On the topic of marriage in heaven, how does the LDS church reconcile Matthew 22:23-33? Curious

Based on this document which appears to outline celestial marriage, and LDS temple rites pertaining to the eternal sealing of husbands and wives; children as well, born after the sealing of a husband and wife, are said to be partakers; 'born in the covenant', or, having been born before the sealing, through provision of temple rites, can be sealed to the covenant of their parents; what is to be done with these words of Jesus Christ.

  The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.
  (Mat 22:23-33)

Thinking that they could find some error in the perfect doctrine of Jesus Christ, the Sadducees had designed to ensnare him, by a solicitation of his doctrine on the resurrection of the dead. I see, had he agreed with their position, being that, to them, there was no resurrection of the dead, they would have been content to take his part, in turning it to their advantage; a sharp disagreement between their sect, and the Pharisees; or equally content to have an open declaration from him on the matter, to give a doctrinal prerogative for their rejection of him.

A short personal aside, on that captivating matter-of-course; entering through the back door, while his adversaries guarded the front, in a figure of speech; their preoccupation with the expected answer, left them vulnerable to his triage of the matter.

Jesus begins first by addressing that particular pretext of theirs, a convoluted arrangement on their part; apparently to them, of no significance, but for the occasion it afforded. 'Ye do err', and though their expectation, as I said, being his answer to the resurrection, 'not knowing the scriptures' (I suspect the other half 'nor the Power of God', is in reserve for the ensuing 'as touching the resurrection of the dead') --'they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.'

Question

How do Latter Day Saints perceive this, in regard to the LDS doctrine on divine confirmation of the figurative covenant of marriage, carried on in perpetuity? Being that it is in apparent opposition to the explicit revelation of Jesus Christ; in priority over, even the resurrection of the dead? (Feel free to strike the last two clauses, if you perceive an assertive veneer.)

It's important to understand who 'they' refer to. From verse 23 we know the Lord is talking directly to the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection. They were asking a question to bait/trap the Lord in contradicting Moses, the lawgiver (see Deut 25:5-10). Remember this question is about what happens in the resurrection when the Sadducees don't even believe in the resurrection (see vs 23). The Savior effectively dismissed their question on marriage by stating that in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven(vs 30). Jesus is trying to turn to the important issue of the Sadducee's unbelief in the resurrection (see vs 31-32).

So here are some important points on the Lord's statement:

First, we see that it was made in response to an attempt by the Sadducees to trap the Lord. Consequently, it would not have been the Lord’s final word on the subject. Why should the Lord scatter pearls before them that they would only trample underfoot?
Second, the Lord did not say there would be no people in the married state in the resurrection, but that there would be no marriages made in the resurrection.
Third, we must be clear about the “they” who are neither marrying nor being given in marriage. The context of the scriptures just cited suggests a generic rather than a specific meaning. Simply put, that means no marriages are made in the resurrection. The Lord was warning the Sadducees. They were Jews of the day who had rejected him and therefore had no access to the higher ordinances of the Melchizedek Priesthood. How could these men, whom Jesus had called a “generation of vipers” (Matt. 3:7), qualify for the highest blessings of the celestial kingdom?
The Lord has previously, and we believe has again in this day, given the power to bind on earth and in heaven (Matt. 16:19, Doc&Cov 132:19)

Joseph Smith has said:

  “A man must enter into an everlasting covenant with his wife in this world, or he will have no claim on her in the next.
  “No man can obtain an eternal blessing unless the contract or covenant be made in view of eternity. All contracts in view of this life only terminate with this life. [Such is the] case of the woman and seven husbands. Those who keep no eternal law in this life or make no eternal contract are single and alone in the eternal world and are only made angels to minister to those who shall be heirs of salvation, never becoming sons of God, having never kept the law of God, that is, eternal law.” (emphasis added, in this answer referencing Sadducees who did not live the new law that Jesus taught)

Similarly, Joseph Fielding Smith said:

  “So here we have the true understanding of the Savior’s answer to the Sadducees. If by any chance, any who believed as they believed, and therefore were married for time only, proved worthy to obtain that world, that is the kingdom of God, they would have to enter there separate and singly to become servants-angels-to wait on those who were worthy of the exaltation. These Sadducees who might be worthy of a place in that kingdom would be in exactly the same condition that members of the Church of Jesus Christ will find themselves, if they likewise, have been content with a civil union only.” (emphasis added)

On marrying, James E Talmage sums up the answer by saying:

  “In the resurrection there will be no marrying nor giving in marriage; for all questions of marital status must be settled before that time, under the authority of the Holy Priesthood, which holds the power to seal in marriage for both time and eternity.”

References/See also

Ensign 1986- 2nd article (heavily referenced)
Matt 19:4-7- Jesus taught Pharisee, who believe in resurrection, about marriage
Doesn't Matthew contradict Eternal Marriage- answer to a similar question
Joseph Smith's Commentary on the Bible, pg 125
Answers to Gospel Questions Vol. 5, pg 118
Jesus the Christ chapter 31

--EDIT--

Specifically, on the topic of eternal marriage, the LDS believe that when a man and woman are married in the temple, their family can be together forever. The article you mention says:

  Mormons assert that for a celestial marriage to occur, several key steps must be followed. First, the man and woman must be sealed, or bound, by one holding the authority of God to perform such sealings, which can only take place in Mormon temples. Second, the couple must seek, with all their hearts, to individually and jointly follow Jesus Christ. Third, the sealing must be confirmed by God through His Spirit.

Biblical basis of sealing/binding power is seen in Matt 16:19 where Jesus Christ gives Simon the power to bind on earth and in heaven. The LDS believe that that authority was lost during the apostasy and has been restored through the prophet Joseph Smith. (see also Eccl 3:14, Mark 10:9, Matt 28:18)

Eternal marriage is another doctrine that central to God's plan. Matt 19:4-7 says, What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. When a man and woman are sealed together in the temple the LDS believe they are sealed eternally, that their marriage isn't til death but will last forever. (See also 1 Cor 11:11, Ephesians 5:31)

Matthew 22:23 reads

  30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in
  marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

So, the question is, who is they? We read in Luke 20

  34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world
  marry, and are given in marriage:

  35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and
  the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in
  marriage:

  36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels;
  and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

So there's the answer. Those who are worthy to obtain the world neither marry nor are given in marriage in the next life. They do become equal to angels, being children of the resurrection though.

So, that's what Matthew 22:23 is teaching. Those worthy of this world do not obtain celestial marriage.


What is the source of the story about the melted gold in the destroyed temple in 70 AD? In Matthew 24:2, Mark 13:2 and Luke 21:6, Jesus seems to indicate that in the coming temple destruction, "not one stone will be left upon another". And, indeed, this seems to be the case from the current ruins.
However, I have come across several commentaries that state that because the temple was burned, the gold that was on the walls, melted and ran between the stones, as well as into them.  The Roman solders then took stone from stone in a effort to retrieve the gold, thus giving literal fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy.
Having encountered this explanation several times in the course of my studies, I wanted to find the source for this story, but, as of this date, am unable to do so.  I don't find anything in Josephus relating to that gold-seeking activity.
Does anyone know of a source document or documents that can authenticate this story?

The Mystery of the Temple's 'Molten Metals'

Two recent apologists told the story, apparently independently, of molten gold seeping between the temple`s foundation stones during the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE.  Both implied the source was Josephus, but neither provided references.  Unfortunately, both had theological motivations for adding these details to their stories despite the lack of support.

On investigation, while much of their accounts of the destruction of the temple came from Josephus’ history – Jewish Wars 6.5.2, 6.6.1, 7.1.1, and 7.5.2 being particularly relevant – it seems the melted gold story did not.  It’s possible, however, the Christian apologists were duped by a medieval forgery into thinking it did.

Pastor Ray Stedman

The earliest example of the story I can find is Ray Stedman’s 1970 sermon on Mt.24:1-3, later published in a book.  Following on Jesus’ apparent prediction about the temple, that “there will not be left here one stone upon another,” Stedman told the story of the First Jewish-Roman War, suggesting his account was based on Josephus, including this:

  “There were great quantities of gold and silver which had been placed
  in the Temple for safekeeping. This melted and ran down between the
  rocks and into the cracks of the stones that formed the Temple and the
  wall around it. When the Roman soldiers finally took the city, in
  their greed to obtain this gold and silver they took long bars and
  pried apart these massive stones. Thus, quite literally, not one stone
  was left standing upon another.”

For Stedman, “this remarkable fulfillment, confirmed so strongly by secular history, is convincing proof” of the authenticity of Jesus’ prophetic message, “fully and literally.”  Though the story is unsubstantiated, Stedman’s telling of it is often quoted (and plagiarized).

Dr. Ernest Martin

Archeological enthusiast Ernest Martin told similar stories in his 1994 book, The Temples That Jerusalem Forgot, and in posts to his ASK website, including, ‘New Evidence for the Site of the Temple in Jerusalem.’  Martin’s controversial hypothesis was that Jerusalem’s temples were not on the Temple Mount platform (which he thought was the former Roman fortress) but on a now-destroyed foundation to the south.  His argument also emphasized Jesus’ phrase, ‘not one stone left upon another’, as well as genuine (and misquoted) passages from Josephus about the “utter ruin and thorough destruction of Jerusalem.”  In ‘New Evidence’ he wrote:

  “Josephus explained the reason why every stone was overturned in the
  city (including those that made up the very foundations). The Jews
  were accustomed to hide their gold and other valuables in the walls of
  their homes. The Temple itself was also the treasury of the Jewish
  nation. [JW 6.5.2] When the fires consumed the whole of the Temple and
  City, the gold melted and descended into the cracks and crevices of
  the stone foundations. In order to recover this melted gold, the Tenth
  Legion had the Jewish captives uproot every stone of the Temple and
  the whole of the City. So much gold was discovered in this fashion
  that the price of the metal in the Roman Empire went down half of its
  pre-war value. [JW 6.6.1] This action of looking for gold by
  overturning the stones (including all foundation stones) left
  Jerusalem as a vast quarry of dislodged and uprooted stones in a state
  of unrecognized shambles.”

While the two footnoted sentences (and other bits) do comport with Josephus, the story about melted gold does not. His theory siting the temple on Ophel Mound rather than Temple Mount has not been embraced by scholars, but one can see why he’d need to emphasize the scope and greedy enthusiasm of the Roman destruction to explain the complete disappearance of the temple AND its entire foundation platform, as he imagined it.

Josippon?

An excited supporter of Martin’s theory has posted several quotes from his book online, and one offers a lead on the origin of the melted gold story (or not).  Martin is quoted as writing, “In regard to the total destruction of the temple and all its outer buildings, a Hebrew version of Josephus (known as Josippon) states ...”  And a few lines later: “And recall, Jewish authorities during the Middle Ages accepted this narrative of Josippon as that of Josephus, an eyewitness.”   The quote continues with another version of the melted gold story.

The Jewish ‘history’ attributed to Josippon (aka Joseph ben Gorion, Yosippon, and Pseudo-Josephus) is regarded by modern scholars as a 10th century forgery (or pseudopigrapha).  Though it may have preserved some early Jewish folklore, the portion in question is actually believed to be the work of Pseudo-Hegesippus, the 4th century forger.   As history it’s quite unreliable.

Regardless, given Martin’s penchant for weaving together sourced and non-sourced material in the same paragraph, it’s unclear (from the available quotations) whether he intended to credit the melted gold story to the dubious Josippon.  Martin's later essays retell the story without mentioning him.  Perhaps Josippon said noting at all about melted gold.

So in the end we're left with a story that's either creative speculation, forged folklore, or unsubstantiated history – none of which counts as biblical scholarship.  Perhaps someone with access to Martin’s book or Josippon’s ‘history’ can provide more insights in the comments.

The question isn't whether the Romans "pried apart each stone." They did. Archaeological evidence shows they did. In those days, cement was not used. So they left "not one stone standing on another." The question is, "Why did they take apart every stone so that none was left standing on another?" The gold hypothesis makes sense. It is based on Josephus' record that the Romans believed gold was hidden within the walls of the Temple. Whether gold melted from the fire or it was simply thought to be hidden is immaterial. They did tear the whole Temple apart once it burned. There was a reason they did that. The most likely reason is that they were looking for treasure.


How does Samson foreshadow Christ? Samson is an Old Testament character that is often depicted from the pulpit as a womanizer of marginal character.  However, there seems to be a growing perspective that Samson foreshadows first advent Christ.  Is there any record in Church history that would support this growing perspective?

Early Christian theologians find many analogies or types of Christ, the church, and the world in the story of Samson.  Samson himself is often seen to be a type of Christ, but other times, he is considered a type of the church or even the world.  Caesarius of Arles (468–542) writes extensively on the analogies he sees in Samson's story, and summarizes his method of analysis:

What was the meaning of Samson? If I say he signified Christ, it seems to me that I speak the truth.  However, the thought immediately occurs to anyone who reflects: Was Christ overcome by the flattery of a woman?  How is Christ understood to have gone in to a harlot? [...] Inasmuch as Samson performed virtues and miracles he prefigured Christ, the head of the Church.  When he acted prudently, he was an image of those who live justly in the Church, but when he was overtaken and acted carelessly, he represented those who are sinners in the Church. (118.3)1

This is an important point: the authors identifying Samson with Christ do not do so blindly.  Their methods of biblical interpretation allow a variety of images to be drawn from the text, and sometimes more than one.  One stark example will suffice for our purposes here: when Samson kills the lion in Judges 14:5–9, Caesarius sees the lion as an image of Christ, since "to us Christ is a lion in whose mouth we found the food of honey after His death" (119.1).  Conversely, Samson, far from typifying Jesus, is said to represent the "Jewish people who killed Christ" (119.2). However, as we'll see, other writers make different connections in this particular story.
Turning now specifically to the connections drawn between Christ and Samson, we can put them into a few categories:

Samson's wife
Samson's humiliation
Samson's victories over his enemies

We'll draw primarily on the writings of Caesarius, but also those of Ephrem the Syrian (306–373), Augustine (354–430), and Gregory the Great (540–604).2
Samson's wife
One place where Caesarius sees Samson representing Jesus is in his relationship with his Philistine wife.  Like Christ, Samson takes a sinful bride:

The harlot whom Samson married is the Church which committed fornication with idols before knowing one God, but which Christ afterwards united to Himself. (118.3)

The analogy is extended to Samson's friend, who took away Samson's wife:

Then follow the words: 'Samson was angry because a friend married his wife.'  This friend prefigured all heretics.  It is a great mystery, my brethren.  Heretics who divide the Church have wanted to marry the wife of the Lord and carry her away. (118.4)

Samson's humiliation and death
Samson's final humiliation begins when his hair is cut in Judges 16:18–21.  Caesarius writes that the strength found in Samson's hair is analogous to the "strength in a covering" that Jesus had "when the shadows of the old law protected him."  When the law was rejected by the killers of Christ, he suffered, and his purpose was revealed, like Samson suffered and had his secret exposed when his "covering" was cut. (118.6)
This humiliation led to Samson's imprisonment and death, paralleling Christ's:

Samson was condemned to prison, while Christ deigned to descend into hell.  Samson extended his hands to the pillars, and the house of the Philistines fell with its princes; Christ stretched out His hands to the two beams of the cross as to two pillars, overthrowing and destroying the house or kingdom of the devil and his angels. (120.4)
Notice here an image of the cross.  Samson extends his hands spread out to the two columns as to the two beams of the cross. (118.6)

Samson's victories over enemies
Lion
Unlike Caesarius, Ephrem the Syrian sees Samson as an type of Christ in his defeat of the lion:

The Nazirite, Samson, gazed at the type
of Your courage. He tore the lion apart,
the likeness of death.  You ripped [death] asunder
and made the sweet life emerge
from its bitterness for human beings3

Similarly, Augustine:

Who was in Samson, when he killed the lion that met him as he went to get a wife among strangers, but He who, when going to call His Church from among the Gentiles, said, "Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world?"4

Philistines with the jawbone
Caesarius notes several places where Samson's victory over his enemies parallels that of Christ.  For example, his defeat of 1,000 Philistines in Judges 15:14–16:

Before the coming of Christ all the Gentiles were torn to pieces by the devil and lay scattered like dry bones form the ass's body, but when Christ the true Samson came, He seized them all in His holy hands.  He restored them to the hands of His power, and with them overcame His and our adversaries. (119.4)

Philistines and their gates
Samson's capture and subsequent victory over the Philistines in Judges 16:1–3 is explained by Gregory the Great as an image of Christ's death and resurrection:

What does the city of Gaza signify, if not hell, the abode of the dead?  What is shown by the Philistines, if not the mistaken confidence of the Jews?  For, when the Jews saw that the Lord was dead, and his body placed in the tomb, they posted guards around it.  They were delighted that Jesus, whom the author of life had glorified, was now held captive by the gates of death, just as the Philistines were exultant that they had imprisoned Samson in Gaza.  However, in the middle of the night, Samson not only escaped, but carried the gates away with him.  Just so did our Redeemer, rising against before it was light, not only walk free out of death and of hell, but also destroy hell's very gates.5

Caesarius sees matters similarly, and, like Gregory, extends the image to include the ascension:

Moreover, he removed the city gates, that is, He took away the gates of hell.  What does it mean to remove the gates of hell, except to take away the power of death? He took it away and did not return it.  Furthermore, what did our Lord Jesus Christ do after He had taken away the gates of death?  He went up to the top of a mountain.  Truly, we know that He both arose and ascended into heaven. (118.5)

Philistines in death
Of course, Samson's greatest victory is associated with his death, like Christ's:

In the fact that he is written to have destroyed more enemies at his death than he struck before in the whole course of his life, the mystery of the Lord's Passion is shown, for through it the house of the devil fell and the kingdom of death was shattered. (120.4)

Ephrem connects the freedom Samson purchases with his life to that of Christ:

Samson is a type of the death of Christ the high priest:
Samson's death returns prisoners to their towns,
whereas the High Priest's death has returned us to our heritage6

Summary
Christian theologians in the fourth century identified Samson with Christ in particular ways, and additional analogies were developed by authors in the centuries immediately following.  In particular, the humiliation and victories of Samson lend themselves to parallels with the humiliation and final victory of Christ.

References and notes:

Caesarius of Arles, Sermons 118, 119, and 120, in  Sermons, Volume 2
Ambrose teaches on Samson in On the Holy Spirit, Book II, but does not connect Samson to Christ in the same way as do the other authors here.  Jerome says that "every one of the popular leaders" in Judges is a type of some kind in Letter 53.  Samson receives only fleeting mention in the surviving writigs of the earliest fathers.
Ephrem the Syrian, Hymns, Hymn 13.4, 137
Augustine, Reply to Faustus, Book XII, §32
Gregory the Great, Forty Gospel Homilies, 21, in Reading the Gospels with Gregory the Great, 36
Ephrem the Syrian, Hymns on Paradise, 13.12.13, in Ancient Christian Commentary, 167

Heb 11:32  And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets:
Heb 11:33  Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,
Heb 11:34  Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.
Heb 11:35  Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:
Heb 11:36  And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment:
Heb 11:37  They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;
Heb 11:38  (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.
Heb 11:39  And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
Heb 11:40  God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
Heb 11:6  But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Samson was a womanizer and adulterer but he did have faith and faith pleases God. He is marginally mentioned in the Hall of Faith in Hebrews 11. Samuel and David have many more word hits in the New Testament. Gedeon, Barak and Jephthae are also only mentioned in this one passage in the New Testament. That does not mean there are not lessons to be learned as verse 34 of Hebrews 11 is dedicated to warriors of the faith but the emphasis is placed on what they did through faith rather than their character. Samson's birth was foretold by an angel, he did some things correct by faith, he was an imperfect deliverer and he died of his own fault serving God. Christ's birth was foretold by an angle, he did every perfectly and in faith and he died not of his own faults but for the sins of others delivering them perfectly serving God.


According to Pentecostal doctrines, can a widower marry a divorced person without committing a mortal sin? According to Pentecostal doctrines, can a widower marry a divorced person without committing a mortal sin?  Does it make a difference if that person was the victim of marital infidelity?

If there are significant differences between Pentecostal denominations, please give an overview of their different stances.

There are several questions here to be answered:

Are there special rules for a widower as opposed to someone who has never been married?
In what circumstances is it sinful to remarry after divorce?
Is it ever a "mortal sin" to remarry after divorce?

I will answer these questions using publications of the Assemblies of God, the largest Pentecostal denomination, and the writings of prominent Renewal theologian J. Rodman Williams.  While there is likely some variation in pentecostal beliefs among the many dozens of small denominations, I have found no explicit disagreement between these two major expounders of Pentecostal/Charismatic thought.
Remarriage after being widowed
Neither the AG nor Williams explicitly cover the question of widows remarrying in their treatments of remarriage, which isn't surprising given that very few Christians believe that one who is widowed ought not remarry.  However, the AG tangentially addresses the question of remarriage of the widowed in several places, in particular when analyzing the qualifications for church officers (1 Timothy 3).  It rejects the idea that the literal rendering, "one woman man," refers to a prohibition of remarriage after being widowed. Thus, even widowed church officers, being held to a standard at least as high as others, may remarry.1
Remarriage after divorce
Remarriage among those who have been divorced, however, is a more complex question.  Williams writes:

It is a tragic thing to see two people, having become "one flesh," trying to live separate lives because of divorce; but it is an evil thing to see either or both of them trying to contract another marriage.  It is evil, indeed perverted, because the original marriage had made two people one.2

However, he makes an exception in the case of one who was the victim of adultery:

It may be asked, what if, in the marriage, only one partner proves to be unfaithful.  Are there not Scriptural grounds for a legitimate re-marriage of the innocent party?  The answer to that question is "Yes" [...] Re-marriage and not committing adultery is possible if the divorce resulted from "unchastity." The one who has remained chaste may re-marry without committing adultery.2

The same view is taken by the Assemblies of God:

One who has been divorced because of the repeated adultery of a partner is not bound by the former marriage and is free to remarry.3
Jesus clearly assumed that those who were divorced by sinful spouses, or those who divorced sinful spouses for “marital uncleanness” or abandonment, were free to remarry without any tinge of adultery.1

"Mortal" sin?
The term mortal sin, often associated with Roman Catholicism and contrasted with venial sin, appears in some translations of 1 John 5.  In Protestantism generally, and Pentecostalism particularly, this sin is often seen to be the same as the sin Jesus called "unforgivable" or "unpardonable" in Matthew 12:31 and elsewhere.  It is only with this understanding that we can make any sense of the question of "is divorce after remarriage a mortal sin," since Pentecostalism does not classify sin in the same way that Roman Catholicism does.
Turning now to Williams, we find that he does believe that Christians can commit a "mortal" or "unforgivable" sin, which will not be forgiven, he does not say that about remarriage after divorce:

if we have been divorced and re-married, but not on the grounds of the Scripture [...] if we are truly sorry, God, for Christ's sake, will always forgive.2

Rather, the unpardonable sin, quoting the AG, is "more descriptive of a spiritual state or condition than a single act of sin."  It "involves a deliberate or willful act of unbelief," and is not "committed in ignorance" nor is it a "single momentary act."4
Williams writes:

By failing to abide in Christ, to continue in Him and His word, to persevere in the midst of worldly trial or temptation, to make faith firm and strengthen it—thereby allowing unbelief to enter—believers may fall away from God.  Thereby they may tragically forfeit their salvation.5

Summary
Can those who remarry after divorce commit a "mortal" ("unpardonable") sin, according to Pentecostalism?  Perhaps, yes, if they do so willfully and as part of a pattern of unbelief.  However, grace is freely offered to those who truly repent of their sin.
Though remarriage after divorce is generally sinful, exceptions are made for adultery or abandonment: in such cases, the innocent victim may remarry without sinning.

References:

AG, "Divorce and Remarriage" position paper
Williams, The Ten Commandments, "The Seventh Commandment". Emphasis in original.
AG, "Divorce and Remarriage" summary
AG, "Unpardonable sin"
Williams, Renewal Theology, Vol. II, 129

There is nothing wrong in marrying a divorced person (pref born again) if you have no other bad intentions. Remember God would be looking at your heart.

The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.
(1 Samuel 16:7)
He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God’s sight.”
(Luke 16:15)

I am a Pentecost beleiver and a  divorcee and looking for a bride from the pentecostal circle.
Regarding your question about 'marital infidelity"- it does not matter her past,if she is in Christ right now.
"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.(Rom 8:1)


Has the Catholic Church made any comparative study of the faith of Martha vis-a-vis that of Mary? At Luke 10:40-42 we read : " But Martha was distracted with much serving; and she went to him and said, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her then to help me.” But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things;  one thing is needful. Mary has chosen the good portion, which shall not be taken away from her.”

But, at John 11:20, we see Martha taking the lead role in the events which  lead to the resuscitation of Lazarus by Jesus : " When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went and met him, while Mary sat in the house "

My question is: Has the Catholic Church made any comparative study of the faith of Martha vis-a-vis that of her sister, Mary, though the words of Jesus at Luke 10: 42 would have one believe that Mary was better  at expressing her faith?

Catholic theologians have compared Martha and Mary. The distinction they make is between the active life (of Martha) and the contemplative life (of Mary), not between their degrees of faith.

For example, St. Thomas Aquinas has a question on the active life in comparison with the contemplative life in his Summa Theologica II-II q. 182, where he mentions Martha and Mary frequently.

Addressing "Whether the active life is more excellent than the contemplative?" (a. 1 c.), he says:

  …the contemplative life is simply more excellent than the active.

He mentions several reasons, some of which are:

  because the contemplative life is more delightful than the active; wherefore Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. Serm. ciii) that "Martha was troubled, but Mary feasted."

&

  because in the contemplative life man is more self-sufficient, since he needs fewer things for that purpose; wherefore it was said (Lk. 10:41): "Martha, Martha, thou art careful and art troubled about many things."

&

  because the contemplative life is according to Divine things, whereas active life is according to human things; wherefore Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. Serm. civ): "'In the beginning was the Word': to Him was Mary hearkening: 'The Word was made flesh': Him was Martha serving."

In a. 2 he shows that the contemplative life of Mary is more meritorious than the active life of Martha because (ibid. c.):

  the root of merit is charity; and, while…charity consists in the love of God and our neighbor, the love of God is by itself more meritorious than the love of our neighbor

So, although Martha and Mary might have the same degree of faith in God, the contemplative life of Mary is superior to and more meritorious than the active life of Martha (cf. Lk. 10:42: "…Mary hath chosen the best part.…"). Mary is not divided (cf. 1 Cor. 7:33) between God and the world, but can devote herself 100% to God.

An excellent work on the relationship between the active and the interior/contemplative lives, the necessity of the latter for the former, etc., is:

The Soul of the Apostolate by Dom Jean-Baptiste Chautard

Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. discusses the necessity of contemplation for all Christians, because the "infused contemplation of the mysteries of faith and the union with God which results therefrom" is "in the normal way of sanctity" (i.e., everyone must pass through this way to become a saint / go to heaven). Cf. his works:

The Three Ages of the Interior Life: Prelude of Eternal Life

and

Christian Perfection & Contemplation

The issue of Mary and Martha's Faith requires no comparative study as both Martha and Mary have a Great abundance of faith as described in the case of the hard working Martha in John 11:27

  John 11:27
   She said to him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, the one coming into the world.”

This confession was almost as great as Peter's in Mathew 16.  The issue between Martha and Mary in Luke 10 is not one of faith, but Christ simply pointing out that in the situation Martha was concerned about, were things less important then what Christ was teaching.


Was Jesus a poor man, in economic sense? I saw a video of Cesar Vidal and he said, that probably, Jesus was a middle-high class in economic sense, during the period of life before public ministry. I need historical references.

While this topic is heavily debated, Scripture records an interesting detail in Luke 2.  When presented at the table, Joseph and Mary bring the appointed sacrifice:

  22 When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”[b]), 24 and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.

In Leviticus 14:21, we understand this was the sacrifice of the poor:

  and two doves or two young pigeons, which he can afford, one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering.

This, along with the fact that Nazareth was teeny, tiny village outside of Sepphoris together draws a picture of a poor family.

Now, others have taken the gifts of the wise men in Matthew to suggest that Joseph and Mary eventually came into some money.  (Who knows, maybe Joseph pulled a Gary Coleman on Jesus and sold the stuff for himself!)

In any event, by the time of Jesus' ministry, it is pretty apparent that he is poor. Otherwise, it would be very difficult to square a "better off" Jesus with Matthew 8:20:

  Jesus replied, "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."

And, considering Jesus' "preference for the poor" in Luke, it all comes together to suggest a less than rich Jesus.

Regardless, these Scriptural clues have made the traditional argument to be that Jesus was poor, although some modern theologians have constructed cases for a richer Jesus.

Paul describes himself as an imitator of Christ and as an 'architekton' (1 Cor 3:10) -  a master tekton. Slater's lexicon translates tekton as architect. Priests trained as tektons to build the temple of Herod (Josephus' Antiquities).
It would have taken devout Jewish tektons to train priests. I.e. like Joseph (Matt 1:19).

Jesus went to the Temple when lost (Luke 2). Presumably because he was known there + so would get looked after until Mary + Joseph caught up with him. He is admitted there as a 12 year old into the company of the Doctors of Law (Luke 2), presumably because they knew Joseph.

The offering for the poor was not means-tested. Any Jew, however rich, could make it, e.g. if they were at odds with the Sadduccee's corruption.

In any event Joseph received the Magis gifts after that. These were rich Babylonians making kingly gifts because they considered Jesus to be a king. There were enough of them to 'disturb Herod and all of Jerusalem' (Matt 2:3). They opened treasure-chests (plural) of the 3 most expensive items of the day. Much more wealth than needed for 2 years in Egypt.

Jesus had a house in Capernaum (Mark 2:1). He had 'nowhere to lay his head' because he spent so much time travelling and ministering.

Judas could steal from their money-box without it being immediately obvious (John 12:6).

I recommend Bradford's The Jesus Discovery.


Must everyone live a quiet life? 1 Thessalonians 4:11 says,

  and to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life: You should mind your own business and work with your hands, just as we told you,

If this was a blanket statement to everyone, people like Billy Graham would be sinning by living famous lives in the public spotlight.

Is that true? What is the real command here? How has this issue been addressed elsewhere in the Old & New Testaments, or by scholars and theologians?

The clue to understanding this is found in verse 12.

  1 Thessalonians 4:12 (NLT) Then people who are not Christians will
  respect the way you live, and you will not need to depend on others.

Living a quiet life: Paul instructed the Christians in Corinth to live peacefully and not fight among themselves. When the non-Christians see the peace among the Christians, they will be respected by the community. Christians should maintain good characters.
Work with your hands: Paul wanted them to be independent and prosperous so that they don't have to beg/ask from others. He encouraged them to work hard, make their own living without disturbing society. Paul did not want them to be lazy.

"Quiet life" is not the point.  "...do your own business and work with your own hands...."  is the point.  So many newer translations say "...mind your own business..." which I think has wrongly been interpreted as not to be a busybody.  This verse is telling us to work our own business, as opposed to someone else's business.  Use our God-given talents and gifts to do OUR OWN business.  I was so inspired by this recent epiphany that I had to own it, or rather WEAR it.  HA.  Check out my creation at http://teespring.com/we-are-all-entrepreneurs


How can one judge how accurate a given Bible translation is? How can I figure out whether a given translation is "accurate" or not? Is there a site or list somewhere that has Bible-translation ratings?

Note that I am not asking for a list of what Bible translations are most accurate, only for a resource or way to judge this for myself.

Inspired by comments on this question.

"How accurate is translation X compared to translation Y?" sounds like a simple question, but it really isn't at all. There really can't be a single definitive translation, for a variety of reasons.

Some questions to ask about any particular translation are:

What source texts were being used? Newer translations aren't automatically better than older ones, but most scholars will agree (for instance) that the King James / Authorized Version must suffer from the fact that the translators only had access to relatively late copies of many texts.
What is the goal of this particular translation? The Good News Bible is more about accessibility than accuracy, so while it strives to be a faithful rendition, the need to use a compact vocabulary and keep sentences simple means that some nuances will be lost.
*Are there footnotes showing, for instance, important variant readings?" Translations that aim for high accuracy should also draw their readers' attention to issues such as doubt over the meaning of particular words, cases where there are rival ways of seeing where sentences and phrases start and end (there's no punctuation in all those Greek texts!) and significant differences between source texts that haven't been resolved by scholarship.

There really isn't - and couldn't be - such a thing as a definitive translation - even less a permanent one. Language just doesn't work like that. But it's well worth getting to know the aims, strengths and weaknesses of a few translations, particularly if you want to get to grips with the fine detail.

For me, I most often read Today's New International Version, because I find it reads very naturally, if I'm studying more deeply I'll reach for the *New Revised Standard Version," and if I'm looking to freshen up my view I'll add in a reading with more of the translator's personality, such as Eugene Petersen's The Message or J. B. Phillips (not a complete Bible translation). I have a host of others on shelves both actual and virtual, and I have at least enough rusty Greek to put an interlinear (Greek with English) to use if I want to try and see why translations differ.

Text notes  text notes help the best.
NKJV,HCSB,CSB,NASB have the best for Formal
translation bibles comparing the different manuscript s
falowed by the NLT in a dynamic translation.The
KJV and ESV are lacking in text notes for two of
Most literal translations.The KJV is strictly off the
Byztine (majority text) text with no foot notes of the
Alexzandria text(critical older text) and the ESV omits
verses found in other versions with out foot notes
for the other manuscripts.


To whom should we pray? To the Father or the son Jesus or the Holy Spirit? While praying how should we pray? Should we praise the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and to whom should we ask? To the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit?

  John 14:14 (ESV) says
  If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.

Does that mean we should ask only to Jesus. Or is that not a matter if we ask any one of them, since they act together?

I afraid we should not bypass any one of them. Or, is just closing the prayer by saying "In the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit I ask" fine?

According to Jesus,

  This, then, is how you should pray: "Our Father...

Jesus is clear that we pray to the father.

That said, I am personally convinced that if we get God's name wrong he still hears us. If my son occasionally calls me "mum" when he asks for my help I still help him (and it makes me smile, to be honest). I don't think a heavenly father would do any less.

I believe that God is a very loving God that knows all. If we pray in submission to God we are praying in His will. I am age 77 and baptised at age 17. I was taught that there is but one God and but one bible, His holy word. Never had all this confusion as to what God,s word was or meant. The bible was God's word and there was none of this, "It means this, or it means that." We have drifted a long ways..........


Will good, God-fearing people who don't believe in Jesus' divinity be excluded from Heaven? Will Jews, Buddhists, and all others who truly believe in God but not that Jesus is God, and who adhered to the Ten Commandments and who have done charitable acts throughout their lives,
be excluded from getting into Heaven solely because of their non-belief in the divinity in Jesus?

Per Scripture, the only way to heaven is by putting our trust in Christ and accepting His free gift of salvation.

The question you pose is based on a common misunderstanding of the relationship between how "good" we are and whether or not we are "good enough" to get to Heaven.  The problem is that not one of us has ever kept the Ten Commandments, much less the hundreds of other laws in the Bible, and therefore not one of us is "good enough" to get to Heaven on our own merits.

There's a much more complete explanation of this here.

A longer version of the same answer would go like this:

First, everyone on earth has sinned, save Jesus.

  Romans 3:23 (KJV)

  For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

When you examine it, every one of us has broken each and every one of the Ten Commandments, if not in deed, then in heart and in intent.  For example, perhaps we've never committed adultery physically, but as Jesus said, if we've looked at someone with lust, we've committed adultery in our hearts.

  Matthew 5:28 (KJV)

  But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in
  his heart.

We've all broken the other Commandments in spirit as well, but even if one of us has squeaked away with not committing all of them, it doesn't matter.  The Bible tells us that if we've broken even one, we're guilty.

  James 2:10 (KJV)

  For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point,
  he is guilty of all.

So, the none of these people are sinless by the standards laid forth in Scripture.

Romans 1 touches on the subject of whether or not we are held guilty if we've never heard the Gospel message.  It lays out a few truths:

God reveals Himself to us, and we are without excuse.
Our ancestors had access to the truth of God, and chose to turn from them.

  Romans 1:18. (KJV) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in
  unrighteousness;
  19. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
  20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even
  his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
  21. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and
  their foolish heart was darkened.
  22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
  23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and
  creeping things.

Their unbelief and rebellion against God meant that their children, their children's children, and so on were not taught about God.  It's not His fault, it's theirs.  Because they chose to rebel when they knew the truth, and didn't teach their children, they doomed their children to not knowing the truth of God.  This is one reason that Proverbs 22:6 is important.  (Again, KJV)

  Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will
  not depart from it.

In Romans 2 (KJV), we read:

  11. For there is no respect of persons with God.
  12. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by
  the law;
  13. (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
  14. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law
  unto themselves:
  15. Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while
  accusing or else excusing one another;)

These theoretical people you mentioned are guilty.  Scripture here tells us that "he shall perish without law". They will perish because they have sinned, and ignored the conscience that God has placed in each and every one of us.

Finally, it should be noted that even in civil, earthly law, ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking the law.

If I were to carry a concealed weapon in a state that doesn't allow concealed carry, for example, and I was arrested, would I be able to avoid the consequences by telling the Judge "I didn't know"?  No.  I'd be punished according to the law, whether I intentionally broke the law or not.

As we saw in Romans 2 (quoted above), the Bible tells us that God will not accept ignorance as an excuse.  They will perish without the Law, as God's word states, because they have sinned and broken the law, not because they have rejected Jesus.  Accepting Jesus is the only way to be saved.  He pays the penalty for our guilt.  However, the reason we are guilty is not because we didn't accept Him, it's because we chose to sin.

We can try to blame God all we want, and we can even try to blame the ancestors, but the simple fact remains that these people will be condemned because of their own sin.

Jesus said something like : Don't go looking for the Kingdom of Heaven some place else. The Kingdom of Heaven is within/among you (and outside you - according to Thomas.)

The KOH is where you are while you are getting to know God. When a person centers his life on God he/she is in the KOH. Any believer in God can do this. Since the idea of Heaven is monotheistic, a non-believer will not be able to enter it. This is not the same as a life after death, which is a belief of many religions.

For Christians you can think of Jesus's life, or even Jesus himself, as the KOH into which we enter and as Paul said "have Christ within us, " and "to be in Christ." It is a teaching of all Christian Churches that Christ is the life that sustains humans, and so as long as we are alive, we cannot be separated from Christ (as Paul said,) only we may not know of Christ if we are ignorant of the Biblical teaching. The gradual awakening of this knowledge of Christ within us is the result of stepping into the KOH. Any person can take this step, whether an isolated native in the wilderness, or not.

If you are wondering what will happen after death, I have no idea.


How do Catholics reconcile Christ's intercessory prayer with the doctrine of the Trinity? John 10:30 (KJV)  is often quoted to support the doctrine of the Trinity:

  30 I and my Father are one.

But during the great intercessory prayer, Christ asks God for his disciples to also be one with them:

  John 17:20-21 (KJV)

  20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
  21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Non-trinitarians often quote that scripture to show how John 10:30 (and other scriptures like it) is being misinterpreted. They say, "If God and Christ are literally one, then is Christ praying for us to become part of their nature too?"

Tons has been written about the Trinity, so surely a reasonable explanation for this exists.

How can John 17:20-21 be reconciled with the doctrine of the Trinity?

The fundamental thing you have to remember about the Trinity is that God is both One and Three. It's really easy to find quotes that support Jesus and the Father as separate, and the response of the Christian is "yes, they are". It's also really easy to find verses that completely support the idea that God is One, and that Jesus is God. And the response of the Christian is "yes, they are". It is precisely the combination of those that gave rise to the doctrine of the Trinity.

A good reference for this is the Athenasian Creed:

  The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Etneral and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible.

It really can't be.  Everything we have about Jesus's interactions with the Father shows them as separate, distinct beings.  Even the example given here, John 10:30, describes them as distinct; it just gets lost in translation.  In the original manuscripts, the word "one" used here means "united," just like you would describe a group of people today working together with the same purpose as being "one" or "as one."  Saying that they are literally the same would be a different word.


How do Catholics reconcile the Immaculate Conception with Romans 3:23? How do Catholics reconcile the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception with what it says in Romans 3:23 about all having sinned and falling short of the glory of God?

Romans 3:23 NIV

  for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

Thanks!

In essence, the Catholic Church takes the position that Paul is not intending to attribute actual sin to every human being that has ever existed.

For the benefit of readers not familiar with the Catholic doctrine on sin, the Church distinguishes between actual sin (sometimes also called personal sin), which consists in concrete actions in which a person knowingly and deliberately contravenes God’s law, and original sin, which is not “sin” in the strict sense, but the privation of grace that all people (save the singular cases discussed below) suffer before their Baptism. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 405 and 1849.)

The broader context of 3:23 is as follows:

  But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God… (Rom. 3:21-23, ESV).

Although it is possible that Paul is referring to passages of the Old Testament (such as Ecclesiastes 7:20, as Marc points out), it is also clear that St. Paul is making the message his own. Nevertheless, in the context of Chapter 3, St. Paul is essentially refuting the idea that the People of Israel have a special advantage with respect to the Gentiles. It is true, argues Paul, that the Jews have the tremendous advantage of the Law and the Prophets, but it has not prevented them from sinning. Rather, he says, “all”—that is, both Jews and Gentiles—“have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

It follows that Paul’s use of the qualifier “all” should not be taken to mean “every man, woman, or child that has ever existed,” but rather all human beings in general, and in particular, all human beings including the people of Israel.

Moreover, even just a simple logical analysis of St. Paul’s expression reveals that it cannot be ascribing actual sin to every human being. Clearly, Jesus Christ himself—who is fully man—did not commit any actual sins, and indeed was conceived free of original sin as well. (The union of his human nature to his Divine Nature according to his divine Person makes any kind of sin impossible in him.)

Even among mere creatures, there are many human beings who die without ever committing an actual sin: for example, those who die as young children, and those who have severe mental handicaps.

For all these reasons, it follows that when Paul asserts that “all have sinned” (πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον), the “all” (πάντες) is not meant to be applied exhaustively. There is, therefore, no reason that an individual human being could not receive a special grace that preserves him (or her) from original sin and its effects.

(Note that the Church holds that Mary, when she was alive on earth, was always capable of sinning—unlike Jesus Christ—but that she never actually did. Thanks to her preservation from original sin, she enjoyed the ability to avoid committing any actual sins—a possibility that the vast majority of us do not have. See CCC 490-493.)

Often when Paul spoke, being a the greatest student of the Greatest Rabi, Paul would pull from old testiment scriptures.  Here he was pulling from Salamon and also the Psalms of David.

  Ecclesiastes 7:20  Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins.

  Psalm 14:3 Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men,
  to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
   They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy:
  there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

  Psalm 53:2  God looked down from heaven upon the children of men,
  to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God.
   Every one of them is gone back:they are altogether become filthy;
  there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

The wording is almost exact, Paul knew these passages, he sang these songs, this is the great learning that was spoken of him.  When Saint Paul said these things he surely knew and understood that he was speaking from the prophets, repeating them and thier teachings.

Now, if we take Romans 3:23 literally we run into many obsticles the first and formost is Christ himself who is 100% man.  If Paul meant "ALL" as a Protestant would suggest that he did and infact use as a basis for Our Holy Mother having sinned, then they would have to include Christ as being one of the "ALL" that Paul was speaking of.  If the Protestants acknowlege that there are exceptions, and the Catholic Church agrees that Christ was sinless, the why would they limit those exceptions to only Christ when the bible itself does not use "ALL" in that way.

We have to assume that Paul was quotiung from scripture, scripture that existed before the Incarnation.  His words are distributive not inclusive.   All have sinned, Not withstanding the exceptions, Christ and His mother.  Also, Paul is talking about active sin, not inherited sin.  So, also excluded from Romans 3:23 is every child under the age of reason, every person mentaly ill, the unborn.

Here are some other instances in the bible where comments cannot be taken as suggested by the Protestant understanding of Romans 3:23

  John 12:19  The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him.

Did the entire world go after him?  I think not, the language and culture use Linguistic Hyperbole.  Linguistic Hyperbole exist even today in semetic cultures making it very difficult for westerners to communicate with Islamic Cultures.

  Matthew 3:5-6 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

Did ALL of Judea get baptized by John, did all Jerusalem including the High Priest?  Surely Matthew, guided by his languistic custom, used the word all here to mean a Great Many. Did the Pharisees go too ?It wold also be a very big task for John to Baptize so many, his fingers would surely get Pruined.

  Romans 15:13-14   Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.

Were the Romans filled with all Knowledge? Only God has all knowledge, surely, here in the same book written to Romans the word "all" is not used in way that signifies everyone but instead is limited and exludes some knowledge.

  1 Corinthians 15:24  For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

The Bible tells us that Enoch and Elijah did not die, Wouldn't that be an exception to the "all"used here 1 Corinthians? Genesis 5:24 and 2 Kings 2:11.   Also see Hebrews 11:5  “By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God had taken him.”

additionally not “all” choose to follow God.  Some chose death and eternal damnation.

To Summarize, All christian who use "all"  in Romans 3:23 and use it in a way that suggests "all" includes Christ or his Blessed Mother, his Mother who fully Graced prior to the enunciation, or who believe that the Unborn, or those who are not capable of choosing thier actions fit under the "all" used in this scripture,  Well, Those Christians regarless of thier god intent, are ALL wrong.  The bible says so.

I need not look for official Catholic teaching as it is clear in the scriptures.


Where is the verse about people sinning because they know God will forgive them? I've been trying to find a verse I read not too long ago for quite some time about sinning and knowing it's wrong, but sinning anyway because you know God will forgive you. I believe it also mentioned how people who do this are even lower than people who sin, then repent and attempt to stop doing it.

I know that verse-identification has had a lot of discussion on the meta as to whether it should be allowed, and it seems most people would only allow it under very strict circumstances. That said, I do agree with this opinion, but I also believe that this question meets those circumstances, so I will take the risk.

I have been trying to find this verse for quite some time, and I can't find it. I've searched Google, I've looked it up on quite a few websites, I've even asked other people if they had seen the verse. It's almost like it didn't exist, but I'm 100% certain that I saw it, but I can't find it.   Point is, I've searched all over the place to no avail, and I feel that this is the last place I can possibly turn.

If anyone has seen this verse I would very much appreciate it, but if you haven't seen this particular verse, I would rather you not answer with a verse that has a similar subject, but is different. Thanks.

Update:
I just asked a particular person who I hadn't asked before and they said they knew the verse I was talking about, but wasn't sure where it was. They hunted around for a while looking for it and found a few similar verses, but not the correct one. To make things easier, I will name a few verses it isn't, but it would be nigh impossible to track down every similar verse I've seen that isn't the one. I'll also include passages that have been put in answers that aren't it.

Many of the verses I have seen that aren't it are as follows:

Romans 6:15
Luke 13:3
1 John 5:18
Hebrews 10:26-31
2 Peter 2:20-21

There are other verses I have seen, but these verses were the closest ones I found.

This is a major point of Romans 6.  After arguing that the coming of the law increased the number of trespasses, and that subsequently "grace abounded all the more," Paul warns those who might twist his words:

6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?
6:15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? (ESV)

Ok, I just found it. I did get it a little mixed up with a different verse (My bad), but here's what I found:

The verse was:
1 John 3:6:   No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.

I got it mixed up with:
2 Peter 2:21:   It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.


Pope says Heaven apart from Christian faith? In this article, ‘Is my dad in heaven?’ little boy asks pope is a heart wrenching story and would be a very difficult question to field admittedly.

A young boy asks if his recently departed Unbelieving Father is in heaven. The pope does a line of reasoning that even though he was unbeliever, he had his children baptised which pleased God, and he asks the children if God would abandon such a man. the Children shout "No!" and the pope confirms their answer.

  “There, Emanuele, that is the answer.”

Implying very clearly that the unbelieving father will be saved presumably on the basis of having his children baptized.

Later in the same article he is said to have told the children:

  “We are all children of God. Everyone. Everyone.”

These comments seem to very strongly be pointing towards universalism (the idea that everyone will be saved one way or another).

This is not the first such comment from this Pope either, but I just picked one specific example.

Now for the questions

Does the Catholic church officially recognize baptizing one's children as a good work that qualifies you for salvation?
If the church does not recognize this, then Pope Francis is speaking apart from the teachings of the church. Is that allowed?
Is it official now just because he has said such?
Is Universalism accepted by Catholics

To address your questions in order.

  Does the Catholic church officially recognize baptizing ones children as a good work that qualifies you for salvation?

Not by itself.  Heck, as a parent, the Church more or less expects if of you.  If you don't have your children baptized, you're doing it wrong.  That's a very terse summary of the Church's position.  (I speak as both a Catholic and a parent).

As for "what qualifies for salvation" that's a huge topic and a slightly loaded question.  The nuts and bolts of it is Baptism into the Church; remaining in communion with Christ/The Church/God; remaining free of the stain of mortal sin (and repenting from such sin and returning via the sacrament of reconciliation when it happens); those three are an incredibly brief summary of what the Church teaches as the path to salvation.  It does not do the topic justice.  And while you are at it, don't forget prayer and selfless service in His name.  (Aside: when Jesus told his disciples to "pick up your cross and follow me" the subtext of that message was not "this is gonna be easy."   There is no Easy Button).

  If the church does not recognize this, is Francis speaking apart from the teachings of the church. Is that allowed?

While The Holy Father is being a little glib (and IMO sloppy) in his public relations appearance there, he is speaking to his audience: children. It is worthwhile to consider the context and setting of his remarks.  That said:

A document issued from Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, presents an offer
of hope (beyond general human understanding) of salvation due to
God's mercy.  It is unknowable when God's mercy enters into such a
path to salvation.  This was controversial when it came out, and
remains a topic of some disagreement.  (It is not dogma, and as our
friend @Geremia here at Christianity.SE might remind us, it makes
statements at odds with the pronouncement at the Council of Trent
that there is no salvation outside of the Church; a pronouncement
that has not been repealed). You can, however, view his recent remark
as being consistent with this article.

  {Extracted from Lumen Gentium article 16}
  Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the
  dictates of conscience.  Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.   Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.  She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair.  Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature", the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

Is it allowed?  Well, he's the Pope.  What he's supposed to do is lead the church.  He is also human, and can be careless.  Nobody but his own conscience can govern his decisions on what he says.  (As my wife has asked me to stop making comments about this particular Pope, that's as far as I'll go).

  Is it official now just because he has said such?

No.  This is not an ex cathedra pronouncement.  There is a particular form for making such statements in matters of faith and morals.  Such utterances are rare; the last one I recall covered the Assumption of the Virgin Mary.  That was the dogma explicitly conveyed in 1950, written/issued by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950 in his Encyclical Munificentissimus Deus.  This off hand remark was no encyclical, nor any other form of ex cathedra utterance.

  Is Universalism accepted by Catholics

That is a separate question, please ask it separately.

Pope Francis by virtue of God's anointing and office as Vicar of Christ cannot err in matters of faith & morals with regards to salvation of mankind.

The strong promised of Jesus is in Luke22:32

  "But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

The Pope enjoy abundant graces from God in order for Him to strengthen the Clergy and lead the flock of Christ entrusted to His care.

With regards to the duty of parents. Pope Francis words as you stated;

  "A young boy asks if his recently departed Unbelieving Father is in heaven. The pope does a line of reasoning that even though he was unbeliever, he had his children baptised which pleased God, and he asks the children if God would abandon such a man. the Children shout "No!" and the pope confirms their answer"

Resembles what I heard from a pious priest who celebrates the Traditional Latin Mass only, his name his Fr.Odon (caryana.org is the site)

Fr.Odon said the first and foremost duty of the parents are to lead their child in the "Fear of God" and make sure the child that God gave to them reach the Kingdom of God, all the rest like comfort and education are secondary.
The important thing is the salvation of souls.

As scriptures said;

Mark 8:36 King James Version (KJV)

  "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

Baptism is the very first and important step in our Christian journey as it cleanses as of original sin and restores back our participation to Divine Life.
Without the Sacraments of Baptism the Catholic Church in old years are known to have said "there's is no salvation outside the Catholic Church". Part of the reasons is in the administration of the Seven Sacraments that is very important Church Teaching in the salvation of man.

In closing, the good act of the Father in ensuring his child receive the Sacramens of Baptism is a direct recognition that there is a God and a Church.

The child in return, enjoys the sanctifying grace and has a good chance to grow in the True Faith and knowledge of Jesus Christ.Plus there's a possibility that the child will pray to God for the good of his earthly Father.

  Baptism is God's most beautiful and magnificent gift. . . .We call it gift, grace, anointing, enlightenment, garment of immortality, bath of rebirth, seal, and most precious gift. It is called gift because it is conferred on those who bring nothing of their own; grace since it is given even to the guilty; Baptism because sin is buried in the water; anointing for it is priestly and royal as are those who are anointed; enlightenment because it radiates light; clothing since it veils our shame; bath because it washes; and seal as it is our guard and the sign of God's Lordship.10
  for more info on the graces derives from the Sacrament of Baptism.

For more info on Baptism below is the link;

Catechism of the Catholic Church - The sacrament of Baptism
www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm

In closing, for your other question is Universalism accepted by Catholics?

The Vatican II is born precisely on that Pastoral Mission as they called it the New Evangelization in the Third Millenium heeding the call or the desire of God the Father to Jesus in John17:22. A call for unity of all faithful believer of God.

John 17:22 New International Version (NIV)

  I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one—

Godbless


Was universalism the majority belief of the early church? I recently came upon an article that made this statement:

  According to historical records, Universal Reconciliation was the majority belief of the church during the first five centuries of the Church and the majority of the early Church Fathers.  Through infighting, jealousy, and outright heresy among unscrupulous churchmen who conducted Church Councils after the year 400 AD, the doctrine was soon disregarded then completely eliminated.

Is this true? What writings do we have from early church fathers prior to 400 ad that supports or doesn't support this statement?

Background

Obviously, this topic suffers from dogmatists on both sides. Universalists are desperate to overstate their case, and traditionalists are desperate to prove the early church didn't have any (except a negligible few) universalists. Spoiler alert--they are both misguided.

The truth is that this subject is extremely confusing, which makes speculation easy. And even if it were true that the majority of the early church believed one view over the other, we probably couldn't know for sure. Perhaps modern scholarship will one day shed more light. Until then, we must be very careful.

I will demonstrate how difficult it can be to state that one view is the "majority" over the other by listing important Christians in the early church and their stance on the issue. Hopefully I have done a good job to avoid cherry picking, but I encourage you to do your own research and double check my work. I will gladly update this answer as this is a massively difficult question to answer.

Views an Early Christian is Likely to Hold

The present-day "traditional" view: The vast majority of human beings go to an eternal hell and the minority go to an eternal heaven. Early Christians who believed this almost always believed the fire was literal.
Annihilationism: Those who are damned are blotted out of existence and no longer conscious.
Denial of the general resurrection: The damned are never raised.
Apokatastasis: The majority of human beings go to hell, but hell is purgatorial. Eventually, after enough time, all the damned will "convert" in hell and join the saints in heaven. Most advocates of this doctrine argue that all evil will cease to exist one day--thus implying (or teaching) that even the devil will convert.

Important Early Christians on Eternality/Temporality of Hell1

Christians in the First and Second Century

Author of the Gospel of Mark: He may be telling Peter's account of the Gospel. He writes for a gentile audience. He uses the term aiōnios once in reference to judgement.
Author of the Gospel of Matthew: He may favor annihilation based on how he quotes/paraphrases Jesus in Matthew 10:28. He wrote to a Jewish audience and uses the term aiōnios many times when talking about punishment in the afterlife.
Author of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles: He uses the term aiōnios only in reference to salvation. This is true of his Gospel and Acts. He writes to a gentile audience.
Author of the Gospel of John: He uses aiōnios only in reference to salvation. He demonstrates influence from Greek philosophy (i.e. John 1's Hymn to the Word). He writes to a gentile audience. His rendering of Christ's words seem to imply a cosmic scope of God's salvific will.
Odd Christians Paul references in 1st Corinthians 15: Paul mentions that some Christians performed baptisms on behalf of dead people in order that those dead people might be raised. It seems these primitive Christians believed postmortem salvation was possible, and so it is possible that they might have thought all who are dead could one day be saved.
Paul: He leaves us without anything definitive. Romans 9 can be evidenced as belief in double predestination while Romans 11 can be evidenced as belief in universal predestination to salvation. 2 Corinthians 5 says Christ is reconciling the world to himself. It is possible he may have never used the term aiōnios in reference to fate of the damned, but this depends on the authenticity of 2nd Thessalonians. 1 Corinthians 15 is indicative of apokatastasis, but it is possible we misunderstand him. Philippians 2 says all will confess Christ as Lord. Passages about those perishing (i.e. 2 Cor 2:15-16) indicate he believed in an eternal hell, but it is hard to say. Our interpretations of Paul's theology typically determines our interpretations of "perish."
Author of the 2nd Epistle of the Thessalonians: He uses aiōnios once in reference to the damned's fate, but he pairs it with olethros suggesting the damned are annihilated.
Author of the Epistle to the Colossians: He mentions that Christ will "reconcile to himself all things" by virtue of his atoning sacrifice.
Author of the 1st Epistle to Timothy: He says God desires all men to be saved and says Christ is the savior "of all men, especially those who believe." But the epistle is pastoral, so the author is possibly guarding his audience from the full story. Some argue that the author didn't really mean "all men," but instead meant "some (or a minority) of all classes of men"--this interpretation first appears in the 5th century in Augustine's letter to a friend.
Author of Epistle of James: He mentions how reconciled apostates were saved from "death." This may imply annihilation, though we have little of substance to draw from.
Author of Epistle of Hebrews: He says the damned will be devoured and suffer fiery indignation, and refers to judgement as aiōnios once.
Author of Epistle of 1st Peter: This writer believes Jesus descended into hades to preach the Gospel to imprisoned spirits. He might have meant Christ redeemed some of the damned.2
Author of Epistle of 2nd Peter: He says God desires for all to come to repentance and does not desire for any to perish.
Author of Epistle of 1st John: Most readers understand this author to mean Christ is the propitiation for even the damned. However, a minority think that this author doesn't actually mean that, but instead meant Christ is the propitiation for Christians everywhere. The author also talks about a "sin leading to death" which no one should pray for. Perhaps he believed in a sort of "mortal sin" which damns people forever, or perhaps he meant something else.
Jude: He compares the eternal fire the damned will suffer with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. This suggests he thinks of damnation as annihilation.
Author of Revelation: Nearly impossible to tell given the symbolic nature of the text. Secular scholar Bart Ehrman believe he is depicting annihilation. He says the devil will burn aiōnas tōn aiōnōn, seeming to indicate eternal suffering. Though some early Christians interpreted the "lake of fire" as being a "refiner's crucible" indicating universalism.
Author of the Didache: He doesn't seem to believe in the general resurrection.3 It is possible he thinks that only the saved are raised to life and the damned are left dead. It is hard to tell, however, because the document abruptly ends right when he is explaining this.
Author of the Eighth (Christian) Sibyllines: This author defends the idea that prayers for the damned are efficacious.
Author of the Apocalypse of Peter: This author defends the idea that prayers for the damned are efficacious, and in some versions, he says Jesus said that hell will not last forever. There are very graphic depictions of hell in the text.
Author of the Odes of Solomon: This author says Jesus saves all of the dead in hell.
Author of the Shepherd of Hermas: This author says something related to this topic. Something to do with penance in the early church. Someone in the comments help me figure out a short description for this one.

Christians Producing Apocryphal Texts in Third and Fourth Century

Apocalypse of Paul: He writes of postmortem repentance and intersession for the damned.
Author of the Gospel of Nicodemus: He says the tree of Jesus' cross destroys all that Satan gained with the tree of knowledge.
Author of the Acts of Paul and Thecla: The writer tells of story of a damned woman being saved through her friend's prayers.
Author of the Acts of Thomas: The writer writes about Jesus rescuing spirits in hell. There are many other things which can be said about the universalistic tendencies of this document. It is also extremely heretical and endorses all sorts of odd gnostic ideas.
Author of the Acts of Philip: The writer is argued by some to be anti-gnostic. Many of its passages demonstrate the writer believes firmly in the salvation of all.
If anyone knows of any other early Christian texts which hint towards one view or another, please add to this list. Also let me know of any errors and if you know of any scholars who argue that any Christian above actually believed other than what I put.

Notable Post-Apostolic Christians' Positions4,5

If I bold someone's position it is because there is a very high probability that they actually held that position. If I do not bold, it just means we do not know with high probability.

St. Ignatius of Antioch (35 -107): annihilationism/eternal hell
St. Polycarp of Smyrna (69 - 115): annihilationism/eternal hell
Valentinus (heretical gnostic, 100 - 160): annihilationism/eternal hell6
St. Justin Martyr (100 - 165): annihilationism/eternal hell/apokatastasis
Tatian (120 - 180): eternal hell
St. Irenaeus of Lyons (140 - 202): annihilationism/eternal hell/apokatastasis
Clement of Alexandria (150 - 215): apokatastasis
Bardaisan (heretical gnostic, 154 - 222): apokatastasis7
Tertullian (155 - 240): eternal hell
St. Hippolytus of Rome (170 - 235): apokatastasis?8
Origen (184 - 253): apokatastasis9
St. Cyprian of Carthage (200 - 258): eternal hell
Pope St. Dionysius of Alexandria (Patriarch of the See of St. Mark, ? - 264): apokatastasis
Arius (heretic, 250 - 336): eternal hell
Arnobius of Sicca (255 - 330): annihilationism
Eusebius of Caesarea (260 - 340): apokatastasis
St. Aphrahat (280 - 345): unknown
St. Athanasius of Alexandria (296 - 373): apokatastasis
St. Hilary of Poitiers (300 - 368): eternal hell
St. Ephrem the Syrian (306 - 373): eternal hell/apokatastasis
St. Gregory of Nyssa (335 - 395): apokatastasis10
St. Ambrose (340 - 397): eternal hell/apokatastasis
Evagrius Ponticus (345 - 399): apokatastasis
St. Jerome (347 - 420): apokatastasis and then later eternal hell
St. John Chrysostom (349 - 407): eternal hell (though he has some faint suggestions of apokatastasis)
St. Augustine (354 - 430): apokatastasis and then later eternal hell
Pelagius (heretic, 360 - 418): eternal hell
St. Cyril of Alexandria (376 - 444): unknown
St. Isaac of Antioch (400s) : unknown
St. Pope Gregory the Great (540 - 604): I'd assume eternal hell, but someone ought to double check for me
St. Maximus the Confessor (580 - 662): apokatastasis (though with "warnings" of eternal hell)
St. Isaac of Nineveh (613 - 700): apokatastasis
St. John of Damascus (675 - 749): eternal hell
John Scotus Eriugena (815 - 877): apokatastasis

Other Early Christian Universalists Just for Fun

St. Theophilus of Antioch (120 - 183)
St. Didymus the Blind (313 - 398)
St. Basil of Caesarea (329 - 379)
St. Gregory of Nazianzus (329 - 390)
Diodore of Tarsus (? - 390)
St. Macrina the Younger (330 - 379)
St. Maximus of Turin (? - 408/423)
Theodore of Mopsuestia (350 - 428)
St. John Cassian (360 - 435)
St. Peter Chrysologus (380 - 450)
Theodoret of Cyrus (393 - 466)
Ps. Dionysius the Areopagite (4th - 5th century)

Conclusion

Universalism is certainly present in the early church, but it is too difficult to say if it was the majority view. Notice too how easy it is to deceive people by listing only universalists as I did in the "Other Early Christian Universalists Just for Fun" section. There are lots of early Christians, so it is easy to cherry pick.

Footnotes

1As I move further in time, I will be less comprehensive and only mention the most significant figures.

2Again, authors might believe in universalism if they believe in postmortem salvation.

3General resurrection or universal resurrection is the orthodox Christian doctrine that all men, saved and damned, will have their physical bodies physically resurrected on the last day. This idea is expressed clearly in John's Gospel.

4I roughly deem an early Christian "notable" if they either are 1) very clear as to their position on the eternality of hell or 2) vital to the development of Christian orthodoxy. I also include all notable church fathers even if we don't know their position.

5If a particular Christian's position cannot be pinned down but is still relevant to this the subject, I include them too. Comment if you have any to add.

6I include Valentinus because he nearly became the bishop of Rome, and his heretical beliefs framed some of the discussion for how the orthodox Christians would respond and then formulate their beliefs. Some will claim Valentinus taught apokatastasis, but this is a half-truth. Valentinus' apokatastasis was neither universal nor holistic, viz. only a certain class of men and only the souls of these men (not their material bodies) would be benefactors of this "apokatastasis." See Ilaria Ramelli's book for more information on this.

7Bardaisan was very against the Valentinian gnostics despite being a gnostic himself. He denied the resurrection of the body as well.

8 St. Hippolytus of Rome taught Origen mostly about the theology of the Logos during Origen's stay in Rome. He was a good friend of Origen, and was anti-Valentinian like Origen. Hippolytus wrote in Greek, but we have his writings in Latin translations. He teaches a form of Purgatory, and when writing against heresies he never condemns apokatastasis. I struggled to find any definitive proof that he believed apokatastasis from scholarship other than that Ramelli seems to hint at him being predisposed to it, but maybe I'm misreading her. In my estimation, he seems to lean more towards apokatastasis than otherwise.

9Some orthodox Christians drew a parallel between the belief that the devil could never be saved with Valentinus' predestination. Origen responded by biting the bullet saying even the devil could be saved, thus defending his doctrine of free will. Though, he later "denied" he believed in the eventual salvation of the devil in a letter to his friends in Alexandria. See Joseph F Badir's document "Predestination and Election" in the academia.edu link in the resources below.

10St. Gregory of Nyssa is one of the three great Cappadocian Fathers. He is certainly a universalist, and he even believed the devil would be saved. The other two, St. Gregory of Nazianzus and St. Basil of Caesarea are very likely to be universalists.

Resources

https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Christian_Doctrine_of_i_Apokatastasi.html?id=YfGZAAAAQBAJ
https://www.patristics.co/patristic-universalism/
https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/Christian_Universalism

Universal salvation as a phrase begs one refinement before clearly answering.  Yes, there is only one way to be saved, which is believe in what God has done through Christ Jesus.  No, this salvation will not be automatically applied to all people.

  Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
  John 14:6

  Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name [Christ Jesus] under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
  Acts 4:12

So yes, the belief solely in "universal salvation" from grace through faith in Christ Jesus has existed in the one true church over 2,000 years, but let's now turn to whether the ancients believed it was automatically applied.

  I entreat thee, by the grace with which thou art clothed, to press forward in thy course, and to exhort all that they may be saved.
  -Ignateous- Letter to Polycarp-

May be saved, so Ignateous didn't believe so.  Presumably since he was writing to Polycarp who was taught by John who was taught by Christ, they didn't believe so either.

  For he [Polycarp] waited to be delivered up, even as the Lord had done, that we also might become his followers, while we look not merely at what concerns ourselves but have regard also to our neighbours. For it is the part of a true and well-founded love, not only to wish one’s self to be saved, but also all the brethren.
  -Martyrdom of Polycarp-

No automatice universal salvation is shown there.

  But I believe that even those, who have been persuaded by them to observe the legal dispensation along with their confession of God in Christ, shall probably be saved. And I hold, further, that such as have confessed and known this man to be Christ, yet who have gone back from some cause to the legal dispensation, and have denied that this man is Christ, and have repented not before death, shall by no means be saved.
  -Justin Martyr-

Justin Martyr did not teach automatic universal salvation.

So to sum, the earliest church fathers believed "universal salvation" is available to all in Christ Jesus, but no they did not believe it to be applied automatically.

PS Whether death ends your chance to hear and decide is a different question.

  Animals in harness cannot but be carried over a precipice by the inexperience and badness of their driver, even as by his skilfulness and excellence they will be saved.
  -fragments Justin Martyr-


Why didn't David ascend into Heaven? Acts 2:34 NKJV:

  “For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: ‘ The
  LORD said to my Lord,“ Sit at My right

Why didn't David ascend to heaven? Is this past tense? Is David in heaven now, or has he just never ascended into heaven all at?

This verse is contrasting Jesus and David. Jesus ascended:

Luke 24:51
While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven.

David went to heaven the old fashioned way: by dying first.
This is evidenced by David's body being buried:

Acts 2:29
“Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day.

By contrast, Jesus was not "abandoned" (left) in the grave:

Acts 2:31
Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay.

That David is in heaven is clear from Hebrews 11:32-40. David is named in verse 32 with other faith heroes. Then in verse 40 it says, "together with us would they be made perfect" (since they can only be perfected in heaven).

I think the confusion starts off when people believe that they are a spirit that has a soul that lives in a body. The bible clearly states we became a living soul and that to the dust we return, also states Jesus told his disciples he would come back for them. If they are in heaven now why would he come back for them. Bible also says that the corruptible must put on the incorruptible ( then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?). Revelation also talks about the souls under the altar not directly in the presents of God. We say also say three people went to heaven but that isn't true. Why because we misunderstood what the bible said Enoch was (translated) metatithemi Hebrew-tranfered. Moses was buried,and Elijah wrote to a king 10 years later after he was taken into heaven which was the second heaven Jesus in John 3:13 Jesus says to Nicodemus, “No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven–the Son of Man. We must understand Jesus is coming back for us and he is only coming back once. Lastly if Jesus is the example which by what will happen when he went back to heaven his body went with him.


What does Luke 11:5-8 mean? Luke 11:5-8 (NIV)
5 Then Jesus said to them, “Suppose you have a friend, and you go to him at midnight and say, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves of bread; 6 a friend of mine on a journey has come to me, and I have no food to offer him.’ 7 And suppose the one inside answers, ‘Don’t bother me. The door is already locked, and my children and I are in bed. I can’t get up and give you anything.’ 8 I tell you, even though he will not get up and give you the bread because of friendship, yet because of your shameless audacity he will surely get up and give you as much as you need.

What does it mean that even though he "will not get up and give you the bread because of friendship", he "will surely get up and give you as much as you need" ?
Why will the friend not give the bread because of friendship (shouldn't it be the other way round) ?

In the King James Version, verse 8 doesn't say "your audacity," but "his importunity" (literally: inconvenience from a persistent request.)  The basic idea is that he'll get up and do it just to get you to go away and quit keeping him awake with your banging on the door.

When reading Luke 11:5-8  what comes to mind and in my heart is that as Christians regardless of how we feel we should always serve those in need. To expand on this proverbs 25:21-22 if thine enemy be hungry give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink: for thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head,and the Lord shall reward thee. (kjv)