According to the Book of Mormon, D&C, Pearl of great price and/or prophets, what prohibits lust?

The LDS believe in chastity or in being sexually pure. The Law of Chasity describes the commandment to not commit adultery, or to lust.

Scriptures from Doctrine and Covenants:

D&C 42:22-23 - lust causes you to lose the Spirit and deny the faith
D&C 59:6 - don't commit adultery or anything like unto it
D&C 63:16 - lust, or adultery in the heart, loses the Spirit

Scriptures from the Book of Mormon

3 Nephi 12:28 - lust is adultery in the heart
Alma 39:9 - don't go after lust of eyes

Scriptures from Pearl of Great Price

Article of Faith 13 we believe in being chaste

Prophetic teachings

We Believe in Being Chaste by Elder David A Bednar
Personal Purity by Elder Jeffrey R Holland


Does a Christian have a responsibility to participate in government?

No, there is no Biblical imperative for us to participate in government in the way you describe.  The New Testament doesn't say much about our relationship with government, because the emphasis is on our membership in Christ.  We are to be less concerned with things of the world, and more concerned with the things of God.

Here's what the Bible does say about our relationship to government:

Give to Caesar what is Caesar's

  Luke 20:22-25 (ESV)
  22  Is it lawful for us to give  tribute to  Caesar, or not?” 23  But he perceived their  craftiness, and said to them, 24  “Show me  a denarius. Whose likeness and inscription does it have?” They said, “Caesar's.” 25  He said to them, “Then  render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.”

Jesus is saying here that since we do live under the authority of a human government, we ought to honor that authority.  This is not an imperative to participate in government, but it is an imperative to obey our government (when it does not conflict with our obedience to God, of course).  In this case, Jesus is referring to paying taxes, but I believe that the principle applies to honoring government laws and regulations in general.

Submit to authorities

  1 Peter 2:13-15 (ESV)
  13   Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14  or to governors as sent by him  to punish those who do evil and  to praise those who do good. 15  For this is the will of God,  that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.

  Romans 13:1 (ESV)
  13 Let every person  be subject to the governing authorities. For  there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

Again, we ought to submit to authorities.  And again, there is no indication here that we ought to participate in government - only that we ought to submit to it.

Our true citizenship is in heaven

  Philippians 3:20 (ESV)
  20  But  our citizenship is in heaven, and  from it we  await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,

Although we are under the authority of earthly governments, we ought to remember that our true citizenship is in heaven.  Participation in earthly government, while acceptable, should not be our focus.


Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise

From the SDA perspective this is a problematic text, as we believe (according to the Bible) that when people die they don't immediately go to hell or heaven. This text seems to contradict many Scriptures in the Bible:

Ecclesiastes 9:5, The dead don't know anything
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, The righteous dead are sleeping, awaiting resurrection at the return of Christ.
John 5:28-29, Some shall be raised in the resurrection of life and some shall be raised in the resurrection of damnation.
John 11:1-16, Jesus calls Lazarus death a "sleep", and his resurrection "waking him up".

There are many more, but this suffices to show why this verse is at odds with the text you are referring to:

  And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in
  Paradise.”

  Luke 23:43

1. The verse numbers and punctuation are not inspired

In the original Greek, the verse numbers and punctuation were not present, so these were added later by translators to make sense of the text. This means that the verse could be:

a. And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

b. And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you today, you will be with Me in Paradise.”

This single comma changes the meaning of the verse dramatically. But which is correct? There are two reasons why I believe the second is correct, but first we must understand where Jesus was referring to as 'Paradise'.

2. Paradise is heaven, where the Father is

Paradise of God is where the Tree of Life is.

  He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the
  churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of
  life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

  Revelation 2:7

In 1 Corinthians 12:1-4 Paul also refers to this Paradise.

The Tree of Life is where the very throne of the Father and the
Lamb(Christ) are:

  And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal,
  proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of
  the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree
  of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit
  every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the
  nations.

  Revelation 22:1-2

3. Were they in Paradise that day?

In order for the normal reading of Luke 23:43 to be true 2 things MUST be true:
1. The thief was in Paradise that very day (Friday).
2. Jesus was in Paradise that very day (Friday).

IF EITHER OF THESE WAS NOT TRUE, THEN THIS STATEMENT IS NOT TRUE

It is likely that the thief did not die on Friday as the Sabbath was drawing near and the thieves were still not dead, prompting the Jews to ask for their legs to be broken to finish them off.

  Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should
  not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high
  day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that
  they might be taken away. Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of
  the first and of the other who was crucified with Him. But when they
  came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His
  legs.

  John 19:31-33

I concede that it is possible the thief could have died on Friday though but what about Jesus?

4. Jesus did not go to Paradise of Friday

Jesus died on Friday, was in the grave on Sabbath, and resurrected on Sunday. On Sunday morning, Jesus said the following to Mary:

  Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended
  to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending
  to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’ ”

  John 20:17

Jesus said He had not ascended to the Father, which means He was NOT in Paradise on Friday, since He had not gone on Sunday yet. Because of this I believe the correct reading of Luke 23:43 is

  And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you today, you will be
  with Me in Paradise.”


Why does Mark 15:34 say "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani"?

The New Testament was written in Greek, but the Greek text records Jesus' words in Aramaic (in Mark, Hebrew in Matthew). The Gospel writers transliterated the Aramaic (Mk 15) and Hebrew (Mt 27) into the Greek script.

It is important here to distinguish between script and language. For instance, I can write in Spanish, Latin, German, English, etc. all with (basically) the same Latin script, even though the languages are all different. And likewise, I can take the Hebrew word אֶל and transliterate it into Latin characters, ʾel. The language is still Hebrew, but the script is Latin.

Short answer: It's Aramaic (or Hebrew in Matthew) transliterated into the Greek script. Since the text provides a Greek translation immediately thereafter, it makes sense that the translators would retain it.


What did St. Theresa of Àvila mean by the "Prayer of Recollection"?

St. Teresa explains it very well, but see Juan G. Arintero, O.P., Mystical Evolution ch. 4:

[Prayer of recollection is] an infused type of prayer and is far superior to the prayer which is acquired by our own efforts and diligence. Human industry is powerless to attain it; God gives it when He wishes and as He wishes. Yet we should not on that account refrain from disposing ourselves to receive it and we should not harden our hearts when privileged to hear the divine invitation. For the soul makes more progress and is more illumined during a single moment of that type of prayer than during entire years spent in profound and prolonged considerations.


Does the Bible say anything about our human relations being kept after death?

TL;DR The answer seems to be a clear "Yes" on this matter.
David Legg has an excellent sermon on the subject here, from which I obtained much of this research.
Many people have heard the passage about there being no marriage in Heaven:

Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." (Matthew 22:29-30)

There is some evidence that persons will be recognizable even after they are in heaven. At the Mount of Transfiguration, the disciples with Jesus were able to recognize Moses and Elijah. Legg treats with the question of how the disciples were able to recognize figures who died hundreds of years before their time, but it appears that there is at least the ability to recognize others.
But what about interpersonal relationships? Will we be able to spend time with those we knew on Earth, all while worshiping God forever? 1 Thessalonians 2:19 says:

For what is our hope or joy or crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus at his coming? Is it not you?

Legg also goes into a deep analysis of the consistent use of the phrase "gathered together", which we see in 1 Thess 4:17 and 2 Thess 2:1. The point he makes is that in saying "gathered together", the Bible says that we will be participating with our friends and family in worship.
Then the question becomes on what level will our relationships be? We already know from above that we will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but how will relate with those we recognize?
Hebrews 8:5 says:

They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.”

Because the earth is but a shadow of heaven, that is the reason people are not given in marriage in heaven. Legg says explicitly:

...marriage was a shadow, or if you like a signpost, relating to a greater relationship which is the relationship of the Christian, the church, with their Bridegroom, Christ Jesus.
Now a signpost becomes unnecessary when we reach our destination. You see, marriage, as we have known it down here on earth is a copy, it is an echo of the true, ultimate marriage that will take place at the marriage supper of the Lamb when Christ, the Bridegroom, is wed to His bride, the church. The purpose of earthly human marriage for us down here is in order to point us to that day, and even prepare us for that day in heaven.

The relationships we develop on this earth will not go away when we get to heaven, but they will be deepened with each other, and new friendships can be formed with those that died hundreds or thousands of years before us.
Further evidence is given in the wording used when the patriarchs of ancient Israel died:

Then Abraham breathed his last and died at a good old age, an old man and full of years; and he was gathered to his people. (Genesis 25:8)
And Isaac breathed his last, and he died and was gathered to his people, old and full of days. And his sons Esau and Jacob buried him. (Genesis 35:29)

That article closes with an excellent point:

We will be reunited not only with our own families and loved ones, but also with the people of God from all ages. In heaven we will all be one loving family. The immense size of the family will not matter in the infinite perfection of heaven. There will be ample opportunity for close relationships with everyone, and our eternity will be spent in just that kind of rich, unending fellowship.


It seems that the Judensau developed primarily in Germany and in German speaking regions of Europe. Although the oldest known example of a Judensau that is still in existence, although badly weathered, is dated to about 1230 and located in the Cathedral of Brandenburg, there was no know general understanding of what Judensau meant prior to Martin Luther. Who started the Judenau is impossible to ascertain.

The weathered sculpture on Regensburg's cathedral

  The centerpieces of this essay are the infamous and public Judensau
  depictions of medieval Europe, statuary that frequently contained both scatological and COPROPHAGOUS elements. The known examples seem to have
  been in the German realm, even those now found in France, Switzerland,
  Poland, and Sweden; Poland and Sweden were under heavy German influence,
  if not actually populated by Germans.

  The depictions continue to exist even after almost eight centuries,
  though their locations and particulars are not well known. Not until the late
  Isaiah Shachar documented a variety of them did their presence and scope
  in the twentieth century become rediscovered.1 Because Shachar’s pamphlet
  is not generally available, I have created this summary of the subject,
  after visiting the Judensau shown in this essay.

  The Judensau had no standard form, except for an unclear connection
  of unknown origin between Jews and pigs. A Jew, frequently reading,
  might ride on the back of a pig, occasionally in a reversed position. Or else
  a Jew might embrace a pig, sometimes in a position that implied some form
  of copulatory behavior. One or more Jews, sometimes children, may be
  seen underneath the pig, suckling at its teats. There may be a Jew positioned
  behind the pig, being sprayed with or eating excrement, or drinking the
  pig’s urine, or pointing at the pig’s rectum. A Jew might be seen kissing the
  snout of the pig or the pig kissing a Jew.

  Though the term “Judensau” does not allow one to conclude either the
  reasons behind its creation or what its specific content might be depicting,
  the general subject was always the same—i.e., Jews and pigs in a derogatory
  portrayal.

  Rev. Martin Luther gave a personal interpretation of a specific Judensau,
  one still on public display in Wittenburg, Germany, described and
  shown below. Luther entirely invented perspective associated Jews with
  deviltry, while the filth of the pig was given as a metaphor for the Talmud.
  But prior to Luther’s description, there was no general understanding of
  what these Judensau meant, outside of relating a Jew and a pig in some
  unclear way. One interpretation that has been offered expresses the notion
  that the Jews belonged to the sow, the sow to the Jews—i.e., both were
  examples of an abominable category of filthy beings. While early Judensau
  representations may have been nothing more than a repulsive joke of which
  Jews were the targets, Luther’s interpretation has incorrectly often been
  applied retroactively to all Judensau carvings, statuary, and decorations. - JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF ANTISEMITISM (Vol. 2 Pages 393- 394).

Judenau of Wittenberg (Judensau 2010, Pages 402-404)

The Judenau seems to have developed in German speaking areas only, rather than one from English speaking regions. We can not say with any surety the origins of the Judensau, nor its' true original meaning at this point in time.

  One of the main questions remains why the Judensau developed primarily in the
  German speaking regions. Isaiah Shachar sees different readings and inter
  pretation of Biblical texts, an aligning of the swine with the Jews in Hrabanus
  Maurus’ De Universo, at the origin of the development, contrasting the German
  tradition with the English that is remarkably void of the Jew sow motif, in spite of the quite numerous examples of sows, often  with suckling piglets, in English churches and monasteries as well as in manuscripts of bestiaries. Both traditions share the idea of the filthiness of the swine, utilizing the animal to symbolize impurity, thus also serving as a symbol for heretics, and the vices of luxuria andgula, yet the sow with piglets seems to be a distinctive feature of the English manuscript illustration. Recently, Israel Yuval has launched the appealing theory that the Judensau motif derived from the vilification of the Messianic donkey, that it is, in fact, it's satiric opposite. - Laughter in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times

It is not solely Christians who used the imagery of pig in a derogatory fashion.

  The pig as a derogatory image was neither reduced to Jews nor used exclusively by Christians. Both Christians and Jews equated Muslims to pigs. - Laughter in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times Page 330,  Note #17


What roles do faith and works play in the LDS/Mormon understanding of salvation?

As consolidated as I can make this: Mormons believe that we are saved from death by the grace of Christ, that faith is demonstrated by good works, and that these combined result in salvation.
Interestingly, I've often heard it accused that the LDS doctrine is that works save. I've come to find this is not true, for while works are required for salvation, no amount of good deeds will actually redeem us from spiritual death.
The actual LDS doctrine is that only by the grace and power which is in Christ can man be saved, after all we can do. Nephi wrote it:

23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

Jacob, a prophet in the Book of Mormon, makes this clear too:

11 Wherefore, beloved brethren, be reconciled unto him through the atonement of Christ, his Only Begotten Son, and ye may obtain a resurrection, according to the power of the resurrection which is in Christ, and be presented as the first-fruits of Christ unto God, having faith, and obtained a good hope of glory in him before he manifesteth himself in the flesh.

Ammon, a missionary in the Book of Mormon, teaches the relationship between faith and works:

18 Thus God has provided a means that man, through faith, might work mighty miracles; therefore he becometh a great benefit to his fellow beings.

Evidently by our faith we are expected to bring about works, which do not save us, but which are of benefit to our neighbors, and that is a quality of Christ.
Alma also makes this clear:

24 And see that ye have faith, hope, and charity, and then ye will always abound in good works.

And earlier in Chapter 5, Alma is exhorting the people of Zarahemla to follow Christ:

16 I say unto you, can you imagine to yourselves that ye hear the voice of the Lord, saying unto you, in that day: Come unto me ye blessed, for behold, your works have been the works of righteousness upon the face of the earth?
17 Or do ye imagine to yourselves that ye can lie unto the Lord in that day, and say—Lord, our works have been righteous works upon the face of the earth—and that he will save you?
...  41 Therefore, if a man bringeth forth good works he hearkeneth unto the voice of the good shepherd, and he doth follow him; but whosoever bringeth forth evil works, the same becometh a child of the devil, for he hearkeneth unto his voice, and doth follow him.

Our works reflect who we follow.
Hence, Christ saves, not faith. By our faith in Christ comes good works, and although works do not save, our faith in Christ (and all that implies) qualifies us for salvation.
For further reading:

http://www.lds.org/plan/jesus-christ-is-the-way
http://mormon.org/jesus-christ/
http://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/05/have-you-been-saved


What are the major criticisms of the NIV?

I've seen three major categories of criticism for the NIV, but often people will combine two or three of them.

1. Text criticism: the NIV is based on critical texts

The NIV is a translation of the Nestle-Aland critical text of the Greek New Testament. It also critically evaluates the BHS for the OT, and often takes the Greek Septuagint as being a more reliable record than the Masoretic Hebrew.

Now most translations today are also based on these critical texts, and most people and scholars approve of their use. But there is a small minority of people who think the Textus Receptus or the Majority text is more reliable. Some of these fit into the KJV only movement, while others are not as concerned with the translation, just which source texts are used. If you see anyone talking about "missing" verses, this is what they mean: compared to the TR or MT the NIV has less verses. But most Christians wouldn't say that these verses are missing, but instead that they were added to some manuscripts after the texts were written.

2. Translation method: the NIV is a thought-for-thought translation

The NIV describes itself as "the very best combination of accuracy and readability.". It ranges between a word-for-word translation and a thought-for-thought translation. Clarity in the target language (English) is highly valued by the translators, and whole verses can be rearranged from the order which the source languages have, and which more word-for-word translations may copy. Another issue is idioms: phrases where the meaning of the whole is not found in the meanings of the individual parts. Translations like the NIV recognise more idioms than translations like the NASB, and when there are verses that are unclear in the original languages, unlike translations which translate the individual words even though they don't make sense in English, the NIV will give what the translators consider to be the most likely interpretation.

A number of people strongly disagree with any translation method other than word-for-word. In my opinion, they are misguided. Translating word-for-word is impossible to do completely, and gives little benefit even when you try.

3. Translation method: the NIV is a "progressive" translation

The NIV, and particularly its offshoot translation the TNIV (now largely merged together into the 2011 NIV), has been attacked for being progressive, in particular its gender accurate language. While some people say that it is trying to erase the gender distinctives of scripture, the changes it makes are only according to the current scholarly consensus: that the supposedly gendered language in the source languages is not actually gendered, and that formerly neutral terms in English now are strongly gendered. To ensure they were actually translating accurately into contemporary English they commissioned an independent report from Collins dictionaries to determine which words are actually used now - questions like whether it is more common to say "forefathers" or "ancestors", or "people" vs "mankind". This shows a great commitment to accuracy: true accuracy needs not only a right understanding of the source language, but also the target language. If other translations rely only on their translators' intuitions about what English is like, then we should expect they will occasionally make mistakes. This is why I don't say that it is "gender neutral", but instead "gender accurate" - the goal is not to make it neutral, but to make it accurate.

In all of these categories there are always individual verses where well-intentioned scholars will disagree. Text criticism, translation, and even knowing contemporary English are all difficult. In my opinion the NIV is a highly reliable translation for contemporary English. Even though no translation is perfect, praise God that we are blessed in English to have so many good options to compare between! And support the efforts to continue translating the Bible into every language which needs it.


What is meant by the expression that Jesus came in the fullness of time?

Galatians 4:1-3 gives us a clue as to what verse 4 means.  I’m quoting from the New Living Translation Study Bible because it makes it very easy to understand:

  Think of it this way.  If a father dies and leaves an inheritance for his young children, those children are not much better off than slaves until they grow up, even though they actually own everything their father had. They have to obey their guardians until they reach whatever age their father set.  And that’s the way it was with us before Christ came.  We were like children; we were slaves to the basic spiritual principles of this world.

Turning now to verses 4 to 7 it explains that Jesus came at exactly the right moment in time, the time ordained by his heavenly Father, to free humanity from slavery (to the law) and to open up the way for believers to become sons of god, heirs to the promise.  Here are the relevant verses:

  But when the right time came, God sent his Son, born of a woman, subject to the law.  God sent him to buy freedom for us who were slaves to the law, so that he could adopt us as his very own children.  And because we are his children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, prompting us to call out “Abba, Father”.  Now you are no longer a slave but God’s own child. And since you are his child, God has made you his heir.

Why, then was this the right time?  I found an article that gives one Protestant view about the meaning of God sending his Son “in the fullness of time”.  It gives six reasons why the right time was 2,000 years ago.  The article also explains the significance of Daniel’s prophecy about the promised Messiah:

  Christ came when He did in fulfillment of specific prophecy. Daniel 9:24-27 speaks of the “seventy weeks” or the seventy “sevens.” From the context, these “weeks” or “sevens” refer to groups of seven years, not seven days. We can examine history and line up the details of the first sixty-nine weeks (the seventieth week will take place at a future point). The countdown of the seventy weeks begins with “the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem” (verse 25). This command was given by Artaxerxes Longimanus in 445 B.C. (see Nehemiah 2:5). After seven “sevens” plus 62 “sevens,” or 69 x 7 years, the prophecy states, “the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary” and that the “end will come like a flood” (meaning major destruction) (v. 26). Here we have an unmistakable reference to the Savior’s death on the cross. A century ago in his book The Coming Prince, Sir Robert Anderson gave detailed calculations of the sixty-nine weeks, using ‘prophetic years,’ allowing for leap years, errors in the calendar, the change from B.C. to A.D., etc., and figured that the sixty-nine weeks ended on the very day of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, five days before His death. Whether one uses this timetable or not, the point is that the timing of Christ’s incarnation ties in with this detailed prophecy recorded by Daniel over five hundred years beforehand.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/fullness-of-time.html

The article concludes that the timing of Christ’s incarnation was such that the people of that time were prepared for His coming.  World events had brought the Jews to a point in history where they were living in expectation of the promised Messiah.


Ephesians 1: 13-14 and falling from grace

("explain away" presupposes this verse teaches the so-called 'once saved always saved' doctrine)

  Ephesians 1:13-14

  In whom you also, after you had heard the word of truth, (the gospel of your salvation;) in whom also believing, you were signed with the holy Spirit of promise, Who is the pledge of our inheritance, unto the redemption of acquisition, unto the praise of his glory.

Right off the bat, we know this is a conditional (Romans 11:22b) assurance (you can't murder someone or commit adultery,and not have that forfeit your salvation).

  Hebrews 10:26-38

  For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins, but a certain dreadful expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries. A man making void the law of Moses, dieth without any mercy under two or three witnesses: How much more, do you think he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath esteemed the blood of the testament unclean, by which he was sanctified, and hath offered an affront to the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said: Vengeance belongeth to me, and I will repay. And again: The Lord shall judge his people. It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

  ...

  Do not therefore lose your confidence, which hath a great reward. For patience is necessary for you; that, doing the will of God, you may receive the promise. For yet a little and a very little while, and he that is to come, will come, and will not delay. But my just man liveth by faith; but if he withdraw himself, he shall not please my soul.

Scripture doesn't make an except for Christians, who are called to a higher calling than everyone else, anywhere.

  1 Corinthians 6:8-10

  But you do wrong and defraud, and that to your brethren. Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,  Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.

Imagine St. Paul saying this if 'once saved always saved' were true. He would be saying in fact:

"But you sin against your brother. Do you not know that the unjust (but don't worry, not you) shall not inherit the kingdom of God?"

Ridiculous. It strips all meaning from the text.

Or again:

  Romans 6:11-16

  So do you also reckon, that you are dead to sin, but alive unto God, in Christ Jesus our Lord.

  Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, so as to obey the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of iniquity unto sin; but present yourselves to God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of justice unto God. For sin shall not have dominion over you; for you are not under the law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know you not, that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are whom you obey, whether it be of sin unto death, or of obedience unto justice.

The extensive use in of the countless imperatives of St. Paul and others in Scripture to urge us not to sin, and tells us that those who sin will go to Hell, are stripped of all their meaning by people to advocate the unbiblical doctrine of unconditional perseverence.

Heck, we are commanded to persevere (Hebrews 10:36). We aren't robots.

  Matthew 24:13

  And because iniquity hath abounded, the charity of many shall grow cold. But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved.

  Matthew 13:18-23

  Hear you therefore the parable of the sower.

  When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, there cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart: this is he that received the seed by the way side. And he that received the seed upon stony ground, is he that heareth the word, and immediately receiveth it with joy. Yet hath he not root in himself, but is only for a time: and when there ariseth tribulation and persecution because of the word, he is presently scandalized. And he that received the seed among thorns, is he that heareth the word, and the care of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choketh up the word, and he becometh fruitless. But he that received the seed upon good ground, is he that heareth the word, and understandeth, and beareth fruit, and yieldeth the one an hundredfold, and another sixty, and another thirty.

Matthew 25:14-30

  For even as [a parable] a man going into a far country, called his servants, and delivered to them his goods; And to one he gave five talents, and to another two, and to another one, to every one according to his proper ability: and immediately he took his journey. And he that had received the five talents, went his way, and traded with the same, and gained other five. And in like manner he that had received the two, gained two more. But he that had received the one, going his way digged into the earth, and hid his lord's money. But after a long time the lord of those servants came, and reckoned with them. And he that had received the five talents coming, brought five more talents, saying: Lord, thou didst deliver to me five talents, behold I have gained five more over and above. His lord said to him: Well done, good and faithful servant, because thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will place thee over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. And he also that had received the two talents came and said: Lord, thou deliveredst two talents to me: behold I have gained other two. His lord said to him: Well done, good and faithful servant: because thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will place thee over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. But he that had received the one talent, came and said: Lord, I know that thou art a hard man; thou reapest where thou hast not sown, and gatherest where thou hast not strewed. And being afraid I went and hid thy talent in the earth: behold here thou hast that which is thine. And his lord answering, said to him: Wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sow not, and gather where I have not strewed: Thou oughtest therefore to have committed my money to the bankers, and at my coming I should have received my own with usury. Take ye away therefore the talent from him, and give it to him that hath ten talents. For to every one that hath shall be given, and he shall abound: but from him that hath not, that also which he seemeth to have shall be taken away. And the unprofitable servant cast ye out into the exterior darkness. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

So our deeds aren't inconsequential in the slightest (John 15:6 et seq). Our salvation depends on continuing (Romans 11:22) in goodness.

  Romans 2:7

  To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, [He gives] eternal life

In short, it isn't God who is unfaithful to His promises (John 6:37; 1 Timothy 2:4), but us who forfeit the promise ourselves (2 Timothy 2:12).

See my related answer here.


How do Catholics explain the stance of Pope Paul VI on contraception?

Natural contraception leaves open the chance that life may begin due to some unforeseen occurrence like out of monthly cycle an egg was released that could be at the right place at the right time. Artificial contraception involves the woman or man taking direct action to prevent the occurrence of pregnancy at which point sexual union  becomes a selfish act.
The Church also says that artificial contraception is morally wrong, because each and every sex act can occur only between husband and wife and must be directed toward two ends: love and life, that is, the intimate unity between the man and woman (love) and possibly procreating another human being (life). Conception and pregnancy don’t have to occur each time, but no man-made barriers should prevent what God may intend to happen.


Do Old Testament individual, family and social laws and guidance apply to Christians or did Jesus come to discard OT laws and guidance?

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did
  not come to abolish                           but to fulfill. 18 For
  truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest
  letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19
  Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and
  teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of
  heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great
  in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5: 17-19.

It is clear from the above verses that Jesus did not come to discard the Law, even though a lot of churches do preach that. However, us as Gentiles are not required to follow the Law since the Law was mainly given to the Israelites and those who attached themselves to Israel (i.e. either were their slaves, servants or those who converted to Judaism).

When God sent Jonah to Nineveh, he asked that they repent and that was that, he did not demand that they follow the Law of Moses.

Jesus does ask us to follow his commandments. So whatever he said to us in the Gospels is what we should follow. Whether that means following the Law of Moses or not is a different matter (I, for one, don't believe that the Law is discarded or any such thing, God and his people have a lot of love for the Law of Moses. I don't believe God just sent it to tell people that they can't follow God's commands, I believe the Law is good and that we should use it as a guidance even if we don't follow it as legally and morally binding).

  "He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me" John 14:21

This is, of course, my opinion.


What is the "glory of God" in Romans 3:23?

Romans 3:23-26 (KJV): For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
Q – What is the Glory of God?
The Lord God Almighty is the King of Glory, according to Psalm 24:7-10.  He is glory personified.  His whole being is unimaginably glorious. Glory is part of his eternal being, power and majesty.  Psalm 24 pictures the coming of the King of glory in a time of celebration. Given the Hebrew association of the cloud of glory with the Ark of the Covenant, it is quite possible that Psalm 24 was written to commemorate the entrance of the Ark into Jerusalem during David’s time (2 Samuel 6:12–17) or into the temple during Solomon’s time (2 Chronicles 5:7).
Jesus is called “the Lord of Glory” in 1 Corinthians 2:8. The gospel message is God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that was hidden from the rulers of this age.  Had they understood it, they would not have crucified Christ Jesus, “the Lord of glory”.
Hebrews 9:5 speaks of the Cherubim of Glory. Between the two winged figures made of pure gold, of one piece, the glory of God’s presence appeared over the ark of the Testimony:

There, above the cover between the two cherubim that are over the ark of the Testimony, I will meet with you and give you all my commands for the Israelites. (Exodus 25:17-22)

When Moses entered the Tent of Meeting to speak with the LORD, he heard the voice speaking to him from between the two cherubim above the cover on the ark of the Testimony.  And he spoke with him. (Numbers 78:89)

A – The Glory of God is His holy and sinless Presence
Q – What have sinners fallen from or come short of?
There is no sin in God because it is the very antithesis of His nature. God hates sin because He is holy and holiness is the most exalted of all His attributes (Isaiah 6:3; Revelation 4:8). His holiness totally saturates His being.  His holiness epitomizes His moral perfection and His absolute freedom from blemish of any kind.
God hates sin because it separates us from Him: “But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He will not hear” (Isaiah 59:2) It was sin that caused Adam and Eve to run away from God and hide “among the trees of the garden” (Genesis 3:8). Sin always brings separation, and the fact that God hates sin means that He hates being separated from us.  His love demands restoration, which in turn demands holiness.
God hates sin for the same reason that light hates darkness and truth hates a lie.  Sin blinds us to the truth.  Sin lessens our love for God.  Sin enslaves us and will destroy us:  “Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?” (Romans 6:16)  Sin grieves the Spirit of God: “And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption” (Ephesians 4:30).
A – Sinners fall short of God’s holiness, and it is because of our sinful condition that we have been separated from God and, without faith in the shed blood of Christ Jesus, are utterly unable to enter into the presence of God.
P.S. I can say "Amen" to the "Apostles Creed"


What justification would make divorce worse than adultery?

Marriage is more than sex. When you enter a marriage you take on all sorts of other obligations - to love and support your spouse, to care for them in sickness, to provide for your mutual needs, and to act as parent to any children you might have. If you deliberately choose to leave a marriage you are abandoning all those obligations as well as the one to remain sexually faithful. Committing adultery is, well, just sex.

However you should probably avoid trying to read a theological point into a comment made during counselling. The counsellor may be exploring ideas rather than making a theological statement.


What is the justification for relying on faith healing over conventional medicine?

DISCLAIMER: I do not agree with this justification, I am merely answering your question.

The justification for relying on faith healing over conventional medicine comes from a belief that turning to man is diametrically opposed to turning to God.  In other words, you can either turn to God for help, or you can turn to man for help - but not both.  One passage used to support this is found in Psalm 118:

  It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man. -Psalm 118:8

One of the main passages used to support the application of this doctrine to healing is a story in the Old Testament about a king named Asa:

  In the thirty-ninth year of his reign Asa became diseased in his feet. His disease was severe, yet even in his disease he did not seek the Lord, but the physicians. So Asa slept with his fathers, having died in the forty-first year of his reign. -2 Chronicles 16:12-13

The "faith-healing" advocate would say that Asa's downfall was in turning to the doctor, and that we should turn to the Lord instead.

Of course, if you believe that turning to God can include receiving help from man, you would interpret the passage differently.  But now it should make more sense where this doctrine comes from.


Modern religious law it still applicable?

I have to agree with DJClayworth in that I'm not sure which verse(s) you're referring to from Leviticus 20 have been associated with which modern law(s), but I did want to try and help answer the question you have to the best of my knowledge.

As a quick intro, many people (even the staunchly devout) have misjudged the Old Testament as being just a historical account of how things started and where Christian beliefs originated. But after reading through the Bible a couple of times and praying that God would show me the message He wanted me to glean from the Old Testament, I realized that the Old Testament has a much greater purpose than simply its historical value.

In Malachi 3:6, the very first line in that verse says "For I am the Lord, I do not change". And it's in that verse, written in the very last book of the Old Testament, that I finally and truly understood the major value that the OT holds.

The Old Testament refers to God, specifically, far more than the New Testament (which focuses primarily on Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit). And in all the instances where God takes action or speaks to someone in the Old Testament, we see God's nature. What He says and tells people to do, plus the things that He does all point to who He is, just as our speech and actions tell others who we are and what our nature is. And while we can learn who God was through the Old Testament, Malachi 3:6 says that we are actually learning and seeing who God still IS to this very moment, because He NEVER changes.

So in Leviticus 20, some of the verses (such as the ones in regard to Molech) do have a specific and direct relation to the Israelites at that particular time, BUT the nature of those verses also reveal the underlying topics that God cared about then and still cares about today.

When I read Leviticus 20, I see underlying topics such as loyalty to God, the value of all lives, the dangers of communicating with unknown spirits, the importance of respecting our parents, the importance of fidelity and loyalty in marriage, the seriousness of marriage in general, the concern for good family relationships, the concern for our health and the importance of avoiding sexual behaviours that can negatively affect both our physical and emotional health, etc.

Because God NEVER CHANGES, we can know with complete certainty that the main issues addressed in the verses found in Leviticus 20 are still applicable (as far as God is concerned) to us today.

Most of the underlying topics from Leviticus 20 are still upheld by many people today for obvious reasons. Most of us know we shouldn't throw our babies in the fire or sleep with our brother . . . or our dog. It's not so much the laws of Leviticus or the laws of modern America that stop us from doing those things. Instead, it's our own conscience that usually puts the kibosh on those behaviors.

As a final note, to see whether a specific law or principle from the Old Testament was intended to carry through to modern times, look to see if it's mentioned in the New Testament as well as the Old Testament.

Hope that helps!


How do the Personal Ordinariates differ from Anglicanism?

In terms of what has been added, subtracted or changed: either “not a great deal” or “a huge amount”.
What has happened is that members of the Anglican Church have been received into the Catholic Church and become Catholic. That means that they have subscribed to the entirety of the doctrine of the Church, including the Real Presence and other things that Protestants might find difficult such as the dogmata concerning the Virgin Mary.
In most cases, those who left the Church of England would have believed all those things anyway, so not much has changed pragmatically. In all cases, they are believing them in a Catholic context, so a huge amount has changed: not least that if the Eucharist is the Real Presence now, what was it then?
This is the principal reason why “Anglican Ordinariate” is an egregious misnomer. We are not Anglicans, and the Ordinariate is not an extension of the Anglican Church; it’s not an exclave of Anglicanism within the Catholic Church. We are Catholic, and the Ordinariates are Catholic.
In terms of externals, because the Ordinariates were formed from the “high” end of the Church of England, on the whole, you will generally find in Ordinariate worship compared to diocesan Catholics a higher level of ceremonial and greater use of music (and more participation in congregational singing). The Ordinariates’ founding documents stipulate a greater lay involvement in governance than in diocesan parishes. The Anglican ethos of caring for the soul of everyone in a territorial parish seems to be more to the fore than in diocesan parishes, where the focus is more [but certainly not exclusively] on the congregation. These are all the “treasures to be shared” that the founding documents mention.
To turn to specifics, the Ordinariates now have their own Missal as part of a planned series of worship books called Divine Worship; the Missal bears the title Divine Worship: The Missal*. It’s very similar to the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the American prayer books, particularly those of the Pastoral Provision. Needless to say, it doesn’t contain the Protestant material introduced by Cranmer — but the Mass does have a large number of Cranmerisms, including the confession. In my case, we use it three times a week and even sing Merbecke on Sundays.
The Ordinariates were enjoined to be distinctive but not isolated; to integrate without becoming assimilated. Drawing on the “distinctive patrimony” was one method by which that could be achieved, and there was debate about what patrimony actually meant, especially in practice. The general conclusion is that it means heritage, and there is an enormous amount of heritage on which to draw, especially as what has come to us via the Reformation draws on earlier liturgy and practice. That pre-Reformation heritage is now available to the Catholic Church in three forms: the strand that has come through the Second Vatican Council; the “Extraordinary” strand which came through the counter-Reformation of the Council of Trent and culminated in the Missal of 1962; and the strand which preserved certain aspects differently, within the Anglican Church. What the Anglican Church rejected has often been restored; what it added to express its protestantism has been removed.
I wrote a blog post in 2016.

Needless to say, Divine Worship: The Missal is the treasury at the centre of the worship and liturgy in the Ordinariate. It unites us with the Church of the earliest English saints and it draws on the work of past liturgists in which the Holy Spirit can be discerned. The language, the structure and the options available show the heritage of our Mass and, despite what people may think are its roots, how it is firmly set in the Western Rite of the Church, just as the English Uses of Sarum, York and the others were before it.
Perhaps we are fortunate that the Reformation liturgists faithfully translated a great deal of the Latin they inherited. While the defective form of the Communion service had to be corrected — and this was attempted even within the Church of England well before Series Two in 1965 — the resonant words they created have served Christians in this land and others well for 450 years, and continue to do so.
But it is absolutely necessary not to wallow in the past! Many of the Ordinariate may remember Series Two, Merbecke and Shaw, and many diocesan Catholics will remember the Interim Rite, but this isn’t an exercise in comfortable nostalgia. Every celebration of the Eucharist is a re-creation of the Sacrifice of the Mass: Christ’s One Sacrifice united through space, time and eternity for all believers. Although modern language is certainly easily understood and relevant to today, using language which is out of time can help to show the eternal too. It is the calling of the Church to teach the unchanging Faith anew to every generation, and the Use we have been given for the celebration of the Mass is — perhaps counter-intuitively — a Fresh Expression of worship.

* That link shows the small edition suitable for the bookshelf in the study. There is a huge altar edition as well and a middle-size one too. All are identical in content, including the colour illustrations. There’s a People’s Edition which has the propers and readings and Martin Travers’ illustrations from the English Missal.


Catechumens do not go to confession before reception into the Catholic Church, you were thinking of "candidates for reception" as outlined in Chapter 5 of the RCIA.

Candidates for reception are baptized Christians who express their wish to make a full profession of faith and be received fully into the Catholic Church.

As for their confession,

  If the profession of faith and reception take place within Mass, the candidate, according to his or her own conscience, should make a confession of sins beforehand, first informing the confessor that he or she is about to be received into full communion. Any confessor who is lawfully approved may hear the candidates confession.

So, now you can go answer that other question with some impressive minutiae! Go get 'em tiger.


Why did God kill a man for picking up sticks on the Sabbath?

Sometimes, God's Punishment for Disobedience is Death.

This is a simple fact. The severity of the punishment often corresponds to the severity of the offense, so why was this offense so severe? The text doesn't say this explicitly, but if we assume that God could have sufficient justification for execution, then it's likely that he was knowingly and defiantly disobeying a command he knew.

God places a high value on community and example. He seems to want to protect the community by insisting that everyone be a good example and that individuals who would do things that would lead their neighbors astray should be removed from the community (typically, executed).
Is disobedience a severe enough offense to warrant execution? To God, the answer is sometimes yes. The majority of these instances are examples to the community so that the people would take God seriously when he gives them commands.

God insisted that Israel be different from the nations around them and wanted them to do things the way he had prescribed. We are not told precisely why these details about his prescribed methods are important, only that obeying them is. Two of Aaron's sons are put to death for "offering strange fire" (Le 10:1). The priest Uzzah was killed (by God) for touching the Ark of the Covenant (2 Sa 6), even though he had good intentions of saving the ark from accident, he knew full well that touching the ark was something he was not permitted to do. Ananaias and Saphira were killed (by God) for lying. Is lying that bad or was it important to demonstrate to the early church that God is both powerful and serious?

Though God is willing to forgive people, and punitive death is not synonymous with eternal damnation, he insists that we understand that he is not to be trifled with. His patience with us might be great, but in the end, his wrath is just as great.

Example

You compare the situations in Numbers 15 and Mark 2.

One obvious difference I see between these two is that of the motivation of the people who are doing the work. The disciples are doing this because they have been about God's work and are hungry. The man in Numbers 15 is not described as such. Though the text doesn't say one way or the other, it might be reasonable to assume that because the punishment is severe, so was the offense. He surely knew that he was supposed to do all that work the day before. It would be reasonable to conclude that he must have had selfish motivations for doing what he was doing. Work was certainly permitted on the Sabbath if the motivation were correct. (Mt 12:11)


Inactive means the person has stopped sharing in our primary vocation, the preaching of the Good news of The Kingdom (Matthew 24:14)
This means they are not talking to non witnesses about their faith. There is no announcement made regarding this.

I can’t find a shareable source  right now but if a baptized witness fails to report any witnessing activity for 6 consecutive months he is considered inactive.

The subject of inactivity is addressed in the about us section of our website.
Here we find that the number of Jehovah’s Witnesses reported in a given year comes from each country’s peak or highest month of persons reporting participation in the preaching activity. So if an individual is not reporting preaching activity during their country’s peak month they are not part of that years total number of active JW’s.

Whether one has stopped preaching for months or years, after being baptized, the only time an announcement is made regarding a person no longer being one of Jehovah’s Witnesses is if they are disfellowshipped for unrepentant serious sin or they disassociate themselves by requesting to no longer be identified as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Being inactive does not mean the person is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In fact special effort is made to reach out to those who have drifted away like this brochure entitled Return to Jehovah


Was Luke, the author of the Gospel and Acts, a slave?

Michael Card's hypothesis is interesting, and certainly not outside the realm of possibility.  It is quite true that skilled Greeks were enslaved and brought to Italy during times of conquest and revolt, and perhaps even during times of peace between Greece and Rome, such as was the case when Luke was living.  But it seems to me that Card's main argument needs evidence to support it.  He claims that (1) Luke is a hypocorism based on the name Lucius; and (2) slaves were commonly named according to hypocirisms.  Both of these claims are plausible---but plausible isn't good enough.  He needs to give some evidence that this was actually the case.

Unfortunately, even then, the case wouldn't be made.  Card himself understands this, when he writes:  "I admit that this idea is quite a stretch, and my scholarly friends have told me this theory would never wash in the halls of academia."  Then he continues, "let us put forth, not as a fact but as a distinct possibility: Luke might have been a slave" (emphasis original).  And that's fine---I agree, it is a reasonable hypothesis.  But it just doesn't have any good evidence behind it, at present.

Let me also say something about Dick Harfield's answer.  He is correct that Luke-Acts is anonymous, and unlikely to have been written by Luke the companion of Paul---although I disagree that this is relevant to your question.  But he makes a good point that the tradition about Luke being a physician is not well-established, since it comes from an epistle (Colossians) which is likely to be pseudepigraphical.  On the other hand, whether Colossians was written by Paul or not, it is certainly very ancient, and so we have reason to trust it when it affirms Luke as a physician.  And I think Harfield has a decent point about Luke being referred to as among his "fellowlabourers."  It is, as DJClayworth has pointed out, quite plausible that a slave might be referred to as such.  But it seems more likely to me that Paul considered Luke to be closer to his own social standing.


What is the evidence that Ignatius of Antioch was ordained by the Apostles?

Whenever you have questions like this, the first place to turn is wikipedia.  Of course, you can never really "trust" wikipedia, but you can still get a good overview of the situation, and---much more importantly---you can use its references to track down the information you really want.  So, if you visit the wikipedia page on Ignatius, you will find two primary sources.  I have tracked them down for you.  The first is Theodoret, who wrote in Dialog 1---the immutable:

  You have no doubt heard of the illustrious Ignatius, who received episcopal grace by the hand of the great Peter, and after ruling the church of Antioch, wore the crown of martyrdom.

But then in the Apostolic Constitutions VII.iv we read:

  Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these:---James the bishop of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord; upon whose death the second was Simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James. Of Cæsarea of Palestine, the first was Zacchæus, who was once a publican; after whom was Cornelius, and the third Theophilus. Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter; and Ignatius by Paul.

So, there appears to be conflicting evidences, and both very late (fourth and fifth centuries CE).

According to wikipedia, Eusebius also mentions Ignatius.  This has, oddly enough, proved more difficult for me to track down.  But you can explore the references---and pretty much everything by Eusebius has a free online English translation available.

But then, according to the post-Nicene fathers, we should consult the so-called Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century for more information.  There---in particular, in the Euodius/Evodius entry, we find the following very rich information:

  Evodius (1), according to early tradition, first bp. of Antioch (Eus. Chron. ann. Abr. 2058; H. E. iii. 22). His episcopate has indirectly the older testimony of Origen, who speaks of Ignatius as the second bishop after Peter (in Luc. Hom. 6, vol. iii. p. 938; see also Eus. Quaest. ad Steph. ap Mai, Scr. Vet. i. p. 2). This tradition has all the appearance of being historical. Ignatius early acquired such celebrity that it is not likely the name of an undistinguished person would have been placed before his, if the facts did not require this arrangement. The language used about episcopacy in the Ignatian epistles agrees with the conclusion that Ignatius was not the first at Antioch to hold the office. As time went on, the fitness of things seemed to demand that Ignatius should not be separated from the Apostles. Athanasius (Ep. de Synodis, i. 607) speaks of Ignatius as coming after the Apostles without mention of any one intervening; Chrysostom makes him contemporary with the Apostles (Hom. in Ignat. vol. ii. p. 593); the Apostolic Constitutions (vii. 46) have recourse to the expedient adopted in the parallel case of Clement of Rome, the hypothesis of a double ordination, Evodius being said to have been ordained by Peter, Ignatius by Paul. Theodoret (Dial. I. Immutab. iv. 82, Migne) and others represent Ignatius as ordained by Peter. The authorities are given at length by Zahn (Patres Apostol. ii. 327).
  There is reason to believe that the earliest tradition did not include an ordination even of Evodius by Peter; for the chronicle of Eusebius places the departure of Peter from Antioch three years, or, according to St. Jerome's version, two years before the ordination of Evodius. The chronology of the early bishops of Antioch has been investigated by Harnack (Die Zeit des Ignatius). He infers that the earliest list must have contained only names of bishops of Antioch without any note of lengths of episcopates, but still that Eusebius must have had the work of some preceding chronologer to guide him. We may well believe, as Harnack suggests, that Eusebius got his chronology of early bishops of Antioch from Africanus, to whom he acknowledges his obligation, and whose chronicle has generally been believed to be the basis of that of Eusebius. If the belief had been entertained at the beginning of the 3rd cent. that Evodius had been ordained by Peter, it is incredible that Africanus would have assigned a date which absolutely excludes an ordination by Peter. The date assigned by the chronicle of Eusebius to the accession of Evodius appears to have no historic value, and thus, while we accept the episcopate of Evodius as an historic fact, we have no data for fixing his accession, but may safely place it considerably later than a.d. 42.

This is, obviously, full of references.  But the abbreviations are hard to decode, and so I leave it to you to investigate further.


How are Regeneration, Faith, and Union with Christ ordered in Reformed Theology?

Union with Christ as a step within ordo salutis

The article The Puritans on Union with Christ, Justification, and Regeneration describes English Puritan Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680)'s solution to the "chicken and egg" problem based on his work The Object and Act of Justifying Faith by splitting the Union of Christ into two phases:

before regeneration (not conscious)
after regeneration when the sinner exercises their faith (conscious)

Quotes from the section "Union with Christ and the Ordo Salutis" (emphasis is mine)

  ... the common Reformed view on the order of justification and regeneration is that the latter precedes the former. But what about the role of union with Christ in relation to regeneration and justification?  ... But in relation to regeneration or, more specifically, effectual calling, Goodwin argues that union with Christ precedes regeneration. Christ first “apprehends” the believer: [quote from Goodwin].  This statement appears to indicate that union with Christ logically (not chronologically), precedes not only justification—a typical Reformed view—but even regeneration (narrowly considered).

  What makes Goodwin’s views on this matter perplexing is the fact that within the space of six pages he affirms there is a“threefold union with Christ”¹⁹ and a “twofold union with Christ.”²⁰ The first union is a relational union, like the union between a husband and wife. “And this union is fully and completely done when first we are turned to God, and when Christ takes us.”²¹ The second union involves the dwelling of Christ in the human body (Eph. 3:17)—“an actual inbeing of his person.” The third is objective, that is, having Christ as an object of faith “as the faculty doth view an object.”²² When Goodwin later speaks of the twofold union, he has in mind the first two under the heading of a “substantial union and communicative union.”²³ The union that we are especially concerned with is the first union, the union whereby the sinner is married to Christ. How does this happen? Returning to Goodwin’s comment above that “Christ takes me, and then gives me his Spirit, faith, holiness, &c.,” we are faced with the question of whether union with Christ precedes faith itself.

  Goodwin’s The Object and Act of Justifying Faith is helpful in answering this question. In it, he speaks of the act of the will completing the union between Christ and the believer, which makes believers “ultimately one with him.”²⁴ However, as the bride, we are simply confirming the union that has taken place. So, contrary to the common view of marriage, which requires the consent of both partners since a man cannot marry a woman against her will, there is a spiritual union on Christ’s part to the elect that does not require assent from the sinner “because it is a secret work done by his Spirit, who doth first apprehend us ere we apprehend him.”²⁵ That is to say, Christ establishes a union with the elect sinner by“apprehending” him and then giving the Spirit to him. But this union is only complete (“ultimate union”) when the sinner exercises faith in Christ. This basic pattern is confirmed later in Goodwin’s work on justifying faith:

    It is true indeed the union on Christ’s part is in order of nature first made by the Spirit; therefore Philip. iii. 12, he is said first to “comprehend us ere we can comprehend him;” yet that which makes the union on our part is faith, whereby we embrace and cleave to him…. It is faith alone that doth it. Love indeed makes us cleave to him also, but yet faith first.²⁶

  Goodwin is at his finest when he speaks of Christ “taking,” “apprehending,” and “comprehending” the sinner. Christ “takes hold of us before we believe” and “works a thousand and a thousand operations in our souls to which our faith concurs nothing…. Christ dwells in us and works in us, when we act not and know not our union, nor that it is he that works.”²⁷ Before the new believer is aware, our Lord unites us to Himself (“takes hold of us”) and works in us. The Spirit then regenerates the sinner, who in turn exercises faith toward Christ and completes the union. From that union flow all other spiritual blessings.

Union with Christ as taking place throughout ordo salutis

Another way to solve the problem is by conceiving "Union with Christ" as taking place throughout ordo salutis, not simply as a step.  The 2 resources below explain this approach:

2011 book Union with Christ: In Scripture, History, and Theology by Dr. Robert Letham, Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology
LTh paper Ordo Salutis and Union with Christ by Sammy Davies, Jr., pastor of Ammanford Evangelical Church.

In the book, Dr. Letham spreads the interrelationship discussion in separate chapters: regeneration, faith, justification in Chapter 4; sanctification, adoption, and glorification in Chapter 5; death and resurrection in Chapter 6.  "The fact that union with Christ is paramount, far from requiring that we dispense with the ordo salutis, preserves and enhances it by pointing to its integrating feature."  He then noted that

  The divines at Westminster knew this in the seventeenth century when they combined a logical or orderly ordo salutis in WCF 9-18 with the same topics considered as aspects of union and communion with Christ in grace and glory in WLC 65-90.  Moreover, it is at least open to question whether we are simply to follow precisely the same pattern as Paul did.  He was not the only biblical author.

Both references a 2006 book Richard B. Gaffin Jr. (but not recommend his solution): By Faith, Not by Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation.  Mr. Davies noted that Gaffin "suggests that justification and sanctification are simply manifestations of union."  Quote from Letham:

  He has cautiously suggested the possibility that [order salutis] needed recasting.  This is in view of Paul's insistence that the center of the biblical revelation of salvation is the death and resurrection of Christ.  Our union with him in those epochal events, viewed in the eschatological sense that Paul gives them, should shape our soteriology, Gaffin suggests.  Gaffin has not intended to undermine the doctrine of justification only by faith, but rather to see the order of salvation in a manner compatible with the Pauline view of redemptive history.  Others, influenced by Gaffin, have voiced similar proposals.

Both Dr. Letham and Mr. Davies defended to preserve ordo salutis, the latter relying on another of Dr. Letham's 1993 book The Work of Christ - Contours of Christian Theology.

After noting that Union with Christ in its simplest form is the joining of Christ and His Church, Mr. Davies helpfully analyzed "5 broad ways in which the Bible describes this union":

Incarnational Union ("In becoming man Christ united Himself with the human race")
Covenantal Union (Hosea, Ephesian 5)
Sacramental Union (baptism, communion)
Experiential Union (Holy Spirit transforming believers into the likeness of Christ)
Mystical/Spiritual Union (Holy Spirit indwells all believers)

Mr. Davies's paper closes with 3 options / perspectives to relate Union with Christ and ordo salutis, recommending the last one (Letham's scheme) as the best option:

  Salvation can be viewed purely in light of the ordo salutis and as we have seen this has historically been the case in Reformed theology. It is not so much that union with Christ is considered an incorrect motif, but rather that it is neglected in favour of the rational, logically arranged, enlightenment endorsing ordo salutis simply substituted to mean effectual calling.

  [This is the relationship understood in the historical Reformed Church, see Andrew McGowan's 2004 paper "Justification and the ordo salutis"]

  The exact opposite of the first position could be adopted. Salvation could be seen as solely union with Christ. Union with Christ becomes a synonym for salvation and a strict ordo salutis is abandoned. Within this framework the different stages of the ordo are simply ‘benefits’ of the union rather than discrete acts. The aspects of the ordo are a direct result of being united to Christ. They are, all at once, terms which can immediately be associated with a believer by virtue of being in Christ. Gaffin suggests that justification and sanctification are simply manifestations of union.

  [This is the view of the Neo-Orthodox such as Barth or Hart]

  The third stance is to understand the ordo as taking place within the union. It is almost as if union with Christ is introduce as a new stage in the ordo salutis, but is perhaps better thought of as, “the dominant motif in any formulation of the application of redemption and dominate feature of any “order” of salvation.” The ordo salutis takes place in union much like a fish resides within water.

  Robert Letham expresses this understanding of union with Christ as “the foundation of all the blessings of salvation. Justification, sanctification, adoption and glorification are all received through our being united to Christ.”

  Furthermore, “The whole process of the application of salvation to us by the Holy Sprit (what has been known as ordo salutis – the order of salvation) fits in here as part of what it means to be united with Jesus Christ.” Essentially union with Christ isn’t actualised until the Holy Spirit works faith and repentance in a believer.

  [This is the view of those from the Westminster Theological Seminary stream.  Quotations from Letham's "The Work of Christ"]

Conclusion (from Mr. Davies's paper)

  The Bible is clear that in salvation there are different aspects even if they are received by the believer or take place at one and the same time. Terms such as justification, glorification, regeneration must be maintained as they are Biblical terms, which teach Biblical truths about the believer and the salvation they receive through the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Some sort of understanding of an ordo must be preserved therefore in order to reflect the instances in Scripture where such a progression is implied. Additionally the importance of having clearly defined and understood terms to express our salvation is indescribable and a loss of such terms would be detrimental to the Church. Without such terms confusion would reign over the role of God and man in salvation as well as the various benefits and ends to which it is designed.

  The Bible is equally as clear with regards the union of a believer with Christ as a major facet of salvation. To continue to ignore this in the way that reformed history has tended to do would be to read the Bible with only one eye open.

  As with many major themes in Scripture there is a healthy tension which must be maintained. The third perspective seems to maintain this tension more favorably than the other two as it seeks to describe the ordo salutis within a framework of union. Additionally this seems to be the method employed by Paul in both his letters to the Church in Rome and Ephesus.

  ...


Are Lutherans the "adversaries" of Catholics, according to the Catholic Church?

Bellarmine wrote arguing the Catholic position and attempted to demonstrate that the Lutheran position, on a range of matters, was incorrect. He frequently did this along the lines of "our adversaries argument is this, but I think they are mistaken because..".
In that contest "adversaries" means those on the other side of the question, those putting an alternative opinion.
He was not saying he regarded Lutherans as his enemies. There were no  unfriendly, pejorative, hostile or even impolite intent in referring to a person on the other side of a debate as an adversary.


What does the Bible teach about domestic discipline?

I have never heard of a husband disciplining their wife, I certainly don't do that. However parents have an obligation to discipline their children for it is written

  He who spares his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines
  him promptly. (Proverbs 13:24)

May I add that I don't use a physical rod :)

  “Impatience in the parents excites impatience in the children. Passion
  manifested by the parents creates passion in the children and stirs up
  the evils of their nature. Some parents correct their children
  severely in a spirit of impatience, and often in passion. Such
  corrections produce no good result. In seeking to correct one evil,
  they create two. Continual censuring and whipping hardens children and
  weans them from their parents. Parents should first learn to control
  themselves, then they can more successfully control their children.
  Every time they lose self-control, and speak and act impatiently, they
  sin against God. They should first reason with their children, clearly
  point out their wrongs, show them their sin, and impress upon them
  that they have not only sinned against their parents, but against God.
  With your own heart subdued and full of pity and sorrow for your
  erring children, pray with them before correcting them. Then your
  correction will not cause your children to hate you. They will love
  you. They will see that you do not punish them because they have put
  you to inconvenience, or because you wish to vent your displeasure
  upon them; but from a sense of duty, for their good, that they may not
  be left to grow up in sin. (Testimonies For The Church Volume 1 p. 398, Ellen White)


Are there any Christian Restorationist denominations that believe their establishment was the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormons, believe their establishment was a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. Some of the prophecies and their fulfillments:

Isaiah 11:1,10-12

  rod out of the stem of Jesse...And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek...

D&C 113:1-6 - Q&A of those verses

  Joseph Smith fulfills this prophecy of the “root” in two ways. First, the Lord told Joseph that the priesthood rightly belonged to him by lineage (See D&C 86:8-10). Second, Joseph was given the “keys of the kingdom” by a succession of heavenly messengers (See D&C 13:1; D&C 27:5; D&C 110:11–13, 16; D&C 128:20–21). 1

Isaiah 29:11-14 - learned man can't read sealed book, but unlearned man can

JSH 1:19 - When Joseph Smith went to inquire of the Lord to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join, God and Jesus appeared unto him and answered they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.
JSH 1:63-65 - Martin Harris brings a fragment of characters and their translation to Dr Charles Anthon who first authenticates the translation then after learning that the translation was by the power of God says I cannot read a sealed book.

Isaiah 40:3-5 - voice crieth in the wilderness

  Here, “the voice of him that crieth” does not refer to John the Baptist in the meridian of time; the context of the chapter deals with happenings that will occur just prior to the Second Coming and the Millennium. Therefore, it is likely that Joseph Smith is “the voice of him that crieth.” 1

Ezekiel 37:16-17 - two 'sticks', stick of Judah and stick of Ephraim, joined into one. The LDS believe the stick of Judah is the Holy Bible and the stick of Ephraim is the Book of Mormon

President Boyd K Packer:

  The stick or record of Judah … and the stick or record of Ephraim … are now woven together in such a way that as you pore over one you are drawn to the other; as you learn from one you are enlightened by the other. They are indeed one in our hands. Ezekiel’s prophecy now stands fulfilled.2

Malachi 3:1-3 - prophesy of a forerunner of Christ. See footnote 1, on how this doesn't just apply to Christ's 1st coming, specifically verse 2:

  Who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ soap

Daniel 2:44 - God will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed and that will stand forever

  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was restored in 1830 after numerous revelations from the divine source; and this is the kingdom, set up by the God of heaven, that would never be destroyed nor superseded, and the stone cut out of the mountain without hands that would become a great mountain and would fill the whole earth. 3

Matt 24:14 - gospel preached in all the world before the end comes

  Both Laub’s and Richards’s accounts seem to indicate that Joseph taught he was this witness “chosen for the last dispensation or Seventh Dispensation” 1

Revelation 14:6-7 - angel flying in the midst of heaven preaching the everlasting gospel

  There is little doubt that John’s vision of “another angel fly[ing] in the midst of heaven” points to the latter days.1, 4

Isaiah 2:2 - mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the tops of the mountains

  This prophecy was fulfilled and further confirmed by Brigham Young, who, when entering the [Salt Lake] valley, rose from his sick bed in Wilford Woodruff’s carriage and said, “This is the right place!”6

Note on Joseph Smith:

  If a person thinks the name of Joseph Smith ought to be found in the Bible spelled out in so many letters, he will search in vain.5

1 https://www.lds.org/ensign/1989/01/prophecies-in-the-bible-about-joseph-smith?lang=eng

2 https://www.lds.org/ensign/1982/11/scriptures.p1?lang=eng

3 https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1976/04/the-stone-cut-without-hands.p111,112,129,130?lang=eng

4 https://archive.org/details/TheWordsOfJosephSmith pg 367

5 Answers to Gospel Questions, 3:6, by Joseph Fielding Smith

6 https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1974/04/that-the-scriptures-might-be-fulfilled?lang=eng


Born of water here is not necessarily referring to baptism, but when considering the context of the surrounding verses would seem to be referring to the natural birth. In other words, We are first born a natural birth and then those who receive the Holy Spirit are born a second time with a spiritual birth. It follows then that every human is born of water, but those who have been born again are not only born of water, but also the Spirit. Not everyone is born again, but only those who are born of the Spirit.

When looking at any verse in the scriptures it is important to consider the context in which it is written. Verse 5 is talking about two births and it is further explained in verse 6 when it says: "That which is born of flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Again, there are two births mentioned here, not just one. The first birth is a fleshly birth and the second birth a spiritual birth.


What purpose does the Old Testament have today?

Well, the Apostle Paul specifically states that the things written in the past were for our instruction, for encouragement, and to give us hope.

  For whatever was written in former days was written for our
  instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of
  the Scriptures we might have hope.  Romans 15:14 ESV

Also, the Old Testament is not merely a bunch of rules.  On the contrary, it is filled with stories of God's faithfulness, God's ways, God's purposes, God's power, God's mercy, God's justice, God's plan, and God's heart.

Indeed, even though the ceremonial laws of the temple do not apply directly to us today, the story of the Creation, the Exodus, the Fall, God's grace to Hannah and Rebekah, and many other things all reveal God to us.

We can have confidence that as God has delivered His people in the past, He can do so today.  Since God has answered prayers in the past, He will answer prayers today.  Since God saw the affliction of His people in Egypt, He will see the affliction of His people today.  Since God executed justice in the past, He will certainly do so today.

So, no, Levitical laws do not apply to us today.  We are, indeed, under the New Covenant.  Yet the Old Testament still reveals God to us.

Additionally, it also gives us the promise of the Messiah and the prophecies that were later fulfilled in Jesus, giving us confidence to its truthfulness.

The New Covenant allows us to know God more fully.  The Old Testament help to teach us who He is.


According to the LDS Doctrine of Exaltation, where did the Father live as a man?

God the Father, Elohim, dwelt as a man prior to the existence of the observable universe.

It was by His power that the known cosmos were formed and organized. He did not live as a man on Earth, or on any planet which exists within the known universe, because it was by his power that the known universe was created, the first creation being Kolob, the star nearest to the place where God the Father dwells:

  Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the
  residence of God. First in government, the last pertaining to the
  measurement of time. The measurement according to celestial time,
  which celestial time signifies one day to a cubit. One day in Kolob is
  equal to a thousand years according to the measurement of this earth,
  which is called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh (see Facsimile 2).

Facsimile 2:

Most of what we know about the greater universe comes from Chapter 3 of the Book of Abraham. We have not received any other source of information which gives us any more clues as to the mysteries of our eternal celestial heritage (see The Book of Abraham: A Most Remarkable Book).


Heaven/Paradise/Sheol, Hell/Hades/The Lake of Fire

As Jesus hung on the cross, he famously said to one of the thieves being crucified along with him that "today you will be with me in Paradise."  This establishes where Jesus was going to be after his death.  But after his resurrection, when Mary Magdalene found him in the garden, he told her that he had not yet been to Heaven to present himself to the Father. (John 20:17)  This establishes that Paradise is different from Heaven.

1 Peter 3: 18-19 explains that while Jesus was dead (and therefore in Paradise), he went to preach to "spirits in prison" who had been disobedient in mortality.  So it would seem that after death, people's spirits are sent to an intermediary location to await the resurrection.  Those who have been righteous go to paradise, and those who have been disobedient go to a "prison" whose name is not specified clearly.  But these intermediary locations are not the same as Heaven and Hell, the places to which we are sent after the Judgment, which is explicitly stated to take place after the resurrection in several different scriptures.


Does God have a sense of humor? Does he laugh?

Sadly, there is no record of Jesus laughing. The closest is in Luke 10:21:

  At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit

I'd imagine that, when He was full of joy, at the very least He had a big smile on His face.

Update: apparently Jesus thinks laughing is a blessing; from Luke 6:21b:

  Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.

(Two verses further, He even commends jumping for joy!)


What did "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" say about the Epiphany?

First of all, it's worth noting the this work is not the first century Didache, which also goes by the name "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," or even the third century Didascalia Apostolorum.  Instead, it's an ancient Syriac document, typically dated to the fourth century (see, for example, Witakowski), which is about the same time as the writing of the Apostolic Constitutions.

The same translation of the work is available with commentary in Pratten's Syriac Documents, which sheds a little light on your questions.

First, regarding the date, this is indeed January 6, as Pratten writes in reference to the "latter Canun":

  January: the Jewish Tebeth. "The former Canun" is December, i.e. Chisleu.

As for other holidays, it's not immediately clear why only this one appears – not even Christmas is mentioned, as Pratten notes:

  See Ap. Const. v. 13, where Christmas, of which no mention is made in these Ordinances, is called "the first of all," the Epiphany being ranked next to it.]

Chapter 5.13 of the Apostolic Constitutions places Christmas first, then Epiphany, and then Lent:

  Brethren, observe the festival days; and first of all the birthday which you are to celebrate on the twenty-fifth of the ninth month; after which let the Epiphany be to you the most honoured, in which the Lord made to you a display of His own Godhead, and let it take place on the sixth of the tenth month; after which the fast of Lent is to be observed by you as containing a memorial of our Lord’s mode of life and legislation.

So it's not surprising that Epiphany would be considered above Easter or Pentecost.  But what about Christmas?  The likely reason for the text's apparent disregard of it is that it viewed Epiphany as celebrating all aspects of Christ's birth and early life.  This was apparently common in Syriac writings; for example, Epiphanius quotes Ephrem the Syrian as saying:

  Thus the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ, his birth in the flesh or perfect incarnation which is called the Epiphany, was revealed... (source)

For more on the history of Epiphany, see Wikipedia's helpful treatment; it confirms many of the details I've found covered in works like the Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity.


According to Dispensationalism is "the land" of Ezekiel 37:24-28 interpreted as "Heaven"?

It's my understanding that Dispensationalism sees this section of Ezekiel as the millennial reign. I suppose the rules are Torah.

  They and their children and their children’s children will live there forever, and David my servant will be their prince forever” (37:24–25). Though some have attempted to take this prophecy in less than its literal meaning, the clear statement is that David, who is now dead and whose body is in his tomb in Jerusalem (Acts 2:29), will be resurrected. This will occur at the second coming (Dan. 12:1–3), indicating plainly that the restoration of Israel will be subsequent to, not before, the second coming. This requires Christ’s coming before the millennium or in fulfillment of the premillennial promises. The promise that David would be her prince forever must be interpreted as being fulfilled in the thousand-year reign.

Walvoord, John F.. Every Prophecy of the Bible: Clear Explanations for Uncertain Times (p. 183). David C. Cook. Kindle Edition.

Here is Darby,

  Chapter 37 reveals the definitive blessing of the people as a fact, without entering into any details of the events that terminate in this blessing. The dry bones of Israel, of the nation as a whole, are gathered together by the power of God. God accomplishes this work by His Spirit, but by His Spirit acting in power on His people to produce certain effects rather than in giving spiritual life (although it is not to be doubted that those who are blessed among the Jews will be spiritually quickened). The result of this intervention of God is that the dispersed of Israel, hitherto divided into two peoples, are gathered together in the earth, reunited under one Head, as one nation. It is the resurrection of the nation, which was really dead and buried. But God opens their graves and places them again in their land restored to life as a nation. The fact of their division before this operation of God is recognized. But the result of the operation is Israel in their unity as a people. One king should reign over them. This, under God's hand, is the result of all their iniquity, and of the devices of the enemies who had carried them into captivity. David (that is, Christ) should be their king. They should be thoroughly cleansed by God Himself. They should walk in His statutes and His judgments, and dwell forever in their land. The sanctuary of God should be in their midst for evermore; His tabernacle, His dwelling-place, should be among them, He their God and they His people. The heathen should know that Jehovah sanctified Israel when His sanctuary should be there forever. It is the full national blessing of Israel from the Lord Jehovah.

Darby's Bible Synopsis


You are roughly correct, but with a condition I'll highlight later.

When you are beaten, stolen, poisoned, and the world reviles you, you have less and less that is in between you and God. It's very evident that the more gifts, accolades, status, riches one has of the world, they only serve to distance that person from God since it reinforces the notion that their own way, and not Jesus is what can provide their own Justification. Thus, the logical statement is If (riches of the world) then (generally further from God), the logical contrapositive states if (closer to God) then (no riches). The better way to say this is if you hold anything above God as closer to you, such as money, then you are further away from God. Thus, being hurt, beaten, stolen from, etc.. doesn't necessarily make you blessed per se, but rather, puts you in a position so that there is less between you and God. In a sense, the blessing is that you now have the position to be closer to God because you have less things of the world (ego, status, Money, health) to hold close to your heart.

Consider the rich ruler in Luke 18:18-29. Jesus tells him "Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." not because he's giving him a set of orders and 10-step-easy-guide-to-heaven, but rather, he knew what was in his heart - Money. And that the rich ruler held money closer to his heart than the Lord. So Jesus simply revealed to him what he truly valued in his heart.  If you are hurt, you are blessed in a sense because you certainly don't have self-pride getting in the way when you're on your back and out. Also, the Holy Spirit is closer when we are weak Romans 8:26.


Why can't Catholicism just drop its Marian devotion?

There are many reasons why Catholics practice Marian devotion. One reason, given by Catholic Pam Brink, is that “If I ignore Mary, I am being disrespectful to Jesus”. Catholic apologist David MacDonald makes the same argument in Why do Catholics pray to Mary?: Is it not disrespectful to someone not to honour his mother?

Another reason David gives is that, like fellow believers on earth, the saints in heaven (especially Jesus' mother) pray for us. Protestants often ask saints on earth to pray for them, even though it is not ‘necessary’. Similarly, Catholics don't hesitate to ask the saints in heaven for intercession.

More to your point, it is true that Catholics sometimes modify their Marian devotion in the presence of Protestants in order not to cause offence (see Romans 14). However, like many Christians, Catholics don't feel that they need to avoid something they consider spiritually beneficial to avoid offending others—particularly since Catholics consider their church to be the true Church, and their faith to be the true faith. From their point of view, the question is similar to: should Trinitarian Christians avoid worshipping Jesus to promote unity with Jehovah Witnesses?

Catholics are maximalists, not minimalists. For them, a life of faith that does not include devotion to Mary and to the saints would be missing something beneficial for the Christian. True, such acts may not be strictly necessary for salvation, but like many Christians, Catholics don't believe people should do ‘just enough to get by’; they tend to believe that the more beneficial things done, the better. Fasting? taking monastic vows? These things are not required for salvation, but still spiritually beneficial, and while there may be very particular points of time when not practicing Marian devotion may be expedient, it is not good enough reason for Catholics as a whole to abandon the practice.

Edit: All this assumes, of course that paying Mary respect does not detract from the respect given to God. Protestants tend to see honour as a zero-sum game: the more honour paid to Mary, the less paid to God. The Catholic does not see honour in these terms: honour paid to Mary is not detracting from honour given to God, but rather amplifies it; Jesus is glorified when his mother is honoured. Analogously, glory given to God the Father is not lessened when glory is given to Jesus. Of course, honour due to Mary is of a qualitatively different type than that due Jesus, even in Catholic theology, and there is a line that must not be crossed. Nevertheless, while some Protestants feel uncomfortable about paying any respect to Mary, Catholics only place the line at giving Mary divine adoration.

Disclaimer: In linking to any site, I do not necessarily subscribe to any or all of the author’s opinions.


Is it contrary to any Christian belief or doctrine to believe that Jesus deceives us in order to protect our souls?

I know I should probably reference these, but I'm going to appeal to common knowledge

Before answering, I just want to re-emphasize two central teachings that are common to the vast majority of Christianity:

It's safe to say that almost every denomination, and almost every major division within Christianity agrees that God does not and cannot lie.  I'm sure there are exceptions to that rule, and agnostics/atheists may balk at the idea, but for the most part that's accepted teaching for the vast majority of Christianity.
Most (but not all) Christian denominations and traditions accept the Diety of Jesus.  In other words, Jesus is God. (There are exceptions.)

If the second point is true, then to say that Jesus lies is to say then God lies.  And the first point flat out denies that.

So, according to Scripture, as understood by the overwhelming majority of Christianity, it is absolutely a heresy to say that Jesus would deceive us to protect our souls.

And most denominations that I am aware of state that Heresy is a sin.

So yes, to the overwhelming majority of Christianity,  it would be be accurate to say that it's a sin to believe that Jesus would lie to us to protect our souls.  Not only does it go against "any other Christian belief or doctrine" it goes against two central, almost universally held Christian beliefs/doctrines.  The doctrine of God's character and the doctrine of Christ's Diety.