What are the reasons for the Catholic Church's law regarding the Communion fast?

Fr. William P. Saunders of Catholic Straight Answers gives the following reasons for fasting before Communion:

The most important point regarding this question concerns why we ought to [ever] fast. St. Paul reminds us, "Continually we carry about in our bodies the dying of Jesus, so that in our bodies the life of Jesus may also be revealed" (II Cor 4:10). We, too, are charged to convert our whole lives — body and soul — to the Lord. This conversion process involves doing penance — including bodily mortification like fasting — for our sins and weaknesses, which in turn strengthens and heals us. Pope Paul VI exhorted the faithful in his apostolic constitution "Paenitemini" (1966), "Mortification aims at the 'liberation' of man, who often finds himself, because of concupiscence, almost chained by his own senses. Through 'corporal fasting' man regains strength, and the wound inflicted on the dignity of our nature by intemperance is cured by the medicine of a salutary abstinence."
Moreover, the fast before receiving holy Communion creates a physical hunger and thirst for the Lord, which in turn augments the spiritual hunger and thirst we ought to have. In the Old Testament, fasting prepared individuals to receive the action of God and to be placed in His presence. For instance, Moses (Ex 34:28) fasted 40 days atop Mount Sinai as he received the Ten Commandments, and Elijah (I Kings 19:8) fasted 40 days as he walked to Mount Horeb to encounter God. Similarly, Jesus Himself fasted 40 days as He prepared to begin His public ministry (Mt 4:1ff) and encouraged fasting (Mt 6:16-18). Likewise, this corporal work enhances the spiritual disposition we need to receive Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. In a sense, we fast so as not "to spoil our appetite" but to increase it for the sharing of the paschal banquet. Jesus said in the beatitudes, "Blest are they who hunger and thirst for holiness; they shall have their fill" (Mt 5:6). In all, fasting is an exercise of humility, hope and love — essential virtues in preparing ourselves to receive the holy Eucharist.

Fr. John Dietzen makes a similar statement in an editorial in the Catholic Courier, in which he recounts the ways the fasting requirement has loosened through the centuries:

Older Catholics will remember that for centuries total fast from all food and liquids was required from midnight until receiving the Eucharist. ... At the end of the third council session in 1964, Pope Paul VI considerably simplified the eucharistic fast. According to his 1964 decree, people should fast from food and liquids for one hour before receiving Communion. Water does not break the fast and may be taken anytime. The same goes for medications. ... The reason this modified regulation is still on the books is that it can aid in preparing oneself spiritually and mentally for participating in the offering of the Eucharist at Mass and for receiving Communion.

In chapter 6 of Letter 54 (to Januarius) Augustine deals with the question of whether, since Jesus instituted the sacrament during supper, it is proper to make a rule contrary to those circumstances:

It is clear that when the disciples first received the body and blood of the Lord, they had not been fasting. Must we therefore censure the universal Church because the sacrament is everywhere partaken of by persons fasting? Nay, verily, for from that time it pleased the Holy Spirit to appoint, for the honour of so great a sacrament, that the body of the Lord should take the precedence of all other food entering the mouth of a Christian; and it is for this reason that the custom referred to is universally observed. For the fact that the Lord instituted the sacrament after other food had been partaken of, does not prove that brethren should come together to partake of that sacrament after having dined or supped, or imitate those whom the apostle reproved and corrected for not distinguishing between the Lord's Supper and an ordinary meal. The Saviour, indeed, in order to commend the depth of that mystery more affectingly to His disciples, was pleased to impress it on their hearts and memories by making its institution His last act before going from them to His Passion. And therefore He did not prescribe the order in which it was to be observed, reserving this to be done by the apostles, through whom He intended to arrange all things pertaining to the Churches. Had He appointed that the sacrament should be always partaken of after other food, I believe that no one would have departed from that practice.

It is important to note that 1 Corinthians 11 itself deals with abuses stemming from the feasts surrounding Communion. The feasts were not mandated anywhere in Scripture, and were banned by the church at the 363 Council of Laodicea according to Haydock's commentary on verse 21. Continuing on from where we left off, Augustine even conjectures that Paul himself banned the feasts when he visited Corinth:

But when the apostle, speaking of this sacrament, says, "Wherefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, tarry one for another: and if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that you come not together unto condemnation," he immediately adds, "and the rest will I set in order when I come." (1 Corinthians 11:33-34) Whence we are given to understand that, since it was too much for him to prescribe completely in an epistle the method observed by the universal Church throughout the world, it was one of the things set in order by him in person, for we find its observance uniform amid all the variety of other customs.

I was going to include some quotes from Haydock, but for the most part he just echoes Augustine.


In context, the Pharisees are talking about Christ casting out a devil, not a healing.

  Matt 12:22,24 Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. 24) But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub [Satan] the prince of the devils. (emphisis mine)

So the people at the time understood this man to be blind and dumb because of the devil and he was healed of that by casting out the devil. Hence why Christ talked about a divided house against itself since He was accused of casting the devil out by the power of Satan.

Satan has real power, and can counterfeit the works of Christ, especially when it comes to healing and the like. Which is why the context of being healed by the casting out of the devil is so important here. So just be aware of anyone that claims to heal and watch their fruits. Not just the big public displays like healing. Do they heal to bring people to Christ? Or for financial gain, or fame or something else? Do they preach of Christ and urge all to come unto Him? Do they claim to heal in Christs name or their own? These are some important questions to ask about anyone who claims to have any spiritual gift.


Is Communion still Communion under only the species of wine?

Yes, but receiving the species of consecrated wine alone is not common.

During Mass, the celebrant(s) separately consecrates the Bread to the Body, Blood, Spirit and Divinity of Christ, and the Wine to the Body, Blood, Spirit and Divinity of Christ. Each is equally divine, and each is the Eucharist. The priest signifies this by taking a piece of the host and placing it into the chalice.

It is recommended that, when available, the communicant receive both forms, but it not required. It is recommended that, whenever feasible, that communion be offered in both forms.  But it is not required.

Note: when presenting the consecrated host the minister says "The Body of Christ" to the communicant, and when presenting the chalice the minister says "The Blood of Christ". This describes the physical form only and references back to the Last Supper.  Each form of communion is the Body, Blood, Spirit and Divinity of Christ.

Reference:  The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, Chapter 1


How do Cessationists interpret John 14:8-14, especially verses 11 and 12?

As Rhetorician has said, it is the greater work of bringing souls to salvation.  Just before Christ died, after His ministry of, debatably, three and a half years, there were about one hundred and twenty believers (Acts 1:15) in Jerusalem, and some elsewhere (eg at Sychar in Samaria).  When Peter preached at Pentecost, on the first day of receiving the Holy Spirit, about three thousand souls were added to their number (Acts 2:41).
That is the greater works.
The miraculous healings of the New Testament era, apart from those of our Lord, were done only by the Apostles and by two of their close band.. Stephen and Phillip.  The only other miraculous healing was by the restoration of sight to Saul by Ananias (Acts 9:17).  That's it.  Notice the following verses:-
Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. (Acts 2:43)
And through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon’s Porch.  (Acts 5:12)
Truly the signs of an apostle were accomplished among you with all perseverance, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds. (2 Corinthians 12:12).
They were the signs of an Apostle, not of all believers, or many believers.
how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard him, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will? (Hebrews 2:3-4)
And if there were some who had gifts of miracles, signs and wonders then we should expect to see them named in the following verse:
And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ  (Ephesians 4:11-12)
And then we discover Paul who had power to raise the dead at an earlier stage lost the power to heal Timothy, advising take a little wine for the sake of your frequent illnesses (1 Timothy 5:23)... and
Trophimus: Trophimus I left in Miletus sick (2 Timothy 4:20).... and
Epaphroditus: Yet I considered it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, fellow worker, and fellow soldier, but your messenger and the one who ministered to my need; since he was longing for you all, and was distressed because you had heard that he was sick. (Phil 2:24-26)
Finally when a believer was sick they were not to call for a worker of miracles or a wonder worker, they were to call for the ordinarily appointed elders of the church who were chosen on the basis of their spirituality (1 Timothy 3:1-7).  These are the ones to call:
Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.  (James 5:14-15)
Cessationists believe that the greater works means effective preaching of the Gospel with the aid of the Holy Spirit; the continuing works of miraculous gifts and healings is a myth.
The sign miracles were the work of the apostles and a few of their band only.  And only those who were eye witnesses of the resurrection could be an Apostle (Acts 1:21-26) who are by their writings along with the Old Testament prophets the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20).
And the Word of God explicitly tells us that the last of the Apostles was the Apostle Paul:
After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.  For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. (1 Corinthians 15:7-9)
There are no more Apostles, nor Prophets, nor the signs of Apostles (2 Cor 12:12) which were given to authenticate their message of the Gospel.
[[I have used "Proving the Charismatic gifts have ceased" by Dr Peter Masters, a 50 pence booklet from the Tabernacle Bookshop, Metropolitan Tabernacle, Elephant & Castle, London. Tel: UK 0207 735 7076]]


Can a Catholic priest take Anglican services?

The churches of the Anglican Communion recognize the validity of Holy orders conferred by the Roman Catholic Church, so that a Bishop, Priest or Deacon who converted from Catholicism to Anglicanism, would remain a Bishop, Priest or Deacon, and could serve in the appropriate roles in the Anglican Church, subject to the relevant canon(s) of the various constituent churches of the Communion. It is also probably true, that a Catholic Bishop, Priest, or Deacon could be permitted to exercise his role in an Anglican church on a one time basis. In either case, though, whether a full conversion or a one time event, this would violate Roman Catholic canon law, and the Catholic Priest, Bishop, or Deacon, would likely be automatically excommunicated by virtue of having performed the act.

As far as going the other way, the Roman Catholic Church recognizes Anglican orders as "absolutely null and utterly void" (Pope Leo XIII's Apostolicae Curae §36), so an Anglican converting to Catholicism would have to be ordained in the Catholic Church. This does, in fact, happen, and there are some number of Anglican clergy who have converted and been ordained and who serve as Priests in Roman Catholic environments, even when those Priests are married.


Did the pope choose sides between the Allies and the Axis in World War 2?

When asked this question, I do like to point to one little-examined incident in 1942. In July of 1942 the Dutch bishops actually did send a letter to the Nazi government protesting, specifically, the Nazi treatment of the Jews.

  Ours is a time of great tribulations of which two are foremost: the sad destiny of the Jews and the plight of those deported for forced labor. … All of us must be aware of the terrible sufferings which both of them have to undergo, due to no guilt of their own. We have learned with deep pain of the new dispositions which impose upon innocent Jewish men, women and children the deportation into foreign lands. … The incredible suffering which these measures cause to more than 10,000 people is in absolute opposition to the divine precepts of justice and charity. … Let us pray to God and for the intercession of Mary … that he may lend his strength to the people of Israel, so severely tried in anguish and persecution

Now, as a respectful, thoughtful group of individuals, what do you think the Nazis did? Did they stop sending Jews to the gas chamber? ... I don't think so. In fact, this letter corresponds to a dramatic increase in the rate of detainment and deportation of Dutch Jews including one, now canonized, Edith Stein.

Now, admittedly, this was in 1942, so it clearly does not excuse silence from before that time, right? I'll agree wholeheartedly, except that I'll point out that Pius XII wasn't silent. Quoth the Third Reich's Chief Security Service:

  Pacelli has already made himself prominent by his attacks on National Socialism during his tenure as Cardinal Secretary of State, a fact which earned him the hearty approval of the Democratic States during the papal elections. . . . How much Pacelli is celebrated as an ally of the Democracies is especially emphasized in the French Press.

(And I think it also worth noting that Pacelli was consecrated Pius XII in March of 1939, ten years after the Vatican was subjected to Mussolini's government, and five months before Hitler invaded Poland.)

But let us look to those who have been persecuted, and see whether they felt that Pius XII supported Hitler. Quoth the chief rabbi of Jerusalem:

  The people of Israel will never forget what His Holiness and his illustrious delegates, inspired by the eternal principles of religion which form the very foundations of true civilization, are doing for us unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history, which is living proof of divine Providence in this world.

And then there are the numbers:

  instrumental in saving at least 700,000 but probably as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands

(Just in case anyone is counting, Schindler is at ~1,200. Pius at > 700,000. Pius > Schindler)

So, what do I see? Pius XII preached against Hitler, but he realizes that his flock will be put to the wolves if he preaches too readily. So, instead, he works behind the scenes to keep safe as many as he can.


What's clear from the account of Jonah is that God would have destroyed the city if it were not for the people's repentance. Jonah's prophecy was accurate in that it articulated what God was going to do, but God relented. There was no failing in Jonah's ability to discern and communicate the will of God prior to the people's repentance, but that remarkable repentance was a hugely significant event that altered the subsequent history of that city.

There is a bit of chicken-and-egg here. God could of course have prevented Jonah from making this prophecy since he knew the people would repent, in which case the people of Nineveh wouldn't have heard about what God had in store for them. They therefore might not have repented, and the city would have been destroyed... it's similar to the liar paradox. In other words, the people needed to hear Jonah tell them what was in store if they didn't repent in order to repent: the prophecy was conditional.

You could also argue that Jonah's prophecy holds true: the city was overthrown within 40 days, but in a spiritual sense rather than a physical one.

In the case of Joseph Smith, those who maintain he was a false prophet argue there were no such events that altered history in the same way yet still his prophecies did not come to pass; this isn't a case of God relenting, it's simply a case of getting it wrong in the first place. (Mormons of course disagree and maintain that some of his prophecies were later cancelled and others came to pass to a certain degree).

There are several supporting online resources... these are from a Google search, so  may not all be representative of mainstream Christianity: Let Us Reason Ministries | Christian Research Institute | Third Millennium Ministries | Mormonism Research Ministry


The verse in question is:

  Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ
  λόγος.

That bold part is, somewhat literally, "God the word was".

The issue here is the lack of the indefinite article in Greek. They had no word for "a, an". Depending on context, it is acceptable and even necessary to insert those words into a translation. The question is whether or not it is appropriate here.

I think not, for lots of reasons. John and all the apostles were Jews, monotheists, and if they were teaching some new polytheism, wouldn't it have shown up in more places than an ambiguous Greek sentence?

edit in response to @Sotiris' comment:

Greek usually uses the definite article in front of proper nouns, which is probably what you're getting at. But in this case the lack of the article before θεὸς is easily explainable. A word-by-word translation would be "God was the word". Word order is flexible in Greek, and since both θεὸς and λόγος are in the nominative case, it would be impossible to determine which is the subject and which is the predicate nominative except for the placement of the article. ὁ λόγος clearly identifies λόγος as the subject, but ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος would be ambiguous (God was the word, or the word was God?).


Is a radically sanated marriage a true marriage without subsequent marital intimacy?

Almost certainly, yes; but it may depend on how thorough the party issuing the radical sanation was.

Radical sanation is the retroactive issuance of a dispensation (a waiver) from various conditions that prevented the marriage from being valid in the first place:

  The radical sanation of an invalid marriage is its convalidation without the renewal of consent, which is granted by competent authority and entails the dispensation from an impediment, if there is one, and from canonical form, if it was not observed, and the retroactivity of canonical effects.

(Code of Canon Law, Canon 1161 section 1)

Radical sanation can be issued by the local ordinary (usually the bishop of the diocese) in most cases, and always by the Holy See.

Obstacles to validity of a marriage can take any of three forms: defect of form, defect of consent, or impediment.

Defect of form, considered in canons 1108–1123 of the Code of Canon Law, occurs when the wedding does not take place according to the forum prescribed by canon law. Generally speaking, it means that the wedding did not take place in the parish church of either of the couple, or was not assisted by the pastor of the parish, or by a priest or deacon delegated by him. Defect of form, if not dispensed by the local ordinary, invalidates a marriage.

A second set of problems is defect of consent (discussed in canons 1095–1107), which can happen if either spouse were coerced into the marriage vows, or if they were judged mentally or psychologically incapable of understanding or carrying out the vows, or if they intended the vows to be dependent on some future condition ("I'll be married to you as long as you're physically attractive to me" or "... as long as you are making lots of money"), or if they don't intend their relationship to match what the Church considers marriage to be.

Finally, impediments are conditions the Church considers incompatible with marriage: relationship by blood or marriage within certain degrees, ordination or religious vows, being below a minimum age, being previously married, and some others. Impediments are discussed in canons 1083–1094.

Radical sanation, which basically excuses from obstacles after the fact, can handle all three of these obstacles (though defects of consent and impediments must have ceased before the sanation; that is, consent must now be given if it was lacking before, and there must be no further impediments still applicable). However, it will only excuse from defects the issuer of the sanation knows about. Thus, if the issuer is not informed about all obstacles to validity, the radical sanation may be insufficient to validate the marriage.

Once the sanation is issued, the marriage is considered to have been canonically valid from the beginning, if there was no defect of consent, or from the time free and full consent was given, if there was such a defect.  Thus, if the couple had had intercourse after the wedding, even if not after the radical sanation, the marriage is still considered valid and consummated (ratum et consummatum), and alterable "by no human power and by no cause, except death" (Canon 1141). Since canon 1162, section 1, states that

  A marriage cannot be radically sanated if consent is lacking in either or both of the parties,

this is certainly something which the ordinary is obliged to investigate. It appears most likely, then, assuming the person issuing the sanation was obedient to canon law, that the marriage is valid and indeed (assuming marital relations occurred after true consent was given) consummated.

If on the other hand the bishop did not investigate closely enough to discover that there is a continuing defect of consent, or to find all the impediments that applied at the time, or to ensure that these were not continuing, it is possible that the radical sanation was of no real effect and the marriage still invalid.

One would like to believe that such possibilities are remote, and they may be; still, bishops are humans, and busy humans at that; and they're not usually experts in canon law. So the best answer is simply that assuming the radical sanation was properly issued and inclusive of all necessary dispensations, the marriage is indeed valid in Catholic law. (In particular, conditions of married life after the sanation, such as withholding of marital relations after the marriage has been consummated, are not grounds for considering the marriage invalid according to canon law.)


Must Catholics believe in Christ's historicity?

Yes, Catholics must believe in the historicity of Christ.

  Is there some philosophical doctrine in Catholicism which does not require to believe in the historicity of Christ

No. This is the heresy of Modernism, whose philosophical foundation is agnosticism.

Pope St. Pius X condemned the following proposition as heretical in Lamentabili Sane (1907):

  It is permissible to grant that the Christ of history is far inferior to the Christ Who is the object of faith.

In Pope St. Pius X's encyclical Pascendi Dominici gregis (1907), he writes (§6):

  …it is inferred [by the Modernists] that God can never be the direct object of science, and that, as regards history, He must not be considered as an historical subject.

See also Pascendi §§ 9-10, 16-17, and esp. 29-33, and passim.

De Chardin was a heretic censored by the Holy See. cf.:

Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1988) by Wolfgang Smith


Do (or did) any Protestant denominations believe in apostolic succession like Catholics do?

Yes a number of churches other than the Roman Catholic Church believe in the Apostolic succession. A good example is the Church of England, which also follows the commonly accepted definition of Protestant (though it considers itself somewhat different from most other Protestant churches, largely because of the belief in Apostolic Succession). Specifically they believe that the leaders of the Church of England also follow the Apostolic Succession (there is not necessarily only one Apostolic Succession - the Apostles appointed many leaders, and they in turn appointed many leaders etc.)

The situation is that the Anglican church does not deny the validity of the Pope's Apostolic Succession, or of his leadership of the Roman Catholic Church. It does (and more importantly, did in 1534) deny his status as a wordwide leader of all Christian churches. This is in effect the theological difference that led to the English Reformation and the formation of the independent Church of England, and eventually the worldwide Anglican Communion.

The difference of opinion in 1534 was that the Roman Church believed that all (Western) churches should owe their (earthly) allegiance to the worldwide church, which happened to have its seat in Rome. The founders of the Church of England believed that a national church should be independent. (I'm leaving out a lot of things that aren't relevant to the immediate question).

Therefore: the last Pope that Anglicans recognize as the leader of the Church of England would be the one immediately before the Act of Supremacy came into effect - Pope Paul III. However they would not deny the validity of all subsequent Popes, up to and including the current one, as leaders of the Church of Rome.


To make an assertion that Christians should not do something, one must appeal to an authoritative source, most likely the Bible.  Nowhere in the Bible are we commanded not to pray for the salvation of unbelievers, and that is quite problematic to the argument.  Indeed, if we are not supposed to do something, would God not have mentioned it somewhere instead of leaving it up to us to figure out based on obscure logic?

In reality, the apostle Paul gives us an example for us to pray that others may be saved.  He specifically prays for Jewish unbelievers, and his prayer is specifically for their salvation.  While he does not specifically request others to do so, it would be quite a stretch to assert that this was only something Paul did that no one else was supposed to do.

  Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they
  may be saved.  Romans 10:1 ESV

Indeed, if God answers prayer, it would be difficult to find something to pray for in which He is more glorified than in someone responding to Jesus in faith.

Salvation does, indeed, come from God.  It is He who does the saving, so it's His salvation in that it comes from Him.  Yet, it is our salvation in that we are the ones saved by it.


Does Jesus/God understand uncertainty or sin?

Catholic Perspective

Tackling the sin part

Highlighting a false premise, that one must experience something for one to know/understand it. It is worth noting that experience is a type of knowledge ...

This is actually quite a loaded question philosophically, theologically, etc. Theologically, there is always mystery.

  2 Timothy 2:13
  (RSVCE)

  13 if we are faithless, he remains faithful—
  for he cannot deny himself.

Beginning here we see the reason. The mistake is to view sin as something, while it is actually an absence of something. cf. Evil | New Advent.

Jesus, is God, therefore, ALL Goodness, ALL Truth, ALL Love, etc. Hence St. Paul, for he cannot deny himself.

Not only did Jesus not sin, he could not sin (he was impeccable cf. The Incarnation | New Advent).

Herein is the mystery: Jesus, as Son, moves naturally and necessarily toward the Father, yet also freely.

Note:

Sin understood here as doing one's will in opposition to God's.

[The] Uncertainty part

The Church teaches that Jesus had a three-fold knowledge: acquired, infused, and beatific. Delving into this would answer if Jesus was ever uncertain; too broad a topic to be incorporated in this answer.


Why is the curse of original sin not specific to humans?

This is not a complete answer, but thought it would be good to point out nonetheless.

God had given Adam and Eve the dominion over the earth, the fish, birds...

"And God blessed them. And God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.'" Gen 1:28 ESV

My understanding of the results of the fall are that man's actions caused a ripple effect down the hierarchy of the earth. God entrusted the earth to Adam & Eve, and when they fell, much was affected.  This would include those things that they have dominion over, from my perspective.


Was Jesus' time in the wilderness the only time that He encountered Satan on Earth?

That is the only time it is given as a specific account of a face-to-face meeting. But, Satan was always there behind the scenes such as:

When Jesus told Simon Peter:

And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: [Luke 22:31 KJV]

We are not privy to that conversation between Jesus and Satan in the Biblical narrative, but it must have occured somewhere, sometime.

When Jesus told Simon Peter:

From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. [Matthew 16:21-23 KJV]

Jesus saw the influence of Satan working through Peter, to oppose the plan of God.

Many of Jesus' healings were to undo the works of Satan:

And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day? [Luke 13:16 KJV]

Jesus knew when Satan had entered Judas Iscariot:

Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly. [John 13:26-27 KJV]

When Jesus was born, Satan was the one who influences king Horod to kill all the baby boys under two years of age, to try to get rid of Him.

Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men. [Matthew 2:16 KJV]

I am sure that there are many more. Even though Satan might not have been in Jesus' face, from a human standpoint, he was always there to oppose Him any way he could.


Is Jesus saying "God willing" the same as "Insallah", said by Muslims before doing anything?

Inshallah is simply the Arabic for 'God willing' or 'if God wills'. If any person of any religion were to say "God willing" in Arabic, they would say "Inshallah". The word 'Allah' just means 'God' in Arabic, and is used by Arabic Christians to refer to the Christian God. 'Inshallah' is used by Christians to express the concept of "If God wills" (which is found in James 4: 13-15, and is not spoken by Jesus). Although widely associated with Islam, it is not specifically an Islamic expression.

So the concept of things happening only 'if God wills' exist both in Christianity and Islam, and the same word is used for both in Arabic, which is 'Inshallah'. Deducing from that support by the New Testament writers for Islam (which post-dated the New Testament by hundreds of years) would be unwarranted.


Alright, here's the non-trivial answer.

The idea is that we are all guilty.  It's pretty hard to deny this one:

Romans 3:23 (NIV)

  for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

Furthermore, while we are all guilty of sin, the punishment for this sin is death:

Romans 6:23a (NIV)

  For the wages of sin is death

If we go on in Romans 3, we see that the Jesus was the atonement for our sin.

Romans 3:25 (NIV)

  God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished

Definition of atonement

  satisfaction or reparation for a wrong or injury; amends.

So, we can see from Romans 3:25 above that Christ was the sacrifice of atonement for our sins.

In essence, we are guilty of the sins that we commit (Romans 3:23 at top).  Because of those sins, a price has to be paid (Romans 6:23a).  Since the price had to be paid, Jesus was presented as the atonement sacrifice. (Romans 3:25).  We can receive this atonement by faith (Romans 3:25 again).

Furthermore, this debt had to be paid to show that he is just.  God is both just and righteous--being the one who deals the justice as well as the one who justifies (through the atonement for the sin).

Romans 3:26 (NIV)

  he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Summary

God is a just God; He requires a penalty be paid for the sins we commit; and Jesus is that atonement for those sins.

Tying this in to my trivial answer, our sins create a debt that must be paid (just as our breaking the law creates a debt to society).  However, this debt has been paid already if we have faith to accept the grace given to us.


When was the formal title of Pope first officially bestowed on the Bishops of Rome?

Here is the short answer to your question:

Titles: The most noteworthy of the titles are Papa, Summus Pontifex, Pontifex Maximus, Servus servorum Dei. The title pope (papa) was, as has been stated, at one time employed with far more latitude. In the East it has always been used to designate simple priests. In the Western Church, however, it seems from the beginning to have been restricted to bishops (Tertullian, On Modesty 13). It was apparently in the fourth century that it began to become a distinctive title of the Roman Pontiff. Pope Siricius (d. 398) seems so to use it (Ep. vi in P.L., XIII, 1164), and Ennodius of Pavia (d. 473) employs it still more clearly in this sense in a letter to Pope Symmachus (P.L., LXIII, 69). Yet as late as the seventh century St. Gall (d. 640) addresses Desiderius of Cahors as papa (P.L., LXXXVII, 265). Gregory VII finally prescribed that it should be confined to the successors of Peter (1073-85).  Source: The Pope (Catholic Encyclopedia).

Below are quotes from the New Advent web site on the titles Bishop of Rome and Pope:

It is no longer denied by any writer of weight that St. Peter visited Rome and suffered martyrdom there (Harnack, "Chronol.", I, 244, n. 2). Some, however, of those who admit that he taught and suffered in Rome, deny that he was ever bishop of the city (e.g. Lightfoot, "Clement of Rome", II, 501; Harnack, op. cit., I, 703). It is not, however, difficult to show that the fact of his bishopric is so well attested as to be historically certain.
The first witness is St. Clement, a disciple of the Apostles, who, after Linus and Anacletus, succeeded St. Peter as the fourth in the list of popes. In his "Epistle to the Corinthians", written in 95 or 96, he bids them receive back the bishops whom a turbulent faction among them had expelled... The tone of authority which inspires the latter appears so clearly that Lightfoot did not hesitate to speak of it as "the first step towards papal domination" (Clement 1:70). Thus, at the very commencement of church history, before the last survivor of the Apostles had passed away, we find a Bishop of Rome, himself a disciple of St. Peter, intervening in the affairs of another Church and claiming to settle the matter by a decision spoken under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Such a fact admits of one explanation alone. It is that in the days when the Apostolic teaching was yet fresh in men's minds the universal Church recognized in the Bishop of Rome the office of supreme head.
The [second] century gives us the witness of St. Irenaeus — a man who stands in the closest connection with the age of the Apostles, since he was a disciple of St. Polycarp, who had been appointed Bishop of Smyrna by St. John. In his work "Adversus Haereses" (III:3:2) he brings against the Gnostic sects of his day the argument that their doctrines have no support in the Apostolic tradition faithfully preserved by the Churches, which could trace the succession of their bishops back to the Twelve.   He proceeds to enumerate the Roman succession from Linus to Eleutherius, the twelfth after the Apostles, who then occupied the see.
In the second century we cannot look for much evidence. With the exception of Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement of Alexandria, all the writers whose works we possess are apologists against either Jews or pagans. In works of such a character there was no reason to refer to such a matter as Peter's Roman episcopate.  Irenaeus, however, supplies us with a cogent argument. In two passages (Against Heresies I.27.1 and III.4.3) he speaks of Hyginus as ninth Bishop of Rome, thus employing an enumeration which involves the inclusion of Peter as first bishop.  Irenaeus we know visited Rome in 177.
In the first quarter of the third century (about 220) Tertullian (On Modesty 21) mentions Callistus's claim that Peter's power to forgive sins had descended in a special manner to him. Had the Roman Church been merely founded by Peter and not reckoned him as its first bishop, there could have been no ground for such a contention. Tertullian, like Firmilian, had every motive to deny the claim. Moreover, he had himself resided at Rome, and would have been well aware if the idea of a Roman episcopate of Peter had been, as is contended by its opponents, a novelty dating from the first years of the third century, supplanting the older tradition according to which Peter and Paul were co-founders, and Linus first bishop.

Source: The Pope (Catholic Encyclopedia).
Conclusion: It appears that the official use of the title of Pope (as given to Bishops of Rome) and confined to the successors of Peter, did not come into effect till the reign of Pope Gregory VII (1073-85).


What passages of Scripture were used by the popes and crusaders to justify the Crusades?

St. Bernard of Clairvaux is perhaps the most well known promoter of the Crusades. He is credited for sparking the 2nd Crusade by writing very convincing letters to the Kings of Christendom. On Christmas Day, 1144, the Seljuk Turks captured Edessa, chief city of one of the Christian principalities set up by the First Crusade. Appeals for help went at once to Europe, for the position of all Christians in Syria was jeopardized. King Louis VII of France announced his intention of leading a new crusade, and the Pope commissioned Bernard to preach the Holy War.

Bernard sent a number of theologically charged letters to the various Kings and Queens of Christendom asking for support on behalf of the Church.  His main selling point was the biblically sound cause of liberating the Jews from Muslim oppression, and also for their protection from rogue Crusaders.

In a letter written in 1146AD to Eastern France and Bavaria, Bernard promotes the 2nd Crusade by appealing to the role of Jews in God's plan of salvation:

  Besides, brethren, I warn you, and not only I, but God's apostle,
  "Believe not every spirit." We have heard and rejoice that the
  zeal of God abounds in you, but it behooves no mind to be wanting in
  wisdom. The Jews must not be persecuted, slaughtered, nor even driven
  out. Inquire of the pages of Holy Writ. I know what is written in the
  Psalms as prophecy about the Jews. "God hath commanded me," says the
  Church, "Slay them not, lest my people forget."

  They are living signs to use, representing the Lord's passion. For
  this reason they are dispersed into all regions, that now they may pay
  the just penalty of so great a crime, and that they may be witnesses
  of our redemption. Wherefore the Church, speaking in the same Psalm,
  says, "Scatter them by thy power; and bring them down, O Lord, our
  shield." So has it been. They have been dispersed, cast down. They
  undergo a hard captivity under Christian princes. Yet they shall be
  converted at even time, and remembrance of them shall be made in due
  season. Finally, when the multitude of the Gentiles shall have entered
  in, then, "all Israel shall be saved," saith the apostle.
  Meanwhile he who dies remains in death.

Elsewhere, he writes to the Archbishop of Mainz:

  The fellow you mention in your letter [a monk named Raoul, who had
  urged violence against Jews as the Second Crusade was being organized]
  has received no authority from men or through men, nor has he been
  sent by God.

  Does he consider himself greater than our father Abraham who laid down
  his sword at the bidding of him by whose command he took it up? Does
  he consider himself greater than the Prince of the Apostles who asked
  the Lord: "Shall we strike with our swords?" He is a fellow full
  of the wisdom of Egypt which is, as we know, foolishness in the sight
  of God. He is a fellow who answers Peter's question differently to the
  Lord who said: "Put back thy sword into its place; all those who
  take up the sword will perish by the sword." Is it not a far better
  triumph for the Church to convince and convert the Jews than to put
  them all to the sword? Has that prayer which the Church offers for the
  Jews, from the rising up of the sun to the going down thereof; that
  the veil may be taken from their hearts so that they may be led from
  the darkness of error into the light of truth, been instituted in
  vain? If she did not hope that they would believe and be converted, it
  would seem useless and vain for her to pray for them. But with the eye
  of mercy she considers how the Lord regards with favor him who renders
  good for evil and love for hatred. Otherwise where does that saying
  come in, "Not for their destruction I pray," and "When the
  fullness of the Gentiles shall have come in, then all Israel will be
  saved," and "The Lord is rebuilding Jerusalem, calling the
  banished sons of Israel home"? Who is this man that he should make
  out the Prophet to be a liar and render void the treasures of Christ's
  love and pity? This doctrine is not his own but his father's. But I
  believe it is good enough for him, since he is like his father who
  was, we know, "from the first a murderer, a liar, and the father of
  lies."

Of course we know from history that the 2nd Crusade was an overall failure. It is debatable whether or not the Pope's commission for St. Bernard to preach this failure was a good idea. Whatever the case may be, St. Bernard carried out his mission as a loyal servant to both the Church and to Sacred Scripture, ultimately becoming a canonized Doctor of the Church.

The Crusades began with Pope Urban II's speech at the Church Council at Clermont in 1095. The Crusades, as institutionalized Holy War with papal sanction against the perceived enemies of Christendom, ended in 1798 with the expulsion of the Hospital of St John from Malta by Napoleon.

St. Bernard's story is just one little chapter in a long book...


What is the basis for saying Christians and Muslims worship the same God?

The correct answer to this question is clearly … <err, not so fast>

You see that's just the problem. Christianity doesn't have a clear unequivocal answer to this question that is broadly agreed on across traditions. Islam has now been around for about 1400 years promoting its ideas about the nature of God—who they usually claim is the same God as worshiped by Jews and Christians in times past now rightly understood with his proper name Allah. In all those 1400 years Christianity has not posited a definitive answer to this question.

There are no shortages of answers given. Some say "yes". Others chant "no". You'll see various groups take a stand on an answer—even rant and rave about it. Mind you all these groups profess to be Christian but end up arguing both sides.

The argument for "yes" generally boils down to some variant of "if there really is only one God as monotheistic religions claim, whether known by a wrong name or through corrupted scriptures it must be the same being". This position and its many variations is generally held by more liberal traditions, the far extreme end of which would be something like, "Muslims are our brothers in faith, call God whatever you like as long as you profess there is only one".
The argument for "no" generally boils down to some variant of "given a contradictory set of attributes ascribed to God, they must logically be describing different beings". This position and its many variations is historically more mainstream and is generally held by more conservative traditions, the far extreme of which would be very fundamentalist groups that would go so far as to say things like, "Muslims are the enemy, the god they worship is actually the devil in disguise".

Does this mean there is not a definitive answer?

No, actually it doesn't. There is a definitive answer but you have to ask the right question.

Interestingly, most major Christian traditions do not try to pronounce certain judgment on this issue. The notable exception are Catholics, who issued a statement in 1965 in the affirmative1. While identifying Islam as a non-Christian religion they go out of their way with wording to claim common ground in the person of God. Meanwhile most Protestant traditions and even many major Christian cults steer away from any official doctrine stating "The being worshiped by Muslims is/isn't the same being we worship."

However, the history of cross-tradition disagreement here is not to say that their position on the real issue isn't quite clear. The reason there isn't unanimity on whether to answer this question with "yes" or "no" is that it's the wrong question to be asking. Frankly the answer isn't meaningful. What all major Christian traditions do give us in spades are descriptions of who the true God is and how he is to be worshiped.

The core theological problem lurking here is not whether the beliefs and practices of the God of the Muslims is a different being altogether or just a bunch of misunderstandings about the same being. The question that matters to Christianity is: How has the true God made himself known and how is he to be worshiped? To this question, Christianity has definitive answers. This question, if asked and answered early, provides solid ground for not even needing to ask—much less answer—the question posited above. With the answers to the right question in hand, we can, in fact, outright condemn all other beliefs and systems of worship without even resolving the origins or natures of those other systems.

Now for a clear answer to the right question.

Regardless of the nature of any "other" religion—whether they have the wrong God or whether they have the right God but worship him wrongly—the end result is the same. Blasphemy.

For further study I highly recommend carefully reading a blog post from my friend Kevin Bywater entitled Do Muslims, Mormons, and Christians Worship the Same God? In it he makes the observation that "Worshiping God wrongly is tantamount to worshiping the wrong god(s)."2 Christianity doesn't concern itself so much with what beings other religions do or don't worship, but it does concern itself with correctly identifying the true God's character and with following his commands. Even inside of Christianity, presumably with the true God in mind, one can be guilty of blasphemy by misidentifying his character.

The most salient point to make in reference to any other religion is, I think, well summarized by this quote from the same article:

  Blasphemy is found in ascribing to the true God what is false and in falsely denying of God what is true.

1. Thanks to Peter Turner for pointing this out. I was previously unaware of this statement. (And am personally outraged by it as it is not an accurate representation of either Islam or historic Christianity, but my personal view isn't what this question is about.)

2. Ironically this is a concept that my Muslim friends usually don't usually have a problem accepting.


Has T. D. Jakes clarified what he believes about the Trinity?

No. It seems that as of this writing (May 2017) his last attempt to publicly clarify his doctrine of God was the 2012 interview you refer to. If you Google some combination of TD Jakes trinity, you'll only find discussions of that interview, or of his 2000 Christianity Today article, or of his affiliations with Oneness Pentecostalism.

The 2012 interview in question sparked a major controversy in the reformed evangelical blogosphere, with the general consensus (as represented in Justin Taylor's write-up) being that the interview itself was a mistake and that nothing had truly been clarified. A 2014 blog post by reformed Baptist Tim Challies (generally a good researcher) indicates no knowledge of any post-2012 trinitarian confession by Jakes. Jakes' church's belief statement, while not explicitly modalist, still shies away from trinitarian credal language and retains the use of the favored modalist term "manifestations" instead of "persons" to describe the Godhead. He is also vice-prelate of Higher Ground Always Abounding Assemblies, which is allegedly a Oneness Pentecostal organization.


For a Catholic perspective, Pope Francis, who talks about Satan as much as he talks about anything else says that Satan does not know how to love.

The second attitude is that of Herodias, the wife of the king’s brother. “The Gospel says that she ‘hated’ John” because he spoke with clarity. And, the Holy Father continued, “we know that hatred is capable of anything”. Indeed, “hatred is the breath of Satan”, who does not know how to love”. Herodias “had the satanic spirit of hatred”.
http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/cotidie/2019/documents/papa-francesco-cotidie_20190208_greatgift-ofmartyrdom.html

If you don't know how to do a thing, it doesn't mean you're not capable, it just means you're not apt to do it.

A reformed perspective is more pragmatic, playing a little loose with the word love:

It makes sense that Luther would have such a strong experiential knowledge of the devil, for Satan loves nothing more than to attack the gospel, and Luther was at the forefront of the greatest recovery of the gospel
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/our-enemy-devil/

So Satan, if he does love, he loves doing evil.  The meaning of the word love in that case would be about the basest possible meaning of love that I don't even know how it qualifies.

I don't believe that the Orthodox have a particularly extensive demonology department, which is probably to their credit! It might be hard to find an answer there.


This story is told in all four of the gospels:

  Matthew 21:12-13 (ESV)
  12  And Jesus entered the temple[a] and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of
  the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. 13 He said
  to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’
  but you make it a den of robbers.”

  Mark 11:15-17 (ESV)
  15  And they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the
  temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in
  the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the
  seats of those who sold pigeons. 16 And he would not allow anyone to
  carry anything through the temple. 17 And he was teaching them and
  saying to them, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house
  of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of
  robbers.”

  Luke 19:45-46 (ESV)
  45  And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold, 46 saying to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be
  a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a den of robbers.”

As you can see they all add the phrase "den of robbers", Jesus' focus was on the motives and heart of those doing the selling. In a place of prayer and worship they were taking advantage (and perhaps even worse) of worshipers. I don't know your pastors or the guest speakers you've had so it's impossible for me to tell you whether what they are doing is wrong or not, so I'd encourage you to talk with them (your pastors) about your concerns if you can.


According to Reformed Theology, What is the greatest assurance of Salvation?

This response is inspired by:
http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-446/a-tale-of-two-sorrows

Let us compare the cases of Judas and Peter.

What can we learn?

Spiritual knowledge is not assurance of salvation. Judas likely knew more about Christ than many of the future great theologians, yet Judas fell away.
Signs is not assurance of salvation. Judas witnessed some of the greatest signs of all time, yet Judas fell away.
Discipleship + being in the right church is not assurance of salvation. Judas hung out with Christ and the 11 true disciples.

So then, what is the assurance of salvation? It's likely the love of Christ vs the love of the things that Christ can provide in this world. Peter loved Christ: John 21:15-17. Judas appeared to love what Christ could provide in this world (and thus betrayed him upon realization that the earthly kingdom would not be immediately established.)

Then, this love is manifested as in John 14:15.


Where does the tradition come from that Noah's sons went separate directions?

See Josephus' Antiquities Book 1, Chapter 6. He gives a rather detailed interpretation of Genesis 10, identifying what nations he believed the Hebrew terms refer to.

Japhet, the son of Noah, had seven sons: they inhabited so, that, beginning at the mountains Taurus and Amanus, they proceeded along Asia, as far as the river Tansis, and along Europe to Cadiz; and settling themselves on the lands which they light upon, which none had inhabited before, they called the nations by their own names. For Gomer founded those whom the Greeks now call Galatians, [Galls,] but were then called Gomerites. Magog founded those that from him were named Magogites, but who are by the Greeks called Scythians. ....
The children of Ham possessed the land from Syria and Amanus, and the mountains of Libanus; seizing upon all that was on its sea-coasts, and as far as the ocean, and keeping it as their own. ....
Shem, the third son of Noah, had five sons, who inhabited the land that began at Euphrates, and reached to the Indian Ocean. For Elam left behind him the Elamites, the ancestors of the Persians. ....

The quotations (and the text at the link) are the Whiston translation, which is unfortunately written in rather archaic syntax.


I listened to a lot of this type of music as a kid.  These kids musical albums, featuring kids singing the songs and some sort of story that runs in between the songs, were very popular in the 80s.  Churches and Christian schools often performed these as stage productions with kids.

Some of the more notable producers of these Christian kids musicals include:

Agapeland, which you mentioned, was a big publisher of this format, featuring "Music Machine," "Bullfrogs and Butterflies," "Nathaniel the Grublet," and others.
Dottie Rambo's "Down By the Creek Bank" was extremely popular.
Jimmy and Carol Owens wrote several musicals, most notably "Ants'hillvania."
Debbie Kerner and Ernie Rettino created Psalty the Singing Songbook musicals, with titles "The Kids Praise Album!", "Kids Praise! 2," "Kids Praise! 3," etc.
Joyful Heart Music is the home of Colby the Computer (who also had a TV series) and Nannybird.
Kathie Hill is also a prolific producer of kids musicals, notably "Back at the Creekbank" (a sequel to "Down By the Creek Bank"), "Fish Tales," and many others.

I don't recognize the "forgiving" song you mentioned, but I am almost positive that the "I-Spy" song and the rainbow song you mentioned are from Kathie Hill's "Back at the Creekbank," the songs being "Riddle Me, Riddle Me" and "It's a Rainbow."


Where did the idea of being "called to preach" come from?

In Latin the word vocare meaning "to call" gave us the English Word "vocation."  A vocation is synonymous with a career (Remember vocational guidance?) in many people's minds, and it betrays the roots why someone feels "called to ministry"  Both Protestants and Catholics would use these terms interchangeably.
Bibically, there is much precedence for this. Because of the terminology, I'm going to use KJV liberally:

1 Corinthians 7:20 20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.
2 Timothy 1 8 Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God; 9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Likewise, Paul often introduces himself as "called"

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
1 Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

That said, you are entirely correct in saying that such a "calling" is something to which one can "earnestly aspire."
It is because "calling" has had both senses that it came to be seen as a cooperative effort between God and Man - a gift that one would want to manifest.  In practice, many churches use the terminology of "discerning a call to ministry" because of the confusion.


It probably depends on what the specific church calls an apostle, but at least we know that the "seventy disciples" are a distinct group of the twelve (apostles).

From Luke 10:

  And after these things, the Lord did appoint also other seventy, and
  sent them by twos before his face, to every city and place whither he
  himself was about to come, then said he unto them, `The harvest indeed
  [is] abundant, but the workmen few; beseech ye then the Lord of the
  harvest, that He may put forth workmen to His harvest.

The twelve were mostly with him, as far as I remember he was alone with them at the last supper. This shows they were, somehow, special - distinct from the seventy.

LDS view:

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, we have a quorum of twelve apostles and quorums of seventies that assist them. I would (We) see the purpose of the original seventy as similar: Assisting the twelve, going out and preaching. Because really, twelve people is not many.


How do creationists address the similarity between Irreducible Complexity and God Of The Gaps?

Fair question. But your construction of the IC argument doesn't quite capture its essence. IC doesn't say "We don't know how it would work with only 9, therefore God." Rather, it says, "This complex system is fundamentally non-functional without multiple interdependent parts, therefore all these parts had to emerge simultaneously, therefore the mechanism of gradual evolution cannot explain its emergence."

The canonical example of an IC system is the snap-type mousetrap. The system consists of a baseplate, a swinging hammer bar, a spring, and a trigger, all four of which must be working in tandem for the device to be considered operational. The IC adherent does not say "We don't know how to make a simpler mousetrap, therefore its a miracle." The argument is much more precise. They say, "This particular model of a mousetrap could never be functional with fewer parts. The manufacturer could not sell a discount version of this device with only 2 of the parts and call it a 'simplified mousetrap'. It's not a mousetrap if it is incapable of trapping mice."

So, if there are biological systems with comparable complexity, IC argues that gradual evolution is an insufficient theory to explain them. So, yes, these systems represent "gaps" that must be explained. Whether you put God in those gap is up to you. But naturalistic darwinian evolution -- by definition -- can never fill those gaps.


Has there ever been a saint who has had their sainthood revoked due to falsification of their life details or the miracles leading to canonization?

There are early saints that have been recognized as likely "pious fables" and therefore removed from the liturgical calendar, but none that have been declared to be outright falsehoods. In the modern times, the Church is much better about authenticating miracles.

Being a saint simply means existing in Heaven with God. There are certainly many people that have achieved sainthood who are not formally canonized by the Church. Similarly, even if the life events or miracles attributed to an early saint were exaggerated, that does not mean that person is not in Heaven with God, ergo, a saint.


Marriage invalid. Would a church annulment require a state annulment or state divorce?

No, church annulment does not require state annulment or state divorce.

This misunderstanding could be caused by chruch tribunals that require a copy of divorce decree (as stated in the question). The tribunal does so because the couple is obligated to give a document about its civil status by Art. 116 § 2 Dignitatis Conubii (DC) and most often this is a divorce decree.

  Art. 116 § 2 There should be attached to the libellus [application] an authentic copy of the marriage certificate and, if need be, a document of the civil status of the parties.

The legislator does not assume a civil clarification of the couple's status, as can be seen by the phrase "if need be" and by the phrase "even civil [obligations]" in Art. 252 DC.

  Art. 252 In the sentence the parties are to be warned about the moral obligations or even civil ones by which they may be bound in regard to the other party or offspring concerning support and education to be provided (can. 1689).

So we see, your marriage can be nullified even if you are married in civil law. Though if the intent of nullification is to marry again, it would not make any sense to stay married in civil law. Additionally the church has an interest, that all canonical valid marriages are recogniced by state, because full sense of marriage includes responsibilities in civil law. (This argument of course only applies if it is possible to dissolve the marriage in civil law.)


How is Matthew 18: 8-9 explained in the context of non works-based salvation?

Note that this doesn't apply to all groups that adhere to Sola Fide.  Plenty of groups believe that we have no part in our own salvation, even in choosing to believe, but this is one perspective that's relatively common among Evangelicals.

Short version:

These verses are simply Jesus teaching on the true definition of what God's standard for "good" is.

Longer version:

These verses are very similar to those in Matthew 5, where Jesus explains that lust is the same as adultery, hatred the same as murder, etc.  Jesus was dealing with the Jewish people, who were under the impression that their obedience to the Law would save them.  By teaching them the Truth of just how high God's perfect standard is, He was preparing them to understand that they are not truly "good" at all.

Any reasonable person would hear those words and think "there's no way I can be that good and perfect.  I'm doomed".  To those that hold this view, that's the necessary realization of one's sinful nature that's necessary to drive us to repentance.

An example of one such ministry that holds this view would be Living Waters/The Way of the Master, headed by Ray comfort and Kirk Cameron.  Example: Am I good enough to go to Heaven?

Expanding a bit on the necessity of realizing our sinful nature to drive us to repentance, Ray Comfort says this in his Hell's best kept Secret teaching...  (This is a paraphrase from memory, but it's close)

  You try to save a man from drowning when he doesn't think he is.  Jump
  in, pull him to the shore without telling him anything, he's not going
  to be too happy with you.  But if he sees that he is drowning, he will
  be grateful, and won't despise the gift.

These verses show that God's standard is perfect, and that we fall short.  This is perfectly in harmony with the idea of salvation by faith alone apart from works.  God's Law can't save us.  it can only show us ourselves in our true nature, so that we can see the need to be saved.

From Bible Study Planet:

  Once a person has understood the Law, and its spiritual meaning and
  content, he knows that can’t keep it. What’s the summary of the Law?
  It is: “You shall love the Lord thy God with all your heart, and all
  your soul, and all your mind, and all your strength; and you shall
  love you neighbor as yourself.” (Luke 10:27)

Paul also wrote of this extensively in the Book of Romans.  Two small excerpts:

  Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under
  the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held
  accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his
  sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become
  conscious of sin. (Romans 3:19-20)

  ...

  What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the
  contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law;
  for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said,
  "YOU SHALL NOT COVET." (Romans 7:7)


According to the young-earth perspective, when were races created?

Based on the wording of your question, I assume you want a literalist/young earth creationist perspective. This isn't the only perspective in Christianity. Plenty believe in evolution, or one form of Old Earth Creationism or another. The last portion of this answer, on particular, will likely be jumped on by the OEC and Evolutionist crowds, as it's specifically a literalist/young earth creationist view.

Technically, from many Creationists point of view (Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Henry Morris, me) there is only one "race" . The "human" race.  The idea of dividing up God's people into an artificial grouping based on superficial differences is wrong, anti-Biblical, and offensive in and of itself.

From ICR.Org

  "Race" is strictly an evolutionary concept used by (some) to rationalize
  their white racism. But from the beginning it was not so! "God that
  made the world and all things therein; . . . hath made of one blood
  all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth" (Acts
  17:24,26). "Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?
  why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother?" (Malachi
  2:10).

The thinking described above is known as "scientific racism", and is generally denounced today, for good reason.

An interesting observation, taken from http://www.bible-truth.org/race.htm

  The question we must first answer is: "Are there races of men?" The
  difficulty of classifying man into races has been shown. Perhaps a
  better term would be "varieties" of man. Even evolutionary science
  concludes that all existing varieties of man are members of the same
  species.2   Inter-racial marriages are common and children are
  produced with no biological difficulties. Prominent anthropologist,
  Ruth Benedict in her book, "Race: Science and Politics" stated the
  peoples of the earth are a single family and have a common origin.3

  Once supposed biological differences, such as dissimilarity in blood, have proven to be incorrect. Blood is classified according to
  type, and all types are found within all supposed races of man. Blood
  transfusions are based on types A, B, AB, and O and are given without
  regard to race.4   It has also been supposed that different races have
  differing intelligence levels. The false and racist idea concludes
  that the Caucasian race is the most intelligent with the Negroid race
  being the least intelligent.

  ...content removed...

  Modern testing of the races has shown that intelligence is not a measurement of race, because intelligence levels differ greatly with
  individuals within every race. Further cultural influence and
  advances account for most supposed examples of differing
  intelligence. 5

The concept of "race" isn't Biblical, either.

  The next question is "Can race be Biblically defined?" The term
  race does not appear in the Bible. The Bible refers to differing
  peoples in terms such as family, tribe, people and nation. It groups
  people according to familial relationships and then into
  nationalities. An example of familial relationship is found in Genesis
  10, where the genealogies listed are grouped by family. It should be
  noted that nowhere are the sons of Noah associated with race or color.
  An important passage on this matter is found in Genesis 10:5:

  "By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations"
  (Gen. 10:5).

The differences in skin color, hair color, curliness/straightness of the hair, and other traits that we, in our society call "different races" are minor variations. They can easily be attributed to simple genetic complexity -the same mechanism that causes my children to not look exactly like me, but similar to me, multiplied over many generations. As families became more spread out over the globe after the flood, the differences became more pronounced within the groups.


How to find out more about the the 12 disciples?

The Bible tells us everything we need to know about the 12 disciples who were initially appointed by Jesus to follow him.  Their experiences are described in the four Gospels and additional insights are to be found in the Acts of the Apostles.  However, for more information, try this:

  Twelve Ordinary Men by John MacArthur published by Christian Book.com  https://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1011693&item_no=88244

There were more than 12 disciples and the article in this link discusses the 70 (or 72) that Jesus sent out: https://www.gotquestions.org/70-or-72-disciples.html

  Since God did not consider it important for us to know the names of the 70 (or 72) disciples He charged with the important task of preparing the way for Jesus, we don’t need to consider it important, either. What Jesus called attention to was not the power He gave them but the fact that their names were written in heaven (Luke 10:20).

I found some other articles on the 12 disciples, which I hope will help you:

https://www.gotquestions.org/disciples-married.html

https://www.gotquestions.org/apostles-die.html

https://www.gotquestions.org/how-old-were-Jesus-disciples.html

Edit: Here is some information on Peter, taken from the Bible:

  Simon was originally from Bethsaida (John 1:44) and lived in Capernaum (Mark 1:29), both cities on the coast of the Sea of Galilee. He was married (1 Corinthians 9:5), and he and James and John were partners in a profitable fishing business (Luke 5:10). Simon met Jesus through his brother Andrew, who had followed Jesus after hearing John the Baptist proclaim that Jesus was the Lamb of God (John 1:35-36). Andrew immediately went to find his brother to bring him to Jesus. Upon meeting Simon, Jesus gave him a new name: Cephas (Aramaic) or Peter (Greek), which means “rock” (John 1:40-42). Later, Jesus officially called Peter to follow Him, producing a miraculous catch of fish (Luke 5:1-7). Immediately, Peter left everything behind to follow the Lord (verse 11).  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/life-Peter.html


What happens to non-believers or believers of other religions after death?

The Bible is very clear that all atheists and non-believers will be sent to the Lake of Fire after they die.  It even goes further than that by specifying a list of people that are not accepted (which covers more than your question!):

  Revelations 21:8 (NIV)
  But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.

To answer the question, it's pretty clear that the Bible does not distinguish between "non-believers" (atheist, agnostic, or what have you) and "believers of other religions".  When it says "the unbelieving" it refers to all non-Christians.

Furthermore, it's the belief in God that brings salvation, not the works.  We can see from this verse that it's what's in a man's heart that determines his salvation.  Every one of these evils can be directly related to a problem in the person's heart.

  Acts 16:31 (NIV)
  They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

However, works are an outpouring from faith:

  John 14:15 (NIV)
  If you love me, keep my commands.

And without the faith that produces works, there is no actual faith behind it:

  James 2:14-18 (NIV)
  14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

  18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

  Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.

Ultimately, to answer the question, all non-believers (people who do not believe in any god, the Christian God, or who believe in another God) along with all people who claim to believe in God but do not have a solid faith will end up in the lake of fire.


How far is too far when it comes to drinking alcohol?

Short answer: You've gone too far when your drinking no longer glorifies God (1 Corinthians 10:31).

Long answer:

This line can be crossed at different times for different people and in different situations.

A single sip, or even the presence of alcohol can be too much, if it causes another to stumble. 1 Corinthians 8:13.
Drinking for selfish reasons, regardless of how much, is wrong.
Drinking to the point of losing a clear head is wrong. 1 Peter 5:8

Note that some Christians don't necessarily think this means an absolute ban on drunkenness. The argument being that if you choose to get drunk (with a clear mind), and do it under responsible circumstances, it can be okay.  I don't necessarily hold this view, and would ask a person intending to get drunk to examine their motives. See #2.

The only example I can think of where the Bible may be interpreted to specifically permit drunkenness is in the context of medicine. Proverbs 31:6 suggests "wine for those who are in anguish" which seems to be advocating using wine for pain management, which probably indicates some level of intoxication (whether it's means full drunkenness, or simply "tipsy", is subject to interpretation.)  Given that most of us live in societies where other forms of pain killers are available, it would be easy to avoid this use of wine in most cases, if it is an area of trouble on your conscience.
If you drink enough to be harmful or dishonoring to your body, it is wrong. 1 Corinthaians 6:19-20
If you think it's wrong to drink (at all, or in a given situation), then it is wrong.  Romans 2:15


Weight of importance on the belief that Jesus is Michael for Jehovah's Witnesses?

Before I try to answer this question, I think I need to give some context as to how Jehovah's Witnesses have arrived at their current beliefs.

The "founders" of Jehovah's Witnesses used this method to interpret the Bible:

  “Someone would raise a question. They would discuss it. They would look up all related scriptures on the point and then, when they were satisfied on the harmony of these texts, they would finally state their conclusion and make a record of it.”

What that means is, we don't draw conclusions from the scriptures unless the Bible backs it up, and we don't assume that the Bible contains a specific belief until it can be proven. We don't use one belief to justify another belief; we use the scriptures to justify each belief individually. Over the years, Jehovah's Witnesses have changed, refined, and clarified various beliefs. This isn't because the Bible has changed; it's because different scriptures have been highlighted which bring out new meaning to the previous scriptures which were used to justify that certain belief. Those same scriptures may have also been the basis for another belief, and so that other belief can be refined as well. This process is described at Proverbs 4:18:

  But the path of the righteous is like the bright morning light
  That grows brighter and brighter until full daylight.

So now to answer your question:

Jesus being Michael the Archangel is certainly a relevant belief, because it shows the love, grief, and sacrifice which Jehovah had to experience in order to watch Jesus, his first, most powerful, and most beloved creation, die and sacrifice himself for God's purpose. This is what makes Matthew 3:17 and Matthew 26:39 such emotional scriptures to read.

If Jesus is actually not Michael the Archangel, it would mean that the scriptures which support that belief would need to be reinterpreted in light of other scriptures. The new interpretation of all these scriptures would then have the opportunity to be applied to all of our other beliefs, and so more adjustments would follow over the years. I don't feel qualified to predict what these adjustments would be.

The identity of Michael the Archangel doesn't seem to be one of the "fundamental" beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses (which are listed here). The article on jw.org, "Who is Jesus Christ?" makes no mention of the name Michael, so I suppose it's not extremely vital to learning who Jesus is, but it certainly adds a lot of context to why Jesus was an appropriate choice for the Messiah, as Michael was also evidently the angel who led the Israelites through the wilderness (Exodus 23:20, 21), and will also be the one who will stand up "in behalf of [Daniel's] people" during the great "time of distress." (Daniel 12:1)


The darkening of the sun (and the other signs) are repeatedly emphasised as heralding the day of judgement, by the prophets and in the New Testament, including by Jesus himself.
Regarding your Genesis 8:22 reference, I think an important part of that verse is the first bit: "As long as the earth endures". All of these prophecies are about the end of the world, so the condition no longer holds. (Admittedly, the Revelation chronology does not have the actual end of the world occurring at this precise moment - but I would tend to see the end of the world as a single "event" regardless of how long it takes to accomplish.)
This section of Revelation draws heavily from Isaiah, who prophesied that on "the Day of the Lord", (13:4, NJB)

The sun will be dark when it rises, and the moon will no longer give its light.

Similarly, Ezekiel 32:7 prophesied against Pharaoh, saying:

When I extinguish you I shall cover the skies and darken the stars. I shall cover the sun with clouds and the moon will not give its light.

Joel (2:10, 4:15) uses language similar to Isaiah above, and specifically (3:4 or 2:31 depending on your Bible) says:

The sun will be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the Day comes, that great and terrible Day.

Peter quotes this passage in Acts 2:20. Most importantly, Jesus himself said (Matthew 24:29, also Mark 13:24):

Immediately after the distress of those days the sun will be darkened, the moon will not give its light, the stars will fall from the sky and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

These signs demonstrate the sovereignty of God over the heavens, and show that his Day is literally a universe-changing event. It is not confined to any one group of people, but affects the entire world. Here, the reference to sackcloth brings to mind mourning garments, a poignant reference for what is about to happen: the sun itself is in mourning.
After the judgement, there will be no need for the sun and moon in any case. Their transformation or disappearance at this time shows us that the New Jerusalem is on its way.

No more will the sun give you daylight, nor moonlight shine on you, but Yahweh will be your everlasting light, your God will be your splendour. Your sun will set no more, nor will your moon wane, for Yahweh will be your everlasting light and your days of mourning will be over. (Isaiah 60:19-20)
I could not see any temple in the city since the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb were themselves the temple, and the city did not need the sun or the moon for light, since it was lit by the radiant glory of God, and the Lamb was a lighted torch for it. (Revelation 21:22-23)


From what I know of Augustine, he would say that, rather, God's love is the enabler of our faith. That is, God's love for the sinner is the ultimate cause of creating new life in the believer, which enables that believer to have faith.

See Augustine's On Grace and Free Will, Chapter 17. And if you look at Chapter 12 and 13 of the same work, you will see that he says that out of love God shows mercy and grace, which links God's love for us to faith.

In Augustine's Enchiridion, Chapter 8, he says

  Now what shall I say of love? Without it, faith profits nothing; and
  in its absence, hope cannot exist. The Apostle James says: "The devils
  also believe, and tremble." — that is, they, having neither hope nor
  love, but believing that what we love and hope for is about to come,
  are in terror. And so the Apostle Paul approves and commends the
  "faith that works by love;" and this certainly cannot exist without
  hope. Wherefore there is no love without hope, no hope without love,
  and neither love nor hope without faith.

For Augustine, then, faith, hope, and love are a package deal. The general pattern here, overall, is that God shows us love, which gives us faith, hope, and love towards others, including God.

As to the relationship between the "two doors", as you've called them, again, I think Augustine would say that the exit door is a trap-door - a one-way door. Closing that door means you do not have the ability to open it again. Instead, God must open it for you. See On Grace and Free Will, in Chapter 7, where he says

  ...so now let us see what are the divine testimonies concerning the
  grace of God, without which we are not able to do any good thing.


If Christ had a complete human nature, how come his human nature wasn't totally depraved as ours is?

Perhaps another way to look at this issue is to focus on what human nature is, and see what sin changed.  Man was created in the "image of God," which certainly included original righteousness (or, as Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof puts it, "true knowledge, righteousness, and holiness"), which was lost in the Fall.  Berkhof goes on to contrast this element with others:

  But the image of God is not to be restricted to the original knowledge, righteousness, and holiness which was lost by sin, but also includes elements which belong to the natural constitution of man. They are elements which belong to man as man, such as intellectual power, natural affections, and moral freedom. As created in the image of God man has a rational and moral nature, which he did not lose by sin and which he could not lose without ceasing to be man. This part of the image of God has indeed been vitiated by sin, but still remains in man even after his fall in sin.

To put it another way, Adam was a man both before and after his sin.  So while the Fall stripped him and his progeny of original righteousness, this is not so essential to his nature that as a result of his sin he was no longer man:

  Notice that man even after the fall, irrespective of his spiritual condition, is still represented as the image of God, Gen. 9;6; I Cor. 11:7; Jas. 3:9. The crime of murder owes its enormity to the fact that it is an attack on the image of God. In view of these passages of Scripture it is unwarranted to say that man has completely lost the image of God.

But while one can be said to be in the image of God with or without original righteousness, its lack is a serious impairment:

  The loss of that righteousness meant the loss of something that belonged to the very nature of man in its ideal state. Man could lose it and still remain man, but he could not lose it and remain man in the ideal sense of the word. In other words, its loss would really mean a deterioration and impairment of human nature.

On the flip side, this lack of original righteousness, or "original sin," is definitively not an essential aspect of human nature.  This is obvious because Adam was a man before he sinned, but it's also clear when we consider the definition of total depravity.  It does not imply, as Berkhof and others say, "that every man is as thoroughly depraved as he can possibly become," but rather it is "inherent corruption" that "extends to every part of man's nature."

This distinction makes it clear that total depravity does not mean that man's defining characteristic is his sin – rather, his human nature, as image bearer of God, is corrupted in all its parts.  This corruption taints his human nature, but does not eliminate it or replace it.

Obviously Jesus had to have the same human nature as us, but could not have this corruption.  So how was he protected from it?  By the Holy Spirit:

  [The Holy Spirit] sanctified the human nature of Christ in its very inception, and thus kept it free from the pollution of sin.

So Jesus thus has a true human nature, an ideal human nature, different from our own only in that he was protected from the corruption of original sin.

All quotes from Berkhof's Systematic Theology:

Man as the Image of God
Sin in the Life of the Human Race
[Christ's] State of Humiliation


Do Reformed theologians understand the Catholic Church and the Papacy to have been true heirs of Peter until the Reformation?

It is clear from John Knox's words, recorded at his meeting with Queen Mary at Holyrood in 1561 (accompanied by Lord James Stewart) that the reformer regarded the Papacy to be an intrusion and the mass to be an idolatrous sacrifice. He quite clearly regards both to be without warrant, from their inception.

‘Take one of the chief points, Madam, which this day is in controversy betwixt the Papists and us.

The Papists have boldly affirmed that the Mass is the ordinance of God, and the institution of Jesus Christ, and a sacrifice for the sins of the quick and the dead. We deny both the one and the other.

We affirm that the Mass, as it is now used, is nothing but the invention of man, and, therefore, is an abomination before God, and no sacrifice that ever God commanded.

Now, Madam, who shall judge betwixt us two thus contending? It is no reason that either of the parties be further believed, than they are able to prove but insuspect witnessing. Let them prove their affirmatives by the plain words of the Book of God, and we shall give them the plea granted.

What our Master Jesus Christ did, we know by His Evangelists; what the priest doeth at his Mass, the world seeth.

Now, doth not the Word of God plainly assure us, that Christ Jesus neither said Mass, nor yet commanded Mass to be said, at His Last Supper, seeing that no such thing as their Mass is made mention of within the whole Scriptures?’

Reformissio - John Knox and Queen Mary
The Meeting between Queen Mary and John Knox, by Robert Inerarity Herdman 1829-1888.


In 1 Corinthians Paul writes

  “All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All
  things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything. (1
  Cor 6:12 ESV)

  “All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things
  are lawful,” but not all things build up. (1 Cor 10:23 ESV)

There is no law against watching horror films, however is it going to be helpful to build you up in Christ?

Also, you need to remember who you are seeing the movie with.

  Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but
  rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way
  of a brother (Romans 14:13 ESV)

While something may be lawful for you to do, out of love you should give up that freedom if it causes others to "stumble"


Does God intend or call some people to live alone forever in their life?

The short answer is that it is very possible.

There are four basic states of life within the Catholic Church: marriage, consecrated life, priesthood and the single state as an unmarried lay person.

Trying to find one’s true vocation in life is for some individuals a task that will engulf their entire life.

Only at the end of earthly journey in this world, will some truly know if God really intended some to live single their whole life long. It may be thus true or it may not. When we see Our Lord on the day of our own particular judgement, it will all be revealed. For some, the answer will be yes. For others it will be no, for God will show to us where we may have gone astray in our true vocation.

  Pope John Paul II, who wanted to be known as ‘the Pope of the family’, wrote in his familial document “Familiaris Consortio” that those without a family must be able to find their family within the Church. In fact, the entire final section of this document is dedicated to single people.

  This is a subject with which John Paul II would have been intimately familiar – by the age of 20, all of his immediate family on earth had passed away, and he surrounded himself with good friends that essentially became his family.

  In the document, he wrote: “For those who have no natural family the doors of the great family which is the Church - the Church which finds concrete expression in the diocesan and the parish family, in ecclesial basic communities and in movements of the apostolate - must be opened even wider. No one is without a family in this world: the Church is a home and family for everyone, especially those who 'labor and are heavy laden.'”

  The Catechism of the Catholic also recognizes “the great number of single persons who, because of the particular circumstances in which they have to live – often not of their choosing – are especially close to Jesus' heart and therefore deserve the special affection and active solicitude of the Church, especially of pastors.” (CCC 1658). -Is the single life a vocation? Maybe we're asking the wrong question.

I would like simply mention here two things. It
would be good to talk to a priest or pastor about this subject matter. They may have some valuable insights in helping one discerning things in life. Secondly, vocations are a challenge. Even Pope St. John Paul II, at one time, considered getting married before entering the seminary. He was young, healthy and handsome. He spoke to his spiritual director and followed the promptings of the Holy Spirit.

The states of life are never easy.

Once again the answer to your question is possibly!

Let us here simply recall the words of Jesus to his Apostles:

  10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

  11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

  12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. - Matthew 19: 10-12


How do Young Earth Creationists account for civilisations with histories going back five thousand years or more?

Lining up dates from ancient documents and inscriptions is not an easy thing to do. You don't find ancient records that say, "Our nation was established on June 12, 3462 BC", for the simple reason that our modern calendar did not exist back then. So even when an ancient source gives a date, it is in the calendar they used at the time, and historians have to try to match that up to modern calendars. Scholars debate these sort of things endlessly.

So the reality is not that ancient Egyptian or Hittite or Sumerian or whatever chronologies contradict the Bible chronology. Rather, it is that SOME INTERPRETATIONS of ancient Egyptian, etc chronologies contradict SOME INTERPRETATIONS of the Bible chronology. Put that way, it's hardly an astounding fact. Reporters trying to describe current events often have difficulty fitting together all the different accounts of an event into a single coherent narrative.

When people talk about taking Bible dates literally, they usually eventually refer to James Ussher, who used the genealogies and other information in the Bible to estimate the date of creation at about 4004 BC. Modern young-earth creation theorists generally accept that as at least a ballpark, though many would stretch it out a few thousand years. Some secular historians claim to trace historical records back to circa 6000 BC. So yes, there's a discrepancy to be resolved, but it's on the same order of magnitude. No one claims to be able to trace historical records back a million years or a billion years. The histories of cultures around the world are at least generally consistent with young-earth Biblical chronology. There's no way you could use them as evidence for an evolutionary time-scale.


Baptism of the Holy Spirit according to Martin Lloyd Jones' "Joy Unspeakable"

Dr. Martin Lloyd Jones was a minister under a congregationalist background. Basically these churches are non-denominational in that they believe each congregation is its own independent denomination. They have their roots and beliefs in line with the reformed puritans such as John Owen.  Therefore they are generally staunchly Calvinistic and conservative.

However Lloyd-Jones particular views on the Holy Spirit are slightly unique. For example, although very similar to John Owen's, he had a slightly higher expectation that God could pour out extra-ordinary gifts during an outpouring or revival.  His emphasis was in the same vein of the puritans, is was not like the Pentecostal or other charismatic movements which put experience above God's word. On the contrary Lloyd-Jones was a through-and-through puritanical, conservative, cross-only preacher who emphasized the objective truth of scripture above experience.

This made Lloyd-Jones a leader among conservative evangelicals who though not necessarily interested in speaking on tongues, were still feeling like their was more inner renewal and power to be had in the Christian life than offered by tradition based churches that were becoming more and more liberal and ecumenical at that time.

This may seem odd, but being very familiar with Lloyd-Jone's theology and having myself been a member of various evangelical churches including,  Non-denominational, Apostolic (Calvinistic Pentecostal), Christian Missionary Alliance, Baptist, Independent Evangelical and now Anglican (in that order) - due to my need to frequently relocate to other cities, I would say there are no denominations (that I am aware of) that hold the same view as Lloyd-Jone's on the holy Spirit except individual independent evangelical churches and the Christian Missionary Alliance. The reason why it is the same as Christian Missionary Alliance is because A. W. Tozer partly founded that denomination.  Tozer and Lloyd-Jones were two very different men but had a similar conservative (anti liberal) emphasis on the Holy Spirit while retaining standard old school Christ centered gospel preaching.

I guess it is safe to say they were the most balanced leaders in their day among conservative evangelicals that only partially rejected the overall charismatic movement.  Lloyd-Jones specifically opposed the Pentecostal movement as it was against Calvinism and that 'speaking in tongues' as the evidence of 'baptism in the Spirit' was simply unbiblical.

Note: As far as resources go for a more in-depth understanding of the Spirit in the tradition of Lloyd-Jones I would actually turn to John Owen or even J.I. Packer. This is really more in the with Lloyd-Jones than any charismatic writer. You will notice the forward of many of Lloyd-Jone's book are by Packer because they are actually very similar. The thing that slightly confuses things is that in my view Lloyd-Jones confused a term, he identified 'sealing' with 'assurance of salvation' - this was his small mistake, but everything else is really standard reformed views according to Owen.  Actually for his wedding anniversary present he requested the works of John Owen.  I think that's really the place to go.