On what bases do Eastern-Orthodox reject total depravity? Why do Eastern-Orthodox reject the doctrine of total depravity?

Considering evidence like, Matthew 7:11,  Romans 3:10-20.

This answer summarizes portions of the argument against total depravity presented by Alexander J. Renault in his book entitled "Reconsidering TULIP".

Eastern Orthodox Christians agree that sin has weakened human beings so that we are unable to come to God apart from His grace in our lives. But we diverge on whether this is a special grace given only to an elect few or a general grace given to everyone—with Orthodox Christians firmly believing the latter. Furthermore, Eastern Orthodox Christians do not believe that human beings are unable to come to God due to any fundamental change in human nature (i.e., original sin), but rather due to the environment of sin and death in which we operate. Humans thus sin because of garbage that is foreign to human nature, not because of sin being intrinsic to human nature.

Ontological Problems

Leaving aside epistemological problems with total depravity (it's a circular argument due to its implied claim of noetic corruption), there are serious ontological problems dealing with human nature, some of which go back to the early Church where differences in theology and anthropology arose due to differences in Greek vs. Latin thought. I do not have enough time to fully develop these arguments and as such will leave them as bullets:

Humans cannot be intrinsically sinful in their essence (i.e., "sinful nature"), lest God be the creator of sin.

The most prevalent objection to this is that human beings were created with a good nature but that nature changed.

A nature cannot change itself. A rock is still a rock even if all rocks are destroyed. The essence of a thing remains.
Only God can change a thing's essence (or nature).

If God changed human beings' essence, then He is still the author of sin.

The Church has historically taught that God created all human beings with a good nature. Humans are created in God's image—we are icons of God.

Humans are bound by sin and corruption, but this is like burying a gold bar in a pile of horse manure—it doesn't change the fact that there is gold (the essence has not changed).
Sin has no power to destroy God's creation nor to alter it.

Total depravity confuses person with nature.

Early Greek-speaking Christians used the terms hypostasis (ὑπόστασις) for "person" and ousia (οὐσία) for essence (or nature). The word "person" and the Latin concept is part of the problem here, compared to the Greek word and concept of hypostasis, but there isn't time nor space to elaborate on this here.

As a notable example of this, the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated in early Christianity stating that God is one in essence (ousia), but with three persons (hypostases).

Choice is a function of personhood, not nature. As such, it is incorrect to say that human beings have a corrupt nature that makes us unable to choose anything other than sin.

As an example, holiness is part of God's nature. Thus it cannot be separated from the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit (persons). On the other hand, "incarnation" is a personal attribute of the Son.
Sin is a personal attribute, not natural/essential.

If human beings chose to sin from our natures, then all of our actions are simply the result of whatever our natures dictate. By that same line of reasoning, God is also not free to act outside His nature (undoubtedly some Western Christians do believe in this notion that God Himself is bound which the Cappadocian Fathers and others rejected as pagan philosophy: Ananke (Ἀνάγκη, i.e. "Necessity")), and so God Himself has no free choice.

Eastern Christians emphasize that God created and redeems by His free choice, not out of some necessity of the divine nature.

If God could not choose to do anything else because of His nature (here assuming the confusion of person with nature inherent in the doctrine of total depravity), then ultimately God is the creator of both good and evil (i.e., omnicausal).

Underlying this is a historical debate about preceding causes and free choice, but for the sake of time I'm moving on from this. Thinking through these implications is an exercise left for the reader.

If the very nature/essence of human beings is sinful, then God cannot love us because He would love sin. In order for God to "hate the sin but love the sinner", it follows that sin is distinct from (i.e. not part of) human nature.

If sin is part of human nature, then either (i) God loved humans before the fall (but not anymore) or (ii) God doesn't really love us (at least not as we are) or (iii) God doesn't love all human beings (only the elect).

If you're a staunch Calvinist, you may not have a problem with iii, but from an Orthodox perspective, this God would be a very unloving parent who makes demands from His children (e.g., repent) that they are unable to fulfill. But this would also have to mean that the elect have a different nature than other humans, which is problematic.
Underlying a lot of this are classical debates on free will (compatibilism vs. libertarianism vs. determinism). The reader is left to read philosophical works on these topics as an exercise (or check out this one-hour talk by Jerry Walls that does a decent job of addressing this from an Arminian perspective).

If Christ did not have a human nature, then He cannot save humanity.

The Church has historically taught that Jesus is fully human and fully God (this was dealt with extensively in the first few ecumenical councils). This is necessary else He could not bridge the divide between humanity and God (see Hebrews 2:17).

Jesus must have had a human nature for this to be true. And yet He was without sin. If he had a different nature from the rest of humanity, then He was not truly human. Either (i) Christ was sinful (because he had the same nature as us) or (ii) Christ wasn't fully human and thus cannot save us.
"Have this in your mind, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God, didn’t consider equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to the point of death, yes, the death of the cross" (Philippians 2:5-8).

I would also recommend to the interested reader to check out James R. Payton, Jr.'s Light from the Christian East, especially chapter 6 entitled "Humanity as Created and Fallen".

Biblical Problems

Again, underdeveloped bullets are all I have time for:

Genesis 1:26-7, 31 — Humans are created in God's image, and God declared His creation "very good". In subsequent texts concerning "the fall", there is no mention of human nature being changed. In fact, Cain is told by God that he is to "rule over" sin (Gen. 4:6-7). Later in Gen. 9:6 (post-fall), God affirms to Noah that humans were created in God's image.
Proverbs 8:36 — Biblical wisdom literature indicates that sinning against God is unnatural (i.e. against human nature). As in Prov. 25:4, humans are intrinsically valuable (silver), but operate in an environment of sin and death (dross).
Mark 6:5-6 — Why would Jesus marvel at the peoples' unbelief if they were totally depraved and incapable of faith? Jesus' surprise indicates that they could and should have believed.
Romans 7:14-25 — Paul makes a clear distinction between "me" and "my flesh", indicating that it is not an intrinsic part of his nature (despite the awful translation of "flesh" as "sinful nature" by the NIV translators). I know some may use this passage as proof of total depravity (Paul could be taken to be saying he is incapable of doing good, despite this not being how this passage has historically been interpreted by the Church, e.g. see St. Chrysostom), but it is important to note Paul's careful distinctions between his personal will and how he sees "a different law in my members", not "in me", etc. Finally, in v. 24, Paul doesn't cry out to be delivered from himself (that is, his nature), but from "the body of this death".

Historical Problems

Unfortunately I don't have time to devote to this beyond saying that Augustine is largely responsible for much of these ideas, and was heavily influenced by Manichean Gnosticism and significantly toned down at the second council of Orange (specifically fatalism/predestination). The Church had historically affirmed the free will of human beings to choose God before this notable exception which came to dominate Western (Latin) theology (others have written extensively on how Augustine knew very little Greek and was trained in rhetoric and philosophy but not theology, not to mention he frequently claimed that his own teachings were speculative). But this section is unfair without additional sources, and so I commend to my readers Jaroslav Pelikan's excellent treatment in The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), especially chapter 6 on "Nature and Grace", particularly pp. 292-331.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Eastern Orthodox Christians agree that:

Humans have been weakened/wounded by sin
We have a propensity to sin and are capable of horrific evils
We cannot save ourselves and are completely dependent on God's grace (it's impossible to come to God apart from His grace)

However, Eastern Orthodox Christians disagree with some of the tenets of total depravity and must insist that:

Human nature is intrinsically good
God's grace has been freely extended to all people (not just an elect minority)
Choosing God (and thus life/grace) is not a meritorious act that detracts from God's glory or sovereignty
Jesus was fully God and fully man and had the same human nature as the rest of humanity
Jesus became a human being so that we might become [like] God, "becoming by grace what God is by nature"

First off, it's important to note that the Roman Catholic Church also rejects total depravity, as found in the writings of Luther and Calvin. To be specific as to what that is, I'll quote Calvin: "The will is so utterly vitiated and corrupted in every part as to produce nothing but evil" (Institutes, II, 2, 26).

The idea of total depravity comes from a misreading of Scripture and of Augustine. Augustine never denied free-will and man's capacity to walk into God's grace. Man, as witnessed in Scripture, can know the Law of God in their heart (Rom. 2:14–15).

The Eastern Church does not throw away the grace of God, in fact, it is by grace that the Church affirms salvation. They, too, do not believe humans are depraved through inherited guilt. Rather, they subscribe to an understanding of sin as inherited consequence (death), but not inherited guilt, as Adam and Eve were the two that committed the sin.

Hope that helps!

https://oca.org/questions/teaching/original-sin
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/bless_aug.aspx


What do Christians mean by "Jesus took our illnesses upon himself on the cross" and why? Having a bit of holiday over Christmas and New Year I'm going over some notes I've made of topics I want to look at.

One such question regards the use of terminology such as "Jesus took our illnesses upon himself on the cross".

I've read a little and seen that there's a variety of perspectives (from perhaps "sickness is something that shouldn't affect Christians" to perhaps a focus on the full-application being in the future kingdom) that this statement could cover, but I'd be interested to see if anyone could give me the background texts to support such a statement (one would not have to agree with the exegesis to present the texts used to support the doctrine).

One commonly referenced text would be Isa 53:4-5 which concludes

  and with his wounds we are healed

I'm interested in seeing what is the range of ideas that "Jesus took our illnesses" covers and what key texts are used to build up that argument.

I hope that's reasonably clear!

In Isa 53, the word you are translating "illnesses" is more often translated as "transgressions" or "iniquities."  Both of those words highlight the fact that Jesus took our sins with him on the cross, and by the wounds he suffered, we were healed - from the iniquity of sin.

The basic idea of salvation in Christainity is often summarized as this -

We are sinners
Because of this sin, we deserve eternal death - separation from God
Jesus paid the penalty for that sin by dying on the cross, thus we are healed and given eternal life.

(For the purposes of this answer, lets not get into all the different ideas of atonement, etc... I'm going for the overview here!)

The point is "illness" is not a physical thing here, but a legal one. (Indeed, I've never seen that translation before - perhaps its just being confused with iniquities?  An iniquity is an evil, a cause of suffering and distress, not necessarily a bodily thing.)  We are "suffering" from sin, and the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 pays for that sin, so we are healed.

Beyond that, I've never seen a promise that Christians would never get sick.  Even the early church recognized that believers would still die.  The Good News, however, is that in our resurrected state, there would be no more corruption in our bodies - i.e. no sickness - but that's on the other side of the Jordan, not this one!

I am afraid you are wrong Mr. Affable geek on what sickness means in Isaiah 53:4 . If you study it out in the Hebrew, you will see that it means literally sickness ! Also Matthew 8:17 shows Jesus healing the sick , to fulfill Isaiah 53 ! And let me say that Jesus carried away OUR sicknesses. not just those people in  Matthew 8:17 . Because you see , I and you are an " OUR " ! Do you see that ? Also Psalms 101:4 says that  He forgives all OUR sins and heals all OUR diseases.
Jesus not only carried away our sins. But He also carried away the consequences of our sins , namely those things under the curses of those who disobey the ten commandments, one of those curses are SICKNESS ! But thank God that Jesus became a curse for us and redeemed us from the curse ! We do not have redeemed bodies now . But Jesus patches up THESE bodies for us until we get our glorified bodies. Our new bodies will never need patching up. So in the meantime , if you are sick, know that He forgives all your sins and heals all your diseases. This is why James said, Is ANY among you sick ? call for the elders, and the prayer of faith WILL heal the sick ! So for the sake of all the readers out there, make sure you handle the word of God accurately !


How did the early Christians and Apostles Get into the temple? Shouldn't they have been stoned by the Jews for preaching Jesus as God? How did the early Christians and Apostles get into the temple? Shouldn't they have been stoned by the Jews for preaching Jesus as God? Acts 2:46-47 reads:
"Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."
But how is it possible they could get into the temple every day? Wouldn't the Jews stone them to death for preaching Jesus as God? The Jews would have heavily outnumbered them, I don't understand how this could have happened. Why did they "enjoy the favor of all the people?" Wouldn't the people hate them for declaring that a man is God? Or at a minimum, wouldn't at least the Pharisees hate them?
I just don't understand how this could have happened. Even in 2021, if a Christian were to walk up to the wailing wall (the last remnants of the temple) and started declaring that Jesus is God, they would at a minimum be escorted away, but they might get worse treatment than that. Surely in 30 AD they would have been killed for this? Or at least permanently banned with the threat of death if they ever entered again?
Can anyone shed light on this issue? It makes me question how the Bible can be true, because logically this just doesn't make any sense at all at first glance. What am I missing?

Insufficient Authority

This answer sheds light on the question: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/5558/in-the-time-of-jesus-were-the-jewish-authorities-allowed-to-execute
The Jews were not permitted to sentence a person to death without the consent of the governing Roman official. The above article (citing Josephus) shows how, after one official (Porcius Festus) died in office, before his replacement could be sent from Rome, the high priest arrogated the power to have James, a leader in the Christian church, executed. Once the new Roman official arrived, he removed that high priest from office for this serious breach.

Fear of the Crowd

25 Then someone came and said, “Look! The men you put in jail are
standing in the temple courts teaching the people.” 26 At that, the
captain went with his officers and brought the apostles. They did not
use force, because they feared that the people would stone them. (Acts
5:25-26)

Fear of Public Opinion, possible insurrection

Peter healed a lame man in the temple courts in front of a crowd. This made him popular.

13 When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they
were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note
that these men had been with Jesus. 14 But since they could see the
man who had been healed standing there with them, there was nothing
they could say. 15 So they ordered them to withdraw from the Sanhedrin
and then conferred together. 16 “What are we going to do with these
men?” they asked. “Everyone living in Jerusalem knows they have
performed a notable sign, and we cannot deny it. 17 But to stop this
thing from spreading any further among the people, we must warn them
to speak no longer to anyone in this name.” (Acts 4:13-17)

Futility of Legal Measures and God's Protection

When the authorities did arrest the Apostles, on occasion God would send angels to set them free.

17 Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of
the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. 18 They
arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail. 19 But during
the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail and
brought them out. 20 “Go, stand in the temple courts,” he said, “and
tell the people all about this new life.”

If God's holy angels told the Apostles to stand in the temple courts, they were well protected.

It is possible because in that period (the 2nd temple period), believing Jesus was God wasn't a strange thing, as many Jews at that time believed in a second Yhwh as evident in a plethora of ancient Jewish texts. Philo of Alexandria, also a monotheistic Jew in the first century, believed in a "second God" (deuteros theos). Scholars formally called this as the "Second Power" which only deemed heretical by the Jews in the late second century A.D.

"The binitarian portrayal of Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible was motivated
by this belief. The ancient Israelite knew two Yahwehs—one invisible,
a spirit, the other visible, often in human form. The two Yahwehs at
times appear together in the text, at times being distinguished, at
other times not. Early Judaism understood this portrayal and its
rationale. There was no sense of a violation of monotheism since
either figure was indeed Yahweh. There was no second distinct god
running the affairs of the cosmos. During the Second Temple period,
Jewish theologians and writers speculated on an identity for the
second Yahweh" (UW-Madison, 2004).

Bible scholars say that Jesus was worshiped
as God quite rapidly (within months after Jesus' ascension).

To underscore the
chronological point here, this body of beliefs and practices clearly
emerged and became familiar features of circles of believers within
the scarcely two decades between Jesus’ crucifixion and the earliest
of Paul’s letters.
Indeed, we should probably judge that this remarkable development
emerged within the very earliest years, perhaps more accurately within
the earliest months, after Jesus’ death, ca. 30 A.D. (The Origins of
Devotion to Jesus in its Ancient Context, Larry Hurtado).

Plus, the emerging consensus among scholars today was that Jesus was not a mere man, but had preexistence as God, which was known in scholarly term as ''early high christology''.

The recent work of Larry hurtado and Richard Baukham on the shape and
origins of early Christology has led to an emerging consensus. Few
would now doubt that a 'high' Christology is present in the earliest
text of the New Testament (Crispin Fletcher-Louis, 2015).

"The experiences of the risen Jesus were crucial; a “high” view of Jesus erupted early (i.e., a view of Jesus as worthy of divine honors and reverence); the notion of “pre-existence” likewise was early. I don’t find plausible his claim that Paul saw Jesus as an angel, or that the view of Jesus as installed as God’s “Son” and the “Lord” at his resurrection and the view that Jesus was “pre-existent” were two separate strands of thought. The latter seems to me to have emerged quite readily from the former". (Larry Hurtado, Oct. 2016).

"I have been trying to explain the unusually important statement about
Christ in Paul’s “Christ Poem” in Phil. 2:6-10. It’s an extremely high
Christology. Christ is a divine being before coming into the world;
and at his exaltation he was made equal with God" (Bart Ehrman, Paul’s
Incredibly High Christology, 2020).

Monotheism in early Judaism and Christianity is inclusive and it isn't unitarian so that is why there was no controversy when Christians preached and worshiped Jesus as God in the Jewish Temple.


When & where did the word "Christian" originate? The word "Christian" very rarely used in the new testament to refer to those that trust/believe on Jesus.

Mostly they were simply called "believers".

When/where and by who coined the word "Christian"?

Actually, the word Christian is used three times in the New Testament. The first occasion answers your question (Acts 11:26c):

  It was at Antioch that the believers were first called Christians.

Regarding ''how'' they came to be called Christians, Wikipedia states:

  Kenneth Samuel Wuest holds that all three original New Testament verses' usages reflect a derisive element in the term Christian to refer to followers of Christ who did not acknowledge the emperor of Rome. The city of Antioch, where someone gave them the name Christians, had a reputation for coming up with such nicknames

Those that believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God, and a translation of ancient record, have reason to believe the term Christian predates New Testament times. In Alma 46:13 we find its first reference in the Book of Mormon, and an explanation of its use (my emphasis). This occurred around 73-72 BC in the Americas.

  Alma 46:13-15 - 13 [Moroni prays for liberty among the people] so long as there should a band of Christians remain to possess the land—

  14 For thus were all the true believers of Christ, who belonged to the
  church of God, called by those who did not belong to the church.

  15 And those who did belong to the church were faithful; yea, all
  those who were true believers in Christ took upon them, gladly, the
  name of Christ, or Christians as they were called, because of their
  belief in Christ who should come.

Interestingly enough the term seems to have a similar origin. In both cases it was used by those that did not believe in Christ to describe believers.


Is a "skeptical viewpoint" more objective than "Christian viewpoint" in matters of theology? Based on a recent discussion, the assertion was made that a skeptical viewpoint allows one to be more objective, even in matters of theology. Is this demonstrably true?

When evaluating Christian claims, one must use a certain epistemological framework.  The question is, does a presumption of belief in the Scripture somehow negate one's ability to be "objective" and "dispassionate" about the claims it makes? In other words, does the presumption of truth so fatally bias the questioner as to make philosophical reasoning invalid.

Definitions
Lets start with some definitions:

"Skepticism or Scepticism has many definitions, but generally
refers to any questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or
opinions/beliefs stated as facts, or doubt regarding claims that are
taken for granted elsewhere."
Objectivity is a central philosophical concept which has been
variously defined by sources. A proposition is generally considered to
be objectively true when its truth conditions are met and are
"mind-independent"—that is, not met by the judgment of a conscious
entity or subject.
Bias is an inclination to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives.

Also worth noting is the difference between objectivity and bias:

Biased means a personal preference is expressed.
Objective means both or numerous sides are expressed without a preference being expressed.

And for "Christian viewpoint", one could refer to one of two positions (one more moderate and one more devoted):

Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.
Christian apologetics is a field of Christian theology that aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, defend the faith against objections, and expose the perceived flaws of other world views.

So what is the main difference between a skeptic, and a Christian theist? A theist believes that God of the Bible and Jesus exist (therefore, it is a "fact" to them, nor a mere "possibility"), whereas a skeptic takes no assumption (is neither agnostic, saying that one can't know if God exists, nor atheist stating that there is no God, but is open to the possibility that God might or might not exist).
What is a difference between a Christian theist and a Christian apologetic? An apologetic defends the faith against objections, and exposes the perceived flaws of other views. An apologetic is therefore biased towards his or her system of belief.
Good or bad at answering questions
What makes an apologetic better for answering theological questions? Quite often they know a lot on the subject of the given religion they support, and can present numerous claims supporting their viewpoints. They are devoted to proving their point right, so they will not try to omit any evidence supporting their claim, no matter how insignificant. So in general, they can present all there is about a given subject from the point of view of what they are supporting.
What makes an apologetic worse for answering theological questions? As per definition, they defend their faith against objection, which can be accomplished by not presenting alternatives to their views, or by misrepresenting some facts in their favour (for example, Kitzmiller v. Dover and claiming ID is not a religious belief). Moreover, sometimes apologetics resort to using faulty logic to prove their point (for example, even if one can prove that evolution is wrong, that would not prove intelligent design, despite some people implying that).
What makes a theist better for answering theological questions? By definition they believe in something, so they have to know at least a bit about the subject. They can be devoted to giving answers about their faith and could enjoy talking about the subject. Depending on their world view they can be more open to alternatives than apologetics and admit that some believes are not based on facts.
What makes a theist worse for answering theological questions? Some might not consider alternatives to their beliefs, some might choose not to mention it, or would be uncomfortable talking about it (taboo)
What makes a skeptic better for answering theological questions? They hold nothing as fact until it is proven, so they can consider and present more alternatives to a given problem. This can provide an insight that could be omitted by a theist (for example, Polish Catholics idolize pope John Paul II, but would seldom acknowledge him being conservative on doctrine, sexuality and ordination of women). Generally, they are comfortable exploring both sides of an argument and reaching their conclusion from it.
What makes a skeptic worse for answering theological questions? Generally, being a skeptic says nothing about one's interest or knowledge, so the person in question might not have any knowledge on a given subject. Sometimes skepticism can be close to pyrrhonism ("nothing can be known"), or contemporary cynicism (lack of faith and hope in human race), therefore rendering the "answer" into an open-ended "debate" with oneself. Skeptics disparage in regards to values hold sacred by theists can be viewed by some as trolling, or attempts at personally attacking them.
Which view is biased?
By definition, apologetics are strongly biased. Theists can be biased, but have an easier time being objective. Skeptics by definition are not biased in favour of the thing they are skeptic about, but they can be biased against that thing.
Which views are useful?
All of them. If one is looking for answer to a theological question based on a specific doctrine ("What does the Bible say about..."), an apologetic and a theist can present an exhaustive answer on the subject, as they are interested in learning a lot about their faith and scripture. If one is looking for an answer to a question that bridge between religious and non-religious world view ("Is there scientific evidence for creationism?"), a theist and a skeptic can remain objective on the matter and present a balanced opinion. Each view should be applied where it is relevant.
TL;DR
Apologetics are strongly biased, theists can be biased in favour of religion, skeptics can be biased against something. All can give good answers, but most in their area of expertise.

A Viewpoint is a binary thing - one must have a certain epistemological construct in order to make sense of anything. Without a framework, one is no better than a beast, unable to comprehend or make meaning out of information.  The question is thus not, "Are you biased?" but "How?"

Because there is no transcendent place from which to compare viewpoints, the question of "objectivity" is actually fairly moot.  There is no transcendent place from which to compare viewpoints - one must always have a viewpoint, and thus cannot step outside.  It is like using light to describe color - every visible wavelength of light has a color. If one's eye is optimized for red, one cannot comprehend blue. If as many wish to claim "all truth is equally valid" then the one who believes that is trapped.

Neither the Christian nor the skeptic fall into that trap however. Each takes a stand - both suggest there is a transcendent truth. The only question is, how do they evaluate the evidence they have at hand.

My understanding of a "skeptical" viewpoint is that the presumption is all claims made by Scripture are false until proven true.  A Christian viewpoint presumes Scripture is true until proven false.

The skeptic then goes on to apply traditional "scientific method" to evaluate the claim - make a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, analyze the result.

The "Christian" viewpoint, however, does not believe that God is a machine - but rather a person. People are not necessarily reproducible.

If we were talking history, for example, the skeptical viewpoint is basically absurd, because one does not attempt to reproduce a George Washington or Atilla the Hun in order to evaluate a claim.  Instead, one gathers evidence about their deeds and then merely seeks to interpret.

One of the single most important claims of Scripture about itself is that it is revelation from God - i.e. outside the realm of reproduciblity.  The "Skeptical" viewpoint on the French Revolution is no more useful than that of an "Economic" or "Historical" or even Deterministic viewpoint.  In like manner, a "Skeptical" viewpoint has no more insight to whether or not Revelation occurred than a theological one.

The Skeptic, however, then stops at this first question. Unable to resolve whether or not God said this, he is unable to work with what God said, as if God had said it.

It is a postulate that God saying a thing is profoundly different than man saying it. A "Christian" viewpoint can use this postulate, a skeptical one cannot.

An "objective" Christian viewpoint, less concerned with reproducability, is thus able to concentrate more on applicability. In other words, it operates at a higher level. Like any programmer will tell you, a higher level language isn't necessarily better - they just hide abstractions and allow the focus to be on different tasks.

A "skeptical" viewpoint is thus, in my estimation, so focused on first questions that it loses its ability to solve more practical questions. As such, its "objectivity" is thus bogged down in matters of less importance, and hence less capable of dealing with the implications of the matter.


What is the Scriptural Basis Against the Trinity Trinitarianism, or the Trinity, is the belief that God exists as three persons (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit) seperate, but co-equal.

This view is labelled as a heresy by some denominations and orthodoxy by others. What are common Biblical and theological arguments against trinitarianism?

I can't argue from my own personal conviction, so these might not be the strongest arguments unitarians would assert. As much as it pains me not to offer the counterarguments, I will give them their say.

God is One

Critics of trinitarianism will point to there being almost no mention of any "persons of the Godhead" in the Old Testament (exceptions: Ge 1:26, Ge 11:7), and many instances of there being only one God. They will describe the three "persons" of the Trinity as being three separate gods because they are not a single, identical individual.

From the New Testament, they point to passages that suggest a fundamantal disunity between Jesus and God.

  John 17:3
  "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."

  Mark 13:32 (NASB)
  "But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."

  1 Timothy 2:5 (NASB)
  For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, ...

  1 Corinthians 8:6 (NASB)
  yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

  Ephesians 4:5-6 (NASB)
  one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

Some will also point to statements of Jesus submitting to the Father as proof of disunity.

Not-Biblical

Some will argue that the word "trinity" is not used in the New Testament, and that the Trinity is not equated with God in the same way that Jesus is.

Some will assert that the idea was not present in the early church.

Some will assert that because every mention (or some sort of numerical majority) of God does not simultaneously mention Jesus and the Holy Spirit, the Biblical authors cannot be asserting trinity.

Illogical

Some will argue that it just doesn't make sense (1+1+1=1?) and that God is not a god of confusion, and so since the idea of the Trinity is less emphatically asserted in the text (compared to Jesus' divinity, the need for Salvation, etc.), it is not an idea that ought to be embraced.

Some will argue that any time the Father knows something that Jesus doesn't, it makes no sense for Jesus to be God. Similarly, any time Jesus <verb> to the Father, such verbs are not reflexive and thus a trinitarian interpretation doesn't make sense.

Resources

Testimony of Scripture Against the Trinity
Oneness Versus Trinity
lots of links to oneness and trinity articles
Response to "Should You Believe in the Trinity?"
(It's anti-unitarian, but it does at least present their assertions fairly.)
Exposing Weak Arguments Against the Trinity
and the Deity of Jesus
(Again, this is anti-unitarian, but it does put forward the common assertions.)

Dt 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
Is 45:5 I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God.
1 Cor 8:4-6  So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.”  For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

i don't understand everything about God and about God's interaction with human beings on Earth in history and in present times. i really believe this passage in 1st Corinthians and equating God of the Universe and the historical Jesus of Nazareth remains mysterious. there is plenty of room for mystery.


What are some scholarly biblical arguments for theistic evolution? As I have done my research on theistic evolution, which is the theory that God created the earth and everything in it but let the process of evolution happen on its own.

Definition of Evolution:
The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

My main question though is what evidence is there to support the variety of different claims that theistic evolution makes?

First of all, evidence for the claims of evolution theory, theistic or not, comes from observations. Therefore, I understand the question as asking for exegetical evidence that the narrative of Genesis ch. 1 is compatible with evolution theory.

That compability comes from the distinct usage of two verbs in Gen ch. 1 for the divine activity: bara (Strong 1254), "create", and asah (Strong 6213), "make". Bara indicates the exclusively divine action of creating something which is not the result of reshaping a preexisting entity, and is used, as bārā or wayyiḇrā, in:

1:1 & 2:3 for the whole universe;
1:21 for the sea animals, the first living beings from the viewpoint of the Hebrews (for whom plants did not count as such);
1:27 (& Deut 4:32) for man.

Thus, while sea animals were "created", meaning that their being did not come from mere reshaping of preexistent inanimate matter (since for the Hebrews plants did not count as living beings), birds and land animals were "made", meaning that their being came through the reshaping of sea animals (which BTW was just the actual case according to contemporary natural science), just as the sun, the moon and the stars were "made".

Man, in turn, was also "created", meaning that his being (i.e. his spiritual soul) did not come through the reshaping of an existing animal.

This is a difficult question to answer, because many specific ideas come under the label of “theistic evolution.” It may at least be helpful to consider one particular question, whether the Earth was created in six 24-hour periods.

Augustine of Hippo, writing more than fourteen hundred years before Darwin, confesses that he does not understand the meaning of the days of creation, because what does it mean to have days before the Sun existed?

  We see, indeed, that our ordinary days have no evening but by the
  setting, and no morning but by the rising, of the sun; but the first
  three days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported to
  have been made on the fourth day.  And first of all, indeed, light was
  made by the word of God, and God, we read, separated it from the
  darkness, and called the light Day, and the darkness Night; but what
  kind of light that was, and by what periodic movement it made evening
  and morning, is beyond the reach of our senses; neither can we
  understand how it was, and yet must unhesitatingly believe it. (City of God I.7)

I imagine is that every other issue would motivate someone to accept theistic evolution follows the same reasoning. One reads the Bible and concludes that the literal meaning surely cannot be the intended meaning—and perhaps we cannot understand the intended meaning, or perhaps we can make guesses.

(This is, incidentally, the way almost all communication works. If I say, “My supervisor is a real monster,” you are not confused, because you know that I don't believe in monsters, so you can safely infer that my meaning is metaphorical.)


What is the significance of Bethlehem as the place of Jesus birth? The New Testament records that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea.  In fact, this was a fulfillment of prophecy, as Matthew records:

  Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of
  Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, 2
  saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw
  his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” 3 When Herod the
  king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; 4 and
  assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he
  inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. 5 They told him, “In
  Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the prophet:

  6 “‘And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
      are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler
      who will shepherd my people Israel.’”  Matthew 2:1-6 ESV

So, what is the significance of Bethlehem and why did God choose this city, and not any of the other cities in Israel, for the birthplace of the Messiah?  It seems that it should be something more than just a random selection.

It is prophesied by Micah 5:2.

Perhaps you're wondering why Micah would prophesy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem in the first place.

Well, "Bethlehem" is from the Hebrew בית לחם (beit-lechem), which literally means "house of bread." The Messiah is the "bread of life" (John 6:35). I say, what better city for him to be born?

  And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never hunger, and he who believes in me will never thirst."

There are two reasons from the Old Testament that Bethlehem would be significant as the birthplace of Jesus:-
First Samuel tells us that Bethelehem was the home town of the future King David:

1 Sam 17:12,15: Now David was the son of that Ephrathite of Bethlehemjudah, whose name was Jesse; and he had eight sons: and the man went among men for an old man in the days of Saul ... But David went and returned from Saul to feed his father's sheep at Bethlehem.
1 Sam 20:6: If thy father at all miss me, then say, David earnestly asked leave of me that he might run to Bethlehem his city: for there is a yearly sacrifice there for all the family.

Then Micah 5:2 tells us that a future king would also come from Bethlehem:

Micah 5:2: But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Adrian Hastings says in A World History of Christianity, page 15, that some Jews looked forward to a messianic figure as a political leader of the line of David. It seems that if the Jews were to be convinced that Jesus was that Messiah, he would have to be descended from David and born in Bethlehem.
Mark, the first New Testament gospel to be written, makes no mention of Bethlehem and simply refers to Jesus of Nazareth. Early Christian converts who relied on Mark's Gospel had no reason to believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and would likely have believed that Nazareth was his birthplace.
Although its author would have known that Luke's Gospel placed the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, John appears to suggest that this was not the case.

John 7:41-42: Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?
John 7:52: They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.

So, we have one gospel whose author was unaware that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and one gospel whose author seems not to have believed that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
We then have two gospels, Matthew and Luke, that place the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, although the two nativity stories could hardly be more different. Uta Ranke-Heinemann says in Putting Away Childish Things, page 7, the nativity accounts in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are, with respect to time, place, and circumstances, a collection of legends, a view shared by many other New Testament scholars. This is to say that the two authors, writing independently of each other, knew the importance of Jesus being born in Bethlehem and wrote to that effect.  Matthew 2:6 is based on the words of Micah 5:2.


Is there any specific difference between a "Christian" and a 'true' disciple of Christ? What is the Biblical definition of "disciple"?

Can you be "merely" a 'follower of Christ' or a 'Christian' and not be a 'disciple'?

Your definition of a Christian seems a bit arbitrary, but one thing I notice is that the whole thing is based on beliefs.  But the word disciple comes from the same root as discipline, which suggests a few things as to its meaning.  Discipleship is not about belief, it's about what you do with that belief.

Much of the Sermon on the Mount, which lays out many of the core principles of the Law of the Gospel, is about self-discipline: controlling not only one's actions but one's very thoughts, not allowing anger to take over even when you've been wronged, etc.  And in Matthew 16: 24 (and this is also mentioned in Mark and Luke) we see:

  Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

So we see that following Christ requires denying oneself, (again with the self-discipline theme,) and taking up their own cross.  And this doesn't mean wearing a cross on a necklace!  To someone living under Roman rule, carrying your own cross was something that a prisoner condemned to death had to do, and the meaning here is clear. It's an extension of denying yourself: you need to be willing to sacrifice whatever is necessary, even your own life, in service to God's plan in order to be a true disciple of Christ.

In Mark 10:21, when talking to a righteous youth who professes a desire to follow him, Jesus gives a slightly different perspective on this:

  Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

Here we see the theme of sacrifice associated even more explicitly with discipleship and taking up one's own cross.  It's repeated even more strongly in Luke 14:27-33, with a warning attached:

  27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

  28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?

  29 Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,

  30 Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.

  31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?

  32 Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.

  33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

Jesus makes it clear that he never meant for being a true disciple to be something easy.  It's much more than simple belief; it requires full commitment, self-discipline, and a willingness to sacrifice all that we have for his sake.

The definition of "disciple" is one that is taught by God and it is the holy spirit that will teach you.

The definition of a "Christian" is to be like Christ When they saw the apostles doing miracles like Christ they call them "Christ like" which became Christians.


Why do Protestants trust what Paul and Luke wrote 100%? This has always been a big question for me.

I can understand that many Christians believe there is good evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, and that gives a basis for their faith in the teaching of Jesus and the gospels that speak about him and his disciples.

But the same Christians do not believe, for example, Mohammad's claims. One big reason is that Mohammad basically claimed a personal revelation that only he received. There could be any number of reasons for that, including epileptic episodes etc.

Now Paul by his own account had a personal experience on the road to Damascus, and it kind of resembles Mohammad's experiences. So that by itself wouldn't be enough to have a leap of faith and say that whatever Paul wrote is therefore true.

Having been investigating this matter for quite some time, all the evidence that I see points away from the conclusion that Paul and the author of Luke/Acts are trustworthy. However, if I list all this evidence, the question will get too long. As a result, I will write an answer as StackExchange encourages, and include the evidence there. However, due to the nature of the question and the unsatisfactory (to those who believe Paul implicitly) answer, I will probably get downvoted on both the question and the answer. Hopefully not, since this is a serious matter.

The reason it is serious - especially to Jewish Christians - is because:

God said that many Laws are forever (examples)
Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount that any Jews who set aside even the smallest commandment and teach others to do so, will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 5:19)
Rather than saying the Law was powerless to save, Jesus said, "if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments" (see Matthew 19:16–22). And in fact even as Jesus taught about the Son of Man being betrayed to the Gentiles, and will rise on the third day, he didn't say that the Law would be nailed to the cross.

This makes it crucial to ascertain if Paul and Luke are trustworthy, because if they are not, then it's dangerous for a Jewish Christian to stop following the Law, just because Paul said so.

To summarize the question: if you draw a graph starting with Jesus, and to his disciples and their disciples, you get Paul and Luke as basically "disconnected" from the graph. Paul claims he got the revelation from his own visions. Luke describes miracles Paul did. Luke endorses Paul. Paul endorses himself. Paul says he won the argument with Peter. There is no account from the disciples Jesus set up, about any of those things. Why do Protestants just assume Paul is right, and his theology is right, and Luke is trustworthy?

Just to prevent simple knee-jerk potential answers to this question:

Paul is trustworthy because Acts describes him doing miracles. The issue here is that Acts is attributed to Luke, a student of Paul. This man also never met Jesus in real life.
Luke is trustworthy because his details were verified. Being able to correctly name people and places around you doesn't automatically mean the miracle claims are true, how do we know this wasn't just propaganda to boost Paul among the Gentile churches?
2 Peter 3:16 endorses Paul. Yes as far as I know this is in fact the ONLY place outside Paul + Luke that Paul is even mentioned by name. However there is a huge problem. Most modern New Testament scholars don't believe 2 Peter was written by Peter. So if your only evidence for Paul's authority outside their own writings is 2 Peter, then that means you are disagreeing with most New Testament scholars. Also, the original Church acceptance was also quite contentious.

In short, do Protestants have any logical reasons to believe in the authority of Paul and Luke? These reasons have to be better than the reasons they reject in other cases, such as Mohammad, Joseph Smith, etc. I can understand that you can just choose to believe on faith, but I am looking for solid logical arguments.

Protestants trust what Paul and Luke wrote for the same reason Catholics, and all other Christians, believe what they wrote is correct: because the rest of the New Testament testifies to the veracity of what they say.

Peter asserts Paul's writings are scripture in 2 Peter 3:14-16. The first several chapters of Acts are about everyone but Paul. And, from Paul's conversion to his ministry is a period of several years, wherein the other Apostles are followed and written about.

In Acts 15, where the Council at Jerusalem is recorded, several Apostles affirm Paul's work.

Why do Protestants trust what Paul and Luke wrote 100%?

They don't. In fact, Paul and Luke sometimes disagree, and Protestants tend to take Paul over Luke in those cases.  Consider these quotes from The Theology of St. Luke by Hans Conzelmann, which was published in German in 1953 and translated into English by Geoffrey Buswell in 1961. They are descriptive of Lukan theology and how it differs from Paul.  Then ask yourself, which do Protestants follow?

From pages 208-209:

  ...We can see this in relation to the Law: although the primitive community–including Paul–keeps the Law, Gentile Christians are free from it, and for a reason which is characteristically different from Paul’s.

He recognizes that Luke agrees with Paul in the fact of Gentiles being free from the Law (at least from the ceremonial aspects of the Law) but also openly acknowledges that he sees that Luke believes this for an entirely different reason from Paul.  In other words, Luke’s explanation of why we don’t have to be circumcised, etc. is not Paul’s explanation.  This is massively significant!

He doesn’t elaborate any on the difference between the two (at least not in this chapter), but the difference is obvious to anyone who can read: Paul’s reason, of course, is the boneheaded faith vs works rhetoric.  But Luke’s reason is that the apostles got together in Acts 15 and under the guidance of the Spirit determined that Gentiles need not keep any of the Law but the moral commandments, and to abstain from idolatry, abstain from eating blood/”things strangled”, and abstain from sexual immorality. Could there be any two more different ways to explain the same fact?

From page 228:

  The conception of sin [in Luke-Acts], compared with Paul’s, has a strong ethical colouring, and the same is true of deliverance from sin. The idea of ‘forgiveness’, which recedes right into the background in Paul, is predominant in Luke, but repentance is the condition of forgiveness.

My elaboration: Unlike Paul who speaks of justification instead of forgiveness and all but denies the necessity of repentance to ‘justification’. Luke’s theology which emphasizes forgiveness of sins on the basis of repentance clearly calls for repentance, whereas Paul’s justification by faith and not by works deters people from repenting by making them feel that they are justified in continuing to sin even with reckless abandon.

Again, later on the same page, and continuing to 229:

  Forgiveness and repentance [in Luke-Acts] are inseparably connected…The combination which is characteristic of Luke is that of repentance and conversion, which shows that these two go together as the basis for Baptism and forgiveness and indicate a change of attitude in the way of life.

Compare that with the normal Protestant interpretation of Paul that its all by faith alone.

So do Protestants trust both Paul and Luke 100%?  No.

Furthermore, Paul himself sometimes contradicts his own "by faith and not by works" theology, as in Galatians 3:26-27 where he says "We are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus BECAUSE as many of us as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."  Here, he agrees with Luke against his normal Pauline theology, in making baptism essential to salvation rather than faith alone.  Do Protestants trust this passage from Paul?   No, generally, they do not.


Does God cause the punishment or is that the effect of his absence? Genesis 3:7

  Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they
  were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for
  themselves.

Romans 5:12

  Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and
  through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned

In these 2 verses, we see when Adam and Eve sinned they immediately underwent death, started to age and their body were susceptible to diseases. They realized they were naked and the inability to repent right away shows us the decrease of their intellect and will.

My question is: What is the Catholic understanding - Did God made their body corruptable(tweaked the DNA so it slowly dies) and everything else in nature or was/is this the result of the absence of his presence?

When they rejected God, God's supernatural presence stopped keeping their bodies and this whole world to function properly? Or does God actively make things defective to punish for sins?

The answer is that Adam and Eve necessitated God's presence to live forever, a presence which he especially made manifest in the fruits of the Tree of Life. And so they died because bodies are not indestructible by nature but need to be fed.

Two kinds of death exist, spiritual death and physical death. They died spiritually at that moment they ate of the fruit, because as the text indicates they noticed that they were naked(Gen3:7), which was not normal back then. Having been cut off from God, they did not deserve to be joined back into communion with him and so the Tree of Life was taken away from them. The result being that they naturally started to decay.

The bodies God made were intentionally made in such a way as to make their hosts depend on God. And seemingly all of creation is like that, we always need to reconnect to God in order to live. Now whether this is done out of necessity or purely by will I do not know, but it seems that it is by necessity because God cannot create something eternal if it be not an extension of himself in some way. Therefore we say that the soul is indestructible because God breathed it into us, but that also means the body is destructible because it is not of God's being, metaphorically. That is to say it is not made by God as an image of God.

This same dependancy on the fruit of the Tree of Life is repeated in the Eucharist which is the fruit from the wooden cross for our salvation. And again in Revelations 22:2-3 we read:

  2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river,
  was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and
  yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the
  healing of the nations. 3 And there shall be no more curse: but the
  throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall
  serve him.

However this does not mean God made man corruptible, that view is denied by the Church, and by all Christians.

  For God created man incorruptible, and to the image of his own
  likeness he made him. But by the envy of the devil, death came into
  the world. And they follow him that are of his side.

  ~ Book of Wisdom 2:23-25

We must therefore distinguish between what I will term ordinary sin and extraordinary sin.

Ordinary sin: To go against the eternal nature of God(ex:lying, theft, murder).

Extraordinary sin: To go against a contingent command of God(ex:honor the Sabbath).

Being incorruptible only covers ordinary sin, but not extraordinary. Placing ourselves in the context, this would be the only way God could have tested us without violating his own goodness to make us in a state of goodness. So for the test, he simply put forth a contingent request that being to not eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Whether that tree had power in it of itself is besides the point, because regardless of it having power or not Adam and Eve disobeyed a direct command of God. Since God is life, to go against him inevitably results in death. Thus the dilemma is solved.

Now when it comes to punishment, God can use and does use both the withdrawal of his presence as well as the exercise of his wrath to punish us. It depends on the situation, as the withdrawal of his presence will allow demons to wreck havok, but he himself can also  and does choose to wreck havok as for example the Book of Revelation testifies that when Jesus will personally come down from Heaven and eliminate the armies of the Earth, and finally call upon all the animals in proximity to come and eat the corpses(Rev19).

You don't hear about that side of Jesus too often do you, but so be it, as the Ecclesiastes notes, there is a time for grace, a time for justice, a time for wrath, a time for all things. And the constant is love.


"Indefectibility" is, according to Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John Hardon, S.J., the

Imperishable duration of the Church and her immutability until the end of time. The First Vatican Council declared that the Church possesses

an invincible stabilityinvictamque stabilitatem

and that,

being founded upon the Rock, will stand firm to the end of the world.fundata super petram ad finem sæculorum usque firma stabit.

([Latin:] Denzinger 3013, 3056)
The Church's indefectibility, therefore, means that she now is and will always remain the institution of salvation, founded by Christ. This affirms that the Church is essentially unchangeable in her teaching, her constitution, and her liturgy. It does not exclude modifications that do not affect her substance, nor does it exclude the decay of individual local churches or even whole dioceses.

According to Catholicism, what is meant by the Church being indefectible?
One of the properties of the Church according to Catholicism is indefectibility. What does this mean and where does this doctrine originate?
Since a Catholic Encyclopedia won't suffice, here is a good explanation coming from a private theologian who expounded on this subject.

It is an infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium that the Church is indefectible.

“Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men. The gift of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell, i.e. the powers of evil, would have prevailed.” Catholic Encyclopedia

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains it this way: “The Spirit who is the Spirit of communion, abides indefectibly in the Church.” [CCC 1108] The Church on earth, even though She is comprised of fallen sinners, is the Body of Christ, enlivened by the Holy Spirit. The Church can no more go astray from the true Faith than Christ or the Spirit can go astray. Jesus himself taught this infallible doctrine:
(Matthew16:18) And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.
(Matthew16:19) And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven.”
If the Church ever went astray from the true Faith, then it could be said that the gates of Hell had prevailed over Her. For the Church is the sole Ark of Salvation by which all human persons are offered salvation. Whenever any non-Catholic or non-Christian is saved, it is by at least implicit membership in the one true Church.
Moreover, if the Church ever went astray, then what She might bind or loose would not be would not similarly be bound or loosed in Heaven. For Heaven would not follow a Church that had gone astray. So it is abundantly clear by the teaching of our Lord that the Church is indefectible.
Remnant Church
Some foolish persons have proposed that the institutional Church, including the Pope, the Holy See, and most Bishops and dioceses, will go astray in the great apostasy. They then claim that the true Church will remain as a remnant of faithful believers, in opposition to the Pope and the body of Bishops. But this claim is abject heresy.
First of all, the Pope can never go astray from the true Faith. Nor can he teach heresy, not even mere material heresy, taught with a sincere but mistaken conscience. For the Pope is the head of the Church. He is able to teach infallibly under Papal Infallibility. He participates in the infallible teaching authority of both Ecumenical Councils and the ordinary and universal Magisterium. So the Magisterium depends upon the Pope in a way that is necessary and essential. If the head of the Church and the head of the Magisterium went astray, then it could be truly said that the Church had gone astray.
Since it is a dogma of the Faith that the Church is indefectible, the Pope can never fall into the sins of apostasy, heresy, or schism, nor can he ever teach heresy.
Something similar can be said about the body of Bishops, though only as a body, not as individuals. Jesus did not choose one Apostle only, Peter, but 12 Apostles. Peter was the head of the other Apostles, but they were true Apostles, not merely servants or mouthpieces of Peter. The body of Bishops is essential to the structure of the one true Church, the Ark of Salvation. And if the body of Bishops ever went astray from the true Faith, it could be truly said that the Church had gone astray. For the body of Bishops are a necessary and essential part of the fundamental structure of the Ark of Salvation. - The Pope, the body of Bishops, and the Church are Indefectible

A good question is, can a Bishop of a Diocese err in exercising his authority even if he is in Full Communion with the Body of Bishops and the Holy See? Yes or No?
IMPORTANT NOTE:
A single Bishop in full communion with the Church cannot err, that is the teaching of Christ rooted in His promised to send the Spirit of Truth or the Spirit of Christ to guide all the Apostles and Disciples.
Proof?, the following passages are the proof. John16:14, John14:16 and John15:26
St. Paul is a Model Bishop when we speak of Church indefectibility thru it's Bishop.
St. Paul boldly exclaimed, that his thoughts, words and actions are all coming from Christ, and so not only indefectibility is guaranteed even infallibility was assured eventhough he is not the Pope. If all Bishops are like St.Paul then all single Bishop can guarantee Church indefectibility.
Does the Catholic Church able to produce Bishop like St.Paul? The answer is YES and the list are many.
List of Saints who were Bishops
The articles said the Pope as the Supreme Pontiff cannot err in teaching the faithful, and also the Body of Bishops or the Apostles united to Peter cannot err too in teaching the faithfuls in matters of faith and morals.
How about a single Bishop in the Diocese, can he err, like for example in exercising his authority by giving an imprimatur?  Since the Bishop, though acting alone is a member of the Church and his authority is united to the Pope Magisterium, the Bishop cannot err if he is in Full Communion with the Pope Magisterium, because the Holy Spirit that is guiding the Church to be indefectible is protecting the Church not to commmit error in teaching all the faithfuls. But, the possibility that a single Bishop can err in his judgement alone is a possibility. That's why the docility of the Bishop to the voice of the Holy Spirit is very important for his thoughts and inspirations be in unity with the Pope Magisterium, that's why Pope Francis during the height of confusions on Amoris Laetetia, had implore all the Priest and the Bishops to seek conversion, for them to receive the same inspirations like what Pope Francis had received from the Holy Spirit.
Conversion means, a soul is docile to the voice of the Holy Spirit and so the soul can see and follow the inspiration of the Holy Spirit very clearly because the gift of discernment aids a soul who had a converted heart.
A single Bishop not in full communion with the Pope Magisterium can err because only in unity with the Pope can the Dogma of Indefectiblity be preserved and protected. That's why a Bishop who are seen in schism with the Pope is definitely a source of error in his teachings and interpretation. Also, a Bishop can err in exercising his authority like in giving imprimatur because the "gift of discernment" to see doctrinal errors in a document was impaired by the sin of pride & disobedience. Blindness to the Truth is rooted in pride and disobedience, but since the Church is Hierarchical in nature, the erring Bishop can be corrected by the Higher Authority to preserved the indefectibility of the Church.


How do Christians who believe in evolution understand Original Sin? As I understand, many Christians nowadays accept evolution. There are such Christians in most major denominations and inside these denominations exist different traditions and groups of believers, so I understand that there may be different theories in those traditions for how to combine evolution with Christianity. Those theories may broadly be called Theistic Evolution. There may also be individual ideas which are not part of the teaching of a specific denomination, but are plausible theories in which some of the Christians believe, which I am also ready to explore.
Do those who are Christians and accept evolution at the same time, think that there was no Adam and Eve? If so, does this mean that there was no original sin?
What are the main modern theories how to understand Original Sin (The idea that the humankind changed after the first sin and that people as children of Adam and Eve bear the consequences of this first sin) when believing in evolution at the same time?

How do Christians who believe in evolution understand Original Sin?
Before getting into the crux of this question, it should simply be noted that not all Christian denominations believe in Original Sin or evolution for that matter.
If we as Christians are to believe in evolution and original sin, there has to be a logical and theological manner to join these two thoughts within a philosophical logical thought.
If the creationist holds to a literal interpretation of creation and with it, the belief that Adam was responsible for our original sin; then those who hold to the theory of evolution and Original Sin must hold that our first parents of the human race also committed the original sin.
In order that original sin and evolution be reconciled, it would be necessary that at a certain time in evolution, God infused into a certain natural creature an immortal soul and the gift of intelligence and knowledge of God. This being would be our first parent: Adam. This is what evolutionists accept in order to make original sin understood within a Christian belief system.
For example, Pope Pius XII's teaching in Catholicism can be summarized as follows:

The question of the origin of man's body from pre-existing and living matter is a legitimate matter of inquiry for natural science. Catholics are free to form their own opinions, but they should do so cautiously; they should not confuse fact with conjecture, and they should respect the Church's right to define matters touching on Revelation.

Catholics must believe, however, that humans have souls created immediately by God. Since the soul is a spiritual substance it is not brought into being through transformation of matter, but directly by God, whence the special uniqueness of each person.

All men have descended from an individual, Adam, who has transmitted original sin to all mankind. Catholics may not, therefore, believe in "polygenism", the scientific hypothesis that mankind descended from a group of original humans (that there were many Adams and Eves). - Evolution and the Catholic Church

St. Paul’s words can not be altered and will always remain a strong testimony of Divine truth:

11Not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. 12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all sinned. 13For sin was in the world before the law was given; but sin is not taken into account when there is no law. - Romans 5:11-13

Evolution contradicts a literalistic interpretation of Genesis; however, according to Catholicism and most contemporary Protestant denominations, biblical literalism in the creation account is not mandatory. Christians have considered allegorical interpretations of Genesis since long before the development of Darwin's theory of evolution, or Hutton's principle of uniformitarianism. A notable example is St. Augustine (4th century), who, on theological grounds, argued that everything in the universe was created by God in the same instant, and not in six days as a plain reading of Genesis would require.
Modern Catholicism points to a unique special creation applies to humans and not other species:

The position of the Roman Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has changed over the last two centuries from a large period of no official mention, to a statement of neutrality in the early-1950s, to limited guarded acceptance in recent years, rejecting the materialistic and reductionist philosophies behind it, and insisting that the human soul was immediately infused by God, and the reality of a single human ancestor (commonly called monogenism) for all of mankind. The Church does not argue with scientists on matters such as the age of the earth and the authenticity of the fossil record, seeing such matters as outside its area of expertise. Papal pronouncements, along with commentaries by cardinals, indicate that the Church is aware of the general findings of scientists on the gradual appearance of life. Indeed, Belgian priest Georges Lemaître, astronomer and physics professor at the Catholic University of Louvain, was the first to propose the theory of expansion of the universe, often incorrectly credited to Edwin Hubble. In the 1950 encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces. Today, many members of the Church support theistic evolution, also known as evolutionary creation. Under Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the International Theological Commission published a paper accepting the big bang of 15 billion years ago and the evolution of all life including humans from the microorganisms that formed approximately 4 billion years ago. The Vatican has no official teaching on this matter except for the special creation of the human soul. The Pontifical Biblical Commission issued a decree ratified by Pope Pius X on June 30, 1909, stating that special creation applies to humans and not other species. - Acceptance of evolution by religious groups

Without the sin of Adam, our first parent there is no
original sin.

The overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution by natural selection according to the latest Darwin Day Pew research from 2019:

According to Pew research, 1/3rd of scientist is religious. So if you do the math, only a very small percentage of Christian scientists - those most likely to understand all aspects of the subject - actually reject evolution by natural selection.

Second, as is pointed out in the comments to the question, acceptance of evolution varies by denomination:

Interestingly, the official body or prominent figures of several denominations have actually accepted evolution as a possible guided explanation for the origins of mankind. These include:

Catholicism (1950 under Pope Pius XII)
Orthodox Christianity
Anglican
Episcopalian
Methodist
Church of the Nazarene

However, of these, only Orthodox Christianity, rejects the concept of original sin - which of course is a paradox: if you accept a form of guided evolution, this de facto nullifies the possibility of mankind originating from a single pair of ancestors.
Now to the crux of your question: many Christians think that the view on original sin has been the same for the last 2000 years, and that the arrival of the scientific theory of evolution was the first time in history this concept was challenged. This is not the case.
Early Christians first claimed that humans have fallen from grace: because of the actions of the Biblical first parents, Adam and Eve, we are now in a state of sin. Later Christians began to differ on what the condition of sin amounted to: is this a lack of a state once possessed, or something more? Christian theologians, started to wonder whether we could actually be considered guilty of being born with original sin, based on the Biblical texts.
The Biblical basis for original sin is not as substantial as you might think. Genesis 2-3 includes an account of a human fall in the Garden of Eden but doesn’t say anything about original sin. It only speaks of a curse and of unclear consequences for having eaten of the forbidden fruit.

And the LORD God commanded him, “You may eat freely from every tree of
the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil; for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die. _ Gen 2:16-17

and:

And to Adam He said:
“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten from the tree
of which I commanded you not to eat,
cursed is the ground because of you;
through toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.
Both thorns and thistles it will yield for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your bread,
until you return to the ground—
because out of it were you taken.
For dust you are,
and to dust you shall return. - Gen 3:17-19

This does not explicitly state that we are guilty of Adam’s sin because we are Adam’s heirs. The whole concept is mostly based on interpretation of the texts, but not explicitly mentioned in there.
In fact, it's not until Augustine the concept we today refer to as original sin takes form. He based this primarily on the following verses:
Paul, in Romans 5, which does not really explain original sin:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death
through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all
sinned. For sin was in the world before the law was given; but sin is
not taken into account when there is no law. - Romans 5:12-13

Corinthians 15:21-22, which only mentions death, not sin:

For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the
dead has also come through a human being; for as all die in Adam, so
all will be made alive in Christ.

Psalms 5:15

Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me.

As you can see, his conclusion requires some combined interpretation of these verses. It is therefore not surprising the initial reaction to this conclusion was very hostile. After a long and bitter struggle of several councils, the Second Council of Orange in 529 confirmed the general principles of Augustine's teaching within Western Christianity.
However, even after Augustine's authority was accepted, he was interpreted in the light of writers such as Cassian. Some of the followers of Augustine identified original sin with concupiscence in the psychological sense, but Saint Anselm of Canterbury challenged this identification in the 11th-century, defining original sin as "privation of the righteousness that every man ought to possess", thus separating it from concupiscence.
In the 12th century the identification of original sin with concupiscence was supported by Peter Lombard and others, but was rejected by the leading theologians in the next century, most notably by Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas distinguished the supernatural gifts of Adam before the fall from what was merely natural, and said that it was the former that were lost, privileges that enabled man to keep his inferior powers in submission to reason and directed to his supernatural end. Even after the fall, man thus kept his natural abilities of reason, will and passions. Rigorous Augustine-inspired views persisted among the Franciscans, though the most prominent Franciscan theologians, such as Duns Scotus and William of Ockham, eliminated the element of concupiscence and identified original sin with the loss of sanctifying grace.
In addition, Eastern Orthodox theology has questioned Western Christianity's ideas on original sin from the outset and does not promote the idea of inherited guilt.
So as you can see, the concept is not, as many Christians think today, part of the original Christian theology, and has led to very different interpretations and disputes over the centuries.


What is the biblical basis for the Immaculate Conception? According to Catholic Doctrine, the Immaculate Conception refers to the teaching that Mary's own conception (not that of Jesus) was without the stain of original sin.

What is the biblical basis for this? And if this is true, did Mary not need to be saved from her sin? Was she also sinless? If she were sinless, then why would she have suffered the consequences of sin--that of death?

Q. Biblical Basis for Biblical literalists:

A. None.

Catholics believe that Mary is a type prefigured in the Old Testament of the Ark of the Covenant.  The basis for this belief is rooted in scripture as firmly as Mary is rooted in scripture.  God created His mother, and in so doing He created His mother as a fit dwelling place, like the Holy of Holies.  And like the Holy of Holies the dwelling place would bear the effects of the perfect priest, the perfect prophet and the perfect king. That is why the ark contained Aaron's Rod, Manna from Heaven and the Ten Commandments. That is why Jesus is priest prophet and king.

Q. Did Mary need to be redeemed?

A. Yes

But her redemption was pre-conception.

Q. Was she sinless?

A. Yes

Through a singular grace, she was able to avoid sin.  In a way she lived on earth as we will live in Heaven.  Furthermore she experienced Christ as fully as any human is able to this side of the grave.

Q. Did she suffer the consequences of sin?

A. No

It was not as a consequence of sin. She chose death (or dormition as it's called in the East) in imitation of Jesus and was subsequently assumed body and soul into Heaven.

I'll leave you with one piece of Biblical basis for Mary being sanctified. Used in the dogmatic text defining the Assumption

  Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark, which you have sanctified

(Old Translation of Psalm 131(132):8)

More Info

What is the biblical basis of Immaculate Conception?
Scriptures can only be understood thru the Created Wisdom of God in Proverbs 8:22.
Jesus is the Wisdom of God;  the following verses support this teaching:

"But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus who became to us wisdom from God and righteousness and sanctification and redemption.( 1Corinthian 1:30 )
" But to those who are called both Jews.& Greek Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." ( 1Corinthian 1:24 )

Jesus is the Wisdom of God, can Jesus the Logos dwell in a body subject to sins?

" For wisdom will not enter into malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subjects to sins." ( Wisdom 1:4 )

How does the scriptures described the chosen Woman destined to be the Theotokos;

" Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee." ( Canticle4:7 )

When does God start preparing Mary as she was chosen before the creation time begins holy and blameless.( Ephesians 1:4 )
God prevented the seeds of corruption from forming the body of the Theotokos, whom will bear the Logos.

" Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be." ( Psalm139:16 )

When does Immaculate Conception begin?
The answer is, it's start from the seed.

" I will put enmity between thee and the Woman, and thy seed and her seed .She shall crush thy head, and thou shall lie in wait for her heel." ( Genesis3:15 )


Orthodox churches recognized by Catholic Church Which Orthodox churches are recognized by the Catholic church? Are there any churches older than the split that are not recognized by the Catholic Church and that are still active?

Edit: "recognize" can be exemplified by that it is possible for an orthodox to receive a sacrament from a catholic priest.

The Catholic Church allows both Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox churches to receive the sacrament if they request it of their own accord and are properly disposed. However, both Orthodox groups don't recognize that and tell their members they should not.

This came up in my Bulgarian friend's wedding.  His wife is Catholic and he's Orthodox; the church was willing to let his parents take the sacrament but they refused it on that basis.

The Catholics consider the Orthodox sacraments to be valid, but not so much vice versa, is the problem.

The Orthodox Church is older than the Catholic Church. They broke away from us; we didn't break away from them. However, the Orthodox Church will still respect them as Christian brothers.


What is the process for remarried couples to convert to Catholicism? I was reading and trying to understand Amoris Laetitia
  and came up with this question below.

The documents talk about irregular couples and basically say that everyone undergoes different timing of conversion.

This is a situation:
A non-practicing Catholic couple "divorces" and re-marry by state. They end up having families, let's say with 3 or more kids with another husband/wife. According to the Catholic teaching, they live in adultery. Now, they start to be interested in spiritual life and undergo what we call a conversion. But they are stuck because they can't just split and leave their kids or whatever dependencies they have.

I know the ideal would be to get an annulment and solve this problem. But let's say they aren't entitled to an annulment.
My question is what does the church offer to such couples as a solution?
Suggesting to live like a brother and sister isn't going to work unless they stop living in the same household but that might not be ideal for kids (I guess) or it can still cause a scandal.

Is splitting couples really the only way to go if they want to live a sacramental life? I know this happened to St. Augustine but his situation wasn't that complicated. Do we have other examples from the past where families needed to separate in order to return back to living in the state of grace?

Have Catholic theologians written on this subject and if so could someone explain it to me?

G.K. Chesterton discusses the logical absurdity of pretending to "cancel" a life long vow with a piece of paper from a government in "The Superstition of Divorce".  I highly recommend reading or listening to (free on Librivox) this short book.
Disclaimer, I am not Catholic, but try to study their positions seriously.  I think a friendly outside perspective may be helpful.
Catholics focus on verifiable objective facts.  The couple did make vows as nominal Catholics according to the premises of the question.  This can be verified from Church records, signed and witnessed.  Protestants focus on subjective realities.  Possibly, the individuals were just following family tradition getting married in a Catholic Church, and did not comprehend the seriousness of their vow.  The Catholic annulment process attempts to address the situation of making vows in ignorance or under compulsion (forced marriage) or false pretences.
If the the original vows were real, then both parties have been living in adultery, and had multiple kids in adultery.  The kids are going to be scarred.  The Law of Moses said: "No one of illegitimate (adulterous) birth shall enter the assembly of the LORD unto the 10th generation."
Nevertheless, Children of "putative marriages" (Canon 1061.3 An invalid marriage is said to be putative if it has been celebrated in good faith by at least one party. It ceases to be such when both parties become certain of its nullity.) are considered legitimate by the Catholic Church.
There is no way to unscramble this egg.  The Catholic prescription of "living as brother and sister" with the adulterous partners is as good as anything a Protestant denomination might suggest.  The Catholic Catechism paragraph 1649 and 1650 ends with:

"Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence."
Toward Christians who live in this situation, and who often keep the faith and desire to bring up their children in a Christian manner, priests and the whole community must manifest an attentive solicitude, so that they do not consider themselves separated from the Church, in whose life they can and must participate as baptized persons:
They should be encouraged to listen to the Word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts for justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God's grace.

If the original vows were made in ignorance by both parties, then we have two (nominally Catholic) pagan families, at least two members of which now seek to obey Christ and rejoin the Catholic Church.  In this case, the original marriage was effectively pagan fornication.  This statement does not dismiss the Catholic ceremony - the couple disrespected it while making serious vows they did not mean.  In this case, the way forward is clear - stay with the current partners.  If the Catholic church cannot annul the vows made in ignorance (due to their unarguable objective reality), then the new marriages cannot be validated with (real this time) vows by the Church, and "living as brother and sister" is again the only option to avoid fornication in the eyes of the Church.
Since the first answer got voted down, I'm sure this one will too.  Broken eggs make a big mess.  GOD HATES DIVORCE.  Malachi 2:13-16
Not mentioned in the question is whether the new partners are also Believers seeking to obey Christ.  Are they also Catholic?  Or something else?
Now, because you are seeking to Obey Christ, it is up to Christ to make something beautiful out of this screwed up mess.  You don't have to understand the whole picture, or know the ultimate outcome.  Just do what is clear, and trust God to work all things together for good.
Addendum from comments:
Canon law site: http://www.catholicdoors.com/misc/marriage/canonlaw.htm
This confirms that the first marriage is the only valid one - but doesn't say what to do about this mess.  If there were no children, the clear course would be to separate from the adulterous partners.
It also has a web form to ask questions of a presumably knowledgeable Catholic.  I had previously discussed a similar situation with a serious and knowledgeable Catholic friend - not a source I can link to, but that is where my understanding about "living as brother and sister" as the Catholic approach to dealing with the mess comes from.  The Canon law page linked above confirms the necessity of protecting children in any decision.
The confessions (e.g. Westminster Confession) of most Protestant groups are just as strict about divorce - there are different approaches to dealing with the messes caused by divorce and remarriage.  The practice of these ideals has deteriorated horribly in all communions, including Catholic.
We all need to repent - Holy Marriage is the divinely chosen living illustration of Christ and the Church. 2 Corinthians 11:2 Revelation 19:7-9 When marriage is defiled, Christ is obscured.

In Catholic church you vow to never leave your wife/husband until death. There's no "fix". The only "fix" is to reunite or live apart, but without any new wife/husband. Jesus said exactly that you cannot do such a thing and nothing can change it (thank God).

Since reunion seems impossible, we have to look at the other option. "Suggesting to live like a brother and sister isn't going to work unless they stop living in the same household". In my opinion this is not true. It's about your soul and mind being pure, not living next to each other. It's hard, very hard, but not impossible.

I have friends that were in similar situation (but they were living without marriage). They stopped to have sex, but still lived in the same house (economical reasons). They waited for marriage and succeeded. If you're divorced, problem is not going to solve itself, but that's the consequence of the vow (i.e. your own actions).

You want to be aligned with the Church, you have to be aligned with your vows.

There's a beautiful book by Karol Wojtyla (before he became Pope John Paul II) titled "Milosc i odpowiedzialnosc" (eng. "Love and responsibility"). A little hard to read, but very, very deep. I suggest reading it fully.

Update:
Related to the topic is "Familiaris consortio" by John Paul II. It's from 1981 but still accurate and inline with "Amoris Laetitia" (not surprising, is it?)


How can the Son not know what the Father knows? Matthew 24:36    (NLT)
  Mark 13:32 (NLT)

  36 “However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows.”

Now hold on a minute here... in according to the doctrine of the Trinity, God the Father and God the Son are the same God, yet the Father knows something the Son doesn't? What's going on here?

The theological term here is kenosis

From Phillipians 2:6-7

  though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself ...

In short, Jesus gave up the perks of being God in order to identify with humanity.

This question is mind blowing for a Protestant. The muslims are laughing by their explanations. But for an orthodox is very simple and consistent. He makes appeal to a Holy Tradition which has around 2000 years of experience revealed, recorded, tested over centuries by the Church through synods. Can be this compared with a weak understanding of using the power of logic of a single mind which tries connect some excepts, verses, semantics and word etymologies, changed over various translations of the scripture canon along the time?

All the answers before (chronologically) are heretical. @PeterTurner was the closest to the right interpretation.
Let one of the father of the Church to explain to us, under the inspiration of Holy Spirit, what is the meaning of the Gospels, which God, the Son, refers to this passage:

+Saint John Chrysostom - Homily 77 on Matthew

  But of that day and hour knows no man, no, not the angels of Heaven,
  neither the Son, but the Father. By saying, not the angels, He stopped
  their mouths, that they should not seek to learn what these angels
  know not; and by saying, neither the Son, forbids them not only to
  learn, but even to inquire. For in proof that therefore He said this,
  see after His resurrection, when He saw they had become over curious,
  how He stopped their mouths more decidedly. For now indeed He has
  mentioned infallible signs, many and endless; but then He says merely,
  It is not for you to know times or seasons. And then that they might
  not say, we are driven to perplexity, we are utterly scorned, we are
  not held worthy so much as of this, He says, which the Father has put
  in His own power. And this, because He was exceedingly careful to
  honor them, and to conceal nothing from them. Therefore He refers it
  to His Father, both to make the thing awful, and to exclude that of
  which He had spoken from their inquiry. Since if it be not this, but
  He is ignorant of it, when will He know it? Will it be together with
  us? But who would say this? And the Father He knows clearly, even as
  clearly as He knows the Son; and of the day is He ignorant? Moreover,
  the Spirit indeed searches even the deep things of God, 1 Corinthians
  2:10 and does not He know so much as the time of the judgment? But how
  He ought to judge He knows, and of the secrets of each He has a full
  perception; and what is far more common than that, of this could He be
  ignorant? And how, if all things were made by Him, and without Him was
  not even one thing made, was He ignorant of the day? For He who made
  the worlds, it is quite plain that He made the times also; and if the
  times, even that day. How then is He ignorant of that which He made?

  And ye, you heretics, who indeed say that you know even His substance, but that the Son not even the day, the Son, who is always in the bosom of the
  Father; and yet His substance is much greater than the days, even
  infinitely greater. How then, while assigning to yourselves the
  greater things, do you not allow even the less to the Son, in whom are
  hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Colossians 2:3 But
  neither do you know what God is in His substance, though ten thousand
  times ye talk thus madly, neither is the Son ignorant of the day, but
  is even in full certainty thereof.

  For this cause, I say, when He had told all things, both the times and
  the seasons, and had brought it to the very doors (for it is near, He
  says, even at the doors), He was silent as to the day. For if you seek
  after the day and hour, you shall not hear them of me, says He; but if
  of times and preludes, without hiding anything, I will tell you all
  exactly.1

and the explanations continues with plenty scriptural arguments.