What scriptural evidence exists in support of our spirit's pre-mortal existence? Some denominations believe that our spirit existed before we were born on this earth. What scriptural/historical evidence do they use to lay support for their claims?

There is no Scriptural evidence that I find to support that claim. However, I believe that the following scripture does support the idea that not only life, but the Soul begins at conception.

  Genesis 2:7 KJV And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Many who do espouse the idea of pre-mortal existence base their assumption on:

  Jeremiah 1:5 KJV Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

That Scripture however would appear to validate God's omniscience and not mans pre-mortal existence.


Why is the Bible subject to a high level of interpretation? I realise there's always a level of interpretation neccesary when reading anything, but the level of interpretation needed to understand the Bible is very high when compared to everyday reading - some people spend their entire lives trying to understand what it means.
Example
If a friend says to me:

I'm going to the shop, I will be back before 1PM.

I don't have a reason to interpret this statement as meaning 1PM tomorrow, or 1PM next week.
We could compare this to Luke 21:32:

Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away
till all things take place

This to me means that all the prophecies described in the bible would happen while the generation that Jesus spoke to was still alive.
However it's often interpreted to mean something entirely different. Here is one Christian interpretation:

(This refers) to a future generation that sees the events He spoke of
prophetically.

Note: I'm not asking specifically about this interpretation it's just an example - I'm asking in general why it is subject to a high level of interpretation.

Is it because the Bible was written in another language, and we can't
assume it has been translated properly?
Is it because the Bible states
that it's not always to be taken literally?
Something else?

The Bible is subject to several different types of interpretation and criticism. This is for various reasons:

It was originally written in languages that are no longer spoken. The ancient Greek and Hebrew that it was written in are similar but dramatically different than the current forms of those languages (languages morph and change over time).
Translation from one language into another is not a lossless conversion process. You can lose some of the meaning and significance in the translation from the source material. You can also introduce noise into the new copy through lingual nuance. This is why so many different English translations of the Bible exist; reading several translations will often give a clearer picture, but sometimes you just have to go back to the original language.
It was written for and by ancient cultures that we share very little cultural reference with.
It was written over a great deal of time by a variety of people in a variety of places on a changing cultural landscape.
It's a piece of historical literature and thus subject to the same interpretation and criticism as all historical literature is subject to. Pages and volumes of ink has been spilled on Chaucer and Shakespeare, in more recent times, and Plato, Aristotle and Josephus in more ancient ones.
It is considered to be the word of God. If God spoke it then it should be examined carefully to see what it says.
Finally, it is considered to be "living" meaning that it is constantly applicable to our daily lives, even though it was written ages ago. To emphasize this Hebrews 4:12-13(NIV)

  12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. 13 Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.


Jehovah's Witnesses and Shunning Reconciled with New Testament Jehovah's Witnesses shun people who fall foul of scriptural law,

  Jehovah’s Witness kids grow up knowing that if they ever mess up, their parents will leave them — and that’s scary (quote from person interviewed in link above)

and looking at what I believe are scriptural reasons for shunning, they seem to be from the following

Proverbs 4:15

  Shun it, do not take it;Turn away from it, and pass it by. (NWT)

Job 2:3

  And Jehovah said to Satan: “Have you taken note of my servant Job? There is no one like him on the earth. He is an upright man of integrity, fearing God and shunning what is bad. He is still holding firmly to his integrity, even though you try to incite me against him to destroy him for no reason.” (NWT)(Job said "It is unthinkable for me to declare you men righteous! Until I die, I will not renounce my integrity!" - Job 27:5 - NWT)

but how can Jehovah's Witnesses reconcile shunning in the manner prescribed by the organisation with Matthew 7:1

  “Stop judging that you may not be judged; (NWT)
  Do not judge, or you too will be judge (NIV)

Romans 12:17-19

  17 Return evil for evil to no one. Take into consideration what is fine from the viewpoint of all men.18 If possible, as far as it depends on you, be peaceable with all men.19 Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but yield place to the wrath; for it is written: “‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay,’ says Jehovah.” (NWT)

and

  You must love your neighbor as yourself. - Matthew 22:39-40, Romans 13:9, Galatians 5:14 & James 2:8

Plus, should you not be trying to stear them back to the correct way?

Before reconciling the shunning arrangement with these Scriptures, I'll first explain the situation.
Being shunned by Jehovah's Witnesses is a consequence of a person being either disfellowshipped or disassociated. A disfellowshipped person is someone who was previously a baptized member of Jehovah's Witnesses but then was found to be unrepentant in committing a serious sin. A disassociated person is someone who was previously baptized as one of Jehovah's Witnesses but who later expressed that they no longer wished to be known as one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Shunning is a last resort for those who have not heeded the counsel of the elders in their congregation. A great effort has already been made to steer the person back, but it has failed. Now it is the responsibility of the elders to maintain purity and unity within the congregation. When a person is jeopardizing that purity and poses a danger to the faith of others in the congregation, the congregation must cease all association with that person. In time, the person may discover the error of their decision, and at that time the elders would be happy to help this person return to the fold.
The Biblical basis for the practice of shunning is found in these scriptures:

1 Corinthians 5:1-6, 11-13
1 Actually sexual immorality is reported among you, and such immorality as is not even found among the nations—of a man living with his father’s wife. 2 And are you proud of it? Should you not rather mourn, so that the man who committed this deed should be taken away from your midst? 3 Although absent in body, I am present in spirit, and I have already judged the man who has done this, as if I were actually with you. 4 When you are gathered together in the name of our Lord Jesus, and knowing that I am with you in spirit along with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 you must hand such a man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven ferments the whole batch of dough?
...
11 But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. 12 For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do you not judge those inside, 13 while God judges those outside? “Remove the wicked person from among yourselves.”

From this first scripture, we can see that Paul had the authority to judge a man in the congregation at Corinth. The command was to stop associating with the man who had committed sexual immorality, which is a serious sin. This drastic action was necessary in order to avoid the "leaven" from spreading to the rest of the congregation.

Romans 16:17-20
17 Now I urge you, brothers, to keep your eye on those who create divisions and causes for stumbling contrary to the teaching that you have learned, and avoid them. 18 For men of that sort are slaves, not of our Lord Christ, but of their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattering speech they seduce the hearts of unsuspecting ones. 19 Your obedience has come to the notice of all, and so I rejoice over you. But I want you to be wise as to what is good, but innocent as to what is evil. 20 For his part, the God who gives peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly. May the undeserved kindness of our Lord Jesus be with you.

In this scripture, we can see the command to avoid those who create divisions and causes for stumbling which disrupt the peace and unity of the congregation. Obedience to this command is a cause for rejoicing because it is seen by all.

2 Timothy 2:16-18
16 But reject empty speeches that violate what is holy, for they will lead to more and more ungodliness, 17 and their word will spread like gangrene. Hy·me·naeʹus and Phi·leʹtus are among them. 18 These men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred, and they are subverting the faith of some.
1 Timothy 1:20
20 Hy·me·naeʹus and Alexander are among these, and I have handed them over to Satan so that they may be taught by discipline not to blaspheme.

In these two scriptures, we can see the repeated mention of Hy·me·naeʹus, a man who participated in misleading the congregation and was thereafter disciplined by being "handed over to Satan," the same discipline that was given to the sexually immoral man in Corinth.

2 John 9-11
9 Everyone who pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. The one who does remain in this teaching is the one who has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. 11 For the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.

This scripture discusses how to treat those who do not remain in "the teaching of the Christ." It makes it very clear that even greeting these persons causes us to become associated with their wrongdoing.
We can see throughout all of these verses that shunning these wrongdoers has several purposes:

To prevent the congregation from following after their sinful course
To restore peace and unity to the congregation
To protect the reputation of God's people
To discipline the wrongdoer so that they might return to Jehovah

To reconcile these purposes with the commands to "stop judging" and to "love your neighbor as yourself," it's important to note the example of Jesus himself in how he demonstrated these principles. Did he show a judgemental attitude in how he dealt with others? Did he completely hold back from counseling others? No. Jesus was able to discipline others with righteousness by using the Scriptures. (2 Timothy 3:16)


How do modalists understand the role of Jesus as mediator? The Bible calls Jesus our mediator:

Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. (Romans 8:34, ESV)
For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, (1 Timothy 2:5, ESV)
Consequently, he [Jesus] is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. (Hebrews 7:25, ESV)

Trinitarians believe that Jesus intercedes with the Father on our behalf. He can do this because he is a distinct person, and he is the only competent mediator because only God can truly mediate with himself.
Modalism teaches that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are "different modes or aspects of the One God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three coeternal persons within the Godhead." (Wikipedia)
If God is not multiple people, how can Jesus intercede with the father? How do modalists understand the role of Jesus as mediator?

Who are the modalists?

The ancient modalists were condemned heretics such as Noetus, Sabellius, and Praxeas. We don't have much record of their own writings, and what we do know of them is based on what men like Tertullian and Hippolytus wrote in response to them. So we know very little of their actual theology.

In modern times, Oneness Pentecostalism has revived modalism. Though some of them reject the term modalism, many do not, and it's just about universal that that's exactly what they teach.

Note that Unitarianism is the opposite heresy. Oneness believers say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all the same person, while Unitarians say that only the Father is fully God.

Jesus' role as mediator to Oneness believers

In researching this question, I emailed Jason Dulle of OnenessPentecostal.com. Here's what he said:

  Yes, Jesus is our mediator.  I think different Oneness adherents have
  different understandings of this.  Some would say his mediatoral role
  is limited to the crucifixion.  Others, such as myself, would say that
  role, while based on the atonement, is ongoing and will continue until
  the consummation of all things.  This is no more problematic for our
  position that the issue of Jesus' communication with the Father while
  on Earth.  The response is the same to both.  For more information on
  how I understand the Father-Son distinction, see Avoiding the Achilles
  Heels of Trinitarianism, Modalistic Monarchianism, and Nestorianism:
  The Acknowledgement and Proper Placement of the Distinction Between
  Father and Son, A Oneness View of Jesus' Prayers, and Jesus' Prayers:
  It Doesn't Take Two Persons to Tango.

Dulles seems to summarize the differences between various Oneness views pretty well. His own views are rather unusual within that schema (positing two minds within the Godhead), but you can see a fuller discussion of them by accessing the revision history for this post.

Other Oneness theologians I contacted are consistent with each other in how they understand Jesus' role as mediator, though as Dulles said, they demonstrate disagreement over how "intercession" is to be understood.

For example, on the Oneness Q&A site Glorious Church, they affirm that "his mediatorial role is limited to the crucifixion:

  1 Timothy 2:5-6 says, 'For there is one God and one Mediator between
  God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for
  all....' From a Oneness perspective, we point out that the Mediator is
  specifically identified as 'the Man.' This agrees with Colossians
  1:21-22, which says, 'And you, who once were alienated and enemies in
  your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of
  His flesh through death.' Clearly the mediation and reconciliation
  between God and men was accomplished by means of the death of the Man,
  Jesus Christ, on the cross. We see the crucifixion as the once and for
  all intercession. We do not believe the Man Jesus is continuing to
  intercede in a literal way. We also believe that the Man who was
  crucified was God the Father in the flesh. We can make a distinction
  between God and His humanity, but we never want to think of them as
  two separate beings.

But in other ways, they agree with Dulles and the other theologians I contacted, all of whom believe that Jesus still intercedes for the church.

I also emailed William B. Chalfant, who has published Ancient Champions of Oneness as well as a number of historical novels about Sabellius. Chalfant engaged in a lengthy discussion of the key verses. Here are the highlights:

  Of course, in my view, the term "Mediator" usually refers to someone
  fulfilling a designated role or position rather than necessarily
  dictating a discrete, substantive individual.

  ...

  We can admit that a "mediator" is a "mediator" between two parties,
  but, as Paul wrote, we must still conclude that "God is One" (Gal.
  3:20).

  It must be, then, that God has "mediated" through His incarnation as
  the Messiah."God was in Christ": that is the incarnation.

  The "mediator" is the "man Christ Jesus" and not a second divine
  person as some would have it.

  ...

  Notice in this passage [1 John 2:1-2] that Jesus is identified as
  the "Paraclete" by John, who also wrote the Gospel of John, where
  Jesus promises, after his earthly demise and resurrection, the coming
  of the "Paraclete". Oneness teachers identify Jesus as the "Paraclete"
  (that is, the Spirit of Christ is the Holy Spirit". Paul affirms that
  in teaching that there is "one Spirit" (Ephesians 4:4). And so we
  would see if there is any post-resurrection "mediation" is will be
  done by the Spirit of Christ (the Holy Spirit).

  ...

  Again, "mediation" seems to refer to the earthly ministry of the
  Incarnation (God the Father manifested in the flesh), while
  "intercession" is again accomplished by the risen Christ (who is God
  the Father manifested in the glorified flesh).

  In short, the terms "mediator", "intercessor", "reconciliation", when
  expressed in relation to the exigencies of the "incarnation"
  (enfleshment of God the Father), who now subsists as the Eternal
  Spirit in the glorified Man Christ Jesus, in a substantive henosis
  or union.

I also emailed Stan Hallett of Apostolic-Voice.org. His words serve as a decent summary of Chalfant's:

  In my view He is intercessor or mediator because He is the door (John
  10:9).  No man comes to the Father but by Him (John 14:6).

  I do not believe that He needs to go a talk to the Father on our
  behalf as some other person of a Trinitarian Godhead, for all power
  was given to him in heaven and in earth (Matthew 28:18).

  ...

  God needed to come to redeem man unto himself (Titus 2:13,14). The
  annual shedding the blood of bulls and sheep could not redeem us
  (Hebrews 10:4). Therefore the scripture says that God redeemed us with
  His own blood.

  ...

  God did not send someone else to pay the price for sin, He came
  Himself.

The common view of each of these theologians can be summarized as:

Being a separate person is unnecessary for mediation. The game-changer of the incarnation accomplished enough on its own. I believe each of them would affirm this statement whole-heartedly, with the possible exception of Dulles, who would give it a bit more nuance.


Why do biblical names vary in different languages? In my regional language (Tamil) biblical names vary from the actual names. I'm sure this is not only in my regional language only but also in other languages too. For instance Jesus' name is Yesu and John's name is Yovan and so on. But in my regional language it doesn't mean anything; rather it's confusing.

In our prayers also we used the regional names and I think, would we mean Jesus' name or something else?

I can understand it'd be necessary to translate the Bible as it'd help the people to understand the Bible better. But what was the reason to change the names?

One of the reasons for the variance in names is that languages often don't share the same sounds as Greek or Hebrew.  For instance, Russian has no "th" sound.  Consequently, the sound of that name cannot be reproduced in Russian.  In Greek, it is ματθαιος, or /Mat-thaios/.  Russian translates this as Матфей, or Matfay.  So, the "th" becomes an "f".

Also, the ending of the name changes in Greek depending upon which part of speech it is.  We don't do that in English, so we just have to select an ending and stick with it.

There is also a difference whether or not the Greek or Hebrew is being translated.  The Greek for the Hebrew Name of Jesus (Yeshua) is  Ἰησοῦς, or Yay-soos.  The Hebrew name of Yeshua is translated into Joshua, while the name Yay-soos is translated Jesus.

So, sometimes a word's sounds are not matched in the receiving language.  Other times, there is variance on whether it is coming from Hebrew or Greek.  This accounts for some of the issues.


What does TS Eliot mean by "old dispensation" in The Journey of the Magi? In T. S. Eliot's poem The Journey of the Magi he's offering a imaginative view into the interior experience of one of the wise men from the East who came to Jesus's birthplace.

The last few lines of that poem are:

  We had evidence and no doubt. I had seen birth and death,
      But had thought they were different; this Birth was
      Hard and bitter agony for us, like Death, our death.
      We returned to our places, these Kingdoms,
      But no longer at ease here, in the old dispensation,
      With an alien people clutching their gods.
      I should be glad of another death.

What does he mean by old dispensation here?  Does this come from the Bible (I can't find it there)?  Does it come from church history?

He means the same thing as "the old covenant" (Judaism), but stated in the language of dispensationalism, which classifies the different timeline "slices" of God's plan. We tend to think of it as old covenant/new covenant but if you start getting really anal about it and analyzing "what about before Moses" and "what about after the Rapture" you get a bit more of a complicated set of salvation schemes over time, or "dispensations."

Edit: I guess I'm surprised that this is a contentious or misunderstood point, has no one heard of dispensationalism? I provided the links above for a reason. Mastery and escape: T.S. Eliot and the dialectic of modernism discusses Eliot's dispensationalism specifically and how he uses this term in much of his writing. He was, you know, into it.


Whose is the 'grace of God that bringeth salvation' ? (Titus 2:11) This question is in the context of Protestant Trinitarianism.
There are two schools of thought within Protestant Trinitarianism : one, founded mainly in the Westminster Confession (or Savoy Declaration) which accepts that 'the Law is a rule of life for the Christian' and looks to the commandments (whether an expansion of ten, or whether two or whether one) as the 'Law' by which the Christian is to live.
This school of thought can be seen set forth in the Westminster Confession
The other school of thought accepts that salvation is by grace and that the Christian is 'freed from law' (that is to say, not just 'ceremonial law' but all law). The 'rule of the Spirit' is just that, they say - a governance of the Holy Spirit who brings the things of Christ and ministers them to the soul, whereby the believer receives the 'shedding abroad of the love of God' and is kept, in Spirit, walking in holiness by means of faith in Christ.
This school of thought can be seen set forth in the pages of The Gospel Standard.
I am interested in what the former school of thought teach, regarding Titus 2: 11-14 :

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, (12) Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; (13) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (14) Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

There is no mention in these few verses of the Law being administered in order to achieve either holiness or preparation for the last day. The latter school of thought hold that the 'grace of God' refers to the Holy Spirit and that his ministrations result in sanctification.
What, I would like to know, is the teaching of those who suggest that Christians are 'under the Law' (and the Westminster Confession states that this is as 'advice') in regard to these verses. Whose, exactly, is the 'grace' referred to ? And why, would they say, is Law completely missing from these exhortatory verses ?

I don't think there is such a distinction between the two camps here as you suggest. I think both of the documents you link to would agree that the Law expresses the will of God. The section of the Westminster Confession you quote about the rule of life starts out: 'Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works'. I don't see that as particularly different from what the Gospel Standard say: "We believe that the believer’s rule of life is the gospel, not the law of works given to Moses".
They are both saying that we are not under the Law in the same way that people of Israel were under the Law. They both agree that, as Jesus taught, we need a deeper obedience to the Law if we are to fulfil God's will for us.
So let me try to answer your specific question with respect to Titus 2:11-14. I come from a traditional Reformed (Anglican) perspective, this is how I understand the passage.
I believe that the grace of God is referring to Jesus and his work for us, rather than the Holy Spirit. Which would fit with 'appearing' - the grace of God 'has appeared' (v11) and then we are waiting for Jesus' 'appearing' (v13). Paul's classic definition of grace is Ephesians 2:1-10.
The grace of God teaches us to say no to 'ungodliness and wordly passions'. But the question is, what does Paul mean when he talks about ungodliness? How do we know what is godly and ungodly? "I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law" (Romans 7:7). The Law taught him what ungodliness was - and the reason is because in our sinful states we need some guidance as to right and wrong. If there were no Law, we could deceive ourselves that we were OK.
So the Law reveals sinfulness. But it is not the means by which we attain godliness. This is a big message of Titus: we only attain righteousness by grace. Paul is here talking to a church who have been corrupted by those whose focus is the Mosaic Law (which I assume is what he means by "the circumcision party" in 1:10). This is why Paul does not refer to the Law in Titus 3. But he is not saying that it's an insignificant thing for Christians, but rather we can only achieve the righteousness God requires through grace.
I've just checked Calvin's commentary on this passage, and this is what he says:

“Piety” is religion towards God. “Righteousness” has place among men. He who is endowed with both of these lacks nothing for perfect virtue; and, indeed, in the law of God there is absolute perfection, to which nothing whatever can be added. But as the exercises of godliness may be regarded as appendages to the first table, so “temperance,” which Paul mentions in this passage, aims at nothing else than keeping the law, and, as I said before about patience, is added to the former as a seasoning.

So I think Calvin's view is not that we need to keep the Law as in by our own efforts, but the Law of God is perfection - and the only way we can keep it is by the grace of God.
Earlier this year I tried to express my view about Grace in a sermon on Titus 3. You might also find interesting the other sermons on the rest of Titus, linked from that page.


What is the difference between AME and AME Zion Churches From (limited) personal experience, A.M.E. and A.M.E. Zion churches hold very similar structure, theology, and culture. What are the principle differences? Are there subtle separations in these points, or are they realistically simply two different political entities?

According to Wikipedia, the AME-Zion denomination originated among African American Methodists in New York, and the AME denomination originated among African American Methodists around Philadelphia, both around 1800. Otherwise the histories of the two bodies are similar, and in 2012, they agreed to enter full communion with each other, and other Methodist bodies.


Is there any historical evidence of Sabbath keeping by Gentiles during the first centuries of Christianity? Did Gentiles use to keep the Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) during the first centuries of Christianity? How widespread was the practice in comparison with Sunday meetings? What does the historical evidence say about all this?

The question of whether Gentiles had to follow the Law of Moses surfaced right at the beginning of the church.  This is to say that some Gentiles were in fact following the Law, including keeping the Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday).

And being brought on their [Barnabas, Paul, and others] way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
Acts 15:3-5

The conclusion was this.

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Acts 15:28-29

So, there was an attempt by certain ones to enforce the Mosaic Law onto the Gentiles and no doubt they were trying to follow the Law, but the Jerusalem Council decided it was not necessary.
Subsequent to that episode, this conflict about the relationship of the Law and grace continued to fester.  Here is Philip Schaff on Eusebius' comment about the Ebionites.

The Ebionites were not originally heretics. Their characteristic was the more or less strict insistence upon the observance of the Jewish law; a matter of cultus, therefore, not of theology, separated them from Gentile Christians. Among the early Jewish Christians existed all shades of opinion, in regard to the relation of the law and the Gospel, from the freest recognition of the uncircumcised Gentile Christian to the bitterest insistence upon the necessity for salvation of full observance of the Jewish law by Gentile as well as by Jewish Christians.
-source-

In sum, there is historical evidence of Sabbath keeping by Christian Gentiles.


What is the meaning of CCC-135? CCC-135:

  The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God.

I don't understand the sentence above, because (to me) "contain the Word of God" has a different meaning than "are the Word of God".

Although I will ask how "the application" with the Bible according to the Lutherans, I do agree when this Lutheran link wrote the Bible is the Word of God, not contains the word of God.

My understanding of these terms is as follows:
A. "The Bible is the Word of God" means that all the words written in the Bible are the Words of God.
B. The Bible contains the Word of God = not all the words written (or we read) in the Bible are the Words of God.

Then A can't be also B at the same time (or vice versa)
It must be A if not B ---or--- B if not A.

the Bible contains the Word of God, not is the word of God
---or---
the Bible is the Word of God, not contains the word of God

Since CCC-135 sentences wrote that A is also B at the same time ---> [(B) The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God - (A) The Sacred Scriptures are the Word of God], I am asking how a Catholic would see this as internally consistent. Thank you.

I see your confusion and your syllogism is correct as stated but is based on flawed assumptions. The subtly between 'contain' and 'are' should not be read into as much as you are. Think of it this way: the words contained in the Scripture are the Word of God. The connotation of 'contents' simply refers to where they are represented in one volume or work. It both 'contains' God's literal words (actual words He spoke to Moses, Christ's words while preaching, etc.) and 'is' the Word of God (inspired and directed to be written by God, therefore the possessive connotation). These are not contradictory concepts.

"I am who am" = God's actual spoken words

"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God" = God's word, spoken and written by a human, inspired or directed to do so by God. So not from His 'mouth' so to speak, but we cannot exactly understand how He works through inspiration, so we have to stop thinking of it like He is dictating things to the authors.


Latter Day Saints, Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden It was pointed out in this answer and this answer that in the book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 2:22-23 it states

  And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.
  And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

Is there any biblical basis for the book of Mormon to state that everything in the Garden of Eden was to remain unchanged and therefore Adam and Eve would not have had children without falling from God's grace?

This seems to contradict God's first instruction to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:28 when He said

  Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. (NIV)

The Bible doesn't have a direct reference to this, but this is part of the reason the Church of Jesus Christ believes in the need for multiple scriptures. One can see that in Genesis Adam and Eve were only kicked out of the Garden of Eden and only started having children after partaking of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil.
Chapter 3

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
22 ¶ And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

Chapter 4

1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.

The reason the first two commandments contradicted was that God was setting the stage to show all of us that mankind has Agency, which is integral to the Plan of Salvation.
Moses 3:17 clarifies the commandment to not eat of the tree of knowledge.

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.


Could a Catholic Church minister distribute communion to the community while churches are closed? All the Catholic churches where I live have been closed for some time. Is there a mechanism for the distribution of the eucharist to the community (such as extraordinary ministers), even while churches are closed to any gatherings but where priests are still holding Mass (on their own)?

Could a Catholic Church minister distribute communion to the community while churches are closed?
The short answer is yes.
This will also depend on which diocese one is living in and even which parish one in living in within a particular diocese.
For example in my home Archdiocese of Vancouver, the archbishop has outlined rules for outdoor drive-in mass and receiving Holy Communion on Sunday’s and feast days.
If your diocese is not doing something, please pass on the hint!

Archbishop issues guidelines for receiving Communion during pandemic.
The Archdiocese of Vancouver is reminding pastors how to distribute Communion safely and help parishioners stay connected with their faith two months after government and health officials introduced an order suspending all worship services.
In a Jan. 13 letter, Archbishop J. Michael Miller outlined how to host outdoor drive-in Masses and how to distribute Communion to parishioners in the church or in their cars.
“In light of the fact that the provincial restrictions on Masses with a congregation have been extended until at least February 5, and because many of the faithful have been without Holy Communion for a lengthy period, I sincerely hope that you are able to make arrangements in your parish for the distribution of Holy Communion to your parishioners.”
All three options are used across the Archdiocese of Vancouver.
Drive-in
Father James Hughes runs drive-in Masses at St. Patrick’s Parish in Vancouver. He has installed an FM radio transmitter and invites parishioners to register for one of several drive-in Masses celebrated on the weekend. A maximum of 50 cars (a stipulation by government) can be seen pulling into the parking lot, facing the outdoor altar, and tuning their radios into the live, outdoor Mass. During Mass, priests wear masks as they bring Communion to each car in turn.

Drive-up
St. Matthew’s Parish in Surrey has opted for the drive-up option, also called “curbside Communion.” Priests celebrate Mass in front of a camera inside the church, which parishioners can watch streamed live from their homes. After Mass, they can drive to the church, line up their cars, and receive Communion through the windows.
Guidelines in these cases stipulate that communicants stay in their cars, wear face masks, sanitize their hands, and receive Communion in their hands. Then they may pull down their masks, consume the Host, and drive away. St. Ann’s in Abbotsford and St. Joseph’s in Mission have also gone this route.

Walk-up
Parishes like Precious Blood in Surrey and St. Edmund’s in North Vancouver have chosen a walk-through option. They streams Mass live online, then invite parishioners to come to the church, where they line up outside (keeping two-metre spacing between families) and are allowed to enter a few at a time to receive Communion and walk out the back door.
The government has allowed people to enter churches for private prayer, as long as there are no more than 10 people inside (and all of them have signed in, for contact tracing purposes).
Some parishes offer a hybrid of these options. Canadian Martyrs Parish in Richmond and St. Joseph’s in Langley invite parishioners to receive Communion by waiting in their cars or, if they don’t have a car, walking up to the church doors.
Priests with questions about how to distribute Communion reverently and safely are asked to contact the archbishop or Father Tien Tran, Director of Liturgy.

Most of the archdiocese’s 77 parishes have begun streaming Mass live during the pandemic.


Greek- what's the difference between Ιησοῖ, Ιησούς, and Ιησού? I've been looking through the Septuagint and NT Greek manuscripts online and seen these different forms of the name for both Joshua and Jesus. Can someone please explain to me the differences?

This is really a rather elemental question about language, there is nothing special about this name. I would caution you not to make too much of what you find in the Greek manuscripts without actually learning Greek. Learning another language is more than just substituting vocabulary words. There are grammar patterns, ranges of semantic meaning, idioms, and even different logic that you will miss just looking at words. Worse yet, you won't know what you're missing and might easily come to totally false results. You are far more likely to come to wrong conclusions by applying your English language assumptions to a language that does not play by the same rules than if you'd just used a translation in the language you know.

Greek words use different endings depending on how they are used in a sentence. This is just the way the grammar works, indicating person, tense, voice, mood, case, number, gender, or degree. In this case Ἰησοῦς is the lexical form (or root word) and all the other forms are contextual variations based on it's use in a sentence.


Genesis 9:7 fruitful and increase in number Genesis 9:7 NIV

  As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth
  and increase upon it

Today we struggle with food shortages, problems with clean water, and climate concerns.  Is there a Christian denomination who suggests that we should NOT be as fruitful as we can be?  If so, does that contradict the Bible and is it acceptable for orthodox Christians?

Well, there were the Shakers, who didn't believe in procreation, but they've pretty much all dwindled out by now.  Not much of a surprise there.

Whether or not it contradicts the Bible or not to restrict procreation is a matter of interpretation for that particular denomination.  The Shakers didn't seem to think it did, but the Catholics would disagree.

That being said, I'd probably argue that the majority of Christendom lies somewhere in the middle of those two extremes.  I go to a Southern Baptist church, and there doesn't seem to be any stigma related to basic birth control methods, vasectomies, hysterectomies, etc.

All of those groups would probably consider themselves more or less orthodox (with a lowercase o).


Was the Obadiah in 1 Kings 18 the same Obadiah who wrote the Book of Obadiah? Pretty straightforward question - In 1 Kings 18, Elijah speaks with a servant of the Lord named Obadiah.  Is that the same guy wrote the book of the same name?

For what it's worth, I once heard a sermon in which the preacher said it was not the same fellow.

My bible has the following intro to Obadiah:

  Obadiah wrote this shortest book of the Old Testament probably soon
  after 586 B.C. when the armies of Babylon destroyed Jerusalem. During
  this conquest, the people of Edom helped capture fleeing Israelites
  and turn them over to the Babylonians. They even took up residence in
  some Judean villages. This angered the Lord, for the Edomites, as
  descendants of Esau, were related to the Israelites (Gen. 25:21-26,
  30) and therefore should have helped them. Obadiah prophesied that
  Edom would be repaid for mitreating God's people. Within a hundred
  years, Edom was in ruins. Obadiah also asserted that God is sovereign
  over the nations and that the house of Jacob would be restored because
  of God's covenant love for his people.

This would seem to preclude the Obadiahs being the same, as Elijah was well before the Judean exile (he was even before the northern kingdom was overrun).


What do you call the adherents of Covenant Theology (CT) and New Covenant Theology (NCT)? An adherent of Dispensationalism is called a "dispensationalist" but would the proper term for an adherent of Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology be, respectively, "Covenant Theologian" and "New Covenant Theologian"? It sounds to me like it would lead to a little confusion, but I haven't really heard any terms in usage for either.

There are several options, but the terms "New Covenant Theologian" or "Covenant Theologian" are definitely not appropriate.
Those terms are reserved for Biblical Scholars, and is usually used in the context of pastors, or those who have advanced Theology degrees, such as a Master's of Divinity, or Doctorate in Theology, but it not used for a normal layperson.
I agree with the other person who answered that the closest would be "Reformed" or "Calvinist".
It has become more common practice for Calvinists to refer to themselves as "Reformed" even though they might even be a 5 point Calvinist or Hyper-Calvinist.
It's just that the word reformed doesn't have the "-ist" or "-ian" suffix that makes it a noun form, like Literalist, or Baptist, Dispensationalist, or Arminian.


How does the Catholic doctrine of free will reconcile with peccability? In the Penitential Act at Mass, all present confess that they have sinned and ask for God's forgiveness. The implication seems to be that everyone present has sinned since the last time they made such an act. Indeed, it seems to me (though I may be mistaken) that the Catholic belief is that everyone still on Earth continues to fall into sin, even if it is in the most minute way.

On the other hand, every sin is an act of free will, and hence avoidable. Since there can be only finitely many acts of free will between penitential acts, this should imply that it is possible to go between penitential acts without sinning at all.

So my question is this: What is the Church's true doctrine concerning the ability of human beings to maintain avoidance of all sin? Does it teach that some do, in fact, maintain avoidance of all sin? Or does it believe that while it is possible to avoid all sin, to do so is so difficult as to be impossible in practical terms? Or is it something else?

The Council of Trent, the most important Council of the Church when speaking of the true nature of justification (i.e. because it was in response to the Protestant heresy which principally denied it), taught the following infallibly:

If any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,  — except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds with regard to the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema.
(Canon 24, Session 6, Decree on Justification)

So quite clearly it is not possible to avoid all venial sin, except by a special or unique grace and privilege of God which, as it is implied here, was only given to the immaculately conceived mother of God, the new Eve.


Ruling on eating pork in Christianity as per Bible? I am  very new to Christanity and so kindly bear with me if my question appears novice. I want to know what is the ruling on eating pork in Christianity as per Bible?

Unlike Judaism, Christianity has no rule prohibiting (or commanding) the eating of pork. In fact, in Acts 10:9-16, Peter has a vision where a sheet is lowered from Heaven with "all sorts of animals, reptiles, and birds" on it. He is then commanded to get up, kill, and eat the animals. To this, Peter is shocked and replies that he has never eaten anything unclean (as per the Judaic Law). To this, God replies:

  Acts 10:15 (NLT)
  15 But the voice spoke again: “Do not call something unclean if God has made it clean.”

There is of course a deeper meaning, but on the surface, God is telling Peter that nothing is unclean now (that is, no animals are unclean). This includes pigs and pork, so eating bacon and the like is perfectly acceptable (and happens quite often in the United States) among Christians. Another piece of support is that the four things still considered prohibited for Christians are listed in Acts 15:

  Acts 15:29 (NLT)
  29 You must abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality. If you do this, you will do well. Farewell.

None of these four actions apply to typical ways to consume pork. So, as a Christian, it is perfectly fine to eat pork.

As noted by waxeagle in a comment, not all Christians consider it acceptable to eat pork. Some sects maintain a kosher lifestyle whereas others abstain from meat entirely. However, these don't compose a significant portion of Christianity. The best course of action is to ask the Christian group you're part of.


Why do Catholics usually baptize by pouring? CCC 1214

  This sacrament is called Baptism, after the central rite by which it is carried out: to baptize (Greek baptizein) means to "plunge" or "immerse"; the "plunge" into the water symbolizes the catechumen's burial into Christ's death, from which he rises up by resurrection with him, as "a new creature."

CCC 1228

  Hence Baptism is a bath of water in which the "imperishable seed" of the Word of God produces its life-giving effect.32 St. Augustine says of Baptism: "The word is brought to the material element, and it becomes a sacrament."

definition of bath (multiple definitions, most I believe involve being covered by water)

  the quality or state of being covered with a liquid

CCC 1239

  The essential rite of the sacrament follows: Baptism properly speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to the Paschal mystery of Christ. Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate's head.

CCC 1239 mentions in ancient times pouring was allowed, but when did that occur (what is the history of baptism)? Why is pouring of water used more often than immersion (ease/safety)?

Related Q&A on choosing immersion baptism

Baptism by total immersion is permitted in all Rites of the Catholic Church.

Some diocese still offer the option of full immersion baptisms.

Before going on, I would like to make a distinction in the term Catholic. I believe that this question deals with Catholics of the Roman (Latin) Rite and not Eastern Rite Catholics.

  Actually, immersion is a very Catholic way of baptizing, even though it has not been broadly practiced in the Roman Rite. Eastern Catholic Churches have been baptizing by immersion for centuries. It is one of two methods for baptizing that have long been permitted for use even within the Roman Catholic Church.

  The increasing popularity for baptizing by immersion is probably related to a liturgical principal favored by the Second Vatican Council: the expressive use of signs. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal says that good signs “will more effectively foster active and full participation and more properly respond to the spiritual needs of the faithful” (20). This
  is why we promote such ideas as wearing noble vestments, reading from a beautiful Book of the Gospels, and receiving communion under both kinds. All these signs, when used richly, respond to the spiritual needs of the community. Baptism by Immersion

That said, some dioceses do offer baptism by immersion.

Check out this article: Many Catholics Choose Baptism by Immersion.

For more information see these:

Can Catholics choose to be baptized by immersion?

Holy Mysteries of Initiation

Why do Catholics usually baptize by pouring?

It is not clear when the Roman Catholic Church started pouring water as a method of baptism, nor is it clear why they started using this method. But it is important to understand that the Roman Catholic Church believes baptism saves us regardless of the method employed..

It is hard to get a definite answer on this, but it there may be several factors involved. One being how to baptism the infirm. Another being that Catholic baptisms usually occur near the entrance of the church as a sign of welcoming the newly baptized into the life of the church.

  Cyprian advised that no one should be "disturbed because the sick are poured upon or sprinkled when they receive the Lord’s grace" (Letter to a Certain Magnus 69:12 [A.D. 255]). Tertullian described baptism by saying that it is done "with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation, and finally, without cost, a man is baptized in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises again, not much (or not at all) the cleaner" (On Baptism, 2 [A.D. 203]). Obviously, Tertullian did not consider baptism by immersion the only valid form, since he says one is only sprinkled and thus comes up from the water "not much (or not at all) the cleaner." - Baptism: Immersion Only?

If you have ever visited a Catholic Church, you will notice that there is a baptismal font near the entrance. However in centuries gone by the Catholic Churches, baptism by immersion was held in high esteem. In the Early Church, places of worship sometimes had what they call  baptisteries and were used for total immersion. Somewhere down the line, the Church moved away from having elaborate pools attached to cathedrals for baptisms to more modest baptismal fonts for baptism by pouring water over the candidates head. The reason for the change may have been a practical one, as a baptismal font can be easily placed in a church.

Baptistery in Pisa, Italy

More information on this subject can be found here: Theological Reasons for Baptistry Shapes.


The Jews were so offended after Stephen said that he saw Jesus "standing" at the right hand of God in Acts 7:55 that they stoned him. Why? Jesus is pictured as "sitting" at the right hand of God, rather than standing, in most of the New Testament. But Stephen saw Jesus "standing" in Acts 7:55. Then in verse 58 they cast him out of the city and stoned him to death. Did he break a law or were they mad because Stephen was insinuating the fulfillment of a particular
prophecy?

The Son of Man was standing because the throne was already occupied.

In the apocalyptic belief of the time, the Son of Man was God’s divine agent who would one day bring judgment on God’s enemies and inaugurate God’s reign on earth.  The clearest picture of the role of the Son of Man in canonical scripture is in Daniel 7:13-14:

  “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a
  son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the
  [enthroned] Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given
  authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every
  language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that
  will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be
  destroyed.”

In his speech in Acts 7 describing the failure of the Jewish religious system to understand God’s purpose, Stephen quoted Isaiah 66 wherein God declares, “Heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool.  What kind of house will you build for me?” (v.49).  God is not contained in temples, Stephen said, but He rules over heaven and earth, recalling the iconic picture of the seated monarch on the throne of heaven with his feet, his authority, on the earth.

Stephen then added, “Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”  Stephen was declaring that Daniel’s apocalyptic vision was being fulfilled, that the Ancient of Days, seated on his throne, was even now handing authority over to the Son of Man standing at his right hand.  The everlasting dominion of the Son of Man had begun!  According to the writer of Acts, the Jewish crowd did not embrace this message, and Stephen became the early Christian movement’s first martyr.

In the following centuries Christians came to interpret the Jewish apocalyptic vision differently.  As their theology of the divinity of Christ developed, Christians came to think of Daniel’s ‘Son of Man’ and the ‘Ancient of Days’ as the same person: the Son of Man was God’s own son, even God himself, and they sat enthroned over the Kingdom of Heaven and Earth as one person.  In Christian doctrine this came to be called the 'Session of Christ', the ‘sitting’ of Christ.  In this light Stephen’s vision was reinterpreted, and various explanations have been offered for why Christ was standing rather than seating.

But originally, Stephen saw the Son of Man standing beside the throne, and sitting upon it, according to Daniel 7:9-10, was the Ancient of Days.


Should protestants not make the sign of the Cross? I'm not a Catholic, but I've been aware since I was little that Catholics will "Cross" themselves. Early on I felt like I shouldn't copy it as it always had been portrayed in tv/film as something ritualistic or superstitious. But now that I understand some of the Catholic's reasoning, I'm wondering if there is any doctrine in protestantism that addresses why you shouldn't do it, or is it simply because we don't want to imitate Catholicism?

Catholic brethren please feel free to talk about the reasons why it should be done, in the comments.

I don't think there's any harm in making the sign of the cross.  I don't think we could equate it with the type of superstition that equates to idolatry or occultism.  (I'm sorry if that sounds offensive to anyone who practices it.  Please read on, and you'll see I don't mean to offend.)

It's definitely meant as a Christian gesture for the Catholics and the other denominations that did or still do practice it.

I think that if you're a protestant that is not in a denomination that practices it, you should not practice it.  Not because it's wrong, or for Scriptural reasons but because there's really no good motive to do so and because it just plain shows common decency to respect the traditions of others, so long as they are not anti-Christian, or anti-God.

To do it flippantly would seem to dishonor it and could prove offensive to those who hold it as important.  As a Baptist, I imagine I'd get annoyed if a bunch of Catholics went down to the beach and held dunking-style baptisms just to do it.  To me, baptism is very symbolic, and an important rite. Not that it saves you or anything, but it's not something to be made fun of.  For those that make the sign of the cross, I'd imagine it's the same.

Since there is no scriptural prohibition against it, and it's important to some, I'd say that we should just keep our silence, and show respect for their beliefs and practices, as we'd hope they'd have respect for ours.


Why did Jesus wear the crown of thorns? Right before his crucifixion, Jesus was made to carry his cross and to wear a crown of thorns.  Why was he made to wear the crown of thorns?

He was being mocked for claiming that he was King of the Jews, so the soliders gave him a "crown." And to make it worse, they made it of thorns, so it was extremely painful.


What is the history of the doctrine of inerrancy? Is there any reason, biblical or otherwise, not to believe that the doctrine of inerrancy is relatively new (past two hundred years).  I found the following statement on Wikipedia.

  "It has in fact been noted that only in the last two centuries can we
  legitimately speak of a formal doctrine of inerrancy."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy#History

Am I understanding correctly that the idea of infallibility has been the prevalent doctrine for most of Christian history?  I'm narrowing the scope to Christianity, as it's my understanding that Jewish tradition does not hold the idea of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) being inerrant.

Personal Anecdote: I grew up attending church in the 60's and 70's; the idea of inerrancy wasn't considered in the churches I attended.  It seems that the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" has really changed the Christian view during the past 35 years.

This question is focused on the history of the doctrine of inerrancy, not the doctrine itself.

The doctrine of inerrancy, a salient feature of Christian Fundamentalism, was "a creation not of the 16th century Reformation but of 19th century Princeton University theologians attempting to preserve traditional belief in divine origins."1 As you can see, there is evidence for supporting the notion that the doctrine of inerrancy is a relatively new doctrine.

Infallibility refers to "the divine assistance given by Christ to the Church to teach specific doctrines without error." 2

Whereas, Indefectibility refers to "the divine assistance given to the Church to remain fundamentally faithful to the teachings of Christ, or 'there can be no wholesale departure from the teaching of Christ' even though various leaders and/or various populations in the Church may sometimes go astray. Thus, 'indefectibility' refers to the generic divine assistance that the church will remain basically faithful to the teachings of Christ over the long run, while 'infallibility' refers to the specific divine assistance for the church to teach particular fundamental doctrines without basic error." 2

Biblical inspiration results in inerrancy, 2,3 which the Catechism of the Catholic Church describes as "the attribute of the books of Scripture whereby they faithfully and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to have confided through the Sacred Scripture." 2

As you can see, there is support suggesting that the doctrine of inerrancy was originally a Catholic doctrine.

References

DOYLE, R. (2003). Sizing Up Evangelicals. Scientific American, 288(3), 37.
FORD, J. T. (2013). INFALLIBILITY--TERMINOLOGY, TEXTUAL ANALYSIS, AND THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION: A RESPONSE TO MARK POWELL. Theological Studies, 74(1), 119-128.
Gigot, F. (1907). The Bible. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved April 26, 2014 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02543a.htm


Under what circumstances is disobeying a bad law justified or even obligatory? Civil Disobedience Justified

There is a Biblical precedent for civil disobedience.

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego's refused to worship an idol in Daniel 3.
The Israelites' openly rebelled against the government of Egypt in the book of Exodus.
In Acts 5, Peter teaches despite being commanded otherwise by the civil authority.

Civil Disobedience Prohibited

There is also a Biblical precedent for obeying a country's laws regardless of whether the laws are good or not.

Ecclesiastes 8 says to obey the king's command.
Jesus says to pay taxes in Luke 20.
Paul instructs believers to obey the laws of their country in Romans 13.

Modern Examples

Here are some modern examples of where this issue is a sticky one.

Rosa Parks broke the law by refusing to give up her seat to a white person during the American civil rights movement.
Aaron Swartz believed that the current U.S. copyright law was wrong, and practiced civil disobedience by downloading academic articles in a manner that was considered illegal. Copyright law may or may not be Biblical, but if copyright law is harmful, then it's possible that illegal downloading of copyrighted material could possibly be considered a form of civil disobedience.
Adolf Eichmann dutifully obeyed the laws of his country by carrying out the execution of Jews. After WWII, he was sentenced to death on the grounds that he was obligated to break German law, but did not.

The Question

I am not able to differentiate between the cases where civil disobedience is justified and the cases where it is not justified. I can make up answers in each case based on intuition, but what is the Biblical criterion for sifting through each case? Under what circumstances is disobeying a bad law justified or even obligatory? Please provide a clear definition of when civil disobedience is justified Biblically and when it is not justified.

Note on similar questions:

The question, Are Christians bound to the laws of their country?, asks if there are some laws that should be obeyed even if they are not Biblical. The question, Should Christians uphold unjust laws that are not overtly immoral?, looks at the same question from a different angle. Neither question sufficiently answers the question: what is the Biblical definition of appropriate civil disobedience?

One verse that sprang immediately to my mind was 1 Peter2:16.  To provide a context for the verse, I'll start with vs.13:

  "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.  For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.  Act as free men [and women], and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God.  Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king. Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps" (1 Peter 2:13-21 NIV).

What strikes me in this passage is that Christians are free.  Ironically, however, we express our freedom as slaves to God!  When we submit to and honor the "powers that be" we are fleshing out our obedience to God, who alone is the One with ultimate power and authority in all the universe.

Notice that Peter was quick to qualify the Christian's freedom.  Never are we to use our freedom in Christ as an excuse or cloak for doing something evil.  Christians are not to be antinomianists who flaunt the law, whether man's or God's.  God, after all, expects His children to fulfill His law's demands as they are led by the Holy Spirit (see Romans 8:4).  While we are perhaps wise to abandon the old adage "Let your conscience be your guide," Christians in particular are to have enlightened, sensitive consciences to which they are to listen.

Having said that, however, just as there are always going to be controversial, "grey areas" of behavior within a given community of Christians today (as there was in the first century with the issue of meat sacrificed to idols--see Romans 8:1-9:15 and 1 Corinthians 9), so also will there be differences of opinion among well-meaning Christians as to whose conscience is correct and whose is not, as well as which secular laws and regulations must be obeyed and which may or must not be obeyed.

Clearly an edict from a government or repressive regime making it illegal to preach the gospel is something we cannot obey in good conscience.  Other laws will not be so clear-cut, however, as the ban on preaching Christ crucified.  (Having said this, I assume the better part of wisdom in countries where "proselytizing" is banned is to limit preaching, teaching, and sharing one's faith either to underground, home churches, or to clandestine gatherings of people, generally, whether in remote locations or any other non-public places.  The same would apply, I feel, to bans on disseminating the written word of God, in any medium.  Years ago an uncle of mine frequently smuggled Bibles into countries where Bibles were prohibited.  Today, an organized effort among Christians in repressive countries to transmit Scripture via email, podcasts, Twitter, or carrier pigeons would be, I believe, sanctioned by God.)

In other less-obvious ways, we must not be dogmatic.  For example, to one Christian the seemingly insignificant act of putting money into an expired parking meter as a "random act of kindness" is clearly wrong (particularly if there is a local ordinance making the act a misdemeanor!), whereas to another Christian, it is quite permissible.  In such situations, I suggest each Christian must listen to his or her conscience.  If the latter believer is doing the good deed deliberately to flaunt the law, then perhaps s/he should re-examine his or her motives!  If the former, seemingly "overly sensitive" believer does not feed the meter, does that therefore mean the latter Christian is right and the former, wrong?  No, before God each one is right.

In conclusion, when God's word is clear about a given action's rightness or wrongness, and the powers that be agree with God's word, Christians have an obligation before God both to obey and not to disobey.  In the few cases in which to obey the government would be to disobey God, we should listen to our enlightened consciences, which are to be informed by God's word, and we should also seek advice from and follow the example of the Christian leaders among us, whether godly elders, deacons, pastors, ministers, priests, mentors, and so on.

If you feel I should bolster my answer with more concrete examples, do let me know and I'll try to come up with a few more.  Don


Who (or what) died on the cross? Scripture informs that God is immortal (1 Tim 6:16) God the (eternal) Son cannot experience death, yet the human incarnation, Jesus, did. John 3:16 "...God gave His only Son..." Am I missing something here?
My focus is on "God gave His only son..." Rather, it seems only a human version of His son. If that's got any validity according to scripture then there must be some proof it isn't so... in scripture.

Sometimes we just have to hold our hands up and admit "it's tricky"!
"Great is the mystery of godliness (or "Great is the mystery of our religion of godliness" ?) - God was manifest in the flesh".
God came as close to tasting death as it is possible.
Jesus Christ was and is both man and God.. it isn't always helpful to separate Him into two natures... He was and is one person.. and as one person he was and is the Son of God.  And as one person he died for our sins.  And as a person, he was loved by the Father.  The Father did not only love his divine nature but not his human nature, or say "You are the Son of God merely because you have the divine nature."  From the moment the Son of God became incarnate adding a human nature He became the Son of God in his entire person.
When anyone is experiencing the physical pain of dying the only reason they feel the pain is because their body is united to their spirit.  As soon as the spirit leaves the body the pain of dying ceases.
Is it not, then, the body that gives the pain and the spirit which receives the pain?
Perhaps such a thought is not correct, but we cannot just assume that Jesus in his divine nature did not taste the pain of death, even though he, in his divine nature, did not actually die.
We experience the pain of death even though at death we, that is our spirits, are still alive.
Is there then any really significant difference between our Lord dying and the death of a believer whose spirit goes to glory upon death, awaiting the resurrection of the body... excepting, of course, that he died not for his own sins but for ours that we might live, and that he experienced all that punishment the scale of which we cannot begin to fathom for all the sins of all his people?


Has the Church stated any advantages or reasoning or prompting to re-formulating positively the Catholic Church's salvation doctrine? The Church in Catechism of the Catholic Church: "Outside the Church there is no salvation", 846, has re-formulated positively "Outside the Church there is no salvation", often repeated by the Church Fathers to mean that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body.

Looking at St. Vincent of Lerins' description for what is truly and properly 'Catholic', in The "Vincentian Canon", AD 434 (3) "Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all.", it would appear that the Church would be very hesitant and reluctant to re-formulate any of its doctrines especially when it was often repeated by the Church Fathers.

The question is what has the Church stated as the advantages or reasoning or prompting to the re-formulation?

This re-formulation is nowhere stated to supersede the "Outside the Church..." formulation. It is a rephrasing which the Catechism uses to explain the original formula. An obvious advantage of having two reformulations is that it allows one to understand a single truth in multiple ways. Thus, there is the original formulation which you state, which certainly brings to mind the last sentence of paragraph 846, to which you link:

  Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

This is a re-translation of a quote from the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium:

  In explicit terms [Christ] Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

This last sentence sounds somewhat similar to "No salvation outside the Church"; the difference of course is that it allows that people who are outside the Catholic Church, and who have no knowledge of it but haven't actually rejected it outright, might be saved. This is not necessarily incompatible with older statements; for example Pope Pius IX's 1863 encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerere reads, in part:

  There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

The previous sentence to this quote reads:

  Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff.

It appears, then, that Pius IX was aware of these two aspects of Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus, and did not feel they were contradictory. Nor does the Church now feel that they are contradictory:

  it must be firmly believed that "the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door". This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); "it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation"

Dominus Iesus (a declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith); the quotes cited are respectively from Lumen Gentium, a document of Vatican II, and Redemptoris Missio, an encyclical letter of Pope John Paul II

It's thus not truly clear whether this was completely a re-formulation, or simply a re-emphasis of a neglected part of Catholic teaching. There are no specifically published justifications that I can find for it; it seems to have been around for quite some time.


Was there ever a version of the Apostles creed that had the words "Holy Christian Church" in it? I was looking up a reference for another question on this site and stumbled across something Martin Luther wrote which struck me as odd:

In the Apostolic Creed we confess: "I believe in the holy Christian Church."
Commentary on Galatians - Martin Luther

I had always heard even Protestants said (begrudgingly and with great explanation of their meaning) "holy catholic Church" with a little c catholic (even in the Big-C Catholic translation).
Was the Apostles Creed something that the Reformers tried to reform or did this have some older source?

The only reference I could find to the expression "the holy Christian Church" was this:

  Lutherans following the Lutheran Service Book, like Roman Catholics, use the Apostles' Creed during the Sacrament of Baptism:  Do you believe in God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth?  Do you believe in Jesus Christ, His only son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He will come to judge the living and the dead?  Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Christian Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting?

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed#Lutheran_Church

No indication as to when this expression was adopted, only that the Lutheran Church uses it. The earliest known mention of the expression "Apostles' Creed" occurs in a letter of AD 390 from a synod in Milan. This Wiki article also explores the Creed in Latin, Greek and English:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed


What is biblical view on curiosity? What is biblical view on curiosity? Is curiosity sin and therefore impossible for God?
One reference is rom.10:17 that tells that first proclaiming the gospel, hearing it and faith cometh, but before that you need to have curiosity or need aroused through advertisement by the media or what?

God is the creator, and He creates with purpose.  Curiosity is a feature of eternal design that God uses to compel mankind.

  John 4:23,24 (NIV)
  Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

  Luke 6:45 (NIV)
  A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.

Curiosity, wonderment is contemplation or a consideration born from the heart of man.

  Luke 12:34 (NIV)
  for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

The human heart holds our personal economy (the things that matter most).  When young lovers first encounter one another, curiosity naturally encourages discovery, discovery of a deeper love.

This is especially true in regard to God.  God designed the human heart to esteem Him and naturally we should be curious about God and His will for our life.


How can a particular trade of modern times get a patron saint? In days of yore, tradesman and guilds had patron saints.  These days patrons seem to only be attributed to profession in vague ways via papal declaration (i.e. St. John Vianney is the Patron of all priests as of 2010), not from the ground up.

As a computer programmer, I'd like to have a patron, but Catholic programmers seem few and far between.  I'm not specifically asking as a programmer, but as a person who has a noble trade, how can I get Rome to acknowledge that me and my cohort say a particular saint should be the patron of our work?

In 2002 the Church selected St. Isidore of Seville to be the official patron of computer programmers.

Write a simple letter laying out the reasons why a particular saint would be a good patron for a profession, industry, or hobby and find co-signatories. Then begin sending your letter to Rome. In a big institution there are lots of doors and you should knock on all of them repeatedly. As appropriate try:

Pontifical Council for the Laity: www.laici.va
Pontifical Council for the Family: www.familia.va
Pontifical Council for Culture: www.cultura.va
Pontifical Council for Social Communications: www.pccs.va
The Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization Year of Faith: www.annusfidei.va
Pontifical Academy of Sciences: www.casinapioiv.va
Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences: www.pass.va
Congregation for the Causes of Saints: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/csaints/

Also write to your bishop's office.

As for a place to find cosignatories, you might try a place where likeminded folks are likely to be present. I work in IT and know what you mean - there aren't that many Christians running around, and few of us are Catholic. But where is the intersection? Set logic:

Catholic /\ IT = IT workers at Catholic institutions?

Try canvassing computer science departments, IT and IS departments, and so on at local Catholic schools, hospitals, Catholic Charities, etc. Contact them with a brief intro to gauge interest.

Maybe build an online petition they can sign and submit it, with all due respect, to the possibly relevant departments. Make noise. And be patient. Nothing moves quickly in Rome.

But then, since computer scientists already have at least one patron saint, maybe we're all cool.

St. Isidore of Seville, pray for us.


How do deniers of the personhood of the Holy Spirit interpret Romans 8:26-27? Romans 8:26-27 (ESV):

26 Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. 27 And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.

This is one of the most commonly cited passages as evidence for the personhood of the Holy Spirit (e.g. as in this answer), probably because of the following reasons:

The Holy Spirit is said to be able to intercede (i.e. pray) for the saints.
And not just intercede, but intercede with groanings too deep for words (indicative of emotions?)
Moreover, the Holy Spirit is explicitly said to have a mind (the mind of the Spirit, v27).

In short, the passage appears to be saying that the Holy Spirit has (1) a mind, (2) emotions and (3) the ability to pray/intercede.
Question: How do deniers of the personhood of the Holy Spirit interpret Romans 8:26-27 and make sense of all this?

The latest comments exchanged between myself, Miguel de Servet, and Nigel J, should  already provide something more that a hint to an answer.
Anyway, the Spirit (pneuma/ruach), of which we read, in particular, at Romans 8:26-27, is neither a "person", nor a "personification": like the Word (logos/dabar) it (it ..) is an eternal, essential attribute of the One and only God, the Father Almighty.


How is the Catholic interpretation of the Woman of the Apocalypse as being Mary reconciled with the dogma of perpetual virginity? In the Book of Revelation, 11:19—12:1-18, where the Woman of the Apocalypse is introduced, the passage describes "she wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth." Catholic tradition identifies the woman and the child as Mary and Jesus. However, the Catholic dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity is incompatible with labor pains. Do the church fathers address this issue?

Isaiah 66:7 foretells the painless virgin birth: "she brought forth; Before her pain came, she gave birth to a boy"; So painless birth is scriptural and that is how the Catholic Church interprets it.

And All the Church Fathers before AD 600 believed that Mary’s delivery was painlesssrc.

But what about the pain of the women in Revelation? It can be reconciled as:

Revelation is a prophecy of a Future event or is a cryptic narration of a future/past event. Pope St. Pius X says:

  "John therefore saw the Most Holy Mother of God already in eternal happiness, yet travailing in a mysterious childbirth. What birth was it? Surely it was the birth of us who, still in exile, are yet to be generated to the perfect charity of God, and to eternal happiness. And the birth pains show the love and desire with which the Virgin from heaven above watches over us, and strives with unwearying prayer to bring about the fulfillment of the number of the elect." (Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum, 24)

The pain of the Woman may signify the suffering the people of Israel went through before the coming of the Messiah. cf. Jn. 16:21-22
The women in the Revelation is not just Mary, but denotes more than her. The Woman in Revelation 12 is a composite image of the Daughter of Zion, Mary and the Church. Not every detail of this figure applies to each. As Held by H.H Benedict XVI.src
The clause wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth is figurative and alludes to Mary's spiritual suffering as prophesied by Simeon when the infant Jesus was presented in the temple (cf. Lk 2:35).

  Mary was preserved free from labor pains, not perpetual virginity is a non-infallible teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium and belongs to the deposit of faith. So Catholics are required to give their religious - as opposed to sacred - assent to this doctrine. Sacred assent applies to defined dogmas and the infallible teachings of the Universal Magisterium. But a non-infallible teaching isn't necessarily untrue because it hasn't yet been defined as dogma. It wasn't until the 14th century that the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist by transubstantiation was defined as dogma. Yet Catholics were required to profess their faith in this teaching of the Church.src - Italics mine

P.S: Catholics do not necessarily interpret bible literally


Is Panentheism a heresy? I’ve been exploring Panentheism (not to be confused with Pantheism) and certain elements speak to my own experience of God. I also understand that this theology is embraced by some contemporary Christian thinkers.
I just wondered if this was considered a heresy by the established church (Anglican or Roman Catholic)?
Panentheism, in simple terms and as far as I understand it , is the idea that God is within and interpenetrates the whole of creation, but is at the same time above and beyond it in space and time. In other words, God is both immanent and transcendent.
Pantheism, in contrast, is the idea that the universe IS God, and that God is the universe. There is no other than the created order.
Contemporary Christian panentheists include

Richard Rohr
Ilia Delio
John Polkinghorne
Cynthia Bourgeault
Jurgen Moltmann
Phillip Clayton

Yes, panentheism is heretical. I say this as an Evangelical Christian who was brought up in the Plymouth Brethren tradition, which began as a splinter group that broke away from the Church of England in the late 1820s.
Frankly, I do not know whether Anglicanism/Episcopalianism has given its imprimatur to the doctrine of panentheism, but I can assure you that my religious tradition would not allow for such an imprimatur.
What are the biblical bases upon which Bible-believing Christians say no to panentheism? I'll suggest several.

God's immanence (as opposed to his transcendence) testifies to his nearness to all people at all time, but particularly near to his saints; that is, those who have believed in and received Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, thus becoming children of God (John 1:12-13). To suggest that God's immanence extends in any way or to any extent to the physical creation and the atoms and molecules of which everything is composed, is heretical. Jesus told the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4):

". . . [A] time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth” (verses 23-24 NIV).

God is a spirit being, and his Holy Spirit is also a spirit being.

God sustains and maintains his creation by the word of his power. In Colossians Chapter 1 we read of Christ:

He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together (verses 15-17, my emphasis).

Granted, some Bible versions translate "hold together" as consist and endure, but I suggest all three words speak of the same thing, and that is this: Jesus's word of power brought the universe into existence, and by the same word the universe could also come apart. His word of power is like the glue that holds the universe together. He is Lord of all creation, and as its Lord, his primary task vis a vis that creation is to maintain it, even in its broken state.
By the same word of power, one day Jesus will make all things new, the way things were prior to the entrance of sin into the universe by way of Satan and our first parents. Notice, he will not make all new things, but he will make all things new. There was nothing wrong with the universe as it was originally created by God. He declared it to be good and very good. What makes the world "groan in travail," as Paul puts it in Romans 8:17 and passim), is that God's creation

was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God (ibid).

Those professing Christians who would describe themselves as panentheists might, I suggest, have imbibed a bit too deeply from the wells of unbelief, as found in the teaching of the late Carl Sagan, who postulated,

The cosmos is all there was, all there is, and all there ever will be.

To Sagan, the physical universe was his god. He was in awe of it, not because the one true God made it awe-inspiring, but because random chance did. In other words, slime, time, and blind chance were responsible for the results of evolution we see today. What Sagan failed to see in the remarkable complexity--both macroscopically and microscopically--of God's design, is that the observable patterns were and are evidence of a Master Designer.
In effect, Sagan and others like him, have made gods out of the creation. Like the people of whom Paul speaks in Romans Chapter 1, they,

Claiming to be wise . . . became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles (verses 22-23).

Put differently, Sagan and others ascribe awe and wonder to the creation and not to God. Sagan's oft-repeated "billions and billions of years" was one of his ways of expressing awe and wonder as he pondered and explored the cosmos. The preacher in Ecclesiastes tells us, however, that

[God] has made everything beautiful in its time; also he has put eternity into man’s mind, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end (3:11, my emphasis).

Carl Sagan and many--if not most--avid macro evolutionists believe in the eternality of matter. They could not be more wrong. Matter came into existence by the word of God's power, and the same power that maintains and sustains the material universe will one day call into account those image-bearers who worshiped the creation rather than the creator.


Why does the Salvation Army not administer the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper? While reading a book on Reformed theology (The Shorter Westminster Catechism, by G. I. Williamson), I came across a brief criticism of the Salvation Army's views on the sacraments:

  A very different view is held by such groups as the Salvation Army.  They do not administer the sacraments at all.  They hold regular worship service, but do not observe baptism or the Lord's Supper. (284)

I had previously thought of the Salvation Army as simply a parachurch organization, but to me such groups would not "hold regular worship service."  And Williamson's view seems to be confirmed by Wikipedia, which refers to the organization as a "Christian church" and a "denomination."

Strangely, the tradition that the SA grew out of, Methodism, does administer these sacraments. So my question is: why does the Salvation Army not administer baptism and the Lord's Supper? I have a couple guesses:

The SA sees itself as a church but does not accept the typical biblical arguments (e.g., Matthew 28:19, 1 Corinthians 11:23–26) for the ongoing nature of these sacraments
The SA sees itself as a parachurch organization and recommends that its members also join a church that administers the sacraments

Are either of these accurate?  Or a combination, or something else entirely?  Whatever the answer, I'd especially like to see evidence from official documents or the published views of its leaders through its history.

It appears that the simple answer is that because the Salvation Army does not view baptism or communion as requirements of salvation, they are not practiced at all.  This stance, however does not constitute disapproval of sacraments:

  The Salvation Army has never said it is wrong to use sacraments, nor does it deny that other Christians receive grace from God through using them. Rather, the Army believes that it is possible to live a holy life and receive the grace of God without the use of physical sacraments and that they should not be regarded as an essential part of becoming a Christian.

This was not a doctrinal position as much as it was a gradual change in operation based on the following points:

  The Army's Founders felt that many Christians had come to rely on the outward signs of spiritual grace rather than on grace itself. William and Catherine Booth believed, with the Apostle Paul, that salvation came solely from the grace of God personally received by faith. They felt that much of what passed for Christianity in their day was primarily an observance of outward ritual.
  Some Bible scholars had pointed out that there was no scriptural basis for regarding the sacraments as essential to salvation or Christian living. Many Christians assumed that Jesus commanded the use of baptism and holy communion. But there are very few New Testament references to these practices and it was argued that none of them showed any intention by Jesus that they (or any other practice) should have become fixed ceremonies.
  The sacraments had been a divisive influence in the Church throughout Christian history and at times the cause of bitter controversy and abuse.
  Some churches would not allow women to administer the sacraments. The Army, however, believed that women may take an equal part in its ministry, and did not want to compromise this stance.
  The Society of Friends (the Quakers) had managed to live holy lives without the use of sacraments.
  Many early-day converts to the Army had previously been alcoholics. It was considered unwise to tempt them with the wine used in holy communion.

As such, the Salvation Army does not appear to be opposed to sacraments, but avoids them for practical reasons, based on their view of them as not requisite to salvation.

  it should be stressed that Salvationists have never been in opposition to the sacraments. Indeed, when they take part in gatherings with Christians from other churches, Salvationists will often share in using the symbols of the Lord's Supper as a sign of fellowship. Furthermore, Salvationists are not prevented from being baptised in other churches should they so desire.

Source: http://www.waterbeachsalvationarmy.org.uk/what-to-know-more/why-does-the-salvation-army-not-baptise-or-hold-communion/


Is God's glory presented as something that increases over time? John 13:31-32 reads as follows:

  31 When he had gone out, Jesus said, “Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him. 32 If God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and glorify him at once.

A question arose while studying this: While God's glory is presented as infinite and/or complete in Scripture, does it also increase? While it would surely be a mistake to conclude that something is lacking in His glory, events such as these make me wonder whether it's like a bag that is always full but always expands as more is put into it.

Can anybody offer any Scriptural clarification regarding whether God's glory is static, or grows with time?

Our knowledge of His manifest glory is incomplete as much as His glory is infinite. So from God's perspective He is not changing. From Our perspective we are becoming one with Him and so it is increasing

In 2 Corinthians we read:

  But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.
  2 Corinthians 3:18 (KJV)