What do Jehovah’s Witnesses teach about water baptism and is baptism by full water immersion essential to salvation?

You are correct  that Jehovah’s Witnesses reject infant baptism.
We believe a person must be old enough to be a disciple. A disciple is a learner or taught one. Baptism is meaningless unless one is old enough to be a disciple. (Matt.28:19-20)
We also teach that full immersion is necessary to follow the manner in which our exemplar Jesus was baptized. In fact the Greek words translated baptize or baptism refer to immersing,dipping, or plunging under the water.
As far as the part of your question about a previous baptism in another religion being valid for Jehovah’s Witnesses, the answer is no.
Being baptized as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses is preceded by an extensive teaching program and a person will have to demonstrate that they have a basic understanding of bible teachings, live in harmony with them and give an affirmative response to the question “ Do you really want to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses?”
Additionally there are over 100 other questions that are discussed to ascertain that a person meets the scriptural requirements for baptism.
Also as you point out in your question on the day of a new JWs baptism they answer yes to the question do you recognize that  “your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with God’s spirit-directed organization.?”
Is baptism essential for salvation?
It is expected that a person who “comes to an accurate knowledge of Jehovah and the one He sent  forth Jesus Christ” would be moved to dedicate their lives to Jehovah and symbolize it by being baptized.
Still we understand that baptism itself is not what saves. Salvation is possible only because God’s Son died a sacrificial death and was resurrected.
Added to that is the requirement to maintain a good conscience before God by continuing to conform to His standards.
Baptism only saves us if we remain faithful as witnesses of Jehovah.
More info here


Was it common in Biblical and Early Church times to use sports for illustrating sermons and lessons (as Pope Francis and Paul did)?

One other in NT is this:

  And if also a man contend in the games, he is not crowned, except he have contended lawfully.  - 2 Timothy 2:5 (ASV).

Paul's point to Timothy is that he must be disciplined and willing to suffer hardship in order to please God and obtain the reward.

Hebrews 12:1:

  Therefore let us also, seeing we are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us


"Kingdom Of God is at Hand" - Which Kingdom was Jesus and John the Baptist talking about?

Romans 14:17 tells us that the kingdom of God is righteousness,peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.  Personally, I think it is a state of mind.   The Bible also says that it is a mystery (Mark 4:11). However it also tells us how to get into the kingdom of God now.  First one must seek for it. Secondly, John 3:3 and verse 5 it tells us we must be baptized in water and also in the Holy Ghost or Spirit "to enter into the kingdom of God."


Whose is the 'grace of God that bringeth salvation' ? (Titus 2:11)

I don't think there is such a distinction between the two camps here as you suggest. I think both of the documents you link to would agree that the Law expresses the will of God. The section of the Westminster Confession you quote about the rule of life starts out: 'Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works'. I don't see that as particularly different from what the Gospel Standard say: "We believe that the believer’s rule of life is the gospel, not the law of works given to Moses".
They are both saying that we are not under the Law in the same way that people of Israel were under the Law. They both agree that, as Jesus taught, we need a deeper obedience to the Law if we are to fulfil God's will for us.
So let me try to answer your specific question with respect to Titus 2:11-14. I come from a traditional Reformed (Anglican) perspective, this is how I understand the passage.
I believe that the grace of God is referring to Jesus and his work for us, rather than the Holy Spirit. Which would fit with 'appearing' - the grace of God 'has appeared' (v11) and then we are waiting for Jesus' 'appearing' (v13). Paul's classic definition of grace is Ephesians 2:1-10.
The grace of God teaches us to say no to 'ungodliness and wordly passions'. But the question is, what does Paul mean when he talks about ungodliness? How do we know what is godly and ungodly? "I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law" (Romans 7:7). The Law taught him what ungodliness was - and the reason is because in our sinful states we need some guidance as to right and wrong. If there were no Law, we could deceive ourselves that we were OK.
So the Law reveals sinfulness. But it is not the means by which we attain godliness. This is a big message of Titus: we only attain righteousness by grace. Paul is here talking to a church who have been corrupted by those whose focus is the Mosaic Law (which I assume is what he means by "the circumcision party" in 1:10). This is why Paul does not refer to the Law in Titus 3. But he is not saying that it's an insignificant thing for Christians, but rather we can only achieve the righteousness God requires through grace.
I've just checked Calvin's commentary on this passage, and this is what he says:

“Piety” is religion towards God. “Righteousness” has place among men. He who is endowed with both of these lacks nothing for perfect virtue; and, indeed, in the law of God there is absolute perfection, to which nothing whatever can be added. But as the exercises of godliness may be regarded as appendages to the first table, so “temperance,” which Paul mentions in this passage, aims at nothing else than keeping the law, and, as I said before about patience, is added to the former as a seasoning.

So I think Calvin's view is not that we need to keep the Law as in by our own efforts, but the Law of God is perfection - and the only way we can keep it is by the grace of God.
Earlier this year I tried to express my view about Grace in a sermon on Titus 3. You might also find interesting the other sermons on the rest of Titus, linked from that page.


How can God be Sovereign (in the Reformed sense) if a man can ignore His call to repentance?

To understand the Reformed approach to this challenging question, we should begin with the concept of the "wills" of God.  Reformed theologians typically refer to the relevant ones as the decretive (or "secret") and preceptive (or "revealed") wills of God, which R. C. Sproul defines as follows:

Decretive will: The sovereign, efficacious will of God
Preceptive will: The precepts, commands of God1

Reformed theologians point to a number of passages to establish this distinction.  For the decretive will, here are a few examples:

Psalm 115:3: Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases. [ESV]
Daniel 4:32: the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will.
Romans 9:18: So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

These passages describe a will of God that never fails and is independent of all other beings.  But God's will is not always described in such terms:

Matthew 7:21: "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." [cf. Matthew 12:50]
Ephesians 5:17: Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.

In these passages, it's clear that God's will refers to his commands and precepts, not his ordaining of events.  The distinction is especially obvious when we consider biblical stories like that of Joseph being sold into slavery:

"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today." [Genesis 50:20]

In this story, God's preceptive will is that Joseph's brothers love him and not sell him into slavery, as such an act is "evil."  But God's decretive will was that Joseph be sold into slavery by his brothers so that many would survive the famine.  Another example of this can be found in Acts 2:23, in which the "definite plan of God" (his decretive will) involved a clear violation of his preceptive will: his Son was killed by "lawless men."
Is the call of the Gospel part of God's preceptive will or his decretive will?
Turning now to God's will as it relates to the call of the Gospel, we must identify which "will" of God applies to passages like Matthew 11:28, in which Jesus commands people to come to him:

"Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."

Similarly, 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 can be interpreted to refer to God's desire that all be saved.2
If this "desire" is a product of God's decretive will, then it would necessarily follow that all people will be saved.  However, such an interpretation implies universalism, which seems to contradict other passages, like Romans 9:18 and Matthew 7:21 (quoted above), among many others.  This desire that all be saved, therefore, cannot be God's decretive will, and so it must be his preceptive will.  The commands to repent and believe are thus in the same category as the command to care for the poor: men can and do regularly disobey them.
How can a sovereign God allow his preceptive will to be violated?
Now we get to the heart of the issue, and hopefully it's now obvious that to the Reformed, this isn't merely a matter of explaining how man can reject the external call of the gospel—it's the broader issue of explaining the existence of evil.  That is, we can reframe the titular question as, "How can [a good] God be sovereign if man can sin?"
This is, of course, a huge topic, which I've addressed more fully elsewhere.  But ultimately Reformed theologians, while arguing that God is not the author of sin, and that man fell voluntarily, nonetheless hold that God ordained that sin would come into the world. That is, God's decretive will includes the sins of men, including their sins of unrepentance and unbelief.
Why would a good God do this?  Charles Hodge suggests the following explanation, based on Romans 9:22–23:

Sin, therefore, according the Scriptures, is permitted, that the justice of God may be known in its punishment, and his grace in its forgiveness.  And the universe, without the knowledge of these attributes, would be like the earth without the light of the sun.3

Sproul, What is Reformed Theology?, p169
Some Calvinists argue that the context in each of these verses does not require that "all" refer to every human being, but others consider that a possibility.
Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1.5.13, page 435


Who titled the poem: "The Dark Night of the Soul"?

The Wikipedia article (Dark Night of the Soul), to which Constantthin makes reference, says that the author of the poem, Saint John of the Cross, "wrote two book-length commentaries: The Ascent of Mount Carmel (Subida del Monte Carmelo), and The Dark Night (Noche Oscura)". So the first part of the title is already expressed by the author himself. As for the second part of the title (... of the Soul), Saint John of the Cross introduces the stanzas of his own poem with these words:

  Songs of the soul rejoincing at having achieved the high state of
  perfection, the Union with God, by way of spiritual negation
  (Cançiones del alma ques se goca d'auer legado al alto estado de la
  perfecçion, que es la union con Dios, por el camino de la negaçion
  espiritual)

Whoever put the two together simply did the obvious ...


According to LDS, what is the purpose of the final judgment?

This question strikes at the core of LDS doctrine - Christ's Atonement. Excuse my hyper-compulsive inlining of scripture references in my answer, but this is one of my favorite topics. I hope the reader will read the full text of the chapters I cite, as they explain it way better than I ever could.

The purpose of the final judgment is to be brought back into the presence of our Maker (2 Nephi 2):

  10 And because of the intercession for all, all men come unto God; wherefore, they stand in the presence of him, to be judged of him according to the truth and holiness which is in him.

2 Nephi 9 explains further that everyone must stand before God, even if they are to be cast out:

  15 And it shall come to pass that when all men shall have passed from this first death unto life, insomuch as they have become immortal, they must appear before the judgment-seat of the Holy One of Israel; and then cometh the judgment, and then must they be judged according to the holy judgment of God.

  ...

  22 And he suffereth this that the resurrection might pass upon all men, that all might stand before him at the great and judgment day.

So you might say that the purpose of the resurrection is to enable us to be in the presence of God. And this is very important.

Why? Because with mortality, we are subject to two deaths, physical and spiritual:

  10 O how great the goodness of our God, who prepareth a way for our escape from the grasp of this awful monster; yea, that monster, death and hell, which I call the death of the body, and also the death of the spirit.

Death of the body is physical death, and death of the spirit is separation from God  (rebellion, sin, etc).

The Atonement saves us from both deaths:

  12 And this death of which I have spoken, which is the spiritual death, shall deliver up its dead; which spiritual death is hell; wherefore, death and hell must deliver up their dead, and hell must deliver up its captive spirits, and the grave must deliver up its captive bodies, and the bodies and the spirits of men will be restored one to the other; and it is by the power of the resurrection of the Holy One of Israel.

Thus, the resurrection redeems us from physical death, and the final judgment crowns our salvation from spiritual death:

  15 And it shall come to pass that when all men shall have passed from this first death unto life, insomuch as they have become immortal, they must appear before the judgment-seat of the Holy One of Israel; and then cometh the judgment, and then must they be judged according to the holy judgment of God.

But why a judgment? Couldn't this all happen implicitly with the resurrection? Not really. Remember that there was a law given and it must be fulfilled:

  16 Now, repentance could not come unto men except there were a punishment, which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be, affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also as the life of the soul.

  17 Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment?

  18 Now, there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man.

So the judgment also has a practical purpose. It stirs up our minds and hearts to repentance.

  14 Wherefore, we shall have a perfect knowledge of all our guilt, and our uncleanness, and our nakedness; and the righteous shall have a perfect knowledge of their enjoyment, and their righteousness, being clothed with purity, yea, even with the robe of righteousness.

Finally, the judgment is essential to our salvation, for without it, we could not be saved, even if we were really, really good. Without a judgment, there would be no law, and without the law, there's no standard against which to judge what "really, really good" is. So the law and judgment is a contract as much on our side as it is against us, depending on our choices.

And it would only condemn us if Jesus had not satisfied the demands of justice. But He did, so He can mete out mercy. And that mercy can only be had if there is justice, a law, and a judgment:

  22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

(See also verse 13 of the same chapter.)

The judgment ultimately allows mercy to take effect without destroying justice. It is so much more than merely an event by which we gain salvation or are damned. It is the culmination of the Plan of Salvation, an essential truss in the bridge between justice and mercy for all of mankind. Remove the judgment and the whole Plan of Salvation would fall apart.


First of all, there are several Bibles in Arabic available online at www.archive.org. As I do not know Arabic, you might need to check whether they include the Deuterocanonical books or not.

According to Wikipedia, there has been three versions of the bible in Arabic done by Catholics. The first one, in 1671, published in Rome. I doubt this is sold online anywhere.

The second was done by the Jesuits of Lebanon/Beirut in 1880. A reprint was made later on. The publisher's website is here. But actually, you can buy that bible from the Bible Society in Lebanon, here (source of this suggestion here).

Finally, albeit not Catholic, the Bible Society published in 1992 the "Today's Arabic Version with Deuterocanonicals". Some shops that sell it are listed here (albeit the page is old).  It might be the same as this one, but you might want to ask.

I am surprised of the very few translations available!


What does "one another" mean in John 13:35?

To understand Jesus meaning it is important to consider verses 34 & 35 together...

“I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, you also love one another.  By this all will know that you are my disciples—if you have love among yourselves”

Jesus said he was giving a “new” commandment.  New in what sense?  Under the mosaic law, Gods people were were commanded to love their neighbors as themselves (Leviticus 19:18). In Jesus day the Jewish Religious leaders taught that the terms “friend” and “neighbor” applied only to Jews. Non-Jews were to be hated. Jesus explained the proper application of the law when someone asked him, “who really is my neighbor?”.  Jesus responded by relating a parable that described a Samaritan who came across a man, a Jew, who had been assaulted by robbers. The lesson? Our love of neighbor should extend to people other than those of our own race, nationality, or religion. (Luke 10:25-37)

However, Jesus command to his disciples was “new” in that it was to be expressed beyond neighborly love. His followers were to show love to one another “just as He had loved them”.

Jesus loved not by a few good deeds, but by feeding people spiritually and laying down his life for others, even for those who had not yet embraced his teachings.

Jesus words further  indicate that Christians would show a unique love, not only for those who are not yet believers, but especially toward those related in the faith.   So different, it would stand out as an identifying mark of true worship... “By this all will know you are my disciples-if you have love among yourselves”.

Regarding the second part of your question, “are there any other scriptures that show Christians would be identified by their love for everyone?” (roughly paraphrased), the 1st thing that comes to my mind is warfare.  Since Christians would not be confined to one nation, but would live globally in different nations, how would such love be displayed and identifiable in times of war?  What bible verses shed light on this?

Early History reports no Christian would kill another human being.
The Encyclopedia of Religion notes: “The early church fathers, including Tertullian and Origen, affirmed that Christians were constrained from taking human life, a principle that prevented them from participating in the Roman army.”

Bible verses that verify this...
Micah 4:1-5 gives a prophecy about the identifying marks of true worship in the last days. One aspect of the prophecy is that gods people would lay down their swords and learn war no more.

Matt 26:52...  when Peter used his sword to defend Jesus, Jesus said “return your sword to its place, for those who live by the sword will die by the sword”

2 Cor 10:3,4...”For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare according to what we are in the flesh.  For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things.

1 John 3:10-16....”the children of God and the children of the Devil are evident by this fact: whoever does not practice righteousness does not originate with God, nor does the one who does not love his brother...not like Cain, who originated with the wicked one and slaughtered his brother...everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and no murderer has everlasting life remaining in him....we are under obligation to surrender our lives for our brothers”.

1 John 4:20,21...if anyone says “I love God,” and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar. For the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.  And we have this commandment from him, that whoever loves God must also love his brother.

Rev 13:10...If anyone will kill with the sword, he must be killed with the sword.  This is where it calls for endurance and faith on the part of the holy ones. (Certainly it requires endurance and faith to take the consequences of laying down the sword during the emotional, patriotic frenzy of warfare.  Depending on the country you live in, it could mean imprisonment or death.)

For further reading on this subject....

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101993044?q=john+13%3A34%2C+35&p=par#h=23

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2014682#h=7:0-10:220


Is Jonathan Edwards's view of "philosophical necessity" compatible with the Westminster Standards?

A refutation of Dr. Whitby's: Discourses on the 5 Points (1710). Calvinist/Arminian Debate:

  "Dr. Whitby asserts freedom, not only from coaction, but Necessity, to be essential to any thing deserving the name of sin, and to an action being culpable; in these words, (Discourse on Five Points, edit. 3. p. 348.) “If they be thus necessitated, then neither their sins of omission or commission could deserve that name: it being essential to the nature of sin, according to St. Austin’s definition, that it be an action a quo liberum est abstinere. Three things seem plainly necessary to make an action or omission culpable; 1. That it be in our power to perform or forbear it: for, as Origen, and all the fathers, say, no man is blameworthy for not doing what he could not do.” And elsewhere the Doctor insists, that “when any do evil of Necessity, what they do is no vice, that they are guilty of no fault, are worthy of no blame, dispraise, or dishonour, but are unblamable.”

  Edwards, Johnathan. Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume One (Kindle Locations 16144-16149). Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Kindle Edition.

It is as important to understand the purpose of Johnathan Edwards' discovery of his own philosophy on this matter; as it is to attempt to interpret what he was actually saying.

In his apology of causation, divine providence, free will, the fall of man, and God's foreknowledge and purpose in regard to these things; it is important to remember that these were the central points of a debate, which was instigated by Whitby's own proclamations; with respect to these same points from the Arminian (Pelagian) viewpoint.

The thrust of Edwards' most perspicuous writings on this topic, sprang from this one instance; in an attempt to defend the prevailing, Calvinist position of God's impunity in the sovereign predetermination of the 'First, and Second Causes', of His own creation. Thus the debate has always been central to this mystery:

'If God has predetermined all courses of events, from a position of omniscience, infinite wisdom, and purpose; known only to himself, and for His own intent; how is it then possible, at the same time, for man to truly possess a free will (every single person, who has ever taken the time to think about this. pg 1.)'

  Articles of The Westminster Confession, bearing the most direct relevance to this question:

  3.1)  God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel
  of  his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes
  to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of  sin, nor is
  violence offered to the will of  the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

  3.2) Although  God  knows whatsoever may or can come to pass
  upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass
  upon such conditions.

  3.5[i]  ...out of  his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of  faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto...

  4.2) After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male
  and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after his own image; having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it: and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change (continues).

  5.1-2) God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest
  even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according
  to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.
  2.  Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of  God,
  the First Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature  of second  causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.

  6.1)  Although God created man upright and perfect, and gave him a righteous law, which had been unto life had he kept it, and threatened death upon the breach thereof, yet he did not long abide in this honour; Satan using the subtlety of the serpent to subdue Eve, then by her seducing Adam, who, without any compulsion, did willfully transgress the law of their creation, and the command given unto them, in eating the forbidden fruit, which God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.

  9.1-2) Of Free Will God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil.
  2. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.

The entire body of articles, which make up The Westminster Confession, is replete with this. I only chose the most salient, though certainly not all.

These terms: 'Moral Necessity' and 'Natural Necessity'; are the pivotal elaborations which Edwards uses and the only segues he ventures; with the supposed intention of squaring with this natural difficulty; and that might possibly beg the question, of whether or not they also square with The Westminster Confession.

Do they? This is the question

If I had to choose only two, of a hundred intricately structured arguments, it would be these (especially the second).

  'And if the case of moral impossibility or Necessity, be just the same with natural Necessity or coaction, as to its influence to excuse a neglect, then also, for the same reason, the case of natural difficulty does not differ in influence, to excuse a neglect, from moral difficulty, arising from a strong bias or bent to evil, such as Dr. Whitby owns in the case of those that are given up to their own hearts’ lusts. So that the fault of such persons must be lessened, in proportion to the difficulty, and approach to impossibility. If ten degrees of moral difficulty make the action quite impossible, and so wholly excuse, then if there be nine degrees of difficulty, the person is in great part excused, and is nine degrees in ten less blameworthy, than if there had been no difficulty at all; and he has but one degree of blameworthiness. The reason is plain, on Arminian principles; viz. because as difficulty, by antecedent bent and bias on the Will, is increased, liberty of indifference, and self-determination in the Will, is diminished; so much hindrance, impediment is there, in the way of the Will acting freely, by mere self-determination. And if ten degrees of such hindrance take away all such liberty, then nine degrees take away nine parts in ten, and leave but one degree of liberty. And therefore there is but one degree of blameableness, cateris paribus, in the neglect; the man being no further blamable in what he does, or neglects, than he has liberty in that affair: for blame or praise (say they) arises wholly from a good use or abuse of liberty. From all which it follows, that a strong bent and bias one way, and difficulty of going the contrary, never causes a person to be at all more exposed to sin, or any thing blamable: because, as the difficulty is increased, so much the less is required and expected. Though in one respect, exposedness to sin is increased, viz. by an increase of exposedness to the evil action or omission; yet it is diminished in another respect, to balance it; namely, as the sinfulness or blamableness of the action or omission is diminished in the same proportion. So that, on the whole, the affair, as to exposedness to guilt or blame, is left just as it was.'

  Edwards, Johnathan. Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume One (Kindle Locations 16196-16207). Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Kindle Edition.

...

  —If the Will be not free in the first act, which causes the next, then neither is it free in the next, which is caused by that first act; for though indeed the Will caused it, yet it did not cause it freely; because the preceding act, by which it was caused, was not free. And again, if the Will be not free in the second act, so neither can it be in the third, which is caused by that; because in like manner, that third was determined by an act of the Will that was not free. And so we may go on to the next act, and from that to the next; and how long soever the succession of acts is, it is all one: if the first on which the whole chain depends, and which determines all the rest, be not a free act, the Will is not free in causing or determining any one of those acts; because the act by which it determines them all is not a free act; and therefore the Will is no more free in determining them, than if it did not cause them at all.—Thus, this Arminian notion of Liberty of the Will, consisting in the will’s Self-determination, is repugnant to itself, and shuts itself wholly out of the world.

  Edwards, Johnathan. Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume One (Kindle Locations 13780-13788). Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Kindle Edition.

I am at a loss, with regard to the scope, with which this question could be exhausted; aside from writing a Doctoral Thesis. Even so, the debate would not end. After having read the entire first third of The Works of Johnathon Edwards Vol I, which is completely devoted to the core, and fringes of this debate, in myopic detail; I have given up. Though it would be extremely difficult to find a single leak, in what seems to me, to be an airtight obsession on the part of Edwards regarding this subject.

I do not see where he deviates. In fact, he may just be the champion (Aside from John Gill's: The Cause of God and Truth.)

Yes, it is compatible.

P.S. I had intended to comment on WMC 3.1
The first clause is imperative.

  God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:

The bridge to the second clause is the epicenter of this debate, starting with:

  yet so:

And I think this next part is the part that you would see reconciled.
God established second causes, upholding the free will of man, and despite
ordaining whatever comes to pass, sin was never His design.

Edit: by request from anonymouswho

"Do not follow in the footsteps of the wise; seek what they sought." -Franz Wollang

This is the only premise on which I was able to proceed.

First allow me to clarify my position.

  "...how Edwards' view differs from that of The Westminster Confession..."

I do not see that it does, which voids the necessity to reconcile anything.

I admit that the answer I provide here is wanting, in terms of discovery. The challenge I anticipated was, in fact, this: I had no possible way of knowing, on which front, the first inquiries would arise. I have been watching this question for quite some time. I had thought about attempting to answer it on several different occasions, however, I noticed the quicksand bunkers that surround it. The largest and most obvious to me was this.

Does The Westminster Confession uphold the idea of Determinism. If so, which brand? Is it Logical Determinism, Nomological Determinism,
Strict Divine Determinism, Nomological Divine Determinism? The last thing I wanted to do was spark this debate.

The actual question, as I perceive it, is simply this:

  “I'd like to better understand how Edwards’ view differs from that of The Westminster Confession, and how, in the eyes of some, they can be reconciled.”

However, ‘simple’ is an absurd estimation of ANY question touching the philosophy of Free Will, and Determinism.

Did I intentionally duck this altogether? You bet I did.

The reason that these two arguments from Edwards seem to reinforce the idea that Edwards' view is consistent with logical determinism, is because it is.

The real question is whether, or not, it is compatible with the Westminster Standards. Do the articles of The Westminster Confession uphold the idea of determinism? I can not imagine how anyone could read them and come away with the idea that they do not.

This leaves us at the edge of an ensuing debate, about which philosophical view of determinism they do uphold.

This question would be primarily opinion based, and could not be answered on this site.

Compatiblism is transient by its own definition, and is wholly dependent upon any definition of determinism and its relation to Free Will. In fact, Compatiblism is a form of determinism most commonly associated with Nomological (Soft) determinism. This also would lead to the same debate.

My answer, while withholding any consent to engage these pitfalls, has its own implications with respect to The Westminster Confession, and Determinism. Primarily this one: I see no inconsistency with Edwards’ views and what I read in The Westminster Confession regarding causation, and therefore I have nothing to reconcile. Do I fully understand the nature of Necessity vs Contingency, and Free Will? Not even close.

This is my contest.

  WMC 5.2 Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the First Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.

Edwards does link all second causes to the First Cause; being God. This does not mean that he makes no allowance for contingency, it just means that he must also agree, as it follows, that the First Cause must, of necessity, order all second causes to fall out according to His infallible, unchangeable and predetermined Will.

I apologize if anyone read this answer with a preconceived notion that it was going to attempt to prove anything. I did not even try, but rather chose the loophole provided in this "...how, in the eyes of some, they can be reconciled."


Is it possible (intellectually honest) to 'contextualise' the 'anti-divorce' passages, but not the 'anti-homosexual' ones?

In short, I don't believe there is a plausible way to reinterpret divorce regulations without opening the gate to reinterpreting homosexuality in similar fashion. This point is not lost on all prominent evangelical leaders (e.g., Albert Mohler, John Piper, Tim Keller, John Frame, etc.), even if it seems lost on some (the old school Moral Majority, perhaps). There's not total hypocrisy on this front, though it sometimes seems that way.

Divorce (and hence remarriage after divorce) and homosexuality, according to the evangelicals I have in mind, are both outside of God's desired plan, though not out of his sovereign will. The difference is that the law regulates divorce, permitting it due to our hardness of heart, but not approving of it. The same cannot be said of homosexuality, according to any historico-grammatical exegesis that I am aware of. It is always and everywhere forbidden. There's at least a little more wiggle room in divorce regulation.

Incidentally, I asked a related question that, alas, got deleted: Have any denominations modeled their positions on gay marriage after OT regulatory structures? That is, have any denominations applied the hermeneutic they apply to slavery, polygamy, and divorce -- each of which we could characterize as suboptimal but regulatable rather than being proscribed outright -- to homosexuality. I don't have an answer to that question, which is why I asked it, but I thought it would be a potentially interesting approach to consider.


The meaning is pretty obvious in context.

Ps 137 is a lament for Jerusalem after the Babylonians have invaded and destroyed it.  Verses 7-9 make it explicit:

  7 Remember, LORD, what the Edomites did
     on the day Jerusalem fell.
  “Tear it down,” they cried,
     “tear it down to its foundations!”
  8 Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
     happy is the one who repays you
     according to what you have done to us.
  9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants
     and dashes them against the rocks.

This is sheer gloating on the part of the psalmist.  Whoever overthrows Babylon is someone the author wants to buy a beer! (Put another way, that person is someone really popular with the author.)  Whoever wrote this really hated the Babylonians, and would love to kill their children.

Is this "right?"  Remember, this is a psalm - an ancient song of the Hebrews.  I suspect many a future scholar will puzzle over, say, the misogynistic lyrics of Eminem or many like-minded rappers.  Psalms express the feelings of the writer, NOT THEOLOGICAL RULES FOR YOUR BEHAVIOR. (Although, it is often argued that the feelings reflected in the Psalms should be that of a mature Christian.)

Note also, there is nothing that says "You should bash a baby against a rock."  Doesn't fit with the text or the nature of God. It would be a misreading of the text, which actually proves the point there are "rules" for reading the text.

So, why is it in Scripture?

Who knows. 'Could be that God desired to illustrate that the Exiles had learned their lesson about spurning God's good gifts in Jerusalem, could just be that people agreed with the sentiment.

For a person who doesn't believe the Bible is a "real" book, this verse is actually a pretty good arguement.  If the Bible were merely the work of "men with an agenda," there doesn't seem to be a good reason to let such a genuine feeling in here.

The Bible can be literal but still express itself in the language of feeling.


If we had to make distinction, which is greater, faith or hope? [Catholic Perspective]

According to the well respected Catholic theologian St. Thomas Aquinas faith is greater than hope in a number of ways:

Faith makes God present to the intellect; hope makes God present to the will.  Since the inclination of the will follows upon the apprehension of the intellect, faith precedes hope (ST IIae IIae, Q 4, A 7).
Faith makes hope possible (ST IIae IIae, Q 17, A 7).
Given Thomas' argumentation in ST IIae IIae, Q 17, A 8 it is possible to infer that faith precedes hope in the order of perfection (given the fact that he does not make the same two-fold distinction in article 7 that he does in article 8).

Hopefully this is helpful to you.  The question is difficult because faith and hope are closely connected and both are important.


What is the Protestant view on a woman praying in the family when a man is present

Having consulted people with very conservative upbringing I feel confident in saying that virtually no Christian groups prohibit a woman from praying when a man is present in a private or family setting. Even the most conservative protestant groups such as Brethren only prohibit women from praying aloud in public worship. If the JWs follow this rule they are one of very few exceptions.

Even very conservative groups do not see prayer as a matter of authority. Praying when others are present does not imply that the pray-er has authority over the others present, as seen by the many exhortations to all Christians to pray in all circumstances (I.e. not just leaders), and general encouragement for children to pray.


What was the Crown of Thorn in the Lord's Passion made of?

From New Advent the following

With regard to the origin and character of the thorns, both tradition and existing remains suggest that they must have come from the bush botanically known as Zizyphus spina Christi, more popularly, the jujube-tree. This reaches the height of fifteen or twenty feet and is found growing in abundance by the wayside around Jerusalem. The crooked branches of this shrub are armed with thorns growing in pairs, a straight spine and a curved one commonly occurring together at each point. The relic preserved in the Capella della Spina at Pisa, as well as that at Trier, which though their early history is doubtful and obscure, are among the largest in size, afford a good illustration of this peculiarity.

Picture is from Paliurus spina-christi Mill..


Are Christians called to forgive Unbelievers?

Mathew 18:21-22
This verse says we should forgive seven times seventy "Period!"
It doesn't say we should forgive seven times seventy,
-asterisk-
except for non- believers.
Christians are called to
(Love) even our "Enemies!"
Mathew 5:44
But i tell you, Love your enemies an pray for those who persecutes you.
(NIV)
I'm pretty sure that conveys forgiving non-believers.


What are modern Christian views of the soul?

EDIT FROM THE COMMENT BELOW

Reading trough systematic theology books, I found that Christians hold that the human has two are three parts. The two parts view says that the human is body (material) and soul(immaterial), the three parts folks hold the position that human are body(material), soul(feeling), conscience(image of God, moral center).

Here are two links to books chapters on Google :

Lecture in Systematic Theology by Henry C. Thiessen

Systematic Theology by Wayne Grundem


As far as I know there is no proof of any certain date of Christ's birth. And it is only by tradition that we accept it as the 25th of December. Now I'm not one for following tradition for traditions sake, but according to this site a lot of the evidence that people provide to rule out December as Christ's birthday is not rooted in fact. I don't think the exact day is important to salvation myself, but the fact that He was born. According to the author of that site the movement to suggest he couldn't have been born in december was started by the Jehovah's Witnesses, I don't know if that's true but that's what he claims.

The author dosen't claim that Jesus definitely was born on Dec. 25th. But claims that we just can't rule that out. Here are a couple of his points:

Those against the December date claim that it was too cold for
shepherds to be out in the field in winter; However it didn't seem to
actually get that cold in Bethlehem in December, and even if it did
shepherds would in fact stay out in the fields even in colder
weather.
Claims are made that tradition puts it in December beacause of the
pegan winter solstice, the problem with that argument is that the
winter solstice is on the 21st to the 22nd, not the 25th, and there
are thousands of pegan holidays so ANY day is some pegan celebration
in some part of the world.

So can it be proved that it was the 25th of December? No. Can it be disproved? Probably not.

Does it matter more that it happened on a certain day or just the fact that it happened?


Is impotence developed AFTER the marriage (and consummation) a ground for annulment in Catholic canon law?

There are only three mentions of the word impotence in the Code of Canon Law:

1) In Canon 1084, section 1. This is the impediment which you mention:

  Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.

2) In Canon 1084, section 2. This describes limits to the ability of antecedent impotence to nullify a marriage:

  If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.

3) In Canon 1680. This requires the annulment tribunal to consult an expert (presumably a medical expert) in such cases:

  In cases of impotence or defect of consent because of mental illness, the judge is to use the services of one or more experts unless it is clear from the circumstances that it would be useless to do so; in other cases the prescript of canon 1574 is to be observed.

The word sterility, which is not precisely synonymous, is also mentioned in the Code, in Canon 1084 section 3. This states that sterility "neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage".

It appears, then, that impotence developed (and known about) before marriage, and known to be irremediable, nullifies and prevents marriage; but impotence developed after marriage does not nullify it. Why would this be?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in its discussion of marriage, states that "Conjugal love . ... is open to fertility" (paragraph 1643, quoting the encyclical letter Familiaris Consortio; emphasis added). That does not mean (contrary to many caricatures of Catholic family life) that fertility is required. The Catechism specifically says, in fact,

  Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice.

(paragraph 1654)

Thus, if the intent and understanding of the spouses was originally to be open to having children, later loss of that ability does not change the validity of a marriage.

If one has gone into a marriage believing oneself (or knowing oneself) not to be impotent, but develops this debility later on, one's marriage is still, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, valid—at least to the extent that it was not otherwise impeded.


If marriage is not a sacrament for reformed churches, how to interpret Ephesians 5:32?

This question at first seemed like a non sequitur to me, but it actually comes from an interesting place.
The Eastern Orthodox churches use the Greek word μυστήριον (musterion) to refer to sacraments, but the word actually means 'mystery', and many Orthodox would prefer the term Sacred Mystery over sacrament. Ephesians 5:31-32 says that the joining of a man and woman in marriage so that they become one flesh is a mystery, which is really about Christ and the Church, so it makes sense that it is considered a sacrament to the Eastern Orthodox churches.
The Western churches, including most Protestants, follow the Catholic Church and understand sacrament to mean a sacred symbol. The Catholic catechism says:

The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. (1131)

The sense is not that they are mysteries, but that they are symbolic rites which effect God's grace. The Catholic Church considers marriage to be a sacrament, as Ephesians 5:32 does say that it does symbolise the joining of Christ to the Church.
Most Protestants only recognise two sacraments: baptism and communion. While Lutherans still believe that the sacraments are Means of Grace, most other Protestants generally consider them to be almost purely symbolic. The sacraments are limited to the rites which are directly instituted by Jesus himself. The Apology to the Augsburg Confession (Lutheran) says:

If we define the sacraments as rites, which have the command of God and to which the promise of grace has been added, it is easy to determine what the sacraments are, properly speaking. For humanly instituted rites are not sacraments, properly speaking, because human beings do not have the authority to promise grace. Therefore signs instituted without the command of God are not sure signs of grace, even though they perhaps serve to teach or admonish the common folk. (Article XIII)

The 39 Articles (Anglican) say:

Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.
There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.
Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God. (Article XXV)

Even though marriage is a symbol in which even non-Christians unknowingly still demonstrate to a limited extent the joining of Christ and the Church, and even though it is a blessing from God, and even though God did institute it, it is not a particularly Christian rite. Baptism and the passover existed before Jesus came to the earth, but he transformed them when he gave the instruction to baptise in the name of the three persons of the Trinity and to eat the bread and drink the wine to remember his death. The two sacraments recognised by Protestants directly symbolise aspects of the gospel and Christ's death on the cross.
In the gospel passages of the Last Supper and the Great Commission, Jesus institutes the two Christian sacraments of baptism and communion, but there are no similar passages where Jesus institutes marriage, nor does he transform it. Protestants do not consider a Christian marriage to be different in any way from a marriage of non-Christians. So marriage is not thought to be a Christian sacrament.


Do you have any knowledge on a Catholic Internal Forum on Marriage?

If you looking for a Catholic Internal Forum for Marriage, than I would recommend that you seek out a pastor who can direct you to the priest in charge of the marriage tribunals in the diocese where you are living. That is where the the internal forum for marriages begins.
The Vatican has recently published the following article on the subject: Note of the Apostolic Penitentiary on the importance of the Internal Forum and the Inviolability of the Sacrament Sacramental Seal.
The priest in charge of the Marriage Tribunal, is to be considered an expert on the topic of marriage and all related issues. What is brought up to him is immediately considered part of the internal forum and must be held in secrecy.

Internal forum
The jurisdiction of the internal forum deals with questions concerning the welfare of individual Christians and with their relation to God. Hence it is called the forum of conscience (Forum conscientiae). It is also denominated the forum of Heaven (forum poli) because it guides the soul on the path to God. The internal forum is subdivided into the sacramental or penitential, which is exercised in the tribunal of penance or at least is connected with it, and the extra penitential forum. Causes concerning the private and secret needs of the faithful can often be expedited outside the sacramental confession. Thus, vows may be dispensed, secret censures may be absolved, occult impediments of matrimony may be dispensed outside of the tribunal of penance. The internal forum deals therefore directly with the spiritual welfare of the individual faithful. It has reference to the corporate body only secondarily, in as much as the good of the whole organization is promoted by that of the individual members. Owing to the nature of the civil state and the end for which it was instituted, it has no jurisdiction corresponding to the ecclesiastical forum of conscience.
Sacramental and non-sacramental internal forum
Within the internal forum a distinction is made between the sacramental internal forum and the non-sacramental internal forum, according as matters are decided in the sacrament of Penance, and thus additionally protected by the Seal of the Confessional, or outside of the sacrament.
Thus the name of the parties in a marriage contracted in the external forum are noted in a public register, but a marriage celebrated secretly is to be noted instead in a special register kept in the secret archive of the diocesan curia.
Sometimes power of governance is given for the sacramental forum only: in each diocese a priest is to be appointed who has the faculty, which he cannot delegate to others, of "absolving in the sacramental forum outsiders within the diocese and members of the diocese even outside the territory of the diocese from undeclared latae sententiae censures not reserved to the Apostolic See".
In the Roman Curia, the Apostolic Penitentiary has jurisdiction for matters of the internal forum, both sacramental and non-sacramental, but in some instances its decisions hold also in the external forum, as when, unless it states otherwise, a dispensation that it grants in the non-sacramental internal forum from an occult impediment to marriage, is sufficient even if the occult impediment later becomes public. - Internal and external forum

It is always a poor idea to seek personal advice though the internet. Thus I recommend you talk to the priest in charge of the Marriage Tribunal in your area and seek insight from him. Questions posed to him are considered part of the internal forum and thus are considered questions of conscience. If he can not get you your answer (which I find doubtful), he will be able to point you in the direction necessary.


I would tell you, but I have not the time:

  Hebrews 11:32-38
  What more shall I say? I have not time to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets,
  who by faith conquered kingdoms, did what was righteous, obtained the promises; they closed the mouths of lions,
  put out raging fires, escaped the devouring sword; out of weakness they were made powerful, became strong in battle, and turned back foreign invaders.
  Women received back their dead through resurrection. Some were tortured and would not accept deliverance, in order to obtain a better resurrection.
  Others endured mockery, scourging, even chains and imprisonment.
  They were stoned, sawed in two, put to death at sword’s point; they went about in skins of sheep or goats, needy, afflicted, tormented.
  The world was not worthy of them. They wandered about in deserts and on mountains, in caves and in crevices in the earth.

The song isn't saying that Samson was a witness because he was fooled. It's just a very short story of Samson, followed by a chorus. The biblical reasoning would be more clear if the last line told of how he cried out to God and was made powerful again so that he could avenge himself by bringing down a temple, but the song already told of how he killed many enemies.

It's telling a story and saying that Samson was a witness of some form. It's not being very specific, but then again it's supposed to be more lyrical than theological. It's praising God through the recollection and praise of certain good people.


What does spikenard have to do with St Joseph?

Spikenard has nothing in particular to do with Joseph. What is going on, is the following.

There is an apocryphal tradition to do with how Joseph and Mary were married. Variants of the story can be found in the Protoevangelium of James, Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, Armenian Infancy Gospel, Book of the Nativity of Mary, and History of Joseph the Carpenter; and were repeated in later tradition, most notably the Legenda Aurea of Jacobus de Voragine. Basically, Joseph was chosen out of several candidates by a miraculous sign - a dove flew out of his staff, or possibly landed on his staff, or possibly there was no dove and the staff blossomed.

Lanzi and Lanzi claim a further tradition, where at the beginning of Mary's pregnancy, the devil mocked Joseph, saying that her virginal conception was no more likely than his staff blooming - which it then miraculously did.

The story is very like that of Aaron in Numbers 17, whose rod blossomed with almond flowers as a sign of the divine favour resting upon him. Indeed, some say that Joseph's rod was the very same one. Moreover, because of Aaron, the almond flower (Hebrew shakad) is associated with being a watchful guardian (Hebrew sheked, to be wakeful), which is also reasonable for Joseph. And so he is sometimes shown with almond flowers, specifically. The staff, of course, is a sign of power or authority, in both cases: it is also connected to the royal Davidic lineage.

Alternatively, and perhaps more commonly, the flowers are lilies. These are more naturally Mary's flowers, but it is fine to give them to Joseph as well: they represent purity, virginity, matrimony. Recall that Joseph did not consummate his marriage, nor is he believed to have committed adultery (see Molanus for the belief that Joseph's flowers can be said to signify his continence).

Now, in the cited Hispanic tradition, the flowers have become spikenard and the staff has vanished. If we look at a painting like The Heavenly and Earthly Trinities (c.1675-82, Bartolomé Esteban Murillo) we can appreciate why.

As to the flower, painters will tend to paint the flowers they know. A flower commonly called nard in Spain might not be the same nard as in Italy, or Israel. The general idea of something vaguely lily-ish or almond-like persists, but the "model" may end up being something botanically different. That said, the associations of spikenard - self-sacrifice, humility, faith - are also reasonable to attribute to Joseph, so the link can be justified, leading to its persistence.
For the staff, there has been a concern for a very long time about denial of the virginal conception of Christ. For example, the fourth-century Panarion of Epiphanius includes a lengthy defense of why Joseph had nothing at all to contribute in this regard (see Heresy 78). The artistic problem is that Joseph's staff - already suggesting a certain virility - with a spray of white flowers at one end, might bring to mind improper and heretical thoughts. In art, then, the size of the staff may be reduced, perhaps even to a simple frond or bough, as in the Murillo painting.

References:

Saints and their symbols. Fernando and Gioia Lanzi. Liturgical Press, 2004. (Trans. Matthew O'Connell from Come riconoscere i santi e i patroni nell'arte e nelle immagini popolari, Editoriale Jaca Book SpA, 2003).
Bibliotheca Sanctorum. Pontifical Lateran University, 1965. Volume 6, pages 1251-1291, "Joseph".
De picturis et imaginibus sacris. Jan Vermeulen ("Molanus"). 1570. Book 3, chapter 12, De picturis Ioseph.


What hymns about death were common in the early 1400s?

Fourteenth to fifteenth centuries England was Catholic. The most common hymn sung by the faithful could possibly be the Latin hymn: "In paradisum". This hymn is still quite popular and I have sung it on many occasions as the body of a defunct has been lowered into the earth at a cemetery. Traditional religious still sing this at the graveside of their brethren.

Here it is played on YouTube: In Paradiusm - Traditional Catholic Requeim Mass

You may also want to check out the Requiem Mass for more pieces to be sung like Dies Irae for example.

Another possibility could be the Sub tuum praesidium which has always been a popular devotional hymn since Christian antiquity. It is still a Catholic tradition to recite the De Profundis (Psalm 130) in Latin for those accustomed to the Latin to be recited when visiting the graveside of those we love.

  Since the earliest times, Christians have sung "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs", both in private devotions and in corporate worship (Matthew 26:30; Mark 14:26; Acts 16:25; 1 Cor 14:26; Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16; James 5:13; cf. Revelation 5:8–10; Revelation 14:1–5).

  Non-scriptural hymns (i.e. not psalms or canticles) from the Early Church still sung today include 'Phos Hilaron', 'Sub tuum praesidium', and 'Te Deum'. - Hymn (Wikipedia)


Why is the Last Place on Earth St. Peter Founded the Seat of his Authority?

The question is about the logical basis for the argument that the last place St Peter resided at should retain his authority as Pope.

When Peter left Antioch he did not confer his papal authority on anyone in that city, or on anyone anywhere else.  He retained it personally wherever he went. It was only when he came to die that it became necessary to choose a successor. We do not know whether St Peter nominated his successor, or arranged a process for his election. But the need for a successor arose only on his death and the person who succeeded him succeeded him as Bishop of Rome and Pope,  because these were the roles that his death left vacant.

It would not have been possible to summon a conclave from all over the world.  Even today, notionally at least, the Bishop of Rome is elected only  by the clergy of Rome,  and as Bishop of Rome is ex officio Pope.   The way this is done is that every cardinal, on appointment, becomes a deacon or priest or suburban bishop of a parish in the diocese of Rome itself or one of the suburban dioceses of Rome. In this way it is still the case that the Pope is chosen by the clergy of Rome.


The group seems to take pride that they are hard to understand, but they do proclaim a couple of identity marks and from those, if one follows the trail into their roots, you begin to understand their beliefs.

  We are an ecumenical, charismatic, covenant community. Our model and inspiration is the first Christian community, a small band of disciples who “were of one heart and soul” and “held all things in common.” (Acts 4:33, 2:44). We can be difficult for the public and the press to understand. In truth, we are a community that defies categories.
  -source-

The first Christians were very clear about external categories like worship and baptism between believers and non-believers.  Since then, with 2,000 years of wear and tear, the Body of Christ internally splintered over doctrine, not love, into various denominations like Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, and others.  But, the one thing in common among all, the one basic identifier, if we ignore the original baptism argument between Cyprian, Firmillian and Pope Stephen, was water baptism.  People of Praise believe in a common baptism of a Triune manner in the name of the Father, Son, Spirit.

  What we share is a common baptism, a commitment to love one another and our teachings, which we hold in common.
  -ibid-

And what about the commitment to love and to their teachings?  What are their teachings?  Because once you teach something, you draw a line in the sand.  A triune baptism is a line, are there others?

Ecumenical

Ecumenical is the effort to bring different Christian denominations into a better understanding and relationship with each other.

It is the idea of a visible unity in baptized believers.

Historically, it was ecumenical councils that ruled on doctrine for those baptized.  See the first one recorded in Acts 15.  Later it was Nicea in 325.  Typically the first seven are recognized as ecumenical.  But this approach did not last.

Today the unifying belief may be found at most basic levels like a Triune baptism or a focus on Christ Jesus alone, rather than esoteric doctrine.  Beyond the basics, unity may fracture into power and control and money.  The ecumenical idea itself, however, may be a bit cloudy as it could be captured in the practice of feed and then preach or love and then convert.  In Catholicism, the two-step process is known as dialogue of love and dialogue of truth.

Charismatic

The definition of charismatic is distinct from Pentecostalism.  Charismatic Christianity in any denomination means the common belief that the Spirit still works as it did 2,000 years ago.  There are still today spiritual gifts, miracles, and guidance.

These roots trace back to Azusa Street revivals in 1906.  It was quite ecumenical with different denominations partaking.

This movement made its way into the Catholic Church via Cursillo and is known as Catholic Charismatic.  Cursillo is recognized by the Vatican as a lay organization.

Cursillo itself has led to much cooperation between churches.  For example, the Methodist Church renamed it Walk to Emmaus.

My comment, whether they voice this or not, is that this is a belief that the Spirit still works, still has gifts (charisms), and still does not care about your group's (RC, EO, P) defining dogmas.

Covenant

A covenant is an agreement.  It is also a contract or agreement.  Or an obligation between parties.  For this case, here is how People of Praise define "covenant", as a lifelong commitment from which one may be released.

  After a long period of prayer and discernment, many People of Praise members choose to make a lifelong commitment called a covenant. The covenant of the People of Praise is a promise of love and service to fellow community members and to God. This covenant is not an oath or a vow. We have understood that God can always call a person to another way of life, in which case he or she would be released from the covenant.
  -People of Praise

With this in mind, it appears as a commitment between Christians at their most basic level.  Jesus is Lord.  Known by our love one for another.  Believe on the Lord and you will be saved.  Be baptized.  With that in mind, a covenant is the agreement to work to spread that gospel around the world.

Conclusion

So what exactly does People of Praise believe?  They believe in basic Christianity of unity in the Spirit built on the observable gifts of the Spirit.  Love is the glue binding baptized believers together.  They covenant to bring out this message to the world.


Do Protestants believe that "Our Father" is on par with "Our Mother," or is Jesus strictly invoking a male symbol only?

While I cannot and would not be so bold as to try to answer your question as it asks about a generalization of protestant belief, I wish to point out that Jesus in the LORD's prayer; as translated in the King James version, used the original word:

πατήρ pater (pat-ayr') n.
1. a "father"
{literally or figuratively, near or more remote}
[apparently a primary word]
KJV: father, parent

which can be translated as the genderless word "parent" as opposed to the word:

Ἀββᾶ Abba (ab-bah`) n/p.
1. (vocatively) father
{referring to or addressing one's father}
[of Chaldee origin (H2)]
KJV: Abba

Which is a definitive reference to the male parent.


Why Do Moses' Laws About Slavery and Punishment Not Align with the Teachings of Jesus?

The letters of Paul tell us that the law was given to show us that we do not measure up. It is impossible to live a God pleasing life by works. So failing was an expected part of the laws. So things would exist that were humane, and God gave guidelines on how to go about all this.

Even more, we live in a fallen world, and God gives us means to survive in a doomed world.

Like God never intended poverty. Yet he gave laws on how to treat poor people: let them work themselves. Don't hand out, but let some crop stand in the edges of the field and do not glean what fell to the ground.

In the new testament God made it possible to please Him - He has done that in the OT too, granted, as you find the principle saved by faith in the OT too. Or just look at what David did: ask for forgiveness and trust the Lord. Jesus fulfilled the law, he did both parts of the covenant: give the rules and fulfill them.

And still Jesus did not address slavery. Paul even told slaves to honor and obey their masters. God new that following the ten commandments or the commands and example of Jesus, led by the Holy Spirit, would lead to a God pleasing lifestyle with His saints.

God gives us opportunity to follow Him and change (back) into His image, while giving us guidelines and rules to go about it in the meantime.


Would reading "The Street Bible" help me understand the KJV Bible?

First of all, these two translations are extremely different.  Here's Genesis 1:1 in The Street Bible:

  First off, nothing. No light, no time, no substance, no matter. Second off, God starts it all off and WHAP! Stuff everywhere!

And in the KJV:

  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

There's obviously a significant difference between these two in both translation philosophy and style.  The Street Bible is a paraphrase that attempts to use "the language of the modern urban reader."  On the other hand, the KJV is a fairly literal translation that uses Elizabethan English, which can be practically incomprehensible to some modern-day readers.

That said, though the language is very different, The Street Bible tells the same stories as the KJV and other Bibles.  Reading it will therefore increase your understanding of the Bible, and allow you to make connections to the stories in the KJV or other translations.

Ultimately, however, the best approach is to compare a variety of translations and choose the one that is most comfortable for you. BibleGateway.com does not include The Street Bible, but it does allow side-by-side comparison between dozens of popular bible translations, such as more readable ones like the NLT and NIV and more literal ones like the NKJV and ESV.


Does an evangelical understanding of the 'laws of nature' make God seem more distant or close?

Of course when we see a tree we see God holding together, beneath the subatomic level, all the elements necessary for a tree to be.  If God ever decided no longer to sustain the tree, a flower, a cloud, the Devil, then it would cease to exist.

  The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. (Hebrews 1:3, NIV)

In fact as God sustains all things by his own power even the sinner lives in Christ, yet not inwardly by faith but by his mere existence he proclaims God as he has life.

  ‘For in him we live and move and have our being. ’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring. ’ (Acts 17:28, NIV)

Now it is impossible to imagine God is distant when our breath comes from him:

  In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind. (Job 12:10, NIV)

A. W. Tozer wrote an excellent book on the nature of God.  In it he said:

  This idea that God is an absentee engineer running His universe by remote control is all wrong. He is present in perpetual and continuous eagerness, with all the fervor of rapturous love pressing His holy designs. If you don’t feel that way about it, it’s unbelief that makes you feel otherwise; it’s preoccupation with this world. If you would believe God you would know this to be true.
  The goodness of God means He cannot feel indifferent about anything. People are indifferent, but not God. God either loves with a boundless unremitting energy or He hates with consuming fire. (A.W. Tozer Attributes of God, P44)

The 'laws of nature' simply show that God is fixed in his purposes as his power flows along unchanging rules.


From Wikipedia:

  Scientology is a body of beliefs and related practices created by L.
  Ron Hubbard (1911–1986), starting in 1952, as a successor to his
  earlier self-help system, Dianetics. Hubbard characterized Scientology
  as a religion, and in 1953 incorporated the Church of Scientology in
  Camden, New Jersey.

Nothing about Christ here; I'll answer no.

From Scientology.org:

  DOES SCIENTOLOGY HAVE A CONCEPT OF GOD? Most definitely. In
  Scientology, the concept of God is expressed as the Eighth Dynamic—the
  urge toward existence as infinity. This is also identified as the
  Supreme Being.

Again, nothing about Christ.  I think the answer is no.

And for good measure, L. Ron Hubbard says:

  "The great religious civilizing forces of the past, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and others, have all emphasized differentiation of good from evil and higher ethical values."

That sounds to me like someone speaking of Christianity as an outsider.


What Christianity offers which other religions cannot?

C.S. Lewis answered this question:

During a British conference on comparative religions, experts from around the world debated what, if any, belief was unique to the Christian faith. They began eliminating possibilities. Incarnation? Other religions had different versions of gods' appearing in human form. Resurrection? Again, other religions had accounts of return from death. The debate went on for some time until C. S. Lewis wandered into the room. "What's the rumpus about?" he asked, and heard in reply that his colleagues were discussing Christianity's unique contribution among world religions. Lewis responded, "Oh, that's easy. It's grace."1

I agree - if I had to summarise it in one word, it would be "Grace". Most other religions require people to try really, really hard to be worthy enough. Only in Christianity does God himself come to us to make us worthy, not as a reward for our hard work but as a free gift of grace.
I think that is the fundamental thing which distinguishes Christianity from other religions.


What are the reasons for having special names for God/ Jesus?

some of the Names come from the difference in Language throughout the Bible.
Greek, Jewish, etc

that paired with what God can do or will do or who He is, makes a compound name of description like

  Yahshua Ha Mashiach is "Jesus the Messiah."

or

  Jehovah Rapha (The Lord who heals)

they are all names for the same God, to better describe who He is and what He does.

there are many compound names for Him throughout the Bible.

Elohim or El "Strong One"
Yahweh (YHWH) "to exist, be" {see Link below}
Adonai "Master, Owner"
Theos Greek Translated "God"
Kurios Greek Translated "Lord"
Despotes Greek Translated "Master"
Father

of which many Compound names are given

El Shaddai "God Almighty"
El Elyon "The Most High God"
El Olam "The Everlasting God"

And

Yahweh Jireh (Yireh) “The Lord will provide.”
Yahweh Nissi “The Lord is my Banner.”
Yahweh Shalom “The Lord is Peace.”
Yahweh Sabbaoth “The Lord of Hosts.”
Yahweh Maccaddeshcem “The Lord your Sanctifier.”
Yahweh Ro’i  “The Lord my Shepherd.”
Yahweh Tsidkenu “The Lord our Righteousness.”
Yahweh Shammah “The Lord is there.”
Yahweh Elohim Israel “The Lord, the God of Israel.”

there are many more than just these, but the resource that I used is a Website

The Names of God

it explains slightly better than I have and gives more insight into some of these names.

Really these Names are just descriptors of God


How do Catholics explain the fact that Jesus is male yet he has no human biological father?

The Catholic Church has no official position on this, since it is of minor importance (albeit an interesting problem).

The consensus of theologians who have studied the problem (Catholic and non-Catholic, who hold the Church’s firm belief in the Virgin Birth and the maleness of Jesus) is that, presumably, the genetic material for Jesus’s paternal complement of DNA was created miraculously.

This is likely to be the case, because the result of a parthenogenesis (viable parthenogenesis is extremely rare, if not nonexistent, in humans) would be a woman, not a man.

Moreover, it is unlikely that any of Mary’s DNA was simply “duplicated” in order to fill out any part Jesus’ paternal complement: generally, when maternal DNA is accidentally duplicated (even when there are no “extra” chromosomes), there are grave birth defects due to a phenomenon called genomic imprinting.

The fact that the Son was conceived as a healthy man would, therefore, be further confirmation of the miraculousness of Jesus’ conception and birth.

(For a decent overview of various positions, see http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/lifestyle/ci_3207769. Note that the article represents a diversity of opinions, some of which are not compatible with orthodox belief in the Virgin Birth. Among those cited in the article, David Wilcox and Ronald Cole-Turner uphold the Virgin Birth; Wesley Wildman does not.1)

Some apologists, such as Tim Staples, mentioned by the O.P., would argue that all of the genetic material came from Mary (presumably with some kind of miraculous transformation that would account for the maleness and lack of problems caused by genomic imprinting, although he does not address this issue in the video).

1
Also, the article misrepresents the reason for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception: it has nothing to do with the supposed evilness of male seed—after all, Mary herself was conceived by a normal sexual act—but stems from the belief that Mary, in view of her divine motherhood, is all holy (panagia), and hence is exempt even from the effects of Original Sin.


Things that are common exclusively for Protestants and Oriental Orthodoxy

The Easy simple answer to the OP is NONE.  Because the original question used words like "absolutely all Protestants", it is very difficult, maybe even impossible to answer such a broad but also strict question.    Lets just take one issue, basic Nicene Theology etc.   Most Protestants formally or informally  accept basic Classical Theology as far as the Trinity, Jesus as true God and true man hypostatic union etc.    However in recent times there has been a rethinking of such basic creedal theology, and some small groups of Biblical Fundamentalists, and Postmodern Evangelicals can be rethinking things like Arianism and Modalism (Oneness) etc.     And this diversity of opinion and thought is even more true on moral issues which have been more divided on issues regarding sexuality and relationships etc.


Can the belief of Jesus' listeners be considered belief unto salvation?

YES

  Galatians 3:2-7 (NLT)

  Let me ask you this one question: Did you receive the Holy Spirit by
  obeying the law of Moses? Of course not! You received the Spirit
  because you believed the message you heard about Christ. How foolish
  can you be? After starting your Christian lives in the Spirit, why are
  you now trying to become perfect by your own human effort? Have you
  experienced so much for nothing? Surely it was not in vain, was it? I
  ask you again, does God give you the Holy Spirit and work miracles
  among you because you obey the law? Of course not! It is because you
  believe the message you heard about Christ. In the same way,
  “Abraham believed God, and God counted him as righteous because of
  his faith.” The real children of Abraham, then, are those who put
  their faith in God.

Abraham was counted as righteous because of his faith. In the same manner, those who believed in the words of Jesus are cleansed through the Word of God.

  You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. (John
  15:3, NIV)

In passage you posted(John 8:30), Jesus was telling to the people that He is the Light of the world and the promised savior, who will save us from our sins. All they had to do was believe in Him and the Father who sent Him, and they will not die in their sins.

  John 8: 24-30 (ESV)

  I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe
  that I am he you will die in your sins.” So they said to him, “Who
  are you?” Jesus said to them, “Just what I have been telling you from
  the beginning. I have much to say about you and much to judge, but he
  who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from
  him.” They did not understand that he had been speaking to them about
  the Father. So Jesus said to them, “When you have lifted up the Son of
  Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own
  authority, but speak just as the Father taught me. And he who sent me
  is with me. He has not left me alone, for I always do the things that
  are pleasing to him.” As he was saying these things, many believed
  in him.

Though Jesus was not yet crucified, faith in Him was sufficient to have salvation. For,  The death of Jesus saves all the believers before and after His crucifixion.


Is the 'Ho' in Hosanna! connected in any way to the 'ho' in Jehovah?

The basic definition of Hosanna is 'praise, adoration or joy' (I asked Siri!).  Looking at Strong's via http://blueletterbible.org The word G5614 is used as an interjection; originally a cry for help, but later became an utterance of praise (Vine's).  The origin is with two Hebrew roots (H3467) and (H4994).

I was seeing Ho-san-na in the English, but it is actually broken up more like Hosa-nna when related to the Hebrew roots.  The transliteration of those words is yasha' (H3467) and na' (H4994).

Interestingly, Jehovah, Joshua, Yeshua (Hebrew) and the Greek equivalent Jesus are all related to the word group that includes yasha' (H3467).  The concept is related with words all pertaining to salvation.  Blue Letter Bible lists "to be open, wide, free, safe" or "causitively--to free, avenge, defend, deliver,...rescue, bring salvation, save(ior), get victory".

H4994 is a participle, na', that can mean "now, then, I pray".  It is used for incitement or entreaty, such as "I beseech thee." (Ex. 33:18).  It is translated "let" in Judges 13:8.

In Ps. 118:25, we also find yasha' translated as "Save now" and "I beseech thee" has a different Hebrew word--'anna' (H577)

I share all of this partly to answer my question, but also to broaden it a bit.  Perhaps there is no linguistic connection, but is there rather a conceptual connection between Hosanna and Jehovah?

Only God saves in the spiritual sense, and often uses human agents to save in a physical sense, or with spiritual implications.  Jesus, being both a human agent and God, was able to save and worthy of praise for being Savior and carried the name Yehoshua or Yeshua.  These names identify Him with the Almighty, Holy One of Israel, YHWH.

Even if the people who cried, "Hosanna!" in Matthew 21:9, as either an entreaty, i.e. "Save us!  Free us, now!" or as praise, i.e. "Deliverer!  Victory!" did not make these conceptual connections, is there anything amiss about seeing such a relationship between Hosanna (Savior, save us!) and Jehovah, the God Who, because of His eternal existence, is able to save forever those who call upon His mercy?


The flood happened precisely on account of the issues you raise. More specifically, it debunks the premises on which those issues are founded.

As Christians living thousands of years later with only a short Scriptural account to go on, we can really only speculate about how the people of Noah's day must have reasoned with themselves. However it seems likely based on their recorded reactions and God's action that their presuppositions were similar to the ones you have made. They were wrong and the flood was God's way of setting the record straight.

There is no such thing as "probably innocent". The fallen nature of all humans since Adam means that we are guilty and deserving of condemnation from the womb on. That God could wipe out all humanity in the way he did helps us understands God's disposition towards sin and gives us a reference point for man's sinful nature. The NT echoes this as it affirms that there are NONE righteous on their own apart from God's intervention. The pre-flood people of earth are used as a reminder of this and the flood stands of a warning of the future judgement we will all face.
It wasn't God's mistake in the first place that he would need to "fix his error". The error lies with man - who chose to rebel rather than obey - but the solution cannot come from man, it must be directed by God. It was God that preserved Noah. It is God that will preserve some men (those who by faith in Him come under his saving grace).
God didn't mess up that would need to start over, it was always his plan to redeem creation. He knew what would happen to it, but entered into a covenant with himself - God the Son agreeing to be the ransom, the redeemer to purchase a people out from God the Father's righteously judgement. The concept of redemption was always part of the plan. Likewise we look forward to a new heavens and a new earth -- not a different creation entirely but a re-creation -- a redemption of creation itself on the day where he will make all things new (after he finally judges those who do not have faith in him).
Other species are not innocent. All of creation was subjected to the fall. The caretaker of creation - the priest who's job it was to mediate between God and creation - the one who was charged with naming and caring for all the species - fell down on the job. He left his job unfinished. As a result of his failure, not only was he himself cursed but everything in his domain was cursed as well. The ground brought forth weeds and thorns. The animal kingdom was subjected to the same futility that mankind was now under.

The exact "why" if many of God's choices is not fully revealed to us, but Christians use God's actions in the past to help shape their understanding of the present. The flood helps reset our understanding of what guilt and innocence mean in relation to a holy God. It teaches us significant lessons about the nature of man, creation and God himself. It warns us against evil and points us toward salvation.


What does "Christ was born across the sea" mean in Julia Ward Howe's The Battle Hymn of the Republic?

First, just to be clear, this line is about Christ's birth, not about his being carried somewhere.

As explained at Grammarist.com here:

"Borne is the past tense and past participle of bear in all senses not related to birth," while
"Born is also a past tense and past participle of bear, but it’s reserved mainly for use as the passive verb in contexts relating to birth."

(The non-bold italics are added in both cases.)

If the author and the various editors of the lyrics to the song had wanted to say that Christ was "carried across the sea," they would have written "borne," not "born." Their consistent use of the form "born" indicates that the line is about Christ's birth.

Having established that:

Julia Ward Howe (1819-1910) was an American. Therefore the simplest explanation for the line "Christ was born across the sea" in The Battle Hymn of the Republic is that the Holy Land, where Jesus was born, is across the "sea," or ocean, from North America, where the lyrics for the song were written, and where the song achieved great popularity both as a hymn and as a patriotic song.

Whatever metaphorical meanings the line may carry (and for Americans of previous centuries, living "across the sea" from their origins in the Old World continents did have a quasi-religious symbolism as they established a new nation on one of the continents of the New World), the most likely basic meaning is that the song is picturing Christ's wondrous birth ("in the beauty of the lilies") as having taken place across the ocean from the land where the song was set, in Civil War America.

This wondrous birth is then set in apposition to the power of his death "to make men holy," invoking enduring themes and metaphors of birth and death.


Is it a sacrilege to take communion in hand?
The short answer is no! However some may believe otherwise.
If it were sacrileges, the present teaching do not reflect that to be the case. Rome allows this by indult in the New Rite. If it were a sacrilege, that indult would not have been accorded by Rome.
Both ways are permitted within the Ordinary Form of the Mass. While communion on the hand is forbidden in the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and is given while kneeling only, unless prohibited due to physical illness.
Communion on the hand may seem less reverent than communion on the tongue, especially to the more traditionally minded Catholics; it is not a sacrilege. The real sacrilege here would be in receiving Our Lord while in the state of mortal sin!
For the first three centuries the Eucharist was celebrated in the houses and homes of Christians. In times of persecution these celebrations would have been in secret, in catacombs and other hidden spots. At other times Christians gathered together openly in each others’ homes or in ‘house churches’ for the Eucharist though Mass was not celebrated publicly as it is in our own time.
In fact, the first Martyr of the Eucharist was was young boy of the age of 12. Although a layman, he was also an acolyte. He died taking the Eucharist to the faithful who were held either in prisons for their faith or to homes of the faithful. Priests could have done this, but it was deemed safe if the young lad went in their stead! He was caught and martyred on the spot.
How can one say it is a sacrilege to receive the Lord on our hands as children carried it in the Early Church.

Tarsicius or Tarcisius was a martyr of the early Christian church who lived in the 3rd century. The little that is known about him comes from a metrical inscription by Pope Damasus I, who was pope in the second half of the 4th century.
The only positive information concerning this Roman martyr is found in a poem composed in his honour by Pope Damasus (366–384), who compares him to the deacon Saint Stephen and says that, as Stephen was stoned by a crowd, so Tarcisius, carrying the Blessed Sacrament, was attacked by a group and beaten to death.
Nothing else definite is known concerning Tarcisius. Since Damasus compares him to Stephen, he may have been a deacon; however, a 6th-century account makes him an acolyte. According to one version of the detailed legend that developed later, Tarsicius was a young boy during one of the fierce 3rd-century Roman persecutions, probably during the reign of Emperor Valerian (253–259). One day, he was entrusted with the task of bringing the Eucharist to condemned Christians in prison. He preferred death at the hands of a mob rather than deliver to them the Blessed Sacrament which he was carrying.
He was originally buried in the Catacombs of San Callisto and the inscription by Damasus was placed later on his tomb. Some time later his relics were moved to the San Silvestro in Capite church in Rome. His feast day is celebrated on 15 August; that day is widely observed as the Feast of the Assumption, therefore he is not mentioned in the General Roman Calendar, but only in the Roman Martyrology.
He is the patron saint of altar servers and first communicants.

Saint Tarcisius
Communion on the hand may possibly been an Apostolic Tradition. St. Cyril of Jerusalem speaks of it in the following way:

While the Didache concentrates on prayer and thanksgiving, Cyril’s instructions emphasize technique:
“Approaching (Communion)…come not with your palms extended and stretched flat nor with your fingers open. But make your left hand as if a throne for the right, and hollowing your palm receive the body of Christ saying after it, Amen. Then after you have with care sanctified your eyes by the touch of the holy Body, partake…giving heed lest you lose any particle of it (the bread). For should you lose any of it, it is as though you have lost a member of your own body, for tell me, if any one gave you gold dust, would you not with all precaution keep it fast, being on the guard lest you lose any of it and thus suffer loss? How much more cautiously then will you observe that not a crumb falls from you, of what is more precious than gold and precious stones. Then having partaken of the Body of Christ, approach also the cup of His blood; not extending your hands, but bending low and saying in the way of worship and reverence, Amen, be you sanctified by partaking, also of the blood of Christ.” Catechetical Lecture 5
Communion in the Early Church

The BC Catholic on July  28, 2019 published an article entitled Receiving Holy Communion: tongue or hand? It show that communion on the hands has been around a lot longer than we think. It also shows both side of the issue at hand. I find it quite enlightening.

Memoriale Domini, a 1969 Church document on reception of Communion, outlined St. Paul VI’s decision on this matter. After much study and special consultation with all the Bishops of the world, he concluded that “Communion [on the tongue] must be retained ... not merely because it has many centuries of tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist ... This reverence shows that it is not a sharing in ‘ordinary bread and wine’ that is involved, but in the Body and Blood of the Lord.”
So how did it happen that some countries were eventually allowed the indult of reception in the hand as well?
A few countries had already illicitly allowed Communion in the hand. Chief among the reasons was that some felt Communion in the hand represented the most ancient form of Communion in the early Church.
But while it is true that Communion in the hand certainly happened in the early Church, it is unclear exactly when this practice started and how universal it was. There are quotes from Church Fathers supporting both practices.
A quote, purported to be from St. Cyril of Jerusalem (around AD 350), is often given in support of reception in the hand: “placing thy left hand as a throne for thy right, which is to receive so great a King ... receive the body of Christ.” But scholars now tell us that this quote was likely not written by St. Cyril at all, and several ancient manuscripts attest to this.
On the other hand, there is also ample testimony from great saints like St. Basil, St. Gregory the Great, and St. Leo the Great, among others, suggesting that reception on the tongue was the standard for the early Church.
For example, St. Basil the Great, doctor of the Church (AD 330–379), would teach: “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution” (e.g., the laity could touch the Host to distribute it secretly).
The Councils of Saragossa (AD 380) and Toledo (fifth to seventh centuries) threatened excommunication to anyone who continued receiving holy Communion by hand.
Similarly, the Synod of Rouen (AD 650) decreed: “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman ... only in their mouths.”
The Sixth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople (AD 680–681) also forbade the taking of Communion in the hand by the laity, under threat of excommunication. And the Council of Trent (1565) added, “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”
This brings us to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The dispensing of Christ’s body belongs to the priest ... out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this Sacrament. Hence, it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it except from necessity” (Summa Theologica). This is a powerful testimony, as much of the Church’s theology is based on the theology of St. Thomas.
Taking all this into consideration, Memoriale Domini declared: “From the time of the Fathers of the Church ... Holy Communion in the hand became more and more restricted in favor of distributing Holy Communion on the tongue. The motivation for this practice is two-fold: a) first, to avoid ... the dropping of Eucharistic particles [today, consecrated Hosts are regularly stolen for use in satanic Masses and other blasphemous practices – even sold on eBay!]; b) second, to increase among the faithful devotion to the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.”
It then mandated that “this method of distributing Holy Communion [on the tongue] must be retained” and “emphatically” urged “bishops, priests and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed ... by the majority of Catholic bishops.”
But after all this, Memoriale Domini then added a surprising disclaimer, leaving an avenue open to those bishops currently in disobedience over this issue. “Where ... Communion on the hand prevails,” bishops could request an indult to continue this practice, and Rome would consider it.
And these countries requested exactly that – and the indults were given – I am sure much to the sadness of St. Paul VI. A flood of requests then followed from countries, including Canada, where Communion on the hand did not prevail. These countries hadn’t been given permission to even ask for this indult. But ask they did.
Now some might say, “What’s the big deal?” After all, we are talking disciplines here and not unchangeable doctrines. True. And this is certainly not an area about which to quarrel or to judge one another’s spiritual intentions. Many insist that they feel equal reverence when receiving in the hand, and that the key is the attitude of the heart. There is truth in this too.
But the point is that the very document that permitted the seeking of an indult for Communion on the hand in very limited cases at the same time strongly advocated for Communion on the tongue, adding that it “is a sign of the reverence of the faithful toward the Eucharist” and is “needed for the most fruitful reception of the Lord’s body” (Memoriale Domini).
With bodily signs we show interior beliefs. In “The Theology of Kneeling,” an excerpt from his book The Spirit of the Liturgy (2000), Cardinal Ratzinger highlights this truth: “the bodily gesture itself is the bearer of the spiritual meaning ... when someone tries to take worship back into the purely spiritual realm and refuses to give it embodied form, the act of worship evaporates.” Later, as Pope Benedict XVI, in continuity with St. John Paul II, he gave Communion to the faithful on the tongue while they knelt.
I write this not to stir up controversy, but to provide a context against which individuals may decide how best to receive Jesus’ Precious Body and Blood, especially in our current culture. Many faithful Catholics are unaware of all of this background, as I was. Perhaps it is worthwhile to reconsider how we receive the Eucharist, for “not as common bread and common drink do we receive these” (St. Justin Martyr, AD 150).