and activities.


Do angels have free will? I believe we have free will and that God has free will.  It would seem Lucifer also had free will.  Do all angels have free will as we do?

Lucifer and his angels do indeed appear to have independent will.  Revelation 12 describes the fall of the angels:

Revelation 12
7 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

It seems to my limited reasoning faculty, that it would not be possible for the "dragon" and his angels to make war on God and be cast out of heaven without them exercising their will independently of God's.
Furthermore, Isaiah describes self-will as the cause of the devil's fall:

Isaiah 14:12 ff
12 How you have fallen from heaven,     morning star, son of the
dawn!   You have been cast down to the earth,     you who once laid
low the nations!  13 You said in your heart,     “I will ascend to the
heavens;  I will raise my throne     above the stars of God;  I will
sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,     on the utmost heights of
Mount Zaphon.  14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;     I
will make myself like the Most High.”

That's a lot of "I will" statements, for someone without one.
Why some of the angels rebelled and others did not (and do not), is a mystery.  But you must be careful not to conflate independent will with a natural inclination to sin - for example, God has perfectly independent will, but it's not within his perfect nature to sin (indeed, since sin is fundamentally asserting your will over God's it's not possible by very definition for him to sin).


Does spiritual death mean loss of faith or doing a deadly sin (or sins) or separation from God? According to Word-of-Faith movement, Jesus suffered both physical and spiritual death. They mean by spiritual death that he suffered in hell after dying, before resurrection. And suffering in hell means separation from God.

I ask what is the separation from God?, What does it mean?

Hence, I ask: Does spiritual death mean loss of faith or doing mortal sin (or sins) or what?

The Term separation from God is unclear to me.

Christian belief is that the presence of God brings life and joy. The closer you are to God, the more joyful you are, and the more "life" you have (life here not in the sense of mere existence, but in partaking of all the good things life has to offer). God is more present to those who are close followers of him, who therefore have much joy (as Paul describes) and abundant life (as Jesus says). God is present to a lesser extent with people who are not followers but have not rejected him, or who still have a chance to become followers (i.e. everyone who has not yet died).

On death, a person will either be accepted by God and become closer to him, bringing joy and life; or they will be rejected by God, resulting in a separation from God, bringing despair and not-life (not-life being in the sense of still continuing to exist but having no enjoyment of the things that life has to offer). This is what separation from God means,and is also what the Spiritual Death means. A person after their physical death either has Spiritual Life with God, or Spiritual Death without.

The above is not universally believed in Christendom, but I wrote from the point of view of the people who use the term "Spiritual Death" frequently. And many other Christians believe something very similar.


What is the Biblical basis for believing that it is sinful to commit illegal actions? After reading, The Bible seems to allow polygamy. Why doesn't the church? I interpreted the answers to mean (based on the selected answer and votes) that polygamy is a sin because it is illegal.

The most voted answer refutes most arguments against polygamy, admits that the reason why polygamy is illegal stems from pagan tradition, yet concludes that it's a sin anyway because it's illegal.  This brings forth the question: Is something a sin simply because it's illegal?

What is the biblical basis for believing that illegal actions are also sinful?

Edit: A natural implication of Christians being bound to the laws of their country is that if the state tells all Christians or Jews to enter concentration camps, then it is a sin not to enter. Notice that entering a concentration camp may not be a sin at all. Still, I think it's stupid to obey such laws.

Also the state, rather than God, then decides what "marriage" means, as the question I quoted admits. The state prohibits polygamy, even though the Bible doesn't. This means choosing to be governed by others' opinions and whims that have nothing to do with the Bible at all. Whether polygamy is actually a good idea, or can be circumvented or not, is a different issue.

However, to think that it's sin simply because some feminists, or some members of Congress, or perhaps some guy named Bob says it's wrong seems to put men's opinion above God's.

These obviously absurd conclusions make me question whether Christians have any religious reason to bother caring about the State's laws. Secular reasons still apply. For example, we don't want to get caught. We may want a more peaceful society. But are there any reasons beyond secular ones?

“Illegal” is not the same thing as “sinful.”

An action is illegal if it contravenes a law established by man, such as the statutes of the Federal, state, or local governments (or whatever juridical order the reader belongs to).

An action is immoral (or objectively sinful) if it contravenes God’s law, which need not coincide in every case with the human law.

Note that, in order for a person actually to commit a sin, he must, evidently, know that what he is doing is wrong (i.e., a contravention of God’s law), and be free to perform that action willingly (e.g., someone who commits a bad action at gunpoint is probably not guilty of a sin).

However, all things being equal, we do have a duty to obey the just laws that are established by our government. That is because, as St. Paul explains, governments receive their authority from God, and when they rule justly, they are actually ruling on behalf of God:

  1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer (Romans 13:1-4, ESV).

However, the submission to authority that St. Paul talks about presupposes that the authority is acting justly. If, on the contrary, a government were to mandate doing something objectively sinful (say, for example, a law that makes it illegal to serve citizens belonging to a certain race), then it would actually be the duty of citizens to disobey the civil law; God’s law is always higher than man’s law. Indeed, an unjust law (such as the one in my example) is not really a law at all. This idea is supported by the following passage in Acts:

  And the high priest [a legitimate authority in Jerusalem] questioned them [the apostles], 28 saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man's blood upon us.” 29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:27-29, ESV).

Note that laws are also unjust if they are excessively burdensome, or if they are impossible to fulfill; for example, a law that declares illegal something that is, in fact, good and holy. In such a case, there is not necessarily a strict duty to disobey this kind of law, but there is also no strict obligation to obey it.

In summary, the relationship between “illegal” and “sinful” can be characterized as follows:

Any action that contravenes God’s law is objectively sinful. Only a small fraction of these actions are regulated by human law at all. In other words, many actions are sinful but not illegal as such.
A just law should in general be obeyed (keeping in mind that no human law is perfect—there might be cases that the legislator did not forsee). Something justly declared illegal in the law would also be sinful.
An unjust law need not be obeyed, and if the law actually promotes sinful behavior, it actually must be disobeyed. In this case, that which is technically illegal is not sinful, and might even be dutiful.

In all these cases, we are referring to the objective sinfulness of the actions in question; the person acting must also have knowledge and freedom in order to commit an actual sin.

UPDATE: I will address some of the other concerns brought up by the original poster.

The origin of right and wrong: the so-called “natural law”

The rightness or wrongness of an action does not have its basis in the legality or illegality of it. As I mentioned, legality and especially illegality depend on the explicit mention of the action in question in statutes.

However, the rightness or wrongness of an action is ultimately determined by God, not by the government. In fact, rightness and wrongness exist even in the complete absense of human law. As St. Paul says,

  For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law (Romans 2:14).

This is the Biblical basis for the so-called natural law: the idea that human nature itself (which is unchanging in time and common to all human beings) provides us with the information we need to know right from wrong. In this case the “law” that St. Paul is talking about is the Jewish Torah (which provided, among other things, the Ten Commandments to help guild the ancient Israelites’ morality), but the principle is applicable to any kind of law. I do not need the government to tell me that murder is wrong, although I am grateful to the government for making it a crime punishible by law. More importantly, it is not the government that makes murder wrong—God does that by creating us the way He does. Rather, the statute merely renders the natural law explicit.

That is why it is so important for laws to be just: if they do not conform to the natural law—to the morality that God has endowed in our very natures (which is what justice entails)—then they cause confusion and misery. And, as I mentioned, non-conforming (i.e., unjust) laws are not even binding, because in making such laws a state abuses the authority that God has entrusted to it.

Regarding some of the particular sins mentioned by the O.P.

Polygamy

Polygamy is a complex topic in the Bible, but it should be noted that it is only present in the early part of the Old Testament. We see it with some of the Patriarchs (Abraham, Jacob), in the Judges, and with the kings of Israel.

However, even in the Old Testament, there was a growing understanding in the People of Israel that polygamy is not in accordance with God’s plan. It was largely due to his polygamy that Solomon apostatized at the end of his life:

  4 For when Solomon was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods, and his heart was not wholly true to the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father. 5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. 6 So Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the Lord and did not wholly follow the Lord, as David his father had done (1 Kings 11:4-6, ESV).

Clearly, part of the problem is that he married foreign women, but the situation would never have arisen if he had not married 700 wives (v. 3).

Moreover, we can see from all of the instances of polygamy in the Bible that it is not favorably seen by the Biblical authors. For example polygamy breeds rivalry among the wives or concubines: consider, for instance, the expulsion of Hagar in Gen. 21; the whole episode of Rachel and Leah in Gen. 29, and their in-fighting in Gen. 30; and finally the mistreatment of Hannah (the mother of Samuel) in 1 Samuel 1.

In any case polygamy seems to have fallen out of use in ancient Israel by the time of Christ, and it was certainly the expectation of all the New Testament authors that marriage was between one man and one woman, exclusively.

Hence, the immorality of polygamy preceeds its illegality. Laws that make polygamy illegal simply reflect the natural law in this regard.

Marriage in general

In a similar way, marriage as such is rooted in human nature, and is ultimately determined by God. The state has no authority to define what marriage is: “What therefore God has joined together [i.e., in marriage], let not man separate” (Mark 10:9, ESV).

The government acts unjustly if it attempts to define marriage in a way that is contrary to the nature of marriage (i.e., the pernament, exclusive union between one man and one woman).

Concentration camps

Likewise, if a government were to stipulate that certain classes of persons should be sent to concentration camps, it would be acting unjustly. Citizens would not be bound by such a measure. (The state might, of course, compel such persons to enter a concentration camp by force, but that would be a most grave injustice, obviously.)

Conclusion: the state does not determine morality

In summary, the state absolutely does not determine the morality of our actions. Rather, when it is acting as it should, it merely reflects the morality that already exists, thanks to the human nature that God has given us.

In some cases, the state does have the authority to make decisions about things that are not set in stone (like which side of the street to drive on), and so in general those types of laws should be obeyed.

But laws can only be obeyed if they are in conformity with God’s law, as expressed in our human natures (i.e, the “natural law”).


What biblical or historical reasons have been given for avoiding creeds & catechisms? I read a book by George Fox, founder of Quakerism, where he spoke of his reluctance to endorse any creed, and part of the reason seemed to be the abuse he received in prison for being a heretic.

Q: What biblical or historical justifications have been given by those who eschew creeds & catechisms in their Christian faith walk?

The short answer is that The Bible itself claims to be God's authoritative Word, and as such, it is sufficient for teaching and preparing us to do God's will. (2 Timothy 3:16,17)

Along with that, Scripture warn against following any "gospel" other than the one preached in the Bible, and that false doctrines/teachings would arise. (Galatians 1, 2 John 1:9-11, Revelation 22:18-19, 1 Timothy 1:3; 1 Corinthians 1:18-25)

In addition, God gave each and every one of us the Holy Spirit to guide us into truth and an understanding of God's Word. (John 16:13, John 14:26)

The Biblical basis to reject creeds is an application of the verses above, and more like them.  The idea is that creeds are man-made, while God provides His Word and the Holy Spirit to guide us in to Truth. The idea is that man is fallible, and we shouldn't be following man's teachings, but rather God's.

A more detailed response highlighting the same points can be found at thegospelway.com.

George fox, who you asked about, seems to have taken a similar view, using much the same logic.  From George Fox and Christian Theology

  Westcott wrote,4 "was then commonly preached with a crude violence
  which shook the very foundations of morality." Moreover, God was not a
  God at hand, but One afar off: He had prisoned Himself in a book to
  which no page had been added for fifteen hundred years; all the
  knowledge men now had of Him was bound within the covers of the Bible.
  It was against this gloomy creed that Fox came with his message of a
  God who was close to men, still speaking to them as in the days of
  prophets and apostles, teaching, leading and controlling them by His
  Spirit in their own hearts. The Bible was not the only fount of truth,
  for the same Spirit that inspired it was still at work, and only as
  men were enlightened by that Spirit could they understand or use the
  Bible aright. This last had been Luther's conviction, and it had been
  expressed (with caution) in the Reformed Confessions of Faith; but it
  had been largely overlooked and forgotten. There can be no doubt that
  to most of Fox's converts the assurance of a God who was in direct
  touch with their own souls was a joyful discovery that transformed
  their lives, and that it is this discovery which explains their
  attitude towards the Bible and theology.

In fairness, the response from those that find value in creeds would likely be "So these creeds, which are based on Scripture, written by those that have studied it, taken time to distill the meaning, in a rigorous fashion, with many minds working together to prevent error are less likely to be erroneous than the interpretation of individuals who may or may not have the same level of knowledge, experience, and discipline?"

Therefore, I'd like to point out that this answer is not endorsing nor rejecting the idea the creeds should be endorsed or rejected.  I'm just giving the basis for which those that do reject creeds.


Were plenary indulgences issued during the crusades, as indicated by Dan Brown? In Dan Brown's novel, The DaVinci Code, if my memory serves me correctly, Leigh Teabing asserts that Crusaders were given plenary indulgences to commit unspecified sins with impunity whilst on crusade. I have to admit that I have only seen the film, and not read the novel, but I am assuming that the film follows the novel in this respect.

My question is: was this ever official doctrine during the time of the Crusades, if indeed it happened, or was it a perversion of official doctrine, or is it just black propaganda? If the latter, who started it, and when? I understand that indulgences can only be issued for sins already committed.

In the history of indulgences, the "Crusade Indulgence" is known as the first official plenary indulgence. Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code certainly stated several untruths about the teachings of the Catholic Church.

It is only true to admit that some Crusaders did in fact commit some horrendous crimes, but indulgences were instituted by the Church to aid souls to live holy lives. In order to gain an indulgence one has to be in the state of grace. Serious sins must be confessed to a priest in order that one may be able to be restored to a state of grace and be able to receive a plenary indulgence.

  The earliest record of a plenary indulgence was Pope Urban II's declaration at the Council of Clermont (1095) that he remitted all penance incurred by crusaders who had confessed their sins in the Sacrament of Penance, considering participation in the crusade equivalent to a complete penance.

Indulgences are not feats of magic and in order to gain any indulgence certain rules must be met. It has been the constant teaching of the Church that mortal sins must be confessed in the Sacrament of Penance. Indulgences have never nor could not ever substitute this fact.

  A plenary indulgence means that by the merits of Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, the full remission of the temporal punishment due to sacramentally forgiven sins is obtained. The person becomes as if just baptized and would fly immediately to heaven if he died in that instant. A partial indulgence means that a portion of the temporal punishment due to forgiven sin is remitted. Partial indulgences are received either by doing some act to which a partial indulgence is attached (e.g. praying a partially indulgenced prayer), or by the incomplete fulfillment of the conditions attached to a plenary indulgence. - What is an Indulgence?


Definition of light in Matthew 5:16 Matthew 5:14-16
14 “You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

What does Jesus mean by light? Talents? Spiritual gifts? God showing through us? Something else?
Update: I have now also asked this at Biblical Hermeneutics, as mentioned in comments below.

First of all, it's interesting to note that in John 8:12, Jesus says, 'I [Jesus] am the light of the world," but here he says that "You [the Jewish followers of Jesus listening to Him at that time] are the light of the world."  One understanding of this is that Jesus is the light source, while we are the light rays.  Another way to understand it is that Jesus is the first candle, and each of us are candles that are lit by His flame.

Indeed, the Jewish people were given the revelation of God in order to be a testimony to the world, and indeed God used them to be that in Egypt (Exodus - "that the Egyptians will know there I am the Lord"), in the Babylonian and Medo-Persian empires through the lives of Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and in various other ways.

John 1:9 indicates that Jesus gives light to all people.  John 3:19 indicates that light has come into the world, but many people have rejected the light.

So, it seems the light is using a physical reality to demonstrate a spiritual reality.  The light, then, probably refers to the revelation of God.  Jesus was the revelation of God, as He states in John 17. We also are called to testify to the glory of God, so that a people living in darkness can see a great light and come to God in faith.


What are the memorized lines people are reciting in church? I didn't attend church as a child, but have now been visiting a couple different ones. Whether Catholic or Lutheran, at various points during the service, the faithful recite a text in common together, as if cued. What are these? And how can I look them up to learn them myself? Thank you, much appreciated.

Liturgical Christians

I grew up as a member of the denomination that is now known as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), and attended an Episcopal Church when I was in college.

The spoken or sung portions of the service that are not hymns or customized prayers is called the "liturgy".

Christians that have a liturgy as part of their church services (such as Roman Catholics, Episcopalian/Anglicans, and Lutherans, and to a lesser extent Presbyterians and Methodists) are called "liturgical Christians", although the term is sometimes restricted to Protestants who are liturgical Christians.

What Is The Protestant Liturgy?

The Protestant liturgies are derived from one of several "vernacular" (i.e. in the local language rather than Latin) translations of the Roman Catholic mass as it existed at the time of the Protestant Reformation, with very slight substantive alterations (most notably the omission of the word "transubstantiation" from the language related to the sacrament of communion and the omission of several of the sacraments than are found in the Roman Catholic church).

There were three main translation efforts involved: One, originally into German, by the Lutherans; one in English by the Anglicans (this is closer to the Catholic mass as the Anglican church left Roman Catholicism mostly so the King could divorce as opposed to out of deep ideological disputes with the Pope); and a third by the Calvinists (whose successors in the U.S. include Presbyterians and the "Reformed" church).

The Methodist Church split off from the Anglican Church about two centuries after the Anglicans split from the Roman Catholics and diluted many of the Anglican church's more high church practices. So its liturgy is derived from the Anglican one. (The Episcopal Church is the Anglican church in the United States that rebranded itself after the American Revolution when identifying with the English was out of favor.)

Following Vatican II and other reforms in the Roman Catholic Church, starting around the 1970s, when vernacular translations of the Roman Catholic mass from the historical Latin version were much more widely used, many people were surprised to learn how similar that had remained despite roughly 500 years of separation. (This is also the historical moment that Latin began its long and relentless decline in the high school and higher educational curriculum.)

Other Protestant denominations such as Presbyterians and Methodists use somewhat abbreviated liturgies (and are much less likely to sing them).

In "high church" liturgical Protestant Congregations, the liturgy is sung with a pastor or a "cantor" (i.e. someone, not necessarily ordained, who sings the liturgy if the pastor can't carry a tune) leading the liturgy after which the congregation responds. Roman Catholics and some high church liturgical Protestants not only sit and stand but also kneel and sometimes genuflect at designated moments in the worship service.

In the more common "low church" liturgical Protestant Congregations, the liturgy is spoken with the pastor leading and the congregation responding, kneeling is dispensed with, incense is not used during the service, and genuflection is also omitted.

Locating the liturgy

Most liturgical churches have copies of the liturgy in a hymnal or prayer book available at every pew. Usually a church bulletin points you to the right page to read from although it goes by very fast. Finding the right page is trickier than it seems because there are several seasonal variations on the liturgy that are subtly different and you have to make sure you are reading the right version for the current service.

Some Congregations and Parishes, particularly in locations or at times when they are prone to having newcomers, will publish a church bulletin that actually reproduces all of the liturgy language that the members of the congregation need to recite and the text of all the hymns that will be sung in the bulletin itself, rather than merely a list of what parts of the liturgy will be used (which varies somewhat with the season of the church over the course of a year) and what hymns will be sung.

Congregations of liturgical Christians and some Roman Catholic Parishes have also emulated the usual practice of large non-denominational churches of displaying the liturgy and the text of the hymns on large screens visible to the congregation.

While many regular church goers in all forms of Christianity that use a liturgy memorize the liturgy, the social expectation that you memorize it is much greater in the Roman Catholic church than in most Protestant liturgical churches. I assume, but do not know, that this is a part of the Confirmation process that adolescents go through which is more rigorous in the Roman Catholic church than for Lutherans. (The Roman Catholic Catechism is the size of a thick paperback novel; the Lutheran version runs about 80 mini-sized pages.)

The Lutheran Liturgy

ELCA Lutherans use hymnals including one called the Lutheran Book of Worship (I grew up with the green 1978 edition with gold lettering on the exterior shown above) that contains both the liturgy which has page numbers in the front portion, and hymns which have sequential hymn numbers and are placed in order of season and purpose in the back portion of the book.

  In the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the LBW is sometimes
  called the "green book", as opposed to With One Voice, a blue-covered
  supplement; or the previous Service Book and Hymnal, bound in red; or
  The Lutheran Hymnal, which is also bound in red, but with a simple
  gold cross.

The Lutheran Book of Worship was drafted as a joint effort of four North American Lutheran denominations including the ELCA and the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS) starting in 1965, although the LCMS dropped out of the venture right around the time it was completed and produced an alternative in 1982.

You can get a used copy on Amazon.com for about $8, or buy a new one from the Augsburg Fortress Press. As far as I know, there is no free version online. But, you can hear some of it sung in high church fashion in this You Tube video.

The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod subsequently adopted the Lutheran Service Book in 2004, published by Concordia Publishing House, for which a substantial sampler with many portions of the liturgy is available. The Lutheran Service Book retains more of the smattering of Latin words held over from the Roman Catholic Latin mass than the ELCA.

Lutheran church music is usually melodically simple (although some efforts were made in the LBW to adopt a bit more musical complexity) and homophonic (i.e. a single melody supported by simple cords, as opposed to having the intertwined melodies of polyphonic music).

Many of the most well known Lutheran hymns were adapted by Martin Luther and his early colleagues from decidedly low brow 16th century German drinking songs in the era before it became the government sanctioned established church for most of Northern Europe.

The Episcopal/Anglican Liturgy

The Episcopalian liturgy is contained in a book called the Book of Common Prayer (created independently of the Lutheran liturgy) which has the most familiar version of the liturgy and turns of phrase to most Americans because the Book of Common Prayer also forms the basis of the liturgies of several other denominations of Protestants in the United States (usually with simplifications from the Episcopal/Anglican version and usually rejecting the more modern additions to it that for example reference interstellar space in some prayers), most notably the Methodists.

The most stereotypical version of the wedding service, for example, is from the Book of Common Prayer.

The most recent edition of the Book of Common prayer is available online here.

Episcopalians generally have a separate hymnal from the Book of Common Prayer, which can make for quite a bit of juggling of books during a service.

For what it is worth, the Episcopal musical arrangements of the liturgy and hymns are more sophisticated musically (and choice of language is also more sophisticated in many cases) than the Lutheran, Presbyterian or Methodist versions which are either second order translations from an intermediate language that was in turn translated from the original Latin, or were deliberately dumbed down, as the Methodists did, to accommodate the limitations of life on the American frontier.

Liturgical v. Non-Liturgical Protestants

Many Evangelical and "fundamentalist" churches do not use a liturgy, a practice that dates back at least to the Puritans in the 1600s who rejected the liturgy on the grounds that it was part of the Roman Catholic tradition accumulated over time, rather than being something that was used by Christians in the early Christian church before it was organized into a more or less unified bureaucratic organization.

For liturgical Christians, however, the liturgy and traditions around the seasons of the church calendar (see below) in which it is embedded provide a comforting rhythm of life and connection to an ancient shared Christian heritage.

Roman Catholics and some very high church Lutherans and Episcopalians also celebrate some "Saint's Days".

For them, rather than representing a corruption of the early church, the Western religious tradition provides an answer to the question "what has God been up to since the 4th century?", which is a vacuum without the Roman Catholic and successor Protestant church tradition such as the liturgy, holy orders, and saints.

The main seasons of the church calendar are, in order, Advent (the month before Christmas), Christmas (Christmas until early January), Epiphany (early January until Mardi Gras), Lent (40 days before Easter), Holy Week (the week before Easter), Easter (in the Spring but floating a bit to coordinate with the timing of Passover in the Jewish lunar calendar), and Pentecost (one of the longer seasons starting in the summer 40 or 50 days or so after Easter).


When/where did the practice of giving abbreviated names/initialisms to Bible translations begin? Many modern Bible translations have standard three-letter or four-letter initials by which they are commonly referred to. Examples are KJV, NKJV, RSV, ASV, NIV, NASB, NLT, RVR (a Spanish version), etc.

Some of these initialisms have even been recognized officially to some extent by translators and/or publishers. For example, the prefaces to the NIV and NLT translations request that persons quoting snippets from their translations use the respective initialisms in their citations.

Where and/or when did the practice of assigning initialisms to translations originate, either in an official or a de facto/consensus sense? I was trying to find initialisms for some older versions and realized that many don't seem to have them. For example, I haven't found standard abbreviations for the Geneva Bible, Matthew's Bible, Wulfia's Gothic translation, or several other not-exactly-recent versions, leading me to suspect that they don't have any because having such initialisms was not "a thing" when those versions came out, and that these versions are not used enough today for new initialisms to develop and become standard. E.g. "I'm doing my thesis on how the TGB was influenced not only by the TMB but also on the WGV and the very obscure QPND Second Revision of AD 833 that had been published in response to suspected bias in the BFO of AD 798."

Part of me thinks that the LXX (Greek Septuagint) counts, but LXX is a number (70), not an acronym or initialism.

It may be impossible to determine the first time an initialism was first used for a translation, but Google's ngrams can illustrate when it became popular. Consider first the usage of KJV versus King James Version:

The phrase 'King James Version' was in steady use for some time when 'KJV' exploded on to the scene around 1945-7. The American Standard Version was published in 1901. Its ngram is interestingly similar to the KJV. The ASV's title and intialism both appear around 1901, but after an initial period, the full title seems to be more popular. Then around 1945-7, ASV jumps in popularity.

The comparison between Revised Standard Version and RSV shows a similar spike in the use of the initialism RSV around the same (or slightly earlier) 1945 period. Interestingly, this is the time period of the publication of the RSV (1946 for NT, 1952 for OT).

Looking at the three initialisms together there appears to be a fair amount of correlation in the usage of KJV, ASV, and RSV and the publication of the RSV.

The usage of all three continues to increase for about a decade or so before a significant drop around 1960. Perhaps this corresponds to debate (scholarly or otherwise) about these three versions. It would not be surprising if this debate led to a short-hand for referring to each.

Of course, the methodology is open to many criticism, but the correlation between the rise of KJV, ASV, and RSV appears strong enough to at least be investigated further.

For fun, here is the ngram for LXX vs Septuagint.

Both terms were in use before the 1800s, but show a jump in usage around the same 1945-1960 period that the other intialism appear.


Why is the word "dragon" in the Bible? I'm not asking about what is the dragon, it's the devil okay, but my question is why is it called "dragon", why dragons exists in the Bible, when they are nothing more than mythical creatures.

Actually dragons are perhaps the only creatures which appeared in all civilizations thousands of years ago, so I wanted to ask why are there dragons all over the place if it's mythical, usually civilizations have their own monsters except dragons.

But why the Bible holds on to such a mythical creature? Saint Michael fighting the dragon. And latter the story Saint George and so on, like why they called it "dragon" and not "locki"? Does the bible claim that dragons are real, regardless of their meaning in the text?

I thought that someone had written Saint Michael story after exploring the Chinese society and knowing what dragons are, but it's written in the Bible too.

Other religions have events existing in neighboring religions as a part of their holy text, such as Hinduism and Buddhism, but I don't think the Bible has done that.

In any case, dragons weren't widespread in the Middle East, their inclusion won't serve a purpose like Babylon, the Middle Eastern people have different myths, so how did a mythical creature jump from China to the Bible and why is it described in such details, as if someone is portraying a real animal?

If we're assuming that the dragon came from Greek mythology, they didn't have many dragons, and none fire breathing dragons I know of. Fire breathing dragons appeared in east Asia and Norse mythology as far as I know and didn't influence the Middle East.

Some people are saying dragons are dinosaurs? Dinosaurs weren't discovered until 1800s. Okay the Bible have prophecies and can make predictions but I don't think the people that lived 2000 years ago would be able to grasp what dinosaurs are, I don't know, something is missing.

The word Dragon occurs 13 times in the Bible but only in the highly symbolic book of Revelation. From the Ancient Greek drakôn (δράκων), meaning "giant serpent", depicting a terrifying monster, a serpentlike devourer. This is an appropriate portrayal of Satan due to him using a snake to deceive Eve in the Garden of Eden.

In European tradition the dragon is typically fire-breathing and tends to symbolize chaos or evil, whereas in East Asia it is usually a beneficent symbol of fertility, associated with water and the heavens. In the Bible it is a “great fiery-colored dragon [terrifying monster, serpentlike devourer], with seven heads and ten horns,” having a tail that draws “a third of the stars of heaven” after him. (Rev. 12:3, 4 NWT)

In my own words, I would view the biblical dragon more like a giant red snake, with seven heads and ten horns; not the stereotypical type of dragon.


Does the Catholic Church have a standard instruction on placing crosses on the altar? Many oriental rites of Catholic Church have the plain cross signifying the Risen Lord, on their altar, whereas others use the crucifix signifying the Redemption. Of course, these days one sees churches of even oriental rites using the crucifix. My question therefore is: Does the Catholic Church have a standard instruction on placing of crucifix or plain cross on the altar of its churches across the world?

Does the Catholic Church have a standard instruction on placing crosses on the altar?
The Crucifix is placed on the altars in the Roman Rite is placed to recall to the mind of the celebrant, and the people, that the Victim offered on the altar is the same as was offered on the Cross.

Altar-Crucifix. — The crucifix is the principal ornament of the altar. It is placed on the altar to recall to the mind of the celebrant, and the people, that the Victim offered on the altar is the same as was offered on the Cross1. For this reason the crucifix must be placed on the altar as often as Mass is celebrated (Constit., Accepimus of Benedict XIV, 16 July, 1746). The rubric of the Roman Missal (xx) prescribes that it be placed at the middle of the altar between the candlesticks, and that it be large enough to be conveniently seen by both the celebrant and the people (Cong. Sac. Rit., 17 September, 1822). If for any reason this crucifix is removed, another may take its place in a lower position; but in such cases it must always be visible to all who assist at Mass (ibid.). We remarked above that a crucifix must be placed on the altar during Mass. To this rule there are two exceptions:

when the Crucifixion is the principal part of the altarpiece or picture behind the altar. (We advisedly say the principal part of the altarpiece or picture, for if the picture represents a saint, e.g. St. Francis Xavier holding a crucifix in his hand, or St. Thomas kneeling before the cross, even if the cross be large, such a picture is not sufficient to take the place of the altar-crucifix -- see Ephem. Lit., 1893, VII, 408) and

when the Most Blessed Sacrament is exposed.

In both these cases the regular crucifix may be placed on the altar; in the latter the local custom is to be followed (Cong. Sac. Rit., 2 September, 1741), and if the crucifix is kept on the altar it is not incensed (29 November, 1738). From the, first Vespers of Passion Sunday to the unveiling of the cross on Good Friday, even if a solemn feast occur during this interval, the altar-crucifix is covered with a violet veil (Cong. Sac. Rit., 16 November, 1649), except during High Mass on the altar at which Mass is celebrated on Holy Thursday when the veil is of white material (Cong. Sac. Rit., 20 December, 1783), and on Good Friday, at the altar at which the function takes place, when the veil may be of black material. This is the custom in Rome (Martinucci, Van der Stappen, and others). From the beginning of the adoration of the Cross, on Good Friday, to the hour of None, on Holy Saturday inclusively, all, even the bishop, the canons and the celebrant, make a simple genuflection to the cross (Cong. Sac. Rit., 9 May, 1857; 12 September, 1857). At all other times during the year a simple genuflexion is made to the cross, even when the Blessed Sacrament is not kept in the tabernacle, during any function, by all except the bishop, the canons of the cathedral, and the celebrant (Cong. Sac. Rit., 30 August, 1892). The altar-crucifix need not be blessed; but it may be blessed by any priest, by the formula "pro imaginibus" (Rituale Rom., tit. viii, cap. xxv). It may be well to note that if, according to the Renaissance style of architecture, the throne is a permanent structure above the tabernacle, the altar-crucifix may never be placed under the canopy under which the Blessed Sacrament is publicly exposed, or on the corporal which is used at such exposition (Cong. Sac. Rit., 2 June, 1883). It is probable that the custom of placing a crucifix on the altar did not commence long before the sixth century. Benedict XIV (De Sacrificio Missae, P. I, 19) holds that this custom comes down from the time of the Apostles. However, the earliest documentary evidence of placing a cross on the altar is canon III of the Council of Tours, held in 567: "Ut corpus Domini in Altari, non in armario, sed sub crucis titulo componatur". Mariano Armellini (Lezioni di Archeologia Sacra) tells us that the early Christians were not accustomed to publicly expose the cross for fear of scandalizing the weak, and subjecting it to the insults of the pagans, but in its stead used symbols, e.g. an anchor, a trident, etc. A simple cross, without the figure of Christ, was fixed on the top of the ciboria which covered the altars.

A little historical note for those interested:
During World War II, Catholic Chaplains of the Roman Rite were permitted to use of the Eastern Rite Antimension when celebrating Mass outside of churches, for the troops during the war. Thus mass could be celebrated close to the front lines of war without a bulky altar stone.

An antimension ofThe Byzantine Altar

Q: Can an antimension still be made in the Latin Church? The old Rituale Romanum specifies the blessing of one, and how it must be made, but I am unaware of any post-conciliar legislation. If obtaining new antimensia in the Western Church is not possible, could a priest request that a hierarch of the Eastern Church bless one, in accordance with their customs?
A: An antimension, from the Greek for "instead of the table," is among the most important furnishings of the altar in Byzantine Christian liturgical traditions. It is a rectangular piece of cloth, of either linen or silk, typically decorated with representations of the entombment of Christ and the four Evangelists and scriptural passages related to the Eucharist. A small relic of a martyr is sewn into it. The Eucharist cannot be celebrated without an antimension that must be consecrated by a bishop and indeed is given to the priest by the bishop as a witness to his permission to celebrate the Divine Liturgy.
The antimension is a substitute for the altar table. A priest may celebrate the Eucharist on the antimension even if the altar table is not properly consecrated. In emergencies, when an altar table is not available, the antimension serves a very important pastoral need by enabling the use of unconsecrated tables for divine services outside of churches or chapels.
In the Latin tradition, Mass was celebrated with an altar stone containing a small relic. When celebrating outside of a church with a consecrated altar, a portable altar stone was used. After the Turkish conquest of the Byzantine Empire in 1454, however, many Eastern Christians, Greeks and Albanians fled to southern Italy. Some submitted to Rome while retaining their rite, but the faith of others was doubtful. Since some Latin priests began to use the antimensia there was a fear that celebrating on their antimensia was consequently considered as a communion in sacred things (Communicatio in Divinis) with heretics, and therefore forbidden.
Hence the popes, notably Clement VIII (1592-1605) and later the great canonist Benedict XIV (1740-1758), regulated the practice. Benedict XIV in his document "Etsi Pastoralis," promulgated May 26, 1742, determined the following:
"If the Greeks wish to accept portable altars consecrated by Latin Bishops, it would be well; if they do not wish to do so, the placing of their antimensia, or thrones, on stone altars when they celebrate, may be tolerated. They should use Corporals like the Latins, unless they use their thrones also as Corporals. It is not lawful for a Latin Priest celebrating in the Latin Rite in churches of the Greek Catholics, if he lacks his own portable altar stone, to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass on the antimensia, or thrones, of the Greeks. Every Priest must celebrate with a chalice of gold, or only silver or at least tin [pewter?], using a Throne or Corporal of linen, white and clean, and an altar covered with clean altar-cloths or with decently prepared ornamental covering."
These limitations were formally incorporated into the 1917 Code of Canon Law (Canon 823.2):
"In the absence of an altar of his own rite, it is fundamental that a priest can celebrate his own rite on an altar consecrated in another Catholic Rite, but not on the antimensiis (altar cloths) of the Greeks."
In spite of these prohibition, however, many exceptions and indults were granted to individual bishops and priests and to missionary societies to use a form of antimension to celebrate Mass on portable altars.
During the Second World War, the Holy See granted to military chaplains the privilege of using for the celebration of Mass, instead of the Latin-rite portable altar stone, "a veil which had enclosed, and well fastened, authentic relics." This was later extended to peacetime military activities. Since it was not always possible to obtain a veil with authentic relics, the use of an Eastern-rite antimension was considered an acceptable alternative.
Finally, Paul VI's "Pastorale Munus," a letter issued "motu proprio" (on his own initiative) in November 1963, gave to all local ordinaries of the universal Church (of all rites, Western and Eastern) the faculty to grant, for a just and serious reason, to all priests subject to them, who enjoy the faculty of the portable altar, the faculty of substituting for the portable altar stone the Byzantine or the Latin forms of the antimension.
Although this faculty has not been revoked, it has, in a way, been superseded by later liturgical legislation which no longer requires the use of an altar stone for portable altars and foresees the use of relics in fixed altars only if they are visibly part of a human body.
Finally, we present the text of the blessing of the Latin form of the antimension approved by the Congregation of Sacred Rites on March 12, 1947. The use of the antimension still required a special apostolic indult for it to be used in the celebration of Mass in mission territories, in place of an altar-stone or portable altar. It was reserved to a bishop but could be delegated to a priest. - Use of an Antimension in the Latin Church


Is spirituality different than superstition? Since Enlightenment we seem to have entered an age where “reality” is often confined to empirical explanations. Yet the Bible speaks of a spiritual reality that is not open to empirical investigation.

Are there any generally accepted (within Christianity) writings on this subject?  If defining "reality" is a branch of philosophical thought, who are the writers of such thought and are there any summaries of their perspectives?

The strictly empirical worldview seems reductionistic to thoughtful Christians (not to mention many atheists etc.) because, in their view, it fails to adequately account for phenomena such as love, beauty, reason, morality, the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics," and the like. Moreover, empiricism as a worldview seems to fail on its own terms because it is open to explanations for observable phenomena such as a multiverse and potentially undetectable forms of matter that are themselves not open to empirical investigation.

If we thus take spiritual to be non-material or non-empirical, then superstition is merely that subset of non-material things that you think are not real. But that's being a bit coy, because Christians believe there exists, not just non-material "stuff," but also non-material personal agents -- indeed the personal agent -- who interact with the material world in various ways.

Why do we believe such things? Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga argues that one reason we do is because of a built-in sensus divinitatis (SD), a natural faculty common to all humans that leads us to the divine. If God made us, it seems reasonable that he would instill in us a faculty to draw us to himself. Like the other faculties (sight, hearing, reason, imagination, the affections, etc.), however, the SD operates at varying levels of quality among different persons. An errant SD may lead one to become what Calvin calls a "factory of idols," seeking the spiritual in ways where it cannot be truly found -- superstition, if you will.

Moreover, it stands to reason that if God did make the world, there would be some clues in it that would point in his direction. Christians believe they can and have recognized such clues in the order, design, and telos of the world and of mankind itself. But make no mistake -- there is no neutral ground here. All facts must be interpreted, and evidence or data itself cannot act as a neutral arbiter between the interpretations (as non-Christian Stanley Fish says, "evidence is never independent and is only evidence within the precincts of a particular theory"). Thus, there is no airtight proof or evidence for God or spiritual reality that will convince all reasonable people, but a cumulative case of clues can be mounted for those with eyes to see it, as it were. (See Tim Keller, The Reason for God, chapters 8 and 9.)

Christians do not believe they have the power to "define" or delimit what is real, as your question seems to imply. We seek only to acknowledge what is real in the world where we find ourselves. As finite beings, we may not be equipped to fully explore all that exists. Hence there may be some realities we cannot explore effectively with the tools at our disposal, but we could still learn about these realities indirectly from someone who knows them directly. Hence we find ourselves seeking divine revelation to know something about non-empirical realities, and virtually all Christians believe that the person, work, and teaching of Jesus and the Bible hold such revelation to one degree or another and reveal God and his character and nature.

The three previous paragraphs, intrepid readers may note, align with John Frame's triperspectival approach laid out in his Doctrine of Knowledge of God and represent the existential, situational, and normative perspectives, respectively. Each of these is mutually interdependent, informing and being informed by the others.

Two other writers worthy of note here are particle physicist-turned-priest John Polkinhorne, who has compared and contrasted how science and theology pursue truth in their respective domains, and chemist-turned-philosopher of science Michael Polanyi, who described "tacit knowledge" (that we know more than we can tell or prove).

As a footnote: Beyond more philosophical musings like the above, which can sometimes be too abstract, I might recommend C. S. Lewis' Space Trilogy for an imaginative telling of a Christian view of reality. In it, the material world, for instance, has a maximum speed of the speed of light, whereas the spiritual world's minimum is the speed of light, and the spiritual beings interact with the material world only loosely, passing through conventional matter as we do through a fog.


Within the Catholic Church, when and by whom did the story that Jesus was born in a house arise? This post is a counterpart to this other question of mine: What is earliest mention of the Church tradition that Jesus was born in a cave?

In the World Library Publications Missalettes, which have an Ecclesiastical Approval given by Rev. Msgr. John F. Canary, Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Chicago, there are liturgical reflections before  the liturgy of that day.

If I recall correctly, in one of these over Christmastide, there is a reflection to the effect that

  Mary and Joseph lodged with relatives in Bethlehem; the "no place for them in the inn" means that no room for them in the main part of the
  house and therefore they were placed in a part of the same house where
  animals were kept at night. Another reflection had: the shepherds find Mother and child in such meager conditions, cannot bear to leave them in the place they found them, and take them to better conditions, etc.

The question is, since this appears in a publication with Ecclesiastical approval, whence and by whom has such a story come because it is at odds with the traditional teaching and understanding of the Christmas story?

Sorry, I can't really address this from within the Catholic Church either through membership or knowledge of, but it is entirely non-denominationally biblical.

Perhaps the account of the visit of the wise men (Magi)in Matthew 2:1-12 will help:

1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, 2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.  3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.  4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.  5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, 6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

7 Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.  8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.

9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.
10  When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.  11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.  12 And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way. - KJV

So, the so-called 'wise men' visited a considerable time after Jesus' birth in the stable's crib and having settled with his mother and father in a more suitably comfortable room of a proper house.

That's all.  Thanks and God bless