Purgatory, 2 Corinthians 5:10, and Protestantism

Regarding Purgatory and Protestantism, I found an article that starts thus:

  According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Purgatory is “a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.” To summarize, in Catholic theology Purgatory is a place that a Christian’s soul goes to after death to be cleansed of the sins that had not been fully satisfied during life.

The article goes on to explain how Protestants view the Catholic teaching on Purgatory.  Here is the link for anyone who wants to know more:  https://www.gotquestions.org/purgatory.html

Regarding 2 Corinthians 5:10, the 2000 edition of my NIV Study Bible makes this comment:

  This accounting has nothing to do with justification, which is credited to the Christian fully and for ever through faith in Christ; instead, it refers to what we have done with our lives as Christians.

This verse is cross referenced to 1 Corinthians 3:10-15.  Verse 13 says that the quality of each man’s work will be revealed with fire.  The NIV Study Bible makes this comment:

  Fire = God’s judgment.  The work of some believers will stand the test while that of others will disappear – emphasising the importance of teaching the pure word of God.

With regard to verse 15, which says that if a believer’s work is burned up, “he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames” the NIV Study Bible comments:

  Perhaps a Greek proverbial phrase, meaning “by a narrow escape”, with one’s work burnt up by the fire of God’s pure justice and judgment.

The Protestant view of the judgment seat of Christ has to do with believers giving an account of their lives to Christ.  No doubt part of this will involve answering for the sins committed while alive.  James 1:12 is a good summary of how we should think about the judgment seat of Christ: “Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.”  That testing happens while the believer lives.

There is no mention of the soul of the believer suffering in some post-death purgatory.  Rather, the refining by fire is an illustration of the process of sanctification while still alive – it is our works that will be tested by fire.

John Wesley taught that the perfection we seek in this life is completed at "the instant of death, the moment before the soul leaves the body" (Brief thoughts on Christian perfection, 1767).  Here is a short extract from a Protestant article on God’s refining fire (1 Corinthians 3:10-15):

  Every believer will give an account of himself, and the Lord will judge the decisions he made—including those concerning issues of conscience. This judgment does not determine salvation, which is by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), but rather is the time when believers must give an account of their lives in service to Christ. Our position in Christ is the “foundation” spoken of in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15. That which we build upon the foundation can be the “gold, silver, and precious stones” of good works in Christ’s name, obedience and fruitfulness—dedicated spiritual service to glorify God and build the church. Or what we build on the foundation may be the “wood, hay and stubble” of worthless, frivolous, shallow activity with no spiritual value. The Judgment Seat of Christ will reveal this.  The gold, silver and precious stones in the lives of believers will survive God’s refining fire (v. 13).  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/judgment.html

No doubt we shall all be the wiser after we pass from this life into the next, and stand before the judgment seat of Christ to give an answer for the things we did as believers.  I’m already squirming in my seat, knowing full well that I have often failed to point others to Christ and to be worthy of calling myself a Christian.  But I have no fear of any punishment in the after-life, because I believe the promise that “neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:37-39).

EDIT for clarification and in response to additional points:

Nowhere can I find a scripture that says believers have to undergo further sanctification after death.  Scripture is clear:

  “If we walk in the light... the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from ALL sin. If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from ALL unrighteousness” (1 John 1:7-9).

John is not speaking of purification after death.  John is speaking of the here and the now, while the believer lives.  He goes on to remind us that if we sin, Jesus Christ the Righteous One, speaks to the Father in our defence.  HE is the atoning sacrifice for our sins.  It is Jesus, the Son, who has made substitutionary atonement for the sin of the believer, who has satisfied and appeased the righteous wrath of God against sin and sinners.  It is Jesus, the Son, who took upon himself our sins and it is through our faith in what God, in Jesus, has already accomplished that the believer is forgiven. That forgiveness is not partial – that forgiveness is absolute.  When God looks at the believer he sees only the righteousness of Christ.

  “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more” (Hebrews 8:12).

Hebrews 9:12 goes on to declare that the shed blood of Christ has obtained ETERNAL redemption. Verse 14 says that our consciences are now cleansed from acts that lead to death (sin) so that we may serve the living God.  It does not say our consciences will be cleansed at some future point beyond death.  Verse 15 brings the joyful news that all who have entered into the new covenant they have been set free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

Not a word about not being good enough in this life and having to face cleansing or sanctification or refining by punishment after death.  That’s why it is difficult for Protestants to grasp the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory.  And that’s why I am unable to accept that the believer has to somehow pay for their sins after death because they were not “fully sanctified” while alive.

Regarding 2 Corinthians 5:8, we need to read on to the end of that chapter to understand that “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation” (verse 17) and focus on verse 21: “God made him [Christ] who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”  Finally, Philippians 3:9 reminds the believer that we do not have any righteousness of our own, “but that which is through faith in Christ – the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.”  It’s a done deal!  We are judged on what we do now, before we go to be with the Lord.  There is no biblical basis for thinking we have to pay for our transgression beyond the grave.  Jesus had done it all.


The most notable early Christian writing that I am aware of was by John of Damascus (676-749).  In Heresies in Epitome: How They Began and Whence They Drew Their Origin he claims that the basis of Mohammed's fundamental teachings came from an Arian monk:

  There is also the superstition of the Ishmaelites which to this day
  prevails and keeps people in error, being a forerunner of the
  Antichrist. They are descended from Ishmael, [who] was born to Abraham
  of Agar, and for this reason they are called both Agarenes and
  Ishmaelites. They are also called Saracens, which is derived from
  Sarras kenoi, or destitute of Sara, because of what Agar said to the
  angel: ‘Sara hath sent me away destitute.’  These used to be idolaters
  and worshiped the morning star and Aphrodite, whom in their own
  language they called Khabár, which means great.  And so down to the
  time of Heraclius they were very great idolaters. From that time to
  the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their
  midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments
  and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk,  devised
  his own heresy. Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces
  of the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain
  book had been sent down to him from heaven. He had set down some
  ridiculous compositions in this book of his and he gave it to them as
  an object of veneration.

The rest of the text can be found here.

Some say that the iconoclast heresy in Byzantium arose because certain Christians were envious of the material success of surrounding Moslems and surmised that their practices - especially their rejection of depictions of human form - were earning them God's favor.  John of Damascus was one of the most vocal critics of the iconoclast Emperor Leo the Isaurian.  Ironically, John wrote his Apologetic Treatises against those Decrying the Holy Images while under the protection of a nearby moslem caliph.

[Note:  This question seems almost indistinguishable from the related question, so I posted the same answer in both places, expecting perhaps that one of the two questions will eventually be deleted.]


What is the name of this theological problem?

The problem is known as "theodicy".

Actually, this is just one portion of the problem of theodicy, but it's part of the "How can a good God permit evil?" question.  "How God could create beings that will go to Hell" is subset of the problem of theodicy.

This is one of the most commonly covered questions in the field of Apologetics.  A Bing/Google/(Choose your search engine) search for "Apologetic Theodicy" should get you any number of possible answers to that question.  Of course, which makes sense to you, personally, is hard to predict. there are differing approaches to the issue based on your belief in things like free will, where god's sovereignty and man's ability to chose begins and ends, etc.


Is there a formal statement or opinion in the Catholic Church regarding martial arts?

On the Vatican website, Google finds one document which specifically references taekwondo.
It's the record of a General Audience given by Pope Benedict XVI on 9 April 2008, and the reference appears only in the Italian version (as it was a greeting directed to Italian speakers, after the main address):

Saluto gli atleti che partecipano ai campionati Europei di Taekwondo, incoraggiandoli a promuovere anche attraverso questa disciplina sportiva il rispetto per il prossimo e la lealtà.
I greet the athletes participating in the European Taekwondo Championships, encouraging them to promote the sport through the respect for others and loyalty.
Original in Italian

The Catechism  of the Catholic Church has two entries for "Violence: force" in its index, and none for "self-defence" or "martial arts":

1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.
2306 Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death.103
103 Gaudium et Spes 78 § 5

Earlier paragraphs (ibid.) do mention anger and hatred:

2302 By recalling the commandment, "You shall not kill,"93 our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral.
Anger is a desire for revenge. "To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit," but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution "to correct vices and maintain justice."94 If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbour, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. the Lord says, "Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgement."95
2303 Deliberate hatred is contrary to charity. Hatred of the neighbour is a sin when one deliberately wishes him evil. Hatred of the neighbour is a grave sin when one deliberately desires him grave harm. "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven."96
93 Matthew 5:21
94 Summa Theologica II-II 158 1 ad 3
95 Matthew 5:22
96 Matthew 5:44-45

Thus, [to answer the question about a line crossed] to the extent that martial arts do not involve anger or hatred, they are not contrary to the moral law. Practising and training in them involves skill, and it is training for self-defence; dojos are also places of absolute authority and detailed rules, mirroring what might be expected in life. Pope Benedict expressed this in his remarks about respect and loyalty.


Where does the Bible talk about marriage to non-Christians?

The history of the Israelites from the period of Joshua through the Kings is one big warning about intermarrying with other peoples.

Joshua adjures the people not to let any men, women, or children in Canaan survive, lest they be a temptation.  (Indeed, Rahab is singled out not to be killed* as the exception.)
Solomon is chastised for taking concubines from other lands
Jezebel, the wife of Ahab is a constant source of temptation to go to other gods, especially Baal.
Ruth is seen as extraordinary, being a Moabite, but nonetheless willing to become a Jew for inclusion in the promise.

In every case during this period where foreign wives are mentioned, it is considered a bad thing. Only where foreign wives are willing to drop their identity and join the people of the Land is it ever commended in Scripture.


Which Protestant Christian denominations accept the Deuterocanonical books?

The 39 articles of religion in the back of the Book of Common Prayer, used by Anglicans and Episcopalians, says concerning these books (part of Article 6):

  And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

It then lists all the books of the Apocrypha which were found in early editions of the King James Version.  "Hierome" is, of course, Jerome who came up with the idea of calling these books the Apocrypha to begin with.  So its not that they put these books "on equal inspirational footing as the rest of the Biblical canon" but that they are read at least.  They aren't banned from the pulpit as they would be in a Baptist church.  But according to the rule stated here, they can only be used as backup, not to create a new doctrine but only to backup what the Old and New Testaments already say anyway.

In the Daily Office lectionary of every pre-1979 Book of Common Prayer there are two lessons to be read at each sitting, one Old Testament and one New Testament lesson.  Sometimes the Old Testament lesson comes from the Apocrypha.

The Revised Common Lectionary, a Sunday lectionary used by several Protestant denominations, also occasionally gives an optional reading from the Apocrypha in the Old Testament reading slot. It gives a choice, like for example in Year A on the 6th Sunday after Epiphany, it calls for: Deuteronomy 30:15-20 or Sirach 15:15-20

On the Revised Common Lectionary site's FAQ, under the question "What churches are current members of the Consultation on Common Texts?" they list the churches that are part of that consulation, which presumably means that they use the RCL. But that doesn't necessarily mean they read the optional readings from the Apocrypha.


What is the difference between a professing and a non-professing Christian with regards to their faith, beliefs, etc?

The word professing means "to declare openly". So a "professing Christian" is one who declares their faith openly. This leads to the conclusion that the opposite of a professing Christian is one who does not announce his or her faith. They may believe and practice their Christianity in private.

Christianity Today recently divided Christians into five categories: Active, Professing, Liturgical, Private and Cultural. Page 4 of the article gives the characteristics of each type. (Not all would consider every one of those five to be true Christians).

Not all those who profess Christianity necessarily actually adhere to its beliefs. This has led some to adopt the term "professing Christians" for those who outwardly declare their belief while not actually adhering to it. There is some support for this usage in the dictionary definition given above. In that case "professing Christians" are contrasted with "true Christians", meaning those who practice their belief as well as declaring it. True Christians (in this usage) may also actually profess their faith.


According to Jehovah’s Witnesses how many people will live on the earth?

The official teaching is that the "vast majority" of those who have lived on earth will in fact be resurrected (see Watchtower, March 15, 2006). Jehovah's Witnesses' most recent statements indicate 20 billion as a "liberal estimate" of the number of individuals who have lived on the planet. Based on a 20 billion estimate Jehovah's Witnesses feel that the earth would be capable of comfortably supporting those brought back in the resurrection.

This estimate is mentioned in both the Reasoning From The Scriptures handbook as well as the Jehovah's Witnesses Bible encyclopedia Insight On the Scriptures. (Note both of these publications were published towards the end of the 20th century and no new estimates have been provided since that time; it is likely that both publications will be updated in the years to come and perhaps provide new estimates).

Along the same lines, though not stated dogmatically, it is generally believed that the powers of procreation may be only allowed for a specific period of time for those who survive Armageddon. Once the earth's capacity had been reached these would be rescinded. (see Watchtower, December 15, 2003.

This concept is based on the supposition that those resurrected will not marry and therefore not bear children (Matthew 22:29, 30). However starting in 2014  the belief of the Resurrected no longer being eligible to marry has been stated with less certainty (see See Watchtower, August 15, 2014


Where do we draw the line when questioning/testing God?

The commandment against putting God to the test comes from Deuteronomy 6:16, as part of a series of instructions relating to loyalty to the one true God:

Do not put the Lord your God to the test as you tested him at Massah.

The reference to Massah is from the events of Exodus 17:1-7, also recounted in Numbers 20:1-13. This is the story where the Israelites have come out of Egypt, have been wandering in the desert, and are getting fed up with the harsh conditions and lack of water - they have lost their trust in God's promise. Moses, at God's command, strikes the rock with his staff to let out a stream of water. Exodus 7:7 explains: "He gave the place the names Massah and Meribah because of the Israelites' contentiousness and because they put the Lord to the test by saying, 'Is the Lord with us or not?'". 'Massah' means 'trial' and 'Meribah' means 'contention'.
The account in Numbers is a little more colourful.

There was no water for the community, so they banded together against Moses and Aaron. The people laid the blame on Moses. "We would rather have died," they said, "as our brothers died before the Lord! Why have you brought the Lord's community into this desert, for us and our livestock to die here? Why did you lead us out of Egypt, only to bring us to this wretched place? It is a place unfit sowing, it has no figs, no pomegranates, and there is not even water to drink!" (Nb 20:2-5)
The Lord then said to Moses and Aaron, "Because you did not believe that I could assert my holiness before the Israelites' eyes, you will not lead this assembly into the country which I am giving them." These were the Waters of Meribah, where the Israelites laid the blame on the Lord and where, by their means, he asserted his holiness. (Nb 20:12-13)

This context shows that 'putting God to the test' is strongly connected to one of the major themes of the exodus - that despite God's continual promises, people are still doubtful, resentful, unsatisfied, and disobedient. We demand more and more evidence of God's love for us (sweetening the foul water, raining manna, making water spring from the rock, ...) rather than  accepting and returning it. This is what is going on in the passage from Luke - the devil is suggesting that God's unconditional love is a resource to be exploited.
The statement of Ahaz in Isaiah 7:12 should be seen in the context of his reign, which is described in 2 Kings 16.

[Ahaz] did not do what the Lord his God regards as right, as his ancestor David had done. He followed the example of the kings of Israel, even causing his son to pass through the fire of sacrifice, also copying the disgusting practices of the nations whom the Lord had dispossessed for the Israelites. (2 Kings 16:2-3)

Ahaz was no true follower of God. As a king, besieged by Razon and Pekah (2 Kings 16:5 and Isaiah 7:1), his response was to offer his kingdom as a vassal state to Assyria. He sent treasures from the Temple to Assyria's king (2 Kings 16:8), and made other changes to the Temple structure (16:17-18).
The New Jerusalem Bible has this to say in a footnote to Isaiah 7:7-9 :

For the prophets, faith is not so much a theoretical belief in the existence and uniqueness of God as an attitude of confidence based on God's choice of Israel: he has chosen Israel, he is Israel's God, he alone has the power to save his people. This unconditional trust, a guarantee of salvation, excludes all reliance not only on human beings but still more on false gods.

So when Ahaz says, "I will not put God to the test," he is showing a lack of faith in God. He would rather trust in the mighty Assyrian empire, or in foreign gods, than accept the sign that God has just promised to give him. God demonstrates his patient love yet again by giving the sign anyway - a young woman (or virgin) is "with child and will give birth to a son whom she will call Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:14).


Understanding Trinity, is the belief that each Person has independent Will?

The question, as it stands, really isn't soluable.
Reason #1: The Crucifixion raises other Trinitarian questions
First and foremost, the Trinity itself is hard enough to understand. There is no good analogy and any attempt to make one will necessarily fail by over emphasizing oneness or threeness.
Worse, the Crucifixion and death of Christ means that either Jesus was in some fashion separated from the Father were separated on the cross, or else there is the problem of Patripassianism - meaning that the Father somehow dies too.
One solution kenosis modifies the hypostatic union to explain how Jesus can be fully God and yet somehow not able to do everything God did, but it is just one solution.
Reason #2: The Trinity logically requires that the Wills cannot be separated
In 2007, William P. Young write a book called The Shack which was rather popular in the Contemporary Christian market for a bit. The story itself imagined a Mack, a man whose daughter was killed, spending a weekend in which he got to meet Jesus face to face.  Along the way, develops the characters of "Papa" an African-American female personification of God the Father, Jesus, and Sarayu, the Holy Spirit. His general idea was to understand the Trinity as the God whose very essence modeled true love-in-relationship that mankind was supposed to be.
From that vantage point, he was able to illustrate the Trinity and its coordinate implications for separate wills that I, as an evangelical, found useful.
To begin with, Young acknowledges that man has only a finite capacity to comprehend a finite God. He has "Papa" say:

"The problem is that many folks try to grasp some sense of who I am by taking the best version of themselves, projecting that to the nth degree, factoring in all the goodness they can perceive, which often isn’t much, and then call that God. And while it may seem like a noble effort, the truth is that it falls pitifully short of who I really am. I’m not merely the best version of you that you can think of. I am far more than that, above and beyond all that you can ask or think.”
“Never mind that,” she continued. “What’s important is this: If I were simply One God and only One Person, then you would find yourself in this Creation without something wonderful, without something essential even. And I would be utterly other than I am.”
“And we would be without . . . ?” Mack didn’t even know how to finish the question.
“Love and relationship. All love and relationship is possible for you only because it already exists within Me, within God myself. Love is not the limitation; love is the flying. I am love.”

Mack and "Papa" explicitly mention the Trinity, and Mack's inability to understand, and then get to the question you have: Namely, what happens if "Papa" and "Jesus" and "Sarayu" are in disagreement.  Sarayu picks up the conversation, saying:

“Mackenzie, we have no concept of final authority among us, only unity. We are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command or ‘great chain of being’ as your ancestors termed it. What you’re seeing here is relationship without any overlay of power. We don’t need power over the other because we are always looking out for the best. Hierarchy would make no sense among us. Actually, this is your problem, not ours.”
“Really? How so?”
“Humans are so lost and damaged that to you it is almost incomprehensible that people could work or live together without someone being in charge.”
“It’s one reason why experiencing true relationship is so difficult for you,” Jesus added. “Once you have a hierarchy you need rules to protect and administer it, and then you need law and the enforcement of the rules, and you end up with some kind of chain of command or a system of order that destroys relationship rather than promotes it. You rarely see or experience relationship apart from power. Hierarchy imposes laws and rules and you end up missing the wonder of relationship that we intended for you.”
Sarayu continued, “When you chose independence over relationship, you became a danger to each other. Others became objects to be manipulated or managed for your own happiness. Authority, as you usually think of it, is merely the excuse the strong use to make others conform to what they want.”

...

“We carefully respect your choices, so we work within your systems even while we seek to free you from them,” Papa continued. “Creation has been taken down a very different path than we desired. In your world the value of the individual is constantly weighed against the survival of the system, whether political, economic, social, or religious—any system actually. First one person, and then a few, and finally even many are easily sacrificed for the good and ongoing existence of that system. In one form or another this lies behind every struggle for power, every prejudice, every war, and every abuse of relationship. The ‘will to power and independence’ has become so ubiquitous that it is now considered normal.”
“It is the human paradigm,” added Papa, having returned with more food. “It is like water to fish, so prevalent that it goes unseen and unquestioned. It is the matrix; a diabolical scheme in which you are hopelessly trapped even while completely unaware of its existence.”
Jesus picked up the conversation. “As the crowning glory of Creation, you were made in our image, unencumbered by structure and free to simply ‘be’ in relationship with me and one another. If you had truly learned to regard each other’s concerns as significant as your own, there would be no need for hierarchy.”
Mack sat back in his chair, staggered by the implications of what he was hearing. “So are you telling me that whenever we humans protect ourselves with power . . .”
“You are yielding to the matrix, not to us,” finished Jesus.
“And now,” Sarayu interjected, “we have come full circle, back to one of my initial statements: You humans are so lost and damaged that to you it is almost incomprehensible that relationship could exist apart from hierarchy. So you think that God must relate inside a hierarchy like you do. But we do not.”

In short, Young is suggesting that the question is most properly answered "Mu", meaning the question has a certain level of sense, but that a direct answer is ultimately non-sensical because the question holds an inherent problem within it.
Here, it is most fair to represent Young as saying that the Trinity is in relationship but not in hierarchy. The question of a separate "will" is sensical, but ultimately not answerable, because the relationship is so tight. (A situation that in statistics would be called Multicollinearity).
Put yet another way, there is no way to separate the wills, but that does not abrogate their theoretical existence. God's perfection in relationship means that wills cannot be in contradiction to one another, but this does not mean that they are the same.
Or, if the 8th Century Theologian Boethius in De Trinitae can better say:

Thus ‘different’ is said in respect to either genus, species or number. But it is variety among accidents that produces difference in respect to number. For three men differ nei- ther in genus nor species, but in their accidents; for even if we mentally separate all acci- dents from them, there is still a different <168.60> location for each and all of them, which we can in no way imagine to be one: for two bodies will not occupy one location; and location is an accident. Therefore these three men are many in respect to number, since they become many by their accidents.

Reason #3: Second Council of Constantinople (553 AD) is hard to understand
Really, this is your full answer. It will go into the nature of the hypostatic union, the homoousion, and the definition of persons, wills and essences.  This will literally take semesters of study to be comprehensible, but is your official "Christian" answer.
Ultimately, the creeds are trying to avoid errors such Modalistic Monarchism and still make it comprehensible.  Good luck.


First, it's important to take that scripture in context so going through verse 12 reads:

  Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
  I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.
  I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, that I am God.

In this scripture, the Lord is addressing the issue of the Israelites worshipping other gods. He tells them that he, YHWH, is Israel's only god and the only god to be worshiped, not some false idol (see Isaiah 42:17 ...say to the molten images, Ye are our gods.).

Other scriptures of the Israelites being encouraged to stop worshiping other divine beings or idols, but Yahweh alone (it's a recurring theme/problem):

Isaiah 41:29
Isaiah 42:8
Isaiah 43:24
Isaiah 44:8-10,17,19
Isaiah 45:9,12,16,20,22

Another important doctrine on man becoming gods is that to us(man) there is only God. I will use an analogy (god::father): each of us has one father. One can strive to become a father, and those that do don't replace their father; their father is now a grandfather. Anything you do, or children you have, add to your grandfather's posterity also.

Related:

1 Cor 8:5-6 (to us there is only one God)

Scriptures on theosis (man becoming a god):

Romans 8:14-18
John 10:28-35 (the Jew's law said they were gods, the law was given to them by the Lord)
Revelation 1:5-6 (has similar phrasing as used in King Follet discourse: kings and priests unto God)

Creation by gods/plurality of gods:

Genesis 1:1 (the hebrew used for God translates to Elohim, and the definition is gods) see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith pg 371
Genesis 1:26 (man in our own image)
Genesis 3:5 (shall be as the gods)
Psalms 82:1
Psalms 86:8

On verse 10 where it says before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. is similar to Isaiah 44:6 where again the Lord says beside me there is no God. Both seem to exclude all else, but similar phrasing found in other scriptures helps us understand that this is not the case. Isaiah 47:8-10 on the city of Babylon:

  Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children:
  But these two things shall come to thee in a moment in one day, the loss of children, and widowhood: they shall come upon thee in their perfection for the multitude of thy sorceries, and for the great abundance of thine enchantments.
  For thou hast trusted in thy wickedness: thou hast said, None seeth me. Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; and thou hast said in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me.

Seems to exclude any other city but in Zephaniah 2:15 on the city of Ninevah, it has the same phrase.

  This is the rejoicing city that dwelt carelessly, that said in her heart, I am, and there is none beside me: how is she become a desolation, a place for beasts to lie down in! every one that passeth by her shall hiss, and wag his hand.

This verse (the original v10) just means that the Lord is our Savior, no one else. It's also important to look at the phrasing 'before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me', God has always existed, and since He will always exist no man can ever be exalted "before" or "after" Him. All men who are exalted to godhood will be contemporaries of Yahweh, and will never precede nor follow Yahweh's existence. They will also become part of the divine council over which he presides.

More articles on this topic (it's a quite broad subject, any one topic touches upon other unique Mormon beliefs and it would be a very long answer if I tried to answer all of them here)

Besides Me there is no Saviour
Becoming like god
Old Testament Seminary Manual on Isaiah 43
No God beside me


What does the Bible say about a father walking his daughter down the aisle at her wedding?

The idea is not specifically mentioned in the Bible.  However, there is a biblical concept of "headship" that applies to every husband, which would seem to apply both to a woman's father prior to her marriage.

For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.  Ephesians 5:23 NASB

The root of this comes from Genesis 2, when God brought the woman to the man--and not the other way around.

The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.  Genesis 2:22 NASB

This is illustrated further in Genesis 3, where the woman sins first, but God's interrogation begins with Adam.

When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.   Genesis 3:6 NASB
Then the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 He said, “I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself.” 11 And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” 12 The man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.” 13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”   Genesis 3:9-13 NASB

The idea of "headship" is certainly a controversial topic today.  However, it is likely the concept upon which the modern marriage ceremony is built.  The giving of the bride by the father to the husband symbolizes the transfer of responsibility.


Is it ever right to sin in order to potentially prevent others from committing far more damaging sins?

For those that are not pacifists, which would encompass the majority of those churches which claim Christian beliefs, the obvious answer would be a cautious 'yes'.  The reason why this must be so is that if you believe it lawful to be a soldier waging war against an enemy state, deception and trickery are a vital  part of warfare.  Being an undercover spy for example, necessitates constant lying and this can easily be backed up (at least for a just war) in the case of Rahab the spy.

  By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient. (NIV, Hebrews 11:31)

Joseph who at first deceived his brothers when they came to buy grain, might be another arguable example.

Rahab lying to the Canaanite army under cover so to speak as a harlot-hostess of a tavern, being considered as a 'hero' of faith provides a clear example of such a scenario.  However, we should keep this as a 'cautious' yes because one must honestly evaluate a given situation and have the conscience clear that an appearance of external sin, is actually righteousness. In other words does the situation truly call for a sheep in wolves clothing?  In many cases it might just be a vain assumption that any mere appearance of good justifies an actual deceitful desire.  The truth is that the Bible leaves most all detailed decisions to our own conscience based on broad biblical principles and promises the Spirit to guide us if we fully rely on his word as a light to our path.  Furthermore, when we doubt the legitimacy of a particular case, not knowing how to act, we may find more clarity through prayer until our conscience is persuaded one way or the other.  In general, deception can't be used for good as lying is by nature devilish:

  You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. (NIV, John 8:44)

However, again back to the case of Rahab lying for God, this was good given the situation.

With respect to the specific scenario that you painted about 'scamming-scammers' one would not be wise to pronounce an absolute judgment either way and we must accommodate the potential motives of each private person as well as specific circumstances of the events. Man looks at the outside but God looks at the heart. For example, what if there was a person who knew a godly old lady that was scammed her life savings and by coincidence fell into the same scam. What if that person was smart enough to scam the scammer and it actually lead to an arrest and return of the funds to the godly old women.  Well who would say it was wrong?  But on the other hand what about a dare-devil teenager that is just looking for a way to get some satisfaction of being 'smarter' then a scammer. Nothing more then an ego and a lust for lying motivating him to the trade of scamming.  Who would admire such behaviour and call it a work that glorifies God?

Even when the principle is established that deception is sometimes justified for a greater real good (like with Rahab) it does not mean that all deception for apparent good, are either always right, or always wrong. Personal motive and circumstances must always be factored into a sober judgment and evaluation in order to maintain a genuine clear conscience in the sight of a pure loving God who treats all souls equally under his infinite eye.


What is the biblical basis for thinking God established the principle of birthright and inheritance

As this question is not concerned with establishing a ‘secular’ answer about the origins of the idea of birth-right (which includes inheritance) I can breathe a sigh of relief and concentrate on collating various Old Testament scriptures that give information on where human and divine views digress. Therein lies the answer to the question, as to whether or not God was the origin of a concept like inheritance.
I suggest that, from the Bible texts I have studied, it can be said that God’s concept of ‘inheritance’ differs radically from human concepts at some critically important points.  Take Psalm 2, for instance. This is a prophetic statement about the Lord God and his Anointed One. Without offering any interpretations, I simply point out that verse 8 has God invite his Son to “Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.” This is where the inherited rule of the Lord’s Anointed becomes the rule of God himself, for to submit to the rule of the Anointed is to “Serve the LORD” God (vs. 11).
Working backwards now, from the greater to the lesser, Bible texts show where God breaks through into what humans considered to be the right of the first-born and his (and it’s usually a ‘his’) inheritance. God keeps asserting his sovereign right to stop humans doing what they would choose to do regarding this birth-right principle.
You have already mentioned examples of this, including Abraham’s miracle child, Isaac, and the twins, Esau and Jacob. The youngest son of Jacob was chosen by God as ‘over’ his 11 brothers. God sent dreams to the lad, Joseph, foretelling this in symbolic imagery; decades later, it came to pass, even his aged father realising it. Jacob blessed Joseph’s second-born son above the first-born son, putting Ephraim ahead of Manasseh. Jacob did not bless his firstborn, Reuben, but said he would no longer excel, then pronounced Joseph ‘prince among his brothers’ (Genesis chapter 48 to 49:1-26).
The daughters of Zelophehad were chosen to inherit (when they stood up and made a legal case for it) due to their father having no sons. Numbers ch. 27 & 36:1-12. Deuteronomy 21:15-17 details the rights of the firstborn (not always the first-born son – a first-born daughter with no brothers could inherit, due to the precedent of Zelophehad’s daughters.)
The youngest son of Jesse was chosen by God as king ‘over’ his many brothers and the nation (1 Samuel 16:1-13). No doubt there are lots of other cases; this is just a sample to show that God’s choosing is not determined by human customs, or even laws. Perhaps that’s because God’s law states that all humans have inherited sin from our original, earthly father, and that “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 5:12 & 6:23). That’s the horrible inheritance we all get and which we need to face up to. Any earthly inheritance is just so much of a soon-to-be rust-bucket heaped full of moth-eaten fabric.
But if God should call us his ‘sons’, adopting us into his heavenly family (Romans chapter 8), then our inheritance is beyond our wildest dreams, kept in heaven for us. Nor is such an inheritance due to any merit or standing on our part, but a freely bestowed gift of grace. Though we be the first-born son of an earthly king or the poorest girl in the gutter, humanly speaking, God elevates those he chooses.
This, to me, indicates that while there may be something of the divine principle of sonship and inheritance in human primogeniture laws, human laws are (as so often is the case) too rigid and short-sighted to grasp the spiritual principles that ought to be their basis.


What does Jesus mean by "this generation" and "all these things" in Mark 13:30

This is the matter of some debate, and there are at least three theories about it that I'm familiar with. I actually found a study online that explains all of them here.

Some relevant sections (copied and pasted since the author explains it better than I would):

The one that is popular in my denomination:

  One explanation that is popular among conservative evangelical or
  fundamentalist Christians might be termed the Futurist interpretation.
  In this interpretation, Jesus is said to have been talking about the
  generation alive at the very time of the end, not the generation alive
  in the middle of the first century A.D. Thus, the generation that sees
  the beginning of the fulfillment of end-time prophecies would live to
  see the Second Coming as well.

  However, as Gleason Archer has explained,

  "This interpretation . . . suffers from the disadvantage of predicting what would normally be expected to happen anyway. Whether
  the Tribulation will last for seven years or for a mere three and a
  half years, it would not be unusual for most people to survive that
  long. Seven years is not a very long time to live through, even in the
  face of bloody persecution.''

Another that also has difficulties:

  Another explanation is called the Preterist ("past'') interpretation,
  which asserts that the Olivet prophecies were all fulfilled in the
  first century A.D. This interpretation is more popular among mainline
  Protestant scholars, and is also championed by a handful of Catholic
  scholars as well.

The explanation that, IMO has the fewest difficulties:

  Since there are unsolvable difficulties with both the Futurist and
  Preterist approaches to this conundrum, we shall have to seek a
  solution in a third approach. What if when Jesus used the word
  "generation'' (Greek genea), He didn't mean the same thing that we
  mean? What if He wasn't using "generation'' to refer to a group of
  people all living at the same period of history?

  According to Archer, sometimes genea ("generation'') was used as a
  synonym of genos ("race,'' "stock,'' "nation,'' "people''). Archer
  writes,
  ...
  Thus, Jesus' words might be rendered, "This people shall not pass away
  until all these things are fulfilled.'' In that rendering, He could
  have been referring to the Jewish people (which is the most likely
  given the context) or to the Church - for both Israel and the Church
  are given divine promises that they would remain in existence until
  the end of time (Jeremiah 31:35-37; Matthew 16:18).

The last one seems the most likely to me for several reasons:

It's the most simple.  It allows the text to be understood without chronological distortions, and it lets the phrase "All these things" really mean "All these things" - all of the end-time events He had been discussing.
It also makes sense because many of the misunderstandings and disagreements in Scripture seem to come from our tendency to use the current English version without understanding the nuances of the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.  Quite a few of the Bible "discrepancies" can be cleared up by studying the original language.  This appears to me to be one of them.


How does the Catholic Church explain passages that seem to use culturally specific logic?

The consensus seems to be that St. Paul was giving a specific norm for a specific cultural context.

The phrase translated “nature itself” here is ἡ φύσις αὐτὴ. It is true that in a philosophical context (in Aristotle, for example), the word φύσις means “nature” in the sense of “that which dictates what kinds of actions a given being is capable of (and, for personal creatures, also what it is permitted or obliged to do).”

However, in the common parlance of the time, it can simply mean “origin,” “birth,” “constitution” or even “appearance.”

It would be a mistake, therefore, to think that St. Paul is arguing in terms of natural law, as we usually understand that term. (For this view, see, for example, the notes on this passage in the Ignatius Catholic Catholic Study Bible, New Testament.)


How can Saint Thomas Christians who are Catholic have confidence that St. Thomas sailed to Muziris?

Both the Gospel of Thomas and the Acts of Thomas are considered apocrypha by the Catholic Church and as such are not deemed to be part of the deposit of faith.

No one can say with absolute confidence that St Thomas sailed to Muziris, India in 52 AD. Nevertheless both tradition and legend in this domain are believed by many of St Thomas Christians. Their belief in this matter should be considered more of a popular belief than a absolute truth.

What we do know is "that about the year A.D. 46 a king was reigning over that part of Asia south of Himalayas now represented by Afghanistan, Baluchistan, the Punjab, and Sind, who bore the name Gondophernes or Guduphara. This we know both from the discovery of coins, some of the Parthian type with Greek legends, others of the Indian types with the legends in an Indian dialect in Kharoshthi characters. Despite sundry minor variations the identity of the name with the Gundafor of the "Acta Thomae" is unmistakable and is hardly disputed." -
Catholic Encyclopedia

"Though the tradition that St. Thomas preached in "India" was widely spread in both East and West and is to be found in such writers as Ephraem Syrus, Ambrose, Paulinus, Jerome, and, later Gregory of Tours and others, still it is difficult to discover any adequate support for the long-accepted belief that St. Thomas pushed his missionary journeys as far south as Mylapore, not far from Madras, and there suffered martyrdom. In that region is still to be found a granite bas-relief cross with a Pahlavi (ancient Persian) inscription dating from the seventh century, and the tradition that it was here that St. Thomas laid down his life is locally very strong. Certain it is also that on the Malabar or west coast of southern India a body of Christians still exists using a form of Syriac for its liturgical language. Whether this Church dates from the time of St. Thomas the Apostle (there was a Syro-Chaldean bishop John "from India and Persia" who assisted at the Council of Nicea in 325) or whether the Gospel was first preached there in 345 owing to the Persian persecution under Shapur (or Sapor), or whether the Syrian missionaries who accompanied a certain Thomas Cana penetrated to the Malabar coast about the year 745 seems difficult to determine." - Catholic Encyclopedia


Is there Catholic teaching and/or prophecy that a pope may be the false prophet of Revelation and the Church the whore of Babylon?

The commentary on 2 Thessalonians 2:4 (that Antichrist "sitteth in the temple of God") of the very anti-Protestant Original Douay-Rheims Bible says:

  St. Augustine therefore li. 20 de civit. c. 19 and St. Jerome q. 11 ad Algasiam. do think, that this sitting of Antichrist in the temple, doth signify his sitting in the Church of Christ, rather than in Solomon's temple. Not as though he should be a chief member of the Church of Christ, or a special part of his body mystical, and be Antichrist and yet withal continuing within the Church of Christ, as the Heretics feign, to make the Pope Antichrist (whereby they plainly confess and agnise [recognize] that the Pope is a member of the Church, & in ipso sinu Ecclesia, and in the very bosom of the Church, say they:) for that is ridiculous, that all Heretics whom St. John calleth Antichrists as his precursors, should go out of the Church, and the great Antichrist himself should be of the Church, and in the Church, and continue in the same. And yet to them that make the whole Church in revolt from God, this is no absurdity. But the truth is, that this Antichristian revolt here spoken of, is from the Catholic Church: and Antichrist, if he ever were of or in the Church, shall be an Apostate and a renegade out of the Church, and he shall usurp upon it by tyranny, and by challenging worship, religion, and government thereof, so that himself shall be adored in all the Churches of the world which he list to leave standing for his honor. And this is to sit in the temple or *against the Temple of God, as some interpret. If any Pope did ever this, or shall do, then let the Adversaries call him Antichrist.

This passage makes it clear that a true pope cannot be Antichrist, but Antichrist will be an anti-pope, and anti-popes are not members of the Church.

Cardinal Manning, the most prominent father at the First Vatican Council who was responsible for the definition on papal infallibility, said in his Temporal Power of the Vicar of Christ 2nd part (4 lectures), "The Perpetual Conflict of the Vicar of Christ", pp. 81-173 (available in printed form from TradiBooks as The Pope and The Antichrist):

  We have here [2 Thessalonians 2:3-11] a prophecy … of a [spiritual*] revolt, which shall precede the second coming of our Lord … The authority, then, from which the revolt is to take place is that of the kingdom of God on earth, prophesied by Daniel [cf. Daniel 2] as the kingdom which the God of heaven should set up … in other words, the one and universal Church, founded by our Divine Lord, and spread by His Apostles throughout the world. In this one only kingdom was deposited the true and supernatural pure theism, or knowledge of God, and the true and only faith of God incarnate, with the doctrines and laws of grace. This, then, is the authority from which the revolt is to be made, be that revolt what it may.

[*"St. Jerome, with some others, interprets this revolt to be the rebellion of the nations or provinces against the Roman Empire. … They have revolted, and no manifestation has appeared." Thus, the revolt is spiritual, not temporal.]

There's also Pope Leo XIII's Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel, which the Pope wrote after having a vision; its full version includes:

  These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.

(source: the 1910 The Raccolta or Collection of indulgenced prayers and good works, p. 125)

cf. also The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita: A Masonic Blueprint for the Subversion of the Catholic Church.

From all these quotes, it is clear that Antichrist will be a pope who apostatizes from the Church and thus becomes an anti-pope.


That little word in is packed with profundity, significance, and comfort for believers in Jesus Christ.

One way of approaching this little word is via one of the many names for the Church Universal:  the Body of Christ.  A body, of course, is composed of many parts (viz., appendages and external and internal organs), and so it is with Christ's body, the church, of which He is the Head.  All of the parts of the physical body are in the body and are thus joined to the whole body.  Each part has its function, but they all function together.  The main point of the analogy of the body can be summed up, I feel, in the expression

  "Unity within Diversity."

To be in Christ, then, is to be a part of His body.

Theologically, the word in signifies where a believer is, positionally in the eyes of God; namely, in Christ.  To be in Christ is to be united with Christ in His righteousness.

  "For God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Corinthians 5:21, my emphasis).

We who are sinners saved by grace are anything but righteous.  Moreover,  Isaiah tells us that

  "For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away" (64:6).

In other words, even the best we have to offer God cannot outweigh in the divine scale of justice our uncleanness, filthiness, and iniquities.  Along comes Jesus, however, and His righteousness tips the scale in the opposite direction, so to speak.

Think of a zillion-pound weight being on one side of the teeter totter.  That's our sin.  Our righteous deeds piled up to the sky on the opposite side utterly fail to budge the zillion-pound weight one scintilla.

Jesus' cross death, however, means that God, when He imputes our sin to Jesus and then in turn imputes Jesus' righteousness to us when we believe, tipped the teeter totter as far as it can go in the opposite direction, as if the zillion-pound weight were but a feather!  Aren't you glad you're in Christ?  There is no safer place to be in all the universe, because when God sees us, He sees us in His Son.  And as Paul reminds us,

  "Whoever is in Christ is a new creation:  the old has passed away, and all things have become new" (2 Corinthians 5:17, my emphasis).


According to the Catholic Church, what is to become of a family when the married couple discovers they are brother and sister?

Legally in most places a marriage that would have been illegal if the facts were known is automatically anulled - in other words it is deemed never to have taken place. Here is a page about it from Californian law..

Wikipedia gives grounds for automatic annullment of a marriage according to the Catholic church - it includes 'consanguinity', i.e. close affiliation by blood. Siblings would certainly count.

The anullment of a marriage does not affect the status of the children. They are considered 'legitimate' as long as at least one parent entered into the marriage in good faith. The anullment does not take away any of the duties of the parents to care for the children.


How do Trinitarians explain verses where Jesus claims to have a God?

Leo the Great wrote for the Council of Chalcedon in 451,

  It does not belong to the same nature to say, "I and the Father are one," and to say, "The Father is greater than I." For although there is in the Lord Jesus Christ a single person who is of God and of man, the insults shared by both have their source in one thing, and the glory that is shared in another. For it is from us that he gets a humanity which is less than the Father; it is from the Father that he gets a divinity which is equal to the Father.

The doctrine of the hypostatic union refers to the idea that in Christ there was both a divine and a human nature, simultaneously. This is essential for the work of Christ in our salvation, reconciling the human and divine in his own person, submitting to death on the cross. (Compare Paul in the second chapter of Philippians, for example.)

Your first quotation, from John 20, comes from after the resurrection: Christ declares that his Father is our Father. When he says "my God" he acknowledges the supremacy of God, but not as something distinct from himself; he presents himself as the link between God and humanity, through which God is made known to us. "My God" is also "your God". John Calvin's commentary on the passage says that the phrase 'my God' is "peculiar to his human nature, but is applied to his whole person, on account of the unity, because he is both God and Man."

Likewise, the quotation from John 17 does not imply separation between God and Jesus, but again positions Christ as essential to our knowledge or experience of God. It is possible to make too much of grammar, but the Greek word kai ("and" here) typically has a "positive" or "constructive" sense. So "A kai B" feels something like "not only A, but indeed also B". The import of the passage isn't that we know God, and also Jesus separately - as a student might say that they were majoring in Chemistry and minoring in Drama - but that how we come to know God is through knowing Jesus.


What is the reasoning behind the Amish practice of avoiding technological advances?

This answer will focus on the religious aspects of the Amish rather than the cultural aspects, as far as differentiation is possible. Even then, there are four major orders and each community is self-governing; therefore, all statements made will be generalizations, and will naturally have exceptions.

The Amish find their roots in the Swiss Anabaptists (most still consider themselves to be Anabaptists), and their culture and traditions have been shaped by the persecutions suffered by the Anabaptists in the 1600s.

The Young Center for Anabaptist and Pietist Studies at Elizabethtown College in Pennsylvania does an excellent job of summing up the Amish way of life:

  The persecution reinforced the biblical teaching of a cleavage between the church and the larger society. In Amish eyes, the kingdoms of this world, which use coercion, differ from the peaceable kingdom of God. Many Amish practices are based on the religious principle of separation from the world--that the practices of the church should be separate from the larger society.

Scripture such as Romans 12:1-2 are sometimes used to affirm their decision to step back from the world:

  I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

Also note Matthew 13:22, Matthew 16:26, and John 15:18.

The Amish seek to follow Scripture in all they do, even casting lots to select their ministers; and they tend to emphasize practicing their faith more than determining and teaching specific doctrines. They often emphasize the teachings given in the "Sermon on the Mount" and believe the community as a whole is responsible for taking care of each member, to the point where they consider insurance systems to be wrong -- it shows a lack of faith in God and subverts their responsibilities toward each other.

Contrary to popular "knowledge," the Amish do not try to completely ignore the modern world; they only wish to preserve their community-oriented way of life against the highly individualistic cultures around them.

As Peter Seibert, president of the Heritage Centre of Lancaster County puts it*:

  It is easy to get it wrong about the Amish. They are not about putting up walls to block out the modern world. What they are about is adapting their community to modernity in order to preserve its essential being as a simple agrarian society.
  They will pick and choose what they want from our world.


What is the origin of the story that the Apostle John taught only "love one another"?

It's from Jerome's Commentary on Galatians, 6:10:

  The blessed John the Evangelist lived in Ephesus until extreme old age.  His disciples could barely carry him to church and he could not muster the voice to speak many words.  During individual gatherings he usually said nothing but, "Little children, love one another." The disciples and brothers in attendance, annoyed because they always heard the same words, finally said, "Teacher, why do you always say this?" He replied with a line worthy of John: "Because it is the Lord's commandment and if it alone is kept, it is sufficient."

Andrew Cain, the translator of this edition of Jerome's commentary, suggests that "the source for this story was possibly Hegesippus's Memoirs via either Clement of Alexandria or Origen."  However, none of the works of Hegesippus survive, so this is speculation.


What is the biblical basis for hearing God's audible voice today?
It seems that God spoke audibly at Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan by St. John the Baptist.

16As soon as Jesus was baptized, He went up out of the water. Suddenly the heavens were opened, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and resting on Him. 17And a voice from heaven said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased! - Matthew 3:17

God spoke to Moses on the Mountain of God according to the Book of Exodus.

3 One day, Moses was taking care of the sheep and goats of his father-in-law Jethro, the priest of Midian, and Moses decided to lead them across the desert to Sinai,[a] the holy mountain. 2 There an angel of the Lord appeared to him from a burning bush. Moses saw that the bush was on fire, but it was not burning up. 3 “This is strange!” he said to himself. “I’ll go over and see why the bush isn’t burning up.”
4 When the Lord saw Moses coming near the bush, he called him by name, and Moses answered, “Here I am.”
5 God replied, “Don’t come any closer. Take off your sandals—the ground where you are standing is holy. 6 I am the God who was worshiped by your ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”
Moses was afraid to look at God, and so he hid his face.
7 The Lord said:
I have seen how my people are suffering as slaves in Egypt, and I have heard them beg for my help because of the way they are being mistreated. I feel sorry for them, 8 and I have come down to rescue them from the Egyptians.
I will bring my people out of Egypt into a country where there is good land, rich with milk and honey. I will give them the land where the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites now live. 9 My people have begged for my help, and I have seen how cruel the Egyptians are to them. 10 Now go to the king! I am sending you to lead my people out of his country.
11 But Moses said, “Who am I to go to the king and lead your people out of Egypt?”
12 God replied, “I will be with you. And you will know that I am the one who sent you, when you worship me on this mountain after you have led my people out of Egypt.”
13 Moses answered, “I will tell the people of Israel that the God their ancestors worshiped has sent me to them. But what should I say, if they ask me your name?”
14-15 God said to Moses:
I am the eternal God. So tell them that the Lord, whose name is “I Am,” has sent you. This is my name forever, and it is the name that people must use from now on. - Exodus 3:1-15

Let us also remember that Jesus spoke to St. Paul (Saul) in the Book of Acts.

Saul’s Conversion
9 Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. 3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.
“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”
7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8 Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9 For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.
10 In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, “Ananias!”
“Yes, Lord,” he answered.
11 The Lord told him, “Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. 12 In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight.”
13 “Lord,” Ananias answered, “I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your holy people in Jerusalem. 14 And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.”
15 But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel. 16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”
17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength. - Acts 9:1-19

If Christ can speak to Saul before his conversion, what would impede God from talking to someone audibly today. God is free to do as He sees right! The Holy Spirit can move as He wills and in very mysterious ways.
Just got a little side tracked with the following article about the phenomenon of some hearing the voice of Saint Clelia Barbieri.

The Saint whose voice is still heard from heaven today


Did the early Church Fathers have a complete agreement on how to interpret 1 Peter 3:18-20?

The most detailed analysis of various different views in the early Church concerning this verse is to be found in a letter by Saint Augustine to a Bishop called Evodius that wrote a letter to him asking for his opinion.(Saint Augustine, Letter 164, A.D. 414)

I will summarize the letter which illustrates both the different opinions at the time as well as Augustine's reasonable conclusion.

First Augustine admits this is a difficult passage, he then mentions the problems he has with various views other's propose.  First he can't see the logic of those who claim Christ went to hell to preach to just the souls who died in the flood:

  If the Lord when He died preached in hell to spirits in prison, why were those who continued unbelieving while the ark was a preparing the only ones counted worthy of this favour, namely, the Lord’s descending into hell? For in the ages between the time of Noah and the passion of Christ, there died many thousands of so many nations whom He might have found in hell. (Saint Augustine, Letter 164, A.D. 414)

Next he disagrees in the possibility that the Bishop suggested who originally asked the question, that maybe Jesus descended into hell preaching and potentially delivering every unbelieving soul from Adam to Christ. He disagrees because Augustine thinks it is presumptuous to decide who these souls could be and that maybe it's not referring to any soul.

  But who these were it is presumptuous for us to define. For if we say that all who were found there were then delivered without exception, who will not rejoice if we can prove this? ...These things being so, if the Saviour delivered all from that place, and, to quote the terms of the question in your letter, “emptied hell, so that now from that time forward the last judgment was to be expected,” the following things occasion not unreasonable perplexity on this subject, and are wont to present themselves to me in the meantime when I think on it. First, by what authoritative statements can this opinion be confirmed? For the words of Scripture, that “the pains of hell were loosed” by the death of Christ, do not establish this, seeing that this statement may be understood as referring to Himself, and meaning that he so far loosed (that is, made ineffectual) the pains of hell that He Himself was not held by them, especially since it is added that it was “impossible for Him to be holden of them.”  (Saint Augustine, Letter 164, A.D. 414)

He then makes a surprising and curious admission that "although the authority of the canonical Scriptures cannot be brought forward as speaking expressly in its support" it was the tradition that Augustine also supports that Adam was in hell and was a soul delivered by Christ when he descended into hell. Then he reject other opinions of the day that also included "Seth, Noah and his house, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the other patriarchs" in this release from hell, because he believes they were not in hell but in Abraham's bosom which was similar to paradise and not part of hell.

Augustine (in contrast to his believe that Christ did descend into hell and saved Adam) now argues against the idea that this verse actually speaks of saving anybody from hell. He hinges his idea that as 1 Peter 4:6 says "For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the Spirit."actually i plies Christ only preached to those 'in the flesh' but those in hell had no flesh.

  For how can they be judged in the flesh, which if they be in hell they no longer have, and which if they have been loosed from the pains of hell they have not yet resumed?   (Saint Augustine, Letter 164, A.D. 414)

He also dismissed the idea that maybe those who rose from the graves when Christ was on the cross is being referred to.

Augustine then dismisses those who feel it unfair if Christ did not descend into hell to preach to those before the gospel was manifest because it was not clearly preached before. He argues that if that is the case then it is also unfair today for those who die before hearing the gospel, with no real difference.

Finally Augustine presents his own view, which answers your questions.

The spirits in prison are just symbols of rejectors of God in the past, applied in the present time. God has always preached the gospel in the past through Christ and those who died in the flood had rejected the gospel.

  Consider, however, I pray you, whether all that the Apostle Peter says concerning spirits shut up in prison, who were unbelieving in the days of Noah, may not after all have been written without any reference to hell, but rather to those times the typical character of which he has transferred to the present time....But to the men of Noah’s time the gospel was preached in vain, because they believed not when God’s long suffering waited for them during the many years in which the ark was being built (for the building of the ark was itself in a certain sense a preaching of mercy); even as now men similar to them are unbelieving, who, to use the same figure, are shut up in the darkness of ignorance as in a prison, beholding in vain the Church which is being built up throughout the world, while judgment is impending, as the flood was by which at that time all the unbelieving perished....For although he had not yet come in the flesh, as He came when afterwards He “showed Himself upon earth, and conversed with men,” nevertheless he certainly came often to this earth, from the beginning of the human race, whether to rebuke the wicked, as Cain, and before that, Adam and his wife, when they sinned, or to comfort the good, or to admonish both, so that some should to their salvation believe, others should to their condemnation refuse to believe,—coming then not in the flesh but in the spirit, speaking by suitable manifestations of Himself to such persons and in such manner as seemed good to Him. As to this expression, “He came in the spirit,” surely He, as the Son of God, is a Spirit in the essence of His Deity, for that is not corporeal; but what is at any time done by the Son without the Holy Spirit, or without the Father, seeing that all the works of the Trinity are inseparable? (Saint Augustine, Letter 164, A.D. 414)

So Augustine would answer this way.

Who are the spirits? (Those who rejected the gospel of Christ when being preached  to by Christ in the days of Noah)
What is the prison?(There ignorance when in the flesh in the days of Noah, am not sure why he did not think the present tense of those in hell but I guess as he was arguing against preaching to those in hell, Augustine also imagines the prison not to be hell either)
What exactly did Jesus proclaim to them?(The gospel was preached by Noah for the Promise of the Messiah in the Old Testament was the gospel in a more obscure form.)

However it must be said that not all the Fathers agreed with Augustine, for example, though only a brief mention, it seems clear that St Athanasius thought Jesus after he died literally preached to the souls in hell.

  This Body it was that was laid in a grave, when the Word had left it, yet was not parted from it, to preach, as Peter says, also to the spirits in prison. (Athanasius, Letter to Epictetus 5h


Although the narrator in Kings and Chronicles may not say so, Deuteronomy does say it was a sin, in Deuteronomy 17:15-17

  [15] you shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God
  chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you;
  you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. [16] But
  he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to
  return to Egypt to multiply horses, for the Lord has said to you, ‘You
  shall not return that way again.’ [17] Neither shall he multiply wives
  for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply
  silver and gold for himself. (NKJV)

Solomon broke all these provisions, multiplying horses, wives, and gold and silver.

  All King Solomon’s drinking vessels were gold, and all the vessels of the House of the Forest of Lebanon were pure gold. Not one was silver, for this was accounted as nothing in the days of Solomon.  (1 Kings 10:21 NKJV)

Accounted as nothing because he had so much of it.


The Scripture isn't clear on why, but here are a few suggestions that make sense to me.

Choosing a specific people allowed God to demonstrate His power through all of the military battles, and possibly most dramatically via the release if His people from Egypt.
Choosing a specific people demonstrates His sovereignty - The fact that He can choose Whom he pleases to accomplish great things.
It demonstrates what He values.  He chose the descendants of Abraham because Abraham had faith, and obeyed Him, even to the risk of losing his beloved son.
Choosing one nation allows God to show clearly, through a well-documented, historically verifiable history, His hand moving to guide a nation.  Summing up the history of His people, you can learn a great deal about God and his relationship to man that may not have been as apparent if He had scattered his miracles among the many nations.

He chose a nation and gave them special privileged and assistance
They chose to reject Him and go after other gods
He withdrew His blessing and allowed judgement to come on even those that He chose initially because of their rejection
He forgave them and healed them when the repented of their sin.


The reason Jesus said this has been the subject of debate. One common belief is that He didn't want her to tarry there, that it was more of a "now is not the time" statemen. Example:

  Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

  Touch me not - Μη μου ἁπτου, Cling not to me. Ἁπτομαι has this sense
  in Job 31:7, where the Septuagint use it for the Hebrew דבק dabak,
  which signifies to cleave, cling, stick, or be glued to. From Matthew
  28:9, it appears that some of the women held him by the feet and
  worshipped him. This probably Mary did; and our Lord seems to have
  spoken to her to this effect: "Spend no longer time with me now: I am
  not going immediately to heaven - you will have several opportunities
  of seeing me again: but go and tell my disciples, that I am, by and
  by, to ascend to my Father and God, who is your Father and God also.
  Therefore, let them take courage."

Another view:

  Vincent's Word Studies

  Touch me not (μή μοῦ ἅπτου)

  The verb, primarily, means to fasten to. Hence it implies here, not a
  mere momentary touch, but a clinging to. Mary thought that the old
  relations between her Lord and herself were to be renewed; that the
  old intercourse, by means of sight, sound, and touch, would go on as
  before. Christ says, "the time for this kind of intercourse is over.
  Henceforth your communion with me will be by faith through the Spirit.
  This communion will become possible through my ascending to the
  Father."

And another, similar to the others, but emphasizing "There are other things to do right now".

  People's New Testament

  20:17 Touch me not. She was probably about to clasp his feet. She is
  told to discharge a higher duty: to go to the brethren with the glad
  story.


Does St. Thomas Aquinas think idolatry is the main cause of homosexuality?

St. Thomas Aquinas treats the causality of homosexuality in his exegesis of Romans 1:24, cap. 1 l. 7:

139. But since impurity of this kind is a sin, it seems that God would not give men over to it: God himself tempts no one to evil (Jas 1:13).
The answer is that God does not give men over to impurity directly, as though inclining a man's affection toward evil, because God ordains all things to himself: the Lord has made everything for himself (Prov 16:4), whereas something is sinful through its turning from him. But he gives men over to sin indirectly, inasmuch as he justly withdraws the grace through which men are kept from sinning, just as a person would be said to cause another to fall, if he removed the ladder supporting him. In this way, one's first sin is a cause of the next, which is at the same time a punishment for the first one.
To understand this it should be noted that one sin can be the cause of another directly or indirectly: directly, inasmuch as from one sin he is inclined to another in any of three ways. In one way, when it acts as a final cause; for example, when someone from greed or envy is incited to commit murder. Second, when it acts as a material cause, as gluttony leads to lust by administering the material. Third, when it acts as a moving cause, as when many repetitions of the same sin produce a habit inclining a person to repeat the sin.
Indirectly, when the first sin merits the exclusion of grace, so that once it is removed, a man falls into another sin. In this way the first sin is the cause of the second indirectly or incidentally, inasmuch as it removes the preventative.

(translation from: Larcher, Fabian R., trans. Commentary on the Letter of Saint Paul to the Romans, ed. John Mortensen and Enrique Alarcón, with parallel Latin and the Greek text of the epistle. Lander, Wyo.: The Aquinas Institute for the Study of Sacred Doctrine, 2012. pp. 47-8)

"God does not give men over to impurity directly, as though inclining a man's affection toward evil."In other words: He, the Author of nature, does not put same-sex attraction, which is the result of sin, in human nature.
Aquinas is saying that "one's first sin" (in this case: idolatry, turning away from God, "worshiping and serving the creature rather than the Creator") "is a cause of the next" (in this case: homosexuality, "uncleanness," "dishonoring their own bodies among themselves").


How do Jehovah's Witnesses explain Thomas's exclamation, "My Lord and my God"?

If you look up the apostle Thomas in the Watchtower Online Library at JW.org, you can find three links that address the topic of John 20:28: a section on Jesus Christ from their book Insight, a section on Jesus Christ from their book Reasoning, and an Awake! magazine article called "Those Who Are Called 'Gods.'" I'll quote from all three sources in this answer.
Insight indicates that there are two permissible explanations of the passage:

Some scholars have viewed this expression as an exclamation of astonishment spoken to Jesus but actually directed to God, his Father. However, others claim the original Greek requires that the words be viewed as being directed to Jesus. Even if this is so, the expression "My Lord and my God" would still have to harmonize with the rest of the inspired Scriptures.

The first explanation is neither elaborated upon nor mentioned anywhere else, but it's consistent with hogarth45's anecdotal answer. The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses seems to favor the latter explanation, that Thomas is calling Jesus "my God" in a way that doesn't jeopardize their beliefs about Jesus and God. They point out parallels between this use of the word "god" and other Biblical uses where they also don't believe Jehovah is the referent:

Insight mentions that in many cases of appearances of angels, the Bible "spoke of that angelic messenger as though he were Jehovah God" because "the angelic messenger was acting for Jehovah as his representative." Note, however, that Nicene Christians often interpret these same passages as instances of pre-incarnate appearances of Jesus.
They point out that earlier in John, Jesus approvingly quoted Psalm 82, which calls "powerful men" gods, and "Christ occupies a position far higher than such men."
Citing John 1:1 (NWT), they say that Jesus is "divine" or "godlike" or "a god." JWs even believe that, in Isaiah 9:6, "Mighty God" is a title appropriately given to Jesus, while noting carefully that it is not "Almighty God." He is even referred to as "the only-begotten god" in John 1:18.

All three sources also note that the context (John 20) includes two other significant mentions of the relationship between Jesus and God which, they say, demonstrate that he is not the Almighty God. Reasoning gives the most extensive treatment:

Shortly before Jesus' death, Thomas had heard Jesus' prayer in which he addressed his Father as "the only true God." (John 17:3, RS) After Jesus' resurrection Jesus had sent a message to his apostles, including Thomas, in which he had said: "I am ascending ... to my God and your God." (John 20:17, RS) After recording what Thomas said when he actually saw and touched the resurrected Christ, the apostle John stated: "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:31, RS) So, if anyone has concluded from Thomas' exclamation that Jesus is himself "the only true God" or that Jesus is a Trinitarian "God the Son," he needs to look again at what Jesus himself said (vs. 17) and at the conclusion that is clearly stated by the apostle John (vs. 31).


Where does the thought 'we were not even fit to eat the crumbs from under your table' originate, in the Anglican communion service?

We see at Luke 16: 19-21:

"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day.   And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores,   who longed to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man’s table; even the dogs would come and lick his sores."

There was presumably a custom among the rich, of cleaning one's  fingers between one course of meal and another  with some inferior kind of bread, which would then be discarded , as we do with tissue papers today . (I am sorry I am unable to quote any reference in support of the prevalence of such a custom at the time of Jesus.)


Communion of saints - Is there a Greek equivalent of "ecclesia penitens"?

I'm not Orthodox myself, but in the book His Broken Body, the author says that while there is no official term in the Orthodox church for "Church penitent" or "purgatory," because there is no official dogma concerning these ideas, the concept nevertheless, practically, exists:

It is certain that Eastern Orthodox theologians do not use (and do not like) the word purgatory, mainly because they are concerned with its legalistic implications, the historical connection with the doctrine of indulgences and other possible misunderstandings... The Eastern Orthodox problem with 'purgatory' is not so much the idea of mercy after death as the legal concepts, terminology and dogmatization used to express it.
We can certainly affirm that Orthodox Christians hope and believe that prayers for the dead are, however mysteriously, effectual. But it is also very important to admit that this conviction is based more on apparition stories than on specific scriptural evidence. The beloved Dialogues of Pope Gregory the Great are famous for such stories, but there are many similar examples in contemporary Orthodox literature.

The author than sites examples of stories from Prologue from Ochrid and Eternal Mysteries beyond the Grave, before concluding

Such stories remind us that popular Orthodox theology has a version of purgatory that is hardly distinguishable from its Roman Catholic counterpart... The fact that Christians have always prayed for the dead comes with the unshakable certainty that the practice is indeed efficacious.


Do any church fathers directly connect "speaking in tongues" with anything other than existing human languages?

To my knowledge, no Church Father ever connected "Speaking in Tongues" - Glossolalia - with anything other than existing human languages.

Dr. Nathan Busenitz wrote a very detailed paper comparing what the Church Fathers believed and wrote regarding glossolalia with contemporary Pentecostal beliefs.  His conclusion was that there was no evidence that any Church Fathers ever held that glossolalia involved anything other than real human language.

One of the key "proof texts" that has been cited for use of unintelligible languages while speaking in tongues is 1 Corinthians 14:14-15:

  For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is
  unfruitful.What am I to do? I will pray with the spirit and I will
  pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing
  with the mind also.

Church Father John Chrysostom (4th cent.) clearly understood that even here, Paul was speaking of real language:

  Ask accordingly not to have the gift of tongues only, but also of
  interpretation, that thou mayest become useful unto all, and not shut
  up thy gift in thyself alone. “For if I pray in a tongue,” saith he,
  “my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.” Seest thou
  how by degrees bringing his argument to a point, he signifies that not
  to others only is such an one useless, but also to himself; if at
  least “his understanding is unfruitful?” For if a man should speak
  only in the Persian, or any other foreign tongue, and not understand
  what he saith, then of course to himself also will he be thenceforth a
  barbarian, not to another only, from not knowing the meaning of the
  sound. For there were of old many who had also a gift of prayer,
  together with a tongue; and they prayed, and the tongue spake, praying
  either in the Persian or Latin language, but their understanding knew
  not what was spoken. Wherefore also he said, “I’ll pray in a tongue,
  my spirit prayeth,” i.e., the gift which is given me and which moves
  my tongue, “but my understanding is unfruitful.”

  What then may that be which is best in itself, and doth good? And how
  ought one to act, or what request of God? To pray, “both with the
  spirit,” i.e., the gift, and “with the understanding.” Wherefore also
  he said, “I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the
  understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with
  the understanding also.” He signifieth the same thing here also, that
  both the tongue may speak, and the understanding may not be ignorant
  of the things spoken (Homilies on First Corinthians, XXXV)

Within the contemporary Orthodox Church, two prevailing beliefs regarding glossolalia are:

Glossolalia appeared at the beginning of the Church, because it was
intended as a gift to help the Apostles build the Church quickly
from disparate nationalities.  As Christianity spread throughout the
word, the need for the gift declined, and so became less prevalent
and seems to have disappeared today.
Those who utter
incomprehensible sounds and believe themselves to be "speaking in
tongues", inspired by the Holy Spirit, are victims of demonic
delusion.

"Far from being given freely and spontaneously, without man's interference - as are the true gifts of the Holy Spirit - speaking in tongues can be caused to occur quite predictably," wrote the American monk Seraphim Rose,

  ... by a regular technique of concentrated group "prayer" accompanied by
  psychologically suggestive Protestant hymns ("He comes! He comes!"),
  culminating in a "laying on of hands," and sometimes involving such
  purely physical efforts as repeating a given phrase over and over
  again, or just making sounds with the mouth. One person
  admits that, like many others, after speaking in tongues, "I often did
  mouth nonsense syllables in an effort to start the flow of
  prayer-in-tongues"; and such efforts, far from
  being discouraged, are actually advocated by Pentecostals. "Making
  sounds with the mouth is not 'speaking-in-tongues,' but it may signify
  an honest act of faith, which the Holy Spirit will honor by giving
  that person the power to speak in another language".
  Another Protestant pastor says: "The initial hurdle to speaking in
  tongues, it seems, is simply the realization that you must 'speak
  forth'...The first syllables and words may sound strange to your
  ear... They may be halting and inarticulate. You may have the thought
  that you are just making it up. But as you continue to speak in
  faith... the Spirit will shape for you a language of prayer and
  praise". A Jesuit "theologian" tells how he put
  such advice into practice: "After breakfast I felt almost physically
  drawn to the chapel where I sat down to pray. Following Jim's
  description of his own reception of the gift of tongues, I began to
  say quietly to myself "la, la, la, la." To my immense consternation
  there ensued a rapid movement of tongue and lips accompanied by a
  tremendous feeling of inner devotion".

  Hieromonk Seraphim Rose of Platina, "Charismatic Revival As a Sign of the Times"


From a Reformed perspective, does retroactive prayer makes sense?

To me, this question boils down to the following:

Is it logically possible that "prayers for the past" or "retroactive prayers" are efficacious, given a Reformed perspective

In other words, does it make any sense (either logically or theologically) to pray for something which might already be "set in stone" as a part of history.  I address that in the first part, but then address the question of the real purpose of prayer and/or why we might even want to pray for God to change the past in the first place.

According to Kevin Timpe in Prayers for the past,

  All three of the world’s major monotheistic religions traditionally affirm
  that petitionary prayers can be causally efficacious in bringing about certain states of affairs.

However, there are different meanings of efficacious.  He quotes David Basiger in The Case for Free Will Theim (InterVaristy Press, 1996) as laying out 3 different ways that petitionary prayer can be efficacious:

  Petitionary prayer can beneficially affect the petitioner herself.
  Petitionary prayer can beneficially affect people who are aware that
  petitions are being made on their behalf.
  Petitionary prayer affects whether or not God directly intervenes in
  the world.

Kevin then goes on to address only the 3rd question - whether God can directly intervene in the world based on a retroactive prayer.  I believe this is the core of your question, but part of the answer is to realize that prayer has effects and reasons beyond God changing something in our world.  I will address this point at my conclusion and stick to the question of intervention for the moment.

He explores the matter of God being able to intervene in a past event from several different philosophical perspectives which all assume libertarian (incompatibilist) free will.  His conclusion is that:

From a logical viewpoint, the philosophical frameworks of simple foreknowledge, eternalism, and Molinism all support the logical efficacy of prayers directed at past event.
He also concludes that Openism (or Open Theism) is not logically consistent with past-directed or retroactive prayers.  This stems from the fact that Open Theism essentially argues that the future is not set, but the past is, and that God is a temporal being who knows all possible outcomes, but at a given point in time does not genuinely know the future.

The views of simple foreknowledge and Open Theism consider God to be temporal, and thus not "outside of time".  These are therefore incompatible with your question, so I will not address them further.  I believe eternalism and Molinism can roughly be grouped together, but the reader can pursue the distinctions further if desired.  C.S. Lewis, as an example, argues for the potential efficacy of past-directed prayers based on an atemporal nature for God.

The long and short of the analysis is that from a logical perspective, prayers for the past can cause God to intervene and change events, but only to the extent that they have not already be set in place or that we have knowledge of them.

For example, it does not make sense to pray for a different outcome to the battle of Waterloo, because it occurred well over a century ago, and is settled history.  However, if I become aware of a natural disaster which killed some people in a location where a family member lives, it may be efficacious to pray for that as the point is not "fixed" and all information is not known.  At this point God could logically still "change" the event from our perspective as temporal beings in the timeline.

Of course, the logical solution to the problem is that if we pray now for a past event, God would have known that and changed the event in the past based on knowing our future prayer.  A perfect example would be a prayer for the present that God provide for bills that are due tomorrow.  I receive a check in the mail that is just enough to cover them, today, but the check was sent a week ago.  Was that an answer to prayer?  Maybe, maybe not, but it 100% could have been...

What is the Relevance of This Conclusion?  The real answer...

I understand this viewpoint, and have no problem with the logical arguments he puts forth, but I do think this is all a little off the mark with respect to the real question.

If you search the scriptures, there are no examples of past-directed prayers.  In fact, there are very few examples (if any real ones) of true future-directed prayers.  I think this is the key to the real answer to the query.

The real answer goes to the purpose of prayer and how God interacts with his people.  All of the Bible describes God's love for mankind and him creating them to have a purpose of being in relationship with him, glorifying both God and his creation.  The purpose of prayer is intimately tied to that relationship.

Prayer appears to function as a way of enhancing our relationship with God.  While it is used as a means of furthering our sanctification, working out our salvation, etc., it is clear that even sinless humans are intended to pray - there are a multitude of examples of Jesus praying frequently and intensely to God the Father.

God wants to interact with us right now in time, about how we are living for him and what his will is for us at this moment. We, with Jesus as our example, should be asking what are the words and actions of the Father that he desires of us.  What is his will for us at this moment in time.  It is true that he wants us to bring our petitions to him, but even then we should pray as Jesus did - "but not my will, but yours be done".

Thus, my ultimate answer is that yes, past-directed prayers can be theologically sound, and while God can and does answer prayers (past, present, and future directed), our focus should be much more on simply sharing our hopes and fears with him, and seeking his will and guidance through his Spirit, while resting and rooted firmly in Jesus Christ, with him as our example.