What are the avenues to developing a true strong faith and relationship with God?

One of the important elements of conversion is to admit my insuffieciency, to admit that I'm a poor sinner and I can't change it without God's grace. This is much easier to figure out if I'm a big sinner, if I'm broken and if I lose my struggles. There's a correlation between the conscience that I have been forgiven and love for God. In the story of Jesus and a sinful woman in Luke 7:36-50 there is an important remark:

  ...whoever has been forgiven little loves little.”

On the other hand, there are people who love a lot even though there are no clearly visible struggles they have been  saved from or sins they have been forgiven. St. Thérèse of Lisieux wondered a lot about the contrast between the Biblic passage linked/ cited above and her love for Christ with no previous time of struggles or sinfulness. After some time of meditations on this problem she got an answer: she have been forgiven before she could sin, God's grace saved her from any temptation she wouldn't resist.

Thérèse of Lisieux is an extreme, but there are people following this pattern. I know at least one guy who figured out he is Christian with no struggles, and he seems to love God a lot.


What is the Biblical basis for moral absolutism?

The existence of Moral absolutism is actually fairly easily identified biblically in verses such as:

  Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever-" - Genesis 3:22 ESV

In which God specifies that

Good and evil exist, as separate and opposite attributes.
They can both be known (not evaluated or judged), and therefore are not relative.

Also communicated without relativism:

  See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil. - Deuteronomy 30:15 ESV

And note here that Solomon asks for discernment, recognizing that he is not the arbiter of that decision (which pleases the Lord):

  Give your servant therefore an understanding mind to govern your people, that I may discern between good and evil, for who is able to govern this your great people?" - 1 Kings 3:9 ESV

What is sometimes less easily identifiable is whether or not actions that carry an absolute moral value are treated in the same manner.  Often they are not due to the fact that God is forgiving.  David writes:

  1 Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.
  2 Blessed is the man against whom the LORD counts no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit.  - Psalm 32:1-2 ESV

Sin is always sin, and evil is always evil, but God has provided a means for the faithful to seek forgiveness.

Before Christ (as one example):

  27 "If anyone of the common people sins unintentionally in doing any one of the things that by the LORD's commandments ought not to be done, and realizes his guilt,
  28 or the sin which he has committed is made known to him, he shall bring for his offering a goat, a female without blemish, for his sin which he has committed.
  29 And he shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering and kill the sin offering in the place of burnt offering.
  30 And the priest shall take some of its blood with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and pour out all the rest of its blood at the base of the altar.
  31 And all its fat he shall remove, as the fat is removed from the peace offerings, and the priest shall burn it on the altar for a pleasing aroma to the LORD. And the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven. - Leviticus 4:27-31 ESV

After Christ's resurrection, and through faith in Him:

  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. - 1 John 1:9

Also contributing to confusion is the timetable by which God chooses to punish those who have sinned against him.  Some are stuck down immediately (Uzzah is a good example), while others will live a full life of sin before facing judgement.  Again, the determination of good / evil is not realitive even though the punishment can be.

Finally, the biggest contributor masking the absolute moralism present in scripture is the inherent difference between true good / true evil and law.  Good / evil morality is unchanging, however laws (including God's laws for man) can be created, edited, or dissolved as needed to fit a particular people at a particular time.  God forbidding the people of Israel from wearing garments of different cloths is not inherently immoral, for example.  This subject of Covenant theology or Dispensational theology addressing the transformation of God's law for man is a discussion beyond the scope of this question, but for the sake of sticking with biblical references to the argument, Jesus establishes a new law for Man in his time on Earth:

  A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. - John 13:34

To summarize, God tells us biblically that good and evil exist without variability, but his dealings with us in forgiveness, punishment, and law are according to his will.  Because his will is not ultimately knowable, how are we to navigate this path?  By seeking his guidance in reading scripture and prayer:

  5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.
  6 In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.
  7 Be not wise in your own eyes; fear the LORD, and turn away from evil.  - Proverbs 3:5-7 ESV

And

  But from there you will seek the LORD your God and you will find him, if you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul. - Deuteronomy 4:29 ESV

And

  7 "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
  8 For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. - Matthew 7:7-8 ESV

So according to the bible, and addressing the question asked, God, who is ultimately knowledgeable of what is absolutely good and evil, establishes law, punishment, and forgiveness as needed by man, and provides for us a means of seeking His will, knowledge and guidance of this absolute.


Would an actual Christian (in the 1920s or today) actually make a "prayer sign" like this in this context?

In silent movies, actors had to do things in an exaggerated way in order to communicate the idea to the audience:

People made that praying-hands gesture to indicate "thank God".
Women put the back of their arms to their foreheads to show that they were about to faint.
Gangsters pumped their guns forward each time they fired.
Heads were tipped back to indicate swallowing a pill.

But even in modern film and TV, the actors still do this, though far less melodramatically:

Remote controls are pumped at the TV to indicate they are being used.
Mobile phones are disabled by being snapping in two and thrown out a window.
Computer accounts have all-upper-case passwords.
Concealed listening devices have a red light, and bombs have a flashing red light.
Guns and rifles are repeatedly used to make threatening "chicka" sounds.
Bullets make sparks whenever they ricochet off something.
Seatbelts are blatantly fastened, but only when the chase scene is about to get even more ridiculous.

These all are movie memes that we see and take for granted without realizing that it doesn't match real life.


How was Pelagianism originally formally defined?

The Council of Carthage (418) was called to address the issue of Pelagius and the charges against him that Jerome and Augustine had brought, as well as Donatus and his own heresy. The council drew up eight canons, condemning a heresy it ascribed to Pelagius. This has become known as Pelagianism.
From the anathemas in the first eight canons of the Council of Carthage, we can deduce the following points of Pelagian doctrine, all of which were condemned at the council:

Grace is not completely necessary for obedience (Canons 3-5)
People are not born sinful (Canon 2)
Death is natural and inevitable, not in any sense a result of sin (Canon 1)
Christians need not call themselves "sinners," or ask for forgiveness, except out of humility (Canons 6-8)

The following summary of Pelagianism from B.B. Warfield in The Plan of Salvation [PDF] therefore seems apt:

[The Pelagians] built up a complete autosoteric system. On the one side this system was protected by the denial of any "fall" suffered by mankind in its first head, and accordingly of any entail of evil, whether of sin or mere weakness, derived from its past history. Every man is born in the same condition in which Adam was created; and every man continues throughout life in the same condition in which he is born. By his fall Adam at most has set us a bad example, which, however, we need not follow unless we choose; and our past sins, while of course we may be called to account for them and must endure righteous punishment on their account, cannot in any way abridge or contract our inherent power of doing what is right. ...  At any moment he chooses, therefore, any man can cease all sinning and from that instant onward be and continue perfect. ...
The Pelagian scheme therefore embraces the following points. God has endowed man with an inalienable freedom of will, by virtue of which he is fully able to do all that can be required of him. To this great gift God has added the gifts of the law and the gospel to illuminate the way of righteousness and to persuade man to walk in it; and even the gift of Christ to supply an expiation for past sins for all who will do righteousness, and especially to set a good example. Those who, under these inducements and in the power of their ineradicable freedom, turn from their sins and do righteousness, will be accepted by the righteous God and rewarded according to their deeds.

According to Warfield in the same document, while Pelagianism ascribed to man "the whole of salvation," Semipelagianism ascribed to man "the initiation of salvation," which the Second Council of Orange (529) condemned. However, Warfield (a Calvinist) laments that the council denied the "certain efficacy" or "irresistibility" of saving grace, which he and many others believe to have been a cardinal doctrine of Augustine's in his fight against Pelagius.
The blogger Turretinfan provides a helpful summary of Warfield's summary. Note that what he refers to as the "sufficiency" of grace is simply what Warfield calls "certain efficacy" or "irresistibility":

In the set of definitions by Warfield:
Pelagianism [condemned at the Council of Carthage] Denies:

The sufficiency of grace;
The necessity of initial grace; and
The general necessity of grace.

Semi-Pelagianism [condemned at the Council of Orange] Denies:

The sufficiency of grace; and
The necessity of initial grace.

Semi-semi-Pelagianism [condemned by Calvinists] Denies:

The sufficiency of grace.


Your definition of cynicism includes
" rejecting all conventional desires for A. wealth, B. power, C. sex, and D. fame."

A. Regarding wealth-
His Father owns the cattle on a thousand hills- Proverbs and He miraculously fished a coin out of a fish's mouth. www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+17%3A24-27&version=CEV  Any possible possession he could need was available to him.  But as far as I can tell, he lived with little money, IMHO
i. to relate more closely to the poor.
ii. gave most of his money away
iii. demonstration of His dependence on Father and Holy Spirit

B. Power-
Similar to money he had all power one could possibly want, but chose to be a servant as demonstration of His love to us.  The name he most frequently used for himself was "Son of Man".  https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=NASB&quicksearch=+%22son+of+man%22&startnumber=26&begin=47&end=50  This giving up of power culminated in the ultimate sacrifice on the cross.  After the cross, He is now seated on His throne & now has all the power in His own right.

C. Sex
Although He, Himself lived an entirely celibate life, he made clear sex is a good thing in marriage  "and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh." https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2010&version=NASB
The term one flesh has several meanings one of which is making love.

D. Fame
There are times when he certainly avoided the spotlight.  He was confident & secure enough in His own identity to not seek it.  However, considering 2,000 years later, many or most people on the earth since then have heard His name, I would certainly say He is extremely famous.

One other point-
Can you clarify your definition of natural?  I'm going to take m
"living in a way which was natural for humans..."  For humans, rebellion, pride & selfishness are natural.  The goal is not self sufficiency, but dependency on Father.  He had none of these.  We don't teach those characteristics to children, but they exhibit them.  1 Corinthians 2:14 on the same site as above.

To summarize, Christ lived not seeking these but was confident His Father would provide them when the appropriate time came.


Why does the Eastern Orthodox Church call the 49 days following Easter, Pentecost, and the Western Church does not?

Why does the Eastern Orthodox Church call the 49 days following Easter, Pentecost and the Western Church does not?

To put it in a nutshell: It is their tradition to do so. The Eastern Orthodox Church calls this the Season of Pentecost because there are 50 (Pente) days between Easter and Pentecost. It is that simple.

  The Christian holy day of Pentecost, which is celebrated on the seventh Sunday after Easter, commemorates the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles and other followers of Jesus Christ while they were in Jerusalem celebrating the Feast of Weeks, as described in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 2:1–31). In Christian tradition, this event represents the birth of the early Church.

  Eastern Churches

  In Eastern Christianity, Pentecost can also refer to the entire fifty days of Easter through Pentecost inclusive; hence the book containing the liturgical texts is called the "Pentecostarion". Since its date depends on the date of Easter, Pentecost is a moveable feast.

  The holy day is also called "White Sunday" or "Whitsunday", especially in the United Kingdom, where traditionally the next day, Whit Monday, was also a public holiday (now fixed by statute on the last Monday in May). In Germany Pentecost is called "Pfingsten" and often coincides with scholastic holidays and the beginning of many outdoor and springtime activities, such as festivals and organized outdoor activities by youth organizations. The Monday after Pentecost is a legal holiday in many European nations.

  In the Eastern Orthodox Church, Pentecost is one of the Orthodox Great Feasts and is considered to be the highest ranking Great Feast of the Lord, second in rank only to Easter. The service is celebrated with an All-night Vigil on the eve of the feast day, and the Divine Liturgy on the day of the feast itself. Orthodox churches are often decorated with greenery and flowers on this feast day, and the celebration is intentionally similar to the Jewish holiday of Shavuot, which celebrates the giving of the Mosaic Law.

  Western Churches

  The liturgical celebrations of Pentecost in Western churches are as rich and varied as those in the East. The main sign of Pentecost in the West is the color red. It symbolizes joy and the fire of the Holy Spirit. Pentecost (Wikipedia)

It is also the tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church and those Eastern Catholic Churches to celebrate Mid-Pentecost.

  Mid-Pentecost or Midfeast, also Meso-Pentecost (from Greek: Μεσοπεντηκοστή); Russian: Преполове́ние Пятидеся́тницы is a feast day which occurs during the Paschal season in the Eastern Orthodox Church and those Eastern Catholic Churches which follow the Byzantine Rite.

  Mid-Pentecost celebrates the midpoint between the Feasts of Pascha (Easter) and Pentecost. Specifically, it falls on the 25th day of Pascha (Easter). At the feast of Mid-Pentecost, a Small Blessing of the Waters is traditionally performed after the liturgy of the feast.

  Mid-Pentecost is a one-week feast which begins on the 4th Wednesday of Pascha (Easter), and continues until the following Wednesday. That is to say, it has an Afterfeast of seven days. Throughout these eight days (including the day of the feast) hymns of Mid-Pentecost are joined to those of the Paschal season. Many of the hymns from the first day of the feast are repeated on the Apodosis (leave-taking of the feast). Although it is ranked as a Feast of the Lord and has an Afterfeast, Mid-Pentecost itself is not considered to be one of the Great Feasts of the church year.

  The liturgical texts for the feast are found in the Pentecostarion (the liturgical book containing propers for the period from Pascha to Pentecost).

In the West, we call this time frame Eastertide and Paschaltide.

Dom Gueranger has this to say about Eastertide:

  The fifty days between Easter and Pentecost have ever been considered by the Church as most holy. The first week, which is more expressly devoted to celebrating our Lord’s Resurrection, is kept up as one continued Feast; but the remainder of the fifty days is also marked with special honours. To say nothing of the joy, which is the characteristic of this period of the year, and of which the  Alleluia is the expression,- Christian tradition has assigned to Eastertide two practices, which distinguish it from every other Season. The first is, that fasting is not permitted during the entire interval: it is an extension of the ancient precept of never fasting on a Sunday, and the whole of Eastertide is considered as one long Sunday. This practice, which would seem to have come down from the time of the Apostles, was accepted by the Religious Rules of both East and West, even by the severest. The second consists in not kneeling at the Divine Office, from Easter to Pentecost. The Eastern Churches have faithfully kept up the practice, even to this day. It was observed for many ages by the Western Churches also; but now, it is little more than a remnant. The Latin Church has long since admitted genuflexions in the Mass during Easter time. The few vestiges of the ancient discipline in this regard, which still exist, are not noticed by the faithful, inasmuch as they seldom assist at the Canonical Hours.

  Eastertide, then, is like one continued Feast. It is the remark made by Tertullian, in the 3rd century. He is reproaching those Christians who regretted having renounced, by their Baptism, the festivities of the pagan year; and he thus addresses them: "If you love Feasts, you will find plenty among us Christians; not merely Feasts that last only for a day, but such as continue for several days together. The Pagans keep each of their Feasts once in the year; but you have to keep each of yours many times over, for you have the eight days of its celebration. Put all the Feasts of the Gentiles together, and they do not amount to our fifty days of Pentecost." [De Idolatria, cap. xiv.] St. Ambrose speaking on the same subject, says: "If the Jews are not satisfied with the Sabbath of each week, but keep also one which lasts a whole month, and another which lasts a whole year;- how much more ought not we to honour our Lord’s Resurrection? Hence our ancestors have taught us to celebrate the fifty days of Pentecost as a continuation of Easter. They are seven weeks, and the Feast of Pentecost commences the eighth. ... During these fifty days, the Church observes no fast, as neither does she on any Sunday, for it is the day on which our Lord rose: and all these fifty days are like so many Sundays." [In Lucam, lib. viii. cap. xxv.] - THE HISTORY OF PASCHAL TIME

In the West, the Season of Pentecost designates the time after Pentecost until the First Sunday of Advent.


Are these citations from St. Ignacius of Loyola?

According to the source that you cited regarding the first quote, which is CCI paragraph 2834, this is taken from a book that attributes it to St. Ignatius of Loyola.  The book was published in 1964 called "The Jesuits: Their Spiritual Doctrine and Practice".  Available here http://jesuitsources.bc.edu/the-jesuits-their-spiritual-doctrine-and-practice-a-historical-study/

122 Attributed to St. Ignatius Loyola, cf. Joseph de Guibert, SJ, The Jesuits: Their Spiritual Doctrine and Practice, (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1964), 148, n. 55.

There is no direct correlation, quote or anything else from St Ignatius.  There is many resources available regarding his many writings and guides for prayer and interior life.
Such as the following, just to give an idea....
http://jesuitsources.bc.edu/the-writings-of-saint-ignatius-of-loyola-cd-rom/

I have personally read many (not a majority or all) writings and reflections from St Ignatius an those that follow Ignatian Spirituality, and that quote could sum up many of the points and objectives.  I feel that it could have been stated by St. Ignatius at some point, but not necessarily written down.  That may not have even been what he might have said, but that may have been a paraphrasing that accurately described his message that stuck.  It's much easier than remembering the 15 page letter or a 10 minute sermon he had it could have been extrapolated from.

The second quote, I have also seen attributed to St. Ignatius of Loyola and people will often just quote it as whole without a source.  Again, I have not seen a direct source in any of the readings I have come across and I have found it had to even find one with direct source.  Most sources will refer to Fr John Padberg, who is a an Ignatian Scholar and has written many books.  All of his books are written in more modern times (1980 - today).  You can find his books on Amazon, and I think in his book "Ignatius of Loyola: Letters and Instructions" is where he first attributes that quote to hi.

https://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_27%3AJohn%20W.%20Padberg


Does the Pope teach infallibly ONLY when he speaks ex cathedra?

Ex cathedra is the means by which a pope defines dogma.
Infallible means "not prone to err."

The First Vatican Council says a pope cannot err when defining dogma. This does not imply he's prone to err when not defining dogma, nor does it mean he must speak ex cathedra to be inerrant.

Encyclicals, for example, are inerrant; otherwise, the Church would demand the faithful to assent to what might contain error, and the Church cannot lead one into error because the Church is indefectible. From Pope Pius XII's Humani Generis:

  Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[Luke, X, 16] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.


I would guess that the reference to the synagogue of Satan is not to some local synagogue of Satanists that were pretending to be Jews, but instead to all those everywhere who claimed to be Jews but were not really, spiritually, Jews.  Consider Jesus' words in John 8:

  They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. ... You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. John 8:39,40,44

In other words: "your actions show you aren't Abraham's children (i.e. you aren't Jews); you're children of Satan."

And then, also consider this passage, which divides everyone into two groups: children of God and children of the devil:

  By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother. 1 John 3:10

Also, consider Galatians 3:7-10:

  Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith."

Finally, Romans 9:6-8:

  ... not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

So we see that the true sons of Abraham, the true Jews, are those who are "of faith".  Thus, I would conclude that the passage you quoted is simply referring to Jews who rejected Jesus as Messiah.


All Christians, and on occasion others, can baptize others if necessary according to Catholic tradition - see Code of Canon Law §861.2. Godparents are not needed for baptism if not available - see CCL 872. CCL 892 says: "As far as possible the person to be confirmed is to have a sponsor." It seems clear that the dispensability of sponsors extends to conversion, but I do not have a source for this yet. Nevertheless, if someone wants to become a Catholic and was baptized in a Christian manner I claim that a sponsor is recommended but the Bishop or his representative priest may dispense with the sponsor if necessary; the justification for this is that the person who wants to become catholic may be in danger, and a sponsor is not available. Orthodox Christians are confirmed right after baptism, and so Catholic bishops should in my opinion respect the orthodox confirmation and not impose another one; update: according to the following BBC-link which validates my statement on orthodox confirmation, the Catholic church does not "confirm converts from the orthodox churches": http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/ritesrituals/confirmation_1.shtml


What exactly is the meaning of the text of Doxology in the concluding part of Catholic Eucharistic prayer?

This is one of several different valid ways to take it:

Through Jesus as intercessor, the glory and honor is the Father's.
With Jesus as brother alongside us, the glory and honor is the Father's.
In Jesus, the Church being his body, the glory and honor is the Father's.

All of this is one action with the Holy Spirit (as Jesus acts in unity with the other person of the Trinity) who acts in and with all of us (we are unified as we act under inspiration of the Trinity).


There is no New Testament directive as to the means of collecting gifts , monetary or otherwise.
The question is whether a means of collecting gifts fosters the Biblically directed attitude of giving.

2 Corinthians 9:7 Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Matthew 6:1 “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven."

(Note that this is directed toward the motive of giving. If you are giving for human praise, that's all you get. However if you give because it is the right thing to do, you have further reward, even if somebody does see you do it. After all Jesus praised the widow who gave at the Temple in the sight of many).

Personally, I think the current form of collecting offering is for practical fund raising purposes only.


Historically, what would happen if a church could not afford or provide wine for the sake of the Eucharist?

You question is based on a few assumptions, let's go over them:
First, a Catholic eucharist can't just use any wine. There are strict rules for its origin and production laid down by the Vatican. Essentially, sacramental wine has to be:

Made naturally, “from the fruit of the grape, pure and incorrupt”—though raisins are also permissible.
Not mixed with other substances, though a small quantity of water is mixed in during the ritual
not turned into vinegar or soured

It is altogether forbidden to use wine of doubtful authenticity or provenance.
Strangely, sacramental wine can actually be red or white, dry or sweet, even fortified, as long as the source of fortification is also grape-derived, and as long as the ABV stays between 5 and 18%.
Once it’s approved by a bishop of the vineyard’s diocese, it can be labelled “sacramental”.
Second, not all Catholic churches, now or in history, serve wine to the laity during (every weekly) Eucharist. The rule governing the minimum frequency of receiving communion nowadays is based on Canon 920, based on the Pio-Benedictine Code (1917 CIC 859), which in turn rested on legislation going back several centuries at least to the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215.
Third, during epidemic periods in history, the consumption of wine (and in some cases also bread) was taken out of the ritual. An example of this is the 1547 Sacrament Act, introduced after the plague, which requires both bread and wine to be given “except necessity otherwise require”. This and similar rules have also recently been invoked by churches as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The inverse (preferential exemption) has also occurred. During prohibition, consumption of Christian sacramental wine was exempted from prohibition laws, while -for example- Jewish kiddush was not.
Lastly, the relevance of consumption from the perspective of the laity has also declined in the last century or so. According to a recent Pew Research survey, the majority (69%) of Catholics in the US believe that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are merely symbolic and not transubstantiated, the very belief which makes the consumption essential to the ritual. Maintained belief in transubstantiation is highest in the oldest living generations (38% compared to the average 29%).


Positional and Relational Forgiveness, what is the Biblical Basis?

Here is what Jesus said regarding fellowship:

  Luke 15:11-32 King James Version (KJV)
  11 And he said, A certain man had two sons:

  12 And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of >goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.

  13 And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his >journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.

  14 And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he >began to be in want.

  15 And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him >into his fields to feed swine.

  16 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did >eat: and no man gave unto him.

  17 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's >have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!

  18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have >sinned against heaven, and before thee,

  19 And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired >servants.

  20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, >his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and >kissed him.

  21 And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy >sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.

  22 But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on >him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet:

  23 And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry:

  24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And >they began to be merry.

  25 Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the >house, he heard musick and dancing.

  26 And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant.

  27 And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the >fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.

  28 And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and >intreated him.

  29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, >neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me >a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:

  30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with >harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.

  31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is >thine.

  32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was >dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

Notice that positionally, both sons are always in good standing. The Father (God) never revokes what He has granted to both sons.

But the problem comes as each of them mistrusts the Father (God). Mistrust means to not believe. Each of them did not believe that God is good. And when they mistrust their Father (God), they began to find others to be the substitute god. That substitute god is usually self.

The younger son began to believe that in his own strength that he is going to make it somewhere far from His Father.

The older son began to believe that His Father is not good enough to throw a party for him. So he work hard (his god) but cannot enjoy the fellowship with His Father (God) who is physically very near.

Both fellowship could be restored and joy in the Holy Spirit is guaranteed as both of the sons began to "listen" to His Father (God) calling each one of them to draw near to Himself and begin again to trust Him as the "good" Father (God).


Why did Saul name two of his sons Eshbaal and Merib-baal?

First, just to be clear Meribbaal/Mephiboshet is actually the grandson of Saul (and son of Jonathan).  With that out of the way, the honest truth is that no one can know for sure why Eshbaal and Meribbaal were named as such.  The Bible doesn't tell us why, and we have no other source.

We can same something about what the word baal means though.  Baal is a common word in Ancient Near East cultures.  As a common noun, it could mean "master", "husband", or "owner" in Hebrew.  It could be used to form complex nouns.  In Genesis 39:19 Joseph is described as a "baal of dreams" = dreamer; in Genesis 49:23 we find "baal of arrows"=archers; and in 1 Kings 1:8 we find "baal of hair"=hairy man; among other such uses within the OT.

Naturally, a word that means "master" is a natural candidate to be adapted to describe a deity (just as Lord, a synonym for master, is used to describe God in English).  And this is what several ANE cultures did.  There wasn't a single distinct god named Baal, but rather several different gods with that name or derivatives of it.  Here is what Encyclopedia Britannica, hardly a religious apologetic, has to say about the use of the term in Israel:

  In the formative stages of Israel’s history, the presence of Baal names did not necessarily mean apostasy or even syncretism. The judge Gideon was also named Jerubbaal (Judges 6:32), and King Saul had a son named Ishbaal (I Chronicles 8:33). For those early Hebrews, “Baal” designated the Lord of Israel, just as “Baal” farther north designated the Lord of Lebanon or of Ugarit.

In other words, in Saul's time (11 century BC), it was simply a term used to talk about God just as we might variously use "Lord", "Father", "Yahweh", etc. and yet not be referring to multiple different gods.

This changed, again according to Encyclopedia Britannica when Jezebel attempted

  in the 9th century BC, to introduce into Israel her Phoenician cult of Baal in opposition to the official worship of Yahweh (I Kings 18). By the time of the prophet Hosea (mid-8th century BC) the antagonism to Baalism was so strong that the use of the term Baal was often replaced by the contemptuous boshet (“shame”); in compound proper names, for example, Ishbosheth replaced the earlier Ishbaal.

So no, there is no real evidence to suggest people in Saul's time with "baal" as part of their name derived it from Baal worship.  Those names could mean "master of X", or be a reference to Israel's master (Yahweh), without needing to invent a contradiction in what the Bible teaches about the history of Israel.


The New Testament explicitly prohibits polyandry:

  Thus a married woman is bound by the law to her husband as long as he
  lives; but if her husband dies, she is discharged from the law
  concerning the husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress
  if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her
  husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another
  man, she is not an adulteress. (Romans 7:2–3)

The Old Testament does not have such a clear prohibition, but the laws against adultery are usually interpreted to mean that polyandry is prohibited. For example:

  If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his
  neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.
  (Leviticus 20:10)

Practically speaking, there are no examples of polyandry in the Bible, whereas there are many examples of polygyny.

As for the broader question, it would be a stretch to argue that marriage is gender-neutral in the Bible.

However, there is a general arc starting with male/female equality in the creation of humans in the first creation story (Genesis 1:26–27), to increasing inequality from the second creation story in Genesis 2 in which woman is created out of man (Genesis 2:21–23), to the punishment of Eve in Genesis 3:16 in which she is made subject to man, to the first example of polygyny in in Genesis 4:19–24, after which women are considered subject to men for the rest of the Old Testament narrative, and polygyny is common. But in the New Testament there is a move back toward monogamy, and a general increase in the status of women—without, however, explicitly re-establishing full equality between the sexes or universally prohibiting polygyny.

Still, the trend was set. Within a few centuries Christianity adopted a strict monogamous position, and the position of women in relation to men generally improved over the centuries. The same developments have taken place in post-Biblical Judaism as well.

For an analysis of the first three chapters of Genesis from the perspective of gender equality or lack thereof, see my articles, Man, Woman, and the Two Creation Stories of Genesis and What are the Roles of Men and Women toward Each Other and in Society?


Rephrase: Does the Bible claim itself to be inerrant?

See "The Case for Christ" by Lee Stroebel, chapter 3, section "A High Degree of Unanimity" (I can't post it here, because "No part of this publication may be reproduced" etc.) It talks about the rigorous process used to select books as part of the canon. They had to be written by apostles or eyewitnesses to them, they had to conform to existing Christian doctrine, and they had to be accepted by the community at large. Even today there are some eastern churches that don't accept the book of Revelation.


Why was Jesus crucified in the middle?

It was a decision made by either the the Roman Governor Pilate or the Roman executioners.

The Catholic Church has no official stand as to why Jesus was crucified in the middle. However, it does make sense in a logical point of view that the Romans would have placed a criminal who was deemed more dangerous or guilty in the middle. (The place of honour so to speak.) The Catholic Encyclopedia makes an allusion to this possibility:

  The cross on which Jesus Christ was nailed was of the kind known as immensa, which means that the vertical trunk extended a certain height above the transverse beam; it was thus higher than the crosses of the two thieves, his crime being judged a graver one, according to St. John Chrysostom (Homil. v, c. i., on I Corinth.). The earliest Christian Fathers who speak of the Cross describe it as thus constructed. We gather as much from St. Matthew (27:37), where he tells us that the titulus, or inscription containing the cause of His death, was placed, "over", the head of Jesus Christ (cf. Luke 23:38; John 19:19). St. Irenæus (Adv. Haer., II, xxiv) says that the Cross had five extremities: two in its length, two in its breadth, and the fifth a projection (habitus) in the middle — "Fines et summitates habet quinque, duas in longitudine, duas in latitudine, unam in medio". St. Augustine agrees with him: "Erat latitudo in qua porrectæ sunt manus longitudo a terrâ surgens, in quâ erat corpus infixum; altitudo ab illo divexo ligno sursum quod imminet" (Enarration on Psalm 103; Serm. i, 44) and in other passages quoted by Zöckler (Das Kreuz, 1875, pp. 430, 431).

  The historical narrative of the Passion and Crucifixion of Jesus Christ, as found in the Four Gospels, agrees exactly with all we have set down above concerning this form of punishment. Jesus Christ was condemned for the crime of sedition and tumult, as were also some of the Apostles (Malalas, "Chronogr.", X, p. 256). His Crucifixion was preceded by the Scourging. - Archæology of the Cross and Crucifix

This question is somewhat explored by Jimmy Akin’s (Catholic Answers) in the YouTube video: Why Was Jesus Crucified in Between the Two Thieves?


Luther has famously argues that every time you break any other commandment, you always break the first commandment; in other words, behind every sin is the desire to worship a god other the God. Whether it is pride, in which we consider ourself to be God, or a sin of fear-of-man, in which we consider another person to be God, all sin is, at its core, idolatry.

When you see the essential problem as a worship issue, over against a breaking-of-commandments issue, I think several things are clarified.

Worship and idolatry addresses both the positive and negative sides. That is, when we do what is right, we are worshipping God (and conversely), and when we are not worshipping God, we are not doing what is right (and conversely).
Much of the Bible talks about idolatry, and seems a bit foreign and obsolete to modern ears. After all, we do not deal with Baal or Molech on a daily basis. However, when considering this as an example of our basic relationship with God, these passages become much more relavant. God is repeatedly enraged by his people worshipping idols and intermixing with other gods. Though we do not by and large bow down to physical idols made by hands, we do worship at the gods of money, power, etc.
The idolatry issues allows for a distinction between things that are good and created by God against things that ultimate for us. God gives us food, but we can be gluttons. God gives us sex but we find all ways to abuse it. Seeing sin as essentially idolatry allows us to have good things be God-centered, and not find abuse to be the only use we can comprehend.


To the Protestant, what is the benefit of putting a cross inside the church?

It seems that most Protestant churches are fairly silent on their reasoning; it's something that people don't really think about because it is so ingrained into their worship. However, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (one of the many, many Protestant denominations) had a Q&A where they discussed crosses in churches. Several key points:

Their guidelines for worship, the Westminster Standards (Confession of Faith and Catechisms) and the OPC Book of Church Order (BCO), do not have any mention about crosses in church, thus there are no formal guidelines
Local churches are free to include them or not include them as they see fit
Given that early churches did not have dedicated meeting places, they did not have crosses as permanent fixtures and yet were still able to worship

To answer your specific questions:

What is the benefit of putting a cross symbol inside the church?

The benefit is whatever the local churches ascribe to it when they ask for it to be installed. The question asker gives a fairly common perspective:

  Some say that the cross like the [national] flag, is only symbolic. While the flag is not in the Bible, the cross is. Albeit a method of traditional Roman execution at the time of Christ on earth, without the cross there is no Calvary, no crucifiction and therefore no Christ, who died and shed his blood for us on the cross.

In other words, for some people the cross is a symbol that is representative of something greater. Much like people treat a flag with respect because it represents a nation, the cross is treated with respect and importance because it represents Christ's sacrifice (or Christ himself) and the basis it has on Christian faith.

How did putting a cross inside a church begin and who ordered it?

  [W]hen did churches begin to include crosses in their architecture? Now I grant that the question is virtually un-answerable. But it makes a valid point. It was without question a long time before the New Testament churches had their own buildings, and arguably a longer time before they began to fix crosses on the walls.

While I suspect that historians could probably more reliably pinpoint the time that crosses became commonplace, I think the point is that because the early church was persecuted, they wouldn't have been able to hang crosses up. It was pretty commonplace by the time of the Protestant Reformation, and since your question is about Protestantism, I think it's fair to say that nobody "ordered it", instead people just thought it was a natural thing to do.


Is violence against LGBT people warranted by scripture?

No, as little as it advocates violence against any other sinner. The story in John 8 holds for homosexuals as well: He who is without sin throw the first stone. And when nobody did: Go therefore and don't sin no more.


According to the Council of Trent Catechism for Parish Priests,

  those who, having it in their power to receive with fitting preparation the Sacrament of the body of the Lord, are yet satisfied with a spiritual Communion only, deprive themselves of the greatest and most heavenly advantages.

The text states that the first grace required to receive the Eucharist (sacramental communion) is "given to none unless they receive in wish and desire" (spiritual communion). Spiritual communion recalls the soul to life, giving the grace required to receive "the fountain of all graces", sacramental communion. The text states that language is inadequate to fully describe the fruits of the Eucharist itself, but gives as examples:

feeds, invigorates, and delights the soul
unites the soul with the substance of the sacrament, i.e., Christ
remits venial sins
strengthens against temptation by displacing the lusts of the flesh with the love of charity
in short, facilitates the attainment of eternal life


What is the power that Christians possess?

The following comes from a mainly Calvinist view point:

The power you are looking for is the power granted to Christians by the Holy Spirit. Probably one of the most clear examples of this was in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost.

  5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. 7 Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? 9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,[b] 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” 12 Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?”  (NIV)

This was the first manifestation of the power of the Holy Spirit on these new Christians. Much of the book of Acts continues to chronicle this power that they had been granted.

There is now some debate how this power manifests in the modern 21st century. However, it is no doubt still active. Even those (like myself) that are cessationists believe that the spirit is still active in our daily lives, but that he manifests his power differently than he did in the early church.

For example many believe that one of the greatest examples of the power of the spirit is his working on the hearts and minds of God's people to perform both regeneration and sanctification.


How can it be said that Paul taught a pre-tribulational rapture of the Church given 2 Thessalonians chapter 2?

There are a few interpretations:

The falling away (or rebellion) is the word apostasia (G646). Some say this apostasia, or the apostasy, is the rapture. However, there are some problems with this interpretation: literally it would mean that the rapture comes before the gathering unto Him, which doesn't make sense (since in this interpretation the gathering is the rapture.) The other problem is that the word apostasia has a bad connotation, it is only used for a departure which is negative, not something positive like a rapture. Another argument is that the definition of apostasy is: the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief or principle.
Some say the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ is the rapture, and our gathering together unto him is the second coming. Doing this makes it possible for them to interpret the next verses so that it's only talking about the second coming, so pretrib rapture not included. I have no idea what justifies it to say the coming is the rapture and our gathering is the second coming or vice versa, because it has no biblical basis.
Some say that the Thessalonians received a letter from someone claiming that the day of the Lord had already come. They say the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him is only about the second coming. This would mean that Paul is just saying that the day of the Lord can't have happened since the falling away and antichrist has yet to come. The problem here is that Paul writes: or a letter seeming to be from us, if this theory would've been true, he would've written something like "a letter from someone else." To work around this issue some say that the letter that the Thessalonians received was written like it was coming from one of the apostles, ofcourse this is pure speculation. But don't get me wrong, it is possible that the Thessalonians did think that the day of the Lord had already come, since verse 2 could imply this. But if this is true, and the pretrib rapture theory is true, then how could the Thessalonians believe the day of the Lord was already at hand, since nobody was raptured?
Another argument I've heard is "the antichrist is already in this world." Which also has some problems: he, the antichrist isn't revealed yet, so that's no reason to justify the pretrib theory. Also the restrainer talked about in verse 6 to 8 is the church (or holy spirit) in the pretrib rapture theory: the church has to be raptured before the antichrist comes down to earth. This is a serious problem: if the antichrist is already here it would mean we were already been raptured.


Where does Augustine say that the rapture of the saved soul will "flow over" into the glorified body?

Arend Smilde finds the answer to this question in Augustine's letter to Dioscorus (CXVIII), 3.14:

  Now, perfect health of body shall be the consummation of the immortality of the whole man. For God has endowed the soul with a nature so powerful, that from that consummate fulness of joy which is promised to the saints in the end of time, some portion overflows also upon the lower part of our nature, the body,—not the blessedness which is proper to the part which enjoys and understands, but the plenitude of health, that is, the vigour of incorruption.

The reference to torrens voluptatis is apparently distinct, using phrasing from the Vulgate and Augustine's exposition of Psalm 35:9 (or, 36:8):

  “And of the torrent of Thy Pleasure shalt Thou give them to drink.” [et torrente voluptatis tuae potabis eos] A torrent we call water coming with a flood. There will be a flood of God’s Mercy to overflow and inebriate those who now put their trust under the shadow of His wings. What is that Pleasure? As it were a torrent inebriating the thirsty. Let him then who thirsts now, lay up hope: whoso thirsts now, let him have hope; when inebriated, he shall have possession: before he have possession, let him thirst in hope. “Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled.”


Why did Mary ask Jesus to make wine at the Wedding at Cana

Catholics love Mary, as you may know. And this particular detail of the Wedding of Cana reaffirms the Catholic devotion to Mary as an intercessor.

  The Gospel reveals to us how Mary prays and intercedes in faith. At
  Cana, the mother of Jesus asks her son for the needs of a wedding
  feast; this is the sign of another feast—that of the wedding of the
  Lamb where he gives his body and blood at the request of the Church,
  his Bride. It is at the hour of the New Covenant, at the foot of the
  cross, that Mary is heard as the Woman, the new Eve, the true “Mother
  of all the living.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

As Christ is an embodiment of something, that of God's self-proclamation and self-incarnation of His own saving power, Mary is also an embodiment of something, namely the human "yes" to God's will. As such, she is the primary intercessor of the Church to Christ.

Extrapolating a little: By her acceptance to receive God in her flesh, we acknowledge her mission as an intercessor (Queen among many) from God to man. And by her request at the wedding of Cana (which Jesus was undoubtedly waiting for), we acknowledge the validity of her mission as an intercessor from man to God.


In two online Catholic Bibles, what accounts for the difference in the numbering of the verses in Sirach Chapter 7?

I answer as an amateur Bible reader with no formal training in Biblical studies.

One needs to distinguish between Catholic Bibles produced by Catholics, and Bibles labelled and sometimes even approved as Catholic Bibles that are in fact a rearrangement of a non-Catholic Bible in which the non-Catholic Apocrypha are inserted where the Catholic Bible expects corresponding Deuterocanonical texts.

The reference all-Catholic English-language Bible is the Douay-Rheims Bible (with Bishop Challoner's Revisions), since this was translated from the Latin Vulgate produced by St Jerome in the 4th Century, and predates the King James Bible. It is the English-language Catholic Bible equivalent in authority to the King James Bible for Anglicans. Ecclesiasticus (as the Book of Sirach is called in the Douay-Rheims Bible) Chapter 7 has 40 verses. By way of comparison, Ecclesiasticus Chapter 7 in the Apocrypha of the Authorised Version (Kind James Bible) has only 36 verses. A cursory comparison of the last few verses of these two Bibles shows that Verse 31 in the Authorized Version is considerably longer than the other verses in chapter 7 and approximately corresponds to Verses 31-35 of the Douay-Rheims Bible rolled into one. Verses 32-36 of the Authorised Version correspond to Verses 36-40 of the Douay-Rheims Bible. This suggests that the Received Text from which KJB translators translated is slightly different to the Greek and Hebrew texts from which St Jerome translated, either in content, and/or in verse numbering. I understand that the Received Text was a thorough review of the Greek source texts by Erasmus, and verse numbering was reviewed in the 16th Century by Robert Estienne. Therefore one would expect minor differences between the Douay-Rheims Bible and the King James Bible.

The RSV-CE Bible follows the KJV Bible. It was approved for Catholics because it includes most of the Catholic canonical books. However my understanding is that there are some deviations in the meaning between the RSV-CE and the Douay-Rheims Bible, e.g. in Isaiah 7-14 (young woman in the RSV versus virgin in the Douay-Rheims Bible) motivated by an interpretation of the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the 6th Century more in line with the Jewish Tanekh than the Old Testament in the 2nd C BC Greek language Septuagint, that would have been in general use at the time of Christ.


Early Christian responses to suicide (source/text identification)?

Justin Martyr (†c.165) is one such Early Church writer. In fact, I suspect he is one of the earliest to respond explicitly to this objection.
From the Second Apology, Chapter 4 (Thomas B. Falls translation):

Lest any one should say to us, 'All of you, go, kill yourselves and thus go immediately to God, and save us the trouble,' I will explain why we do not do that, and why, when interrogated, we boldly acknowledge our faith. We have been taught that God did not create the world without a purpose, but that He did so for the sake of mankind; for we have stated before that God is pleased with those who imitate His perfections, but is displeased with those who choose evil, either in word or in deed. If, then, we should all kill ourselves we would be the cause, as far as it is up to us, why no one would be born and be instructed in the divine doctrines, or even why the human race might crease to exist; if we do act thus, we ourselves will be opposing the will of God.

Emphasis mine. Justin's key reason is that doing so is contrary to God's will: the secondary reason why it is contrary to God's will is that doing so is an impediment to the spread of Christian doctrine.


Who was the target audience of the Book of Job?

Now the question of who is the target audience for Job is a tricky one, because there is the audience that Job intended, and the audience that God intended. Since the book is not addressed to a group as are Paul's letters, or to a son as is the Book of Proverbs, or to Theophilus as are Luke and Acts, the best clues come from understanding the purpose of the book.

In Job 19, the suffering man says this:

23 “Oh that my words were written!
    Oh that they were inscribed in a book!
24 Oh that with an iron pen and lead
    they were engraved in the rock forever!
25 For I know that my Redeemer lives,
    and at the last he will stand upon the earth.
26 And after my skin has been thus destroyed,
    yet in my flesh I shall see God,
27 whom I shall see for myself,
    and my eyes shall behold, and not another.
    My heart faints within me!

Job wanted the world to know that he believed that God would raise him from the dead.

God wanted the world to know that Job spoke the truth about Him:

  7 After the Lord had spoken these words to Job, the Lord said to
  Eliphaz the Temanite: “My anger burns against you and against your two
  friends, for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant
  Job has.  (Job 42:7)

And what was this truth that Job spoke? If you read Job's speeches carefully, you will see that out of his suffering he speaks prophetically about the coming savior and about many other events that were to come to pass. Evidence in the book points to it being written between the times of Abraham and Moses. The book is filled with examples of the several approved ways that God communicates with mankind, including sacrifice, looking for clues in nature, listening to wise elders, prayer, fasting, sabbath observance, dreams, visions, suffering, angels, and theophany. Job's prayer in chapter 19 cited above is a new contribution: the Word of God in written form. Just as Abraham prayed for a son and was blessed to become the father of many nations, so Job's prayer was answered beyond his wildest expectation: his story would become the first book of the Bible to be written down.

Job's main prophecy was that God was about to construct a written record of his dealings with mankind so that all people could know clearly what God expected of them and how to seek his favor. Thus Job's audience in general was the whole world. But in particular, you will see that many verses in Proverbs have their echo in Job, as do the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Jeremiah, Revelation and even the words of Jesus in the Gospels. So another important audience was the prophets.

Amos said this in 3:7:

“For the Lord God does nothing
    without revealing his secret
    to his servants the prophets."

If Job is the first book in the Bible, then it stands to reason that, in addition to words about what would happen in the distant future, Job would leave instructions to guide people by telling them what would happen in the near future, to authenticate his next prophet. And so he does. The Bible has many references to papyrus as a symbol of the fragility of life.

Can **papyrus** grow tall where there is no marsh?
Can reeds thrive without water? (Job 8:11)

Which will be reversed when the savior comes:

The burning sand will become a pool,
    the thirsty ground bubbling springs.
In the haunts where jackals once lay,
    grass and reeds and **papyrus** will grow. (Isaiah 35:7)

Papyrus when formed into a swift boat is used to describe people trying to outrun God's judgment:

Woe to the land of whirring wings
    along the rivers of Cush,
2 which sends envoys by sea
    in **papyrus** boats over the water. (Isaiah 18:2)

In a chapter where Job says he cannot see God, he speaks of God walking on the seas:

He alone stretches out the heavens
    and treads on the waves of the sea. (Job 9:8)

This is ironic, since a man who says he cannot see God has just given a prophecy of Jesus walking on water! (Saint John Chrysostom noted this centuries ago.) In that same chapter, Job says this:

“My days are swifter than a runner;
    they fly away without a glimpse of joy.
26 They skim past like boats of **papyrus**,
    like eagles swooping down on their prey. (Job 9:26)

Job speaks of a swift papyrus boat as reflecting how fast his life is moving towards death. The context is the midst of a storm:

He would crush me with a storm
    and multiply my wounds for no reason. (Job 9:17)

Would you want to weather a storm in a boat made of papyrus? Not safe! So Job gives the image of a swift boat made of a material not fit for stormy weather, a material that cannot save him from a swift death. So can a papyrus boat save someone marked for death? Can the Lord make Job's words ironic and deliver a soul from a watery grave?

  3 But when she could hide him no longer, she got a papyrus basket
  for him and coated it with tar and pitch. Then she placed the child in
  it and put it among the reeds along the bank of the Nile. Exodus 2:3

Who was placed in a papyrus basket and saved from drowning in the Nile? Moses!

So I would say that the immediate audience for Job was the Hebrew people, to endorse their great prophet, Moses, a man who would pen a large part of the Old Testament, and likely do so on scrolls made of papyrus.


Why did Moses have the sons of Levi run about with swords slaying family and friends?

The answer to the first part of your question, appears to lie in the fact that only the Levites responded to Moses call for all who were on the Lord's side to come to him.

It is also good to understand that not all who rebelled against God on that day were killed, which may answer your, second question about the added punishment which was meted out to all the offenders. The estimates of the number of Israelites leaving Egypt has been numbered in the Millions, but only about three thousand were killed.

All Scripture is quoted from the New Revised King James Version.

  Exodus 32:25 through 29  And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies:) Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on יהוה's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him. And he said unto them, Thus saith יהוה Elohim of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men. For Moses had said, Consecrate yourselves to day to יהוה, even every man upon his son, and upon his brother; that he may bestow upon you a blessing this day.

We also have to consider that the Levites had been taken by God in place of the first born of Israel when he killed all the first born of Egypt, but spared the first born of Israel. The Levites were specifically chosen to be the servants of God, and were set aside from the other tribes to that purpose alone.

God could just as easily sent angels to vent his ire upon the Israelites, however, considering that the Levites were also dedicated to God's service as are the angels, what God may done was to test the Levites to see if they were as dedicated to him as are the Angels. That is not Scripturally based is my own observance.

We are not told whether or not the Levites took part in the revelry and worship of the 'Golden Calf ' or not, but logic tells us that not all Israelites took part in the rebellion, however the fact that both Aaron and Merriam survived the slaughter says that God did not punish everyone taking part since Aaron was the one who formed the Calf to start with.

We also need to remember this;

  Rom 9:15 and 16 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of יהוה that sheweth mercy.

Finally do we deserve God's mercy any more than those who rebelled against God?


I think you've got a misunderstanding of the concept of "Total Depravity" and of the definition of the word "good" from a Christian perspective.

Total Depravity does not mean that we are totally evil. It doesn't mean that we have no good within us whatsoever.  Everybody on earth has some good in them, so it would be utter foolishness to interpret the doctrine in such a way.

On the other hand, "good" in our understanding is a relative term.  We can do good things, we can think good thoughts.  Someone who is generally caring, loving, and giving is considered a good person. But such a person is not perfect.  Everyone has a flaw.

In the context of Christianity and salvation, "good" is a black and white issue.  "Good" would mean 100% in line with God's thinking - in thought and in action.  In other words, it would be completely without sin.  Even one sin in our life disqualifies us from the level of "goodness" needed to earn our way into heaven.

  For whoever shall keep the whole Law, and yet stumble in one point, he
  is guilty of all.” (James 2:10)

Which brings us back to total depravity.

It doesn't mean "devoid of any good thing".  It means "Separated from God, and completely unable to do anything, whatsoever, that could do anything to assist in our own salvation."

In non-technical, layman's terms, it means that salvation is completely, 100% the work of God, with no action, not even one of surrender on the part of the believer.  Totally depraved simply means completely separated from God, with no power whatsoever to do anything in the least to be saved.

This is contrasted with the belief of partial depravity, which goes hand-in-hand with resistible grace espoused in Arminian theology, which says we do have the power to do one thing - accept the free gift of salvation offered to us.  In Arminianism, we believe there is an act of accepting the gift on the part of the believer.  The believer has the power to choose.  Grace is resistible.

In Calvinism, that power doesn't exist, or is an illusion because even if the believer thinks he is choosing to put his faith in Christ, the fact is that God predestined that believer to do so.  The believer has no choice.  Grace is irresistible, because God has ordained that person to believe.

Either way, however, both "Total depravity" and "Partial depravity" see no issue with the Rich man's ability to do good things.  Again, everyone is capable of doing "good" just not the type of "good" that leads to salvation.


On the which council did Joseph of Arimathea sit?

It's commonly thought to be the (Great) Sanhedrin, Luke certainly implies it to be the same Council that sat in judgment on Jesus:

  50 Now there was a man named Joseph, a member of the Council, a good and upright man, 51 who had not consented to their decision and action. He came from the Judean town of Arimathea, and he himself was waiting for the kingdom of God. - Luke 23:50-51 NIV

He earlier describes it as "...the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and the teachers of the law..." (Luke 22:66)


http://orthodoxwiki.org/Stole

According to my understanding, it is a Roman adaptation of the Epitrachelion and Orarion - essentially priestly neck-garments. I wouldn't read too much into the clothing style itself, as it changes infrequently and often erratically and illogically. But the garment itself, functionally, is simply the symbol of the priesthood or diaconate, but styled differently. It's also important to note how simple they can be, so it is likely that they were adapted as priestly garments some time after they were in common use by aristocracy.

The interesting part is that while in the Orthodox tradition the stole is two different garments for the priest and deacon, in the West it is almost the same garment simply worn differently, albeit with the final effect being identical: the priest's is symmetrical and comes down like a beard, and the deacon's is asymmetrical and worn like a sash.

This suggests a common origin to all of the stoles, but does not tell us what the proto-garment was, or if one of the two was the proto-garment. I would be inclined to assume the Orthodox garments, partly because of the Oriental Churches (Non-Chalcedonians):

http://sor.cua.edu/Vestments/index.html

http://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/english/miscellaneous/sacramental.html

etc... the naming is Western (stole) but it seems like the garment is mostly unchanged and similar to the Eastern Orthodox one.


Do young earth creationists believe that God has a body?

Here is an answer from one young Earth creationist.
Apparently you got your Scripture from the Hebraic Roots version of the Bible, or the New revised King James version since these are the only versions I know of which say:

Genesis 3:8  HRS  And they heard the sound of YAHWEH Elohim walking up and down in the garden at the breeze of the day. And the man and his wife hid themselves from the face of YAHWEH Elohim in the middle of the trees of the garden. And YAHWEH Elohim called to the man and said to him, Where are you? And he said, I have heard Your sound in the garden, and I was afraid, for I am naked, and I hid myself.
Genesis 3:8 NRKJV  And they heard the voice of יהוה Elohim walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of יהוה Elohim amongst the trees of the garden. And יהוה Elohim called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

All of the other 15 versions that I have in my study Software all say 'heard the voice' as in the King James translation
King James translation:

Genesis 3:8 through 10  And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

Apostolic Bible Polyglot:

Genesis 3:8 through 10  And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in2 the paradise at dusk. And hid both Adam and his wife from the face of the LORD God in the midst of the tree of the paradise.  And God called Adam, and said to him, Adam, Where are you? And he said to him, your voice I heard while walking in the paradise, and I feared, for I am naked, and I hid.

American Standard version:

Genesis 3:8  through 10 And they heard the voice of Jehovah God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of Jehovah God amongst the trees of the garden. And Jehovah God called unto the man, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

I have omitted the other versions for brevity since they are almost exact clones.
The original Hebrew Text in literal translation is almost the same as the Hebraic Roots version. However, at first I thought that from that to footsteps was a very large leap. But it being somewhat of a lazy Sunday after Church I took some time to consider it, and slowly the mind seemed to connect that to some other passages.
In Genesis Chapter 18, Abraham pleads with one of the three angels; who come to his tent, concerning the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. so I decided to look up that in the Hebraic Roots version and to my surprise I found:

Genesis 18:32 and 33  And he said, I pray, let not YAHWEH be angry that I may speak only this time; perhaps ten will be found there. And He said, I will not destroy because of the ten. And when YAHWEH had finished speaking to Abraham, He left. And Abraham returned to his place.

And even though it says YAHWEH and not  YAHWEH Elohim compared to the King James version;

Genesis 18:32 and 33  And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake. And the LORD went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place.

I have for some time felt that this was actually the pre-incarnate Jesus to whom Abraham was speaking. and the premise for that was:

John 8:58  Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Also backing that up is the knowledge that With God there is no such thing as time, since time itself demands that there be something previous and something after the present, and with Eternity there is neither past nor future , there is only present.
So it is probable that Jesus being Eternal would be there at Creation, which lends credence to John 1:1 through 3

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

What seems to become possible is that just as John stated Jesus was the creator, in his pre-incarnate person and it was the pre-incarnate that walked with Adam in the cool of the evening.
So to answer your question about having a body, providing my interpretation is not as illegitimate as an eleven dollar bill; that  would be that it is both pre-incarnate Jesus (יהוה) God the father (YAHWEH Elohim) in Jesus Resurrection body, and for that matter may also include the Holy Ghost as many of us subscribe to the concept of the Trinity.
perhaps that is something we will need to ask God when we get there, assuming that we will still care about the answer then.


Help interpreting a Christian allusion in Willa Cather's 'One of Ours'

My non-authoritative interpretation is that this is a preacher that takes pride in his righteousness, including forbidding alcohol at weddings.  Then, when he thought about the similar situation in Cana, he remembered that Jesus had produced alcoholic drink for the wedding guests.

The preacher knew his actions proved himself to be more righteous than Jesus, but, despite realizing that something must be wrong with that observation, he couldn't bring himself to admit what it was that was actually wrong.

There's also the exacerbating situation that some of his guests sneaked away to get something better to drink, while Jesus's guests complimented the quality of the wine.


Does infant baptism determine the child's afterlife, according to practitioners?

This answer is not meant to replace the other well stated answers, but is meant to supplement/support them by addressing the following question:

  Which denomination(s) believes that infant baptism is a mean of
  securing the afterlife of the baby?

Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, some Nazarenes, the United Church of Christ (UCC), and the Reformed churches all practice infant baptism.

The Catholic Church, as well as the Orthodox churches teach and believe that baptism is sacramentally regenerative. This means that baptism is not only an outward sign, but is also an inward rebirth or regeneration.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states explicitly:

  Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to
  life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives
  access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin
  and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are
  incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism
  is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word." (CCC
  1213)

The Catechism continues to explain the sacrament of Baptism within the context of infant regeneration:

  Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children
  also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power
  of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children
  of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the
  grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The
  Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of
  becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after
  birth. (CCC 1250)

The Church also emphasizes that "baptism is a required sacrament of faith."

The writings of the early Church Fathers clearly indicate that the sacrament of baptism has been thought of as necessary for the salvation of infants since the Ante-Nicene period of the Church.

  "And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can
  answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their
  parents answer or someone from their family." Hippolytus of Rome,
  Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215).

  "Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the
  usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if
  there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and
  nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would
  seem superfluous." Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244).

  "But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to
  be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that
  the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think
  one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the
  eighth day...And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in
  council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism...we
  think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born
  persons…" Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251)

See INFANT BAPTISM

During the Reformation period of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the early reformers adopted the doctrine of sola fide (by faith alone). This doctrine teaches that the only way a person can obtain salvation is by an inward assent of faith in the saving  power of the blood of Jesus Christ and the imputation of his righteousness. Sola fide consequently and necessarily rejects baptismal necessity, therefore reducing the act of baptism to an outward symbolic acknowledgment of salvation.

Reformed theology teaches that since infants lack the capacity to place faith in Christ, there can be no inward assent to faith in Christ, rendering the salvific element absent from baptism. It also intended to celebrate the covenantal relationship between the infant and God.

In summary - The Catholic/Orthodox churches have taught since the apostolic era that baptism sacramentally "saves" the infant, whereas most Protestant denominations have taught since the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that baptism is a sign and seal of God's covenant to that child.


What is the difference between a church and a social club?

The Church is presented as the Body of Christ (an organism, not an organization [e.g., 1 Cor. 12:12+]) and as the household of faith (a family, not a club [e.g., Gal. 6:10]--also sons of God, brothers and sisters).  As the Body of Christ there is an implication of a different kind of life (this may address a spiritual nature), an implication of diversity (different parts), unity (one body), and completeness.  Both the body and family metaphors point to the lack of choice of individual members in who else is part of the collective--one does not choose one's relatives.  Both also point to a fundamental identity in and with the whole (an eye cannot just pop itself out and reject its being part of the body; the parts suffer together and rejoice together).

On a practical level, this should mean that the common boundaries of social status, personal interests, etc. should not be separating factors in the Church as they tend to be in social organizations (e.g., Gal. 3:28).

The fact that the Church is God's (new) creation rather than a human formation (e.g., John 1:12-13) also has implications for persistence(e.g., Phil. 1:6), righteous action (e.g., Eph. 2:10), and ultimate success (e.g., 1 John 3:2).  (This might be analogous to the difference between Scripture and human writings.)  (The Church might also be viewed as something like the Holy Spirit as "earnest" or the resurrection of Christ as a first fruits--a sample of what the new creation in its fullness will be like and an assurance that this fullness is coming.)


What is the discerning of spirits in 1 Cor. 12:10?

The setting in 1 Cor 11-14 is the church gathered for worship. At such gatherings Paul expects participation from lots of people using spiritual endowments, given in that moment for the edification of the church.

However, there is a grave danger of people abusing those endowments for the attention and prestige. There is also a danger of "the flesh" lying, mimicking or at least misunderstanding what the Spirit is saying. All gifts are "in part".

Thus, in the context of 1 Cor 12, discerning of spirits seem to be a specific spiritual endowment to recognize by what spiritual inspiration somebody else is acting, what parts are of the flesh and what parts are of the Lord?

The context for 1 John is the early gnostic models of thought. Here it is a matter of recognizing the true Gospel and discarding the gnostic corrupt versions. Gnostics have a worldview that says everything true is 100 % spiritual and the physical world is by definition evil. Christ being truly incarnated (=in flesh) was something they denied. But in so doing they denied the Gospel, since it is Jesus dying "in the flesh" that brings salvation.

That also explains why it was so important for John to say (1:1f) that he had seen Jesus with his (physical) eyes and touched him also after the resurrection with his hands.

Off topic:

There is an interesting spinoff from this. Today media and bloggers or just about anyone will claim that the gnostic "gospels" (Thomas, Judas, etc) should be considered historic sources on par with the biblical gospels.

However, these pseudo-gospels never ever claim to be historic sources in the sense we are using the word today. John claims empirical knowledge of the risen Christ. He saw, he touched. That is exactly why his words were discarded by the gnostics! They claimed "spiritual revelation" - the senses are physical, evil and not to be trusted!

Gnosticism is as far removed from scientific knowledge as you can get, and claiming that gnostic sources should be counted on par with biblical gospels is patently absurd.

Disclaimer:

On a forum like this it is probably wise to tell from what tradition an answer is given. Especially on topics where even Bible believing Christians disagree. Had I had the time to expand my answer with proper exegesis and a comparison of different commentaries that would not have been necessary.

Although I have studied spiritual gifts using the Koine Greek text, nobody studies in an intellectual vacuum. Having read what many traditions have to say, I have found the the most sound exegesis exist in the writings of "empowered evangelicals" or in the writings of pentecostal scholars like Gordon Fee.


According to reformed theology, is there any valid reason to desire to be saved besides it glorifies God?

In one sense it is very true to say these things according to a reformed theology but as it is hypothetical is can also be misleading. In fact I have notived many modern teachers and pachers actually confuse themselves on and do not understand it in the same way as those they quote from generations past.

The truth is yes, true virtue must love the goodness of God above all else to the absorption of everything else, therefore ‘if it be thy glorious will send me to hell’ is the hypothetical end of the truth.  In this sense it is true and even said by many reformed theologians. However as God’s goodness is very much enjoined in his desire that he does not send you to hell it could be drastically misleading.

The truth is, faith makes our own selfish desires fix upon God, so that we believe it is more blessed to give than receive. Faith makes our pleasure or love of things turn into pleasure and love of God. God becomes our ultimate desire, enjoyment, purpose, means and ends.  To love is is to desire and enjoy.  In this sense it is also true to say, within reformed theology, a Christian is the most ‘spiritually selfish person ever’ for they go about seeking their best at every turn (seeking God) while sinners go about foolishly causing themselves harm in ever deed (turning from God).  So by faith worldly selfishness is harming one’s self and selflessness is the perfection of Christian selfishness (that is looking out for what is best for self).

The reason why these ideas can be turned over on themselves is simply that God is good and part of the proof, if not the primary proof, is his good-will towards men in Christ’s dying love. No theologian in the reformation would separate God's glory, from his goodness for men in the love of Christ, for they amount to the same thing.

Furthermore, due to original sin, a sinner can only come to God with empty and sinful motives, coming to a fountain of life who alone can put the love of God and goodness in him.  That ‘needy approach’ or being ‘poor n spirit’ remains strong and steady after conversion as well, this is why the scriptures persuade us to come with both promises and warnings, which appeal to our own selfish needs in order to help us choose what is best day to day. In this sense the only valid reason to come to God for salvation is a honest selfish one. To pretend that we can come to the fountain of righteousness 'with righteousness' rather then 'empty hands' is an hypothetical concept with know real basis. This 'humble selfish needy begging' like morally bankrupt soul's such as we truly hace, very much pleases God and glorifies his grace especially in its blessed and happy results that it brings. Those who come to God like this are those. whose souls are satisfied drinking Christ’s blood and eating his body for nourishment and joyful salvation. There is no other way to come and feed off the death of another but in selfish need amd concern.

There is some truth therefore in the ‘self’ aspect of the command to 'love our neighbour as yourself'. The fact is God has made you have most power and direct control in taking care of yourself and in the same manner your must care for others. In faith love for God, others and self have no conflict but are mutually implied by each other. God's glory is just the manifestation of his love and good will radiating towards our knowledge, dependence and rejoicing in it. It will even bring us so much joy that we might even say something crazy in rare holy moments, like ‘If it be thy will do things against thy will’. Love for self and others is one stream of love for God, which is the only true holy desire, but this desire can only arise from faith in God's love for us in Christ's work on the cross.


Are there books that are included in the Protestant Bible that were disputed as canonical?

According to When Skeptics Ask (Normal L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, 1990 Baker Books):

The following books were in question at one point or another:

Hebrews because the author is unknown.  However, it was accepted as having apostolic authority, if not apostolic authorship.
James because of conflict with Pauls teaching about salvation by faith alone.  Conflict resolved by seeing works as an outgrowth of faith.
2 Peter because the style differs from 1 Peter.  But Peter used a scribe to write 1 Peter (See 5:12), who may have helped him smooth out his Greek.
2 and 3 John because the author is called "elder" not apostle. However, Peter called himself an elder, too (1 Peter 5:1).  They are also cited in earlier lists of canon.
Jude because he refers to the book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses.  However, he doesn't call them Scripture, and this is seen to be like Paul quoting pagan poets (such as in Acts 17:28 and Titus 1:12).  It also had wide early acceptance.
Revelation because it teaches a thousand year reign of Christ, which was taught by a certain cult.  However, it was accepted by the earliest Church fathers.

This is somewhat of a side note, but it is worth noting that the thought that some of the books now considered canon were ever disputed might cause some confusion over whether the right books are in Scripture.  That is a common question both from the faithful and from skeptics.

My intention here is not to raise the question again.  In order to head those questions and comments off, I'll just point out that it's been answered time and time again, as it is here:  http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/article.php?articleid=1701

Excerpt:

  The question which invariably arises when speaking of the Scriptures
  is, "How does one know which books in today's Bible are the right
  ones?" It is important to note at this point that a group of men did
  not just arbitrarily select a group of books to be used in compiling
  the Bible. They only officially "recognized" which books had always
  been upheld as being scriptural.

...

some details removed.  Check the link if you care to see what's missing.  Conclusion from the article below:

...

  A crisis in the fourth century caused the Church to give a formal
  statement on which books were canonical. In A.D. 397, a Church Council
  was held in Carthage which endorsed the exact 27 books of the New
  Testament we now regard as canonical. These 27 books were all
  apostolic in origin, authoritative in spiritual content, and accepted
  universally among the orthodox churches. These tests were used at the
  council to eliminate the spurious gospels and epistles written by
  heretical groups. This process of canonization has ensured that
  today's Bible contains only the books which were attested as being
  inspired by God.