What does the Bible teach about domestic discipline? Specifically when it comes to a parent disciplining their children or husband disciplining his wife - it seems there has been a lot of talk about both and I'm curious what different denominations and the Bible has to say on the topic.

Is corporal punishment/discipline ever OK?
Is corporal punishment/discipline from a parent to a child OK?
Is corporal punishment/discipline between a husband and his wife OK?

I have never heard of a husband disciplining their wife, I certainly don't do that. However parents have an obligation to discipline their children for it is written

  He who spares his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines
  him promptly. (Proverbs 13:24)

May I add that I don't use a physical rod :)

  “Impatience in the parents excites impatience in the children. Passion
  manifested by the parents creates passion in the children and stirs up
  the evils of their nature. Some parents correct their children
  severely in a spirit of impatience, and often in passion. Such
  corrections produce no good result. In seeking to correct one evil,
  they create two. Continual censuring and whipping hardens children and
  weans them from their parents. Parents should first learn to control
  themselves, then they can more successfully control their children.
  Every time they lose self-control, and speak and act impatiently, they
  sin against God. They should first reason with their children, clearly
  point out their wrongs, show them their sin, and impress upon them
  that they have not only sinned against their parents, but against God.
  With your own heart subdued and full of pity and sorrow for your
  erring children, pray with them before correcting them. Then your
  correction will not cause your children to hate you. They will love
  you. They will see that you do not punish them because they have put
  you to inconvenience, or because you wish to vent your displeasure
  upon them; but from a sense of duty, for their good, that they may not
  be left to grow up in sin. (Testimonies For The Church Volume 1 p. 398, Ellen White)

First, discipline and punishment are separate things.  Discipline molds.  Punishment penalizes. Dumbed-down Americanized English tends to confuse the two.  Yet, both have their uses.  Whether they're okay depends on who one asks and which way the political winds are blowing at the moment.

Second, in addition to the first answer above, it is debatable whether those curious verses in Proverbs are even advocating the common practice that Merriam-Webster defines as "[striking] the buttocks with the open hand" as a punishment.  That may be a largely Victorian era invention.  Nevertheless, since the war on spanking, discipline in public schools has gone to hell.

Third, while the Bible is silent on a husband spanking his wife, the fact remains that divorces increased fourfold after "domestic violence" became synonymous with what used to be referred to as wife spanking. Now, cohabitation has replaced marriage as the relationship of choice and single parenting has replaced married with children as a definition for family.  Thus, all society did was to exchange one set of problems for another by making a big deal out of a husband spanking his wife.


Why can't God persuade all mankind, in their free-will, to believe in him? Jesus, before He was risen to heaven, left the task of evangelism to his disciples and Christians.  Since men are fallible and are not all-powerful, they are taught to pray and rely on God in their evangelical work.  The question is, since God is all-powerful and omniscient, why can't God persuade all mankind, in their free-will, to believe in him?

According to Romans 1:19-20, God tries to reveal himself to his people.

  What may be known of God is manifest in them for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:19,20).

However, God is also a loving God, and by that virtue, God should be trying hard to convince every person to believe in him.  The fact that some people cannot be persuaded seems to signify either that God is not all-powerful, or He does not want to.

(Note: this question assumes this is possible without conflicting with mankind's free-will, as God can assess each individual's knowledge/personality/character and convince them through multiple mediums such as people/nature/experiences).

I think the verses you quote are actually the answer:

  What may be known of God is manifest in them for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:19,20).

In other words, God already made it obvious in nature that He exists, so why would He waste His time jumping through hoops to prove it to people who simply despise the idea of His existence because they want to live without moral law and are simply recalcitrant in their "unbelief"?   Francis Bacon says concerning the idea contained in these verses (The two books of Francis Bacon: of the proficiency and advancement of learning, Divine and Human, Page 86):

  And as concerning divine philosophy or natural theology, it is that knowledge or rudiment knowledge concerning God, which may be obtained by the contemplation of His creatures; which knowledge may be truly termed divine in respect of the object, and natural in respect of the light. The bounds of this knowledge are, that it sufficeth to convince atheism [of God's existence], but not to inform religion: and therefore there was never miracle wrought by God to convert an atheist, because the light of nature might have led him to confess a God: but miracles have been wrought to convert idolaters and the superstitious, because no light of nature extendeth to declare the will and true worship of God.

Furthermore, as we consider further the quoted verses, we find that they already know that God exists, for "God is manifest in them."  There is no such thing as an atheist, only an anti-theist.  Verse 21 shows it even more:

  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. (Romans 1:21 KJV)

So they knew God, but they rejected Him.  Further, it says in verse 25 "They exchanged the truth about God for a lie" (NIV) and one cannot exchange what one never had.

And again, in verse 28 "Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind," (NIV) so it becomes clear, again, that there are no atheists, only anti-theists.  They had the knowledge of God's existence, but did not consider it worthwhile to retain, and so they threw it away.  Should God now jump through whatever hoops they demand in order to convince them that the knowledge they already have is worthwhile to retain?

The assumption, of course, is that God does exist. A God who is all-powerful and omniscient could certainly convince every person to believe in him, if that is his wish. Yet it is clear that much of mankind does not believe in him, either believing in other gods or no God at all.

Romans 1:19-20 shows that Paul believed in God, but this does not prove to the modern mind that God exists. Francis Bacon seems to have believed that God made an effort, through miracles, to convince idolaters and the superstitious, but thought that no effort was needed to convert atheists (The two books of Francis Bacon: of the proficiency and advancement of learning, Divine and Human, Page 86):

  And as concerning divine philosophy or natural theology, it is that knowledge or rudiment knowledge concerning God, which may be obtained by the contemplation of His creatures; which knowledge may be truly termed divine in respect of the object, and natural in respect of the light. The bounds of this knowledge are, that it sufficeth to convince atheism [of God's existence], but not to inform religion: and therefore there was never miracle wrought by God to convert an atheist, because the light of nature might have led him to confess a God: but miracles have been wrought to convert idolaters and the superstitious, because no light of nature extendeth to declare the will and true worship of God.

With the advance of science, it is no longer enough to rely on the cosmological argument (the existence of nature) or the teleological argument (the wonder of nature) to convince atheists of the existence of a Supreme Being (God). Atheists do not believe in God and then reject him - they simply do not see a need for God in their worldview. Francis Bacon says that God made an effort to convince idolaters and the superstitious that he exists, so we can not believe he would not now make the same effort to convince atheists.

As the question states, God is a loving God, and by that virtue, God should be trying hard to convince every person to believe in him. If Francis Bacon is correct, God wants to convince every person to believe in him. The fact that some people cannot be persuaded seems to signify that God is not all-powerful.


According to Charismatic Christians, do those who never hear the gospel of Christ go to hell? I'd like an overview of what Charismatic Christians believe regarding the unreached. Are people who have never heard the gospel of Christ going to hell? For example: infants, fetuses, mentally disabled persons or third-world inhabitants who've passed.

I'll provide answers from a couple charismatic theologians, Wayne Grudem and J. Rodman Williams.  Williams is the author of the first charismatic systematic theology, Renewal Theology, and I'll quote from it and some of his other writings.
Original Sin
First, both writers affirm the doctrine of original sin.  Williams describes it as follows:

"Original sin" refers to the fact that the human race is sinful in nature. [...] [T]he important feature is that man does not come into the world as an innocent or neutral creature but is affected by sin in all aspects of his being (Psalm 58:3; cf. Psalm 51:5). Indeed, by virtue of this fact, man is vitiated in every area of his nature—body, soul, spirit—so that he is utterly incapable himself of restoration and salvation. His only hope is in Jesus Christ.1

Referring to the people who are "without excuse" from Romans 1, Williams writes:

These are people of all times and places, who on their own account and to their own guilt and judgment, turn away from the living God.2

The clear implication here and in the rest of Williams' writing is that the unreached face judgment.
Grudem agrees, and writes more regarding the general revelation mentioned in Romans 1:

[E]ven without the Bible, all persons who have ever lived have had evidence in creation that God exists, that he is the Creator and they are creatures, and have also had some evidence of his character.  As a result, they themselves have known something about God from this evidence (even though this is never said to be a knowledge that is able to bring them to salvation).3

Salvation of Infants
However, both Williams and Grudem specifically refer to the case of infants as a potential exception to this rule.  First, Williams writes:

I suggest you look at Matthew 18:2-4 and 19:13-14. Note especially the words "Let the
children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven
belongs to such as these." Since Jesus graciously received them during His ministry,
surely He will do so in heaven. This does not mean that little children, or infants, are
innocent, but they have no ability to make a decision for or against Christ, which is the
requirement for salvation.4

Grudem goes into more detail.  He says that even infants have sinful natures, citing Psalm 51:5, but he notes the example of John the Baptist in Luke 1:15, saying:

Yet it is certainly possible for God to bring regeneration (that is, new spiritual life) to an infant even before he or she is born.  This was true of John the Baptist [...] We might say that John the Baptist was "born again" before he was born! [...] It is clear, therefore, that God is able to save infants in an unusual way, apart from their hearing and understanding the gospel, by bringing regeneration to them very early, sometimes even before birth.5

He cautions against taking this too far, but finds this as evidence that infants who die may be saved:

We must, however, affirm very clearly that this is not the usual way for God to save people.  Salvation usually occurs when someone hears and understands the gospel and then places trust in Christ.  But in unusual cases like John the Baptist, God brought salvation before this understanding.  And this leads us to conclude that it certainly is possible that God would also do this where he knows the infant will die before hearing the gospel.5

Summary
In summary, these two charismatic theologians believe in original sin, and thus that judgment is due to all men because all men have sinful natures and act sinfully.  However, they suggest that provision may be made for children who die in infancy.  One could speculate, based on this reasoning, that similar provision might extend to the mentally disabled, but neither author addresses that situation.  But extending this logic to mean salvation for the unreached peoples of the world is certainly outside the teaching of these two theologians.

References:

Williams, Theology Q and A, page 31 (See also Renewal Theology, 1: chapter 11, "The Effects of Sin.")
Williams, Renewal Theology, I-272.
Grudem, Systematic Theology, ch. 7, p122.
Williams, Theology Q and A, page 32
Grudem, Systematic Theology, ch. 24, p500.

The people who have never heard the Gospel of Christ most certainly can and will attain eternity with God. This is clarified in a few places, but the most common place to read scripture is Romans 2:12-16

  Romans 2:12-16 = "For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus."

God judges man's heart which is the motivational source behind any person's actions. So those who don't have "The Law" (meaning, they've never heard the Mosaic Law found in the first five books in the OT, or heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ), still have "written on their hearts" the natural law, or can be better described as "common sense". For example, you don't have to hear or know the story of Christ to feel compelled to help someone lying on the ground helpless with visible injury. Nor do you need to have read the Ten Commandments to know it's wrong to murder another human being. This things are "common sense" or "written on our hearts" from God, in which God uses on the day of judgement.

Even Jesus himself showed this example every time it's recorded that he interacted with certain individuals. He's been tested on several occasions and he always penetrated through the "doing" of that individual, and went right to the "source" of the individual's doing - the heart. He never condemned the action which the person was guilty of, he condemned the hardened heart. I believe this is further confirmation that people who've never heard of Jesus will still get a fair judgement from God, and included in judgement is always God's unimaginable passion, love and unwavering grace.


How do Christains argue that "messianic psalms" are messianic and refer to Jesus Christ? I've heard Christians assert that you can prove that Jesus Christ is the Messiah from the book of psalms. There doesn't seem to be any watertight argument for the existence of messianic psalms other than the New Testament says so, let alone that Jesus Christ is the Messiah referred to in the psalms.

The interpretation of the Old Testament in the New is an extremely complex subject and I recommend the book referenced in this summary article about the perspectives involved. However, there is significant support from Jewish sources for reading at least a some, but not all, of the Psalms as Messianic apart from the New Testament and according to Jewish (non-Christian) sources - which to be fair was largely written by Jewish writers as well.

Exhibit A: Psalm 2

Cited several times in Acts, Hebrews, and Revelation, Psalm 2 has been interpreted as Messianic by the Babylonian Talmud, Maimonides, and the Midrash on Psalms just to name a few. That these sources do so after the first century suggests that in spite of the temptation to interpret them apologetically as being non-messianic, it is a genuinely Messianic Psalm.

Exhibit B: Psalm 110

Although less conclusive than Psalm 2, an article entitle "Is Psalm 110 a Messianic Psalm"  says that (footnote 32):

  ...even the first-century Jewish leaders considered the reference to [my Lord] in Psalm 110:1 to be prophetic of Messiah and to be used only of the
  Messiah and not of an earthly Davidic king...

This is especially significant because this is the verse most cited by Jesus himself to prove his Messianic identity.

Exhibit C: Psalm 22

On the other side, a previous discussion (here) seems to suggest conclusively that Psalm 22 has not been interpreted Messianic-ally by Jewish interpreters.

These are just three examples that show there is diversity in the way 'Christian' Messianic Psalms were viewed outside of Christianity. But two final points are worth noting:

(1) As "Dan" in the discussion on Psalm 22 notes, it is often difficult to find actual pre-Christian Rabbinic commentary which means that (a) there is apologetic incentive in later sources not disagree with NT interpretations and (b) significant potential for disagreement about what first century Jews really thought. See this article for the dates of Rabbinic literature.

(2) Considering Jesus, Paul, Stephen, and most of the early church were Jewish - some of them highly educated in the Law - so while we can assume bias on their part, this should not cause us throw out their testimony whole-sale, or discount its Jewish-ness. In fact Acts 17:11 tells us it is reading the scriptures eagerly that convinced the Bereans and many others of the validity of Jesus' claims to be the Messiah. This was before the writing of the NT and therefore means it was through reading directly from the Jewish scriptures that they were convinced.

For several books of the NT it can be shown very easily that argumentation for this was introduced retroactively. The clearest example is found in Hebrews, where the author quotes the same prophecy of Jeremiah 31:33 very close to one another twice, but rendered differently:
Hebrews 8:10

ὅτι αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη ἣν διαθήσομαι τῷ οἴκῳ Ἰσραὴλ μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρας
ἐκείνας, λέγει Κύριος, διδοὺς νόμους μου εἰς τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν, καὶ
ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν ἐπιγράψω αὐτούς, καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς εἰς Θεόν καὶ
αὐτοὶ ἔσονταί μοι εἰς λαόν.
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord: I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be
my people.

Hebrews 10:16

Αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη ἣν διαθήσομαι πρὸς αὐτοὺς μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρας ἐκείνας,
λέγει Κύριος· διδοὺς νόμους μου ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν
διάνοιαν αὐτῶν ἐπιγράψω αὐτούς,

This is the covenant I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws on their hearts and write them on their minds
Why this difference? Because in the first time the prophecy is quoted, it is introduced by:
Hebrews 8:8-9

But finding fault with His people, He says: Look, the days are coming,
says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of
Israel and with the house of Judah — not like the covenant that I made with their
ancestors on the day I took them by their hands to lead them out of
the land of Egypt. I disregarded them, says the Lord, because they did
not continue in My covenant.

So for the first quote, it is rendered as a criticism against the House of Israel, while in the second quote, it is rendered as a possible promise to all. The second rendering is retrofitting to enable interpretation as fulfilment in the NT.
As for Psalms, if you look, for example, at Psalm 8:4-8

4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that
thou visitest him?
5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the
angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
6 Thou madest him
to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things
under his feet:
7 All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the
field;
8 The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever
passeth through the paths of the seas.

And as quoted in Hebrews 2:6-8

6 διεμαρτύρατο δέ πού τις λέγων Τί ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος ὅτι μιμνῄσκῃ αὐτοῦ;
ἢ υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ὅτι ἐπισκέπτῃ αὐτόν;
7 ἠλάττωσας αὐτὸν βραχύ τι παρ’ ἀγγέλους, δόξῃ καὶ τιμῇ ἐστεφάνωσας
αὐτόν,
8 πάντα ὑπέταξας ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ. ἐν τῷ γὰρ ὑποτάξαι αὐτῷ τὰ
πάντα οὐδὲν ἀφῆκεν αὐτῷ ἀνυπότακτον. νῦν δὲ οὔπω ὁρῶμεν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα
ὑποτεταγμένα·
6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou
art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him?
7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him
with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that
he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put
under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

In the Hebrews quote, the "inconvenient" animal references to Genesis are deleted, so that the quote is molded to be interpretable as applying to a messiah by "man" and "son of man".
However, in the original Hebrew text, the words adam and "ben'adam" mean (children of) human being(s) of either gender. In the Greek rendering, the author takes advantage of the dualistic form of the nominative singular masculine ἄνθρωπος and the genitive singular masculine ἀνθρώπου, while there is no reason to do so other than fitting the quote to fulfil messianic prophecy. With those alterations, verse 6 and onwards is turned from a description of what was already done to man into a prediction.


Why haven't we revised the Bible in centuries? Possible Duplicate:
  What are the biblical arguments that the Bible canon is closed?

Preface: This question is not directed at a specific denomination.

Why haven't we revised the Bible in centuries?

Christians believe that God inspired humans to write the Bible.
But the fact is that humans have decided which writings should be included in the Bible and which should not.
So as society and civilization proceed, why haven't we shed some passages which aren't relevant anymore and why haven't we included some new writings which are particularly relevant to modern day Christianity?
For instance, I think many writings from St. Augustine and St. John Bosco should be included in the Bible.

Several reasons:

Historically, canonicity in the NT was restricted to the 12 apostles and direct relations of Jesus. (Mark = Peter, Luke=Paul*, Matthew & John were both disciples, Hebrews was errantly ascribed to Paul, James and Jude were brothers of Jesus // Paul was considered to be an apostle, since Jesus appeared directly to him.)
Later Councils (I forget if it was Chalcedon or Ephesus) also declared the canons closed, representing the consensus of the church that indeed, "It is finished"
Theologically, it is understood that Jesus was the last and ultimate sacrifice, and therefore no further revelation of God is necessary (something that would be at direct odds, with say, the Ba'hai)

The real fact is that even though people chose what books to put into the bible, doesn't mean the entire bible was not ordained by God. Constantine was most likely saved, but regardless, God is the potter and people are his clay (Romans 9:21). Does he not have the power to also move those that are not his followers? Of course he does. Everything in the new covenant/testament is just as relevant as it was when Christ was crucified as it is today and will be until Christ returns (as far as the messages are concerned), and it is all we need. Where do you think these great Christian writers got the things they are writing about? It's all biblical! Well, hopefully. I am personally very thankful for what we do have. I think the God of creation was more than generous to give us so much writing.


Why did God make it a sin to eat an apple? Eating a fruit* is not even a real wicked deed like killing somebody or something. Why did this whole sin thing get started with something so innocuous that by today's standard it wouldn't even be considered a sin?

* I'm pretty sure it was a fig.

There was probably no power at all in the fruit. The issue was that God gave them a choice and they chose to disobey Him. And so sin, in this case disobedience, entered the world.

I suspect that it could just as easily have been a, "Wet paint, do not touch!" sign.

Why did God make it a sin to eat an apple?

  Eating a fruit* is not even a real wicked deed like killing somebody or something. Why did this whole sin thing get started with something so innocuous that by today's standard it wouldn't even be considered a sin?

ANSWER

Eating a literal fruit like an apple is nowhere a sin. But if we view the word "fruit as a symbol of life and death" then it is not a literal fruit, but it is a figurative language.

The question is what is meaning of the word "fruit"? We are talking about a fruit that can bring "life or death" to Adam & Eve soul.

From Catholic Church teaching the "fruit" from the Tree of Life is Jesus Christ, the Author of Life that will give "eternal life" to a soul. This fruit is similar to the "Holy Eucharist". Jesus is the "fruit" that comes from the "pure womb" of Mary. The Catholic Church teachings point to Mary as the Tree of Life.

Jesus as the "fruit" can be eaten because He is the "Bread of Life". See John gospel Chapter six. In contrast, the fruit from TOKOGE cannot be eaten because it is not Jesus that comes down from Heaven. The "fruit"  belongs to Adam & Eve disobedient action,  that's why God forbids it.

  Mary as the Tree of Life

Concerning the Tree of Life, in ‘The Mirror of the Blessed Virgin Mary’ St. Bonaventure (1221-1274) writes:

  The Angel showed John "the tree of life, bearing its fruits every month, and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of nations." The tree of life is Mary, the Mother of Life; or the tree of life is the tree of the Cross; or else the tree is Jesus Christ, the Author of Life, who is also the Fruit of Life. Those healing leaves are edifying words and deeds. If even the leaves are healing, how much more healing and life-giving is the fruit? Therefore, that we may be healed by this fruit, let us approach its tree; let us draw near, I say, to Mary. Let us pray with St. Anselm [1033-1109]: "Hear me, O Lady! Heal the soul of thy servant who is a sinner, by virtue of the blessed Fruit of thy womb, who sitteth at the right hand of his Almighty Father."(Bonaventure, The Mirror of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Chapter XVIII.)
  http://tenstringedlyreofthenewisrael.blogspot.com/2016/12/mary-immaculate-conception-tree-life.html

Now, when the chosen Woman gave birth to Jesus Christ, her conception is the Will of God, and the famous greetings of St.Elizabeth reminded us that the "fruit" of the pure womb of Mary was the Logos.

  "...and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus." (Hail Mary's prayer)

Now, since the "fruit" that you called "apple" comes from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, does it also represents a "child" like the Incarnated Logos? No, it represent a "carnal child" and this cannot be eaten, why?
Its like the crowd in the Bread of Life Discourse  that left Jesus, thinking of "cannibalism".

Mary's fruit, does not comes from the "seed" of an earthly father but from the Eternal Father, the "source of life", and Logos is the "author of life", and it was formed by the Holy Spirit "the giver of life".

In contrast, Eve's "pure womb and sinless body" is capable of producing a "fruit or a child" by mere "sexual procreation" provided Adam is the source of the "seed". This "forbidden fruit" brings death not life.

Did Adam & Eve committed the "sexual act" to procreate a "child or a fruit"? Yes or No?

If Yes, why would it be a sin? It is a sin because God had forbidden Adam & Eve to eat from the "fruit" of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. So, the word "eat" connotes an "action" on the part of Adam & Eve, and it means they cannot do a "sexual procreation acts" in the Garden of Eden. Why? Because the Garden of Eden is situated in the east, it is the Temple of God, the First Sanctuary of God.

Now this will be difficult to comprehend if we do not accept the seven views written on the answer provided in this link; What is the Catholic understanding of the first sin committed by Adam and Eve?
(Note : Please look at my answer to appreciate, that the "fruit" is not an "apple" but a symbol of "life and death" or a "child".   The "seed" of Adam implanted at the "pure womb" of Eve bringa death not life.)

It is a sin, because God clearly commanded it to Adam that it was forbidden.

The "fruit" that the "sexual procreation" of Adam & Eve had produced does not carry the image of Jesus but an image of the serpent, a "murderer". This is the reason why Cain murdered his brother Abel because his soul was infected by the malice of the serpent.

  You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. (John8:44)

The "fruit" from the "pure womb" of Eve because of her disobedience brings "death", while the "fruit" coming from the "pure womb" of Mary brings "life" because of her "obedience".

In the poem of St.Hildegard a Doctor of the Church, it was revealed what happened to Eve;

  "She destroyed her womb by her ignorance." (St.Hildegard)

St. Hildegard poem contrasted the womb of Eve and Mary both virgin and sinless.

  For that woman, whom God had set to be the mother of us all,
  she destroyed her own womb with the wounds of ignorance
  and gave birth to all pain for her children.

  But, O dawn, from your womb
  a new Sun rises,
  which has cleansed all Eve’s sins,
  and through you a blessing flows
  greater than the harm Eve did to men.

  (From the sequence O virga ac diadema purpurae Regis , translation by Kate Brown, as posted on the Scottish Early Music Consort homepage: http://www.scot-art.org/semc/trans.htm .)


How can a Wholly Good God Deliberately Create Evil? I think it's pretty universally accepted that God is wholly good.  Indeed, many sources, including lots of answers on this website, are based on the belief that God is the perfect standard of goodness.  God is also widely believed to hate evil, hence why transgression from His perfect standard of goodness (sin) is taken so seriously and required such amazing grace to save His people.
However, in church this morning we were looking through 1 Samuel 16 and verse 14 alarmed me somewhat:

1 Samuel 16:14 Now the Spirit of the Lord had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord tormented him. (NIV)

I would never have believed that an evil/harmful spirit could be from God had I not seen it in the bible.  On further investigation, it appears there are several other examples in the bible of God purposefully bringing evil things into the world.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. (KJV)
Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid?  Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it? (KJV)
2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie (NKJV)

I'd always been told that God may allow us to be exposed to evil but doesn't bring it upon us Himself.  This is clearly false in light of the above.  It's therefore also possible that evil is God's will, which is particularly disappointing and devastating to one's faith.
Can anyone please offer any explanation as to how a totally-good God can create evil deliberately and still remain holy and righteous?

The question I will try to answer is:

Can anyone please offer any explanation as to how a totally-good God can create evil deliberately and still remain holy and righteous?

I will attempt to explain this from the point of Original Sin. This is becuse I myself struggled to understand this for some time and found that this can be explained better from that point of time.

It is difficult to understand the mind of God and we as humans are definetly far short of knowing His wisdom. Over the time, God has made himself known to mankind in various ways and but it is through Jesus that He demostrated His Kindness and His love towards His creation.

From the very beginning, man held a special and unique place in God’s creation as he was created "in the image of God". In his own nature, man unites the spiritual and material worlds.

God’s gift of free will.

God created Adam and Eve with unique characteristics called free will and gave them a choice: to obey Him or disobey Him which is same as choosing good or evil.

God is a personal being and the greatest passion of personal beings is the desire for personal relationships with other personal beings. Therefore, God, as a personal being, created us in such a way that He could have a meaningful, personal, and loving relationship with us. Nevertheless, this had a severe price.

I cannot experience love from you unless you have the capacity to do otherwise. If you have the capacity to, not to love me, and you choose instead to love me, then that choice has validity and meaning. You cannot have a love relationship with a computer. It is pre-programmed to serve you. Without that choice, man would have been like puppets, able to do only what God wanted.

God therefore wanted to demonstrate his glory through humans, which had their own free will. When he receives the glory and obedience from humans in spite of having with them the free will, it is an immense satisfaction for Him. God expects that his most important creature would give greater glory to Him by remaining obedient, in spite of having free will with them.

But why God created evil?

God did not create evil as nothing evil can come from good God. Satan and other demons were at first good angels, created by God, but they became evil by their own doing. This "fall" also came from the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign. Their aspiration was to become like God, which is reflected in the tempter's words to our first parents: "You will be like God." It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy that makes the angels' sin unforgivable. So we see that evil is a side effect of existence of free will and choice.

There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death.

The power of Satan is, nonetheless, not infinite. He is only a creature, powerful from the fact that he is pure spirit, but still a creature. He cannot prevent the building up of God's reign. Although Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries - of a spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature - to each man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence which with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history. It is a great mystery that providence should permit diabolical activity, but "we know that in everything, God works for good with those who love him."

Why then did God do this when he knew in advance that the result of free will and evil would be so disastrous?

Many questions comes to mind at this stage. Questions like Did this God of love not care that war, murder, rape and so much senseless violence would be the result of his choice to give us free will?"

Why an all-powerful God did not eliminate evil? Since the implication is that the removal of all evil would permit a better, more loving world.

A truly loving God, would have desired and created such a world because it is clearly superior to the one we have.

Any God that did not follow this logic was not a God of love, but an evil tyrant.
Answer is bit difficule as I have mentioned at the begining as we do not have the intellect to understand the almighty God. But a simple story I read comes close to explaining this mystery:

Suppose a mother had three children and one of them died. If you could go back to the time before she had any children, with the knowledge that one of them would die this horrible death, would she attempt to have children?"

A mother would definitely say yes. Because, the love and the joy and the happiness that parents received from their children, far outweighs the pain, suffering and misery they experienced from the loss of that one child.

In this there is an incredible insight as to why God allows free will and evil to exist. A loving God can allow an evil state of affairs to exist, since in allowing it to occur, it brings about an even better state of affairs.

Because He is outside time and knows all things, He knew that there would be tremendous pain and suffering as a result of His decision to create a people with the capacity of choice and, consequently, the capacity to sin.

But God, like this mother, knew that the love He and his human creatures would experience, would outweigh the pain and suffering that would result from His decision to create us as He did. The consequences of God's decision were not unforeseen. They were foreknown!

The moment evil is taken out from this world you also remove the choice from the nature of human. The existence of evil is the "side effect" of creating a world with a thirst for love.

A world possessing both evil and love, is far superior to a world where neither is possible. For God to eliminate evil, He would have to eliminate our capacity of choice and thus our capacity to do both evil and good. And such a world is inferior to the one we have: one where love is possible, despite its inherent evil. What kind of God would do this? Only one kind. A God of love.

On the other hand, there is another question. Is God a "limiting God" and not omnipotent?

This is based on flawed logic. It's the same logic flaw atheists use when they say, "If God can do anything, can He create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" There are logical impossibilities and there are things God cannot do. (Lie, be wrong, learn, sin)

Finally, we come to the first instance of Adam’s disobedience to His creator. What is The tree of the knowledge, and why does God put it in the garden?

It seems like putting your children in the backyard to play and saying, "By the way, don't jump in the pit with the spikes lining the bottom that I dug in the back corner by the swing set, okay?"
God was giving a simple message to man: "Evil" is the things that you're not supposed to do, "good" is the things that you should do. The only thing you need to know about "evil" is don't eat from that tree.

Adam was in the state of original holiness whence he was not able to differentiate between good and evil for he was yet to eat the fruit from the forbidden tree. Adam is not able to differentiate between good and evil for his nature was such that he was not in a position to recognise the difference. It is like a computer, which is unable to recognise a PDF format of a file unless an adobe reader is installed on it. The computer knows that PDF file exists but will not execute it, because it does not have that capacity to recognise it. Adam knew that evil exists but he is neither able to recognise it nor he was able to execute it. Under these circumstances, neither God wants that Adam should know about the good and evil by forbidding him from eating that fruit and continue in his present state.

For this, he has to only obey God’s commandment not to eat from the forbidden tree. But here also there is a glitch, because there was no way Adam could exercise his free will, in absence of his knowledge about good and evil and show his obedience to God. The only way God could know the obedience of Adam was to tell Adam not to eat from this tree, which would allow Him to know the free will choice of Adam about his obedience to Him.

As a consequence of free will, God kept the CD containing the programme “Adobe Reader” (tree of knowledge) in the garden which will enable Adam to recognise the PDF file format (good and evil) and also allow him to execute the file with PDF extension. There are two aspects here. First – till the time Adam obeys God’s command and do not eat from this tree, he will exercise his free will and be obedient to God. Till that time this programme was not installed on Adam, he would not be able to read and execute this file (evil). The moment Adam disobeys God, Adam will exercise his free will and this programme will be installed on Adam and will recognise the good and evil as well as able to execute it (evil) also.

Before the fall, they were having a nature that made them to do only the good and the power to do evil was beyond their area of understanding. This understanding and the change of their nature would come only when they disobey God and eat the fruit from forbidden tree. With this, one obedience Adam was supposed to live a life doing everything good and not knowing or doing evil.  The obedience would have kept him barricaded from being dying.

Sources: Many and few of them are
www.y-jesus.com/

www.gotquestions.org/

www.khouse.org/

www.newadvent.org/bible/

www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm
PS. My apologies for this answer being so lenghty but I could not make it any more shorter, though I tried.

How can God create evil and remain righteous and holy?
  God uses the wicked for his purposes. The evil spirit of the Lord is Satan.

The devil was a murderer from the beginning, Genesis 4;8 and I John 3;12. and the father of lies John 8;44.

I John 3;8, I Corinthians 5;5, and Revelation 9;1.

Other passages where God uses evil spirits; Job 1;18-19, Job 2;6, I Samuel 18;10. I Kings 22;22, and Psalms 78;49. Evil spirits are also envy, rebellion, pride, jealousy , etc.


Does the word 'testament' in the titles OT and NT imply the death of the testator in both covenants? A will or testament is a legal declaration by which a person, the testator, names one or more persons to manage his estate and provides for the transfer of his property at death. This property an inheritance.

What I am wondering is the origin of the word Old Testament, or New Testament.  Does 'testament' imply the death of Life in order that we receive an inheritance?  Is the Old Testament, a 'Testament' or just a Covenant?  Was the Old Covenant truly a Testament, or is only the New Covenant a Testament?  If the Old Covenant was also a Testament which would not be ratified until the testator died, in what sense is the Old Covenant a testament before the actual death of Christ?

Does the word testament in the titles 'Old Testament' and 'New Testament' imply the death of the testator in both covenants and thus provide a biblical basis for calling the two divisions of the Bible testaments, rather then just covenants?

It has more to do with the translators and languages than the bible itself. The word Testament is derived from Latin testamentum-a will. I understand you confuse it with the modern meaning of the word, but Blue Letter Bible tries to explain it as follows:

  The word "testament" is an old English word that means, "covenant." The Latin term testamentum was used to translate the Greek and Hebrews words for covenant. The English word was derived from the Latin. Hence the Old and New Covenants became the Old and New Testaments.src

Old and New Testaments just means old and new covenant. That is the covenants before and after Jesus Christ. That is here both Testament and covenant have the same meaning. The sourced cited above goes on to even say:

  It is unfortunate that the English word "testament" is used to describe the Old and New Covenants that God has made with His people.

I also don't understand how the 'Old Testament' implies the death of testator? God did not die in the Old Testament.

Note: The word covenant came into usage only in Middle English (12th - 15th century) borrowed from Old French, from present participle of convenir, meaning to agree; src So, we can't blame the translators for not using the proper word.

Mat 26:28  For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

  Strong's Greek Word Testament

  G1242

  διαθήκη

  diathēkē

  dee-ath-ay'-kay

  From G1303; properly a disposition, that is, (specifically) a contract (especially a devisory will): - covenant, testament.

  Thesaurus Devisor

  Noun   1.  devisor - someone who devises real property in a will

  testate, testator - a person who makes a will

  Heb 9:15  And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
  Heb 9:16  For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
  Heb 9:17  For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

  Rom 5:6  For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
  Rom 5:7  For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
  Rom 5:8  But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
  Rom 5:9  Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
  Rom 5:10  For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

  Heb 10:19  Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
  Heb 10:20  By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

  Gen 15:17  And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.
  Gen 15:18  In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

  Heb 11:17  By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
  Heb 11:18  Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
  Heb 11:19  Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

Yes Christ the testator did die to enact the New Will and Testament which brought us into the Kingdom of God. The word testament was used by Christ to describe his act of sacrifice for our sins. Strongs greek word for testament it specifically says the original word was a devisory will. I included the definition for devisory incase that word is unfamiliar. The Old covenant was a covenant established through the death of animals because of the willingness of Abraham to offer Isaac. There are no testators of the old covenant only partners.

I disagree with the other answer posted because it disagrees with Jesus and the writers of Hebrews 9 and offers a theological answer which does not properly reflect the words of Jesus nor the tone of the Bible.


Does the Bible support the concept of male spiritual headship? What I mean by this is a little beyond "Wives submit to your husbands."  In Joshua 7:22-25 Joshua stones and burns the entire family of Achen, including his children, after he sins by keeping back some of the loot from Jericho when God commanded it all be destroyed.  Was Joshua in sin because he did this or was this a right response?  God certainly blessed them right after this with victory over Ai.
Also Exodus 20:5-6 (NJKV) states:

...For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

On a more practical note according to a study reported in Baptist Press:

[If] a child is the first person in a household to become a Christian, there is a 3.5 percent probability everyone else in the household will follow[.]
If the mother is the first to become a Christian, there is a 17 percent probability everyone else in the household will follow.
But if the father is first, there is a 93 percent probability everyone else in the household will follow.

Does this point to a leadership of a father that goes beyond simple moral or financial and moves into the distinctively spiritual?

Yes. No. Maybe.
This is all really tied up in the idea of Federal Headship. The most obvious Scriptural example of this is Adam and Christ.
1 Corinthians 15:22

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive

This is developed a lot more in the  epistles, but the general idea is that Adam acted as a representative for all of mankind: a distinctly spiritual head. Christ of course acted as the same, working the other way.
So, the question is, to what extent does everyone after Adam carry on his spiritual federal headship?
In Genesis 22:18 God says to Moses

in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed,
because you have obeyed me voice

Paul confirms this in Galatians 3:6-7

just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as
righteousness." Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons
of Abraham.

You could make similar demonstrations for prominent biblical characters such as David, or Noah. If Noah had not "by faith" (as Hebrews said) obeyed God and made the arc, his descendants would be doomed! (Mostly because they wouldn't exist)
So there seems to be a sense in which God uses the faith of a spiritual "father" (I suppose that's why we call them the patriarchs?) to direct the spiritual status of their descendants.
And of course, how can we forget the most weighty declaration of this in Exodus 20:5-6

...for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of
the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of
those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth
generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Cultural Adaptation?
I suspect (perhaps this could be asked on Judaism.SE) that this idea of federal representativeness or headship became quickly ingrained in Jewish culture. As a result, all throughout the Old Testament families are put to death because of the sins of the father. In Numbers 16, Korah's entire household. In 2 Samuel 21, 7 of Saul's sons are put to death for his unresolved sins against the Gibeonites.
It seems, then, that while this might not always be a 100%, black-and-white, specific case, that in general the father acts as the representative for the family - be it a moral, spiritual, or any other -al issue.
And now?
In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul seems to generalize this even further:

If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to
live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband
is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made
holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean,
but as it is, they are holy. (vs. 13-14)

Regardless of what "made holy" means, there's a couple interpretations here that might support the federal headship theory:

Paul is reassuring  his audience that, even if the father (the spiritual head) is an unbeliever, his wife makes the children holy in his stead
Both parents, whether husband or wife, contribute to the child's "holiness" and so Paul is generalizing federal headship further to both parents, not just the father.

Paedobaptists like myself would say there is definitely an element in which the parents contribute to the status of their children in the covenant community:

Acts 2:39 The promise is for you and your children...

So yes, there is definitely some biblical support for this idea and I (and I suspect most Evangelicals) would agree that to some extent the Father specifically (but also the mother) have a sort of "spiritual" leadership.
But no, it's not as if every father is acting as a second Adam, determining the righteousness of his children.
So depending on what exactly you mean: yes, no, maybe so

2 Timothy 1:5 when I call to remembrance the genuine faith that is in you, which dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and I am persuaded is in you also. I see no mention of Timothy's grandfather or father in this verse. Leaving me to the conclusion that is not just a man's duty.


As Christians are we called to convert people who have no Faith in anything or Faith in different religion. Baptist/Methodist As Christians, both individually and collectively as the church, we are called to make and grow followers of Christ but when Jesus says this is he telling us to mainly target Non-religious people or people of other (non-Christian) religions. The focus is not whether we such make disciples, but whether we should focus more on the non-religious or on people of other faiths or if they should be treated the same.

I want the answer strictly from Baptist or Methodist denomination.

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,(Matthew 28:19)

"All nations" would naturally extend to refer to all people, be they atheists, Buddhists, or of any other religious (or lack of religious) beliefs. Hence, Jesus says "all."

Given that Baptists and Methodists believe that the Bible is God's word, I am confident that this applies to both denominations. However, since you specifically asked for the teaching from the Baptist or Methodist Church, here is a quote from an article from the United Methodist Church: (I chose Methodist because it's easier for me to find stuff on them for some reason.)

  "The concept of missionaries is something that many people struggle with, particularly when we are engaged in more pluralistic circles of friendship or other relationships. We don’t want to offend Muslim or Jewish friends by trying to convert them to Christianity. And we don’t want to be thought naïve or self-righteous by atheist or agnostic friends.  At the same time, we are called as United Methodists to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. We are called as Christians to share the Good News of Christ. So how do we live out our faith authentically in ways that offer an invitation to grace that meets people where they are but doesn’t leave them there?"

We’re on a Co-Mission From God

The first answer is on the right track. We get the answer from Jesus and nowhere else. I argue that what is commonly called the "Great Commission" was pronounced upon the 11, not the broader group of Jesus's Disciples. He told the 11 to "make disciples" of the goy, the Gentiles, "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded". Jesus delivered in the course of His ministry ~35 Commandments, and from the actions of the Early Church, the 2 that took precedence were to "make disciples' of whoever they encountered, and to love one another within the fledgling "brotherhood" with material Love. Hands/feet providing for the poor among them. "The world will know" by such actions who and what the people of Christ are. All the foregoing is seen in some detail in Acts 2.

"Baptists" are very diverse including a number of different denominations, with about 40% of all residing in the USA - less than half. The majority are non-hierarchical and have no complicated test of 'orthodoxy' within. Inside of the various Baptist denominations you will find Calvinist-leaning and Armenian/Free-Will adherents and Pastors, this fact complicating the answer if it is to be per-denomination. Likewise the term "Methodist" includes a number of denominations. The OP might want to clarify that part of the question. Wiki is a good-enough source for the listings of all


How do Calvinists explain Luke 19:41-44 How do Calvinists explain Luke 19:41-44:

  41 And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, 42
  saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things
  that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. 43 For
  the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade
  around you and surround you and hem you in on every side 44 and tear
  you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they
  will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know
  the time of your visitation.”

Why would Jesus weep for non-elect people if He Himself willfully passed over them when He elected people unto salvation before the foundation of the world?

John Piper passionately argues in his 2003 sermon Palm Sunday Tears of Sovereign Mercy that this doesn't contradict the doctrine of foreordination:

There is something not quite right about this objection to Jesus’ sovereignty. He can make praise come from rocks. And so he could do the same from rock-hard hearts in Jerusalem. What’s more, all this rejection and persecution and killing of Jesus is not the failure of Jesus’ plan, but the fulfilment of it.
...
The betrayal, the mockery, the shame, the spit, the flogging, the murder – and so much more – was planned. In other words, the resistance, the rejection, the unbelief and hostility were not a surprise to Jesus. They were, in fact, part of the plan. He says so. This is probably why it says at the end of verse 42, "But now they are hidden from your eyes." Remember what Jesus said about his parables back in Luke 8:10: "To you [disciples] it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God, but for others they are in parables, so that ‘seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.’" God was handing them over to hardness. It was judgment.
We have seen all this in Romans 9. The mercy of God is a sovereign mercy. "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion" (Romans 9:15). But here is the point I want you to see today: This sovereign Christ weeps over heard-hearted, perishing Jerusalem as they fulfilled his plan. It is unbiblical and wrong to make the tears of mercy a contradiction to the serenity of sovereignty. Jesus was serene in sorrow, and sorrowful in sovereignty. Jesus’ tears are the tears of sovereign mercy.
And therefore his sovereign power is the more admirable and the more beautiful. It’s the harmony of things that seem in tension that makes him glorious: "Merciful and Mighty," as we sing. We admire power more when it is merciful power. And we admire mercy more when it is mighty mercy. And, as I said, my prayer is that as you see his mercy and admire his mercy, you will become like him in his mercy.

But still, why would he be moved to tears over things that he divinely foresaw, and even ordained? It's a valid question. Reformed writers have explained it a few ways.
He wept because he was human
John Calvin's commentary says:

As to those who think it strange that Christ should bewail an evil which he had it in his power to remedy, this difficulty is quickly removed. For as he came down from heaven, that, clothed in human flesh, he might be the witness and minister of the salvation which comes from God, so he actually took upon him human feelings, as far as the office which he had undertaken allowed. ... He was God, I acknowledge; but on all occasions when it was necessary that he should perform the office of teacher, his divinity rested, and was in a manner concealed, that it might not hinder what belonged to him as Mediator. By this weeping he proved not only that he loved, like a brother, those for whose sake he became man, but also that God made to flow into human nature the Spirit of fatherly love.

John Gill says:

and wept over it; touched with a tender concern for it, his natural passions moved, and tears fell plentifully from his eyes. This must be understood of Christ merely as man, and is a proof of the truth of his human nature, which had all the natural properties, and even the infirmities of it; and as affected with the temporal ruin of Jerusalem, and as concerned for its temporal welfare; and is not to be improved either against his proper deity, or the doctrines of distinguishing grace, relating to the spiritual and eternal salvation of God's elect; things that are foreign from the sense of this passage.

Bruce Buchanan, an OPC pastor, says:

We need to appreciate Jesus as the Mediatorial Prophet, Priest, and King of his church. It is not fitting to read every statement of Jesus (who is God the Son) during his humiliation, as if he always speaks in his full capacity as the Ascended Lord, according to all his combined powers in hypostatic union, the God-Man. Frequently he speaks as the King of visible-Israel. He has come for the good of this collective portion especially; and they (the leaders, and their followers) are in process of repudiating him who is given them for a blessing. Is this not truly and objectively sad?
The Man, Christ Jesus, is fully capable of appreciating how that rebellion and sin had blinded the eyes and hearts of so many pitiful people, who above all the rest of the people on earth had one of the most extraordinary opportunities to repent and believe in God's saving Promise, and yet refused to do so, and prevented others from doing so; Mt.23:37, "...and ye would not." I cannot think why such an epic tragedy should not wring tears of grief, of sorrow, of frustration, of rage from the heart of One who had a clearer understanding of how this all must eventuate than anyone around him.
Here is One perfectly aware of how the wrath of God will be earned by this "city," by her leadership and by those who persist in identifying with them. He also knows that their blindness is willful, self-chosen. Just because one man's participation is ordained by God and certain, does not mean that he does not also choose and embrace his destiny. This is just that difference between predestination and fatalism. The latter presumes a foiled free-will whose better aims were deflected, and whose better hopes were dashed.
If we only allow a Jesus who always sublimates his ordinary human feeling into a perfect expression of resignation and repose in the ultimate aims of the godhead, then we actually have a less-than-human Christ. We have no explanation for Jesus in Gethsemane. We do not have a sympathetic High-Priest, because his temptations were meaningless. We do not have One who weeps at the door of a tomb from which he intends to summon a dead man to life in mere minutes.

He wept to teach us to weep
Matthew Henry says:

That Jesus Christ wept in the midst of his triumphs, wept when all about him were rejoicing, to show how little he was elevated with the applause and acclamation of the people. Thus he would teach us to rejoice with trembling, and as though we rejoiced not. If Providence do not stain the beauty of our triumphs, we may ourselves see cause to sully it with our sorrows.

Piper, in the sermon quoted earlier, says:

First, Jesus’ mercy is tenderly moved. He feels the sorrow of the situation. This doesn’t mean his sovereign plan has wrecked on the rocks of human autonomy. It means that Jesus is more emotionally complex than we think he is. He really feels the sorrow of a situation. No doubt there is a deep inner peace that God is in control and that God’s wise purposes will come to pass. But that doesn’t mean you can’t cry. ...  Jesus felt enough compassion for Jerusalem to weep. If you haven’t shed any tears for somebody’s losses but your own, it probably means you’re pretty wrapped up in yourself. So let’s repent of our hardness and ask God to give us a heart that is tenderly moved.

He wept so that later he might rejoice
Alan Strange, an OPC pastor, says:

Jerusalem was a mixed multitude containing both reprobate and elect, although many of the elect had not then come to Christ and would do so only at and after Pentecost. ... Given that many Jews will be gathered in, there is no small sense in which our Lord's compassion expressed here will have Jerusalem's deliverance in some sense as its fruition.

Similarly, Gill's commentary, quoted earlier, refers to Isaiah 66:10:

Rejoice with Jerusalem and be glad for her, all you who love her; rejoice greatly with her, all you who mourn over her.

Because he was human?

Jesus wept over Jerusalem, but he was also amazed, appalled, in wonder, surprised, astonished, and couldn't get over the unbelief that his fellow Nazarenes exhibited (see Mark 6:6). Underlying all these descriptors is a particular kind of emotion, but it is only one of many which Jesus experienced, and a careful study of the Gospels will bear this out.

Your suggestion there is a connection between Jesus' emotional response to Jerusalem's unbelief and God's unconditional election of those who believe is tenuous at best. I would go so far as to say there is a disconnect between the two.

God is a God of emotion. Jesus as the God-Man experienced emotions of all kinds and gradations. Theologians talk about the impassability of God, and some of them suggest that God is incapable of any emotional response to the affairs of humankind, whether they be good or bad, praiseworthy or blameworthy, righteous or unrighteous. To be capable of such emotions, they claim, contradicts God's immutability; that is, his inability to change. After all, or so their reasoning goes, how can God be the same "yesterday, today, and forever" and at the same time be affected emotionally by anything that occurs in the finite human realm?

While I am loath--not to mention fearful and trepidatious--to involve myself in a discussion of God's emotion and his impassability, I'll at least suggest that their is no contradiction between the two. Jesus, the God-Man, experienced all the emotions a human being can experience, apart from sin of course. I refer not just to obvious ones such as sorrow, righteous indignation, and love and affection, but I refer as well to less obvious emotions and gradations of emotions, including ambivalence, a classic example of which is found in Jesus' experience in the Garden of Gethsemane just prior to his death. With great angst and trepidation Jesus pled with his Father,

  "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt" (Matthew 26:39 and 42; Mark 14:36; and Luke 22:42).

Jesus knew that humankind--well, from a Calvinist perspective, the elect--had no hope of salvation apart from his atoning and substitutionary death on the cross, yet he still pleaded for that bitter cup of suffering to be taken from him. Moreover, the intense emotion he experienced prior to his crucifixion caused him to sweat great drops of blood (see Luke 22:44).

In conclusion, Jesus' weeping over Jerusalem was just another indication that Jesus was

  ". . . despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him" (Isaiah 53:3 NASB).

Jesus' reaction to being despised and forsaken was sorrow and grief. No wonder he wept over Jerusalem, the city whose very name, ironically, means peace (salem). Because Jerusalem rejected their Prince of Peace, it will never cease being a city in conflict, that is until Jesus returns in great glory, power, and majesty to the city which once rejected him, but which will welcome him gladly with open arms.

  "Lift up your heads, O you gates; be lifted up, you ancient doors, that the King of glory may come in. Who is this King of glory? The LORD strong and mighty, the LORD mighty in battle. Lift up your heads, O you gates; lift them up, you ancient doors, that the King of glory may come in. Who is he, this King of glory? The LORD Almighty-- he is the King of glory" (Psalm 24:7-10 NIV; see also Psalm 102:12-22).


Can a priest give a Mass in American Sign Language (ASL)? What does he do when he is supposed to lift up the Eucharist while speaking in ASL? Part of the mass involves the priest lifting up the Eucharist and saying the following aloud:

  Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of the world. Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb.

In the event that the priest is saying the mass using English
sign language (as opposed to saying it in a verbal language and having an interpreter repeating his words in sign language), what does he do? He can't both hold up the Eucharist and say the words with his hands. Does he lift up the Eucharist, set it down, and then say those words? Does he do the opposite? Is there some other way this situation is to be handled?

(I'm guessing that there's an answer somewhere in canon law, since surely someone has run into this situation).

Yes, a priest can give a mass in American Sign Language (ASL)

Fr. Edward McNamara wrote an extensive article for the organization ZENIT about the validity of sign language at mass, specifically using sign language during the consecration and not vocally pronouncing the words.

Sign language is certainly permitted for the liturgy

First, Fr. McNamara first answers the general question of whether or not sign language can be used in liturgy, and he cites Notitiae, the official magazine of the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

  Whether the language that is called « gestural » (sign-language) can be employed in the celebration of the liturgy for the deaf?

  In the affirmative. For it is the only system by which the deaf can truly actively participate in the sacred liturgy. As a matter of fact, to certain Conferences of Bishops that asked, the Most Blessed Father recently (14 Dec. 1965) kindly granted that the language that is called « gestural » can be employed in the celebration of the liturgy for the deaf, whenever a pastoral reason suggests it, in all the parts which are said in the vernacular language. The celebration can be ordered like this:

  The readings are conveyed to the congregation through signs.
  With respect to participation in the other parts which regard the people:

  a) what is pronounced by the celebrant alone, he himself at the same time pronounces the words and likewise conveys them by gestures; the people respond with gestures;
  b) in the parts which are to be said together by the celebrant and the people, e.g., the Gloria, the Credo, the Sanctus-Benedictus, the Agnus Dei, etc., the faithful follow the signs of the celebrant through gestures.

  —Notitiae 2 (1966): 30-31 no. 95

There does not appear to be an official statement explicitly addressing validity during consecration, but consensus among canonists is that it is valid

  However, it does not answer our reader’s precise question regarding validity, and, although there have been some good theological reflections on this topic and some serious canonical studies, I have been unable to find a definitive official declaration that would close the debate.

  Renowned canonist Dr. Edward Peters has published several studies on this topic and proposes a positive conclusion with respect to the sacramental validity of sign language. There are other theological studies which reach similar conclusions from the dogmatic standpoint. Unfortunately, most of these studies do not appear to be available online.

The Dr. Edward Peters he mentions maintains "A Bibliography of Deaf Catholic Sources and Studies", which include some of his own works that I believe Fr. McNamara is referencing.

What other evidence is there that this is permitted?

Fr. McNamara states that dioceses in the United States have dedicated Deaf Ministries that celebrate mass in American Sign Language, and defers to their authority in being able to do so. Beyond that, he gives several reasons that he concurs with Dr. Edward Peters' opinion:

Deaf priests have been ordained since 1977, and some of them are unable to verbally speak

I personally reached out to the coordinator of the Deaf Ministry in the Archdiocese of Baltimore about this question, and he cited this point as one of the pieces of evidence that it was valid:

  For your information, there are more than 10 Deaf men who have been ordained priests. In fact, one was ordained by St. John Paul II himself. I am not a canon lawyer and cannot address all of the fine details related to canon law. However, I think we would have to assume that priests would not be ordained if it was known that they would be unable to celebrate the Mass.

Indeed, if the Pope himself has ordained a deaf priest, it's hard to argue that it's invalid to do so.

Various forms of sign language are considered true languagess

This argument declares that sign language is essentially a vernacular language. Fr. McNamara explains:

  A second argument stems from the nature of sign language as a true language. Although obviously connected to the language of the country where the person lives, sign language is not just a paraphrase of the local spoken tongue but a true language with its own grammar, structure, and syntax. Many thousands of people use it as their ordinary means of communication and are capable of expressing the full range of human intercourse.

Assertions against giving the mass nonverbally appear to be exhortations against “verbum mentis”

Expanding on this point, Fr. McNamara writes:

  It is true that traditional sacramental theology required vocalization for the sacramental form. This was one reason why deafness, along with many other physical impairments, was considered as an impediment to ordination. This would be the position found in most theological manuals.

  However, the closest we can come to an official pronouncement that vocalization is essential to validity is an assertion of Pope Pius XII who, with remarkable foresight, affirms the necessity for a concelebrant to speak the words of consecration.

  However, in this case, the Pope was asserting the invalidity of the “verbum mentis,” the simple mental or interior repetition of the sacramental form with no exterior sign. Thus a celebration by a priest who does not open his mouth but only reads interiorly the prayers would be invalid.

  This is not the case of the use of sign language which is not “verbum mentis.” In this case, the deaf priest is truly pronouncing the words of consecration, even though he is using visible and not audible words.

There is no official translation of the Latin Missal into sign language

Due to sign language being a relatively recent invention, and there not being a standardized way to write it down in print, an official translation has not been developed. However, he contrasts using unofficial translations with a priest paraphrasing prayers (something that is forbidden).

  Even though the use of sign language is approved, there is still no official translation of the Latin Missal into sign language. Since sign language is such a recent phenomenon in the liturgy it will probably require some years to develop some of the more technical vocabulary and incorporate it into worship. A formal missal is probably even further away as there is not yet a fully standardized method for writing sign language, even if such a book is deemed necessary at all.

  Since sign language is a different language it cannot be compared to the situation of a priest who commits the abuse of paraphrasing the official prayers. A possible, albeit admittedly unsatisfactory, analogy for simultaneous speaking and signing would be the situation of observing a papal Mass on television in which the commentator reads the prayers from the English missal while the Holy Father is celebrating in Italian.

So how does the priest raise lift up the Eucharist while performing the mass in sign language?

In this video of an ASL mass, the priest holds up the Eucharist and says the words one-handed if able to.

When needing to hold both the Body and Blood, it appears that he says the the words before elevating it (you will notice that he changes the page of the liturgy book afterwards).

It seems like there is an alternative method if there is more than one priest. This mass (described in a news article here) involved the celebrant (i.e. primary priest) signing the words while the other priest elevated the Body and Blood.

I imagine that most other sign language masses are performed in this way, although given how these are relatively new, I imagine that this might be formally clarified in the future.

The words of consecration must be spoken with the priest's larynx, not signed/gestured in a sign language. Such an "ASL Mass" (Deaf Mass with Fr. Mike Depcik) is certainly invalid, meaning that Christ is not present after the attempted consecration; they must be avoided.

The Council of Trent, Session 22, Doctrina de ss. Missae sacrificio, 17 September 1562 (cited in GIRM fn. 13) anathematizes those who think

  Canon IX.— […] that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone [submissa voce], is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only [such as ASL]

It also says (Chapter V. On the solemn ceremonies of the Sacrifice of the Mass.) that

  holy Mother Church instituted certain rites, to wit, that certain things be pronounced in the mass in a low [summissa], and others in a louder [elatiore], tone [voce].

This teaching was also taught by Pope Pius VI in his bull Auctorem Fidei condemning the heretical Council of Pistoia[DZ 1533]:

  The proposition of the [heretical] synod [of Pistoia:] […] "[…] by expressing it [the liturgy] in the vernacular language, by uttering it in a loud voice"; […]—rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favorable to the charges of heretics against it.

How can someone using ASL pronounce something in a low/quiet voice (summissa voce) vs. a louder voice (elatiore voce)?

Also, mute/dumb priests are irregular, meaning they cannot execute their priestly office (due, in this case, to a bodily deformity or defectus corporis; cf. canonist Dom Augustine on can. 984).


What is the Catholic explanation as to why God has revealed himself in "male" terms? The Catholic Church teaches that God is neither man nor woman.

  CCC 370 In no way is God in man's image. He is neither man
  nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the
  difference between the sexes. But the respective "perfections" of man
  and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those
  of a mother and those of a father and husband.

What therefore is the Catholic explanation as to why God has revealed himself in "male" terms?

The Catechism has

Christ's true body
476 Since the Word became flesh in assuming a true humanity, Christ's body was finite.112 Therefore the human face of Jesus can be portrayed; at the seventh ecumenical council (Nicaea II in 787) the Church recognized its representation in holy images to be legitimate.113
477 At the same time the Church has always acknowledged that in the body of Jesus "we see our God made visible and so are caught up in love of the God we cannot see."114 The individual characteristics of Christ's body express the divine person of God's Son.

Scripture has a number of relevant references:

For to what angel did God ever say, "Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee"? Or again, "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son"? — Heb 1:5
I will be his father, and he shall be my son. When he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men; but I will not take my steadfast love from him... — 2 Sam 7:14
I will be his father, and he shall be my son; I will not take my steadfast love from him... — 1 Chr 17:13
I will tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to me, "You are my son, today I have begotten you." — Ps 2:7

Given that throughout scripture God has revealed the Messiah as His Son, the individual characteristics of Christ's body express the divine person of God's Son.
That would not be particularly understandable by mortal man if God's Son was female, so He chose to make it easy.

112 Cf. Council of the Lateran (649): DS 504.
113 Cf. Cal 3:1; cf. Council of Nicaea II (787): DS 600-603.
114 Roman Missal, Preface of Christmas I.

The quick answer to your question is that God did not refer to himself in male terms the writers of the books of the Bible did.

  Genesis 1:26 through 28 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27  So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28  Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

What we see in the above scripture is God creating his image in both male and female form.

The writers of the books of the Bible were almost exclusively men. And since women were considered the weaker sex, it only follows that the men would refer to the center of all power as being male.


What is the scriptural basis for gluttony being a sin? Gluttony is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. What is the scriptural basis for it being a sin at all (much less a severe enough sin to be a deadly one)?

Vices (Capital / Deadly Sins) are opposed to Virtues

Soundbyte answer (scripture)

  Sirach 18:33 Become not a glutton and a winebibber with nothing in your purse.

Scripture supporting the virtue of Temperance, which is Gluttony's opposite:

Esther 1:7 Esther 1:8 ; Proverbs 23:1-3 ; 25:16 ; Daniel 1:8 Daniel
1:12-16 ; Romans 13:14 ; 1 Corinthians 9:25 1 Corinthians 9:27 ;
Philippians 4:5 ; 1 Thessalonians 5:6-8 ; 1 Timothy 3:2 1 Timothy 3:3
1 Timothy 3:8 ; Titus 1:7 Titus 1:8 ; Titus 2:2 Titus 2:3 Titus 2:12
; 2 Peter 1:5 2 Peter 1:6; Sirach 37: 28-30

Reasoning based on scripture for why a vice (for example gluttony) is a sin.

Most of the scriptural support for that position relates to temperance (ample citations in both OT and NT).  Since gluttony is in opposition to temperance, and temperance is a virtue, and temperance is amply cited in scripture as how one should behave, then gluttony is framed as a sin, though its character as a sin becomes a matter of degree.

The Definition of Sin

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

The four cardinal virtues taught from the Roman Catholic perspective are:
prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance.  (CCC 1805; Wisdom 8:7)  Scripture supports Temperance as a virtue.  To directly oppose virtue is to pursue or to commit (or to be predisposed to commit) sin.

Note: gluttony may be classified a venial sin, rather than as a mortal sin.  It's being "deadly" or "capital" is not negated by that classification.  Like other venial sin, it predisposes one to sin in general. In due course, this is believed to lead to more serious (mortal) sin.

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

To put that in modern jargon, some sins (mortal) put you in the waiting line to get into Hell.  Without an explicit turning back to God, repentance, baking or broiling is in the cards.  Lesser sin (venial) puts you on the highway to hell, but there is more time or hope for a detour (through Christ, reconciliation, repentance, penance, prayer, etc) to turn around.  (From the older meaning of repentance, which is "to turn again, toward God" -- the connotation being that you turned away from God through sin in the first place).

Confusion in terms.  Mortal sin ("sin unto death") is the condition or state wherein life {eternal life, life with God} is either voided, at risk, or in some way a first class ticket to damnation.  What is now referred to as capital sin (to avoid confusion, I suppose, from deadly sin meaning mortal sin) may not necessarily be deadly (mortal) but it also may be.  (For example, another vice, lust can be or can lead to mortal sin per Jesus' admonition about those who lust after another's wife already being adulterers ...)

A variety of scripture on avoiding sin (to whatever degree) is folded into the tradition of classifying the seven deadly sins / seven capital sins.  (This answer is confined to the Catholic perspective. @DickHarfield has provided some historical context on the origins of this belief: the Catechism cites the same tradition).

What are vices? (Capital / Deadly sins)

  V. The Proliferation of Sin
  CCC 1865 Sin creates a proclivity to sin; it engenders vice by repetition of the same acts.  This results in perverse inclinations which cloud conscience and corrupt the concrete judgment of good and evil. Thus sin tends to reproduce
  itself and reinforce itself ...
  CCC  1866 Vices can be classified according to the virtues they oppose, or also be linked to the capital sins which Christian experience has distinguished, following St. John Cassian and St. Gregory the Great. They are called "capital" because they engender other sins, other vices.  They are pride, avarice, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth or acedia.

Gluttony as a deadly sin (Capital sin)

The vice (capital sin/deadly sin) of gluttony is opposed to the virtue of temperance.  It is considered a capital sin because it leads to sin and near occasions of sin.  Why?  Focus in earthly/fleshy/material things, things of the world, rather than focus on God. (1 John 2:6-17, per @Marc's citation).

What is temperance?

  CCC 1809 Temperance is the moral virtue that moderates the attraction of
  pleasures and provides balance in the use of created goods. It ensures the will's mastery over instincts and keeps desires within the limits
  of what is honorable.  The temperate person directs the sensitive
  appetites toward what is good and maintains a healthy discretion: "Do
  not follow your inclination and strength, walking according to the
  desires of your heart."  (Sirach 5:12) Temperance is praised in the Old
  Testament: "Do not follow your base desires, but restrain your
  appetites." (Sirach 18:30)  In the New Testament it is called "moderation" or "sobriety." We ought "to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this
  world. (Titus 2:12)"

Given the virtue presented, avoidance of the opposed vice follows.  When temperance is not pursued, sin will follow.

An example from the book of Sirach.

  Sirach 18:30
  27 A wise man is circumspect in all things; when sin is rife he keeps himself from wrongdoing.
  28  Any learned man should make wisdom known, and he who attains to her should declare her praise;
  29  Those trained in her words must show their wisdom, dispensing sound proverbs like life-giving waters.
  30  Go not after your lusts, but keep your desires in check.
  31  If you satisfy your lustful appetites they will make you the sport of your
  enemies.
  32  Have no joy in the pleasures of a moment which bring on poverty redoubled;
  33  Become not a glutton and a winebibber with nothing in your purse.

An example from the epistle to Titus 2:11-14

  11 For the grace of God has appeared, saving all  12 and training us
  to reject godless ways and worldly desires and to live
  temperately, justly, and devoutly in this age,   13 as we await the blessed hope, the appearance* of the glory of the great God and of
  our savior Jesus Christ,   14 who gave himself for us to deliver us
  from all lawlessness and to cleanse for himself a people as
  his own, eager to do what is good.

(Lawlessness implies sin / vice)

A "deadly" sin may be, or may lead to, mortal sin.  It's a matter of degree.

Gluttony is at least (as a vice) a venial sin.  Self indulgence is believed to lead to other sin due to focus on the flesh/world, away from God.  It can go from deadly to mortal depending on whether a person indulges themselves in it.  It remains capital/deadly in the sense that it leads us in the wrong direction, which ultimately (if left uncorrected) can only lead to one place: damnation.

A crude physical analogy:
There are varying degrees of physical danger (analog for sin) via ingestion.

Heavy drinking/alcoholism (venial) can lead to death, but there is
time, for all the wrong that it does, to reverse the trend. It may also lead to drunk driving and either killing one's self, or killing someone else. (mortal sin).
Drinking hemlock (mortal) leads straight to death.

(note l) In love, we pray (1 Jn 5:16–17) for those who are in sin, but not in deadly sin (literally, “sin unto death”), probably referring to apostasy or activities brought on under the antichrist;

The Biblical Basis is the basis of all sin, a thread woven in Scripture throughout Salvation history and outlined in 1 John.  Especially in 1 John 2 below.

  “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.”  1 John 2:6-17

This Three-fold transgression is the same transgression expressed in the account of Genesis and the fall.

  “6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.   Genises 2-6

These sins, which The Apostle addresses represent the Nature of what sin is, Lust of eyes, lust of the Flesh, Pride of Life.   When we look at Gluttony, and apply it to that first description  Lust of the Flesh, the reason fo it becomes clear, when we hoard for ourselves we ignore the mostly the needs of others, especially those in need.  When so many people are Hungry and we gorge ourselves in   food as a glutten does, it is an insult to God.

In Catholic teaching, we overcome these things by doing those things that Christ commands that we do.

Deny the Lust of the Flesh (Fasting)

Deny the lust of the Eyes (Alms giving)

Deny the Pride of Life (Prayer, a death blow to Pride)

To suggest that the seven deadly sins are not biblical is ignorance of Scripture, of a denial of what it teaches.

Related to this topic is:

CORPORAL WORKS OF MERCY

SPIRITUAL WORKS OF MERCY

In short, the way the Church teaches to overcome the Thrice Transgressions of Adam & Eve, is to do just the opposite, showing love, rather than Ego.  Love being a complete and Total Self Offering to God or Other people as instructed by Christ.  Gods example of this love is the Cross, Not a Penalty transferred to our lord, but a perfect self offering Of Christ to The Father for our sakes, the perfect example of humility, which, as Christians we are to emulate to the best of our ability.


Was Billy Sunday the first evangelist to equate the "altar call" with salvation? According to this article from the The Society for Effective Evangelism:

  Up until Billy Sunday, altar calls were invitations for seekers to come to an after-meeting or inquiry room where counselors would help people understand their heart condition. These ministers worked in concert with the Holy Spirit to help seekers repent and yield to God, and to pray that God would save them. Someone was saved only when they were born again—when the Holy Spirit came into them. Conversion and being born again meant the same thing.

Of course, I've been to many Christian events that feature altar calls and even more where the speaker simply asks non-Christians to "pray the Sinner's Prayer" with them.  I assumed the practice went back at least to Revivalists such as Charles Finney, but according the the article, evangelists before Sunday provided individual counseling before telling people they were saved.

Is there any evidence the practice of "salvation by altar call" is older than Sunday?

The altar call predates Billy Sunday, though possibly not by that name.

Charles Finney pioneered many evangelistic methods in the 1820s and 1830s, including what he called the "anxious seat" or "anxious bench", where sinners could come forward to receive instruction and counseling.

William and Catherine Booth, founders of the Salvation Army, used similar techniques—although they renamed the "anxious seat" to the "mercy seat". Like Finney, the Booths considered the altar call to be just the first step toward salvation.

  Sometimes people would stay there all night, and on a few occasions, even a few days, weeping and confessing their sins with broken hearts. There were always some who would stay right there to instruct them further, encouraging them to make a clean sweep of sin from their lives.

Dwight Moody began having altar calls after the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 killed more than 300 people and destroyed Moody's church building, just after he had preached about repentance.

  Moody asked his congregation to evaluate their relationships to Christ and return next week to make their decisions for Him. That crowd never regathered. While Sankey was singing a closing song, the din of fire trucks and church bells scattered them forever, for Chicago was on fire. The Y.M.C.A. building, church, and parsonage were all to be lost in the next 24 hours.

After the fire Moody vowed never to delay in asking his listeners to make a decision for Christ. Moody, however, stressed that the altar call itself did not bring about salvation.

  It is not our work to make them believe. That is the work of the Spirit … I cannot convert men; I can only proclaim the Gospel.

However, by insisting that they make an immediate decision, Moody began to blur the line. At least one reporter understands Moody's methods to imply a connection between the altar call and salvation.

  Moody was quick to point out that only the Spirit awakens sinners, and the individual’s trip to the altar is simply a sign marking one’s salvation.

So it's fair to say that no preacher prior to Billy Sunday explicitly equated the altar call with salvation, but it's possible that the "immediate decision" that Dwight Moody asked of his listeners could have been understood that way.

People have been going to the alter in one form or another since the days of Abraham, when John and Jesus were baptizing the Jordan was a form of alter. Throughout history spiritual leaders have been calling their congregations to approach and receive blessings, salvation, communion, etc...  whatever you want to refer to it as being, it is ultimately one thing, the physically committed entrance into the presence of God, a conscious willful act of obedience, an effort to be known by your Father, to be blessed with the covering of His Spirit, acknowledge His existence, accept His offer of relationship and begin to know His LOVE... :)