How does the Christology of the Baha'i faith differ from that of trinitarian Christianity?

To help Christians who are not familiar with the Baha’i Faith, I present some of their teachings (taken from official sources) in the hope that will help to elicit a response from traditional and orthodox Christians.
The following quotes appear, at face value, to suggest that the Baha’i Faith acknowledges the Christian view of the divinity and reality of Jesus as the Son of God:

“As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation that its Divine origin is unconditionally acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted, that the Divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized, that the reality of the mystery of the Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed, and the primacy of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is upheld and defended.  The Founder of the Christian Faith is designated by Bahá'u'lláh as the 'Spirit of God', is proclaimed as the One Who 'appeared out of the breath of the Holy Ghost', and is even extolled as the  'Essence of the Spirit'.”  (Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 490)
“Know thou that when the Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the whole creation wept with a great weeping.  By sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things. Its evidences, as witnessed in all the peoples of the earth, are now manifest before thee.  The deepest wisdom which the sages have uttered, the profoundest learning which any mind hath unfolded, the arts which the ablest hands have produced, the influence exerted by the most potent of rulers, are but manifestations of the quickening power released by His transcendent, His all-pervasive, and resplendent Spirit.” (Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 85)
“If you reflect upon the essential teachings of Jesus you will realize that they are the light of the world.  Nobody can question their truth.  They are the very source of life and the cause of happiness to the human race.”  (Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 250)
“The traces of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, the influence of His Divine Teaching, is present with us today, and is everlasting.”  (Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 91)

Although the Baha’i Faith upholds Jesus as divine and a manifestation of God, they do not believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to God the Father.  Here is a brief overview showing how very different the Baha’i Faith is from Christianity:

God is transcendent and can't be known directly. God is known through the lives and teachings of his great prophets, the most recent of whom was Bahá'u'lláh.
The inner reality of the Buddha, Jesus, Krishna, Mohammed, Zoroaster, Abraham, Moses and others was all exactly the same inner reality. All the major world’s religions came from one and the same God, Buddhism included.
The Bahá'í religion accepts all other faiths as true and valid. Bahá'ís accept the divine nature of the missions of Abraham, Moses, Zoroaster, the Buddha, Jesus and the Prophet Muhammad.  They believe each one was a further stage in the revelation of God.  Other prophets and Manifestations are also accepted.  All religions have the same spiritual foundation, despite their apparent differences.

With regard to the resurrection of Jesus, they do not believe Jesus’ body ascended into heaven: “His Spirit... ascended to the presence of God and continued to inspire and guide His followers and preside over the destinies of His dispensation.” The Resurrection of Christ and the Bible by/on behalf of  Universal House of Justice alone identifies the Baha’i Faith as not being Christian.
Perhaps the “deal breaker” is the rejection of the Christian doctrine of sin and the need for people to repent and place their faith in what God, in Christ Jesus, has done to redeem us from the consequences of sin.  To adherents of the Baha’i Faith, man is merely imperfect, not fallen, so there is no merit in the death of Jesus to atone for sin.  There is no concept of the seriousness of sin which cuts us off from God or the consequence of rejecting Jesus as the only way, the only truth and the only life.
Other Sources:
What Bahá’ís Believe
Bahá’u’lláh and His Covenant.


Did Jesus' disciples celebrate His birthday?

A valid question to say the least, but the short answer seems to be simply: no.

The Catholic Church has no such tradition from the Early Church or Church Fathers. The known Apocrypha are equally silent on this issue.

The big problem with the Ancient Jews celebrating birthdays at the time of Christ is that the Jewish calendar was based on a lunar cycle and not a solar cycle like our present day calendar is based on. It is quite simple to understand this principle and the end result would be that Jesus’ actual birthday would vary from year to year according to the Jewish calendar.

The Disciples of Jesus were Jews and so was Jesus. They lived traditional Jewish lives and accepted Jesus as the Messiah. Their manner of worship changed after Jesus’ death. This question is asking about His birthday celebrations while Jesus was alive.

Even Josephus admits that the Hebrew people did not celebrate birthdays.

  The first century Judahite historian Josephus noted that Judahite families did not celebrate birthdays:

    "Nay, indeed, the law does not permit us to make festivals at the birth of our children, and thereby afford occasion of drinking to excess" (Josephus. Translated by W. Whiston. Against Apion, Book II, Chapter 26. Extracted from Josephus Complete Works, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids (MI), 14th printing, 1977, p. 632).

  There is no tradition in Judaism of celebrating birthdays, otherwise we would have a list of birthdays from Noah, Abraham to Moses, King David and many others, but no such thing exists. There are of course Sages who have suggested that certain individuals were born on Moedim or important days of Israel's history, however there are no "birthdays" within Judaism, Torah, Judahite Christians or the true Ecclesia of YEHOVAH God down through the ages.

  Now although there is no specific command against the celebration of birthdays in the Bible, the Judahite custom in those days was apparently based on the negative occurrences in the Bible surrounding birthdays, as well as the astrological implications of the celebration of birthdays (pagan practices, like astrology, were specifically prohibited in the law).

  Since nearly all of the first Christians were Judahites it's, this may partially explain why the celebration of the Messiah's birth would not be consistent with that early custom.

  In their essay titled "Birthdays, Jewishly," Lisa Farber Miller and Sandra Widener point out that the Encyclopedia Judaica is very blunt on this topic:

    "The celebration of birthdays is unknown in traditional Jewish ritual."

For the rest of my response, I am going to let Rabbi Mendy Kaminker finish with the subject of birthdays according to the Ancient Hebrew nation.

  The First Birthday

  The first individual to celebrate a birthday was Adam. Well, considering that he wasn't "born," the stickler will argue that he didn't really have a "birthday"; but nonetheless, his first day on earth was quite eventful.

  Adam was created on the first Friday, the sixth day of creation, after G‑d finished setting the cosmic birthday table with the heavens and earth; sun and moon; plants and trees; beasts, fowl and fish. Shortly after Adam's creation, still on the same Friday, G‑d formed and breathed life into Eve.

  The results were considerably worse than a bad stomach acheThough there is no record of them partaking of a birthday cake, they celebrated by partaking of another delicacy—the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. The results were considerably worse than a bad stomach ache.

  We celebrate the birthdays of Adam and Eve every year. Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, isn't observed on the day when the world was created, but six days later, on the anniversary of the creation of Adam and Eve. That is the day when everything truly began; the day when the Creator's vision of dwelling in a human-crafted home went into motion.

  An Intimidating Guest

  "And Abraham made a great feast on the day that Isaac was weaned" (Genesis 21:8).

  According to one opinion expressed in the Midrash, this feast celebrated Isaac's thirteenth birthday; the day when he was "weaned" from childhood and assumed the responsibilities of a Jewish adult. According to another opinion, this feast occurred on his second birthday. Either way, it was a birthday celebration.

  According to tradition, Isaac was born on Passover. As such, the "great feast" must have featured matzah and kosher for Passover cuisine. But the cuisine wasn't the main attraction—it was the distinguished guest list that included all the who's who of the time.

  One of the VIPs was Og, the king of Bashan, a gargantuan man with superhuman strength. He condescendingly commented: "Why is everyone fussing over this child? With my pinky I can end his life!"

  G‑d wasn't too pleased with this hubris. "Just wait. You will live to see hundreds of thousands of this boy's descendants. In fact, your end will be at their hands..."

  And that's precisely what happened—years later when he was vanquished by the Moses-led Israelite armies

  A "Memorable" Birthday Party

  The first scriptural reference to a birthday party is in the Book of Genesis. Pharaoh hosted a grand birthday party for all his ministers. During the course of the party he remembered two of his chamberlains, his chief butler and baker, whom he had incarcerated because of their negligence while on duty. Exactly as a Hebrew youth, Joseph, had foretold three days earlier, Pharaoh pardoned the butler and restored him to his post. The baker, on the other hand, was sent to the gallows.

  Until 120 Years Old... Really!

  A common Jewish birthday wish is, "May you live until 120." In the Torah we find a personality who lived until 120—on the nose. We're talking about Moses, the greatest prophet of all time, who was born and passed away on the same date—the 7th of Adar.

  Centuries later, when Haman wished to exterminate the Jews, he threw a lottery to determine the most propitious month to implement his nefarious plan. Haman was elated when the lottery chose the month of Adar, "this is the month when Moses, the Jews' savior, died!"

  But Haman didn't know that Adar is also the month when Moses was born. And the auspiciousness of a birthday offsets any negative qualities associated with death. The rest is history...

  A Mournful but Ultimately Joyous Birthday

  The redeemer was born the moment after the destructionThe saddest day on the Jewish calendar is the 9th of Av, the date when – among other tragedies – both holy temples were destroyed, leading to our nation's exile from the Holy Land. Nevertheless, our sages tell us that despite the sadness and pain, this is the birthday of Moshiach, our future redeemer:

  "On the day that the Holy Temple was destroyed, a Jew was plowing his field when his cow suddenly called out. An Arab was passing by and heard the low of the cow. Said the Arab: 'Jew, Jew! Unyoke your cow, free the stake of your plow, for your Holy Temple has now been destroyed.' The cow then lowed a second time. Said the Arab: 'Jew, Jew! Yoke your cow, reset the stake of your plow, for the Redeemer has now been born...'"

  The redeemer, and with him the potential for redemption, was born the moment after the destruction. - Birthdays in Jewish History

Whether Jesus celebrated his birthday or not is lost to history. Whether Mary or Joseph celebrated the Lord’s birthday is also lost to history. But the Church has resolved this issue with institution of the Feast of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ while placing this feast day on December 25th, now known as Christmas Day.

  But it was not till the fourth century that the Churches of the East began to keep the Feast of our Saviour’s Birth in the month of December. Up to that period they had kept it at one time on the sixth of January, thus uniting it, under the generic term of Epiphany, with the Manifestation of our Saviour made to the Magi, and in them to the Gentiles; at another time, as Clement of Alexandria tells us, they kept it on the 25th of the month Pachon (May 15), or on the 25th of the month Pharmuth (April 20). St John Chrysostom, in the Homily we have just cited, which he gave in 386, tells us that the Roman custom of celebrating the Birth of our Saviour on December 25 had then only been observed ten years in the Church of Antioch. It is probable that this change had been introduced in obedience to the wishes of the Apostolic See, wishes which received additional weight by the edict of the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian, which appeared towards the close of the fourth century, and decreed that the Nativity and Epiphany of our Lord should be made two distinct Festivals. The only Church that has maintained the custom of celebrating the two mysteries on January 6 is that of Armenia; owing, no doubt, to the circumstance of that country not being under the authority of the Emperors; as also because it was withdrawn at an early period from the influence of Rome by schism and heresy. - The History of Christmas (Dom Guéranger)


Why was there a 'governor' at the Wedding in Cana?

The Apocrypha will help on this issue. Sirach, which is believed to have had a Hebrew original (e.g. DSS) and which is quoted several times in Hebrew in the Talmud, has a chapter concerning being the master of a feast:

Sirach 32:1-9 (NRSV)

  If they make you master of the feast, do not exalt yourself;
      be among them as one of their number.
  Take care of them first and then sit down;
  2     when you have fulfilled all your duties, take your place,
  so that you may be merry along with them
      and receive a wreath for your excellent leadership.

  3 Speak, you who are older, for it is your right,
      but with accurate knowledge, and do not interrupt the music.
  4 Where there is entertainment, do not pour out talk;
      do not display your cleverness at the wrong time.

  ...
  9 Among the great do not act as their equal;
      and when another is speaking, do not babble.

Greek of the first verse of Sirach 32 (from ellopos):

  ῾Ηγούμενόν σε κατέστησαν; μὴ ἐπαίρου· γίνου ἐν αὐτοῖς ὡς εἷς ἐξ αὐτῶν, φρόντισον αὐτῶν καὶ οὕτω κάθισον.

The word just refers to a governor and is not specific to ruling feasts. NRSV obviously added the words "of the feast" from a consideration of the context. This is confirmed by looking at the KJV, which has "If thou be made the master of a feast, lift not thyself up..." (italics theirs)

Versus the Greek of John 2:9 (using the Greek Orthodox Patriarchal Text):

  ὡς δὲ ἐγεύσατο ὁ ἀρχιτρίκλινος τὸ ὕδωρ οἶνον γεγενημένον—καὶ οὐκ ᾔδει πόθεν ἐστίν· οἱ δὲ διάκονοι ᾔδεισαν οἱ ἠντληκότες τὸ ὕδωρ—φωνεῖ τὸν νυμφίον ὁ ἀρχιτρίκλινος


How did Psalm 124 become associated with the Holy Innocents?

To me, the imagery from the psalm perfectly represents Christ's escape from the killings that were taking place shortly after his birth. The psalm pictures our soul's escape from sin through the destruction of the snare much the same way Joseph's vision foiled the trap that was laid for the Christ. That seems to give the why pretty well.

As for the when, I am still looking for an answer to that question.


What does Matthew 5:27-30 ("Cast off your eye/hand/etc") mean?

I don't think its meant to be interpreted literally. I take it as "Do everything you possibly can to avoid sinning."

relevant example: I have a co-worker of refuses to go to the beach since he would be tempted to engage in lust-related activities.

Whether you agree with my coworker's interpretation and level of devotion to the literal word is not my point. My point is he is making some sacrifices to lead what he thinks is a good life.


Did Jesus die for all? Is “for many” the same meaning as “for all “ in Matthew 26:28?

Your question is really two questions, the first is theological, the second is whether "all" and "many" are semantically synonymous enough to be interchangeable.

The second question is addressed first, because, properly understood, the Scriptures themselves will answer the first question. The adjectives, "many and "all" are not grammatically synonymous in either English or Greek ("polloi", "pas").  While both are indefinite adjectives, and used to describe/distinguish/emphasize some property of a (contextually) defined set, they address different properties. "Many" addresses the relative number in the set (not "few"). On the other hand, "all", connotes inclusion, without exception (not "some").  For illustration, many cars are red, but not all cars are red. Some are blue; some are green; a few are pink, in which, the contextually defined set is cars, and the property is color. Also, note, once having been defined, the set's identification/description is usually assumed for subsequent adjectives. This results in "floating" adjectives (an adjective without an explicitly associated focal-object). "Floating" adjectives are common within the the received (Greek) text, especially within long, complex sentences, and especially when the set's description is long, cumbersome, complex or complicated.  Accordingly, in order to facilitate readability, as well as, grammatical-acceptability, translators sometimes render "floating" indefinite-inclusive adjectives as indefinite, inclusive pronouns ("all" or "each" is rendered, "everyone/everybody/everything"). A second grammatically acceptable option is to insert a plausible, numerically-indefinite noun or pronoun, immediately after the "floating" indefinite adjective. Interpretation errors result when this inserted word is inconsistent with the contextually-defined focal-set. Moreover, proper interpretation is especially difficult when the inserted word is not identified as having been "inserted". Since God is not the author of confusion (1Cor 14:33), nor ever errs or contradicts himself, erroneous insertions or interpretations cause (apparent) contradictions.

Regarding your first question, "Did Jesus die for everybody?.

1) If "many" is never synonymous with "all", because "many"  never implies without exception, the answer to your first question is implicitly negated within your (Mt 26:28) quotation, namely, Jesus died for many (some, not everyone). Other similarly relevant uses of "many" include Mt 26:28 (ransom for many); Is 53:11-12 (many accounted righteous...bore the sins of many), Rom 9:28 (to bear the sins of many).

FYI: The "many/some" are elsewhere identified: Mt1:21 (His people), and Jn10:11 (for the sheep)

2) The phrase,"died for everybody" can not be found in any English Bible, nor the Greek equivalent.

3) So then, if Jesus only died for "some", what about (seemingly) contradicting verses like 2Cor 5:15, 1Tim 2:6, Heb 2:9 (died for all/everyone/all people), (ransom for all men), (tasted death for everyone)? In all three verses, a "floating" indefinite Greek adjective is either translated or interpreted outside of its locally-defined context.  In all three verses, the local, contextually defined-focus is exclusive (not "everybody", nor "all men" (as usually interpreted and/or inserted). Accordingly, these verses illustrate how a strong "proof-text" for limited atonement is converted into a strong "proof-text" for unlimited atonement: by translating or interpreting one "floating" adjective, outside/beyond its locally-defined focal-context).


A Question Regarding the Relationship between God and Messiah

In Dan 7:14 we see the Son of Man is coming to take the everlasting kingdom. In the subsequent verses termed as the interpretation we see in verse 22 it is the Ancient of Days who is coming. This tells me the ancient of days and the Son of Man are the same.

In traditional Judaism, they have a picture of G-d as a composite of potencies called sephirot. Different combinations can form different faces of G-d. They are all divine and are none are independent of each other yet we have examples in their literature where one speaks to another. Not all are credited with creation. Pro 3:19  The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens. 1Co_1:24 tells us this wisdom is Messiah. We have an entire proverb (8) which deals with wisdom and alludes to its deity and power to save. It also states it (wisdom) is understanding, alluding to their combination in creation (v 19).

When we impose on G-d the limitations of a physical world (where something has one nature, one presence, one spacial dimension, etc.) we are always going to have a difficulty.

But even in nature we have examples of duality. An amoeba can change shape and when it reproduces by meiosis, one cannot say that this part is the parent and that part is the child, they are both identical even though they occupy different places in space.


What is the biblical basis for carrying out social justice in opposition to the justice system?

The Bible has many examples of carrying out God's commands despite opposition from secular, or even religious authorities.

For example, Daniel and his fellow exiles were ordered not to worship God by those in authority, but continued to do so. In Acts 4, Peter and John were forbidden to preach and heal, yet continued to do so. They specifically said:

  “Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the
  judges! As for us, we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and
  heard.” (Acts 4:19-20)

Later in response to further orders to stop, Peter says:

  “We must obey God rather than human beings! (Acts 5:29)

In a wider context, Christians have frequently disobeyed laws that are unjust, from hiding Jews from the Nazi regime to harbouring runaway slaves in nineteenth century America.


Does the Old Testament word Sheol have Greek or Hebrew origins?

The word "Sheol" was not coined by the scribes of the Greek Septuagint.  It is Hebrew.  One reference is Strong's Concordance and Lexicon, in which its rendering in Deuteronomy 32:22 has Hebrew word ID number 7585, shin aleph vav lamed (right to left):
שְׁאֹ֣ול
Phonology of the Hebrew "aleph" is variable, and "vav" changes too, but the first and last letters' pronunciation are ancient and Biblical Hebrew as discussed in Wikipedia's Hebrew consonant list.


How are the persons of the Trinity distinctively active in a Christian's prayer?

My understanding from growing up in an Anglican church:

We pray to God the Father. He is the one that answers our prayers. Not a perfect verse for this, but the only one I could think of:

  “Again, truly I [Jesus] tell you that if two of you on earth agree
  about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in
  heaven" (Matthew 18:19 NIV)

We pray through Jesus. He is our Great High Priest.

  Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into
  heaven, Jesus the Son of God (Heb 4:14 NIV).

Think back to the old testament, the High Priest was the one who could go into the holy of holies in the temple and gave access for the people to talk to God.

The Holy Spirit prompts us to pray, and directs us to pray for certain things - e.g.

  We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself
  intercedes for us through wordless groans. (Romans 8:26 NIV)


Can a bishop allow Marriage between cousins?

The short answer is yes: first cousins can marry if the diocesan bishop grants an appropriate dispensation.

To understand the question at hand let us start by looking at what Canon Law has to say about "Specific Diriment Impediments" to marriage.

  Can.  1091 §1. In the direct line of consanguinity marriage is invalid between all ancestors and descendants, both legitimate and natural.

  §2. In the collateral line marriage is invalid up to and including the fourth degree.

  §3. The impediment of consanguinity is not multiplied.

  §4. A marriage is never permitted if doubt exists whether the partners are related by consanguinity in any degree of the direct line or in the second degree of the collateral line.

Now let's look at how to interpret Canon 1091.

  Canon 1091: CONSANGUINITY: The impediment arises from a blood relationship, either fullblood
  or half-blood; therefore, its existence does not derive from the marital status of the common
  ancestor. In the direct line, all marriages are invalid; no dispensation is ever granted from
  consanguinity in the second degree of the collateral line [brother and sister] (Canon 1078). In the
  collateral line marriages are invalid to the third degree [aunts or uncles with nephews or nieces] as
  well as to the fourth degree [first cousins]. This impediment is of ecclesiastical law, and the Local
  Ordinary or his delegate can dispense for a sufficient reason; however, if civil legislation will not
  permit such a union, the Local Ordinary will not grant a dispensation (confer Canon 1071, §1, 2/).
  Beyond the fourth degree of the collateral line, no impediment exists. - Manual of Tribunal Marriage Procedures

Canon law relationship chart


Without having understood the doctrine of the two kingdoms, it's not possible to understand Luther's theology in its full extent.

It's a misunderstanding to think that by the justification by faith alone all laws have lost their importance. As short as possible: a Christian lives under two completly different kingdoms, where the one is "God's kingdom under Christ"1 – here he lives by faith in the righteousness coram Deo2 – and the other is the world's kingdom – here he is man or woman, young or old, lord, servant, peasant, citizen etc.3 and has to do good works.

Accordingly, the human being is both: Christian person and secular person.

You see: the accusation, that Luther's justification by faith alone shrinks the room for the works that have to be done by us, is a misunderstanding. Especially Luther's theology shows people, how overfull of opportunities for good works the world and the way, which they follow in the world by faith, is.

1: "Gottes Reich unter Christo"
2: before God
3: WA 32, 440, 2
4: "Christperson" and "Weltperson"


Where in God's promises did it show that Abram needed to have a child through Sarai?

According to a literal interpretation of the text:

It depends on what you mean by wrong. Looking at the narrative totally and literally, Abraham could not have known that the promised nation would come through Sarah's offspring, since God did not tell him that until after the birth of Ishmael. In Genesis 12, God promises Abram three (main) things:

I will show you a land, Canaan, which I will give to your descendants.
I will make you a nation
I will bless you.

God continues to make these promises clearer as the narrative continues. In Genesis 13, God elucidates

I will give the land, Canaan, to you and your descendants forever.
I will make your descendants number greater than the sands of the Earth you can count.

Note that these aren't strictly new promises. God is revealing his plan to Abram as he is carrying it out. God has not revealed to Abram how these things will come about, but only "I will do this." Up to this point, Abram has no children, he is getting older, and so is his wife. Genesis 15 reveals that as far as Abram knew, a servant of his would inherit his estate, since he had no son. It's not until this point, many years after he originally revealed himself to Abram, that God actually promises a son to Abram. He says:

  Genesis 15:4-6
  This man will not be your heir; but one who will come forth from your own body, he shall be your heir.” And He took him outside and said, “Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.” Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.

So, God further specifies his promises to Abram. Only now does he begin to reveal to Abram how his plan will come to pass:

I will make for you an heir of your own body.
I will make your descendants number greater than the stars you can count.
Your descendants will sojourn in a foreign land for 400 years, where they will be oppressed and enslaved.
They will come out of oppression with many possessions.
You will die at an old age, at peace.
This will happen from this place in the fourth generation.

Abram had received promises from God before, but notice that it's on this day that God makes a covenant with Abram. A covenant is different than a promise, as a covenant is an agreement of a legal nature that holds both sides of the agreement to certain terms. The terms of the covenant have not yet been revealed, or at least the terms of the covenant at that point are not described as to go beyond the ritualistic practice of the animal sacrifice described in the passage.

Now, Sarai's barrenness and Hagar her maidservant only just now come full view into the narrative in Genesis 16. Abram has been living in Canaan for ten years at this point. He's eighty-six years old- sixteen years older than his father was when he and his brothers were born. God has not yet told him when his heir would be born. God has not yet told him by whom his heir would be born. As far as we can know, the terms up to this point of the covenant God made with Abram did not include Sarai. Given the practice described in the question, Abram was just trying to accomplish something according to the promise of God that he had no power to do himself. Only God could make Abram into a nation, Abraham's vanity was to think he could do it himself. In the same way, only God can bring us into that nation, our vanity is to think we can do it ourselves.

A resounding truth pops out of the text in regard to your question, and it can be observed in almost every other biblical narrative: God often withholds specific instruction. He obscures and hides the totality of his plan, always leaving room for men to act righteously or unrighteously. Had Abram acted righteously, with perfect patience, we would be discussing his only son, Isaac. But graciously and thankfully for Abram, it is belief that God counts as righteousness, and not perfect right action. Indeed, God ignores Abram's unrighteous impatience when he says (in Gen 22:2), "Take your only son up to the mountain..."

We see fully the blunder of Abram's impatience because we can count its consequences- we have the benefit of bearing whiteness to The Heir According to the Promise, Jesus, who is the Messiah. Because we have seen him and known him, we know that the heir could not have been of Ishmael because he was not- it was by Isaac that Abraham's seed, who is Messiah, was born according to Sarah's freedom and the miraculous power of God, and not as a result of Hagar's bondage and the impatience of flesh. Abram did not know this, as God did not reveal it to him until after Ishmael's birth, in Genesis 17.


According to Catholicism, does intelligence or rationality belong to other animals by participation?

Now we define "intelligence" and "rationality" otherwise than Aquinas and other scholastic philosophers did. In Aquinas' teaching, reason or rationality is what we usually mean by intelligence - it's the ability to induce new knowledge by reasoning based on experience we get through senses.

"Intelligence" was slightly trickier. According to Aquinas and his contemporaries, angels don't need reasoning, they just "look and see" (this is metaphorical - they are immaterial, they have no eyes to see), they simply get the knowledge. Angels have some kind of telepathy - they give or get thoughts directly, they don't need to translate it to words, images or other symbols, share the symbols, and than translate them back to thoughts. We are material and our mind is restricted by lack of telepathy and the necessity to induce our knowledge from such symbols, from communication receivable by our senses.

Still, we participate on the simple intelligence of angels somehow. We can simply know something without any previous experience, or at least it was believed in Aquinas' times we can. Examples of this kind of knowledge mostly fail to the spiritual, to God's revelation and to mysticism. Anyway, it's distinct from either normal reasoning, or from instinctive "knowledge" which is animals' ordinary way of thinking.

Another aspect of the participation on the angelic intelligence is our ability to reason knowledge which cannot be derived from material world. Aquinas says that we can derive knowledge of God's existence from our experience with material world, but our knowledge of God's triunity and other fundamental theological aspects can be derived only from God's revelation, so this knowledge is proper to intelligence even though we learned it through reasoning. We can't learn this way anything angels can know, just some basic, easy-to-learn concepts.

Animals normally know things from their senses and instinct, they have no proper reasoning. But similarly as we can participate on angels' intelligence, they can participate on our reason somehow (not on angelic intelligence - it's too abstract for them). Thus they can be "intelligent" in the modern, broad meaning of this word, not in its medieval meaning. Using tools and reaching easy conclusions based on evidence learned through senses is an example of this participation on reason; still, apes can't really understand higher mathematics (AFAIK), so they don't possess our reason fully.

Tell me if you want more evidence; I derived this post mostly from Questiones disputatae 15 and from prologue and comments to its Czech edition.


Who resurrected Jesus - the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit

Discussing "Whether Christ was the cause of His own Resurrection?" (Summa Theologica III q. 53 a. 4), St. Thomas Aquinas writes (co.):

in consequence of death Christ's Godhead was not separated from His soul, nor from His flesh. Consequently, both the soul and the flesh of the dead Christ can be considered in two respects: (1) in respect of His Godhead; (2) in respect of His created nature. Therefore,

according to the virtue of the Godhead united to it, the body took back again the soul which it had laid aside, and the soul took back again the body which it had abandoned: and thus Christ rose by His own power. And this is precisely what is written (2 Cor. 13:4): "For although He was crucified through" our "weakness, yet He liveth by the power of God."
But if we consider the body and soul of the dead Christ according to the power of created nature, they could not thus be reunited, but it was necessary for Christ to be raised up by God.

Responding to the objection that Christ was raised by another (e.g., by the Father or the Holy Ghost), St. Thomas writes (ibid. ad 1):

The Divine power is the same thing as the operation of the Father and the Son; accordingly these two things are mutually consequent, that Christ was raised up by the Divine power of the Father, and by His own power.


Why are the same palms used on Palm Sunday used for Ash Wednesday services the next year?

The BBC has quite a good critique on the subject. It is of course a convenient way of getting good quality ash, but there is a theological significance.

The Palm Sunday palms symbolise Christ's triumphant entry into Jerusalem, and converting them into ash is a reminder that defeat and crucifixion followed soon after.

The ashing is a mark of penitence, and using the palms is also a reminder that the same people who cried "Hosanna" were before long baying "Crucify!" just as the Palm Sunday liturgy recreates. It is a mark of our own penitence for our own concupiscence (Christ's sacrifice of himself was a propitiation once for all time, including for us in our time).

Ash on its own doesn't make much of a mark, and some kind of binding agent is needed to allow them to make their statement. The ashes may simply be mixed with water as they are blessed (which is usual in most situations), but they may also be mixed with oil as a reminder of the chrismation and signing with the cross at Baptism.

In the Palm Sunday liturgy, palms are blessed outside the church and a short gospel is read about the finding of the colt and the entry into Jerusalem. The people follow, rejoicing as on the first Palm Sunday. Once inside the church the mood of the liturgy changes abruptly, reaching its climax in the Passion Gospel. Generally this is semi-dramatised and the people have their own part to play again, shouting "Crucify! Crucify!" at that point in the narrative.

It's common in Episcopalian and other high-church circles; and universal in the Roman Catholic Church.


What is "Apologetics", exactly, and how is it used to defend the Christian faith?

From  http://carm.org/introduction-apologetics

  The word "apologetics" comes from the Greek word "apologia,"
  pronounced "ap-ol-og-ee’-ah." It means, "a verbal defense." It is used
  eight times in the New Testament: Acts 22:1; 25:16; 1 Cor. 9:3; 2 Cor.
  10:5-6; Phil. 1:7; 2 Tim. 4:16, and 1 Pet. 3:15. But it is the last
  verse that is most commonly associated with Christian apologetics.

  "....but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to
  make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the
  hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence" (1 Pet. 3:15,
  NASB).

Jumping ahead to the second part of the question: "For that matter, can the existence of God be proved via apologetics?" the answer is "no".

If nothing else, this site, and the questions on it from the atheists and detractors show that the acceptable level of "proof" of God's existence is variable, and even if God Himself were to appear before a non-believer and demonstrate His power, it's quite possible that the non-believer would still refuse to believe that this is God.  To the true skeptic, no proof would be convincing enough. They would always suspect some sort of trickery, like that used by Ardra in the Star Trek TNG episode Devil's Due.

That said, there comes a question of the burden of proof.  Apologetics entails the application of logic and reason to defending the faith, which is quite different than proving the faith.  When it comes to establishing the burden of proof, the same rules that apply in general debates apply to apologetics.  From http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

  In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it.
  This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim
  of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is
  assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such
  cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on.
  In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant
  debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For
  example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until
  proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As
  another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the
  affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of
  proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot,
  psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

  Examples of Burden of Proof

  Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
  Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
  Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"
  Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
  Jill: "What is your proof?"
  Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."
  "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

That last one demonstrates the fallacy of thinking that applies apologetics can prove the existence of God.  If the Christian faith rested on the ability to conclusively prove the existence of God, we'd be in trouble for the reasons stated above.

However, apologetics isn't about proving that God exists, or that Christianity is true.  It's about defending the faith against the arguments that say it couldn't be true, logically.

Put simply, there is, and always has been, a requirement of faith within Christianity. Faith has been a central tenet throughout all of Scripture.  The question comes down to whether the faith is a reasonable faith, or simply a blind, indefensible, fairy-tale faith.  The field of apologetics, as applied to defending the faith from the atheist attacks isn't about proving that Christianity is true, but rather that it is not irrational to believe that it can be true.  Once that is established, we can defend the belief based on historical, archaeological, and logical arguments.

In effect, the field of apologetics accepts the idea that we may be wrong - Christianity may be based on faulty assumptions, but does the evidence lean toward that conclusion, or is does it lean toward the idea that Christianity is Truth?  Can we defend the argument that the Bible is inerrant and infallible?  Can we defend the argument that it's reliable and hasn't been changed over the years to the point where we can't trust it?

Moving back to the first part of the question: What apologetics is....

Also from http://carm.org/introduction-apologetics

  Basically apologetics can be evidential (often called "classical") or
  presuppositional.  Evidential apologetics deals with the evidence for
  Christianity: Jesus’ resurrection, the biblical manuscripts, fulfilled
  prophecy, miracles, etc. Presuppositional apologetics deals with the
  presuppositions of those who oppose Christianity, because
  presuppositions affect how a person views evidence and reason.

Neither can stand on it's own.  Evidential apologetics often deals with unprovable assumptions, but with evidence.

For example, the death and resurrection of Christ.  This is the central event that defines Christianity.  If this never happened, then Christianity has no basis whatsoever.

Today, right now, we can't go back and prove that Christ died, was buried and was resurrected.  Skeptics have offered plenty of counter-arguments to the Biblical accounts.

The "Swoon theory", for example, gives us an example of how the two complement each other.  The swoon theory, for those that don't know, is that Christ didn't really die - that He appeared to have died, and then recovered.)

As evidence for this (evidential/classic apologetics), we have only the evidence from Scripture, and one or two extra-Biblical accounts.  We have historical evidence, but not proof.  The skeptic can easily say "Yeah, the only "historical evidence you have is recorded in your made-up Bible, and a few superstitious extra-Biblical accounts from the time."

To counter this, we fall back on presuppositional apologetics - reasoning logically against the presuppositions of the skeptic.  We counter with all the arguments freely available at http://carm.org/swoon-theory

So, again, apologetics isn't so much about proving the Truth of Christianity as proving that Christianity is not unreasonable.  That it very easily could be true, and added to that, "this is the evidence that convinces us that it is true."

As for the historicity of apologetics, it has not always been only about defending the faith from atheistic beliefs.  It was also used to defend Christianity from fabricated charges.  From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics#Christian

  Tacitus wrote that Nero fabricated charges that Christians started the
  burning of Rome. Other charges included cannibalism (due to a literal
  interpretation of the Eucharist) and incest (due to early Christian's
  practice of addressing each other as "brother" and "sister"). Saul of
  Tarsus, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and others often defended Christianity
  against charges that were brought to justify persecution.

In short, the field of apologetics is used primarily to defend the faith against detractors of all types - those who fabricate theories trying to disprove Christianity, those trying to show that it is an "evil" religion, or any other attack.  In general, it's not offensive in nature, trying to force others to believe, but rather defensive, saying "Hey, my belief is reasonable and here's why."  It's not about proving it as providing the believer with the assurance that their faith is not as silly, unreasonable, and evil as opponents would have you believe.


What is Carlo Maria Viganò's religious order?

According to catholic-hierarchy.org Carlo Maria Viganò was ordained as priest of the diocese of Pavia on 24th of March 1968.

So he was a (normal) diocesan priest before becoming bishop and is no member of any order.


Is the concept of God in Christianity (the Trinity) three Gods or One?

Firstly, the Trinity is not Tritheism. This is the classic argument of the Muslim against Christianity, but it is not valid. It is not valid, because the formulation of the Trinity specifically states that God is one being who exists in three persons.

The Athansian Creed (a very ancient creed dating to the fourth or fifth century predating the Orthodox / Catholic / Protestant schims and accepted by at least 97% of all Christians) in particular states:

  we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal.

The problem is not in the formulation, but rather in attempts to make an analogy to explain it. There are great light-hearted attempts at analogy, but each suffers from a defect of some kind. No analogy is possible, because there is no terrestrial equivalent that properly holds the tension of the fact that three people with distinct energies, capable of perfectly relating to each other, are thus so close as to be One being. Every Trinitarian heresy comes out of an attempt to force such an analogy.

Tritheism in particular was endemic to those areas of Christianity that are now under Muslim control. Tritheism emphasizes the distinct personalities to the detriment of their unity. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are indeed so close as to be one, in the same way a Muslim would agree that a man and wife are one flesh. Sometimes the analogy of the egg (shell, yolk, and white) is used to describe this relationship, but really it doesn't convey the simultaneous distinction and sameness of personality.
Modalism, on the other hand, makes the opposite mistake. It says that the Three manifestations of God are just different aspects of the same entity. (For example, some will say water is ice, fluid, and steam, or a man is father and husband)  That, however, precludes the ability of, say, God the Father to exalt God the Son (Phillipians 2:9).

That being said, the primary means of differentiating the three persons of the Trinity is by their observed actions in history:

God the Father is the primary actor in the history of Israel and the Old Testament. He is identified by his love, jealousy, and protection of his people. For his own glory, he rescued his people from Egypt, and showed himself powerful on behalf of those whose hearts were perfect toward him.
God the Son is known primarily through his actions as the incarnated Jesus of Nazereth.  According to John, he existed from the beginning of Creation, and he made all things. By him there is nothing made that was made. He chose to temporarily give up the rights of godhood in order to become a man. Being found in human likeness, he was obedient unto death, even the death of a cross.
God the Holy Spirit is known primarily through his actions in the church.  God the Son sent Him to dwell amongst his people, and was most visibly manifest at Pentecost. He is the source of the gifts manifest amongst Christians and is present in His church.

None of these actors acts out of accord with any of the others, and they all have the same character and purpose. They do have unique wills, but willingly subordinate them to each other in perfect harmony.

The truth is there is no analogy because there is no terrestrial equivalent. That said, both Muslims and Christians would agree that God is so far above humans that his Nature could be incomprehensible to his creation. That God is both Three and One is the core tenet of our understanding of who God is. In no way do Christians believe there is more than one God, but how we express that remains a paradox we cannot or have not resolved since his nature was revealed.


Did reformation leaders throw out the Summa Theologica?

I can only speak for Calvin. AFAIK, he never explicitly interacts with Aquinas or the Summa. In Institutes he does reference "The Schoolmen" many times, but he seems to have in mind mostly later-medieval theologians rather than the angelic doctor himself. That's a shame, because Aquinas would have been a much more worthy opponent.

Protestants in general tend to be skeptical of natural-law arguments. Calvin himself believed that our only reliable knowledge about God comes from special revelation and he is very hard on the "Papists" for making stuff up (i.e., the incredible detail some writers claim to know about the kinds and hierarchies of the angels).

That said, I believe Calvin would have come down on the same side as the Catholic Church on the issues you mentioned. He certainly would have opposed contraception.

Edit

Here are a few google results, suggesting that Calvin probably did not have access to the Summa:

Calvin on Aquinas

Luther, Calvin and Aquinas: On Grace


What is the Biblical basis for divine simplicity?

There is no single verse declaring, "God is simple." But those who believe the doctrine believe that it is the only way to coherently hold onto all of the Bible's declarations about God. Catholicism and all the major Protestant confessions declare divine simplicity.
The blog post "Is divine simplicity scriptural?" says:

Simplicity is implicit in Scripture in that it follows from a strong doctrine of aseity and God's providence, which is found stated in John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16. These passages say that all things were created by God. So it is true that whatever is non-identical to God is created by God. But if God had parts he would have to create his parts, and in so doing create himself, which can’t be true since God is uncreated and uncaused. Hence, God doesn’t have any parts and is simple.

James Dolezal, author of God without Parts, similarly says:

[God] gives to all, but receives from none (Acts 17:25-25; Rom. 11:35-36).

Herman Bavinck writes in Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 2 (page 176):

If God is composed of parts, like a body, or composed of genus (class) and differentiae (attributes of different species belonging to the same genus), substance and accidents, matter and form, potentiality and actuality, essence and existence, then his perfection, oneness, independence, and immutability cannot be maintained.

Kevin DeYoung paraphrases Bavinck's point this way:

In other words, the simplicity of God not only prevents us from ranking certain attributes higher than others, it allows God to have "a distinct and infinite life of his own within himself" (Bavinck 177). He is not an abstract Absolute Idea who happens to have love, wisdom, and holiness, as if we first conceive of a being called God and then relate qualities to him. Rather, God in his very essence—within himself and by himself—is love, wisdom, and holiness. God is whatever he has. He is not the composite of his attributes, some in greater and some in lesser amounts. God is a simple being without parts or pieces. His attributes do not stick to him; he is what they are.

Therefore, the doctrine is built on the doctrines of God's aseity, providence, perfection, oneness, independence, immutability, self-sufficiency, and identity as creator. Each of these doctrines has a strong Biblical basis. From that list, oneness and immutability are the attributes most closely related to simplicity. Here are some of the verses that most strongly support the immutability and oneness of God:

Malachi 3:6 I the LORD do not change.
James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.
Numbers 23:19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind.
1 Samuel 15:29 The Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret.
Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, "I am who I am." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I am has sent me to you.'"
Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.
All scriptural citations are from the ESV.


What is Wesley's concept of Entire Sanctification?

Unfortunately, I can't say it any better than an article I found.

Source

  Wesley believed that Christ's death on the cross made it possible not
  only for sinners to be saved by grace, but, indeed, for them to be
  saved to the uttermost. Entire sanctification was restoration to the
  image of God, being made perfect in love toward God and neighbor.

(emphasis added)

It goes on to say:

  Entire sanctification was not a goal to be achieved, but a gift to be
  received. Like justification, sanctification is the gracious gift of
  God, received by faith.

Wesley claimed that this was not a new doctrine but merely a revealing of an old doctrine.


How do Creationist Christians respond to the evidence for Evolution?

Quite frankly, there are several viewpoints on this.  There is no one answer to your question.

Some Christians see evolution as a complete non-issue (but you asked specifically about creationists, so this group is outside of the scope of our desired answer).
Some hold what are sometimes called "compromise positions" by young-earth creationists, such as the Day-Age theory or the Gap Theory.  Each of these theories explains an old earth while allowing for a semi-literal interpretation of the Genesis account:  The Gap Theory by indicating that there's a "gap" between creation and Genesis and the Day-Age theory by explaining the days in Genesis as "time periods" rather than literal days.
Others - literal young-earth creationists see flaws in the arguments and have specific arguments about the accuracy of the methods used to date the universe as old, and point to other evidences that could indicate a young earth.

To answer this fully would be too big an answer for this forum, but if you're really interested in how young earth creationists explain these things, a good resource you might consider is: http://www.icr.org (The Institute for Creation Research)

They also have articles that explain the gap and day-age theories, but they absolutely hold to the young-earth creationist view.

As for the  partly man/partly ape skeletons, both the young and old earth creationist camps happily point to several examples of "human ancestors" that turned out to be mistaken identity or outright fraud.  (Nebraska man, Java Man, and Piltdown man all come to mind off  the top of my head.)  They ask, "If these were accepted as human ancestors, and have been shown to be false, why would we automatically assume that the current "ancestors" are to be trusted."

But again, there's a range of beliefs, and not all creationists agree on every specific point or example.


What is an overview of Protestant critiques of Swedenborgianism?

Protestant critiques of Swedenborgianism first appeared shortly after the publications of his spiritual writings in the middle of the 18th century.  Protestant theologians focused most closely on his teachings and those of his followers through the 19th century, and since then have afforded Swedenborgianism relatively little attention.1
The primary Protestant critiques of Swedenborgianism can be grouped into several categories:

The source and nature of Swedenborg's visions
Inspiration and interpretation of the Bible
The doctrines of the nature of God, salvation, and the afterlife

Swedenborg's visions
Source of the visions
The source of Swedenborg's visions is a matter of some debate within Protestantism, though they are universally scorned.  Some, beginning with Swedenborg's contemporary, John Wesley, attributed the visions to insanity: Wesley wrote in his journal that Swedenborg was "one of the most ingenious, lively, and entertaining madmen that ever set pen to paper" and that his dreams were "remote both from Scripture and common sense."2
More modern treatments, however, often attribute the visions to the occult. Walter Martin and Ravi Zacharias admit that "no one can reasonably say that Swedenborg was insane," but instead call him a "medium" and "thoroughgoing spiritist," and provide several examples of "communication with the spirit world in direct violation of the express commands of Scripture."3 John Ankerberg and John Weldon say that he "fell prey to deceiving spirits" and ignored scriptural warnings against spirit contact because he "believed 'good' spirits had taught him the truth."4
Nature of the visions
It naturally follows from the preceding that Protestants view the alleged supernatural revelation of Swedenborg as novel and false.  A. H. Strong argues that "all new communications which would contradict or supersede" Scripture, including Swedenborg's, must be tested against God's Word according to 1 John 4:1.5  He also suggests the test of miraculous signs, and finds that "all so-called new prophecy, from Montanus to Swedenborg, proves its own falsity by its lack of attesting miracles."6
A. A. Hodge likewise finds that Swedenborgianism lacks the "'signs' of a supernatural revelation."  Instead, it and other similar "pretended revelations of the Spirit," like Mormonism, "are inconsistent with Scripture truth, directly oppose the authority of Scripture and teach bad morals."7 Charles Hodge finds a striking similarity between revelation in Islam and Swedenborgianism: "as to the evidence, on which they ask us to receive their professed revelation, there is very little difference in principle."8
Bible
Canon
Swedenborg's Protestant critics attack him and his followers for what they regard as a failure to properly regard the traditional Bible.  Strong and others strenuously object to his "rejection of nearly one half the Bible (Ruth, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and the whole of the N. T. except the Gospels and the Apocalypse)."9 After examining the concept of "internal sense" promoted by Swedenborg as the basis for selection, Hodge instead argues that:

The authority of Swedenborg, capriciously exercised, is the true cause of rejecting these books. [...] The truth is, this rejection of thirty-two books is an open and arbitrary act of infidelity; and no reason can be given why we may not upon like grounds renounce the whole word of God.10

Furthermore, Hodge finds that Swedenborg's followers, for practical purposes, put Swedenborg's "writings before those of the prophets" of the Old Testament.11 Martin and Zacharias claim that "Swedenborg is consistently and energetically refuted by the epistles of Paul, particularly, the book of Romans, chapters 5 through 8, which Swedenborg detested with abject horror," and that this is the real basis for rejecting the epistles: "He began with the basic assumption that he was right, and that the apostle Paul was wrong!"12
Interpretation
Martin and Zacharias call Swedenborg's method of exegesis "a spiritual mode of interpreting Scripture."13 Church historian Philip Schaff calls his allegorizing "arbitrary and fanciful, often ingenious, often absurd," going "further than Philo and Origen in their allegorical method."14 Analyzing some examples of Swedenborg's "Science of Correspondence," Hodge finds that "every thing in scripture is figurative" and through it "the scriptures are made to mean any thing that the fancy of man can invent."15
Schaff notes that Swedenborg's "new revelation and theory of Scripture interpretation [...] exerted no influence on the regular course of historical development," and mercilessly states why:

The exegesis of Swedenborg is original, but critically and theologically worthless, and hence ignored in commentaries.14

Doctrine
In commenting generally on Swedenborg's doctrine, John Wesley calls it "quite unproved, quite precarious from beginning to end" and "in many instances [...] contradictory to Scripture, to reason, and to itself."16   Hodge calls the writings of Swedenborgianism a "labyrinth":

To the sober-minded who wish evidence before faith, who exercise their judgments, and are governed by any laws of reasoning, or rules of interpretation, we can conceive of nothing more unpleasant than an attempt to read, digest or understand the doctrine.  We have called it above "a system," but we used the term for want of a better.  It is a maze, a howling wilderness, a dreary waste of confusion and impiety.17

The most commonly cited examples of doctrinal discrepancy are in regards to the nature of God, particularly the Trinity and God's method of creation; atonement and justification; and the afterlife.
Nature of God
Louis Berkhof and John Frame, two recent systematic theologians, spare Swedenborg little notice in their summaries of the doctrine of the Trinity. Frame dismisses him as a thinker "whose thought was governed more by speculation than by Scripture,"18 and like Frame, Berkhof calls Swedenborg a Modalist:

Others followed the way pointed out by Sabellius by teaching a species of Modalism, as, for instance, Emanuel Swedenborg, who held that the eternal God-man became flesh in the Son, and operated through the Holy Spirit.19

Hodge likewise sees similarity in the views of Sabellius and Swedenborg: "There is indeed considerable variation in the language used, but the substance seems to us to be the same."20 A. H. Strong summarizes Swedenborg's view as "that God exists in the shape of a man—an anthropomorphism of which the making of idols is only a grosser and more barbarous form."21
Regarding the creation of the world, Berkhof and Strong liken Swedenborg's view to that of the Syrian Gnostics: "that the universe is of the same substance of God"22 and that "[creation] originated by emanation out of the divine substance."23 Hodge cites Swedenborg's rejection of traditional creation and finds that he instead "gathered up" the "essential principles of pantheism."24
Atonement and salvation
Charles Hodge summarizes Swedenborg's view of atonement as follows:

Christ’s redemptive work does not consist in his bearing our sins upon the tree, or in making satisfaction to the justice of God for our offences. All idea of such satisfaction Swedenborg rejects. The work of salvation is entirely subjective. Justification is pardon granted on repentance.25

Elsewhere, he writes on the same topic that "doctrines more contrary to those taught by the Apostles we may safely say have never been propagated."26   Hodge also notes that Swedenborgians do not accept the justification by faith, and argues that they "greatly misrepresented" it.  Attempting to clarify, he writes:

The Christian world does not hold that the faith, which justifies, is separate from charity, or that it alone exists in the heart [...]. Faith is not meritorious but only instrumental in justification.  If Swedenborg had half the information or discernment attributed to him by his followers, he must have known that he was misrepresenting the doctrine of the Christian world.27

Strong, Wesley, and Hodge also criticize the claim that Swedenborgianism is essential to salvation.  Strong notes that in Swedenborg's visions, members of the sects that Swedenborg disliked "were in the hells, condemned to everlasting punishment."28  Wesley writes, "and the worst is, he flatly affirms, 'None can go to heaven, who believes three persons in the Godhead.'"29
Heaven, hell, and resurrection
Swedenborg's revelation regarding heaven and hell remind many Protestants of Islam, both in its marked contrast to the revelation of the Bible and in the description itself. On the first point, Archibald Alexander writes:

It is worthy of remark, that although the Scriptures express the joys of heaven, and the miseries of hell, by the strongest figures, they do not enter much into detail, respecting the condition of men, in the future world. There is true wisdom in this silence; because it is a subject, of which we are, at present, incapable, of forming any distinct conceptions. Paul, after being caught up “to paradise, and to the third heaven,” gave no account of what he saw and heard, when he returned. How different is this from the ridiculous description of the seven heavens, by Mohammed; and from the reveries of Emmanuel Swedenborg!30

John Wesley critiqued Swedenborg's view of heaven as "low, grovelling, just suiting a Mahometan paradise" and prone "to sink our conceptions, both of the glory of heaven, and of the inhabitants of it."31  Wesley's criticism of the doctrine of hell followed similar lines:

And his account of hell leaves nothing terrible in it; for, first, he quenches the unquenchable fire.  He assures us there is no fire there [...].  And, secondly, he informs you, that all the damned enjoy their favourite pleasures.  He that delights in filth is to have his filth; yea, and his harlot too!31

Regarding Swedenborg's doctrine of resurrection, Hodge writes that "it is not a resurrection at all";32 instead, "At death the outer body is laid aside, and the soul thereafter acts through the ethereal or spiritual vestment. This is the only resurrection which Swedenborg admitted. There is no rising again of the bodies laid in the grave."25
Martin and Zacharias note that this precludes the future "resurrection of both the just and the unjust [...] in conjunction with the 'appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ'"33 that they see clearly taught in the book of Revelation.
Summary
Martin and Zacharias summarize Swedenborgianism by calling it "outside the pale of Christian theology [...] not only concerning the Canon, but concerning such doctrines as the nature of God, the holy Trinity, the atonement of Jesus Christ, and the doctrines of salvation and resurrection."34 In closing, they write:

The great tragedy of Emanuel Swedenborg is that he would not submit himself and his great mind to the discipline of the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures.  Because of this, and because of his deliberated preoccupation with spiritism and the occult, in direct disobedience to the express teachings of God, he was despoiled, even as Paul had warned [Colossians 2:8–9]. He was deceived by dreams and visions and the machinations of him whom the Scriptures describe as the "spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience" (Ephesians 2:2b).35

References:

Alexander, Evidences of the Christian Religion (1832)
Ankerberg and Weldon, Cult Watch (1991)
Berkhof, Systematic Theology (1938)
Frame, Systematic Theology (2013)
Hodge, A. A., Commentary on the Confession of Faith (1869)
Hodge, C., ed., Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, 1848, No. III, Art. II. (1848). This 22-page article is the most complete Protestant critique of the doctrine of Swedenborg and his followers that I've found.
Hodge, C., ed., Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, 1870, No. II, Art. II. (1870)
Hodge, C., Systematic Theology (1873)
Martin and Zacharias, Kingdom of the Cults (2003)
Schaff, Theological Propaedeutic (1892)
Strong, Systematic Theology (1886)
Wesley, Journals
Wesley, Works (v. 4)

Notes:

A. A. Hodge, Charles Hodge, Archibald Alexander, and A. H. Strong all wrote in the late 19th century or earlier.  My searches indicate that Swedenborg is notably absent from treatments like Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology (1994), H. Orton Wiley's Christian Theology (1940), J. Rodman William's Renewal Theology (1996), and Gregg R. Allison's Historical Theology (2011).  He merits extremely brief mention in John Frame's Systematic Theology (2013) and, rather surprisingly, William Shedd's History of Christian Doctrine (1863).
Wesley, Journals
Martin and Zacharias, 634
Ankerberg and Weldon,  171–72
Strong, I: 32
Strong, II: 712
Hodge, A. A., 60–61
Hodge, C., ed., 1848: 349–50
Strong, I: 207
Hodge, C., ed., 1848: 335–36
Hodge, C., ed., 1848: 338
Martin and Zacharias, 638
Martin and Zacharias, 633
Schaff, 226–27
Hodge, C., ed., 1848: 346–48
Wesley, Works, IV: 149
Hodge, C., ed., 1848: 350–51
Frame, 476
Berkhof, 1.1.8.A
Hodge, C., ed. 1848: 340
Strong, I: 251
Strong, II: 383
Berkhof, 1.2.3.C.4
Hodge, C., ed., 1870: 214
Hodge, C. 3.3.8
Hodge, C., ed., 1848: 341
Hodge, C., ed., 1848: 342
Strong, II: 386
Wesley, Works, IV: 149.  He appears to be quoting Swedenborg's Doctrine of the Lord.  Hodge remarks similarly in 1848: 352.
Alexander, 191
Wesley, Works, IV: 149–50
Hodge, C., ed., 1848: 345
Martin and Zacharias, 640
Martin and Zacharias, 632
Martin and Zacharias, 641


What is the basis for Topical Preaching?

Though I personally tend to favour expository preaching in practice, topical preaching certainly has its place.

Scriptural Basis
A case could be made from Scriptural example...
Jesus's Preaching
Jesus's recorded preaching was purely topical - as far as I know, he never took a passage from the Old Testament and expanded on it.  Rather, he chose topics that his audience needed to hear, and quoted various scriptures when relevant.  For example, see the Sermon On The Mount
Disciple's Preaching
Like Jesus's preaching, records of the disciple's sermons were topical.  They had in mind what they needed to talk about (preaching the Gospel, typically), and they used occasional Scripture references for support.  In other words, their preaching was directed by the subject at hand (using Scripture as support), rather than being directed by a passage (expanding on applications of the passage).
For examples, see:

Acts 2:14-36
Acts 3:11-26
Acts 17:22-31

Letters to Churches
All though they are not strictly sermons, one might argue that the letters to the churches are quite analogous to sermons, and would have been sermons had the authors been among their recipients.  As it is, all of the letters to churches are topical rather than expository.  The argument could then be, since the goals of sermons and letters are the same: to correct doctrine, bring to maturity, encourage, etc, why should the content change simply because the medium changes?
Caveat...
But of course, we ought to keep in mind that when Jesus and the disciples preached, they were preaching something new, and didn't have much material to exposit.  So these Scriptural examples should by no means be used to argue that preaching must be exclusively topical, but they do at least provide a basis for the acceptability of topical preaching.

Reasonable Basis
We think in topics
We think about things in topics.  Whether we preach expositionally, or topically, we reduce things into topics naturally.  Expository preaching is great, but say we want to know about a topic such as freedom in Christ from the law.  Expository preaching will cover that when going through Romans, and also when going through Galatians, but a topical sermon on the subject drawing from a wide range of scriptures would greatly clarify and unify things.
Topics may need to be covered
It is often necessary to preach in order to meet a certain need.  Perhaps there is high confusion about something, or perhaps a congregation simply needs to be brought onto the right track regarding an issue.  If all sermons are simply systematically going through Scripture, then these needs will not be met (unless a topical sermon is interjected, and that is topical preaching).

Traditional Basis
In my opinion, tradition should not be taken into account as the basis for anything.

So, in conclusion, I think both have their place.  One danger with topical preaching (and the reason why I prefer expository preaching) is that it tends to be more eisegetical, as preachers tend to subtly twist Scriptures to fit their arguments.  This is a mistake, and while it is not a fundamental part of topical preaching, it does tend to occur in practice.


What does Paul mean when he says Jesus "emptied himself"?

The King James translates the same verse as this:

But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Of course, there are likely to be several different meanings attributed to this, but the most common is the one that you posted - that He took on the humble nature of a servant.

Barnes' notes on the Bible says this:  (Emphasis mine where added)

  But made himself of no reputation - This translation by no means
  conveys the sense of the original According to this it would seem that
  he consented to be without distinction or honor among people; or that
  he was willing to be despised or disregarded. The Greek is ἑαυτον
  ἐκένωσεν heauton ekenōsen. The word κενόω kenoō means literally,
  to empty, "to make empty, to make vain or void." It is rendered: "made
  void" in Romans 4:14; "made of none effect," 1 Corinthians 1:17; "make
  void," 1 Corinthians 9:15; "should be vain," 2 Corinthians 9:3. The
  word does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, except in the
  passage before us. The essential idea is that of bringing to
  emptiness, vanity, or nothingness; and, hence, it is applied to a case
  where one lays aside his rank and dignity, and becomes in respect to
  that as nothing; that is, he assumes a more humble rank and station.
  In regard to its meaning here, we may remark:

  (1) that it cannot mean that he literally divested himself of his
  divine nature and perfections, for that was impossible. He could not
  cease to be omnipotent, and omnipresent, and most holy, and true, and
  good.

  (2) it is conceivable that he might have laid aside, for a time, the
  symbols or the manifestation of his glory, or that the outward
  expressions of his majesty in heaven might have been withdrawn. It is
  conceivable for a divine being to intermit the exercise of his
  almighty power, since it cannot be supposed that God is always
  exerting his power to the utmost. And in like manner there might be
  for a time a laying aside or intermitting of these manifestations or
  symbols, which were expressive of the divine glory and perfections.
  Yet,

  (3) this supposes no change in the divine nature, or in the essential
  glory of the divine perfections. When the sun is obscured by a cloud,
  or in an eclipse, there is no real change of its glory, nor are his
  beams extinguished, nor is the sun himself in any measure changed. His
  luster is only for a time obscured. So it might have been in regard to
  the manifestation of the glory of the Son of God. Of course there is
  much in regard to this which is obscure, but the language of the
  apostle undoubtedly implies more than that he took an humble place, or
  that he demeaned himself in an humble manner. In regard to the actual
  change respecting his manifestations in heaven, or the withdrawing of
  the symbols of his glory there, the Scriptures are nearly silent, and
  conjecture is useless - perhaps improper. The language before us
  fairly implies that he laid aside that which was expressive of his
  being divine - that glory which is involved in the phrase "being in
  the form of God" - and took upon himself another form and
  manifestation in the condition of a servant.

In short, per the Barnes' notes, He did not lay aside any of His power or Godly characteristics, He merely did not exercise them.

Gills' commentary says this:

  ...He lost nothing of what he had; the glory of his divine nature was
  covered, and out of sight;...

Vincent's Word Studies also agrees:

  The general sense is that He divested Himself of that peculiar mode of
  existence which was proper and peculiar to Him as one with God. He
  laid aside the form of God. In so doing, He did not divest Himself of
  His divine nature. The change was a change of state: the form of a
  servant for the form of God. His personality continued the same. His
  self-emptying was not self-extinction, nor was the divine Being
  changed into a mere man. In His humanity He retained the consciousness
  of deity, and in His incarnate state carried out the mind which
  animated Him before His incarnation. He was not unable to assert
  equality with God. He was able not to assert it.

as do Wesley's notes

  Though he remained full, John 1:14, yet he appeared as if he had been
  empty; for he veiled his fulness from the sight of men and angels.

Most of the commentaries that I can find agree with your original understanding of the phrase.  He retained all His power and glory, he merely chose not to exercise it.

These, and a whole slew of other commentaries are available at http://bible.cc/philippians/2-7.htm


Does Exodus Ministries' about-face on "pray away the gay" signal a theological change?

Exodus International, and its founder, Alan Chambers, recently made news by very publicly changing its methodology of helping to change homosexual orientations. Once derisively called "pray away the gay," Exodus' insistence that homosexual orientation can be changed through prayer has been abandoned.  Futhermore, on June 19, 2013,  Exodus International willingly ceased all operations.  This caused a situation in which Chambers said:

It is also strange to be an outcast from powerful portions of both the gay community and the Christian community.  Because I do not completely agree with the vocal majorities in either group and am forging a new place of peaceful service in and through both, I will likely continue to be an outsider to some degree.

In his apology letter here, Alan Chambers writes:

And then there is the trauma that I have caused. There were several years that I conveniently omitted my ongoing same-sex attractions. I was afraid to share them as readily and easily as I do today. They brought me tremendous shame and I hid them in the hopes they would go away. Looking back, it seems so odd that I thought I could do something to make them stop. Today, however, I accept these feelings as parts of my life that will likely always be there. The days of feeling shame over being human in that way are long over, and I feel free simply accepting myself as my wife and family does. As my friends do. As God does.

He is apologizing for not for doctrine, but implementation. He apologizes for what he considers to be an ommission, not a doctrine.  He explictly states:

More than anything, I am sorry that so many have interpreted this religious rejection by Christians as God’s rejection.  I am profoundly sorry that many have walked away from their faith and that some have chosen to end their lives. For the rest of my life I will proclaim nothing but the whole truth of the Gospel, one of grace, mercy and open invitation to all to enter into an inseverable relationship with almighty God.
I cannot apologize for my deeply held biblical beliefs about the boundaries I see in scripture surrounding sex, but I will exercise my beliefs with great care and respect for those who do not share them.  I cannot apologize for my beliefs about marriage. But I do not have any desire to fight you on your beliefs or the rights that you seek. My beliefs about these things will never again interfere with God’s command to love my neighbor as I love myself.

In making this very public about face, he is clear that he writes this out of a desire for radical alignment with Christ:

My desire is to completely align with Christ, his Good News for all and his offer of peace amidst the storms of life. My wife Leslie and my beliefs center around grace, the finished work of Christ on the cross and his offer of eternal relationship to any and all that believe. Our beliefs do not center on “sin” because “sin” isn’t at the center of our faith. Our journey hasn’t been about denying the power of Christ to do anything – obviously he is God and can do anything

In short, he saying, "I was wrong about the how, not the what."  As such, this is clearly not theological change, but rather a tactical one.


What is the Order of the Resurrection of the Dead?
The majority of Christians (Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and many more) will conform that the Order of the Resurrection of the Dead is as follows:

Resurrection of the widow’s son in Zarephath (1 Kgs 17:17–22)
Resurrection of the Shunammite’s son (2 Kgs 4:18–37)
Resurrection of the man thrown into Elisha’s grave (2 Kgs 13:20)
Resurrection of Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5:41)
Resurrection of the young man at Nain (Luke 7:14)
Resurrection of Lazarus (John 11:38–44)
Resurrection of unknown saints during the crucifixion (Matt 27:52–53)
Resurrection of Christ (Matt 28:1-6)
Resurrection of Tabitha/Dorcas (Acts 9:36–42)
Resurrection of Eutychus (Acts 20:7–12)
Resurrection of the Two Witnesses (Rev 11:7–11)
Resurrection of Old Testament Saints and Martyrs (Revelation 20:4)
Final Resurrection (1 Thessalonians 4:16–18) (John 5:28-29)
Resurrection of the Wicked (Revelation 20:5)

Different Christian denominations may interpret these passages differently, but as far as the Scriptures speak this is the order of resurrections according to Sacred Scriptures.


Why does the Catholic Church prefer burials over cremation?

Cremation erodes the belief in the resurrection of the body* and the afterlife (although nothing can prevent our bodies from resurrecting on the last day).

Moral theologians Frs. McHugh, O.P. & Callan, O.P.'s Moral Theology §2595 write:

  (b) The prohibition of the cremation of corpses (Canon 1203 [= 1983 Code canon 1184 [§1.2]]) is not based on natural law or on any dogma, as though the burning of dead bodies were intrinsically evil or repugnant to our faith in immortality and resurrection. On the contrary, in exceptional cases (e.g., in time of war or epidemic) cremation is permitted, if a real public necessity requires it. The reasons for the anti-cremation law are: the tradition of the Old and New Testaments (Gen., iii, 19; I Cor., xv. 42), and especially the example of Christ whose body was consigned to the tomb; the association of burial throughout the history of the Church with sacred rites and the doctrine of the future life, and the contrary association of cremation both in times past and today with paganism and despair; the sacred dignity of the human body (Gen., i. 25; I Cor., iii. 16, iii. 5), and the feeling of affection for parents, relatives, friends, which is outraged when their bodies are consigned to the furnace. The practical arguments offered for cremation are chiefly hygienic and economic; but it is certain that proper burial at sea or in the grave is no menace to public health, and is not more expensive or difficult than cremation. A most serious objection to cremation is that it makes exhumation impossible, and is therefore a means of concealing murder by poison. It is not lawful for a Catholic to coöperate (except materially in case of necessity) with cremation, or to belong to any society that promotes the incineration of corpses; it is not lawful for a priest to give the last Sacraments or funeral rites to those who ordered the cremation of their bodies.

cf. §40.14 "Cremation" of Romano Amerio's Iota Unum

The 1869 International Congress of Freemasons made them promote cremation for undermining belief in the resurrection of the body and the afterlife. Fr. John Laux writes in Catholic Morality (imprimatur 1932), p. 106:

  On December 8, 1869, the International Congress of Freemasons imposed it as a duty on all its members to do all in their power to wipe out Catholicity from the face of the earth. Cremation was proposed as a suitable means to this end, since it was calculated to gradually undermine the faith of the people in "the resurrection of the body and life everlasting."

cf. Charles Augustine, O.S.B., D.D.'s A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law on 1917 canon 1240: "all societies whose principal purpose is to promote cremation, or which have tendencies similar to those of Freemasonry" are prohibited from ecclesiastical burial.

*Notes on the resurrection of the body & cremation:

The Sadducees—the Jewish sect Jesus called, along with the Pharisees, a "brood of vipers" (Mt. 3:7)—disbelieved (unlike the Pharisees) the resurrection of the body (cf. Mt. 22:23).

Now, under the guise of "hygiene," cremation is actually incentivized.(similar to how circumcision—which began as a Jewish purification ritual—is now promoted for hygienic reasons, despite there being no evidence it is more hygienic, although the circumcision rate in the U.S., at least, is declining; and today's circumcision is very different from how ancient Jews were circumcised, which was with one swipe of a knife; modern, Pharisaic circumcision dates from 140 AD)

There are places that freezes bodies because they believe in the future the technology will be so advanced as to be able to resurrect the dead! It's possible, but an unreasonable hope. Even the pagan philosophers realized the human soul is immortal and is still related to the body after death (although some of them did believe in reincarnation). That the soul is immortal follows from the fact we humans are able to know universal things, which are eternal.