What is significant about shaking dust from your feet? If a house or town does not receive the Gospel, you are to shake dust off of your feet:

  Matthew 10:12
  12 As you enter a house, wish it peace.
  13 If the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; if not, let your peace return to you.
  14 Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words—go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet.

  Luke 10:10-11
  10 Whatever town you enter and they do not receive you, go out into the streets and say,
  11 ‘The dust of your town that clings to our feet, even that we shake off against you.’ Yet know this: the kingdom of God is at hand.

I understand that the roads were not paved, and that people would travel by walking, so their feet would become dirty and dusty. I also understand that this is no longer a practice in some churches, but is in others, and that this was a practice among the Jews before Christ came.

But why? And why dust in particular? Does it have to be dust from that town? Is this act symbolic, or does the dust itself have some sort of effect if not shaken off? If it is symbolic, is it supposed to communicate something to the townspeople (so you would have to do it in front of them), or should it be done in the view of God only, or both?

What is significant about shaking dust from your feet?

In short, shaking the dust of your feet is way of indicating uncleanliness.
From the Believers Bible Commentary:

R. Guelich suggests that shaking off dust from the feet, the symbolic act that Jesus’ disciples were to carry out when leaving a rejecting village (6:11), has a threefold meaning (322–3):
•  It announces the inevitability of judgment (since further contact and opportunity for repentance is symbolically cut off).
•  It declares that the missionaries have done their job and are washing their hands of further responsibility (Ezek. 3:21; 33:1–9).
•  It labels that village as pagan.
Of these three, the third is the most provocative. Jews would shake off “pagan” dust before entering the “holy land” (Str.-B, 1:115). Likewise, Jesus’ emissaries demonstrate that villages rejecting them and the one who sent them have lost their inheritance in the people of God.
A similar message is conveyed via John’s symbolic act of baptizing Jews (1:5), an act normally reserved for converts to Judaism. John is thereby symbolically reinstating Jews into the people of God, implying that without his baptism, they are outsiders to Israel. The present text about shaking off “pagan dust,” however, takes this a step further. People are invited to reinstate their membership in the people of God; those who reject God’s messengers are symbolically excluded.
Other NT references to shaking off dust include all three of the meanings suggested above, though sometimes one of them is more prominent than the others (Matt. 10:14; Luke 9:5; 10:11; Acts 13:51; 18:6). Acts 18:6 in particular seems to highlight all three aspects. As he leaves the Corinthian synagogue, Paul shakes the dust off his clothing and says, “Your blood be on your own heads [meaning 1]. I am clear of my responsibility [meaning 2]. From now on I will go to the Gentiles [meaning 3]” (NIV). With his final line, Paul reverses the usual Jewish practice of cleansing their feet before moving from Gentile to Jewish territory. Paul is moving from Jewish territory (the synagogue) to Gentile territory (the house of Titius Justus) and shaking off the dust before doing so. Believing Jews join him as he moves toward a more fruitful mission field.

And from "The New Manners and Customs of the Bible:"

For Jews to shake dust off their feet was a sign that Gentile territory was unclean. In the New Testament this action indicates that those who have rejected the gospel have made themselves as Gentiles and must face the judgment of God. (See also Acts 13:51) To sprinkle dust on the head was a sign of mourning (Joshua 7:6), and to sit in dust denotes extreme affliction (Isaiah 47:1). “Dust” is used to denote the grave (Job 7:21). To lick the dust is a sign of abject submission (Psalms 72:9); and to throw dust at someone is a sign of abhorrence (2 Samuel 16:13; Acts 22:23). To bite the dust is to suffer a defeat. It became a common expression through its use in American movies about the early west.

In particular, I find the linkage between "shaking the dust off your feet" and "biting the dust" to be interesting.

To shake the dust from you feet simple means don't take any part of some ones spirit with you...... after you give the truth and if not accepted keep moving and let GOD handle it,don't spend time trying to force someone to listen!!!


Who was the Blessed Virgin Mary's guardian angel? Catholic teaching is that "Every one of the faithful has his own special guardian angel from baptism. (Sent. certa.)" (Ludwig Ott II ch. 3 §30.2; cf. Matt 18:10: "See that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.").
According to Catholic theologians or mystics, who was the Blessed Virgin Mary's guardian angel? St. Gabriel the Archangel?

Who was the Blessed Virgin Mary's guardian angel?
Being the Queen of Angels, Mary certainly had many Guardian Angels, probably including St. Gabriel and St. Micheal.
Mary is superior by order of grace, not nature - angels are superior to Mary according to nature, and thus would have been afforded her as everyone else, as guardian.
Mary, Queen of Angels was born like all mankind in the physical sense of the word. By a singular gift from God She was preserved from all stain of original sin at the moment of conception. St. Thomas says that all men receive a Guardian Angel at birth. Mary is no exception and received her Guardian Angel(s) as is the condition of living here on earth.

As Origen observes (Tract. v, super Matt.) there are two opinions on this matter. For some have held that the angel guardian is appointed at the time of baptism, others, that he is appointed at the time of birth. The latter opinion Jerome approves (vide A, 4), and with reason. For those benefits which are conferred by God on man as a Christian, begin with his baptism; such as receiving the Eucharist, and the like. But those which are conferred by God on man as a rational being, are bestowed on him at his birth, for then it is that he receives that nature. Among the latter benefits we must count the guardianship of angels, as we have said above (Articles 1 and 4). Wherefore from the very moment of his birth man has an angel guardian appointed to him. - Article 5. Whether an angel is appointed to guard a man from his birth?

Although privileged with the grace of an Immaculate Conception, Mary still had to work towards her own salvation, albeit in an exceptional manner.

Maria Agreda, the visionary, taught that the Blessed Virgin Mary had hundreds of guardian angels, including St Michael and St Gabriel. - Here are 7 Interesting Facts about Guardian Angels

The Venerable Mary of Agreda The Mystical City of God states the following:

It was ordained therefore by the Most High, that the sovereign Child should voluntarily keep this silence during the time in which ordinarily other children are unable to speak. The only exception made was in regard to the conversation held with the angels of her guard, or when She addressed Herself in vocal prayer to the Lord. For in regard to interaction with God, the Author of speech, and with the holy angels, his messengers, when they treated in a visible manner with Her, this reason for maintaining silence did not hold good: on the contrary it was befitting, that, since there was no impediment, She should pray with her lips and her tongue; for it would not be proper to keep them unemployed for so long a time. - Her Childhood Years
She invited her own angels to help Her to return proper thanks, and in union with them She alternated new songs of praise. Then She asked the same favor of the rest of the angels and saints in heaven; but during all this time the divine love so inflamed Her, that the Lord was obliged to strengthen Her, lest all her natural forces be consumed and death ensue. - Her Devotion to the Passion of Christ and to the Holy Eucharist-HowShe Celebrated the Immaculate Conception and other Feasts
For this purpose the most blessed Trinity despatched the archangel Gabriel with many others of the celestial hierarchies, who should announce to the Queen when and how her mortal life should come to an end and pass over into the eternal.
The devout Queen resolved to take leave of the holy places before her departure into heaven, and having obtained the consent of saint John She left the house with him and with the thousand angels of her guard. Although these sovereign princes had always served and accompanied Her in all her errands, occupations and journeys, without having absented themselves for one moment since the instant of her birth; yet on this occasion they manifested themselves to Her with greater beauty and refulgence, as if they felt special joy in seeing themselves already at the beginning of her last journey into heaven. The heavenly Princess, setting aside human occupations in order to enter upon her journey to the real and true fatherland, visited all the memorable places of our Redemption, marking each with the sweet abundance of her tears, recalling the sorrowful memories of what her Son there suffered, and fervently renewing its effects by most fervent acts of love, clamors and petitions for all the faithful, who should devoutly and reverently visit these holy places during the future ages of the Church. On Calvary She remained a longer time, asking of her divine Son the full effects of his redeeming Death for all the multitudes of souls there snatched from destruction. The ardor of her ineffable charity during this prayer rose to such a pitch, that it would have destroyed her life, if it had not been sustained by divine power. - Saint Gabriel brings notice of Death

The original unabridged Spanish edition has a whole chapter (23) dedicated to De las divisas con que los Santos Ángeles de guarda de María Santí- sima se le manifestaban, y de sus perfecciones. In can be read here: Mistica Ciudad de Dios
St. Micheal the Archangel seem a good choice as one of Mary’s Guardian Angels.

According to tradition, it was the holy archangel who led the Virgin Mary to heaven during her Assumption.
While little is known about the nature of the Virgin Mary’s Assumption into heaven, various traditions have been passed down over the centuries that relate the historical event and reflect on what could have happened.
For example, there are many different traditions, both from the East and West, that state St. Michael the Archangel was the principal angel in charge of leading the body and soul of Mary into heaven.
This is an ancient tradition, in accord with a belief that St. Michael was the angel who weighed the deeds of a deceased person and led them into eternal life. For this reason St. Michael is frequently depicted in statues or paintings holding scales. The liturgy of the Church appears to confirm this role of St. Michael with the following offertory chant said during a Requiem Mass.

O Lord Jesus Christ, King of glory,deliver the souls of all the faithful departed … let the standard-bearer holy Michaellead them into that holy light.

A medieval text known as the Golden Legend relates an encounter Mary had with an angel prior to her death, preparing her for her assumption.

Then behold, an angel stood before her amid a great light and greeted her reverently as the mother of his Lord. “Hail, blessed Mary!” he said, “receive the blessing of him who bestowed salvation on Jacob. See, Lady, I have brought you a palm branch from paradise, and you are to have it carried before your bier. Three days from now you will be assumed from the body, because your Son is waiting for you, his venerable mother.”

The angel’s name is not immediately revealed, but later on when Mary “died,” Jesus comes into the narrative and gives instructions to the holy archangel.
Christ nodded his consent and immediately Michael the archangel came forward and presented Mary’s soul before the Lord. Then the Savior spoke and said: “Arise, my dear one, my dove, tabernacle of glory, vessel of life, heavenly temple! As you never knew the stain of sin through carnal intercourse, so you shall never suffer dissolution of the flesh in the tomb.” Thereupon Mary’s soul entered her body, and she came forth glorious from the monument and was assumed into the heavenly bridal chamber, a great multitude of angels keeping her company.
While these legendary stories likely have no historical basis, they do provide for us a piece of meditation and invite us to consider how the Virgin Mary was welcomed into heaven by her Son and a company of angels. In particular, it would make sense for the “Prince of All Angels” to be at the forefront of those who welcomed the “Queen of Angels” into heaven. - How St. Michael the Archangel led the Blessed Virgin Mary to heaven

The following may be of interest to some:

Is the Angel of Portugal Actually Saint Michael the Archangel?

Who was the Blessed Virgin Mary's guardian angel?
Mary has no guardian angel, She doesn't need one, because She was immaculately conceived and born sinless and not a fallen creature.
Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church
There was no teaching in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that says Mary has a guardian angel.
Adam & Eve was born pure with Holy image of God imprinted on their soul, same like Mary, She was born pure.
In the Book of Genesis, there was no mention of guardian angel protecting Adam & Eve. God had given them purity and graces to defend themselves from Satan.
Likewise, Mary being born pure, free of any stain of original sin, do not need a guardian angel.
This can be seen from God the Father holy decree in Genesis3:15. God the Father was the one who declare war with Satan and God the Father had chosen the Woman to fight Satan and crush his ugly proud head and not any guardian angels. God the Father did not said. don't worry in the battle with the serpent, the Woman guardian angel will protect you and be the one to crush the head of the old serpent.

I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. - Genesis 3:15 DRA

Only a fallen creature, needs guardian angel because they are captured souls, they are the slaves of Satan.
In Catholic teachings, all mankind are born with original sin, and even after receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, the stain of original sin remains. Baptized soul, are still subject to Satan control. As St.Paul says:

Did the good, then, become death for me? Of course not! Sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin, worked death in me through the good, so that sin might become sinful beyond measure through the commandment.

We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold into slavery to sin.

What I do, I do not understand. For I do not do what I want, but I do what I hate.

Now if I do what I do not want, I concur that the law is good.

So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

For I know that good does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh. The willing is ready at hand, but doing the good is not.

For I do not do the good I want, but I do the evil I do not want.

Now if [I] do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

So, then, I discover the principle that when I want to do right, evil is at hand.

For I take delight in the law of God, in my inner self,

But I see in my members another principle at war with the law of my mind, taking me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.*

Miserable one that I am! Who will deliver me from this mortal body?

Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Therefore, I myself, with my mind, serve the law of God but, with my flesh, the law of sin.

We can see from the teachings of St.Paul and from the story of Adam & Eve in Genesis. The guardian angel was given to all fallen man, because of the fallen nature of man was a slave to sin and even a baptized soul did not attain purity due to stain of original sin, still exist in their soul.

According to Catholic theologians or mystics, who was the Blessed Virgin Mary's guardian angel? St. Gabriel the Archangel?

Mary is superior to all guardian angels combined, even higher than Archangel Gabriel who was the nearest angel to the Throne of God, as shown in the Gospel of Luke, Archangel Gabriel bow down to Mary. Mary doesn't need a guardian angel because Satan and his demons are subject to her. Why? She is the Queen of all Angels including the fallen angels.
Queen of Angels (The Catholic Thing)


What official statements represent Christianity's position on the Gospel of Barnabas? The Gospel of Barnabas is a text that has turned up in the form of 16th century manuscripts in Italian and Spanish. The text claims to be the witness of Jesus' disciple Barnabas, however its content runs quite contrary to Christian doctrine in every major tradition that I know of.

Secular media, however, loves to trumpet its claims and it periodically makes the rounds in pop culture. Sometimes it is touted as an alternate rendition of the Biblical New Testament account (either to be considered the true one if you discount the NT or a bogus one if you trust it). While the media doesn't tend to cover this, most scholars recognize that it's teachings are hugely divergent from those of Christianity.

What Christian traditions have come down with official statements with direct bearing on this text either approving or rejecting it's claims? What secondary positions (creeds, confessions, etc) could be shown to directly address it? Have any Christian traditions ever given it's teaching any authority?

This is an English translation of the Decretum Gelasianum de Libris Recipendis et Non Recipiendts.  The Decretum Gelasianum was issued by Pope Gelasius [Pope of Rome 492-96].

One of the apocryphum mentioned is "the Gospel in the name of Barnabas".

Now, the document floating around in the present day is probably a 16th century writing, just based on content analysis.  However, a version that existed in the 5th century was rejected by the Roman Catholic church as apocryphum.

The Gospel of Barnabas (original referred to in the Gelacian Decree) is a complete mystery, but the extant copy held in the National Library of Vienna is hardly a mystery. The novel A Deceit To Die For makes a very compelling case that it is connected with the Lead Books of Sacromonte, the Morisco conspiracy in Spain after the Muslims were defeated by the Christians but before they were kicked out of the country. If the novel is close, then the Gospel of Barnabas was an incredible forgery. Today, Muslims around the world believe the Gospel of Barnabas was suppressed by the Church and contains the closest representation of what Jesus taught.


Did Paul preach Jesus's message? In the four Gospels, Jesus seems to talk a lot about the Law, about how to behave, about "the Kingdom" and how to restore social order. It doesn't seem like he talks about what Paul talks about: grace, law vs. gospel, gentile-inclusion. Mostly, what most Christians mean by "Gospel" and grace.

What are some examples of passages that demonstrate how (or how not) Paul preached the same gospel Jesus did?

I'm looking for passages of Paul or Jesus that match up with each other, not external verification that they are on the same page.

There are a number of passages that suggest that Paul preached the same message as the first eleven apostles.

Paul says so:

  I went up because of a revelation and set before [the Jerusalem church] (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain.—Galatians 2:2 (ESV)

Luke implies that the Jerusalem church approved of Paul's message:

  Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. —Acts 15:22a (ESV)

And later:

  On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified God.—Acts 21:18-20a (ESV)

The author of 2nd Peter put Paul's letters under the banner of Scripture:

  And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.—2nd Peter 3:15-16 (ESV)

According to Paul, he got the gospel directly from God by revelation:

  But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.—Galatians 1:15-17 (ESV)

Acts 9, 22 and 26 detail Paul's conversion and show us that he spoke directly to the resurrected Jesus.  We read in various places (e.g., Acts 13:4-12) that Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit.  And, of course, he did spend time with the Jerusalem church, Peter and the other apostles.  Perhaps Barnabas, John Mark, Silas, and others traveled with Paul was so that they bare witness to the events of Jesus' earthly ministry and repeat His teachings.

As to why Jesus didn't preach more about the Gospel of Grace, I think that stems from a greater mystery: for some reason God wants us to be part of His grand story.  God was surprisingly "hands-off" in the Old Testament period.  Sure, He brought down fire on wicked cities and rescued His people miraculously on occasion.  But for the most part, God expected His people to be faithful and remember His provision for them without intervention.

In the same way, Jesus did surprisingly little to establish His Kingdom while on earth.  And the bulk of the church's work to reach the gentile world fell on their shoulders only after He ascended to heaven.  Jesus spoke the language of the Jewish peasant, fisherman, merchant, rabbi, and priest, but He didn't have much to say to gentiles.  Paul was the right man at the right time for the job of translating that message into a philosophical framework that a Greek-educated person would understand.  His struggle for the church was primarily in helping the gentiles see why a provincial Jew's teaching mattered to them.

A quick answer is no. Jesus teachings were based on the Torah, hence Paul cannot be teaching about Jesus but teaching about the Teachings of Moses aka Torah. Torah by the way does not mean Law but Teachings. But first you need to look at Paul.

Paul is a very complex person, we do not really know his real intentions but we could only infer, I am in the process of writing an essay on Paul, so here are some of my thoughts on him.

Paul was a liar.

  If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner? Romans 3:7

Maybe he was being rhetorical but we can also say that he is lying, liars are consistent with their inconsistency of events, we can either say he was having Alzheimer's or he was just a liar with a hidden agenda.Paul's journey for me is still questionable, after his conversion did he go to Jerusalem first or did he go there last. We have his letter to the Galatians.

  I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus. Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. Galatians 1:17-18

While in Acts 9:26 it said something else:

  When he came to Jerusalem...

Did he go to Jerusalem after his conversion in Damascus or did he first go to Arabia? I think he never did go to Jerusalem, he in fact presented himself as a Christian throughout his journeys. Because we have this hint with his conversation with James which seems to be the same message as in Acts 15 and Acts 21:20-24. So the writer of Acts must have confused two issues on Paul. According to Robert Eisenman Acts 1 -16 is problematic.

Acts 15

  24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Remember in his letter to the Galatians he did not go to Jerusalem first. With that said even if Paul did go to Jerusalem first, his message in Romans 13 and those found in 1Cor 5 -8, are consistent with the Torah, and even the message of James. These are in fact parts of the Universal Law or as the modern Rabbinical tradition would have it -- the Noahide Law.

This is the same message of the letter but in Acts 21

  20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law

James here is the one talking to Paul, clearly Paul was accused of preaching those message that James said. In fact this was true, that is why Paul was thrown out of the Synagogues in the first place. In fact he wrote to the Galatians about the Torah as a guardian.

Gal 3: 23-25

  Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian

Here is what James said in contrast to what Paul said;

  But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does. James 1:25

So why did James wrote this letter here? Because Paul was going around telling people to throw the Torah away, do not circumcise your children... James was doing damage control

Remember what Jesus also said about the Torah and the Prophets.

  Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them Matt 5:17

Today religious Jews continue to fulfill the Torah.

You cannot throw out the Torah because it would completely violate the warnings in Deuteronomy 13, and Paul cannot stand based on the criteria of a prophet or messenger here. Here is Deuteronomy 13: 1-8

  Everything I command you that you shall be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it.
  If there will arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of a dream, and he gives you a sign or a wonder,
  and the sign or the wonder of which he spoke to you happens, [and he] says, "Let us go after other gods which you have not known, and let us worship them,"
  you shall not heed the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream; for the Lord, your God, is testing you, to know whether you really love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul
  You shall follow the Lord, your God, fear Him, keep His commandments, heed His voice, worship Him, and cleave to Him.
  And that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream shall be put to death; because he spoke falsehood about the Lord, your God Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and Who redeemed you from the house of bondage, to lead you astray from the way in which the Lord, your God, commanded you to go; so shall you clear away the evil from your midst.
  If your brother, the son of your mother, tempts you in secret or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your embrace, or your friend, who is as your own soul saying, "Let us go and worship other gods, which neither you, nor your forefathers have known."
  Of the gods of the peoples around you, [whether] near to you or far from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth;

If we look at this chapter, the YHWH in the flesh concept, it would not stand, because the Jews never experienced a God that came down to earth, clothed in humanity by being born from a virgin, sacrificed, died and resurrected.

The Jesus that I know would uphold the Torah not throw it away. From Mark the oldest known gospel Jesus says in Mark 12:

  29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[f] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[g] There is no commandment greater than these.”

Verse 29 being what Judaism calls the Shema (Deut 6:4), is still practiced today by Jews. So why are Christians not reciting it daily? Jesus simplifies the 10 commandments into two categories the commandments for God and the commandments for ones fellow man. Furthermore the 'Love your neighbor' is found in Leviticus 19:9-18

When Jesus said this "Do to others what you want them to do to you" he was being a good Jew and simply paraphrasing Rabbi Hillel who said "That of which is despicable to you do not do unto thy neighbor"

Jesus(alive or before he was crucified) was consistent with his fealty to the Torah of Moses, while Paul sounds very confused.

More lies

Liars are always on the defensive, in some of Paul's letters he always mentions that he is not lying this is the truth; here are some lie verses.

  “The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is to be praised forever, knows that I am not lying” 2Cor 11:31.

  “I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie” Gal 1:20

  “And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles” 1Tim 2:7.

What does Jesus say about swearing and using the name of God? Matthew 5:34-37

  34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one

In conclusion, I cannot say Paul is consistent with the teachings of Jesus which is the Torah, but perhaps his version of Jesus. His conversion is also sketchy, no one really heard the actual words of Jesus when he called Paul, therefore no actual witness apart from him alone.

  My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me. Acts 22:9


How do the Catholic and Protestant understandings of "Regula Fidei" differ? In the Hermeneutics course I am taking, a definition of "Regula Fidei" was posed that seemed different from the way my Catholic acquaintances use the term. How is the term Rule of Faith  used differently by Catholics than by Protestants? Specifically how is the practical application different even if the concept is similar in definition?

From Wikipedia:

The rule of faith (Latin: regula fidei) or analogy of faith (analogia fidei) is a phrase rooted in the Apostle Paul's admonition to the Christians in Rome in the Epistle to the Romans 12:6, which says, "We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man's gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith."
The rule of faith is the name given to the ultimate authority or standard in religious belief, such as the Bible alone, as among some Protestants; the Bible and tradition, as among Catholics; reason alone, as among rationalists; as among the Eastern Orthodox it is theoria the inner light of the spirit, as among mystics.
In the Roman Catholic Church, the Bible and Sacred Tradition (that is, things believed to have been taught by Jesus and the apostles that were not recorded in the Bible but were transmitted through the church) are considered a rule for all believers for judging faith and practice.
In conservative Protestantism Romans 12:6 is viewed as the biblical reference for the term "analogy of the faith" (i.e., αναλογἰα τῆς πἰστεως). The Bible alone is considered the word of God and the only infallible standard for judging faith and practice; hence, for conservative Protestantism, the analogy of the faith is equivalent to the analogy of scripture – that is, opinions are tested for their consistency with scripture, and scripture is interpreted by the Holy Spirit speaking in scripture (compare sola scriptura).

In Methodism, John Wesley described a quadrilateral of faith, which held that Scripture, Reason, Experience and Tradition were interdependent.

By and large, Protestants don't really use the Rule of Faith as it is classically known.  So to answer your question would be rather difficult since Protestantism has chosen to separate itself (potentially too much) from classical Catholicism.  And I only say this because I sincerely doubt many protestants even know what the Rule of Faith even is.


When did sin and evil in the universe first appear? According to Catholicism and Protestantism (I am not aware of any division over this) When did evil in the universe first appear and what was the originating cause of it?

Note: I mean the immediate cause not the predetermined purpose that God had in allowing its appearance. Aside from any possible sense of a cause in God's sovereignty, when was the immediate and original appearance of evil in the universe?

When sin is defined as moving against God's will and evil is defined as the absence of God's presence it seems that sin and evil were first made when Lucifer rebelled against God and was cast from his position of glory and out of God's presence. The story is somewhat detailed in Isiah.

  “How you are fallen from heaven,
  O Lucifer, son of the morning!
  How you are cut down to the ground,
  You who weakened the nations!
  For you have said in your heart:
  ‘I will ascend into heaven,
  I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
  I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
  On the farthest sides of the north;
  I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
  I will be like the Most High.’
  Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol,
  To the lowest depths of the Pit.  Isiah 14

From the verses we see that Lucifer first sinned when he claimed that he would ascend to God's glory and usurp Him from His throne. He was removed from God's presence which then created evil.

This is the oldest account of sin and evil. It must have preceded the fall of man because it was Lucifer who tempted them to take and eat the fruit. Before we know assuredly that mankind was not in sin nor removed from God's presence, therefore, sin and evil must have originated with Lucifer, or at least not with mankind. Such is Lucifer's infamy that he is called the father of lies and Satan which mean adversary, which implies that he moves against God's will always.

It is possible that sin and evil originated elsewhere but they are not detailed in the 66 book version of the Protestant Bible. The other seven that Catholicism takes does not say anything on the topic either.

These verses in Revelation may be relevant:

  Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. Revelation 12

Here we see that Satan is permanently cast from heaven. Most scholars would argue that this event has not happened yet, and will occur shortly before the Second Coming. What may also be relevant is the passages in Job where Satan is actually conversing with God.

  One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them. The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?"
  Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.” Job 1

The conversation continues but what is noteworthy is in the first few verses. It is clear here that Satan can still enter God's presence, but he can also leave it. This supports the idea that he was 'cast' from heaven already, in some respects. How is a bit of a mystery. The issue with Job is that a good portion of scholars, but not near the majority, would say that it is poetry and cannot be taken as a literal event.

Why do is it so widely believed that Lucifer is Satan (Isaiah 14:12)? Isaiah 14:4, which is the heading for the Hebrew poem which follows (vv 4-21), clearly states that the poem is about the king of Babylon. The name "Lucifer" simply carries across the Vulgate translation of a Hebrew word meaning "the morning star" (Strong No. 1966). It was this claim to be the morning star, made by the king of Babylon, which is mocked in the poem. The poem describes the king's descent into Sheol. Nowhere does the Bible state that Satan is in Sheol (the OT realm of human beings who have died). In fact the whole idea of Satan's rebellion being described in this poem is, in my view, a complete myth. Why is it, that we do not except the simple Biblical history, which shows that sin began in the Garden of Eden when Satan tempted Eve?


Does Deuteronomy 18:21-22 still apply today? Deuteronomy 18:21-22 (NLT)

  21 “But you may wonder, ‘How will we know whether or not a prophecy is from the Lord?’ 22 If the prophet speaks in the Lord’s name but his prediction does not happen or come true, you will know that the Lord did not give that message. That prophet has spoken without my authority and need not be feared.

Thus, the test of an Old Testament prophet was whether or not they prophesied correctly. However, I heard last weekend that modern-day prophecies are not always correct, much like when Galadriel (from Lord of the Rings) says (roughly) "Remember that the Mirror shows many things that have not come to pass, and may still not.". Given that prophesying still happens today (Acts 2:16-18, 1 Corinthians 14), I ask: does this Old-Testament test of correctness still apply today?

Whether or not prophesying (or, at least future-telling prophesying) still happens today is up for debate (see What is the basis for Cessationism).  However, if it does still happen today, then most Christians would agree that the Prophet's Test you mentioned is still very important.

Prophecy is only defined as such when it is a revelation from God.  And since it is impossible for God to lie, any so-called prophecy that proves false must not have been from God.  The principle of the passage still applies: if a prophet speaks presumptuously, asserting God's authority when God's authority was not actually given, that "prophet's" credibility is shot - he cannot be trusted.

First of all, Romans 8:16 should let you believe that there is God, and His spirit can contact anyone, even you. There is a level of prayer where the spirit takes over your prayer, taking you closer to God.
Romans 8:26
"Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered."
Now, from 1Cor 14:1-3 where someone has to prophesy to you, it must give you comfort and improve your mind and character.

Another thing is that the prophecy may cause you the listener to react.
1 Corinthians 14:24-25
"But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth."


Why eat when there was no death? In Genesis, God tells Adam and Eve not to eat of a certain tree, but they can eat from any other tree. The bible also apparently says that before sin there was no death.

So... Why the need to eat? If you are immortal, what purpose would eating have?

There are really only two opinions on this and they stem from differing definitions of the word immortal which often conflates or coincides with opinions on the nature of the afterlife.

Traditionally, immortal meant that you simply did not age, and therefore would not die from old age. This is often extended to illness as well. Your body still had requirements, such and food, water, and rest. Naturally, then, there was fruit in the garden for Adam to eat. Proponents of this view often point out that the Tree of Life was in the Garden too. They suggest that they Tree was necessary for immortality and was eaten regularly. This leave the question of harm to your body. Yes, that would be possible under this view.

In much of Christianity, immortal has come to mean that the person cannot die by any cause. The doctrines that dictate there is an immortal soul that is separate from the body use the word immortal in this sense. The pre-fall existence is often conflated with this, despite it being a significantly different thing. So they say the body had no requirements to sustain itself. Proponents of this view would likely point out that eating is a pleasurable exercise, hence, there was fruit in the Garden.

Ancient Greek religion originally tended more toward the first definition, but moved toward the second later. It had a significant impact on Christianity while the second definition was prominent. More precisely, it had an impact on the Jews of that time.

Just because there was no death does not mean that eating was not necessary for the physical body.  If food was plentiful, and there was no disease that would prevent one from obtaining the necessary nutrients from food, then there would be no death from hunger, even if food was required for sustaining physical life.

Therefore, your premises (Adam and Eve ate, there was no death before the fall) are not a contradiction.


What about the story of the "Rich Man and Lazarus" indicates whether it is a parable or not? To extend this previous question, what about the text of the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man indicates whether it should be considered a parable or an "actual" account?

One thing that seems to distinguish parables from accounts of actual events is the absence of specific names for the people in the parables.  In the parables we read, "A sower" (Luke 8), "A rich man" (Luke 12, 15), "A man" (Luke 13, 14), "A Samaritan" (Luke 10).

However, in the account of the Rich Man and the Beggar, we are actually given the name of the beggar.  This is quite a distinction from all the other parables.  In addition, Jesus tells us that the rich man saw another specific man--the patriarch Abraham.

So, the fact that the rich man's name is withheld does support the idea of this being a parable.  Yet, the fact that two other specific people are identified by name seems to be stronger evidence to support the idea that this was an actual historical event with actual people.

The significance of this story comes in the reference to someone rising from the dead, as Jesus states that even if someone rises from the dead, some will not believe.  This is fulfilled in the fact that Jesus rose from the dead, and even the chief priests of the day continued in their refusal to believe in Him.

For reference:

  19 “There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and
  who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor
  man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with
  what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and
  licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels
  to Abraham's side.The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in
  Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off
  and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have
  mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water
  and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham
  said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good
  things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted
  here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and
  you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass
  from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to
  us.’ 27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my
  father's house— 28 for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them,
  lest they also come into this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham said,
  ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he
  said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead,
  they will repent.’ 31 He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and
  the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise
  from the dead.’”  Luke 16:19-31 ESV

Is Lazarus and the Rich Man a PARABLE?
Viewing this final story as parabolic has certainly engendered much speculation. It has often been assumed that in this account Jesus set forth a composite picture, not only of the Pharisees, but also his self-righteous and outwardly pious brothers, the rich and powerful men in Israel at that time, especially the teachers of the law who would not lift a finger to alleviate the lot of the oppressed, such as the Sadducees, the Scribes, Lawyers and Priests. They all had the benefit of the law and prophets but similarly neglected the weightier matters of the law such as judgment, mercy, faith, and love toward God and man. Conversely, Lazarus has often been seen to represent those Jews who were helpless and tormented, the outcasts of the day whose movement toward repentance was interpreted as prefiguring their identification in Christ's death and resurrection enabling them to be recipients of God's comforting promises to Abraham?
However, a prophetic interpretation does not develop naturally from either the context of the chapter or the specific situation Jesus was facing. In addition, there are a number of reasons that suggest this account may not be a parable. Firstly, Jesus’ parables are usually identified for us by the gospel writers themselves; this one is not. Secondly, gospel parables tend to center on one clear concept or point out one clear truth; this one does not. Thirdly, the parables of Jesus all involve everyday common events and possible human experiences; this one does not. Lastly, there are few other recorded parables where one finds personal names weaved into the story. The Rich Man and Lazarus then does not readily fit the mold of parable.
If not a parable, is it possible that there is another literary form which holds the key to accurately interpreting Luke 16:19-31, one that adequately accounts for context - both immediate context (who Jesus was speaking to and why) and historical context (particularly, how Jesus’ audience might have understood and responded to this narrative).
COULD THIS STORY BE A PARODY?

While Jesus often used non-literal, non-historical material to
illustrate truth, would He ever resort to satire to make a point?

That Jesus did employ satire at times is quite evident in the gospels. Examples of this include, Matthew 9:13, where Jesus exempts the Pharisees from His redemptive plan because He only came for sinners, not “the righteous” and again in Luke 13:13 where Jesus ironically expresses that prophets cannot possibly perish anywhere except in Jerusalem. Also in Matthew 22:23-33, Jesus silences the Sadducees on the question of the resurrection by expanding upon the nature of angels (verse 30). I don’t think for a moment that Jesus was seriously trying to convince the Sadducees of something they did not believe in by elaborating upon something else they equally dismissed as nonexistent.
But does the account under consideration qualify as “satire”? In order to establish that the literary form of Lazarus and the Rich Man is satire, or more particularly, a parody, there must be clear evidence that:
    a. A common or "well known story line is being imitated".
    b. irony is employed; that the story’s outcome is changed such that there is clear “incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the expected result”
    c. the unexpected results "highlight human stupidity" or corruption.
    d. "a comic end is served", the purpose of which is to cause listeners  "to detach sympathies from certain people (groups), to judge their actions and to see the absurdity in their behavior.."
I believe The Rich Man and Lazarus account satisfies these criteria and fits the mold of parody rather nicely.


Absolution without confession is valid or not? Being a Syrian Orthodox, I have a doubt...
Will my sind be forgiven if I get HUSOYO/(absolution prayer only with no confession) instead of confession of sins?
I usually confess once in a month but the weeks in between, if I get HUSOYO will it forgive my sins?

You are already forgiven if your a believer and Love God with all your might, heart, soul, spirit, pinky toe. Lol Your confession doesn't have to be to the masses it can be to one believer and or from what i've experienced from the Spirit, while your in prayer and communion with God.


If a Pope does something wrong, or less than ideal, who is he representing? If/when a Pope does something wrong, who is he representing? is he a man who sins, just like the rest of us, or is he supposed to be sort of like the face of God, thereby showing that if he did something wrong, then the pope himself is a fake?

in other words, if a pope did do something unarguably sinful (so not debatable) what would that mean for him specifically, and then Catholics in general?

The Pope is not "the face of God": he is "primus inter pares"1 (the first between equals) - he is not "more bishop" than any other bishop, or "more perfect" than any other man. He is a sinner like all of us, but it's wise and the Church (under Holy Spirit's guide) choose him as chief.

He is not infallible (except in some special occasions, but historically it happened only two times) and he often consult other bishops for his decisions

1 "primus inter partes" is not an official title of the Pope (it refers to the Patriarchs of Constantinople, chief of Orthodox church). The official title of the Pope is "Vicar of Christ", but it's only a semantic difference. The Sacrament of Ordination has only 3 steps, and the pope has the "fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders" just like other bishops. Pope, Cardinal, Archbishop and similar are human titles, no related to Sacraments - Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church

In order for the Pope to be a Catholic in good standing he too must go to confession at least once a year.  In order for the sacrament to be properly ordered according to the Catholic Catechism he must have a cardinal sin to confess.  Hence the Pope is like the rest of us, a sinner.  The Pope is the visible leader of the church which means he must be the servant of all the faithful.  Hence, at the beginning of the Catholic catechism the Popes letter begins: from the servant of the servants of God.

Those who oppose the Roman Catholic Church tend to focus on "bad" popes, bishops, priests, deacons and laity to indicate the failure of the original universal Church.  The problem with this line of thinking is that it stands in opposition to Mat 16:18 (NAB).  When Jesus first mentions that he will establish a "church" he says "the gates of the netherworld shall never overcome it."  To say the church was, at any point, truly overcome by evil is to say Jesus was wrong.  We do well to consider that even one of the twelve disciples Jesus chose betrayed him and yet Judas betrayal did not render Jesus' work as invalid.  In the same way a Pope that betrays the church, the body of Christ,  does not render the church invalid.


Why does Jesus speak of himself in the third person? There are a number of places where Jesus refers to himself in the third person.  The most common is when he uses the title 'Son of Man' (by my count, there are some 78 times Jesus uses that title in the gospels!).  For example Matthew 16:13 (NIV):

  When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his
  disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"

I understand the significance of that title (e.g. Daniel 7:13-14) but why does Jesus use it so often to describe himself?  Complicating matters in my mind is the fact that the various gospels seem to use 'Son of Man' and 'I' interchangably.  For example, Mark 8:27 is a parallel passage to the one above but it says:

  Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea
  Philippi. On the way he asked them, "Who do people say I am?"

One other major case of third person titles that intrigues me is in John 17 where Jesus is praying and refers to himself as God's son and 'Jesus Christ':

  1After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed:

    "Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may
  glorify you. 2For you granted him authority over all people that he
  might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3Now this is
  eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ,
  whom you have sent. 4I have brought you glory on earth by finishing
  the work you gave me to do. 5And now, Father, glorify me in your
  presence with the glory I had with you before the world began."

Why does he suddenly refer to himself as Jesus Christ here but nowhere else?

I think a large part of His reason for doing this is to make shed more light on His identity. The title used reflects additional information about the person using it. So, to look at a few of Jesus's many titles:

"son of man" -> associates Jesus with the glorious figure seen in Daniel 7
"son of David" -> associates Jesus with the promise God made to David about a descendant who would sit on the throne forever
"son of God" -> describes Jesus as a king (since some of the kings of Israel were called "sons of God") although it is sometimes used in other ways by other people ("Son of the living God", "the Son of God") to refer to Jesus's divine nature.
"messiah" / "Christ" -> associates Jesus with prophecies about a prophet from God who would rescue Israel

So when Jesus used a particular title, it would evoke a particular image and bring to mind different ideas, even though they were all correct.

Short example of how this makes a difference. Say I'm trying to get into a fancy restaurant and the guy at the front is looking doubtful that I "fit in". I could say (assuming it was true):

I'm Richard, let me in.
I'm the son of the owner of this restaurant, let me in.
I'm cousin to the President, let me in.

They might all be true, but I'd be gaining something from the use of different titles.

Likewise, Jesus used different titles to show different aspects of Himself. Here is a great article on some of them (although it does miss a bit theologically).

One can only speculate about this, but in the synoptic gospels Jesus most likely referred to himself as 'son of man' knowing that men who would come after him would make a god out of him, and this reference would have been used to remind people that he was merely human and not the god that they would make him.

The gospel of John on the other hand, which almost didn't make it into the canon, puts the title of Jesus as 'THE Son of God' and 'Jesus Christ'. This marks the beginning of the church transforming the image of Yeshua the man into Jesus Christ the only begotten son of God -- a god and a part of the so-called 'godhead'. The gospel of John is so mixed with Greek philosophy and mythology, there is very little that could actually be referred to as gospel in the Jewish believer's sense in the early first century.


Why doesn't dispensationalism identify a dispensation focused on David? Dispensationalism is a broad family of theories, and different proponents identify different dispensations, including a different number of dispensations. Here is a typical diagram:

Through all the different versions of dispensationalism, I have however never seen any that identify a dispensation for David or the Israelite monarchy. This seems to me to be a huge gap in the model!

David is the beginning of the unending monarchy, the beginning of the branch that leads to Jesus. The monarchy represents a major shift from a judge/prophet-led and distributed nation to a centralised king-led nation, and from the priests being the people's sole representatives before God to the king also being their represenative. David's covenant is one of the few Biblical covenants, the others (Noah, Abraham, Moses and Phinehas, the New) are associated with the beginning of dispensations. David is a big deal!

So why don't dispensationists identify a dispensation starting with David? From a Biblical/theological perspective isn't David far more significant than the two chapters of narrative between the Fall and the Flood (Gen 4 & 6) or between the Flood and Abraham (Gen 9 & 11)?

Dispensation can be understood as "a distinctive arrangement or period in history that forms the framework through which God relates to mankind".  Under both the Judges and the monarchy period (including David's dynasty), the judges & kings are "state" authorities charged with secular implementation of the framework necessary for the priestly system and the constitutional (the Torah) system to operate.  David would then fall under the yellow "Human Government" box in your diagram.

I would compare Israel / Judah king's role at that time to how a Christian Roman emperor (like Constantine or Justinian) or the King of England see their role in giving the Church with proper secular support and secular powers to exert her spiritual authority, just like God expected the Israel / Judah kings to build and support the temple, to support the right judicial authorities, and to cry out only to Yahweh for help during times of invasions / famine, etc.  But we read in the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles how with the exception of David the kings compromised their duties from little (like Josiah, Hezekiah) to huge (like Ahab).  They are supposed to destroy foreign god's temple and to implement justice (Torah) but INSTEAD they import foreign gods or by not going far enough to destroy foreign god worship erected by their predecessors.  So God responded in the same degrees: respectful burial for Josiah / Hezekiah, relatively minor troubles for them during their lifetime, but total humiliation and the end of his dynasty for Ahab, culminating in the 2 exiles under Assyria and Babylon.

After returning from exile under Persia, throughout the second temple period, some (most?) Jews expected two kinds of Messiah: a priestly one coming from the line of Moses (Levite), and a Davidic one.  Jesus was both, even though Jesus descended from David.  I think that is why the book of Hebrews justified Jesus's office as Priest by saying that his priesthood was from the order of Melchizedek (because He was not Levite by blood).  It is Jesus's Priesthood which is part of dispensation, hence the purple Grace box in the diagram.  But Jesus is also King, the King of Christendom until today, continuing until the second coming, but this authority falls under "Human Government" (yellow box).

So yes, David was a big deal, and so is Jesus's authority as King today!  All countries's supreme authorities dominating the news recently, whether it's US President, Canada Prime Minister, King of England, Japanese emperor, Saudi King, Thai King,  Chinese communist party, President of Russia, should all submit to Jesus's authority as King in the yellow box to give room and support for the Church, for example by defending her existential rights, her secular rights, her input to the country's laws, and police protection against violence.

But dispensation is essentially about our relationship with God, administered in the current dispensation through Grace (applied directly to individuals for Protestants, or through the sacraments of the church for Catholics), and I think that's why David didn't get a separate marker in the diagram but he definitely belonged to the yellow box and all authorities of the world today should look at David for role model.

Now to answer your specific points:

  The monarchy represents a major shift from a judge/prophet-led and distributed nation to a centralised king-led nation, and from the priests being the people's sole representatives before God to the king also being their represenative.

I would not call David as God's representative, but as God's choice (as in God chose David over Saul).  In the monarchical period I believe the King was supposed to be anointed and coronated by a priest, God's true representative.  When a king needs to seek God's help the king needed to go to the Temple, a precinct of the priesthood.  So a King didn't have inherent access to God, unlike a priest.  God also used prophets as official messenger, the "mouthpiece" of God, and the King was supposed to listen and obey.  But prophets do not have stable, permanent office like a priest, and anyone (non-Levite) can be called to serve as a prophet.  The Pharisees and Sadducees were fine with Jesus if he restricted his activity as a prophet, but Jesus made bigger claims.

  David's covenant is one of the few Biblical covenants, the others (Noah, Abraham, Moses and Phinehas, the New) are associated with the beginning of dispensations.

Remember that David's covenant is not the same as Mosaic / Sinai covenant, and is not the same as Abrahamic covenant.

David's covenant is personal (to David alone, the man after God's heart), and God fulfilled it in Jesus who now rules forever.  It's a done deal; there is no more to be expected.
But people are not saved by David's covenant, people are saved through the Mosaic covenant (the cyan "Law" box), also a done deal since Jesus fulfilled the Law.
Abrahamic covenant is also different in kind, having to do with "physical stuff": descendants, prosperity, and a means to lead Gentiles to God (some would say that's why God is preserving the Jewish people as a race).

So it's best not to confuse covenant with dispensation.

Dispensations are broken up by periods when the Gospel was removed from the Earth and then restored through a Prophet.  Dispensations have nothing to do with kings and everything to do with Church organization.

From the beginning there were dispensations under Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus.  The commonality is that these were all anointed (authorized) heads of the Church, Prophets if you will.  They are also characterized by a falling away between each of them.

David was a big deal, but he wasn't a Levite or the head of the Church for his day.  Furthermore, there wasn't a falling away between Moses and David.


Mental Illness vs. Demon Possession Mental illness is a fairly recent idea (in terms of human history).  As far as I know, the concept did not exist at all at the time the Bible was written.
I have heard some Christians speculate that some of the instances of demon possession recorded in the Bible may have been cases of schizophrenia or other mental illnesses. For example (many others exist):
Matthew 8:16-17:

16 And when even was come, they brought unto him many possessed with demons: and he cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all that were sick:
17 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying: Himself took our infirmities, and bare our diseases.

Is it possible that some/all "demon possessions" in the Bible were simply cases of curing mental illnesses?  If the answer is "some," can we know the difference, and if so how?

I think there are four ways one can look at this.
Medical perspective
There are no well-documented cases of demon possession today among vast numbers of illnesses; various mental health problems have been tracked down often to a physical cause (even if we don't understand all the details of how the flaws work).  (See Wikipedia articles on epilepsy, schizophrenia, and so on.)
Historical accounts of people acting weirdly are generally consistent with the illnesses diagnosed (and treated, to some extent) today.  Since there is no evidence for demon possession, and a quite satisfactory alternative hypothesis (allowing for some exaggerations during telling), we should conclude that there never was any demon possession; that the Bible mentions possession is just a historical artifact of how mental illness symptoms were viewed at the time of the New Testament (note that the Old Testament is curiously free of cases of demonic possession).
Orthodox perspective
The Bible says there were demons, for example in Matthew 8:28-29:

Jesus Heals Two Men with Demons
28And when he came to the other side, to the country of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men met him, coming out of the tombs, so fierce that no one could pass that way. 29And behold, they cried out, "What have you to do with us, O Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?"

So there were certainly demons then.  No one group can lay completely exclusive undisputed claim to the title "Orthodox", but that this was the historical view seems reasonably clear just from reading the Gospels.  Modern groups that take the title Orthodox also tend to take this view: there are also demons now, even if they're more discreet than they used to be.  Nonetheless, the demons still affect us and need to be battled, and they still possess people (and can be exorcised).
Unification perspective
Demonic possession and mental illnesses are two different ways to look at the same thing.  When we say someone is possessed by jealousy, we don't mean that there is an evil spirit called Jealousy that is taking control of our actions.  Instead, we mean that they are in a particular mood, one which induces them to do things that they might sorely regret were they in a calmer state of mind.
In this view, "demonic possession" is a spiritual perspective on mental illness: mental illness is a flaw ultimately enabled by evil, and so without the perspective of modern medicine, it is entirely reasonable to call states of mental dysfunction "demonic possession" (in the possessed by jealousy sense).
Diversification perspective
There are some mental illnesses and some demon possessions, and if something was called a "demon possession" in the New Testament but sounds like a mental illness, it was probably a mental illness.  (This view blends into the Orthodox view, depending on whether any Biblical accounts of possession can be attributed to non-demonic mental illness instead.  Many Orthodox churches recognize mental illness as a phenomenon.  The Catholic Church in particular clearly recognizes mental illness as well as demonic possession, and I do not know whether doctrine indicates that some apparent cases of demonic possession should be understood as mental illness instead.)
Conclusion
Given a perspective, one can answer whether some/all cases of demon possession were actually mental illness.  In the first and third views, they all were; in the fourth, some were, but picking out which was which is hard to do reliably (would require scriptural support, of which there is none that I am aware).  In the second, no, demon possession was really the problem, just like it says.

There's definitely two ways of looking at things when it comes to this premise.

The first point of view

Demons are real and they can cause distortion of mental abilities as well as seizures and other illness'.

The second point of view

Demons are not real. Mental illnesses are a type of demon.

I would say that in either case, it is possible that some mental illnesses are just an illness without a demon behind them.


Is there any sense in being baptized as an adult after being baptized as an infant? Around the time I was born, my parents were going to a Lutheran church. As such, I was baptized as an infant. In most cases in the Bible, baptism is connected with receiving the Holy Spirit. If so, then that may explain why I don't remember when I became a believer. However, there ARE verses such as those in Mark and Luke (below) that make a reference to believing as well, which I couldn't have done as a baby.

Mark 16:16 (NLT)
Anyone who believes and is baptized will be saved. But anyone who refuses to believe will be condemned.
Luke 3:3 (NLT)
Then John went from place to place on both sides of the Jordan River, preaching that people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God to be forgiven.

(Emphasis mine.)
As such, I am considering being baptized again as an adult. After all, I can now say that I believe and that I have repented, but there is little or nothing in the Bible about being baptized twice. Also, infant baptism doesn't seem to have become widespread until at least a century after Christ (Wikipedia).
I consider myself non-denominational on the side of Wesleyan, but I'll take answers from any viewpoint.

I'm Catholic, but I think this is sort of normal Christian advice, let me know if it doesn't make sense (logically at least).

Canon IX of the Seventh Session of Trent teaches that baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul of the faithful that cannot be removed:

  If any one shall say that in the three sacraments, Baptism, to wit, Confirmation, and Orders, there is not imprinted on the soul a character, that is, a certain spiritual and indelible sign, on account of which they cannot be repeated; let him be anathema.

But, if for whatever reason you had reason to believe that your original baptism was not valid (not just insufficient), then you'd probably want to get baptized (you don't need to call it re-baptized) because baptism is necessary for salvation and justification of the sinner (ibid. Canon IV):

  If any one shall say that [any or all of the] the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous, and that without them, and without the desire thereof, men, through faith alone, obtain of God the grace of justification; though all [the sacraments] be not necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

(the same logic is applied to Marriage and Annulment of Marriage)

But, the best advice is to follow the advice of your spiritual advisor. Don't go into baptism for the 'feeling' of it.

God says infant baptism is wrong.  Consider the following passage:

  Acts 8.35-37 (KJV)
  35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
  36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
  37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
  38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

God has made it clear in this passage that before anyone can be baptised, they must meet this prerequisite: they must believe with all their heart that Yahshua is The Son of God.  Philip knew this was true in the case of the eunuch, because the eunuch confessed it with his mouth.

In the case of an infant who cannot yet speak, how can we possibly know whether or not they believe with all of their heart that Yahshua is The Son of God?  We can’t.  Furthermore, in the case of an infant who is not yet old enough to understand spoken or written words, it’s clear that they cannot even understand what the words ‘If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest’ mean, let alone believe them.

As such, we must conclude that an infant does not meet the prerequisite which God has set for a person to be ready to be baptised in water and so if whilst we are seeking to fulfil God’s command to ’[go] … and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost…’ (Matthew 28.19), we encounter (as I have many times) someone who says “I have been baptised” and we find out after probing that this was as a baby, we know we have some explaining to do, since this baptism was completely and utterly ineffectual.

To respond to Peter Turner's question about whether the infants in Cornelius' household were rebaptised when they reached the age of majority, I would pose the following question: why do you assume there were any children in Cornelius' household that were so young that they couldn't understand the meaning of spoken (or indeed written) words, hence being too young to believe that Yahshua is The Son of God, hence being too young to be baptised?

Now let's think about the assertion above that John's baptism was invalid.  If we examine the scripture quoted (Acts19.3-5), we find that nowhere did Paul say John's baptism was invalid.  We actually find that it was a different baptism to being baptised in The Name of The Lord Jesus.  There was nothing wrong with it.  It was God's will for their lives, as He makes clear in John 7.29-30:

  28 For I say to you, among those born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist;[d] but he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”
  29 And when all the people heard Him, even the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John. 30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.

It was God's will for them to be baptised with the baptism of John before Yahshua had died on the cross, risen from the dead and given the following instruction:

  18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
  19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
  20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28.18-20)

Nowhere in The Bible does it say anyone was baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost before Yahshua had died on the cross.  I suspect this is because it took Yahshua's death on the cross to make this possible.

If the church wants to regain the favour of God that the early believers enjoyed, we need to examine how they operated and do likewise.  You'll find in the book of Acts that when people believed the preaching of the apostles or an evangelist (Philip), they were baptised immediately.  Salvation is urgent.  People have died and gone to a lost eternity today (unless perhaps someone raises them from the dead and they get some more time in this life), to be thrown into the lake of fire, because they didn't understand the word that was preached:

  18 Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.
  19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side. (Matt 13.18-19).

  48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
  49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
  50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak. (John 12.48-50).

  46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
  47 Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:
  48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.
  49 But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great. (Luke 6.46-49).

Make no mistake: if you want to be like the man in the parable of whom The Lord said "the ruin of the house [he built] was great", when you here Yahshua's words, don't do them.

Yahshuas' words:

  16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16.16).

In response to Affable Geek's comment below, to which counter case do you refer?

In response to fredsbend, thanks for the edit and formatting help.


How was Jesus the Seed of David if Jesus is God who created Man (Adam), and David is the seed of Adam? How is Jesus the Messiah, the seed of David, if Jesus is God, and God created Man (Adam), and David is the seed of Adam? This is a never-ending circle, and can't physically be possible. We are told in the Old Testament that the Messiah will be the seed of David. This prophecy is fulfilled in the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Joseph was not the father of Jesus; God was. So if Jesus is God, he is his own Father?

This is very confusing to me.

How has this apparent contradiction—between Jesus being the seed of David and Jesus being God—been resolved by Christian theologians and denominations that affirm the Incarnation: that Jesus is fully human and fully God?

"How is Jesus the Messiah, the seed of David"? Simple: Jesus is the human aspect of the offspring of David. Before that, Jesus was spirit.

Jesus created all things, including humanity, as one of the persons of the Godhead before He was flesh and blood. It was only after Mary gave birth to Him that Jesus became flesh and blood. So this is not a circle.

To clarify your points:

As the Son of God in spirit form, Jesus created all things (John 1:1-3).
The Messianic prophecies foretold of Jesus the Son of God as coming in the flesh, as the offspring of a woman. So Jesus, the Word, became flesh (John 1:14).

The answer lies in scripture without added commentary being necessary, unless of course you are forcing references other than scripture.

  Colossians 1:
  12 Giving thanks to God the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light: 13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness and hath translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love, 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the remission of sins: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers. All things were created by him and in him. 17 And he is before all: and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he may hold the primacy:

  John 1:
  1 IN the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.  2 The same was in the beginning with God.  3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.
  14 And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.
  17 For the law was given by Moses: grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.  18 No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the Bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

  Hebrews 1:
  1 GOD, who, at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all, 2 In these days, hath spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world. 3 Who being the brightness of his glory and the figure of his substance and upholding all things by the word of his power, making purgation of sins, sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high: 4 Being made so much better than the angels as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they. 5 For to which of the angels hath he said at any time: Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten thee? And again: I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? 6 And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith: And let all the angels of God adore him. 7 And to the angels indeed he saith: He that maketh his angels spirits and his ministers a flame of fire.
  8 But to the Son: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of justice is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
  10 And: Thou in the beginning, O Lord, didst found the earth: and the works of thy hands are the heavens.
  13 But to which of the angels said he at any time: Sit on my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool?

  Hebrews 2:
  6 But one in a certain place hath testified, saying: What is man, that thou art mindful of him? Or the son of man, that thou visitest him? 7 Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels: thou hast crowned him with glory and honour and hast set him over the works of thy hands. 8 Thou hast subjected all things under his feet. For in that he hath subjected all things to him he left nothing not subject to him. But now we see not as yet all things subject to him. 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour: that, through the grace of God he might taste death for all. 10 For it became him for whom are all things and by whom are all things, who had brought many children into glory, to perfect the author of their salvation, by his passion.
  >16 For nowhere doth he take hold of the angels: but of the seed of Abraham he taketh hold. 17 Wherefore, it behoved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest before God, that he might be a propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that wherein he himself hath suffered and been tempted he is able to succour them also that are tempted.

  Hebrews 3:
  4 For every house is built by some man: but he that created all things is God. 5 And Moses indeed was faithful in all his house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be said: 6 But Christ, as the Son in his own house: which house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and glory of hope unto the end. 7 Wherefore, as the Holy Ghost saith: To-day if you shall hear his voice, 8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the desert, 9 Where your fathers tempted me, proved and saw my works,

  2 Corinthians 3:
  17 Now the Lord is a Spirit. And where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

Concerning the only begotten Son and the Father there appears to be a power beyond creation, beyond this universe, that will destroy this creation on judgment day:

  Revelation 20:
  11 And I saw a great white throne and one sitting upon it, from whose face the earth and heaven fled away: and there was no place found for them

  Revelation 21:
  1 I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the first heaven and the first earth was gone: and the sea is now no more.

Since God is Spirit this appears to be possible if you see the Father as the complete Spirit with the only begotten Son the fullness of the Spirit that is within creation (as apparently some portion exists outside of creation).  This last comes from reconciling the scripture provided along with studying the Bible from the view that all of it is inspired by the Holy Ghost/Spirit thus cannot contradict itself and must be logical.

Regarding Jesus being the seed of David, this was symbolic due to Joseph being of the line of David (the purpose of the lineage given in Luke 3:23-38):

  Luke 1:
  27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David: and the virgin’s name was Mary.

Also, regarding your last comment on the original post, there are different spellings of some of the names depending on what Bible version you are sourcing but the lineage is intact, with one possible addition that I can see (Cainan between Arphaxad/Arpachshad and Sale/Shelah).


Did Calvinism borrow its scheme of predestination from Valentinian Gnosticism? How does the Calvinist notion of predestination differ from that of the Valentinian Gnostics' predestination?  There are several sources outlining the Valentinian Gnostic system (anti-heretic "church fathers" like Ireneaus), but it basically had three classes:

materials (Greek hylics or sometimes somatics, the non-elect)
soul-lys (Greek psuchics, the partially or temporarily elect)
spirituals (Greek pneumatics, the true elect or those both elected and granted perseverance).

What further information is there on the relationship between these two systems? Is there evidence that Calvin borrowed from the Valentinian system through his study of the "church fathers"? did that borrowing come mediated through Augustine?

What was predestination according to Calvin?

  Predestination According to Calvin      According to John Calvin, predestination is God’s unchangeable decree from before the creation
  of the world that he would freely save some people (the elect),
  foreordaining them to eternal life, while the others (the reprobate)
  would be “barred from access to” salvation and sentenced to “eternal
  death".
  Source: Calvin on Predestination

What led Calvin to teach predestination?

According to this Article - John Calvin: Predestination and Justice -

  [Basing ] his conviction that the Bible is God’s beneficial and
  sufficient revelation for humanity, John Calvin felt constrained to
  teach the doctrine of predestination. To the extent that
  predestination is part of scripture, Calvin thought it should be
  taught for the benefit of God’s people.

Therefore from this and other few articles I perused online, Calvin chose to teach predestination because it was in the Bible, and to him, it ought to be taught because he was convinced the Bible was God's beneficial and sufficient revelation for humanity.

To respond to the question in particular - that of the "Valentinian" three states of election - yes, we do see the exact same three states enunciated by Calvin.

However Calvin - (and his predecessors) did not (and do not today) use the exact same terms enunciated by the ancient Stoics, Epicureans, Gnostics, or NeoPlatonists - even though many of their concepts are synchronized into Augustinianism doctrine (i.e., Calvinism) - and quite naturally resurface within Calvinist language.  Its just a matter of knowing what indicators to look for.

Calvin would of-course refrain from using the terms "hylics", "psuchics", and "pneumatics" to describe the 3 states of election within his doctrine - and for obvious reasons.

But yes the 3 states of elect-status enunciated by Valentinus are reiterated by Calvin.

However, that being said, it must also be recognized that the Augustinian system which Calvin revises is approximately 1 part Gnosticism, 3 parts NeoPlatonism, and 7 parts Christian.

One can observe scripture in general, interpreted through the lens of Gnosticism's good-evil dualism - Christian salvation interpreted through the lens of Gnosticism's tripart election status, and a THEOS conforming to Plato's doctrine of divine immutability.


If God "shows no partiality," how do Calvinists defend predestination? There are a number of verses in the Bible that say that God is "not partial" (Deuteronomy 10:17) or that he "shows no partiality" (Romans 2:11, ESV).  How do Calvinists square such verses with their doctrine of predestination, in which God specifically chooses some people to be saved but not others?

Related question, but not specific to challenges based on these passages: According to Calvinism, why does God give mercy to some and not to others?

Summary: Calvinists interpret these passages as referring to God's righteousness and justice — that he is a fair judge, consistently judging sin as wrong, whether committed by rich or poor, strong or weak, native or foreigner.  They do not indicate that God's gracious gifts – wealth, strength, and even salvation – are distributed equally to all.

Calvinists argue that the context of Deuteronomy 10:17–18 makes it clear that "partiality" here refers to God being a just judge, like many other similar passages in the Old Testament:

  17 For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe. 18 He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing. (ESV)

John Calvin says that here "God distinguishes Himself from men, who are carried away by outward appearance, to hold the rich in honor, and the poor in contempt; to favor the beautiful or the eloquent, and to despise the unseemly."1 Obviously the phrasing "not partial" here cannot mean that "God's justice requires that everyone have identical gifts," since these very verses presume the existence of the weak, poor, and foreign.  Rather, God "does not regard persons," as older English translations put it: he does not give weight to the outward appearance and station of men.

John Frame2 points out that, a few chapters earlier (Deuteronomy 7), we see this principle applied to the election of Israel:

  7 It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, 8 but it is because the Lord loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the Lord has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. (ESV)

God's election here follows the same principle: he does not show "partiality" by choosing a powerful people. Neither is his choice based on Israel's merit (Deuteronomy 9:4, 6), but rather it is simply an act of grace (Deuteronomy 10:15, Ezekiel 16:1–14).2  The ultimate reason for electing some and not others is a mystery to us (Romans 9:15–21, Exodus 33:19),3 but we know it is not "partiality." (For more on this mystery, see: According to Calvinism, why does God give mercy to some and not to others?)

Other passages refer God's lack of partiality in the context of Jew vs. Gentile, like Acts 10:34–35 and, quoted below, Romans 2:9–11:

  9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality. (ESV)

Here, Calvin says, we see that God regards "purity of heart or inward integrity," not "kindred, country, dignity, wealth, and similar things," and that on this basis Jews and Gentiles "are both without any distinction exposed to eternal death." He then proceeds to rebut what he elsewhere calls the Pelagian objection:

  But if any hence objects and says, "That then there is no such thing as the gratuitous election of God;" it may be answered, That there is a twofold acceptation of men before God; the first, when he chooses and calls us from nothing through gratuitous goodness, as there is nothing in our nature which can be approved by him; the second, when after having regenerated us, he confers on us his gifts, and shows favor to the image of his Son which he recognizes in us."4

That is to say: God shows no partiality in his judgment, nor does he base election on something in a particular man's nature.  Instead, he chooses and blesses the elect out of grace alone.

Calvin, Harmony of the Law, Volume 3, Eighth Commandment
Frame, Systematic Theology (2013), ISBN: 9781596382176, p210
Frame, p223–24
Calvin, Commentary on Romans.  The "Pelagian" language is found in his Commentary on Acts 10:34.

If God “shows no partiality,” how do Calvinists defend predestination?

The application of "predestination" would by definition be "before".

  Romans 8:29  For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be
  conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn
  among many brethren.

Since there is much we do not know, some interesting possibilities emerge. Consider that God gave predestination to all he had planned to create (those he foreknew). It may be that the lost comprise a group that God had not intended to create.

  Genesis 3:15  And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and
  between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou
  shalt bruise his heel.

  Matthew 3:12  Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge
  his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up
  the chaff with unquenchable fire.

  Romans 9:2223  What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his
  power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath
  fitted to destruction:  And that he might make known the riches of his
  glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

  Matthew 13:24-30  Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The
  kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his
  field:   But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the
  wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought
  forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.   So the servants of the
  householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed
  in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?   He said unto them, An
  enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that
  we go and gather them up?  But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up
  the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.   Let both grow
  together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to
  the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in
  bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

It may be that election (predestination) was intended to be universal, but the introduction of sin with its attendant sexual profligacy resulted in a parallel population that was not foreknown. While this population has its sins paid for by Jesus and the offer of salvation is extended to it, without the intervention of the Father, there will be no interest in Jesus.

  John 6:44  No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me
  draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The Father may not be withholding salvation but be restricted to those he "foreknew".  There is so much we do not know and perhaps cannot know, that we need to be careful not to confuse surmise for doctrine.