Help me locate a passage regarding driving out the Canaanites before Israel

Deut. 9 [NASB]

  1 “Hear, O Israel! You are crossing over the Jordan today to go in to dispossess nations greater and mightier than you, great cities
  fortified to heaven, 2 a people great and tall, the sons of the Anakim,
  whom you know and of whom you have heard it said, ‘Who can stand
  before the sons of Anak?’ 3 “Know therefore today that it is the LORD
  your God who is crossing over before you as a consuming fire. He will
  destroy them and He will subdue them before you, so that you may drive
  them out and destroy them quickly, just as the LORD has spoken to you.

  4 “Do not say in your heart when the LORD your God has driven them out before you, ‘Because of my righteousness the LORD has brought
  me in to possess this land,’ but it is because of the wickedness of
  these nations that the LORD is dispossessing them before you. 5 “It is
  not for your righteousness or for the uprightness of your heart that
  you are going to possess their land, but it is because of the
  wickedness of these nations that the LORD your God is driving them out
  before you, in order to confirm the oath which the LORD swore to your
  fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.


What is the meaning of "baptism by fire"?

16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but there cometh he that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:

  17 whose fan is in his hand, thoroughly to cleanse his threshing-floor, and to gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire.

According to the context in “fire” in 3:16 and 17 is not the fire in Acts 2:3, which is related to the Holy Spirit.

  3 And there appeared unto them tongues parting asunder, like as of fire; and it sat upon each one of them.

Also, the same incident can be seen in Matthew 3:10 and 11. John the Baptist said:

  10 And even now the axe lieth at the root of the trees: every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

  11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:

These verses mention fire twice. It is not logical to say that the first time fire is mentioned it is negative, but the second time the same word is used it is positive. Therefore, baptism in fire does not have a positive meaning; it is not related to the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Rather, it is the fire in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15).

Matthew Henry:

  Probably this refers to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, which was not, as other judgments had been, like the lopping off of the branches, or cutting down of the body of the tree, leaving the root to bud again, but it would be the total, final, and irrecoverable extirpation of that people, in which all those should perish that continued impenitent. Now God would make a full end, wrath was coming on them to the utmost.

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871)

  The "fire," which in another verse is called "unquenchable," can be no other than that future "torment" of the impenitent whose "smoke ascendeth up for ever and ever," and which by the Judge Himself is styled "everlasting punishment" ( Matthew 25:46 ).
  Verse 12 continues:

  Whose winnowing fan is in His hand. And He will thoroughly cleanse His threshing floor and will gather His wheat into His barn, but the chaff He will burn up with unquenchable fire.

If a person is wheat, Christ will baptize him with the Holy Spirit, and he will have life. However, if he is chaff, He will baptize him with fire; that is, He will put him into the lake of fire.

Here, it means that if the people will truly repent and believe in the Lord Jesus, the Lord will baptize them in the Holy Spirit so that they may have eternal life. Otherwise, the Lord will baptize them in fire, putting them into the lake of fire for eternal punishment. John’s baptism was only for repentance, to usher people to faith in the Lord. The Lord’s baptism is either for eternal life in the Holy Spirit or for eternal perdition in fire.

So, the Pharisees and Sadducees, came to John the Baptist in a pretentious way. It is as if John said, “If you do not bear fruit, you will be cut down and cast into the fire. You may fool me because I come only to baptize you with water, but you cannot fool Him. When He comes, He will baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. He will clear up His threshing floor. If you are the real ones, He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit for life. If you are the false ones, He will put you into the fire.”

Lastly, there are three kinds of baptisms referred in the Bible: the baptism in water, the baptism in the Holy Spirit, and the baptism in fire. The baptism in water is for repentance, the baptism in the Holy Spirit is for life, and the baptism in fire is for perdition.


What does "the old is better" mean in Luke 5:36–39?

Luke 5:33 is a reference to the past, in which we are told that Jewish tradition required frequent fasting:

  Luke 5:33: And they said unto him, Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and drink?

Then verses 34-35 takes us to the new, and to what is to come:

  Luke 5:34-35: And he said unto them, Can ye make the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.

Finally, Jesus explains that the old does not belong with the new: the old must be discarded and. allegorically, new garments or new wine belong with the new. This teaches that the traditions and laws of the Old Testament will not be part of the Jesus' new Testament.

The earliest version of this parable is in Mark 2:21-22, which makes this point and then proceeds to another passage about the corn fields. However, Luke elaborates on the parable, before proceeding to the passage about the corn fields:

  Luke 5:37-39: And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved. No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

In verse 39, the author of Luke appears to demonstrate that he misunderstood the parable as it appears in Mark, saying "The old is better".  Joseph F. Mali (Two Sayings on the "New" and the "Old", page 263) discusses some differing views on why Luke makes this strange addition, with a general consensus that it is an ironic comment on the Jews, who reject the new gospel.


How can the translators of the New World Translation say that their version is near what was originally written?

Jehovah's Witnesses base their faith in the preservation of the Bible on the merits of scholarly studies of thousands of manuscripts, as well as on the reasoning that if the Bible is truly inspired of God, Jehovah will not allow its message to be lost (Isaiah 40:8). The New World Translation was translated using the same master texts that many other Bibles use.
Jehovah's Witnesses have published many articles about the subject. Some central resources on the subject are the Insight book and Appendix A of the NWT. The appendix states:

Not all copies of ancient Bible manuscripts contain identical wording. How, then, can we know what the original text contained?
The situation could be likened to that of a teacher who asks 100 students to copy a chapter of a book. Even if the original chapter was later lost, a comparison of the 100 copies would still reveal the original text. While each student might make some errors, it is highly unlikely that all the students would make exactly the same ones. Similarly, when scholars compare the thousands of fragments and copies of ancient Bible books available to them, they can detect copyist error and determine the original wording.
How confident can we be that the thoughts contained in the original Bible texts have been accurately transmitted to us? Commenting on the text of the Hebrew Scriptures, scholar William H. Green stated: “It may be safely said that no other work of antiquity has been so accurately transmitted.” Regarding the Christian Greek Scriptures, or so-called New Testament, Bible scholar F. F. Bruce wrote: “The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of  questioning.” He also said: “If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.”

Some sources from the Insight book can be found here and here.


What is the difference between a denomination and a movement?

A denomination is a group of churches in a formal organisation. There is usually some kind of leadership, some kind of joint document that defines what they believe or do, and usually an official government registered corporation.

A movement is a group of Christians who share a particular history, set of beliefs, or set of practices. But they don't have to be united officially. There's no organisation that brings together all Protestants, or all pentecostals, or all baptists, or all creationists, or all those who are pre millennial. Some movements will define churches, others just some of the people in them.


What does "witness" refer to in Matthew 24:14?

According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon, the sense of witness in this passage is "that persons may get knowledge of something the knowledge of which will be good for their benefit" (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3142&t=KJV)

So Jesus is saying that the gospel will pass on knowledge of sin and redemption to its hearers; it will provide the supporting knowledge, perhaps resulting in a conviction of the heart, that allows a sinner to come to God for salvation.


What is the Roman Catholic position on the validity of the marriage between an infertile man and infertile woman?

I assume you are asking about the validity of a marriage between people who cannot conceive children. The position is summed up in this paper. To summarize:

  Infertility does not prevent a person from validly entering into marriage. The Code of Canon Law affirms, “Sterility neither prohibits nor invalidates marriage” (No. 1084.3). Appreciating the suffering of an infertile couple, the Catechism states, “Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice” (No. 1654). In this case, a couple can consummate the marriage, but they just cannot conceive children.

Your last point, about marriage between partners of the same sex, is an entirely different question and I suggest you ask it separately.


Are there designated circumstances for making prayer to Jesus and making prayer to God?

We pray to our heavenly Father, in Jesus' name, for several reasons (most reasoning sourced here):

We are told to address all prayer to God the Father. (see also 1 Peter 1:17 and Ephesians 3:14)

  This, then, is how you should pray: ‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,' (Matthew 6:9)

We can only approach the Father in the name of Jesus, the Son

  And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. (John 14:13-14)

A follow-up question might be: Does God get mad if you pray to Jesus? I can't imagine God getting mad with one of His children trying to communicate with Him, no matter how we did it. Romans 8:26-27 says:

  In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.

When we pray, we don't always know how to pray, or what to pray for, but this says that the Holy Spirit takes our prayers and makes them presentable to God.


When Christ was pierced with the spear, why did water come out?

The probable medical reason is pleural efflusion, caused by hypovolemic shock and congestive heart  failure.

Hypovolemic shock, also called hemorrhagic shock, is a life-threatening condition that results when you lose more than 20 percent (one-fifth) of your body’s blood or fluid supply.

This would likely have been a result of the flogging prior to the crucifixion.

From gotquestions.org:

  Those who were flogged would often go into hypovolemic shock, a term
  that refers to low blood volume. In other words, the person would have
  lost so much blood he would go into shock.

...

  Prior to death, the sustained rapid heartbeat caused by hypovolemic
  shock also causes fluid to gather in the sack around the heart and
  around the lungs. This gathering of fluid in the membrane around the
  heart is called pericardial effusion, and the fluid gathering around
  the lungs is called pleural effusion. This explains why, after Jesus
  died and a Roman soldier thrust a spear through Jesus’ side (probably
  His right side, piercing both the lungs and the heart), blood and
  water came from His side just as John recorded in his Gospel (John
  19:34).


According to Catholicism, does God want everyone to be Catholic?

Does God desire that all men be Catholic?

The answer to the O.P. is fundamentally “yes:” the Church teaches that it is the Catholic Church—that is, the universal Church—and hence that God calls all people to be members.

Lumen Gentium [LG], Vatican II’s dogmatic constitution on the Church, puts it as follows:

  All men are called to belong to the new people of God [i.e., the Church]. Wherefore this people, while remaining one and only one, is to be spread throughout the whole world and must exist in all ages, so that the decree of God's will may be fulfilled…. It follows that though there are many nations there is but one people of God, which takes its citizens from every race, making them citizens of a kingdom which is of a heavenly rather than of an earthly nature…. All men are called to be part of this catholic [i.e., universal] unity of the people of God which in promoting universal peace presages it (LG 13).

By stating this, the Catholic Church does not intend in any way to belittle the authentic goodness in persons who are not fully in communion with the Church—that is, non-Catholic Christians, and even the non-baptized who seek the truth sincerely.

Briefly, fully-fledged members of the Catholic Church have access to all of the means of salvation that Christ gave to his Church:

  They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops (LG 14).

However, other Christians enjoy a certain communion with the Catholic Church:

  For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect (Vatican II’s decree on ecumenism, Unitatis redintegratio, 3).

Moreover, the Church recognizes a certain unity with those non-baptized persons who nevertheless believe in God (especially the Jewish People, as well as Muslims), and even with members of other religious who nevertheless seek the truth. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], Nos. 839-845.)

Even so, all men are ordered to the Catholic faith:

  And there belong to or are related to (ordinantur)* it in various ways, the Catholic faithful, all who believe in Christ, and indeed the whole of mankind, for all men are called by the grace of God to salvation (LG 15).

It is certainly the design of the Creator that all men should be members of his Church, while on earth; in any event, all men who are saved will be members of that Church in Heaven. (See CCC 954.)

Will Satan be banish once that is accomplished

As far as the other parts of the O.P.’s question, Satan will not be definitively “banished” or defeated until the end of the world, because, of course, the Evil One is still able to tempt even the followers of Jesus while they are on earth. This idea is expressed, for example, in Revelation 20:10:

  and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever (ESV).

(Note that this defeat takes place immediately after the Millennium, which, according to most Catholic exegetes, refers to the age of the Church; i.e., the age we are in now, between the First and Second Coming of Christ.)

Some Biblical texts to support the Catholic view

Regarding the Biblical basis for God’s desire that all men be Catholic, there are a number of passages that could be recalled. For example, there is Acts 2:47:

  And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

The Church considers itself to be in historic continuity with the Church of the Apostles. This passage shows that God considers membership in the Church as necessary for salvation.**

If we then consider 1 Timothy 2:4, we see that God desires that all men be saved:

  [God] desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (ESV).

It follows that God wants all men to have access to the means of salvation, which is the Church.

In a similar vein, we have Romans 8:30:

  And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified (ESV).

In Catholic thought, “predestination” is precisely the ordering by God of His creatures to Himself (i.e. His desire that we be saved).*** St. Paul affirms that being predestined also entails being called (ἐκάλεσεν), which is precisely what it means to be a member of the Church (ἐκκλησία, which even comes from the same root as “to call” in Greek).

* The official translation reads “related to,” as can be seen, but “ordered to” (that is, directed toward) would better represent the original Latin ordinantur.

** It is important, however, not to understand the Catholic Church’s necessity for salvation so extremely as to fall into rigorism. The Church does indeed teach that “outside the Church there is no salvation” (see CCC 846), but the Church also insists that those who are outside the visible confines of the Church through no fault of their own still have the opportunity for salvation.

*** Generally, however, in Catholic theology—which, at least in the West, follows St. Augustine’s terminology—the “predestined” refers to those whom God, in his omniscience, knows will be saved, whereas the “reprobate” refers to those will not be saved. This should not be taken to mean that God forces people to be saved or condemned; God always respects our freedom. The Calvinistic idea that God predestines people to Hell is quite foreign to Catholic teaching.


Short answer: no. He does not have two kingdoms currently.

John 18:36

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." (KJV)

Jesus' kingdom is, for right now, not on earth. His kingdom resides in the heavenly realms and in the hearts of believers. You cannot grab or feel His kingdom right now.

However, there is coming a time after Satan is cast into the lake of fire that Jesus will have a graspable kingdom.

Rev 21:10

"And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God" (KJV)

The Bible goes on after this verse to describe the city with the author's sight, such as sparkling, and the author goes on to give dimensions. This is clearly a kingdom able to be seen and felt. A graspable kingdom.

So the long answer is: Jesus has two different kingdoms, but only one right now.


According to the Catholic Church, why should we pray if God has already decided the best future for all of us?

It certainly is true that our Father knows what we need before we ask Him (cf. Matt. 6:8), but this does not mean that our asking for what we think we need accomplishes nothing.
In the first place, we are created in the image and likeness of God. That creation gives us a dignity which merits the hearing, at least, of our desires. God knows what we need. He even knows what we want. But it's important to Him—precisely because he gave us will and rationality—that we be aware of our wants, and have an opportunity to declare them. Telling God what we want, in this view, is simply exercising our abilities as the image and likeness of God.

Our Father knows what we need before we ask him, but he awaits our petition because the dignity of his children lies in their freedom.
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2736)

In addition, petitionary prayer opens us to be able to come closer to God, to allow Him to transform us into people more fully and constantly willing to trust in Him and to desire for ourselves what He desires for us. With this in mind, even if we don't receive what we ask for, we can still draw closer to God in our asking:

God wills that our desire should be exercised in prayer, that we may be able to receive what he is prepared to give.
St Augustine, "Epistula 130", quoted in Catechism paragraph 2737.

"Transformation of the praying heart," the Catechism continues (2739), "is the first response to our petition."
Of course, it doesn't follow that God doesn't listen to our prayers—that he never gives us what we ask for simply because we do ask for it. God will give us what is good, when we ask for it. And if there is only one "best" for us, surely He will give us that, even if we ask for something else.

Do not be troubled if you do not immediately receive from God what you ask him; for he desires to do something even greater for you, while you cling to him in prayer.
Evagrius Ponticus, "On Prayer", quoted in Catechism paragraph 2737.

But it needn't follow that there is only one best thing for us. God hasn't necessarily "already decided the best future for each of us". What that "best" is depends on our freely chosen actions. And even accounting for them, there may be multiple equally good futures God could offer to us. And if one of these includes giving what we asked for, why should He not decide, as we are making the request, to do that? In this way, if we are praying in Him, in accord with what really is good for us: in this way God can actually decide to fulfill our request simply because we asked for it.
Note: Of course, God's will is carried out regardless of our prayer life. There's nothing saying we must pray for what we want. But to refuse to pray, knowing that God is listening, is refusing not only an opportunity to communicate with God, our loving father, but also a chance to align ourselves more closely with His will. It seems a dreadful disrespect of God to do this.


What are the Church fathers' arguments that Peter is the rock?

This is one of those issues where Catholic sources will tend to say the Fathers obviously called Peter the foundation of the Church (and supply quotes to prove it) and Protestant sources will tend to say they obviously did not (and likewise supply quotes to prove it).  To get the full picture, you need to look at sources from both sides of the debate.
An ancient debate
It has been said that "few texts have been the occasion for the spilling of more ink than Matthew 16:17-19."1  Catholics, naturally, see the text as proof of the legitimacy of the papacy, while Protestants the verse as establishing the Church under the join authority of all the Apostles or via Jesus' own authority.  One might think this is mostly a recent debate, but in fact debate about the meaning of this verse stretches back to the early days of the Church, long before any schisms arose.
The antiquity of this debate is made clear in a single passage by Augustine.  In his final work, Retratations ("Re-treatments"; 428) Augustine wrote:2

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: "On him as on a rock the Church was built." This idea is also expressed in song by the voice of many in the verse of the most blessed Ambrose where he says about the crowing of the cock: "At its crowing he, this rock of the Church, washed away his guilt."  But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church," that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received "the keys of the kingdom of heaven." For, "Thou art Peter" and not "Thou art the rock" was said to him. But "the rock was Christ," in confessing whom as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.

From this passage is it clear that at different points in his life, Augustine interpreted Matthew 16:18 as establishing Peter as the founder of the church, but at other times he believed the "rock" in view was actually Jesus, not Peter.  As we look at other Church Fathers, we will see that both of these options are supported by multiple Fathers. In the end, Augustine didn't have a strong preference and left it up to the reader to decide for him or herself.
Tertullian
Tertullian (c. 160-240) wrote about the meaning of Peter and the Rock on several occasions.  In Scorpiace ("Antidote for the Scorpion's Sting", c. 210), he wrote:3

For though you think heaven still shut, remember that the Lord left here to Peter and through him to the Church, the keys of it, which every one who has been here put to the question, and also made confession [of faith], will carry with him.

From this passage, Tertullian appears to be saying that the "keys" to the Church were passed on from Peter to the Church, which certainly could be read as an argument for apostolic succession and the papacy.  Likewise, in De pudicitia ("On Modesty", c. 220), he wrote that "the Church" has the authority to forgive sins and as justification he writes:

what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter?  On you, He says, will I build My Church; and, I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and, Whatsoever you shall have loosed or bound, not what they shall have loosed or bound. For so withal the result teaches. In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key

He then goes on to describe a couple other ways in which Peter was primary: He was the first to "unbar" the entrance to heaven through baptism; and, he was the first to open the Gospel message to the Gentiles.  As such, it is not hard to read this passage in support of papal succession.  However, Tertullian concludes the passage by explaining what "the Church" is and says it is "properly and principally, the Spirit Himself" adding that any gathering of believers counts.  He concludes:

And accordingly the Church, it is true, will forgive sins: but (it will be) the Church of the Spirit, by means of a spiritual man; not the Church which consists of a number of bishops.

which is certainly hard to read in a manner that would allow special authority for the papacy.
Tertullian clearly did believe in apostolic succession, for in De praescriptione haereticorum ("Prescription against Heretics", c. 200) he writes:5

For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies)

However, there is no indication in this passage that the Church of Rome has a special authority.  It certainly seems like he views all churches founded by apostles as equal.
It appears that Tertullian viewed Matthew 16:17-9 as conferring a special authority on to Peter.  And he clearly believes in apostolic succession.  However, if he believed that the Church of Rome, founded by Peter, received special authority, he did not make that clear.
Pseudo-Clementine
The Epistle of Clement to James, supposedly a letter from Clement I (pope 92-99), supports the idea of papal succession through Peter.  In truth in was not written by Clement, but rather an unknown writer around 220 AD.  The fact that it is pseudographical is certainly problematic for doctrinal purposes and such, but does not mean the attitude of the writer did not reflect a common attitude of his day.  "Clement" writes:6

Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon, who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus Himself, with His truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; ... But about that time, when he was about to die, the brethren being assembled together, he suddenly seized my hand, and rose up, and said in presence of the church: "Hear me, brethren and fellow-servants. Since, as I have been taught by the Lord and Teacher Jesus Christ, whose apostle I am, the day of my death is approaching, I lay hands upon this Clement as your bishop; and to him I entrust my chair of discourse

While the writer of this letter does not quote Matthew 16:18 directly, he perhaps alludes to it and certainly sees Peter as the foundation of the Church.  Furthermore, he clearly believes in a special authority for the Church of Rome passed from Peter to Clement.  The pseudographical nature of the letter does raise questions as to how mainstream the belief was at the time (people often wrote pseudographically when they wanted to elevate the legitimacy of a minority position), but there are other possible motives for the pseudography (e.g. to elevate the importance of Clement), so the belief may well have been mainstream.  At minimum, the document establishes that the idea of papal succession founded on Peter began prior to 220 AD.
Similarly, it the Clementine Homilies, which may or may not have been written by the same hand, into Peter's mouth is put the claim to be the foundation of the church:7

For in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church, you now stand.

Origen
In his extensive commentary on Matthew (c. 250), Origen (c. 185-255) comments on the rock passage a couple times.  In book 13, he writes:8

in the case of Peter, this saying "I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens," has been specially set before the words, "And what things soever you shall bind on earth," etc. And, indeed, if we were to attend carefully to the evangelical writings, we would also find here, and in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter and those who have thrice admonished the brethren, a great difference and a pre-eminence in the things said to Peter, compared with the second class. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more

As such, it appears that he does see a special authority assigned to Peter.  However, on the "rock" specifically he writes that every believer can "become a Peter" upon which the Church is built.  He further argues:9

But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? ... [anyone who professes belief] will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname of rock who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of the rock just as Christ does.

It seems pretty clear that Origen believes the church is not founded on the authority of Peter alone, but on all the Apostles.  Furthermore, the promise passes not to a specific successor, but rather to all believers.  All become the "rocks" on which the church stands.
Cyprian
Cyprian (c. 200-260) perhaps offers one of the most favorable statement for the Catholic position of papal primacy.  In the first edition of De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate ("On the Unity of the Catholic Church", c. 250), he comments on Matthew 16:17-19, writing:10

On [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep, and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair, and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?"

As written this passage seems to be a clear endorsement of not only Peter as the founder of the church, but also a special authority for his successors.  The picture is complicated a bit, however, because Cyprian released a second edition of De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate in which he revised this passage:10

Upon [Peter], being one, [Jesus] builds His Church, and although after His resurrection He bestows equal power upon all the Apostles... that He might display unity, He established by His authority the origin of the same unity as beginning from one. Surely the rest of the Apostles also were that which Peter was, endowed with an equal partnership of office and of power, but the beginning proceeds from unity, that the Church of Christ may be shown to be one.

Overall the gist of the passage is the same - all the Apostle had equal authority, but the Church was founded upon Peter specifically - but the language is considerably softened.  Why did Cyprian make this change?  A Protestant will, of course, say it was because the passage conveyed a higher degree of authority for Rome than Cyprian actually intended.  However, this is not necessarily the case.  In addition to changing the language, Cyprian significantly expanded the passage.  It is possible that he was making the same argument in both cases - that Rome was given a special authority for the sake of Church unity - and was simply making it more clear that the Church at Rome wasn't "better", but rather only had a special (but equal) position.
Elsewhere (Epistle 39, c. 253), Cyprian wrote:11

There is one God, and Christ is one, and there is one Church, and one chair founded upon the rock by the word of the Lord. Another altar cannot be constituted nor a new priesthood be made, except the one altar and the one priesthood.

Given that we know Cyprian does equate the rock to Peter, it seems very likely that he means what he says in the first version of De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate.  That is, that the Church at Rome does have a special authority via its foundation by Peter.
Firmilian
In a letter to Cyprian (c. 253), Firmilian (? - 270) uses Matthew 16:18-9 to say that Peter was given a unique authority to forgive sins, which through him was inherited by the Church:12

But what is the greatness of his error, and what the depth of his blindness, who says that remission of sins can be granted in the synagogues of heretics, and does not abide on the foundation of the one Church which was once based by Christ upon the rock, may be perceived from this, that Christ said to Peter alone, Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

On the surface, this appears to establish papal authority and is sometimes quoted by Catholics as doing so.  However, Firmilian continues:

And again, in the Gospel, when Christ breathed on the apostles alone, saying, Receive the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins you remit they are remitted unto them, and whose soever sins you retain they are retained. Therefore the power of remitting sins was given to the apostles, and to the churches which they, sent by Christ, established, and to the bishops who succeeded to them by vicarious ordination.

which casts doubt on whether he believed Peter's special authority was passed on to his successors specifically, as opposed to the Church as a whole.  His position is made clear when, a bit later in the letter, he writes:

And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority... Nor does he understand that the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he thus betrays and deserts unity.

It seems the letter was written in response to a letter by Pope Stephen I in which he argued that repentant heretics did not need to be (re-)baptized, but should be freely admitted to the Church.  Apparently, Stephen claimed authority to decide such matters based on a special authority for his office, handing down through Peter.  While Firmilian agrees that Peter was given a special position, he evidently strongly disagrees that this authority has been passed to Stephen in such a way that allows him to establish doctrine.
Cyril
In a homily around the year 350, Cyril (c. 313-386) described the heretic Simon Magus making trouble in Rome and then remarked:

As the delusion was extending, Peter and Paul, a noble pair, chief rulers of the Church, arrived and set the error right

and then quotes Matthew 16:19 as justification for Peter's authority:13

For Peter was there, who carries the keys of heaven: and nothing wonderful, for Paul was there, who was caught up to the third heaven, and into Paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful far a man to utter.

From this passage, we can conclude that Cyril considered Peter (jointly with Paul) to be the first "ruler" of the Church and can place him at Rome.  It is reasonable to think that Cyril was alluding to/supporting the idea of the papacy here, although as near as I can tell he did not comment directly on apostolic succession anywhere in his writings.
Ephraim
Writing in poetic form (c. 350; commonly described as a homily although not necessarily a homily in the modern term),  Ephraim (c. 305-373) writes the following (presumably coming from Jesus' mouth):14

Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures!

Although it is not explicit, the most natural reading of this passage is that Peter is the first leader of the Church and is given a special authority.  Furthermore, it is natural to see Ephraim as saying that authority is then passed on through a line of succession ("heirs").
Optatus
In his untitled treatise against Donatism (c. 370), Optatus (?-387) repeatedly draws on Matthew 16:17-19 to establish the legitimacy of the papal teachings and the illegitimacy of Donatist anti-popes.  For example:13

gates against which we read that Peter received the saving Keys - Peter, that is to say, the first of our line, to whom it was said by Christ: 'To thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,' and these keys 'the gates of Hell shall not overcome.'
How is it, then, that you strive to usurp for yourselves the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, you who, with your arguments, and audacious sacrilege, war against the Chair of Peter?

In the same work, he writes:

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim - each for himself - separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner.  Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.

The word translated "Cephas" here is actually κεφαλή (kephale, literally "head"), hence Optatus is making a play on words similar to (but different from) Jesus' "rock/Peter".   He doesn't reference the "rock" specifically anywhere in his work, but does reference the surrounding context - as illustrated above - and makes explicit reference to Peter conferring a special authority on the Church at Rome.  (Optatus always explicitly endorses papal succession and includes a list of the popes, starting at Peter and continuing to his day.)
Ambrose
As we have already seen (in Augustine's commentary), Ambrose (c. 340-397) interpreted the rock passage as conferring a special authority on Peter.  In Exposition of the Christian Faith (c. 380), he wrote:16

Could He not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on His own authority, He gave the kingdom, whom He called the Rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church?

And in Enarrationes in xii. Psalmos Davidicos ("Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David"), he wrote:

This is that Peter to whom Christ said, ' Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Therefore, where Peter is, there is the Church;

In isolation, these passages seem to suggest that Ambrose not only viewed Peter as having a special position in the Church, but arguably also as supporting papal succession on this basis.  However, his view was a bit more complicated than that as can to seen by, for example in Expositio evangelii secundum Lucam ("Exposition of the Gospel according to Luke") he writes:17

Christ is the rock, for ‘they drank of the same spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ’; also He denied not to His disciple the grace of this name; that he should be Peter, because he has from the rock the solidity of constancy, the firmness of faith. Make an effort, therefore, to be a rock! Do not seek the rock outside of yourself, but within yourself! Your rock is your deed, your rock is your mind. Upon this rock your house is built. Your rock is your faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If you are a rock, you will be in the Church, because the Church is on a rock. If you are in the Church the gates of hell will not prevail against you...He who has conquered the flesh is a foundation of the Church; and if he cannot equal Peter, he can imitate him.

In this passage, he seems to be saying Jesus is the "true Rock" on which the Church is founded and Peter's "rockship" is available to all believers, not just the pope.
Conclusion
There is sufficient evidence within the writers of the Church Fathers to find an early basis for the idea that "on this rock I will build my church" gives Peter a special position within Church history.  There is also evidence that some Church Fathers saw this passage as a justification for a special place for the Bishop of Rome; that is, as a basis for papal authority.  In some cases, the evidence is pretty clear, but in many cases it is ambiguous, and is some cases the writings appear to argue against the idea.  Thus, no firm conclusion can be drawn about a collective teaching of the Church Fathers.  Perhaps the most accurate statement would be that opinion was mixed as to whether Jesus started a special office via Peter.
It seems likely that the debate about what Jesus meant exactly by "on this rock I will build my church," which began in antiquity, will continue indefinitely.  Neither those who believe Peter passed on a special authority to the Church at Rome nor those that deny it have a conclusive case in the writings of the Fathers.

References
1 "Peter the Rock" by Tim Staples at Catholic Answers
2 The Retractions (The Fathers of the Church, Volume 60) by Saint Augustine
3 Scorpiace by Tertullian at Tertullian.org
4 On Modesty by Tertullian  at New Advent
5 Prescription against Heretics by Tertullian  at New Advent
6 *Epistle of Clement to James at Tertullian.org
7 "Homily 17 at New Advent
8 Commentary on Matthew, Book XIII by Origen at New Advent
9 Commentary on Matthew, Book XII by Origen at New Advent
10 "The Unity of the catholic Church in The Faith of the Early Fathers by W. A. Jurgens
11 Epistle 39 by Cyprian at New Advent
12 Epistle 74 by Firmilian at New Advent
13 Catechetical Lecture 6 by Cyril at New Advent
14 "Homilies" in The Faith of the Early Fathers by W. A. Jurgens
15 Against the Donatists by Optatus at Tertullian.org
16 *Exposition of the Christian Faith, Book IV by Ambrose at New Advent
17 *A Commentary, by Writers of the First Five Centuries, on the Place of St. Peter in the New Testament by J. Waterworth


The beasts are distinct and each one is figuratively representing an different empire and period of history. The little horn of the third beast is often considered to have been Antiochus Epiphane, a historcal ruler if the Hellenic (Greek) period. His actions are related in the book of Maccabees.

The little horn of the fourth beast is related to the Roman Empire. Its interpretation is varied. Some link it to the antichrist, an singularly evil person who will appear near the end of the world. Others connect it to historical figures, including the papacy, napoleon, and Hitler. Interesting articles are available online on this topic:

  To clear up some known confusion: let us look at another horn
  mentioned in chapter 8. It will help you to read the whole chapter,
  but we are not going to now. We will start in verse 9, and read a few
  verses to get this horn. Daniel saw a goat which had a great horn
  between his eyes, and this he goat (Greece) was very great, but there
  came a time when his great horn was broken, and for it four notable
  ones came up, and out of one of them came forth a little horn, which
  waxed exceedingly great toward the south, and toward the east, and
  toward the pleasant land (ISRAEL). This little horn magnified himself,
  and by him the daily sacrifice of the Jews was taken away, and the
  truth was cast down to the ground, and the horn practiced and
  prospered. Go to verse 13, “Then I heard one saint speaking, and
  another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall
  be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of
  desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden
  under foot?” Now I know that sounds just like what we know about the
  Antichrist, what he will do in that seventieth week of Daniel, over in
  the great tribulation, but remember, the Antichrist only has 1,200
  days allotted to him to do this, and then notice the answer given here
  in verse 14, “And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred
  days; (2,300) then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” That is, without
  any doubt whatsoever, speaking of Antiochus Epiphanes, that horn of
  Syria which came out of the break up of the Grecian empire. But as you
  read on throughout this chapter, verses 24 & 25, which actually are
  speaking of the Antichrist, have caused some scholars to believe it is
  still referring to the horn of verse 9. That simply is a reference to
  show that this same spirit of Satan rested on those forerunning types
  of the wicked one who is yet to come. You will notice in verse 25,
  that this one stands up against the Prince of princes, which could be
  none other than Jesus Christ himself, and we know that Antiochus has
  never, and will never stand up against Jesus Christ in mortal flesh.
  It is only that the same spirit of destruction and desolation that was
  in Antiochus will also be in the Antichrist, the son of perdition.
  Some have looked at these verses and said, the Antichrist will come
  out of Syria. Others try to put these scriptures together, and they
  come up with the idea that he will be an apostle Jew. No! He will be a
  Roman. We will show you, in chapter 9, that the Antichrist must be a
  prince of the Romans. - https://www.fachurch.org/1980/07/21/publications/contenders/bro-raymond-jackson/the-abomination-that-maketh-desolate-part-1/


According to the Reformers, how does the doctrine of Total Depravity result in assurance of faith?

It would seem that "total depravity" along with predestination is what defines Calvinism but I submit that all five points of Calvinism go hand in hand.  Reformed theology emphasizes the doctrine of grace, best known by the acronym TULIP ,although this really doesn't correspond to the best possible names of the five doctrines.

Since "total depravity" is understood by most I will not take the time to go into great lengths here as you have given the basic meaning which is adequate for the question you have ask.  We will need to jump all the way down to the "P" or the "perserverance of the saints" to get into the meat of your question.  Actually, a better name for this doctrine would be "the perseverance of God with the saints."   God perseveres with and for us, keeping us from falling away, which we would certainly do if  He were not with us.  Perseverance is the ultimate proof of our election.

The doctrine of perseverance does not rest on our ability to persevere, even if we are regenerated.  Rather, it rest on the promises of God to preserve us.  Paul writes to the Philippines,

  "I am sure of this, He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Philippines 1:6)

It is by grace and grace alone that Christian's persevere.  God always finishes what He has started.  He assures us in His word that His purposes in election are not frustrated.

The golden chain of Romans 8 gives us even further testimony to this hope.

  "And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those he justified he also glorified" (Romans 8:30) Paul goes on to declare that nothing
  "Will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord" (8:39)

We have security and assurance because salvation is of the Lord and in His all knowing and craftsmanship He gives the Holy Spirit to every believer  as a promise that He will fulfill what He has begun.  He has sealed every believer by the Holy Spirit.  Yes, He has marked us with an indelible mark and given us His personal down payment that guarantees he will finish the transaction.

A final basis of confidence is found in the high priestly work of our Lord Jesus, who interceded for us, just as He prayed for the restoration of Peter, He also prays for our restoration  when we stumble and fall.  We may fall for a season but we will never fully or finally fall away.  His mighty hand and His promises we find in His Holy word will hold us up.  Jesus prayed in the upper room,

  while I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me.  I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fullfilled." (John 17:12)

Only Judas, who was the son of perdition from the beginning whose profession of faith was spurious was lost.  Those who are true believers

  cannot be snatched from God's hand (John 10:27-30.

As you can see, although we are a totally depraved people, God gives His chosen a new heart, a regenerated heart, a heart that accepts, cherishes and loves the very things that we were incapable of.  He preserves us, He gives us assurance, He holds us up, He will not let His elect or chosen go even tho we are sinners from the very beginning..

5 point Calvints believe in the doctrine of the T-U-L-I-P not because of the belief in Calvin but the absolute truth of Gods word and His promises.  His promises are for all that have come to saving faith alone given to us by His grace alone.  The assurance that we have is not by OUR perseverance but by His preserving us just as He has promised thru-out the ages. We stand on His promises alone which gives us the confidence, even tho we were depraved from the beginning we are truly His now.

I hope this is a adequate answer to your question.  At the heart of Calvinism, we are no different from any other true believer, we accept and believe all that God has revealed to us. We give all the glory and praise to a Sovereign God that deserves all of our worship.  He alone is worthy.
Thank you for your time.


Does Jesus’ purification after death apply to all or just to him?

Christ was always perfect and pure.

Joh 8:46  Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?

Heb 4:15  For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Heb 7:26  For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

To suggest He needed purification is therefore a contradiction of the Scriptures and blasphemy.

None are purified after death because :

Heb 10:9  Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Heb 10:10  By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Heb 10:14  For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

To suggest otherwise is therefore also a contradiction of Scripture, and a blasphemy against Christ's perfect sacrifice.


What's the biblical basis for Dominionism?

Me and some of the members of my church just had a discussion on dominion theology earlier today. The verses which are referenced for this topic are Genesis 1:26 and Luke 19:13 (KJV)

"26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

"13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come."

the words "occupy until I return" suggest using what was gifted unto us to better the kingdom of god. These gifts can include money (pounds), land, political power, or even spiritual gifts. as an investor uses his money to get more money by making strategic financial decisions in the marketplace so too must we Christians use what god has given us to advance the kingdom of god. What this means is that we need to be kingdom minded and ready and willing to promote the Lords agenda as the holy spirit leads us. Things like voting for christian leaders in an election, promoting local churches, being outspoken against the homosexual and abortion movements, supporting Israel, and just generally hating evil and fearing the lord are sure ways of being a good steward of what the lord has given you.

The seven different dominions Religion, Family, Education, Government, Media, Arts, and Business are the different spheres of influence of a society (check out the video on the front page of lancewallnau.com). Dominion theology, which can be backed up by the above bible verses, suggest that Christians should not just be focused on the Religious domain but all seven influence spheres in the society. The apathy of the church has led to the rise of homosexuality and abortion (family), State-sponsored education (education), Obama (government), moral decay in the leftist media, pornography (arts), the collapse of the middle class (business). These are all a direct result of Christians not taking a stand for Jesus Christ. As we have already won in what Jesus did at the cross there is nothing wrong with taking a stand and taking back the dominion over every sphere of influence that the Devil has taken from us. "Taking" is a verb so we actually have to be engaging the enemy to see results or else things will just get worse from this point.

Yes we can all sit on our hands and wait for the lord to come back and say to  him that we have kept the talent or minas(gift) safe for the lord but he will take the reward away from those who do nothing with the gifts that he gives them during this church age and give the reward to those who strive for christian dominion before he returns as is suggested by the outcome of the parables of the Talents and the Minas.

Ive been interested in this topic as well, hope this helps.

Jacob


What is the Biblical basis that the second Person of the Trinity was the Only-begotten Son of the Father before His incarnation?

The classic Bible verse to clearly declare that Jesus was the only-begotten son of God before the incarnation is John 1:1-2, declaring Jesus to be fully God, eternally with his Father.

  1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. (John 1:1-2).

From this eternity:

  14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:1-2).

Notice the words ‘One and Only’.

So Jesus is the Eternal Word, of the Father and is God of very God.  Now the eternal word of God is the express image ‘coming out’ of the Father which is his One and only Eternal Son.

God the Father Himself declared this Jesus to be his eternal Son, during the Baptism of John:

  9At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” (Mark 1:9-11)

Now the only-begotten Son is not a fictitious rapture of his human nature in the incarnation, or resurrection but from eternity. Jesus said:

  And no man has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” (John 3:13)

I will end it here as this subject has been fully proven by so many theologians through history that I would never be able to add anything to it. John Owen (Quoting St. Jerome) indicates to me that we need not fuss over the term only-begotten. The Messiah, the Son of God has so many names referring to the same 'One and Only' as always believed in the Chruch:

  And Jerome, speaking of the effects of this mystery: (Comment. in
  Ezekiel, cap. 46:)
  “Ne miretur lector si idem et Princeps est et Sacerdos, et Vitulus, et Aries, et Agnus; cum in Scripturis sanctis pro varietate causarum legamus eum Dominum, et Deum, et Hominem, et Prophetam, et Virgam, et Radicem, et Florem, et Principem, et Regem justum, et Justitiam, Apostolu, et Episcopu, Brachium, Servum, Angelum, Pastorem, Filium, et Unigenitum, et Promogenitum, Ostium, Viam, Sagittam, Sapientiam, et multa alia.”
  — “Let not the reader wonder if he find one and the same to be the Prince and Priest, the Bullock, Ram, and Lamb; for in the Scripture, on variety of causes, we find him called Lord, God, and Man, the Prophet, a Rod, and the Root, the Flower, Prince, Judge, and Righteous King; Righteousness, the Apostle and Bishop, the Arm and Servant of God, the Angel, the Shepherd, the Son, the Only-begotten, the First-begotten, the Door, the
  Way, the Arrow, Wisdom, and sundry other things.” (John Owen’s Works Vol 1, P39)

Yes, He was the only begotten Son of God before the incarnation. This has always been one of the core beliefs within both Catholic and Protestant churches, across all the ages.


How do Cessationists expect people to believe without seeing miracles today?

A cessationist belief is best understood by finding out why miracles and wonders were performed:

  We must pay the most careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away. For since the message spoken through angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment, how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will. (Hebrews 2:1-4, NIV)

Here we have the order. Salvation was first announced (i.e. the gospel), then God performed miracles to confirm and testify his approval of this new doctrine that was preached.  More directly God's testimony did not only affirming the truth of what Christ and the Apostles preached, but was a heavenly vindication and seal of approval on their very persons and ministry as infallible guides on establishing the remaining canon of scriptures.  Once these scriptures were completed, they became the final authority in all matters of church practice and Christian living.  In fact the only reason why we believe miracles to have occurred is because the scriptures say so.

Now in the context of Hebrews the author is showing the differences and similarities between the Old Covenant and New Covenant.  Although Jesus is the same, yesterday, today and forever, we find God never continuously performed miracles anywhere in the Bible, but only on occasions as he chose. Especially in the founding of each covenant, did he show many wondrous signs.

Looking back at what God did it seems reasonable.  Miracles do not cause people to believe in God (eg. Pharaoh) but they do allow for mammoth shifts in Salvation history, taking people 'by storm' as it were.  It should not be surprising then to see that God used:

  some divine work to be established amongst men, by virtue of a new and never-before-heard-of revelation of God’s will, or a restoration of the same, when collapsed and corrupted by the sin of men. ... This we may see in Moses and (after Jesus Christ, anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows to preach the gospel) the apostles. But this may pass, for nothing in such a way shall ever again take place, God having ultimately revealed his mind concerning his worship and our salvation, a curse being denounced to man or angel that shall pretend to revelation for the altering or changing one jot or tittle of the gospel. (John Owen's Works, Vol 13.31)

The facts that the Jews wickedly expected miraculous signs (Matth 16:4, 1 Cor 1:22) as though without which it might be considered 'unfair of God' to expect obedience to his word without them, may have partly been due to the history of miracles that God performed in establishing the Old Covenant. The parable of the rich man in hell talking to Abraham was one way in which Jesus tried to expose foolish human thinking that miracles were needed for faith:

  “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead. ’” (Luke 16:31, NIV)

A wicked expectation of miracles, is due to a want of belief in the power of scripture and the Holy Spirit's ability to convict men of sin and bring them into salvation thereby.  Clearly this lack of faith and desire for miracles in carnally minded and to be loathed if any fear of God should properly quicken a man's soul from death.

This begs the question, if miracles do not cause faith, but only God's word does when believed, why do miracles 'confirm' God's word then? To answer we need too look at Moses or Christ and see the effects they had.  When considering how difficult it would be for a person without God's power to arrest the attention of a large body of people and introduce to them a whole new practice of worship and doctrine, we can see the miracles helped just that.  Even Pharaoh had to stop and give attention to Moses and question his own beliefs and decisions.  Also in the life of Christ, his popularity helped spread his fame. Miracles simply overwhelm human opposition so that even those who hate God and who would never believe, they are yet arrested even if for a moment to allow God's changing of the course of history and establishing of his kingdom as he sees fit. They never were no ever have been God's regular mode of operation.

This leads us to the last question.  Will God ever perform miracles again, not to bring in a new teaching as various cults demonically attempt and sometimes do, but to reform the church, if ever crushed under a mountain of sin? He did after Moses so why not after Christ? The again the prophets kept prophesying of Christ but after the book of revelations there is no more prophecy in terms of additional scripture. Still what about a possible future time?  Although historical cessation views, such as the views of Luther and Calvin did not absolutely believe this could 'never occur', most have simply stated the facts that it has 'not occurred’. In fact the reformation, when one would have expected it, if it were to happen, did not include any miraculous signs.  Having said this however it is recognized that the antichrist in the last days would pretend to perform miraculous wonders, so what is important for believers is to test anyone who claims to have extra ordinary miraculous gifts.  If God ever does see fit to bring about a ‘restoration ministry’ that including miraculous signs (and we have no basis for assuming he must) both the miracles would be undeniable and the teaching fully biblical and believed throughout history. This has not occurred since the times of the Apostles as a matter of common sense and observation. After all, nobody ever denied Christ's miracles they were easy to believe. That is why they were provided. They did not deny his miracles, they denied him.

  Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” (John 10:37-38, NIV)

Cessationism is more of a practical awareness of the cessation of extra ordinary miraculous gifts, rather than a doctrine that they should have ceased. If they did not cease it would be obvious to all of us.  I think it is equally obvious that some gifts such as discernment, knowledge and wisdom never did cease as various men, endued by the Holy Ghost have continued to proclaim the gospel throughout the centuries with wisdom and power surpassing all human abilities. Finally almost every person in history has come to faith in Christ without ever witnessing a miracle, so why would we ever think miracles were required?


How should a Christian look at the Crusaders?

Robert Spencer, who is one of the leading Christian authors on Islam has a fascinating insight into the crusades in this video - The Crusades, Fact & Truth.

The Crusades have a bad reputation, because, as Spencer explains, Westerners have a healthy attitude of self-criticism. Such self-criticism is completely absent in Islam. Spencer points out that it was the invasion of the Turks that began the Crusades.

While it is true that many of the Crusaders did evil acts, the Crusades in themselves were a defensive measure and not an offensive one. Should Christians be ashamed of those Crusaders who commited evil? Sure. Should Christians be ashamed of the Crusades themselves? Never.

When soldiers came to John the Baptist asking him what to do, he didn't tell them to put their swords away, but

  "Rob no one by violence or by false accusation, and be content with
  your wages." (Luke 3:14)

The Bible also says that there is

  "a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time
  to build up" (Ecclesiastes 3:3)

Often, Jesus statement of "turning the other cheek" is quoted to suggest that any act of self defense is against the teachings of Christ. But I answer that somebody slapping you on the cheek doesn't kill you, whereas if someone tries to kill your body, you are obliged to defend yourself, because your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19).

  "If any one destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's
  temple is holy, and that temple you are." (1 Cor 3:17)

The implication of this statement is that if you allow your body to be destroyed, then you shall be held accountable for it. Jesus also said,

  "But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let
  him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one." (Luke 22:36)

Paul says that rulers are servants of God to execute God's wrath on the wrongdoer.

  "But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in
  vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer."
  (Rom 13:4)

The Bible on many occasions praises soldiers. One of the first gentile converts to Christianity was a Roman centurion, Cornelius (Acts 10) and we don't see any demand being made on him to leave his position as a centurion. On another occasion, Jesus marveled at the faith of another centurion (Matthew 8:10). I therefore do not see any reason why a Christian cannot serve in the army.

Had the Crusades not taken place, the entire western world might have been under subjection to Islam today. As a Christian, I shall never be ashamed of the Crusades. Many Christians gave their lives for saving their brethren.


What evidence is there that the Jews thought leprosy was due to sin?

Disease in general
Most scholars and Biblical commentaries agree that it was a common belief among the Jewish people of Jesus' day that leprosy and sickness in general was caused by sin.  In the Old Testament, there are a number of passage that say doctors are of little value:

As for you, you whitewash with lies; worthless physicians are you all. (Job 13:4, ESV)
In the thirty-ninth year of his reign Asa was diseased in his feet, and his disease became severe. Yet even in his disease he did not seek the Lord, but sought help from physicians. And Asa slept with his fathers, dying in the forty-first year of his reign. (II Chronicles 16:12-13)

Instead, healing comes from prayer to God:

If there is famine in the land, if there is pestilence or blight or mildew or locust or caterpillar, if their enemies besiege them in the land at their gates, whatever plague, whatever sickness there is, whatever prayer, whatever plea is made by any man or by all your people Israel, each knowing his own affliction and his own sorrow and stretching out his hands toward this house, (2 Chronicles 6:28-29)
In those days Hezekiah became sick and was at the point of death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came to him and said to him, “Thus says the Lord, ‘Set your house in order, for you shall die; you shall not recover.’”  Then Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the Lord... Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father: I have heard your prayer; I have seen your tears. Behold, I will heal you. (II King 20:1-2,5)

Psalms 110, brings together these idea nicely:

Some were fools through their sinful ways, and because of their iniquities suffered affliction; they loathed any kind of food, and they drew near to the gates of death. Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble, and he delivered them from their distress. He sent out his word and healed them (v17-21)

Here, "fools" are afflicted with illness because of their sinfulness and are cured when they ask God for help.
Likewise, literature of the Ancient Near East usually attribute illness either to sin or black magic.1
In Jesus' time, we have the example of this attitude in John 9:1-2:

As [Jesus] passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

The idea that illness and disability were caused by sin is so ingrained that Jesus' Jewish disciples assume that being born blind must be the result of sin.  They don't even consider the possibility that his disability was not caused by sin.  Similarly, the healing of the paralytic in Luke 5:17-30 carries a strong connotation that sin and disability were related in the Jewish mindset.  In this passage, Jesus first tells the man his sins are forgiven, but the crowd is not convinced so Jesus proceeds to heal the man. Thus, Jesus is playing off their (false) belief that the man was crippled because of his sin.
The Talmud also supports the idea that this was a common understanding among the Jewish people.  For example, b. shabbat 55a states "there is no death without sin and there is no suffering without iniquity".  Indeed, Genesis Rabbah 63:6 supports the idea that sin can occur before birth.  In this passage, Rabbi Yonhanan interprets the story of Jacob and Esah "this one ran to kill this one and this one ran to kill this one [in the womb]".
tsara'ath (leprosy)
In regard to צָרָ֫עַת/tsara'ath (usually translated leprosy, although as Daniel points out the symptoms don't really match those of leprosy) specifically, the illness usually develops after a person attempts to challenge authority, a strong indication that it is the result of a specific sin.  For example, after Miriam challenged Moses (Numbers 12:10–15) and after Gehazi disobeyed Elisha (II Kings 5:20–27).
When Jesus heals "lepers" in the New Testament, he instructs them to "go and show yourself to the priest, and make an offering" (Luke 5:12-14; see also Matthew 8:3-4, Luke 17:12-14).  This special command, which does not normally follow healings, is further indication that this disease has a special spiritual significance.

1 Encyclopedia Judaica: Leprosy


Why did God make garments of skin for Adam and Eve when they had already made clothing for themselves?

When Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, God gave them skins to cover up with (Genesis 3:21). To get those skins, some animal had to die. In other words, God sacrificed an animal to cover their sin1. From the beginning, God has declared the payment for sin is death, and so blood must be shed to cover sin:

Leviticus 17:11: “For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.”
Hebrews 9:22: “In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.”

Early in the Old Testament God introduced this idea of one innocent being shedding its blood in place of the sinner’s.
However the solution of sacrificing bulls and goats and lambs for the sins of each person’s sin was a temporary fix. The next year, another animal would have to be sacrificed for the same person. A more permanent solution was needed, as noted in Hebrews 10:4

For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

That meant a human was needed to die for humans’ sin. But all humans are sinful, so another sin-filled person dying for us just wouldn’t work. A human without sin was needed.
But ever since Adam, every human born is sin-filled, so how could a sinless man happen? The only way was if God did it Himself.
God Himself became a man: Jesus means “the LORD saves” and died for us in our place. Therefore, anyone who accepts the sacrifice of Jesus on his or her behalf is covered by his blood and is saved.
1An explanation of the idea that God provided the skins by killing the first animals to powerfully show Adam and Eve the result of their sin, and the idea that this typified the death of Christ can be found in Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Holy Bible.


What is the basis for the belief that Eve was created on the sixth day, like Adam?

The basis for the belief that Eve was created on the 6th day is a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

Genesis 1:26-28 ESV Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 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.”

Genesis 1:31 ESV And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

I bolded the keys words. It's important to note that the word "man" in this passage can both refer to a single human male or it can refer to mankind, male and female. Note the use of "them".
Also, it sure would be tough to tell a single male to "be fruitful and multiply."


When was the New Testament divided into sentences and paragraphs?

Spaces
Originally, NT texts were written without spaces or any explicit indicator of word division. Such writing is known as scriptio continua. On page 31 of Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, Professor Bruce Metzger says, "Occasionally the grouping of syllables into words is ambiguous. ... It must not be thought, however, that such ambiguities occur frequently. In Greek it is the rule, with very few exceptions, that native Greek words can terminate only in a vowel (or dipthong) or in one of three consonants." So translators could for the most part tell when words began and ended. Wikipedia claims without a source that, "By around AD 1000, European texts were written with spaces between words." My gut is that this somewhat unhelpful figure is basically true, but I wouldn't put it in a paper or anything unless I located a source.
Sentences and paragraphs
In a 2006 article ("Chapters, Verses, Punctuation, Spelling, and Italics in the King James Version") in the BYU publication The Religious Educator, it says that paragraph divisions originated in the fifth century:

New Testament Paragraphs
As with the Old Testament, we do not have any original New Testament texts. But we do have very early textual evidence of the New Testament from the beginning of the second century, and those earliest manuscripts were written in the tradition of Greek texts of their day, in all capital letters, with no division between the words or sections. Although the modern reader may be bewildered by a text that has no apparent breaks, the ancient Greek has a set of rhetorical particles that indicate natural pauses and breaks in the text. Most New Testament texts were written on parchment or papyrus, and by the second century, they began to be written in codices (books with leaves bound together—singular, codex) rather than on scrolls.
Just as in the Hebrew tradition, the first system of division in the New Testament text was the paragraph, which naturally followed the rhetorical and grammatical particles in the text. One of the earliest systems of division in the New Testament is attested in the Greek Bible manuscript Vaticanus, dating from the fifth century AD. In Vaticanus, the scribes used a system of unknown origin in which the text was divided into sections corresponding to the break in sense. Those divisions were called in Greek kephalaia, which means “heads” or “principals.” They were named and numbered in the margins and are the first attested form of a sort of chapter division in the New Testament. In Vaticanus, for example, the Gospel of Matthew was divided into 170 such units—62 in Mark, 152 in Luke, and 50 in John. The kephalaia were much smaller in length than the present-day chapters and are much closer to the paragraphs. In other Greek manuscripts, Acts, the Epistles, and Revelation were similarly divided into chapters and smaller sections.
As they did with the Old Testament, the King James translators indicated paragraph divisions in the New Testament with paragraph markers ( ¶ ). Often, but not always, their paragraph divisions coincide with ancient kephalaia and chapter divisions known from early manuscripts, but for some reason that mystifies scholars to the present day, they end at Acts 20:36.
At the same time the kephalaia divisions in the New Testament were being made, rudimentary smaller divisions, indicated by simple forms of punctuation (sixth through eighth centuries), were beginning to be marked in the Greek texts; these divisions would eventually be reflected in the chapter and verse divisions after the thirteenth century.


Is Thomas More's reading of "This is my body" a literal one by modern standards?

Hyper-Literalism

This seems to be a case of taking the Scriptures too literally when it is intended to be symbolic.

If Christians are the "light of the world", as Jesus said in John 8:12, then all we would need to do to see if someone is a Christian or not would be to turn out all the other lights and see if the person gives off any light himself.

All people who ever hated anyone would be convicted of murder (Matthew 5).  Jesus is a door to a sheep pen where he keeps his sheep and shepherds them, but He Himself was also a sheep who could talk, or at least half man, half sheep.  No, God became a Man--not a sheep.

The Bread and the Wine

The reason that most Protestants reject the notion that the elements of communion are literally the body and blood of Christ is that when Jesus said those words, He was referring to literal bread and literal wine, neither of which was His body or blood.

Also, Paul refers to Jesus as our Passover in 1 Corinthians:

  For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 1 Corinthians 5:7

It was the Passover celebration that Jesus was celebrating with His disciples when He spoke of His body and blood.  The bread was unleavened bread.  Leaven was symbolic of sin, so the unleavened bread represented the sinlessness of Christ.

So, there is ample evidence that this was always to be understood as symbolic.

Taking things as literal when they were mean to be symbolic is definitely problematic and distorts the Scriptures as much as those who symbolize things that were clearly intended to be literal.


What are the oldest surviving manuscripts of the scriptures?

the Ketef Hinnom is typically dated to 600BC - prior even to the fall of Jerusalem.  It only contains 3 verses, however.

In 1979, Gabriel Barkay (or more properly his 13 year old assistant), unearthed the Ketef Hinnom, a small silver scroll containing the blessing in Numbers 6: 24 - 26.  To wit, it is a traditional blessing still used today:

  “The Lord bless you and keep you;
   the Lord make his face shine on you
      and be gracious to you;
  the Lord turn his face toward you
      and give you peace.”’

It's text is essentially unchanged from what we have today, matching both the Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls, which have been dated anywhere from 418 BC to 318 AD. (Personally, I favor the Qumran-as-an-Essene-community 200 BC interpretation.)

It looks like this.

In 2004, the scroll was unrolled and discovered to contain what is probably the oldest scripture we have - from 600 BC.  The primary significance of the fragment is to put a "latest date" of composition on the Torah.  JEPD traditionally held that the Scriptures were composed over various authors between 1000 BC and 600 BC.  This fragment shows this blessing, at very least, was in its current form, no later than 600 BC, although some scholars insist that generalizing the blessing to the entire book would be an over-interpretation.


Is thinking of God as a Loving Father specific to Christianity?

It is not specific to Christianity, there are many other religions that use similar associations of deities with male or female parents. This is a well-known form of anthropomorphism in the human sciences: the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities. It is considered to be an innate tendency of human psychology.

In the Norse pantheon, one of the names of Odin is Alföðr, literally "all-father", father of all.
Similarly, in the Greek pantheon, Zeus was respected as an allfather who was chief of the gods. Even the gods who are not his natural children address him as Father. He was also called the father of men.
In Native American Animism, there is the All-Father, the Sky-Father, and the Earth-Mother
The Egyptian God Khnum bears the title "father of fathers" in some of the oldest religious preserved texts.
In Babylonian, Sumerian and Akkadian texts we find the titles "father of all" and "father of heaven" for the deity Anu.

The principle of associating the top deity of any pantheon with "father" was very common in older patriarchal societies.

It is also not the case that "Jehovah as father" was never made explicit in the OT:

  Jer 31:9  They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I
  lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a
  straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to
  Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.

  Isa 64:8  But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and
  thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.

  Isa 63:16  Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant
  of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our father,
  our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.

  Deu 32:6  Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is
  not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and
  established thee?

  1Ch 29:10  Wherefore David blessed the LORD before all the
  congregation: and David said, Blessed be thou, LORD God of Israel our
  father, for ever and ever.

  Jer 3:19  But I said, How shall I put thee among the children, and
  give thee a pleasant land, a goodly heritage of the hosts of nations?
  and I said, Thou shalt call me, My father; and shalt not turn away
  from me.

  Mal 1:6  A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: if then
  I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my
  fear? saith the LORD of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my
  name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name?

  Mal 2:10  Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why
  do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning
  the covenant of our fathers?

  Pro 3:12  For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the
  son in whom he delighteth.

  Psa 103:13  Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth
  them that fear him.


According to Emanuel Swedenborg, why are there different types of angels?

In line with his (Swedish) Lutheran roots, Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) gave little weight to the Christian traditions that had grown up over the centuries, including traditions about a hierarchy of angels. He considered the Bible itself to be the only valid authority for Christian doctrine throughout Christianity as a whole.

As outlined in the question's linked Wikipedia article on the Christian angelic hierarchy, the idea of hierarchies of angels was originated by various Christian theologians over the centuries, and is based only loosely on the Bible. For example:

Though figures such as seraphim and cherubim do appear in the Bible, they are never identified as angels in the biblical text.
There is no biblical warrant for interpreting "thrones or powers or rulers or authorities" in Colossians 1:16 and elsewhere as referring to angelic beings, ranked or otherwise.
The Greek word commonly translated "archangel" simply means "lead messenger." The Bible never says anything about "archangels" as a separately created race or rank of angels. It merely implies through this term that some angels have higher authority or are more powerful than others, similar to leaders and followers among human beings.

Swedenborg did, however, draw heavily on his (claimed) experiences in the spiritual world over the last twenty-seven years of his life in interpreting what the Bible means when it refers to angels and heavens.

Based on his reading of the Bible and on his spiritual world experiences, Swedenborg stated that although there are higher and lower angels, there are no archangels, and no separate races of angels. Angels are higher or lower in heaven based on how fully they accept God (or Christ) into their lives. This is a function of how thoroughly, fully, and willingly they undergo the process of rebirth, or regeneration, through believing in God and following God's commandments during their lifetimes on earth.

Swedenborg agreed with Paul (2 Corinthians 12:2) in saying that there are three heavens (see Heaven and Hell #29-40). These heavens are:

The central, highest, third, or "heavenly" (traditionally "celestial") heaven
The middle, second, or "spiritual" heaven
The outmost, lowest, first, or "natural" heaven

The angels in the highest heaven are in that heaven because they receive God's love and truth directly into their hearts, or intentions, and act on it immediately and in complete innocence. They do not have to think about it and consider whether or not it is good and true. They trust in the Lord, and in everything that comes from the Lord, simply and completely--and they have a very clear and instantaneous perception of what does and does not come from the Lord. They are therefore the wisest and most powerful angels. However, at a distance they appear like little children because of their full innocence and trust in the Lord. (Compare Jesus' saying in Matthew 18:3: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.") These angels are the beating heart of heaven.

The angels in the middle heaven are in that heaven because they receive God's love and truth in a more indirect and intellectual fashion. Before they act on some idea or feeling that enters their mind or heart, they must first think about it, examine it in their minds, research it further, and come to a rational conclusion that it is indeed good and true, and therefore from God, based on what they have learned. They are therefore less innocent and trusting in God, and more intellectual in their approach to life. These angels are the teachers and intellectual leaders of heaven.

The angels in the lowest heaven are in that heaven because they are moved neither by a sense of God's love flowing directly into their hearts, nor by an intellectual understanding of God's truth flowing into their minds, but by simple obedience to what they are taught about God, faith, and right living. They have no particular interest in learning about spiritual things or growing in love and innocence as the higher angels do. However, they do believe in God and are willing to follow God's commandments as they are taught. These angels are the working class of heaven.

In Swedenborg's system of angels, then, angels are higher and lower not based on some pre-created nature, but based on how fully and directly they accept God (or Christ) into their lives. This is a factor of how fully they were willing to go through a lifelong process of being born again, or regenerated, into the image and likeness of God during their lifetimes on earth.

Here is a quote about higher and lower angels from one of Swedenborg's unpublished manuscripts, which was an unfinished explanation of the book of Revelation. (He later published a complete explanation of Revelation called Apocalypse Revealed) Unfortunately, the earlier manuscript is available in print only in a rather archaic translation:

As to Michael in particular, it is believed from the sense of the letter that he is one of the archangels; but there is no archangel in the heavens. There are, indeed, higher and lower angels, also wiser and less wise; and in the societies of angels there are governors who are set over the rest; but yet there are no archangels in obedience to whom others are held by any authority. There is no such government in the heavens, for no one there acknowledges in heart anyone above himself except the Lord only; this is what is meant by the Lord's words in Matthew:

Be not ye called teacher, for one is your Teacher, Christ, but all ye are brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for one is your Father, who is in the heavens. Neither be ye called masters, for one is your Master, Christ. He that is greatest among you shall be your minister (Matt. 23:8-11).

But by those angels that are mentioned in the Word, as "Michael" and "Raphael," administrations and functions are meant, and in general, limited and certain departments of the administration and function of all the angels. (*Apocalypse Explained* #735)

In general, Swedenborg interprets the angels mentioned by name in the Bible, such as "Michael" and "Gabriel," not as individual angels, but as whole communities (or "societies") of angels dedicated to particular functions or jobs assigned to them by the Lord. These angelic communities may act through an emissary angel. It is also possible, Swedenborg says, for a whole community of angels to appear as a single powerful angel to human eyes. (A material-world parallel to this is the personification of whole nations as a single figure, such as the figure of "Uncle Sam" representing the USA.)

Swedenborg interprets the mighty angel in Revelation 10:1 as being the Lord (Jesus Christ) himself filling an angel with his divine presence, similar to the angels who spoke for the Lord in various encounters with angels in the Old Testament, such as the three visitors to Abraham, Sarah, and Lot in Genesis 18-19. For Swedenborg's explanation of the mighty angel in Revelation 10:1, see Apocalypse Revealed #465.


Are Catholics more likely to accept Platonism's idea of the Forms?

It's not entirely clear that Catholics ought to favor the doctrine of forms to a greater extent than Protestants. The Cambridge Platonists, influential in mid seventeenth century English thought, were largely Protestants of the newly emerging, Anglican sort, or Latitudinarians. Take a look at Henry More. Certainly the Cambridge Platonists did follow a doctrine of forms, but how close that was to Plato's has often been disputed.

They raise the question, therefore, of which doctrine of forms you want to talk about. The doctrine of forms is pre-Christian, of course, although it became a major part of the early Catholic church's teaching. Remember, also, that it figured heavily in Arabic thought, and it was the cultures of Islam that largely inherited the knowledge of 5thC BC Athens, which were released into Western European hands in part as a result of the Spanish reconquista and the fall of Cordoba. The adoption of trans-mediterian standards of philosophical reasoning by the Catholic church (yes, noticeably Thomas Aquinas' grand work on integrating Aristotlelianism with Catholicism) may have helped the church speak to intelligent non-Chirstians. For an example, we need only look at the most famous Bishop of Hippo. There have been many different versions of this philosophical doctrine down the ages, and some would say the it carries right on to the Idealists, but each permutation is different, and often they live in different geographical locations.

I see, in general, no reason why Catholics should be more pre-disposed to the belief that conceptual unities are the foundation of physical phenomena (rather than vice versa), than Protestants. The great benefit of being a protestant, I suppose, is that if the Archbishop of your church disagrees with the doctrine of forms, you can find a different kind of protestant Archbishop. However, the last time I know of there being more than one Pope was when Barbarossa was storming Italy.


What exactly is hermeneutics and exegesis?

Both terms relate to how a person translates the symbols in a document into a meaningful thought.  Depending on how one approaches a given set of symbols, different meanings can be made.

In at least one classic example, consider:

  GODISNOWHERE

As word-based people, we want to insert spaces.  But, do we insert them as:

GOD IS NO WHERE
GOD IS NOW HERE

How you do is based on your perception.

At its most fundamental, hermeneutics attempts to systematize both how people add meaning (Sapir-Whorf, Act-Theory, etc. etc. etc.), and attempts to suggest some basic principles that guide how it should be done.  For example, some commonly agreed upon hermeneutics:

A text can never mean what its intended audience could not have thought it meant.
A text has meaning when the audience hears it, regardless of what the author may have intended.
If there is disagreement about which the original author most likely intended, the more difficult meaning should not be discounted just because it is difficult.
A word is presumed to mean what it would have meant in most contexts, unless otherwise redefined.

And, further things like that.  The question of inspiration also comes up a lot.

Finally, exegesis is a method that one uses to literally "draw meaning out" of a text.  Given a small bit of Scripture, a preacher doing good exegesis will extract the core meanings out of the text, as opposed to writing his particular meaning into a text. (This is often derivisely called eisegesis for 'writing into')

Some activities that typically happen in good exegesis relate to good hermeneutical principles:

Outlining the passage to see the context in which a particular word or verse stands.
Learning about the culture of the intended audience, to understand how they would have understood it.
Researching alternative uses of a given word, to find the commonalities amongst them.

These principles seek towards one aim- arriving at a common consensus on what a verse really is supposed to "mean" regardless of the biases one might have in approaching the text in the first place.