What is the biblical basis for the Covenant of Redemption? In Covenant Theology the Covenant of Redemption is an eternal agreement made between the members of the Trinity in which the Son of God agrees to become incarnate and die for the the sins of God's people. In return the Father promises to raise the Son back to life and glorify him.

What is the biblical basis for this idea? Answers do not have to show that the Bible uses the term 'covenant' to talk about this, but should show that this agreement was made before time began.

The Covenant of Redemption in the Bible

  Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being
  in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be
  grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a
  servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance
  as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death
  on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave
  him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every
  knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,  and
  every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God
  the Father.

  Philippians 2:5-11 (NIV)

Here we see the outworking of the Covenant of Redemption. Jesus humbled himself to "death on a cross" and "therefore God exalted him." We see the same sort of thing in John 17. Jesus brings the Father glory, therefore the Father will bring him glory:

  I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to
  do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had
  with you before the world began.

  John 17:4-5 (NIV)

Jesus says these sorts of things all throughout John. It's also in Isaiah 53:

  Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and
  though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his
  offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper
  in his hand. After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light
  [of life] and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will
  justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. Therefore I will give
  him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the
  strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered
  with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made
  intercession for the transgressors.

  Isaiah 53:10-12 (NIV)

Psalm 2* speaks of the glory given to Christ as decreed by the Father:

  I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, "You are my
  Son; today I have become your Father. Ask of me, and I will make the
  nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. You
  will rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like
  pottery." Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the
  earth. Serve the LORD with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the
  Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath
  can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

  Psalm 2:7-12 (NIV)

Before time began

But when was this agreement made? If it's spoken of by David and Isaiah, it's at least as old as the time of David. But was it made before time began? The reformed say yes. R.C. Sproul articulates the reformed position this way:

  The Bible speaks often of God’s eternal counsel, of His plan of
  salvation and the like. It is a matter of theological urgency that
  Christians not think of God as a ruler who ad libs His dominion of the
  universe. God does not “make it up as He goes along.” Nor must He be
  viewed as a bumbling administrator who is so inept in His planning
  that His blueprint for redemption must be endlessly subject to
  revision according to the actions of men. The God of Scripture has no
  “plan b” or “plan c.” His “plan a” is from everlasting to everlasting.
  It is both perfect and unchangeable as it rests on God’s eternal
  character, which is among other things, holy, omniscient, and
  immutable. God’s eternal plan is not revised because of moral
  imperfections within it that must be purified. His plan was not
  corrected or amended because He gained new knowledge that He lacked at
  the beginning. God’s plan never changes because He never changes and
  because perfection admits to no degrees and cannot be improved upon.

Are there verses to support this idea? Yes. In 2 Timothy, Paul says that God saved us by giving us grace in Christ Jesus "before the beginning of time"**:

  So do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord or of me his
  prisoner. Rather, join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the
  power of God. He has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because
  of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace.
  This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time,
  but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior,
  Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and
  immortality to light through the gospel.

  2 Timothy 1:8-10 (NIV)

Lastly, Ephesians 1 brings together all the themes previously discussed. We see God purposing to reveal the mystery of his will to us "before the creation of the world" by bringing all things together "under Christ."

  Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has
  blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in
  Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be
  holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for
  adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his
  pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has
  freely given us in the One he loves. In him we have redemption through
  his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of
  God’s grace that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding,
  he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good
  pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the
  times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven
  and on earth under Christ.

  Ephesians 1:3-10 (NIV)

Additional Resources

Of Christ the Mediator | Westminster Confession***
The Covenant of Redemption between the Father and the Redeemer | John Flavel (1627-1691)
What Is the Covenant of Redemption? | Ligonier Ministries
Is there a biblical basis for the Covenant of Redemption? | Monergism.com

* Psalm 2 is considered a messianic psalm in the Christian tradition, especially by the reformed, and it seems hard to argue against that given the way it's used in Hebrews 1.

** I almost included Revelation 13:8 at this point. The verse was discussed on BH.SE and this translation was suggested: "All those who live on the earth worshiped it, anyone whose name has not been written in the scroll of life (which belongs to the slain Lamb) since the world's founding." The more traditional "lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world" would be a more convincing addition to this post, but I think even the translation given by Mark Edward works to support the point. After all, names were written in the scroll of life since the world's founding, and their being there depends on the lamb being slain. Hence the names must have been written before the foundation of the world with the knowledge of Christ's future sacrifice.

*** B. B. Warfield called covenant theology the "architectronic principle" of the Westminster Confession, but it's not universally agreed that it teaches the Covenant of Redemption. Chapter 8: Of Christ the Mediator is cited by those who believe it supports the concept. Very few would dispute that it supports the Covenant of Grace or Covenant of Works, however.

Addendum: The Covenant of Redemption is really threefold. The question captured two of its aspects, that of the Son dying and Father glorifying him, but equally important is the Father's promise to send the Spirit. This answer focused on the aspects that the question did, but if you want to understand the Covenant of Redemption, it's important to note the sending of the Spirit.

I would like to add to the thought.

The covenant's beginning:

  Psalm 2:7-9: I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

Continuing the thought:

  Hebrews 1:5: For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Father and Jesus covenanted that they will have a Father and Son relationship

Next:

  Psalm 40:6-8: Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.

Jesus pledged to come to this world as a substitute (sacrifices and offerings thou did not desire)

Next:

  Zechariah 13:7: Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.

Jesus will be cut off by God

Next:

  Zechariah 6:12,13: And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD: Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.

Peace shall be between God and Jesus - once the ransom has been made

Next:

  His flesh is consumed away, that it cannot be seen; and his bones that were not seen stick out. Yea, his soul draweth near unto the grave, and his life to the destroyers. If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to shew unto man his uprightness: Then he is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit: I have found a ransom. His flesh shall be fresher than a child's: he shall return to the days of his youth: He shall pray unto God, and he will be favourable unto him: and he shall see his face with joy: for he will render unto man his righteousness... He will deliver his soul from going into the pit, and his life shall see the light. Lo, all these things worketh God oftentimes with man, To bring back his soul from the pit, to be enlightened with the light of the living. Job 33:21-26, 28-30

Now God can justify sinners because of the ransom

Next:

  Daniel 7:9,10,13,14: I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.... I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

    Psalm 110:1: The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

The kingdom is then turned to Christ that He can be King of kings and Lord of lords

PS: Jesus raised from the Grave by His own power. The phrase "God raised Him up" denotes that God took responsibility for it.

Jesus says:

  John 10:18: No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

"This commandment have I received of my Father" - This explains plainly why the scripture asserts that God raised Jesus.

Consider the following to make it more clear:

Jesus had to accomplish the work of salvation alone:

  Isaiah 63:5: And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me.

Jesus' own arm brought salvation to Him

Death was the enemy Christ came to defeat:

  Hosea 13:14: I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.

  If Christ had not overcome death by Himself (overcoming death = resurrection) then by no means could He ransom others. If He Himself could not defeat Death, but needed help from another (Father) then how can He promise others that He will ransom them from death?

Jesus clearly says: "I am the resurrection and life"


Is the Vulgate the official version of the bible for entire Catholic Church, or just the Latin Church? The Latin Vulgate is considered to be the official version of the bible of the Roman Catholic church. I'm wondering if this means it is only the official version of the Roman Catholic Church, or does it include the Eastern Catholic Churches as well.

If it is only the official version of the Latin church, do the individual Eastern Catholic Churches have their own official versions as well? (Eg. Perhaps the official Melkite version is the Septuagint, while the official Chaldean version is the Peshitta etc)

The 4th Session of the Council of Trent on the Canonical Scriptures authorized "the old Latin vulgate" as the official edition of the whole Church:But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been preserved to be read in the Catholic Church (prout in ecclesia catholica legi consueverunt), and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.The phrase I emboldened shows that no new books can be introduced int the canon of Holy Scripture.

"the said books" are:

  Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggæus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle.

It is not just the canon (books) but the translation itself of "the old Latin vulgate" that is free from error, as Pope Pius XII writes in his 1943 encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu §21:

  this special authority or as they say, authenticity of the Vulgate was not affirmed by the Council [of Trent] particularly for critical reasons, but rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries; by which use indeed the same is shown, in the sense in which the Church has understood and understands it, to be free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals; so that, as the Church herself testifies and affirms, it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching; and so its authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as juridical.

Thus, Eastern Catholic rites, too, must recognize "the old Latin vulgate edition" as free from error. This does not mean, though, that all rites cannot use other editions.

I believe that the Pope Pius XII' Encyclical, Divino Afflante Spiritu dispenses with the notion that the Vulgate is in some sense the official version of the Bible for any jurisdiction subject to the Pope.  The Encyclical states (para 22):

  Wherefore this authority of the Vulgate in matters of doctrine by no
  means prevents - nay rather today it almost demands - either the
  corroboration and confirmation of this same doctrine by the original
  texts or the having recourse on any and every occasion to the aid of
  these same texts, by which the correct meaning of the Sacred Letters
  is everywhere daily made more clear and evident. Nor is it forbidden
  by the decree of the Council of Trent to make translations into the
  vulgar tongue, even directly from the original texts themselves, for
  the use and benefit of the faithful and for the better understanding
  of the divine word, as We know to have been already done in a laudable
  manner in many countries with the approval of the Ecclesiastical
  authority


Biblical basis for non-practice of Kiss of Peace The "Kiss of Charity", "Holy Kiss", or Kiss of Peace is instructed several times in the New Testament, for example:

1 Peter 5:14 (KJV): Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity.
2 Corinthians 13:12 (KJV): Greet one another with an holy kiss.

But as far as I can tell, this is not widely practiced in Protestant denominations. I find some (mostly historical) references to Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Anabaptist practice but not much elsewhere.
Is there a basis in Biblical interpretation for Protestant rejection of this instruction as globally applicable? Or is it simply something that fell out of practice due to cultural differences?
Further background:
Catholic Encyclopedia entry:

at the present day the Pax is only given at High Mass, and is hardly anywhere communicated to the congregation. The celebrant kisses the corporal spread upon the altar (he used formerly in many local rites to kiss the sacred Host Itself) and then, placing his hands upon the arms of the deacon, he presents his left cheek to the deacon's left cheek but without actually touching it. At the same time he pronounces the words Pax tecum (Peace be with thee); to which the deacon replies, Et cum spiritu tuo (And with thy spirit). The deacon then conveys the salute to the sub-deacon, and the subdeacon to the canons or clergy in the stalls.

Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia entry:

...the "conservative" conferences such as Old Order Amish Mennonites, Old Order (Wisler) Mennonites, Church of God in Christ, Mennonites (Holdeman), Reformed Mennonites, and Conservative (Amish) Mennonites maintained either an absolute or a greater relative separation from all other groups and influences... As the Christian salutation it was practiced almost universally among all members, lay as well as ministers, except in the Conservative (Amish) Mennonite Conference where it was only practiced between brethren and ministers at the invitation of the ministers.

I have actually seen some Protestant churches like Assembly of God practicing this Holy Kiss but not very often. It depends on the pastor of the church. There is no rule for practicing Holy Kiss in many Protestant churches whether it should be practiced or not. Some encourage it, some ignore it. An example of encouraging Greeting of any form in Assembly of God.

  Greeting is often regulated by cultural acceptance and practices.
  Today, we embrace/hug, shake hands, pat backs or give high fives.
  There are not too many practices, even a kiss on the forehead or
  cheek, that are frowned upon as long as they reflect a genuine and
  godly spirit.  Don’t miss out on opportunities to express your
  appreciation, thankfulness and love for others. (source)

Greeting each other by kissing is a Jewish custom. They kiss the cheek or mostly on forehead, depends on your relationship with the person but never on the mouth and not between opposite sex. (More information on Jewish Greeting)

In the New Testament also, we see an example of Jewish greeting by kissing, the famous kiss of betrayal called Kiss of Judas.

  While he was still speaking a crowd came up, and the man who was
  called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus
  to kiss him, but Jesus asked him, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of
  Man with a kiss?”  (Luke 22:47-48, NIV)

Holy Kiss was indeed encouraged by the Apostles, who happened to be Jews, but it is not clear whether this Jewish custom should be continued by Christians or not. The most important message the Apostles left us is that Christians should love each other and greet whenever we meet.

  Whether or not the holy kiss should be a tradition we carry on today
  is not clear in Scripture. Whether or not our salutations to our
  brothers and sisters in Christ include the holy kiss, the important
  thing is that our greetings spring from real love and friendship, be
  characterized by sincerity, and represent true Christian fellowship.
  (source)

Its an obvious metaphor for simply greeting each other. There's no literal kiss commanded. Its just like:

  Psalm 85:10 Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other.

Not to mention, if it were literal, we wouldn't know what it was. Was it blowing a kiss? a kiss on the forhead? on the cheek? on the mouth? or was it a hand-sign (the peace sign) as I believe it is in some traditions?  If there was any literal practice, it was purely cultural, and certainly is not binding on us today.

From an article called 10 Things I Wish I’d Known Before Entering an Orthodox Church:

  Kissing in the Church.
  Alright, I know what you’re thinking. The Orthodox church is supposed to be super strict…how then can we allow kissing at church?  The reality is we kiss stuff. It’s an expression of love- sincere affection. We kiss icons, the relics of saints, and a priest’s hand when greeting him. We even kiss each other shortly after the sermon during the liturgical service. You’ll hear the deacon say “Greet one another with a holy kiss…” (1 Peter 5:14). It’s not a secret handshake that only Coptic people know, don’t worry; just follow the lead of those around you: both palms touching with thumbs crossed over each other, touch the hands of your neighbor and then kiss your own hand. Repeat.

If its really a handshake, then clearly the "kiss" part is a metaphor.


Why did Cardinal Ratzinger stop supporting a literal interpretation of creation in Genesis? I read that Cardinal Ratzinger stated the story in Genesis 1 and 2 should not be interpreted as a literal account of the beginning of things. In spite of recent events like this, they have always been in favour of a literal explanation of creation based on Genesis. This is what I read. Why does Ratzinger hold this view on such an important matter?

Ratzinger writes at such length as to obscure the point, in my opinion.  If you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 283 (2nd ed.), the reasoning is spelled out in a brief and clear form:

  The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the
  object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our
  knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of
  life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to
  even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us
  to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and
  wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can
  say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know
  the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for
  wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."

That is, they recognize and appreciate the value of scientific studies for the information they yield about matters including the history of the universe and life on earth.  This is entirely consistent with their stance that faith and reason can never truly be in conflict (CCC 159):

  Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be
  any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who
  reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason
  on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever
  contradict truth."37 "Consequently, methodical research in all
  branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly
  scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict
  with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of
  faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering
  investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the
  hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all
  things, who made them what they are."

In this case, the scientific evidence against a literal reading of Genesis is so overwhelming that if truth cannot contradict truth, it suggests that the error is to read Genesis literally.  I do not know why it took so long for the Catholic Church to recognize this, but the current position is internally consistent and reasonable.

If they were to continue to insist on a highly literal interpretation, they would have had to drop their position on discrepancies and simply state that faith wins.  That would have been a much larger doctrinal change than maintaining (as they do, to my understanding) that Genesis 1 and 2 is spiritually accurate without being a literal account of all events.

More on this topic can be found in a large number of places, including here.

This is because Ratzinger professes that the Bible was constructed from pagan sources and therefore he doesn't think its true or take it literally,

Ratzinger, A New Song for the Lord, 1995, p. 86:

  The pagan creation accounts on which the biblical story is in part based...”

If the biblical creation account in the book of Genesis is based in part on pagan creation accounts, then it is neither original nor inspired directly by God. It's heresy and another reason he is not a Catholic, and was not a Pope.  He was the head of the counterfeit Catholic Church set up in the last days prophesied by Our Lady of LaSalette, Pope Leo XIII, Our Lady of Fatima, and The Book of Revelation.


According to Catholicism, can the saints be given the title "co-mediator of Grace"? If Mary is "Mediatrix of all Graces" is it possible to say the saints are "Mediators of certain graces", according to Catholicism?

E.g., the patron saint of finding lost things is a co-mediator who specifically dispenses the grace of finding lost things.

Mediation is a relative term. That is you can't mediate something from yourself to someone else per se. For example, Christ mediates between God and man (being Himself both).

Thus, any of us can mediate (go between or relay something/be the instrument of confering something to someone else):

  1 Timothy 2:2

  First of all, then, I urge that petitions, prayers, intercessions,
  and thanksgiving be offered on behalf of all men for kings and all
  those in authority, so that we may lead tranquil and quiet lives in
  all godliness and dignity.

Mary is said to be Mediatrix of all graces in a relative sense, since she is only said to mediate from Christ to the rest of us.

[That Mary is Mediatrix of all graces is not as yet Catholic dogma; and it is very much debated among Catholics—you may believe or not believe Mary is Mediatrix of all graces, although it would be prudent, seeing the consistency with which it has been taught, to consider it something worthy of belief—it has not been definitively settled by the Magisterium/teaching authority of the Church. This quasi dogma is closely linked to Mary's being Co-Redemptrix (see below), and so many who reject this her being Co-Mediatrix with Christ also reject the former.]

For example, Pope Leo XIII said:

  ...it be also affirmed that, by the will of God, Mary is the intermediary
  through whom is distributed unto us this immense treasure of mercies
  gathered by God, for mercy and truth were created by Jesus Christ.
  Thus as no man goes to the Father but by the Son, so no man goes to
  Christ but by his Mother. §

§ Leo XIII, Encyclical on the Rosary Octobri mense, September 21, 1891

But Blessed Pope Pius IX implies Mary is not exclusively the only Mediatrix, only that she is the ultimate, you could say, "among women":

  ...with her only-begotten Son,* is the most powerful Mediatrix and
  Conciliatrix in the whole world †

† Pius IX, Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854. [the same papal document defining the Immaculate Conception of Mary]

[note mine—1 Timothy 2:5]

This is powerful stuff. Note that he is speaking objectively. Like how Abraham didn't know he was actually going to the Father but through the Son. You mustn't strictly be aware that God has thus arranged the economy of His grace, but accept it once known.

She doesn't breach or usurp Christ's ultimate Mediatorship a) because 'usurp' implies a certain violence or a hesistance or reluctance or unwillingness to share your perogative, which we do not know Christ does with Mary, and expect that for His blessed mother He loves her much indeed b) that she is Mediatrix does not imply she doesn't need the grace from God & c) nowhere is it implied she can 'go past' Christ to get grace from God the Father: thus she is only an instrument of Christ (in a more loving way than that sounds).

Mary is an aqueduct which God has chosen, freely, to channel His graces through. Simply out of love, and in His eternal wisdom.

"Is it possible to say the saints are "Mediators of certain graces", according to Catholicism?"

In every way, yes. But they are not the exclusive mediators of any grace. Any more than Christ cannot chose to grant graces to anyone He wishes in an otherwise fashion than through His beloved mother, which we hold with a pious faith that He is not wont to do.

But yes, because if this is the case that God gives all His graces through Mary, then the saints may be the special mediators for certain graces, but only to a relative degree: no saint has a monopoly over one kind of God's graces.

Appendix

Mary as Co-Redemptrix

This is closely linked and is very much analagous to the other doctrine of Mary's being Mediatrix with Christ, of all graces.

The core underlying link is that Mary is the Eve to Christ the New Adam:

Adam utlimately was responsible for the Fall.

Christ, called in Scripture "the Last Adam," was utlimately responsible for the Redemption.

Adam renames the Woman "Eve" ('Life') because "she was to be the mother of all the living," Christ, who exclusively called His mother "Woman," and named her "mother of all the living" in Christ: "behold thy mother" (Rev 12:1,5,17).

Etc.

But Eve did play a part in the Fall. She "instigated" it or in any event without her it might not have played out the same way. Thus Mary is viewed as a major part of God's plan in the Redmption. Mary "encourages" or "instigates" Christ's ministry and ultimate Redemption of mankind in asking Him to 'start the timer,' as it were, on His Passion and death by working His first miracle at Cana: Eve began the work of the first Adam, Mary began the work of the "Last Adam," Jesus Christ.

Scripture records that Mary also suffered by way of "sword" through her soul. Which doesn't sound very nice: that's because being hoyl and knowing that her Son was divinely holy, and innocent, nonetheless watched as His precious blood dripped down His unrecognisable body. And we believe that her sufferings God put into a kind of 'treasury', as all sufferings of good people do, wherefrom God can bestow them justly on others who said saints are willing that they should be bestowed.

Thus Mary's sufferings,though absolutely inferior and categorically separate from that of Jesus', may be, in a real way, the difference between some people getting graces for her sake than if she had not suffered. So she contributes for certain sinners a mini passion. Not to be diminished in reality, but, out of protection of the uniqueness and absolute superiority of Jesus' Passion, we ought to be very careful in speaking about.

Thus, they are kind of 'in it together' at the Garden, Adam and Eve. And there is a certain continuity with Christ and Mary, except Mary is not God or divine in any way, but she wants only what Christ wants and so to ask of Mary is to ask Christ. Because He won't refuse her anything nor do anything for her which would breach His justice. yet He is happier and more glad to fulfill the request of His mother as aparticularly exemplary "spiri[t] of the righteous made perfect".

Thus she is the greatest advocate for us with Christ for graces, and thus with God.

The term Mediatrix in itself could refer to either the objective redemption (the once-for-all earning a title to grace for all men), to the subjective redemption (the distribution of this grace to individual men), or to both. It is most usual to use it to refer only to subjective redemption, i.e. , the process of giving out the fruits of the objective redemption, throughout all centuries. We must consider whether or not the term Mediatrix applies to all graces or only to some. We will ask also about the nature of the mediation: is it only by way of intercession, that is, does Mary simply pray to her Son that he may give us grace, or does God also use her as an instrument in distributing grace.

To begin, we can say without doubt that the title "Mediatrix" is justified, and applies to all graces for certain, by her cooperation in acquiring all graces on Calvary.

The Second Vatican Council (Lumen gentium ## 61-62), said:

  ... in suffering with Him as He died on the cross, she cooperated in
  the work of the Savior, in an altogether singular way, by obedience,
  faith, hope, and burning love, to restore supernatural life to souls.
  As a result she is our Mother in the order of grace.

  This motherhood of Mary in the economy of grace lasts without
  interruption, from the consent which she gave in faith at the
  annunciation, and which she unhesitatingly bore with under the cross,
  even to the perpetual consummation of all the elect. For after being
  assumed into heaven, she has not put aside this saving function, but
  by her manifold intercession, she continues to win the gifts of
  eternal salvation for us. By her motherly love, she takes care of the
  brothers of her Son who are still in pilgrimage and in dangers and
  difficulties, until they be led through to the happy fatherland. For
  this reason, the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the
  titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adiutrix, and Mediatrix. This however
  it to be so understood that it takes nothing away, or adds nothing to
  the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator. For no creature
  can ever be put on the same level with the Incarnate Word and
  Redeemer...."

more here


Were we to remain in the Garden of Paradise forever if Adam had not sinned? I read this statement from the Catholic resource. Q. 255

A. We were not to remain in the Garden of Paradise forever even if
Adam had not sinned, but after passing through the years of our
probation or trial upon earth we were to be taken, body and soul, into
heaven without suffering death.

What is this teaching based on within the Catholic Church?
There is a similar question and the answer that coincides with this statement mentions Genesis 3:22

Then the LORD God said: See! The man has become like one of us,
knowing good and evil! Now, what if he also reaches out his hand to
take fruit from the tree of life, and eats of it and lives forever?

But I can't really see how that verse says we were not meant to stay in the paradise.

There are two considerations here. First is that Catholics do not view the creation story as strictly literal. When we talk about the "garden of Eden', that certainly could have been a real place, but more importantly, it is symbolic of the harmonious existence humans held with the qualities of original justice, original holiness, the preternatural gifts, and the supernatural gifts. Were we to remain trapped in a walled off garden forever? No. Did God intend for us to enjoy the aforementioned gifts He gave us in the beginning for our entire extent in this world? Yes.

Second, one of the many titles Catholics give to Mary is "New Eve" because Mary embodies everything Eve meant to be before she chose against God. Mary is held to never have died;however, she is not here on Earth either. Catholics hold that Mary, after her time on Earth, was assumed body & soul into Heaven. It is reasonable to believe that had Eve never sinned, she and Adam would also been granted Heaven and spared death.

In short: that resource is correct with respect to Catholic beliefs.

Since it's very hard, if dang near impossible, to get a Catholic answer on this,  I think the musings of a couple priests will have to suffice.
Bullet point one
Either I or my wife asked a priest once how long Adam and Eve stayed in the garden of Eden and he said it was only a few hours, long enough for Adam to name everything, take a nap, get major surgery and for God to create Eve.  So clearly if they were supposed to stay there forever, they didn't even come close.
Bullet point two
Paradise (i.e. the Garden of Eden) might not be the "Walled Garden" from the Song of Songs.

Paradise is a relationship! Notice that St. Paul when he was taken up to paradise doesn’t talk about what he saw. He talks about what he heard.  Paradise was a fairly common word beyond its religious use. There were lots of “paradises.” Paradise was originally an Iranian word that meant a walled enclosure. It came to mean the garden in which a king could walk with his friends without the formality of the court in which his every word was law. It was a place of friendship, of intimate conversation. In the Bible it came to mean the garden of Eden where God walked in friendship with Adam and Eve. Paradise is about the relationship, not the real estate. In effect, Jesus said to St. Dismas, the good thief, “Today you will walk with me in my royal enclosure as my friend.”
Reverend Know it All

so you may ask how an Angel could guard a relationship, and I can't answer that.
But, I think the answer is yes, we were to remain in a close relationship with God if not for the Fall, but no we weren't supposed to necessarily remain in one walled garden.


Is man God's greatest creation? I know there is a verse that states this I will edit it in after I will find it.

But also we have these verses:

  Psa 8:4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man,
  that thou visitest him?  Psa 8:5 For thou hast made him a little lower
  than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

So we know God created both angels and men but here it states man are created "lower" than angels.

So in what aspects are men God's greatest creation. Power, intelligence ?

Or can this be interpreted as the reason for which men is the "crown" of his creation ?

The way I interpret this passage

  Psa 8:4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man,
  that thou visitest him? Psa 8:5 For thou hast made him a little lower
  than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

God is the God of all creation. Jesus IS also God who dwelt among men (John 1). He lowered his status as God himself to dwell among men and die for them. That's what it is referring to being made lower than the angels.  The angels are up in heaven.  Men are down here on the earth.

  Phil 2:5-8  -  Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
  6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not a thing to be grasped to be equal with God: 7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the
  form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became
  obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

As for the specific question about is man God's greatest creation I would says yes absolutely.

God didn't send Jesus to die for Angels, or plants or animals.  He didn't become a horse when he came to live among men.  He became a man.  We were made last on the earth for a reason.  It was because in the beginning everything on the earth was made for man to enjoy.  Only man is made in His image and we were the ones who were given dominion over the earth.

  Gen 1:27-28  27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful,
  and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion
  over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every
  living thing that moves upon the earth.

It's very simple. The verse comes from the Hebrew Tanakh, not English. The text says God made us a little lower than Elohim, God, Himself. We were made higher than the angels.


What does the curse on the serpent mean? When God cursed the Earth He also cursed the serpent.

  Genesis 3:14 NASB

  The Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life;

Is the serpent specifically Satan? If not, is there a practical outworking of this curse seen in serpents today? We surely see the other curses of labor pains in childbirth and toilsome labor.

The curse continues with its most important point

  And I will put enmity   between you and the woman, and between your offspring[a] and hers; he will crush[b] your head,   and you will strike his heel.”

This is thought to mean Jesus (enmity) will crush serpent's head (defeat death), after Jesus suffers (heel struck).

I think it is sin. Sin causes you to fall and have a struggling life whether rich or poor. No matter where you stand. But sin is there trying to device even though you know you shouldn't do certain things. So biblically we see that everyday. Don't be the serpent.


Is it hypocritical for Paul to circumcise Timothy in Act 16:3? Acts 16:1-3 (NASB)
   1 Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, 2 and he was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

The answer could be right here 'because of the Jews who were in the those parts', however, it seems hypocritical especially given other texts like Galatians 5, where he is harshly admonishing the Galatians who were even thinking about getting circumcised, presumably (and similarly) because of the Jews as well.

  Galatians 5:2 (NIV)
  Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be
  circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.

The answer is perhaps best given in 1 Corinthians 9:20-23 (emphasis added):

  To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

Paul understood, as did Peter (See Acts 10 and Cornelius), that they were no longer bound by the Jewish law. Peter saw that he should no longer call unclean what God considered clean. This specifically included pork and unclean animals.

So, before God, Timothy did not need to be circumcised. However, if your target audience involves Jews, to whom the "uncircumcised" were deplorable, then it is appropriate to be circumcised for the sake of the hearers. Paul said that he became as Jew to win the Jews.  He became weak to win the weak, etc.

Hudson Taylor followed this example as a missionary in China as he donned the clothing and hair style of the Chinese, thereby identifying with them culturally.

So, again, it is appropriate to not offend those with whom you wish to share the gospel, so that what is unimportant does not become an unnecessary stumbling block to your hearers.

just before Paul circumcised Timothy he had an argument with Barnabas about where to go next with John Mark...If he argued with the 12 and then with Barnabas why do we think he Knew what he was doing... He was making it up as he went... He argued that the 12 with James as leader wanted Gentiles to follow the law and the BRIT of circumcision but then he makes Timothy get the very cut they wanted.
If this is Paul becoming all things to WHO?  Is He to the Jews or to the Gentiles, he should leave the Jews to the 12 but he does not he goes with timothy to the Jews?


Is there a Christian basis for using garlic, crosses, and holy water against evil? In popular culture, it is believed that holy objects, such as garlic, crosses, and holy water, can protect against evil, like vampires. Also, Caleb's response to this question inspired me to ask whether or not using those things (garlic, crosses, and holy water) have any legitimate basis in Christian practice, or whether or not they are merely idols and only part of the fictional world.

In Catholic Tradition and culture, vampires only exist in scary novels/movies, and garlic is only used for seasoning delicious meals.

However, crosses, holy water, and various other holy objects and gestures can be ordained by the Church as sacramentals.

Sacramentals are material objects, things or actions (sacramentalia) set apart or blessed by the Roman and Eastern Catholic Churches, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Church of the East, the Anglican Churches, the Independent and Old Catholic Churches, and the Lutheran Churches to manifest the respect due to the sacraments, and so to excite pious thoughts and to increase devotion, and through these movements of the heart to remit venial sin, according to the Council of Trent (Session XXII, 15).

Sacramentals are sacred signs which bear a resemblance to the sacraments. They signify effects, particularly of a spiritual nature, which are obtained through the intercession of the Church. By them men are disposed to receive the chief effect of the sacraments, and various occasions in life are rendered holy.

  The characteristics of sacramentals

  Sacramentals are instituted for the sanctification of certain
  ministries of the Church, certain states of life, a great variety of
  circumstances in Christian life, and the use of many things helpful to
  man. In accordance with bishops' pastoral decisions, they can also
  respond to the needs, culture, and special history of the Christian
  people of a particular region or time. They always include a prayer,
  often accompanied by a specific sign, such as the laying on of hands,
  the sign of the cross, or the sprinkling of holy water (which recalls
  Baptism).

  Sacramentals derive from the baptismal priesthood: every baptized
  person is called to be a "blessing," and to bless. Hence lay people
  may preside at certain blessings; the more a blessing concerns
  ecclesial and sacramental life, the more is its administration
  reserved to the ordained ministry (bishops, priests, or deacons).

  Sacramentals do not confer the grace of the Holy Spirit in the way
  that the sacraments do, but by the Church's prayer, they prepare us to
  receive grace and dispose us to cooperate with it. "For well-disposed
  members of the faithful, the liturgy of the sacraments and
  sacramentals sanctifies almost every event of their lives with the
  divine grace which flows from the Paschal mystery of the Passion,
  Death, and Resurrection of Christ. From this source all sacraments and
  sacramentals draw their power. There is scarcely any proper use of
  material things which cannot be thus directed toward the
  sanctification of men and the praise of God." (CCC 1668-1670)

The Rituale Romanum clearly defines the order in which a priest or deacon may bless a sacramental. Sacramentals such as crosses, holy water, and blessings are employed during most rituals in the Catholic Church.  These rituals range anything from Baptism (which itself is a protective exorcism) to weddings to demonic exorcisms.

About exorcisms...

Yes, the Catholic Church performs hundreds of real exorcisms every year. Demonic possession in the Church is very real, and sacramentals have been used since apostolic times to battle evil spirits.

But don't be fooled by over-blown Hollywood concoctions of "head-spinning" myths and "green vomit" superstitions about how the Catholic Church supposedly performs exorcisms.

The most realistic and accurate portrayal one will find of how the Catholic Church performs the rite of exorcism is The Rite with Anthony Hopkins.

  When the Church asks publicly and authoritatively in the name of Jesus
  Christ that a person or object be protected against the power of the
  Evil One and withdrawn from his dominion, it is called exorcism. Jesus
  performed exorcisms and from him the Church has received the power and
  office of exorcizing. In a simple form, exorcism is performed at the
  celebration of Baptism. The solemn exorcism, called "a major
  exorcism," can be performed only by a priest and with the permission
  of the bishop. The priest must proceed with prudence, strictly
  observing the rules established by the Church. Exorcism is directed at
  the expulsion of demons or to the liberation from demonic possession
  through the spiritual authority which Jesus entrusted to his Church.
  Illness, especially psychological illness, is a very different matter;
  treating this is the concern of medical science. Therefore, before an
  exorcism is performed, it is important to ascertain that one is
  dealing with the presence of the Evil One, and not an illness. (CCC
  1673)

The Catholic Encyclopedia says about sacramentals:

  One of the most remarkable effects of sacramentals is the virtue to
  drive away evil spirits whose mysterious and baleful operations affect
  sometimes the physical activity of man. To combat this occult power
  the Church has recourse to exorcism and sacramentals. Another effect
  is the delivery of the soul from sin and the penalties therefor. Thus
  in the blessing of a cross the Church asks that this sacred sign may
  receive the heavenly blessing in order that all those who kneel before
  it and implore the Divine Majesty may be granted great compunction and
  a general pardon of faults committed.

Its important to recognize that sacramentals, such as crosses and holy water, are not magical.  They are not idols.  They are simply material objects that are connected to the heart of the Church (the 7 sacraments instituted by Christ) via the ordaining power of the Holy Spirit and are entrusted to the priesthood of all believers for both edification and protection.

All sacramentals draw their power from Jesus Christ...who is God.

And from my personal experience, garlic is only effectively used when its sprinkled on buttered toast.

Garlic, crosses and "holy water" have absolutely no place in the christian's spiritual life. Only Christ should have any influence upon the believer. As the Spirit, He resides in them to be their life. All these outward signs i.e crosses, "holy" water etc., do absolutely nothing to advance the spiritual growth or perfecting of the genuine christian. Only Christ Himself can do that. Trusting in anyone or anything else is a waste of time.


Holiness of Mary and Joseph Often in stain glass and other art, both Mary and Joseph are seen to have the 'halo' around them that also surround those of saints.

I was once told (by I think my religion teacher) that for Jesus, the son of God, to be born, he had to be born of parents possessing the holiness of God. Other than Jesus having to be of the house of David, were they any other requirements (preferably with a reference)? Or is this a distortion?

Also, if this was true, that only those with the holiness of God could parent His son, would that not require that all their parents before them have the same requirements to birth them?

Also, another thing I find interesting is I believe (as do my parents) is that we all possess the holiness of God, as we are all God's children with no favorites. While our decisions in this life effect our outcome in the after life, if not this one, does it in any way effect how God effects our lives other than our lack of letting him?

Sorry if I went off topic a bit with some additional questions, but if any of these are possible duplicate would love the link.

The Catholic Church has a uniquely developed perspective on this question. It is a dogma of the Catholic faith that Mary was immaculately conceived -- or in the words of Pope Pius IX:

  We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that
  the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception,
  by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of
  the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was
  preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed
  by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the
  faithful

The Pope lays out the arguments from Scripture and Tradition in the 1854 document from which that quote is drawn, Ineffabilis Deus. But to briefly address your questions from a Catholic perspective:

Yes, Mary is uniquely holy among mere human beings -- and I use the word "mere" to distinguish her from Jesus, who is human but also divine and so uniquely holy among human beings in a different way.
By the same token Mary is uniquely favored. See especially Luke 1:28, 1:30, 1:42 and 1:48, which all seem to indicate fairly clearly (whatever one thinks about the dogma of the Immaculate Conception) that Mary holds a special place in God's providence and is worthy of our special attention.1
No, there is not an infinite regress of ancestors of Mary who would themselves have needed to be just as holy -- she was personally and individually given a unique grace.
St. Joseph, being the spouse of Mary and the adoptive father of Jesus, is held in greet esteem in the Catholic Church -- Scripture attests his righteousness unequivocally, and after Mary he would have known the Lord more intimately than anyone else, at least in an earthly sense.
But Joseph is not on the same level as Mary, who is called in a true sense the mother of God. As the Wikipedia article nicely explains it, summarizing what the Council of Ephesus taught in the year 431 (principally to combat the error of Nestorius about the person of Jesus): "her son Jesus is one person who is both God and man".

1 For less clear but still evocative indications of Mary's special role, see Luke 2:35, John 2:5, and Acts 1:14. And then there are texts that have additional significance if one already accepts the Catholic perspective, such as John 19:26-27 and Revelation 12:1-6.

I believe that the Catholic Church exalts Mary above her true status. first, she is not the mother of God; she is the mother of the earthly incarnation of God, which is a very different thing. God Almighty has always existed, and created all things. (Maybe a small point, but an important one) Second, Jesus Himself did not give her special status; in Luke 11:27-28, a woman says, "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you", and He replied, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and do it." (NIV) Third, there is a movement in the Catholic Church, which I have heard referred to as the Cult of Mary, which teaches that Mary is equal to Christ in granting salvation, and we can pray only to Mary and be saved. (Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa both believed and promoted this) There is nothing in Scripture that even hints at this as a doctrine. Jesus said (John 14:6, NIV),"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." He did not say "Mom and me." Mary is important, but we need to be careful not to give her a status she does not deserve.


By what process did the miraculous conception of Jesus occur? Is there an official position in Roman Catholic doctrine about the following: when Jesus was conceived, was it from an egg cell of Mary fertilised in a supernatural way, or did Jesus's embryo directly appear in Mary's womb?

The official Catholic doctrine on the matter is in accord with a commonly held belief among nearly all Christians that Jesus was conceived within a virgin, and that the process by which this occurred was a mystery and a miracle. The heresies of the Psilanthropists and Adoptionists are notable early exceptions, and modern criticisms of the doctrine come nearly exclusively from non-Christian sources.

ReligiousTolerance.org says it nicely,

  The Anglican Communion, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestant faith groups and Roman Catholicism have taught the "virgin birth," although the term "virgin conception" would be much more accurate. This has long been one of the Christianity's foundational beliefs, along with the inerrancy of the Bible; the God's inspiration of the authors of the Bible; the atonement, resurrection, and the anticipated second coming of Jesus, etc. All of the commonly used major ancient church creeds have also mentioned the virgin birth.

Specifically, the official doctrine of the Catholic Church is summarized in paragraph 497 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church,

  The Gospel accounts understand the virginal conception of Jesus as a divine work that surpasses all human understanding and possibility: "That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit", said the angel to Joseph about Mary his fiancee. The Church sees here the fulfillment of the divine promise given through the prophet Isaiah: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son."

The Catechism also gives the following in the third statement of the Apostle's Creed, in reference to Christ,

  He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.

Since the understanding of biological organisms and human reproduction did not include cellular phenomenon until the microscope was invented (the spermatozoid was first discovered in 1677 by Anton van Leeuwenhoek and the ovum in 1827 by embryologist Kart Ernst Von Baer) it is not possible for such a detailed  scientific description of the event to have been posited until long after the canonical doctrines were established.

Even so, possible mechanisms of the virgin birth have been discussed in a paper published in Science & Christian Belief  by R. J. Berry. The abstract from that paper states,

  The Bible describes Jesus as being born to Mary ‘by the power of the Holy
  Spirit’, implying (although not stating) that the Spirit was his father. This has been rejected by some as an unnecessary doctrine, separating Jesus from
  the rest of humankind and dependent on an intrinsically incredible miracle.
  Such an objection is wrong: some form of distinctiveness like a Virgin Birth
  is theologically required if Jesus is to be divine as well as human, and there
  are several mechanisms by which the virgin birth of a male child could
  occur. The reason for recognising these is not to suggest that God
  necessarily used any of them, but simply to point out that apparent
  scientific difficulty should not determine the acceptability of a theological
  concept.

The paper not only discusses hypothetical mechanisms of spontaneous development of male children in human females, but also gives a nice overview of the development of the doctrine in the church and a history of its opposition, mostly from outside of the Christian Church. I expect that reading that article will complement this answer to address your question more completely.

As far as I know, the previous answer is correct to say that the Church has no official position on this question. But here's a little evidence in favor of Christ being conceived from an egg cell of Mary. A prayer attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas, available at http://lordcalls.com/dailyprayer/prayer-before-the-reception-of-holy-communion ,
refers to "... the Body of Thine only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, which He took of the Virgin Mary ...."  (I don't know whether St. Thomas had more to say about this in his theological writings.)


What parts of Protestantism accept that there are some on earth who 'smite the earth with plagues' till the end of time (Revelation 11:6)? And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth. And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed. These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.
[Revelation 11:3-5, KJV]

This passage makes reference to Moses turning the waters of Egypt to blood, to Elijah deliberately praying for an extensive three and a half year long drought in the Mediterranean region and to Elijah also calling down fire from heaven to consume troops of soldiers sent by a king to apprehend him.
What parts of Protestantism accept that such men still walk the earth, perhaps not in every generation, but from century to century and that these 'have power ... to smite the earth with plagues' ?
And what parts of Protestantism accept that such men will continue to be seen to the end of time, since their duration is 1,260 days which is three and an half years ( or 'weeks' in the prophetic aspect) and since that length of time prophetically indicates the duration of the Church Age from the ascension of Christ until his triumphant return ?

When it comes to interpreting Revelation in general, and those 4 verses in particular, I consulted a book where the Protestant author classifies 4 main ‘types’ of interpretation. He explains what he means by those ‘types’ at the start of his book, summarized on the cover jacket as: “PRETERISM: most prophecies were fulfilled during the time of the Roman empire.  HISTORICIST: the prophecies have been fulfilled throughout history and are still being fulfilled today.   FUTURIST: most prophecies are yet to be fulfilled.  SPIRITUAL (or Symbolic or Idealist): most prophecies portray ongoing cosmic conflict of spiritual realities and may have many fulfilments throughout history.”

For the various Christian authors he quotes and their sources, please consult the book “Revelation – Four Views – A Parallel Commentary” edited by Steve Gregg, page xiii (Nelson, 1997).  My compilation comes from pages 226 to 233. But as it really is the Futurist and Spiritual interpretation groups of Protestants who hold largely (though not entirely) to the views you ask about, I will only state some of their views.  If you would like to have similar notes I compiled on the other two groups, please just let me know and I will e-mail them to you.

“The Futurist” view taken by Walvoord claims that the 1,260 days of verse 3 says that as “the two witnesses pour out divine judgments upon the earth and need divine protection lest they be killed, it implies that they are in the latter half of the seven years when awful persecution will afflict the people of God… The punishments and judgments the witnesses inflict on the world also seem to fit better in the great tribulation period.”  Others with that general view (Lindsey, Morris and Ryrie) differ regarding the time period, thinking it is the first one, adding that it seems to be the coming of the beast onto the scene in power that terminates their witness.

Most Futurists take the 2 witnesses to be actual men who will arise to prophesy in Jerusalem in the Tribulation.  Some think they will be Moses and Elijah themselves.  Others think that it is Elijah and Enoch (the view of the earliest apocryphal writers and the early exegetes of the church, a view shared by modern writer Henry Morris.)  On the other hand, Mounce writes, “It seems more likely… that they are not two individuals but a symbol of the witnessing church in the last tumultuous days before the end of the age.”

Others think that two individuals are the principal interpretation of the expression, but also leave room for the possibility of including a larger group of witnesses in the picture, including Gaebelein: “Perhaps the leaders would be two great instruments, manifesting the spirit of Moses and Elijah, endowed with supernatural power, but a larger number of witnesses is unquestionably in view here.”  Ladd takes this approach as well, allowing that Possibly there is a blending of the symbolic and the specific in the passage. He believes the witnesses to be two “actual historical eschatological personages who will be sent to Israel to bring about her conversion.” He elaborates that the two witnesses may indeed represent the witness of the church to Israel throughout the age. This witness, however, will be consummated in the end time by the appearance of two Christian prophets, who will come in the spirit of Moses and Elijah, even as John the Baptist came in the spirit of Elijah.

This is apparently Ironside’s position as summarized by Charles Ryrie thus, “…this much is certain (1) They are persons, for all the other times that the word ‘witness’ is used in the NT it is used of persons. They are not movements or powers, but individual persons. (2) It is also certain that they are not named in the text, and this writer feels that the case should be left there. These are two exceptional witnesses raised up by God during the Tribulation and preserved by Him until their ministry is completed.” Walvoord comes to a position similar to Ryrie: “It seems far preferable to regard these two witnesses as two prophets who will be raised up from among those who turn to Christ in the time following the rapture.”

“The Spiritual” view holds that the two witnesses represent the witnessing church throughout its entire career. Hendriksen says, “These witnesses symbolize the Church militant bearing testimony through its ministers and missionaries throughout the present dispensation.”  Regarding the miracles, Leon Morris writes, “God’s servants in the new dispensation have just as great resources as did Moses and Elijah in the old.” The deadly fire pictures those setting out to destroy them being undone.  Lenski writes that “the word in the mouth of the Lord’s prophet-witnesses may be scorned but it is not an empty sound. Its judgments are fire that devours its enemies.” The failure of Julian the Apostate to reimpose paganism in the ‘christianized’ Roman Empire is cited as an example.

I have not sorted out any particular denominations these various authors belong to, and it might be fair to say that within all the denominations they represent, there will be some people with differing views.

I think referring to Moses turning the waters of Egypt to blood is false. God turned the water to blood. Moses was following Gods instruction in each plague. Moses was the one who relayed the message through to Pharaoh from God in all cases. Moses did not tell or ask God to perform the plagues.

This is like saying a news reporter caused the CV lockdown because he/she brought the news out of the briefing room from the President or Prime Minister to us.

Elijah was no different, he followed the instructions of God in the same way, telling Israel and its king what God had told him to say. In fact, the opposite occurred. Elijah was the one who’s prayer for rain was recorded in detail, despite the word of God saying it would rain. Like the prayer of Daniel, who in similar circumstances was experiencing the punishment meted out in his people for their sins, and at the end of the 70 years was praying that God would relent, the recorded prayers of Elijah was for rain. Both knew that Israel continued to sin against God, and both prayed on their behalf for relief.

Men of God are those who intervene between God and man on behalf of humanity.

Did Elijah pray for drought? Yes, under instruction from God. Did Moses stretch out his rod over the water? Yes, under instruction from God.

The two witnesses you refer to are different. These are the two Testaments, the Old Testament and the New Testament. They are not people.

There are parts of your question where I can see you faithfully follow the Protestant Historicist Interpretation uncovered by the early reformers, but other parts follow Futurism. Note that Preterism and Futurism were revived in the Counter Reformation to counteract the Historicist school of the reformers which pointed to the Roman church as the persecuting beast of Revelation and Daniel.

Futurism also relates to Premillennialism and Dispensationalism, which from parts of your question I read that you prescribe to. Examine the prophecies carefully and try to follow the reformers steps in deciphering the prophecies.

Support

The OP tells me I am splitting hairs in ascribing the plagues to God not to men. Here from Exodus 3:18-20 where God speaks to Moses from the burning busy and says as follows:

  “The elders of Israel will listen to you. Then you and the elders are
  to go to the king of Egypt and say to him, ‘The Lord, the God of the
  Hebrews, has met with us. Let us take a three-day journey into the
  wilderness to offer sacrifices to the Lord our God.’ But I know that
  the king of Egypt will not let you go unless a mighty hand compels
  him. So I will stretch out my hand and strike the Egyptians with all
  the wonders that I will perform among them. After that, he will let
  you go."

From chapter 7:4 God again is recorded as instructing Moses as follows:

  "Then the Lord said to Moses, “Pharaoh’s heart is unyielding; he
  refuses to let the people go. Go to Pharaoh in the morning as he goes
  out to the river. Confront him on the bank of the Nile, and take in
  your hand the staff that was changed into a snake. Then say to him,
  ‘The Lord, the God of the Hebrews, has sent me to say to you: Let my
  people go, so that they may worship me in the wilderness. But until
  now you have not listened. This is what the Lord says: By this you
  will know that I am the Lord: With the staff that is in my hand I will
  strike the water of the Nile, and it will be changed into blood."

So the question here is, is the OP correct in saying "These men actively caused the events to occur."

I read it as saying these men followed the instructions of God, but it was clearly God actively causing the events to occur. I do not believe that God requires the compliance of men in order to perform any deed. Nor do I believe that any man can perform these deeds without the instruction of God.

The men were there to give the meaning of the events, to record the hand of God in action. God worked through them, as when Moses struck the water of the Nile, to show to all present, and to all future, that it was indeed Him that sent the men.


What is the Catholic Church's view of Anne Catherine Emmerich - can her visions and prophecies be trusted? What is the Catholic Church's view of Anne Catherine Emmerich - can her visions and prophecies be trusted? Is she a true prophet by the biblical standard?

(This question has been prompted by the comments to the answer to What did the serpent look like?)

Please see the link below. In a nutshell, at present the Church distinguishes between the writings attributed to her (which the Church acknowledges may have been done by someone else who then put Emerich's name to those writings) and Emerich herself, her life being one of extraordinary virtue (hence her beatification as a blessed).

Source: Catholic Answers.

At any rate, the Church holds that private revelations, such as those that have been attributed to Emerich, are never binding on Catholics and do not add to the Deposit of Faith in Scripture.

This vision from Anne Catherine Emmerich is heretical because it states that there are pagans in Purgatory, which is contrary to Catholic Faith

  ”I next saw our Lord, with his triumphant procession, enter into a
  species of Purgatory which was filled with those good pagans who,
  having had a faint glimmering of the truth, had longed for its
  fulfillment: this Purgatory was very deep, and contained a few demons,
  as also some of the idols of the pagans. I saw the demons compelled to
  confess the deception they had practised with regard to these idols,
  and the souls of the poor pagans cast themselves at the feet of Jesus,
  and adored him with inexpressible joy: here, likewise, the demons were
  bound with chains and dragged away. I saw our Saviour perform many
  other actions; but I suffered so intensely at the same time, that I
  cannot recount them as I should have wished.”

  Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex
  cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and
  preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only
  pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in
  eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared
  for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church
  before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical
  body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the
  Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving
  and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia
  productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter
  how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in
  the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of
  the Catholic Church.”

From a Q&A


Is voluntary passibility consistent with an essentially impassible God? The majority of Christian theologians have held that God is 'impassible' where impassibility means God's inability to be changed/affected by creatures, particularly in reference to his emotional life. This helped to distinguish the one true God from the pagan gods who could be manipulated with sacrifices or often seemed to lack control over their own power. However, many theologians today have argued for more qualified versions of impassibility in which God voluntarily, by choice, created the world in such a way as to allow it to influence his emotions and his decisions. Some theologians suggest it is incompatible to claim that an impassible God would impassibly choose to become passible, while others claim that he does so in a biblical-ly supported paradox. Does this seem logically/biblically/theologically problematic to you and if so help me flesh out potential objections. For context, much of the discussion seems to revolve around the nature of Jesus' hypostatic union.

The inability for God to truly suffer (be passible) is at the heart of virtually every Christian tradition's conception of God, since according to the IVPs Divine Impassibility: Four Views of God's Emotions and Suffering:

  Despite modern bewilderment or offense taken at the strong account of divine impassibility, historically it commanded wide ecumenical backing, being maintained by the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Reformed, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Methodists, and more. Among Protestants, it enjoyed sponsorship from figures as diverse as John Calvin, James Arminius, John Gill, and John Wesley. (21)

I need other perspectives on this topic. What are potential objections to the voluntary passibility?

An example of voluntary passibility is given by Professor Richard Bauckham (emphasis added):

  It seems increasingly obvious that the Greek philosophical inheritance in traditional theology was adopted without the necessary critical effect of the central Christian insight into the divine nature: the love of God revealed in the cross of Christ. For the Greeks, suffering implied deficiency of being, weakness, subjection, instability. But the cross shows us a God who suffers out of the fullness of his being because he is love. He does not suffer against his will, but willingly undertakes to suffer with and for those he loves. His suffering does not deflect him from his purpose, but accomplishes his purpose. His transcendence does not keep him aloof from the world, but as transcendent love appears in the depth of his self-sacrificing involvement in the world. Finally, if Christians know anything about God from the cross, it is that 'the weakness of God is stronger than men' (1 Cor. 1:25).

This short 2015 First Things magazine article The Impassible God of the Bible - Replying to Some Objections mentions one potential objection to the passibility of God.

Concluding paragraph:

  Put positively, because the Christian God is radically transcendent (which “impassibility” gestures toward), therefore God can take human nature to himself without displacing it or destroying it. And because the transcendent God has taken human nature to himself, the suffering which God undergoes in that nature is redemptive, rather than simply passive victimhood and solidarity with us. Because it is God who suffers in Christ, that suffering is not simply the suffering a fellow-sufferer who understands but is instead the suffering of One who is able to end all suffering by overcoming it in resurrection and ascension and immortality. Paradoxically, perhaps, it is only by affirming impassibility that we can maintain the deepest soteriological import of the suffering God takes on himself in and through the Incarnation.

The paragraph can be read as a potential objection to God's passibility, even at the most obvious example where God is passible (the suffering of Christ for us), by saying that merely suffering together is not sufficient to be redemptive.

Using an analogy of God as an ideal psychoanalyst / counselor, God is willing to journey together with our suffering: cry together with us, angry with others who harm us, understand our pain, etc.  But if the counselor is so overcome with our suffering that he/she becomes incapacitated with sadness / anger / hopelessness, how can the counselor help us?

Therefore, when the counselor is out of the counseling session, the counselor needs to be "impassible" when reviewing his notes about us.  He/she needs to be able 1) to see our blind spots (which is not possible if the counselor cannot "get out" of our situation) and 2) to suggest avenues for healing.

In the same way, God, while being impassible, can still identify with our suffering.  I think the doctrine of impassibility of God properly understood still allows for this, and thus passages in Scripture where God is portrayed as angry, pained, compassionate, etc. can coexist with His impassibility.  One way is to go with this writer's approach by "reflecting deeper on the doctrine of God and the Trinity as well as Christology."

The Hypostatic Union of Christ, who is the second Person of the Godhead, in no way infringes upon the impassible nature of God. For Jesus acts according to each nature, separately, as each nature is completely separate from the other. As Sam Renihan states in his book, God Without Passions, a Primer, “the divine [nature] never [becomes] the human, and the human never [becomes] the divine. The London Baptist Confession (1689) says “Christ... acts according to both natures, by each nature doing that which is proper to itself.” I would highly recommend reading (if you haven’t yet) the aforementioned book, as well as Renihan’s more comprehensive companion work, God Without Passions, a Reader, to more fully grasp this concept.


Did God give Moses visions of History and the Tabernacle on Mount Sinai? After Moses spent forty days and nights on the mountain, he gave the people the requirements God had told him to say to the Israelites:

All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation unless otherwise noted.

  Exodus 19:3  And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel;

In the chapters between 19 and 25 are the laws God gave Moses, but in chapter 25,God in giving Moses instructions on building the Tabernacle said:

  Exodus 25:8 and 9  And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them. According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.

according to that Scripture God showed Moses some visions, and also;

  Exodus 25:40  And look that thou make them after their pattern, which was shewed thee in the mount.

If I am reading the Scriptures correctly God not only told Moses what to tell the Israelites to do, but also gave him visions of exactly how the Tabernacle and its furnishings should be made.

Did God also give Moses visions of History which he then recorded in Genesis?

Most definitely. The passage makes it clear that the earthly sanctuary was modeled after another Sanctuary, the True Sanctuary made by the LORD Himself. This is what was shown to Moses in vision.

  Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a
  High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the
  Majesty in the heavens, a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true
  tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man.

  Hebrews 8:1,2

  For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are
  priests who offer the gifts according to the law; 5 who serve the copy
  and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed
  when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, “See that you
  make all things according to the pattern shown you on the
  mountain.”[a] 6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry,
  inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was
  established on better promises.

  Hebrews 8:4,6

Divine inspiration does not work in the way that God dictates word for word, as it is known that different authors had different writing styles. Nevertheless, they were all inspired by the Holy Spirit. Because Moses did not live in that time, a vision must have been shown to him in order for him to be able to write the Genesis account in such detail. Some also think that Moses was the author of the Book of Job.


Did Jesus use non-believers to perform acts of community service on his behalf? I'm trying to answer this question, "What would Jesus do?"

An organizations I am involved with is a network of foster homes that is used for emergency placement. These are the families that take kids that have been very recently removed from their biological homes.  Foster homes are aggressively recruited from the local church community... but we, the church community, have failed to step up and meet the need.  There are families that are interested in being a part of our program, but they are not Christians.

So the question is.  Do we place kids with the non-Christian families that are stepping up and interested in participating in the program?

Opinions will vary widely and I can understand why people might say yes or no.  What I'm looking for is any biblical examples of where Jesus used a non-believer to do his good work.

Because your questions has a "What would Jesus do?" flavor, I'm going to answer in keeping:

In Matthew 25:31-46 we find there will be those who show up at the judgement and discover they were an outsider even though they did all sorts of work in the name of Jesus thinking they were an insider. Likewise, there will be outsiders who find out they are insiders.

It seems to me that Jesus is suggesting that kindness to those in need is more important than our sheep/goat categories. Believers should read this and get a gut-check. Are we outsiders thinking we are insiders? Are there people we think are outsiders who are really insiders? It sounds possible if you take the parable seriously. I think this can used to establish some priorities in regard to your question.

Additionally, it is possible that some of those outsiders just might come "inside" as they minister "alongside." What greater thing than to make some disciples along the way? It may be best to think of this a secondary aspect of this ministry.

And finally, there is no greater source on this than the Holy Spirit himself. Exercise sanctified discernment when selecting families. The Holy Spirit is able to discern the heart, also regardless of categories. Even Jesus turned some away who seemed like great candidates and accepted others who didn't.

Great question! I think I have found one example. A few times, someone asked Jesus to heal them and, after healing, He sent them to the "as a testimony to them". Examples1 are:

Matthew 8:1-4
Luke 5:12-16

Note that in both cases the petitioner started with "Lord" - implying that he was a believer.
Contrast that with this story from Mark 1:40-45:

A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, ‘If you are willing, you can make me clean.’
Jesus was indignant. He reached out his hand and touched the man. ‘I am willing,’ he said. ‘Be clean!’ Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cleansed.
Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning: ‘See that you don’t tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them.’ Instead he went out and began to talk freely, spreading the news. As a result, Jesus could no longer enter a town openly but stayed outside in lonely places. Yet the people still came to him from everywhere.

Note two things:

This man does not address Jesus as "Lord" (see Romans 10:9 and 1 Corinthians 12:3).
Jesus gives the man specific instructions: not to tell anyone and to offer a sacrifice as a testimony to the priests. The man does neither, thereby inhibiting Jesus' ministry.

Together, these two things imply to me that the man was not a believer nor was intent on making any effort to become a believer - he simply wanted healing.
Conclusion (which perhaps includes a pertinent warning for your ministry): Jesus wanted to use this man and gave him specific instructions but the man himself disobeyed.
1 Though possibly these two Gospel accounts are about the same event.


What does "in the image of God" mean? Genesis 1:26:

  Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Does this mean humans look like God, complete with hands, feet, and sexual organs?  Or is it referring to something else?

There are differing traditions about this. Only in Eastern Orthodoxy have I run into a very specific definition, where 'Image of God' is treated like a term of art with a specific, well defined meaning.

Generally speaking, most Christians interpret it to mean that we share in the spiritual reality with the spiritual beings, and traits specific to God (spiritual traits, since God is Spirit) belong to man. Such things then do not belong to other creatures, which may or may not include the angels. What traits these are vary from interpretation to interpretation, but they may include:

Ability to create
Reason
Having a 'spirit'
Being able to have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit

In Eastern Orthodoxy, there is a specific definition that is sometimes offered (though it does not exclude the above.)

Each human is unique, as God is unique (being one!)
Each human is relational, that is, he exists only in relation to others, as God is Trinity in himself and thus even if there is no other, God is 'in relation' via the persons of the Trinity
Each human has free will, as God has free will.

The main difference between Mankind and ”fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Made in the image of God vs. Made in the image of animals.

Considers justice, mercy and love vs. Considers only might.

If an animal comes upon food gathered by another animal, it will steal the food: there is thus no consideration for justice, fairplay. If it sees another animal which is steals its food, it will not spare it : there is thus no consideration for mercy, sympathy. If it sees another animal which is hungry, it will not give it food: there is thus no consideration for love, sacrifice.


How should a Christian evaluate whether a particular action a sin or not? Since they are directly addressed in the Ten Commandments, most people agree that committing adultery or murder is sin; yet this world is a complicated place full of things that are not so clearly addressed. Some traditions believe using electricity or wearing pants are sins, others do not go so far.

What guidelines can a Christian use to evaluate whether a specific action is sinful or not?

Sin as a condition is separation from God. A sin as an action is an action that brings about such separation from God; such an action "misses the mark," which is the Greek word for the act of sinning. This is the general---very general---rule of thumb. The trick is to tell what separates us from God.

A good rubric, for those who already know in their heart of hearts what is right and wrong, is that given by Mississippi comedian Jerry Clower in his album Classic Clower Power, disc 2, track 25 "You're Fixin' to Mess Up" (cf. http://jacksonianlawyer.wordpress.com/2009/07/25/some-sage-words-of-advice-from-the-legendary-jerry-clower/). For the sake of those yet unable to endure heavy Southern accents, here is the rubric distilled:

  If you’re fixing to make a decision about what’s right and what’s wrong in your life, do you ask other people’s opinion about it? That’s a pretty good indication you're fixing to mess up.

  Number two: do you argue with yourself? ...if you’re arguing with yourself, [that's a] pretty good indication you should not do it.

  Number three: do you feel uneasy when you do it?

  Number four: Can you give thanks and say ‘Lord, I thank You for providing this for me.’? The Bible says, give thanks for all things. So when you do it, can you say ‘Lord, thank You for providing this for me. [Indeed, I thank You] for [making things the way they are, so that] I can commit to what it is I’m doing.'?

  What is right or wrong? Do you ask other people? Do you argue with yourself? Do you feel uneasy when you do it? Can you give thanks and say ‘Lord, I thank You for providing this for me.’? If you can’t, you [had] better watch out…you’re fixin’ to mess up.

N.B. in Southern dialect, to be fixing to do something is to be about to do something.

At the root of sin is self-will and insistence upon our own way at the expense of submitting ourselves to our Father in heaven Who knows better. The resulting cognitive dissonance brings about the signs 1--3 above.

Edit: as @Jürgen A. Erhard has pointed out, this rubric is insufficient on several counts. In my opinion, this is because it displays the signs of cognitive dissonance, which (thank God) accompany a struggle with temptation. These signs are useful in a sort of basic triage to call oneself to attention: if experiencing the signs in this triage (or quadriage), mustering all your dispassion, immediately ask yourself, "Have I committed to doing something wrong, and am I now only trying to justify myself and my wrong actions?"

However, cognitive dissonance may also accompany any difficult decision, which is not necessarily a result of wrongdoing. Also, weighing both sides of a difficult decision is, presumably, an attempt at wisdom and not an attempt at self-justification; and furthermore, asking someone else (whom you respect as someone following the truth, not just someone whom you know will agree with you) is a manifestation of humility. So perhaps at the root of Clower's observation is that one must flee all appearance of sin: in particular, the self-justification that accompanies an assent to sin.

This is a way to tell if you are doing wrong. It is another story to tell what is right, i.e. what is best.

Whether or not it tends towards doing the Christ's work of saving humankind.

Thus, employing others for a wage, the use of violence for any reason, making claims of private property or unequal right to wealth, spreading false rumors and hatred, etc., are all sinful; while consensual sexual relations of any sort among adults, passing on knowledge or working to create new knowledge, playing basketball, etc. are not sinful.


Does the Bible explain why God chose Israel? There are many nations in the world. And surely there were many in the times of Abraham and Moses. Does the Bible tell us why God choose only to lead the Israelites and not the rest?

"Why did God choose Israel?" appears as a common question among some Christians. For example, we had entire sermons for weeks based on this one question. Enough of that now; to the answer!

God chose Israel because of His promise to Abraham.

As a reward for Abraham's faith in the Lord, God said to him in Genesis 12:2-3:

  I will make you a great nation; I will bless you and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.

The Lord Himself expands on this in an address to the Israelites delivered by Moses in Deuteronomy 7:6-8:

  For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth. The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any other people, for you were the least of all peoples; but because the LORD loves you, and because He would keep the oath which He swore to your fathers, the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

God chose Israel because He had promised Abraham that his descendants would become a great nation (see Genesis 12:3, 7; 17:4, 7-8; 22:17). Abraham and his descendants were blessed because of Abraham's faith which resulted in obedience to God’s law (see Genesis 26:3-5). This same promise was repeated to Abraham's descendants (see Genesis 17:21; 26:24; 28:1-4, 13).

Perhaps Israel was not really God's first choice. Lester L. Grabbe says, in Ancient Israel, page 153, that the story in the Book of Exodus suggests memory of a time when YHWH was not known to the Israelites but was introduced to them for the first time. He says there is considerable – if not universal – support for the view that the early Egyptian inscriptions mentioning YHW as a God of the Midianites do in fact refer to the name YHWH and that worship of YHWH did not originate with Israel but was picked up sometime in the pre-settlement or settlement period.