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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


What is the meaning of the following Bible quote

When you interpret the Bible, you have to look at whole passages and not just individual verses out of context. The surrounding text will give you a reference for the meaning of a verse. In this case the verse is in the middle of a chapter where the entire focus is on the reactions of people to things that were lost and are now found - a lost sheep, a lost coin, and a lost son. This gives us a pretty clear indication that Jesus is driving home a point about how people react to things that were lost and area now found, and how this applies to Heaven. We should therefore look at this statement, and all the ones around it, to find out things about lostness and being found - not about the nature of sin and angels. It is a general principle with parables that you can come to wrong conclusions by pushing an analogy too far.

The universal interpretation of this entire passage is addressed to the Pharisees, who really did think that they could work their way to becoming acceptable to God. In their eyes the better you were, the more God approved and appreciated you, and the more joy there would be in heaven when you got there. In their eyes the rejoicing would be for those that most nearly reached God's standards. The stories told here by Jesus are meant to indicate entirely the opposite. To take the parables to mean something about the nature of perfection would be to go in the wrong direction.

See here, here, here.


How can 1 Corithians 15:3 and Psalms 49:7 be reconciled?

In context the scripture reads -

Ps. 49:6-9: “Those who are trusting in their means of maintenance, and who keep boasting about the abundance of their riches, not one of them can by any means redeem even a brother, nor give to God a ransom for him; (and the redemption price of their soul is so precious that it has ceased to time indefinite) that he should still live forever and not see the pit.”

Therefore, in context, no 'imperfect human' can provide the means to deliver someone else from sin and death. His money cannot buy eternal life, and his soul laid down in death, being the wages that are to come to him anyway because of sin, has no value toward delivering anyone.

“In Adam all are dying,” said the apostle Paul. (1 Corinthians 15:22) The ransom thus had to involve the death of the exact equal of Adam—a perfect human. (Romans 5:14) No other kind of creature could balance the scales of justice. Only a perfect human, someone not under the Adamic death sentence, could offer “a corresponding ransom”—one corresponding perfectly to Adam. (1 Timothy 2:6) It would not be necessary for untold millions of individual humans to be sacrificed so as to correspond to each descendant of Adam. The apostle Paul explained: “Through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world and death through sin.” (Romans 5:12) And “since death is through a man,” God provided for the redemption of mankind “through a man.” (1 Corinthians 15:21)

God arranged to have a perfect man voluntarily sacrifice his life. According to Romans 6:23, “the wages sin pays is death.” In sacrificing his life, the ransomer would “taste death for every man.” In other words, he would pay the wage for Adam’s sin. (Hebrews 2:9; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:24) This would have profound legal consequences. By nullifying the death sentence upon Adam’s obedient offspring, the ransom would cut off the destructive power of sin right at its source.—Romans 5:16.


What conventions did the Jews use to express time in Jesus' day?

The NIV has simply translated the Jewish reckoning into a time that moderns would understand more readily.

Briefly, hours were reckoned from sunrise - the third hour of the day would be about three hours after sunrise.   Depending on the time of year, that is usually around 9 or 10am in the morning.

As to the concerns about translating units, one should realize there is nothing sacred about the units.  Translating units is merely a helpful aid to the reader who is otherwise unaccustomed to the system.

It would be the equivalent of going from the German Er fahrt funf kilometer to He drove three miles. Literally, the sentence says 5km, but in changing units as well, the reader gains more clarity.

There is nothing any more sacred about units in which a thing is measured than in the sylables with which a word is pronounced.

People who are baptized in the name of Jesu, Yeshua, iousous (Greek), or "der Herr" are not going to Hell because the syllables G and sus were not uttered.

Unlike Islam, Christianity does not believe there is anything sacred about original languages. Units of measure would be no different- whilest the KJV will speak of homers and ephaths, modern translations are totally okay with kilos and liters.

(As an American, however, quarts are clearly holier than liters. How else do you explain our refusal to do what everyone else is doing!)


What are the Biblical arguments against Transubstantiation?

So, what are the Biblical arguments against Transubstantiation?

  Matthew 26:26-28  And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and
  blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said,
  Take, eat; this is my body.   And he took the cup, and gave thanks,
  and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;   For this is my
  blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission
  of sins.

There are two possibilities

Jesus changed the bread and wine actually into his own flesh and blood.
Jesus was using metaphor to describe his death as the means of life for us.

The second possibility gains strength as Jesus used his flesh as a metaphor for life giving sustenance previously.

  John 6:33  For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven,
  and giveth life unto the world.

That Jesus was not talking about physical eating was further strengthened by his contrast with the bread Moses provided.

That this illustration was not easily understood is seen by the reaction of Peter;

  John 6:67-68  Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
  Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast
  the words of eternal life.

Earlier Jesus emphasized the eating of his flesh and the drinking of his blood;

  John 6:53-54  Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto
  you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood,
  ye have no life in you.   Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my
  blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Here it would seem to bolster the argument for a literal eating and drinking of the body of Christ. However, the statement that if they did not eat and drink they would have “no life” in them shows a different kind of life than what most understood, eternal life.

  John 6:58  This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your
  fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread
  shall live for ever.

The literal view loses some support as Jesus emphasizes that it is the spirit that gives life.

  John 6:63  It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth
  nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they
  are life.

The best support for the metaphor view comes from the practice of communion in Corinth.

  1 Corinthians 11:21  For in eating every one taketh before other his
  own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

Apparently some were getting drunk at communion which would indicate it was not physical blood.

  1 Corinthians 11:29  For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily,
  eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's
  body.   For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many
  sleep.

However the best evidence would not be Biblical but forensic. If a sample of blood and wine were examined after transubstantiation, it could easily be proven to be real flesh and blood or not.


When and how did the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament start in the Catholic Church?

The Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament is the result of a confluence of two separate traditions dating back to the thirteenth century. Exposing the Blessed Sacrament for veneration in a monstrance grew out of special value being placed upon the act of looking at the elevation of the Eucharist at mass, probably as a form of protest against the theological views of Peter the Chanter. The second tradition, an evening devotion consisting of the singing of certain hymns, litanies, or canticles before the Blessed Sacrament developed from the many confraternities and guilds that sang canticles in the evening before a statue of "Our Lady".

Summarized from the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament entry in the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia


What is the Protestant belief known as "faith alone"?

The correct understanding of this term is so fundamental in understanding the reformation. It certainly has nothing to do with linguistics or translations. It has everything to do with the doctrine of justification. There are only two sides to the issue. Catholics (and I believe Eastern Orthodox and the Syrian Churches) do not believe in a momentary or instantaneous justification occurring when we are still God's enemies. They believe in justification as something requiring ‘our cooperation’ with grace (code word for works from a Protestant view) until we are finally justified in the final judgment...based on our ‘cooperation’ with grace. Luther and the reformers thought this was all pure and wicked nonsense. They believed in justification that occurs in a moment, while we have no works but only sin. In other words, while a sinner has no merits, no works (all moral goodness are considered the works of the Law as it is the law that requires them) he is justified forever. No merits whatsoever of any kind only a sinful heart forgiven when a person is made justified in an instant. The only condition is faith but not the active kind, rather the passive reception of a gift, excluding justifying faith as a work also. This has often been called 'an alien righteousness' because it is Christ's righteousness imputed to sinners apart from any of their own internal holiness. It is alien to our inner experience.
In simple terms ‘faith apart from works’ means we are justified in 'a moment' while we have no works to consider at all, i.e. justified apart from anything of the sort. Either we are justified over a period of time, where our obedience and personal holiness and sins are taken into the equation, i.e. ‘justified with works in the equation’, or not. Either it is justified by faith only (apart from any works) or justified with works in the mental equation.
Now this has caused confusion because although in terms of protestant justification our works are not a microscopic part of the equation; yet all who are justified of necessity produce good works as a fruit of the 'alien justification' (i.e. external righteousness of Christ imputed to them). Although 'sanctification' includes the discussion of works and 'cooperation with grace', justification excludes them. Our works having nothing to do with justification at all, but they play a big role in our sanctification.  However under the Catholic scheme works are an 'important' part in justification. Actually justification and sanctification are really not much different under the Catholic scheme (i.e. we need continued cooperation with grace in order to be finally justified). Thus Protestants view the Catholic doctrine as works based righteousness hypocritically sprinkled with grace. These two sides should really be clear and do not need any evaluation of Latin or Greek, or German or the invention of different kinds of grace, different kinds of law, etc. Such philosophies only cloud the light of day upon which the Protestant religion was produced. We can’t have it both ways, either our works are considered in 'some sense' in our justification before God, or they are 'not'. One is a classical Protestant view and the other is a Catholic (or Orthodox or Syrian view).
As regards to 'if this is really foundational to Protestantism' the answer is more than anyone probably realizes today.
Just to make it clear that I am accurately representing the reformers on this point I leave a quote from Luther that spells out clearly the difference between those who mix sanctification (i.e. holy love, or works of love) with justification, and those who do not.

The truth of the Gospel is this, that our righteousness comes by faith alone, without the works of the Law. The falsification or corruption of the Gospel is this, that we are justified by faith but not without the works of the Law. The false apostles preached the Gospel, but they did so with this condition attached to it. The scholastics do the same thing in our day. They say that we must believe in Christ and that faith is the foundation of salvation, but they say that this faith does not justify unless it is “formed by love.” This is not the truth of the Gospel; it is falsehood and pretense. The true Gospel, however, is this: Works or love are not the ornament or perfection of faith; but faith itself is a gift of God, a work of God in our hearts, which justifies us because it takes hold of Christ as the Savior. Human reason has the Law as its object. It says to itself: “This I have done; this I have not done.” But faith in its proper function has no other object than Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was put to death for the sins of the world. It does not look at its love and say: “What have I done? Where have I sinned? What have I deserved?” But it says: “What has Christ done? What has He deserved?” And here the truth of the Gospel gives you the answer: “He has redeemed you from sin, from the devil, and from eternal death.” Therefore faith acknowledges that in this one Person, Jesus Christ, it has the forgiveness of sins and eternal life. Whoever diverts his gaze from this object does not have true faith; he has a phantasy and a vain opinion. He looks away from the promise and at the Law, which terrifies him and drives him to despair.
Therefore what the scholastics have taught about justifying faith “formed by love” is an empty dream. For the faith that takes hold of Christ, the Son of God, and is adorned by Him is the faith that justifies, not a faith that includes love. For if faith is to be sure and firm, it must take hold of nothing but Christ alone; and in the agony and terror of conscience it has nothing else to lean on than this pearl of great value (Matt. 13:45–46). Therefore whoever takes hold of Christ by faith, no matter how terrified by the Law and oppressed by the burden of his sins he may be, has the right to boast that he is righteous (Luther’s works, vol. 26: Lectures on Galatians, 1535, Chapters 1-4.(Vol. 26, pp. 88–89).

Furthermore it should be clear that the reformers, when speaking about 'works of the law' meant moral goodness primarily and not the so called Mosaic legislation (i.e. ceremonies and civil laws). For example, speaking against Thomas who is arguable the emblem of modern Catholic dogma on the subject:

When Thomas and other scholastics speak about the abrogation of the Law, they say that after Christ the civil and ceremonial laws are fatal, and that therefore they have now been abrogated, but not the moral laws. These men do not know what they are saying. When you want to speak about the abrogation of the Law, discuss chiefly the Law in the proper sense of the word—the Law in the spiritual sense. Include the entire Law, without distinguishing between the civil, the ceremonial, and the moral. For when Paul says that through Christ we have been set free from the curse of the Law (Gal. 3:13), he is certainly speaking about the entire Law, and especially about the Moral Law. (Luther’s works, vol. 26: Lectures on Galatians, 1535, Chapters 1-4. (Vol. 26, pp. 446–447)).


Question on John 4:13-14 - How do we drink of the water from Jesus?

John Calvin's commentary on this passage affirms that "water" means the Spirit:

Though the name Water is borrowed from the present occurrence, and applied to the Spirit, yet this metaphor is very frequent in Scripture, and rests on the best grounds. For we are like a dry and barren soil; there is no sap and no rigour in us, until the Lord water us by his Spirit. In another passage, the Spirit is likewise called clean water, (Heb 10:22,) but in a different sense; namely, because he washes and cleanses us from the pollutions with which we are entirely covered. But in this and similar passages, the subject treated of is the secret energy by which he restores life in us, and maintains and brings it to perfection.
There are some who explain this as referring to the doctrine of the Gospel, to which I own that this appellation is fully applicable; but I think that Christ includes here the whole grace of our renewal; for we know that he was sent for the purpose of bringing to us a new life. In my opinion, therefore, he intended to contrast water with that destitution of all blessings under which mankind groan and labor. Again, living water is not so called from its effect, as life-giving, but the allusion is to different kinds of waters. It is called living, because it flows from a living fountain.

He finds that the reference to the spring or fountain has a particular significance:

For he does not say that, from the very first day, we drink so as to be fully satisfied, but only means that the Holy Spirit is a continually flowing fountain; and that, therefore, there is no danger that they who have been renewed by spiritual grace shall be dried up. And, therefore, although we thirst throughout our whole life, yet it is certain that we have not received the Holy Spirit for a single day, or for any short period, but as a perennial fountain, which will never fail us. Thus believers thirst, and keenly thirst, throughout their whole life; and yet they have abundance of quickening moisture; for however small may have been the measure of grace which they have received, it gives them perpetual vigor, so that they are never entirely dry. When, therefore, he says that they shall be satisfied, he contrasts not with Desire but only with Drought.
Shall be a fountain of water springing up into eternal life. These words express still more clearly the preceding statement; for they denote a continual watering, which maintains in them a heavenly eternity during this mortal and perishing life. The grace of Christ, therefore, does not flow to us for a short time, but overflows into a blessed immortality; for it does not cease to flow until the incorruptible life which it commences be brought to perfection.

The final paragraph shows the relevance of this passage to Calvinist ideas of irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints.
To me, this text brings to mind Matthew 20:20-23 and Mark 10:35-40, where Jesus asks his disciples "Can you drink the cup that I am to drink?". This question has been variously interpreted as referring to:

Martyrdom
General troubles and pains of life, not necessarily martyrdom
Baptism
The Eucharist
Receiving the Holy Spirit
Living a Christ-like life

It may not be possible or desirable to separate these meanings. Calvin's commentary is happy to assign multiple interpretations to the cup, since they are all bound up in the same idea.


The quotation comes from the beginning of Chapter 4 of the Rule, where St. Benedict lists the "instruments of good works". The list begins by quoting several of the commandments:

  In the first place, to love the Lord God with the whole heart, the whole soul and the whole
  strength.

  Then one’s neighbour as if oneself.

  Then, not to kill.

  Not to commit adultery.

  Not to steal.

  Not to covet.

  Not to utter false witness.

So it seems that these "instruments" were intended to be understood just as the commandments were ordinarily understood. In particular, this commandment forbids killing people, not lower animals.

The Rule also allows the sick and infirm to eat flesh meat (Chapter 36), which would seem incompatible with a general injunction against killing animals.


How do monothelites explain Jesus' prayer in the garden of Gethsemane?

First, You may be conflating Trinitarian monotheism with monothelitism which does not meet the definition of Triniterianism. Trinitarian monotheism teaches that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not just one in will, but also one in substance.

Latter Day Saints, for example are monothelitic, but not monotheistic, teaching:

  Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are one in will and purpose but are not literally the same being or substance

And on this basis many Protestants believe that Latter Day Saints are not Christian or are unsaved - so this is actually pretty large distinction and not as pedantic as one might think.

In either event, the answer is the same for both the Trinitarian monotheist and the monothelitist. This is merely a dialectic conflict within the single will of God.

This is the same dialectic conflict that any person might face who has a fear of, say, going to the dentist. You may be afraid and pray that your tooth pain would go away. You might plead and bargain to try to avoid the dentist, yet ultimately you go. You go because you know it is good for you in the long run. That despite your fear, you must go - that it is good for you in the long run. So despite your fear, you muster you courage, overcome your dread and fear, and you go to the dentist even though you don't really want to.

This does not indicate that you have two separate wills, but instead that you have mixed feelings and a fear of going to the dentist. You have an uncomfortable dissonance within your single psyche. The same is true of Jesus in the Garden. This does not signify two wills, but instead a fear of the coming thing that he has to do.


Are there legitimate saints not documented in western hagiology?

The Roman Martyrology for August 1 says:

Likewise at Rome, upon the Latin Way, [in the third century,] the holy martyrs Bonus the Priest, Faustus, and Maurus, and nine others, of whom it is written in the Acts of holy Pope [St.] Stephen [I].
Romæ, via Latína, sanctórum Mártyrum Boni Presbýteri, Fausti et Mauri, cum áliis novem; qui in Actis sancti Stéphani Papæ describúntur.

cf. also p. 228 of this Roman Martyrology
Pope St. Stephen I reigned from 253-257, during which time Valerian was emperor.


According to LDS teaching, why should we worship this God?

Consider any reason a Christian would worship God:

He created us.
He (through his Son) saved us.
He has commanded that we worship him and pray to him in the name of Jesus Christ.
We know and love him.
We fear the consequences of not reverencing him.

All apply, and specifically to God.


What is the Calvinist view of God's sovereignty?

As a Calvinist, I believe God's Sovereignty to mean God has actively decreed all that will come to pass, and has done so for His glory in all things. God knows all that will come to pass because He has determined it, however not in the passive sense like I determine the temperature of water by touching it. Rather, God has actively determined all that will come to pass, and nothing occurs outside of God's decree.
Further, God's decree does not strive against man's will, in that man is forced into doing all that God decrees man will do, but instead man's will is determined by the decree. We willingly do that which God has decreed we will do (yet not necessarily that which God has prescribed).
With regards to Salvation, our view is that man is depraved and incapable of doing anything that pleases the LORD. In this state of depravity man will always despise the things of God, and will never seek them. It is only when God, in an act of grace, replaces the sinners heart of stone with a heart of flesh that the sinner will then will to do the things of God, and will come to God in obedience and belief.
So it's not God's choice vs man's choice. God doesn't coerce man into becoming saved. Rather, God's power radically changes man's heart so that man will willingly seek the LORD.
There are many very clear passages regarding this, however one very popular text is John 6 where we can read the following statements from Jesus:

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." - John 6:37 KJV

Calvinists read here that anybody the Father gives to the Son will indeed come to the Son.

"And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." - John 6:39 KJV

Here we read further that Christ came to do the Fathe'rs will, and that will is that all of those whom the Father gave to the Son, the Son will lose none of them, but will raise them up.

"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." - John 6:44 KJV
"And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father." - John 6:65 KJV

So no man has the ability or desire to come to Christ outside of the affectionate drawing by the Father.
This is by no means exhaustive. If I might suggest a book on the topic, I would suggest The Potter's Freedom, by Dr. James White.


What is the New Testament "process" for doing a church plant?

Many independent churches first sprang up after the partial collapse of Catholicism during the reformation possibly using the very same New Testament guidelines and principles you seek. The most illuminating case know of that sheds light on the underpinning of New Testament principles at this time is the arguments between Anglican ministers and the independents which has been partially recorded in Johns Owens ‘A Brief Vindication of the Nonconformists from the Charge of Schism’, in Owen’s Works Volume 13.

The situation is very interesting because there was a vacuum created by so many exiting the Catholic church and the Pope’s loss of powers with various princes and Kings, that new or strengthened ‘state approved’ churches formed, or otherwise tried to extend their influence and power. However, as in the case of England, where Anglicanism was by no means newly formed, the established church with its ‘traditions’ wanted every Protestant in its ‘control’ and tried to repress the existence of independent churches. It was under these conditions that John Owen made his response to the Anglican accusation of unlawful and sinful schisms within the Church of England.
From the independent revolt of the Church of England you get the following New Testament guidelines that the independents argued:

1-State approved Churches carry no more authority than Christ approved churches:
The New Testament nowhere suggests that the church needs approval from government officials, therefore anyone trying to fuse church and state has no solid basis to present an argument apart from its claimed traditions.

2-Rather than external tradition the New testament established a rule of love and forbearance with one another who hold differing views on non-essential doctrines and practices: Those claiming the authority of tradition claim it was first handed down by the Apostles but if this was true it would be clearly defined in scripture due to its importance. In reality the Apostles formulated rules of ‘brother love’ while many traditions and ceremonies of the Jews were brought to a slow and graceful death. As the new church was a mixture of Jew and Gentile with some Jews having a weaker conscience concerning some matters such as eating meats sacrificed to idols, the Apostles asked those with free consciences to lovingly submit to meaningless rules so as not to offend their brother. (1 Cor. 8:13). However when a wicked Judaizer insisted that the free follow a particular tradition as necessary for living a godly life, even when the Apostles have already said it was not necessary, then Christians absolutely refused as it became no longer a harmless difference but an attack on the gospel. (Acts 16:3, Gal 2:3, 5:2). These principles can be used when any denomination tries to repress the formation of a church upon grounds of the tradition they hold, for the repression itself on these grounds constitutes a possible good reason for a separation.

3-The New Testament, shows that churches naturally sprang up wherever new groups of believers were formed, sometimes starting in peoples homes, and were never pressured to join under subjection to a ‘higher’ church or central authority. As these churches later fell into various forms of Apostasy they established their own conflicting traditions, not one universal tradition under an external rule, until later imposed by the Roman government. This free-forming tradition can be seen by the early division over whose tradition should be followed concerning Easter, as mentioned in this post.

4 The ideal church in not represented as a ‘mega-church’ or just a few members of a family but a reasonably sized group who by virtue of their differing gifts and in some matters differing ideas, are most suitable for the edification and strengthening in the faith of each member. (1 Corinthians 12:18-27). The reason why a family by itself is not a proper church is that members must be freely willing to join and it would not have a wide number of differing gifts unless that family was particularly large. The idea of a mega-church does not seem to suit the ideal New Testament model, for although 5000 were saved in one day, we have no records of a church that big assembling in the New Testament, rather churches sprouted up all over  like a natural vines growing around every natural turn and bend in the existing communities. (I am not saying churches can’t be huge or tiny, only that it does not seem ideal. Of course a mega-church can be divided into many smaller churches that just happen to meet in the same building). This sort of creates a flexible rule that if a church is made for believers (not believers made for churches) a church should bend its structure to best support the growth of believers. If a church is so large that intimate fellowship and properly organized teaching and administration becomes overly difficult, it should reasonably consider forming a new church (whether through subdividing itself, or finding a new location more suitable to many of its members).

5 A new church is not meant as a means to simply collect those who are merely argumentative, proud, or otherwise divisive over disputable matters. (Rom 14:1).  A great deal of Philippians’ seems to be related to having humility and striving towards the goal (Phil 3:12-17, 1 Cor 13:12) which includes a goal of a better understanding. While dodging those non-neutral attacks of our faith (Phil 3:2). We also must avoid useless divisions through modelling humility and love (Phil 4, Phil 2).  Since we have never arrived at a perfect understanding, we must allow the fact that everyone is at a different stage of progress and coming from different starting points, so we must chose to serve in such a way as to help each ‘child’ grow and ‘woe to him’ who causing the child to stumble. (Mark 9:42). We ourselves must be like children, not wondering how will be the greatest.

6  There may comes a point where a sincere believer or entire body can no longer in good conscience remain within a certain fellowship where disputable matters are no longer allowed to be left in love and humility, are enforced against the conscience of others. When an unnecessary saw of constant discord is swung back and forth between believers by argumentative leaders, or other situations arise, making it seem impossible to properly advance in one’s knowledge in Christian love and humility, believers may need to form new churches or join other ones. This has sometimes been the cause of why one party ‘breaks away’ from the traditions of another, because those holding the tradition become aggressive and seek to make everybody rankled over argumentative subjects without any pause for relief. This ungodly spirit of argumentation may even occur on this site, when we seek to only argue with a saw of contention (rather then passionately disagree) or seize upon ‘another’s expressions’ in a way that does not encourage their intended meaning, offering no support in humbly drawing it out to the edification of a very similar faith. It is best to avoid contact with those in such a state of mind for our own safety.

7 A church is meant to be established the same simple structure of New Testament church without additional layers of authority invented by men or tradition. This can be deduced from the fact that no such layers like ‘arch-teacher’, or ‘lord-deacon’, or whatever title might be created are not present in the New testament which opposes the spirit of humility and love as the true rule the Apostles established for church government. This means the roles of deacons or elders, as well as overseer, teacher and pastor must be established and then formed in the new church on order to have orderly worship as well as ensuring the observance of the Lord’s Supper and Baptism are administered. If there are not sufficiently qualified people with the necessary strengths to effectively support a healthy development of a believing body, this should not be attempted unless there are no other such churches within reasonable distance form ones own community.

I do not know if this answers your question as it is an unusually large question with many possible aspects to a solid answer, but this is all I can manage to collect.


When Pope Francis dies, is Pope Benedict automatically the 'new' leader for a short period?

No, because Benedict XVI is an emeritus bishop of Rome, not a coadjutor bishop of Rome.
As the Canon Law says, when a bishop retires from office, he becomes an emeritus bishop:

Can. 402 §1. A bishop whose resignation from office has been accepted retains the title of emeritus of his diocese and can retain a place of residence in that diocese if he so desires, unless in certain cases the Apostolic See provides otherwise because of special circumstances.

In the case of Benedict, he is a Pope Emeritus because he is also the Bishop of Rome, which holds the title of Pope.
When a see becomes vacant, the Canon Law states that the coadjunt bishop (if there is one), takes the temporary vacancy:

Can. 409 §1. When the episcopal see is vacant, the coadjutor bishop immediately becomes the bishop of the diocese for which he had been appointed provided that he has legitimately taken possession of it.

Not all sees have one though:

Can. 403 §1. When the pastoral needs of a diocese suggest it, one or more auxiliary bishops are to be appointed at the request of the diocesan bishop. An auxiliary bishop does not possess the right of succession. [...]
§3. If it appears more opportune to the Holy See, it can appoint ex officio a coadjutor bishop who also has special faculties. A coadjutor bishop possesses the right of succession.

Since the coadjunt bishop has the right of succession, but the Bishop of Rome is elected through a Papal Conclave, there cannot be a coadjunct Bishop of Rome. Therefore, if Pope Francis dies, the see is vacant. Benedict XVI will have no temporary official leadership at all.
Actually, some of the temporary responsibilities, and the temporary "leader" of the see is the auxiliary bishop:

§2. When the episcopal see is vacant and unless competent authority has established otherwise, an auxiliary bishop preserves all and only those powers and faculties which he possessed as vicar general or episcopal vicar while the see was filled until a new bishop has taken possession of the see. If he has not been designated to the function of diocesan administrator, he is to exercise this same power, conferred by law, under the authority of the diocesan administrator who presides offer the governance of the diocese.

In the case of the Diocese of Rome, there are several auxiliary bishops (see list in the table to the right here). The highest of them are the Cardinal Vicar and the Vicar General.
However, in the special case of Rome, the functions of the diocese are reduced considerably during a vacancy. As this article says (based on this apostolic constitution of 1996):

According to Universi Dominici gregis, the government of the Holy See and the administration of the Catholic Church during sede vacante falls to the College of Cardinals, but in a very limited capacity. At the same time, all the heads of the departments of the Roman Curia "cease to exercise" their offices. The exceptions are the Cardinal Camerlengo, who is charged with managing the property of the Holy See, and the Major Penitentiary, who continues to exercise his normal role. If either has to do something which normally requires the assent of the Pope, he has to submit it to the College of Cardinals. Papal legates continue to exercise their diplomatic roles overseas, and both the Vicar General of Rome and the Vicar General for the Vatican City State continue to exercise their pastoral role during this period. The postal administration of the Vatican City State prepares and issues special postage stamps for use during this particular period, known as "sede vacante stamps".


What is mortal sin? Is agression a mortal sin?

From Wiki we learn:

  A mortal sin (Latin: peccata mortalia), in Catholic theology, is a
  gravely sinful act, which can lead to damnation if a person does not
  repent of the sin before death. A sin is considered to be "mortal"
  when its quality is such that it leads to a separation of that person
  from God's saving grace.

  ...

  Its subject matter must be grave.
  It must be committed with full knowledge (and awareness) of the sinful action and the gravity of the offense.
  It must be committed with deliberate and complete consent.

And from BeginningCatholic.com we read:

  … a single act of mortal sin is a bold declaration that you do not
  accept God’s love.

  Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation
  of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and
  his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him…. Mortal sin is a
  radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in
  the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is,
  of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s
  forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal
  death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever,
  with no turning back. (Catechism, 1855 & 1861; The entirety of Catechism section IV is of great value here and should be read carefully.)

From these perspectives, verbal aggression COULD be a mortal sin IF the aggression is remarkably substantial, the perpetrator is fully aware that he/she is comitting a mortal sin, and the action is not spontaneous nor an act of passion, but is deliberate --- even planned.

That describes a remarkably evil person, but in my experience, the vast majority of people who are verbally aggressive are no where near comitting a mortal sin (though a sin, certainly, Matt 18:6 and Matt 18:3-4).  However, perhaps the most important aspect is this line of the Catechism...

  If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness...

A mortal sin is something that must either be declared by the authority of the church, or judged by the Lord after death.  Therefore, the simplest answer to your question is "no."

As for forgiveness, that begins with repentance, which begins with stopping the sinful behavior.

If your circumstance or the circumstances of someone you know led to this question, I strongly recommend contacting your priest/pastor.


Which scripture was Paul quoting in 1 Corinthians 15:45?

The phrase is a direct quotation from Genesis 2.7. There is some difference in the wording in most modern bibles. This is because Paul was quoting from the Greek text of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint or LXX, whereas our modern bibles are translated from the Hebrew text from which the Greek was originally translated.

The LXX text of Genesis 2.7:

  ἐγένετο ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν

The Greek text of 1 Corinthians 15.45:

  ἐγένετο ὁ πρωτος ανθρωπος αδαμ εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν

So Paul uses the exact same words, but adds the words in bold (πρωτος meaning "first" and "αδαμ" meaning "Adam") to add clarity to the meaning.

If we followed the conventions of modern writing, we'd add quotation marks and square brackets to indicate a direct quotation and an interpolation, but obviously that wasn't the custom in the ancient world.


Did William Cowper believe himself to be saved at the end of his life?

No way to know for sure.

The closest you are likely to get, in terms of first hand accounts, will be found in Thomas Taylor’s
Biography of, “The Life of William Cowper, Esq (1833).”

I found the quote. The volume was neither of the ones I suggested in my comments.

Several years ago, however, I had read everything I could find on William Cowper.  His
particular ‘thorn in the flesh’ was an intimate concern of mine at the time.  This is what
first drew me to Olney, in fact.

Now that I remember where I read this, I realize that there is no point in looking any further for a closer account than 33 years of Cowper’s passing.  Thomas Taylor was privy to documents such as journals and letters (as is apparent by the references he makes to testimony of individuals) which I was never able to find extant records for. Not to mention, first hand accounts of John Newton’s adopted daughter, Cowper’s nephew (John Johnson), and near acquaintances who had direct association with Cowper (sorry about the names, I think Newton’s adopted daughter was the daughter of the rev. Unwin, and his widow. [better check that though]).

Regardless, there are some significant clarifications in the “The Letters of John Newton.” One of these being a clarification of the frequently referenced account of Cowper’s Nephew (John Johnson). Cowper’s nephew was present at his passing. The following is taken from Rev. Newton's letter to Mrs. Hannah More, dated May 24, 1800.

  "My most dear and intimate friend, William Cowper, has obtained a release from all his distresses. I preached a funeral sermon for him on the 11th inst. from Eccles. ii. 2, 3. Why was he, who both by talents and disposition seemed qualified, if it were possible, to reform the age in that the bush which Moses saw all in flames was a fit emblem of his case?
  The Lord's thoughts and ways are so much above ours, that it becomes us rather to lie in the dust in adoration and silence than to inquire presumptuously into the grounds of his proceedings; yet I think we may draw some lessons from his sufferings. I wish to learn from them thankfulness for the health and peace with which I have been favoured, and caution not to depend upon whatever gifts, abilities or usefulness, past comforts or experiences, have been afforded me. In all these respects, my friend was, during a part of his life, greatly my superior. He lived(though not without short conflicts), in point of comfort and conduct, far above the common standard, for about ten years; and for twenty-seven years afterwards he knew not one peaceful day (The Letters of John Newton pp 355-56.")

The following is a third hand verbal account finally recorded in 1906 by Stopford Brooke, that Cowper’s nephew made note of the expression on Cowper’s face the half-hour before he had passed:

  "Dr. Moule, the Bishop of Durham, vouches for the following incident:
  'When Cowper lay dying there did not come to him one gleam of hope. John Johnson, his nephew, was watching by him, and in thought was strongly tempted towards a blank infidelity by the sight of such goodness seemingly so deserted. Then, on a sudden, there came a change. The dying face was irradiated as with surprise of joy "unspeakable and full of glory." Cowper lay speechless, motionless, but visibly enraptured for the last half-hour before the ceasing of his breath. Then his nephew clasped the dead man's Bible to his heart, and said, "His God shall be my God, and his faith my faith!"' "Cowper's nephew, John Johnson, told the story to William Marsh, afterwards Dr. Marsh of Beckenham. Dr. Marsh told the story to his daughter, Miss Catharine Marsh, who, at the age of 88, still (in 1906) lives at Brandon. This lady related it to Dr. Moule (Theology in the English Poets; Cowper, Coleridge, Wordsworth & Burns pg 54)."

I have read the same account, from what I originally thought was one of Newton’s letters (though I have been unable to verify that) on this specific observation; and it seems to me that it was esteemed to be a notion of Cowper’s nephew, rather than some other-worldly cipher on the face of Cowper, that should be taken as evidence (though I wished it was). The previous account may bear the marks of some embellishment. It is also 106 years after his passing.

Here is evidence that Cowper was in the same condition he suffered from most of his adult life, just months before he passed (all of the information relevant to your interest begins around page 300 [Taylor’s: The Life of William Cowper]).

  “It became evident towards the close of 1799, that his [Cowper's] bodily strength was rapidly declining, though his mental powers, notwithstanding the unmitigated severity of his depression, remained unimpaired.”

From: Mr. Hayley who was a longtime friend of Cowper:

  “The sight of such writing from my long-silent friend, inspired me with a lively, but too sanguine hope, that I might see him once more restored.
  Alas! the verses which I surveyed, as a delightful omen of future letters from a correspondent, so inexpressibly dear to me, proved the last effort of his pen."

This was dated the 31st of January; though I always thought that the last work of Cowper was

Cast-Away

  Obscurest night involved the sky,
  The Atlantic billows roared,
  When such a destined wretch as I,
  Washed headlong from on board,
  Of friends, of hope, of all bereft,
  His floating home for ever left.

  No braver chief could Albion boast
  Than he with whom he went,
  Nor ever ship left Albion's coast,
  With warmer wishes sent.
  He loved them both, but both in vain,
  Nor him beheld, nor her again.

  Not long beneath the whelming brine,
  Expert to swim, he lay;
  Nor soon he felt his strength decline,
  Or courage die away;
  But waged with death a lasting strife,
  Supported by despair of life.

  He shouted: nor his friends had failed
  To check the vessel's course,
  But so the furious blast prevailed,
  That, pitiless perforce,
  They left their outcast mate behind,
  And scudded still before the wind.

  Some succour yet they could afford;
  And, such as storms allow,
  The cask, the coop, the floated cord,
  Delayed not to bestow.
  But he (they knew) nor ship, nor shore,
  Whate'er they gave, should visit more.

  Nor, cruel as it seemed, could he
  Their haste himself condemn,
  Aware that flight, in such a sea,
  Alone could rescue them;
  Yet bitter felt it still to die
  Deserted, and his friends so nigh.

  He long survives, who lives an hour
  In ocean, self-upheld;
  And so long he, with unspent power,
  His destiny repelled;
  And ever, as the minutes flew,
  Entreated help, or cried - Adieu!

  At length, his transient respite past,
  His comrades, who before
  Had heard his voice in every blast,
  Could catch the sound no more.
  For then, by toil subdued, he drank
  The stifling wave, and then he sank.

  No poet wept him: but the page
  Of narrative sincere,
  That tells his name, his worth, his age,
  Is wet with Anson's tear.
  And tears by bards or heroes shed
  Alike immortalize the dead.

  I therefore purpose not, or dream,
  Descanting on his fate,
  To give the melancholy theme
  A more enduring date:
  But misery still delights to trace
  Its semblance in another's case.

  No voice divine the storm allayed,
  No light propitious shone;
  When, snatched from all effectual aid,
  We perished, each alone:
  But I beneath a rougher sea,
  And whelmed in deeper gulfs than he.

That is all I have time for right now, but there are several extant collections of journals and letters from all of the near acquaintances of John Newton and William Cowper. Some of them may even have more information on the personal insights of Cowper’s near acquaintances (I have not nearly read them all).

Since this is not a real answer, I feel the liberty to express my own opinion about Cowper’s dying belief, and the hope he represents to all sincere believers who suffer from depression, and false fears of abandonment.

1 John 3:20
“For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.”

My version of "The Life of William Cowper" is electronic.
I don't remember where I got it from.

Sorry I didn't have more time to look into this. I do enjoy visiting Olney.


Romans 9 points to some objections that Paul foresaw when speaking of the sovereign choices of God; in particular, look at verses 19-20:

"You will say to me then, 'Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?' But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?'

Reading the entire context we see that there is no clear answer given, rather Paul lifts high the name of God and reminds us that finite beings cannot possibly understand all of the mysteries and ways of the LORD. I fully believe that God welcomes the humble questioning of His children, but ruminating on topics like this can lead to anger and suspicion towards God.

The Evil One has been using the same tactics since the beginning of time  ("Did God really say....?") tempting humans to doubt the word, character, wisdom, and goodness of God.

After years, literally years, of struggling with issues like this, I realized it was a fruitless struggle and simply had to ask God to change my heart, help my unbelief, and grant me a heart of trust and love for Him.

Isaiah 55:8-9 For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
    neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord.
 For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
    so are my ways higher than your ways
    and my thoughts than your thoughts.

I don't think that anything God does can be described as inadvertent.

Isaiah 45:7 I form light and create darkness,
    I make well-being and create calamity,
    I am the Lord, who does all these things.

What an awesome God! We should tremble at His holiness and yet He became like one of us, born into a poor family and suffered at the hands of sinful man to redeem sinful man. We can trust Him!

May God bless you richly and draw you ever closer to Him.

Scripture references taken from https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+45%3A7%2C+55%3A8-9%2C+Romans+9&version=ESV


Are the apostles the final authority on interpreting the scriptures in the LDS church and how can I get their interpretations of specific passages?

In a nutshell, yes.

  20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any
  private interpretation.

  21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy
  men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:20-21)

The interpretation of scripture is the number one reason why there are multiple sects and denominations of christianity instead of just one.

Isaiah is particularly notorious for being the source of many personal interpretations, as Isaiah delivered his words much in the same manner as Christ delivered the parables–the message is hidden from those that are not spiritually prepared to receive it.

It's my opinion that your teacher erred in one of two ways: either he offered his personal interpretation of the scripture, or he revealed doctrines that were too "meaty" (see D&C 19:22) to a class without first weening them off the milk.

Regardless of whichever one it was, as with all teachings and direction we receive, it is up to us to take the matter to thoughtful study and prayer to discover the truth of all things. If you find that the words of the prophets conflict with what was shared with you, then you can rest assured that your teacher was merely sharing his personal interpretation.

Read Lesson 8 from the Scripture Study-The Power of the Word Teacher Manual: Prophets Interpret Scripture for more about interpreting scripture.


According to Genesis 3:1, what could be God's necessity to create serpent(intelligence) to act aginst self

Crafty is not necessarily bad.

  Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matthew 10:16 (KJV)

It is the use of God-given talents against God's will that makes it sin.

God also has perfect foreknowledge, so He did know exactly what would occur.


Did everyone tithe in Israel? When did the tithing come into the church?

The Tithe System in the Ancient World

Through much of history tithing has meant the right of a person, or institution, to a proportion of the crops grown, or livestock reared, on land owned or tenanted by someone else. This right implies a corresponding obligation  on the occupier of the land to remit  it. The economist Adam Smith, in his Wealth of Nations (Book 4 Chapter 9) says:

  The sovereigns of China, of ancient Egypt, and of the different kingdoms into which Indostan has, at different times, been divided, have always derived the whole, or by far the most considerable part, of their revenue, from some sort of land tax or land rent. This land tax, or land rent, like the tithe in Europe, consisted in a certain proportion, a fifth, it is said, of the produce of the land, which was either delivered in kind, or paid in money, according to a certain valuation, and which, therefore, varied from year to year, according to all the variations of the produce.

The tithe system is not the only form of payment which may be due from the occupier of land. Unlike a rental system, where the occupier pays a fixed amount (rent)  and retains whatever is left; or a management system where the occupier retains a fixed amount (wage) and remits whatever is left; the tithe system allows the occupier to retain a set proportion, 90%, of whatever is produced. Tithe specifically means a tenth.

Tithing in Egypt

In Genesis 47 we read that Joseph had acquired all the land in Egypt for Pharaoh, with the exception of some priestly land, and that Joseph had established a law in Egypt that a fifth of the produce of the land of Egypt belonged to Pharaoh. This law was still in existence at the time of Moses.

Tithing in Israel

In the case of the Mosaic Law, for Israel , Leviticus 27 v30 and v32 define tithes as applying to the grain of the soil, the fruit of the trees and the animals of the herd and flock. It says these tenths will belong to the Lord. In Numbers 18 God gives His share to the Levites, in recognition of the fact they have no land of their own, and because of the work they will do.

This tithe is known in Judaism as the ma'aser rishon or first tithe.

In Deuteronomy 14 mention is made of two further tithes: ma'aser sheni and ma'aser ani. Ma'aser sheni was to be taken to Jerusalem and consumed there by the landholder and his family, and ma'aser ani was to be given to the local poor. A common understanding was that ma'aser sheni applied to the first, second, fourth and fifth years of the sabbatical cycle; and ma'aser ani to the third and sixth. (See Tobit 1 6-8).

All the tithes applied to produce of the land, or animals, and to the finished goods (e.g.. wine rather than grapes, olive oil rather than olives).  We may  think of the farmer "giving" a portion of his "income" to God; but they saw it differently, the farmer  was separating God's share from his own share of their joint produce. God supplied the rains for the crops and the grass for the livestock (Deuteronomy 11 v14).

For this reason, the merchant, fisherman or blacksmith (if he did not also grow food) had no part to play in the tithing system of Israel. Such tradesmen did not present tithes.

Tithing as ten per cent of income generally in Israel

Abraham paid 10% to Melchizedek and Jacob promised 10% to God if He brought him safely back to his father's house. Many modern Jews (who cannot now pay the Mosaic tithes) give 10% of their income as Tzedakah, broadly speaking that is for charitable purposes, and this  voluntary tithe is known as ma'aser kesafim. In Luke 18 12, in the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, the pharisee boasts of  giving a tenth of all he acquires.  This pharisee is boasting of doing more than the law requires (as tithing applies only to some products, not all income), and we can deduce from this that the practice of tithing one's income was known at the time of Christ, but also that it was not the common practice for the ordinary Jew, or else why would the pharisee boast?

Tithing in the Church

Tithing of various agricultural products, for the benefit of the Church , sometimes wider than in Israel, such as including timber, wool and fish, was introduced to most of Western Europe in the latter half of the first millennium. They were enjoined by sixth century Councils in France (Tours and Macon) and later by the Emperor Charlemagne in France and Kings Offa and Aethewulf in England.

During the Middle Ages tithes were frequently not payable to the actual parish priest, but to the Rector of the Parish who might only be an acolyte. It would then be his responsibility, which he might or might  not fulfil,  to employ a priest to serve the parish. The difference between the tithe income, and what he paid the priest, would be the acolytes own  and might be well used to fund his education enabling him to eventually take over, or might be spent in other ways. Strictness varied.  Tithes might also be appropriated to monasteries or bishops. A relatively rich parish (large with good soil) might have to pay different proportions of the tithe to different people, or else the tithe on grain might go elsewhere than the tithe on wool.  Tithing rights could also be sold, a rich layman might donate land to a monastery in return for his descendants having the right to the tithe income from certain parishes.  Reforms were from time to time attempted and implemented.

By the nineteenth century most tithes had been commuted to a fixed monetary payment, payable annually to the Church, no longer having any relation to the price of corn or anything else.  In urban areas the tithe charge originally payable in respect of the land, was often apportioned between the houses built on it. Some parishes, at Enclosure, were freed from tithes generally in return for the Church being granted some of the enclosed land. In England tithe charges were abolished in 1936, replaced with annuities expiring in 1976.

Church taxes are still collected in some European countries although people can opt out, sometimes only by declaring themselves non-members.   These include Germany and Sweden. The rate is not as high as 10%.

Tithing 10% of Income to the Church

The modern practice whereby some Churches expect, ask or require, with varying degrees of insistence, that members contribute 10% of their income to Church funds was popularised in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Alexander Hogshead and AW Miller both published books advocating tithing in 1873. Most  influential though was Thomas Kane, a Chicago businessman and a Presbyterian layman. He wrote a pamphlet in 1876 and circulated copies to most of the Protestant Churches in the United States, something he did habitually for many years. This led to the popularisation of stewardship and tithing campaigns. He argued that 10% of money, and one-seventh of time, were eternal minimums to give to God, and the tithe was for the spread and ministry of the Gospel.


Do Christians need to keep the 10 commandments?

The answer to this question depends on which broad system you accept when reading the Bible.

Those systems that see a sharp discontinuity between Old and New Testament (e.g., Dispensationalism, New Covenant Theology, Progressive Covenantalism) will say something like, "The Old Testament laws are done away with in the different era of the New Covenant," or "The OT laws are fulfilled by Christ, who has given us a new, higher ethic." This ethic usually includes nine of the Ten Commandments, excluding the sabbath.

Those systems that see more continuity between Old and New Covenants (usually labeled Covenant Theology as a group) will see continuing applicability of some or all of the OT laws. The approach of John Calvin and the Westminster Standards, two prominent representatives of this group, is to classify laws as moral, ceremonial, or civil, where the moral laws are still in effect but the ceremonial and civil have been fulfilled and abrogated in Christ. (Among the Ten Commandments, the sabbath alone is classified as a ceremonial law and no longer in effect.† The others still hold.) Other mainstream Covenant Theologians hold that all the OT laws are still in effect but apply in different ways (see here and here on the sabbath in particular). While Theonomists and Christian Reconstructionists hold that the whole law is still binding and in effect today.

If you accept one of these over-arching frameworks as the most persuasive, then you have implicitly answered the question, "Do Christians need to keep the Ten Commandments?"

† Calvin says, "[The Fourth Commandment] was a ceremonial precept, Paul clearly teaches, calling it a shadow of these things, the body of which is only Christ. (Colossians 2:17.) But if the outward rest was nothing but a ceremony, the substance of which must be sought in Christ, it now remains to be considered how Christ actually exhibited what was then prefigured...."


What is the Biblical basis for the special mediatorial position of the Pope, Cardinals, etc in the Catholic church?

The Pope

The Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth, the direct successor of Peter who was handed the Keys to the Kingdom by Jesus. (Matthew 16:19)  This makes his role a mediator for consciences, or an arbiter of what is right and wrong, true and false in terms of faith and morals, but not science and logic. (ccc 891)

Bishops

Catholics claim apostolic succession, meaning that what Jesus said the His apostles applies specifically to the episcopate, the Bishops especially.

So, when Jesus says:

  Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

(Matt 28:18-20 NAB)

He is commissioning the Apostles and their successors to act in His name.  Not baptizing like John baptized, but baptizing like Christ baptized.

Jesus established or sanctified all 7 sacraments in his short ministry and expects His priests to carry them out.

Baptism (John 3:1-5)
Confirmation (Acts 8:5-17 and Acts 1)
The Eucharist (John 6:48-58, and institution narratives in synoptics)
Holy Orders (Everything Jesus tells the apostles to do)
Marriage (Mark 10:1-12, Eph 5)
Reconciliation (John 20:19-23)
Anointing of the Sick (Mark 6:7, 12-13)

Biblical Sources for sacraments

Priests

Priests (as well as the Pope and the Bishops) act 'in persona Christi'.  They forgive sins ,through God, because Jesus forgave sins and told the apostles to act accordingly (John 20:23).  The very definition of priests is one who offers sacrifices for the people.  You don't have to poke very far into Leviticus to find a biblical basis for priests acting like priests.  Priests in the new covenant 'do this in remembrance of me', and they say this, not 'do this in remembrance of Jesus' during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Eucharistic prayer before communion.

Cardinals

One thing to point out is, not all cardinals are currently Bishops (and historically there have been lay cardinals, so it's an error to conflate their position with Bishops, they do not act as cardinals as mediators in any way.


What is Adam, if he isn't literally the first human?

If Adam was not literally created by God, and if the Genesis account of creation is allegorical, then everything written in the Bible about sin, death and the need for Christ Jesus to come to earth to die for our sins is a lie.

The Genesis account of creation says that birds were created with sea creatures on day five while land animals were not created until day six. This is in direct opposition to the Darwinian view that birds evolved from land animals. The literalist account says birds preceded land animals. The theistic evolutionist view says exactly the opposite.

Theistic evolution denies that Adam and Eve were created by God in His image, and that because of Adam and Eve's disobedience, sin entered into the world and death through sin.

If Adam and Eve did not exist and they were not our "common ancestor" then there would be no need for Christianity and there would be no solution to sin and death would reign supreme.  There would be no hope for sinful humanity.


Jesus cried: my God, why did they hear Elijah?

Jesus exact words were "Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani." (Matt 27:46)

Eli-jah (literally YHWH - jah is God (El) of mine (i)) would be shortened as "Eli".  Since they are the same word, in the bustle of a crowd, it is not at all unlikely that this "prophet" would be thought to be calling Elijah.

Remember, just because the words were in Psalm 22, doesn't mean the mean the people would have been assuming Jesus' first thought would be to quote a Scripture.

Pronounced "A-Lee" it sounds like a short name for "A-Lai-yah"


On what scriptural basis do some Protestants end their prayers "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"?

Asking why "some protestants" do close their prayers in a particular manner, while seemingly limited, is still quite a broad question, in fact so broad as to  probably be unanswerable. I submit that it would be more profitable to ask a particular protestant why he or she ended a particular prayer with the particular formula you cite. I rather suspect that in the case of most extemporaneous prayer, most of the time the answer you will receive will be on the order of "it seemed the right thing to do at the time", or "the Spirit inspired me to do so". Further, as to justifying a particular close to a particular prayer, I can't think of any protestants I know who would feel a need to justify a particular form of closing prayer in a particular circumstance.

Can you provide some examples of prayers ended with the formula you cite? None of the prayers in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England, and other prayer books in my collection, I don't find any examples that end with the formula, "in the name of..." that you cite. Every one I examined end with some variation of "through Our Lord Jesus Christ...".


How should a Christian put a decision in God's hands if there is no logical answer?

Proverbs 3:5-6 says

  Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him and he will make your paths straight.

Elsewhere in Proverbs (16:9 / 20:24), it says

  A man plans his path, but the Lord directs his steps.

The consistent pattern I keep seeing is that if we are faithful to provide the motion, God is faithful to provide direction. Indeed, the case of Jonah, even when Jonah was not faithful, God used Jonah's movement but ultimately steered. (I've been known to say, God will gladly kick the sides to steer, but not the butt to move!)

The point that I'm making (and it would be consistent with Rom 8:28 as well) is that God will ultimately use your faithfulness to accomplish what he desires, regardless of whether or not you made the "right" choice.


It's likely that Thomas was a nickname rather than his given name. Parents of twins would not name one of them "Twin". Yet by translating "Thomas" to "Didymus" three times, the Gospel of John makes it clear that as an adult Thomas was known—even among Greek speakers—as "the twin".

We don't know exactly where or why he got this nickname, or what his given name was. The apocryphal Acts of Thomas, written in the early third century, identifies him as "Judas Thomas", and fourth century historian Eusebius refers to him once as "Judas, who was also called Thomas".

The gnostic scolls found at Nag Hammadi include a text called The Book of Thomas the Contender, (most likely dating to the late second or early third century) which claims to record "the secret words that the savior spoke to Judas Thomas," and includes this statement:

  Now, since it has been said that you are my twin and true companion, examine yourself, and learn who you are, in what way you exist, and how you will come to be. Since you will be called my brother, it is not fitting that you be ignorant of yourself.

A few scholars have understood this to mean that Thomas and Jesus were very similar in appearance. Some have gone so far as to suggest that Thomas is the brother of Jesus and the author of the book of Jude. The majority, however, believe this text is using "brother" and "twin" metaphorically.

At any rate, all of these texts are too late to be considered primary sources.

Most of the early Christians offered no suggestions or speculations about who Thomas' twin might have been. When they mentioned Thomas at all, it was only in passing.

Second century apologist Justin Martyr gives the earliest extra-biblical mention of Thomas that I have been able to find. While discussing the numerological system of a gnostic sect known as the Marcosians, Justin says:

  and the ten apostles to whom the Lord appeared after His resurrection,—Thomas being absent,—represented, according to them, the invisible Decad.

Third century apologist Tertullian, arguing against the docetic teachings of Marcion, says:

  Now, not even to His apostles was His nature ever a matter of deception. He was truly both seen and heard upon the mount; true and real was the draught of that wine at the marriage of (Cana in) Galilee; true and real also was the touch of the then believing Thomas.

The fact that Thomas was called the twin seems not to have been important to the early Christians. John Chrysostom, for example, composed nearly 90 homilies on the Gospel of John, but never mentioned Thomas being called the twin.

We simply do not have enough information to answer this question. Pope Benedict, in a reflection on Thomas in 2006, mentioned the etymology of the name but added, "The reason for this nickname is unclear."

One recent speculation is that Thomas' name was not actually derived from the Aramaic word for twin, but sounded enough like it that it became a nickname.

  Judea had long been part of the Seleucid Empire, and a very common Macedonian name was Ptolemy, which, in Aramaic, was rendered as Talmai or Talmais. That might explain why he was also known as Judas , which basically identified him as Judean; because there was a desire to make it clear that he was of Judaic rather than Greek descent. Note that Bartholomew, the name of the Apostle who may have traveled to India with Thomas after Jesus' crucifixion, is believed to derive from bar Talmai, meaning "son of Ptolemy".

This explanation depends on the later texts that identify him as Judas Thomas, so it has not won much support.

At least one minister has suggested that in his doubts, Thomas is the twin of all of us.

  So, back to the question, who is Thomas’ twin? Could be me, could be you. Could be each of us and all of us together, as we summon the courage to doubt our doubts, as we read and study the gospel seeking answers to questions. Could be each of us and all of us together when we join the confession of faith: “My Lord and my God.”


The Magnificat (also known as the Canticle of Mary) is the section of scripture found in Luke 1:46-55, in which Mary the mother of Jesus praises the Lord.

The term "Magnificat" comes from the Latin translation of the first line: "Magnificat anima mea Dominum" which means "my soul magnifies the Lord".


Why was the Apostle Paul seemingly not that interested in baptizing believers?

1 Corinthians 1:10-14, 16-18 NET I urge you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to agree together, to end your divisions, and to be united by the same mind and purpose. For members of Chloe’s household have made it clear to me, my brothers and sisters, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each of you is saying, “I am with Paul,” or “I am with Apollos,” or “I am with Cephas,” or “I am with Christ.” Is Christ divided? Paul wasn’t crucified for you, was he? Or were you in fact baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, (I also baptized the household of Stephanus. Otherwise, I do not remember whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel – and not with clever speech, so that the cross of Christ would not become useless.
For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

The ideas in that passage are that each person was boasting about the superiority of their teachings, when all of them were in fact disciples of the same teaching, which was again, an "inferior“  (foolish) teaching. They had absolutely no grounds for boasting, either in terms of uniqueness or superiority.
Baptism is the equivalent of recognising a person can now have table fellowship with  God's People. That status must be maintained, just as the observant Jew needed to maintain his clean status and act to rectify any impurity, whether caused accidentally or through carelessness .

1 Corinthians 5:11New International Version (©1984) But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
Matthew 18:17 NET If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. If he refuses to listen to the church, treat him like a Gentile or a tax collector.
Acts 8:13, 20-23 NET Even Simon himself believed, and after he was baptized, he stayed close to Philip constantly, and when he saw the signs and great miracles that were occurring, he was amazed.
But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could acquire God’s gift with money! You have no share or part in this matter because your heart is not right before God! Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that he may perhaps forgive you for the intent of your heart. For I see that you are bitterly envious and in bondage to sin.”

In that sense, baptism is an acknowledgement of the suitability of the candidate. The Ethiopian eunuch's request was based on that reasoning.
The Corinthian church had distorted that teaching.


Does God intend to replace the fallen angels with humans?

At 3:19ff. of the video you linked, it sounds like Fr. Ripperger is speaking of what St. Thomas Aquinas discusses in his Summa Theologica I q. 108 a. 8, "Whether men are taken up into the angelic orders?" Here's part of that article:

On the contrary, The Lord says of the saints that, "they will be as the angels of God" (Mt. 22:30).
I answer that, As above explained (a. 4 & 7), the orders of the angels are distinguished according to the conditions of nature and according to the gifts of grace. Considered only as regards the grade of nature, men can in no way be assumed into the angelic orders; for the natural distinction will always remain. In view of this distinction, some asserted that men can in no way be transferred to an equality with the angels; but this is erroneous, contradicting as it does the promise of Christ saying that the children of the resurrection will be equal to the angels in heaven (Lk. 20:36). For whatever belongs to nature is the material part of an order; whilst that which perfects is from grace which depends on the liberality of God, and not on the order of nature. Therefore by the gift of grace men can merit glory in such a degree as to be equal to the angels, in each of the angelic grades; and this implies that men are taken up into the orders of the angels. Some, however, say that not all who are saved are assumed into the angelic orders, but only virgins or the perfect; and that the other will constitute their own order, as it were, corresponding to the whole society of the angels. But this is against what Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xii, 9), that "there will not be two societies of men and angels, but only one; because the beatitude of all is to cleave to God alone."


John Romer says, in  Testament: The Bible and History, page 129, under the Syrian kings, the position of High Priest was on sale to the highest bidder. The High Priest was the virtual ruler, under the Syrian king, of all Judah. It appears here that Jason had bought the position of High Priest and "received from Antiochus permission to convert Jerusalem into a Greek polis called Antioch". But then Menelaus bribed Antiochus and was appointed High Priest in place of Jason.

2 Maccabees 4:27 tells us that Menelaus, a totally disreputable person, had not paid the money he had promised the king, but then (4:32) stole gold vessels from the temple.  After a period of turmoil, Menelaus managed to remain in office, increasing in wickedness:

  2 Maccabees 4:50: But Menelaus, thanks to the covetousness of the men in power, remained in office, where he grew in wickedness and became the chief plotter against his fellow citizens.

Whether bitter at having bought the office of High Priest and then losing it, or anxious to remove a person misusing the office, Jason could do nothing while Antiochus was alive. However, rumours of Antiochus' death encouraged Jason to attack Jerusalem and regain the lucrative position.

This account may be read with some caution because 2 Maccabees differs in some places from 1 Maccabees and can be regarded as a political document rather than a literal history.  Robert Eisenman says, in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians, page 39, 2 Maccabees seems to have been written to correct the portrayal in 1 Maccabees of Judas Maccabee and of the Hassidaean movement he headed.


Which Psalms did Wesley leave out in Sunday Service of the Methodists? and why?

Imprecatory Psalms

John Wesley escised 34 Psalms altogether, and removed portions of another 58.

To imprecate means to invoke evil upon, or curse. Imprecatory psalms, also called the cursing psalms, are those psalms that contain prayers for God's judgment on the psalmist's enemies.

Examples:

  "Let death take my enemies by surprise; let them go down alive to the
  grave." Psalm 55:15

  "O God, break the teeth in their mouths."  Psalm 58:6

  "May they be blotted out of the book of life and not be listed with
  the righteous."  Psalm 69:28

  "May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow." Psalm
  109:9

  "How blessed will be the one who seizes your infants and dashes them
  against the rocks."  Psalm 137:9

The complete list:

Psalms 5:10; 6:10; 7:6; 9:19-20; 10:2,15; 17:13; 28:4; 31:17-18; 35:1,4-8,19,24-26; 40:14-15; 41:10; 54:5; 55:9,15; 56:7; 58:6-10; 59:5,11-14; 63:9-10; 68:1-2; 69:22-28; 70:2-3; 71:13; 79:6,10-12; 83:9-18; 94:1-4; 97:7; 104:35; 109:6-19,29; 119:84; 129:5-7; 137:7-9; 139:19-22; 140:8-11; 141:10; 143:12.

John Wesley considered it highly improper for Christians to sing or pray for others to be cursed or to be met with any kind of affliction, partly because it contradicted Christ's teachings to love your enemies.

To this day there are still many Christians that feel these Psalms conflict with Christian ethics, but there are also those that still choose to sing the Psalms of imprecation. Those that do, argue that the Psalms are inspired Scripture and that all inspired Scripture is inspired by God and profitable. They also argue that all the Psalms of imprecation point to our ultimate enemy, Satan, and that one day they will partake in God’s victory over His enemies.


Difference between wisdom and knowledge in 1 Cor. 12?

There are different kinds of knowledge, and according to your comment that "wisdom is applied knowledge," I infer that your definition of knowledge might be

  Information that is not yet applied to a situation (for example).

If I'm correct, then I think you're on the right track. Knowledge IS information, and when it comes to spiritual gifts, God is able to give information to the possessor of this gift either prior to the information becoming a fact or at the very moment the word of knowledge is given.

The Gift of Knowledge

The gift of knowledge might be revealed, for example, when a believer tells another believer,

  "God is going to heal you of _____________."

You can fill in the blank, above, with the word cancer, or diabetes, or panic attacks, or whatever infirmity you care to name. The imparter of this utterance could be thousands of miles away from a given situation--one in which a missionary who is in danger of being kidnapped by terrorists, for example. During a time of prayer, the person with the gift of knowledge says to himself, "God is going to prevent missionary Jones from being kidnapped."

If the gift is genuine, not only will missionary Jones not be kidnapped, but the person who uttered that knowledge might have the joy of telling that missionary the "good news" a day (or a week, or a year!) later, and the missionary may (though not necessarily) recount to the glory of God how the deliverance came about!

To be sure, there is wisdom involved in the speaking of knowledge, but that wisdom originates in God, and the speaker of that word of knowledge is but a channel for a supernatural, God-imparted word of knowledge. The "test" for whether this gift is legitimate, of course, is if the word of knowledge turns out to be true! (At this point, I will not dare to venture into how this gift can be perverted whenever Satan seeks to insert his counterfeit word of knowledge into a situation, though I'm sure it does happen on occasion. I will suggest, however, that a person with the gift of wisdom could potentially discern such a satanic counterfeit and expose it for what it is.)

The Word of Wisdom

Now to the word, or utterance, of wisdom. The speaker of wisdom can look at a situation which already exists--say, for example, whether or not a local assembly of Christians should seek to plant a sister church, and takes the knowledge he or she has gleaned from God's revealed will and word in the Bible, and applies it to the situation at hand.

If all goes well, the congregation heeds that word of wisdom and it is confirmed by a unanimity among the entire congregation. Situations are at times far from ideal, however. In other words, wisdom imparted is not always wisdom applied!

In conclusion, whether we're talking about the utterance of knowledge or of wisdom, the source and imparter of the gift is God's Holy Spirit. We His children who are privileged to be indwelt by His Spirit are merely the recipients of His gifts. Moreover, we can also be filled with His Holy Spirit, and when communicating His will and word we are but God's mouthpieces, much like the prophets of old.

  "For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit . . .. [Both] these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills."


Does a list exist showing Papal succession from Peter through our current Pope?

Here's the List of Popes from newadvent.org, which I assume is the same list found in many US Catholic-approved Bibles, with the exception of the Papal "oppositions" listed here:

1.  St. Peter (32-67)
2.  St. Linus (67-76)
3.  St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
4.  St. Clement I (88-97)
5.  St. Evaristus (97-105)
6.  St. Alexander I (105-115)
7.  St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
8.  St. Telesphorus (125-136)
9.  St. Hyginus (136-140)
10. St. Pius I (140-155)
11. St. Anicetus (155-166)
12. St. Soter (166-175)
13. St. Eleutherius (175-189)
14. St. Victor I (189-199)
15. St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
16. St. Callistus I (217-22) Callistus and the following three popes were opposed by St. Hippolytus, antipope (217-236)
17. St. Urban I (222-30)
18. St. Pontain (230-35)
19. St. Anterus (235-36)
20. St. Fabian (236-50)
21. St. Cornelius (251-53) Opposed by Novatian, antipope (251)
22. St. Lucius I (253-54)
23. St. Stephen I (254-257)
24. St. Sixtus II (257-258)
25. St. Dionysius (260-268)
26. St. Felix I (269-274)
27. St. Eutychian (275-283)
28. St. Caius (283-296) Also called Gaius
29. St. Marcellinus (296-304)
30. St. Marcellus I (308-309)
31. St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
32. St. Miltiades (311-14)
33. St. Sylvester I (314-35)
34. St. Marcus (336)
35. St. Julius I (337-52)
36. Liberius (352-66) Opposed by Felix II, antipope (355-365)
37. St. Damasus I (366-83) Opposed by Ursicinus, antipope (366-367)
38. St. Siricius (384-99)
39. St. Anastasius I (399-401)
40. St. Innocent I (401-17)
41. St. Zosimus (417-18)
42. St. Boniface I (418-22) Opposed by Eulalius, antipope (418-419)
43. St. Celestine I (422-32)
44. St. Sixtus III (432-40)
45. St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
46. St. Hilarius (461-68)
47. St. Simplicius (468-83)
48. St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
49. St. Gelasius I (492-96)
50. Anastasius II (496-98)
51. St. Symmachus (498-514) Opposed by Laurentius, antipope (498-501)
52. St. Hormisdas (514-23)
53. St. John I (523-26)
54. St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
55. Boniface II (530-32) Opposed by Dioscorus, antipope (530)
56. John II (533-35)
57. St. Agapetus I (535-36) Also called Agapitus I
58. St. Silverius (536-37)
59. Vigilius (537-55)
60. Pelagius I (556-61)
61. John III (561-74)
62. Benedict I (575-79)
63. Pelagius II (579-90)
64. St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
65. Sabinian (604-606)
66. Boniface III (607)
67. St. Boniface IV (608-15)
68. St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
69. Boniface V (619-25)
70. Honorius I (625-38)
71. Severinus (640)
72. John IV (640-42)
73. Theodore I (642-49)
74. St. Martin I (649-55)
75. St. Eugene I (655-57)
76. St. Vitalian (657-72)
77. Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
78. Donus (676-78)
79. St. Agatho (678-81)
80. St. Leo II (682-83)
81. St. Benedict II (684-85)
82. John V (685-86)
83. Conon (686-87)
84. St. Sergius I (687-701) Opposed by Theodore and Paschal, antipopes (687)
85. John VI (701-05)
86. John VII (705-07)
87. Sisinnius (708)
88. Constantine (708-15)
89. St. Gregory II (715-31)
90. St. Gregory III (731-41)
91. St. Zachary (741-52)
92. Stephen II (752) Because he died before being consecrated, many authoritative lists omit him
93. Stephen III (752-57)
94. St. Paul I (757-67)
95. Stephen IV (767-72) Opposed by Constantine II (767) and Philip (768), antipopes (767)
96. Adrian I (772-95)
97. St. Leo III (795-816)
98. Stephen V (816-17)
99. St. Paschal I (817-24)
100.    Eugene II (824-27)
101.    Valentine (827)
102.    Gregory IV (827-44)
103.    Sergius II (844-47) Opposed by John, antipope (855)
104.    St. Leo IV (847-55)
105.    Benedict III (855-58) Opposed by Anastasius, antipope (855)
106.    St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)
107.    Adrian II (867-72)
108.    John VIII (872-82)
109.    Marinus I (882-84)
110.    St. Adrian III (884-85)
111.    Stephen VI (885-91)
112.    Formosus (891-96)
113.    Boniface VI (896)
114.    Stephen VII (896-97)
115.    Romanus (897)
116.    Theodore II (897)
117.    John IX (898-900)
118.    Benedict IV (900-03)
119.    Leo V (903) Opposed by Christopher, antipope (903-904)
120.    Sergius III (904-11)
121.    Anastasius III (911-13)
122.    Lando (913-14)
123.    John X (914-28)
124.    Leo VI (928)
125.    Stephen VIII (929-31)
126.    John XI (931-35)
127.    Leo VII (936-39)
128.    Stephen IX (939-42)
129.    Marinus II (942-46)
130.    Agapetus II (946-55)
131.    John XII (955-63)
132.    Leo VIII (963-64)
133.    Benedict V (964)
134.    John XIII (965-72)
135.    Benedict VI (973-74)
136.    Benedict VII (974-83) Benedict and John XIV were opposed by Boniface VII, antipope (974; 984-985)
137.    John XIV (983-84)
138.    John XV (985-96)
139.    Gregory V (996-99) Opposed by John XVI, antipope (997-998)
140.    Sylvester II (999-1003)
141.    John XVII (1003)
142.    John XVIII (1003-09)
143.    Sergius IV (1009-12)
144.    Benedict VIII (1012-24) Opposed by Gregory, antipope (1012)
145.    John XIX (1024-32)
146.    Benedict IX (1032-45) He appears on this list three separate times, because he was twice deposed and restored
147.    Sylvester III (1045) Considered by some to be an antipope
148.    Benedict IX (1045)
149.    Gregory VI (1045-46)
150.    Clement II (1046-47)
151.    Benedict IX (1047-48)
152.    Damasus II (1048)
153.    St. Leo IX (1049-54)
154.    Victor II (1055-57)
155.    Stephen X (1057-58)
156.    Nicholas II (1058-61) Opposed by Benedict X, antipope (1058)
157.    Alexander II (1061-73) Opposed by Honorius II, antipope (1061-1072)
158.    St. Gregory VII (1073-85) Gregory and the following three popes were opposed by Guibert ("Clement III"), antipope (1080-1100)
159.    Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
160.    Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
161.    Paschal II (1099-1118) Opposed by Theodoric (1100), Aleric (1102) and Maginulf ("Sylvester IV", 1105-1111), antipopes (1100)
162.    Gelasius II (1118-19) Opposed by Burdin ("Gregory VIII"), antipope (1118)
163.    Callistus II (1119-24)
164.    Honorius II (1124-30) Opposed by Celestine II, antipope (1124)
165.    Innocent II (1130-43) Opposed by Anacletus II (1130-1138) and Gregory Conti ("Victor IV") (1138), antipopes (1138)
166.    Celestine II (1143-44)
167.    Lucius II (1144-45)
168.    Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
169.    Anastasius IV (1153-54)
170.    Adrian IV (1154-59)
171.    Alexander III (1159-81) Opposed by Octavius ("Victor IV") (1159-1164), Pascal III (1165-1168), Callistus III (1168-1177) and Innocent III (1178-1180), antipopes
172.    Lucius III (1181-85)
173.    Urban III (1185-87)
174.    Gregory VIII (1187)
175.    Clement III (1187-91)
176.    Celestine III (1191-98)
177.    Innocent III (1198-1216)
178.    Honorius III (1216-27)
179.    Gregory IX (1227-41)
180.    Celestine IV (1241)
181.    Innocent IV (1243-54)
182.    Alexander IV (1254-61)
183.    Urban IV (1261-64)
184.    Clement IV (1265-68)
185.    Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
186.    Blessed Innocent V (1276)
187.    Adrian V (1276)
188.    John XXI (1276-77)
189.    Nicholas III (1277-80)
190.    Martin IV (1281-85)
191.    Honorius IV (1285-87)
192.    Nicholas IV (1288-92)
193.    St. Celestine V (1294)
194.    Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
195.    Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
196.    Clement V (1305-14)
197.    John XXII (1316-34) Opposed by Nicholas V, antipope (1328-1330)
198.    Benedict XII (1334-42)
199.    Clement VI (1342-52)
200.    Innocent VI (1352-62)
201.    Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
202.    Gregory XI (1370-78)
203.    Urban VI (1378-89) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII"), antipope (1378-1394)
204.    Boniface IX (1389-1404) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII") (1378-1394), Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes
205.    Innocent VII (1404-06) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes
206.    Gregory XII (1406-15) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417), Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), and Pietro Philarghi ("Alexander V") (1409-1410), antipopes
207.    Martin V (1417-31)
208.    Eugene IV (1431-47) Opposed by Amadeus of Savoy ("Felix V"), antipope (1439-1449)
209.    Nicholas V (1447-55)
210.    Callistus III (1455-58)
211.    Pius II (1458-64)
212.    Paul II (1464-71)
213.    Sixtus IV (1471-84)
214.    Innocent VIII (1484-92)
215.    Alexander VI (1492-1503)
216.    Pius III (1503)
217.    Julius II (1503-13)
218.    Leo X (1513-21)
219.    Adrian VI (1522-23)
220.    Clement VII (1523-34)
221.    Paul III (1534-49)
222.    Julius III (1550-55)
223.    Marcellus II (1555)
224.    Paul IV (1555-59)
225.    Pius IV (1559-65)
226.    St. Pius V (1566-72)
227.    Gregory XIII (1572-85)
228.    Sixtus V (1585-90)
229.    Urban VII (1590)
230.    Gregory XIV (1590-91)
231.    Innocent IX (1591)
232.    Clement VIII (1592-1605)
233.    Leo XI (1605)
234.    Paul V (1605-21)
235.    Gregory XV (1621-23)
236.    Urban VIII (1623-44)
237.    Innocent X (1644-55)
238.    Alexander VII (1655-67)
239.    Clement IX (1667-69)
240.    Clement X (1670-76)
241.    Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
242.    Alexander VIII (1689-91)
243.    Innocent XII (1691-1700)
244.    Clement XI (1700-21)
245.    Innocent XIII (1721-24)
246.    Benedict XIII (1724-30)
247.    Clement XII (1730-40)
248.    Benedict XIV (1740-58)
249.    Clement XIII (1758-69)
250.    Clement XIV (1769-74)
251.    Pius VI (1775-99)
252.    Pius VII (1800-23)
253.    Leo XII (1823-29)
254.    Pius VIII (1829-30)
255.    Gregory XVI (1831-46)
256.    Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
257.    Leo XIII (1878-1903)
258.    St. Pius X (1903-14)
259.    Benedict XV (1914-22) Biographies of Benedict XV and his successors will be added at a later date
260.    Pius XI (1922-39)
261.    Pius XII (1939-58)
262.    Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
263.    Paul VI (1963-78)
264.    John Paul I (1978)
265.    John Paul II (1978-2005)
266.    Benedict XVI (2005—)