1 Corinthians chapter 13 is called the Hymn of Love and is thought to be a pre-Pauline hymn that Paul was quoting. Perhaps the most beautiful English rendition of the poem or song is the the King James Bible, but unfortunately it translates ἀγάπην as 'charity', rather that 'love'. The Hymn of Love, from the KJV, amended to speak of 'love':

1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing.
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not love, it profiteth me nothing.
4 Love suffereth long, and is kind; love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
8 Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
13 And now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

1 Peter 3:18-22, which Burton L. Mack, in Who Wrote the New Testament, page 91, calls a ‘Christ hymn’, and says is a genre that became popular among early Christians.

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

A form of ancient poetry, quite different to modern ideas of poetry was the chiasm (from the Greek letter chi, χ), or chiastic structure. In these structures, an opening set of events is mirrored by a second set. They were used extensively in the Old Testament and, to a lesser extent, in the New Testament, but perhaps no more so than in Mark's Gospel. Here is an example paraphrased from Mark 3:20-4:1 (with three verses of prose interposed at 3:27-29):

a  The multitude is so thick that they could not so much as eat bread (3:20)
.b Jesus' friends say he is beside himself (3:21)
..c    Scribes say Jesus is possessed and by the devil casts out devils (3:22)
...d   How can Satan cast out Satan? (3:23)
....e  If a kingdom be divided the kingdom can not stand (3:24)
....e' If a house be divided the house can not stand (3:25)
...d'  If Satan is divided he can not win (3:26)
..c'   Because they said Jesus has an unclean spirit (3:30)
.b'    Jesus' family comes to him. Jesus says his followers are his family (3:31-35)
a' The multitude is so thick that Jesus enters a boat (4:1)

Luke's Magnificat is a poem modelled on Hannah's prayer from the Old Testament. It is
the first of four canticles in the opening of Luke’s Gospel and is a beautiful hymn spoken by Mary, at Luke 1:46-55:-

46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.
50 And his mercy is on them that fear him for all generations.
51 He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
52 He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.
53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.
54 He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;
55 As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.


What happens if one wishes to go through the RCIA process but lacks a sponsor?

The Church believes that it is important for a baptizand (in this context also called the catechumen) to have a sponsor, for a couple of reasons. The Church considers the newly baptized to be part of the community, and the community takes part in their post-baptism catechesis. The sponsors are there at least partly to represent the community's part in the life of the newly baptized. In addition, the sponsor is a witness of the baptism, and can vouch for the fact that the baptizand is in fact part of the community of the Church.

It's for these reasons that there are the restrictions you mention on the person of the sponsor. Sponsors must stand ready before and after the baptism to help the baptizand grow as a Christian, as an individual and a member of the Catholic community.

The catechism doesn't say much about sponsors; what it does say places them in the context of the responsibility the Church as a community takes for the development of the faith of each member. Paragraph 1255 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

  For the grace of Baptism to unfold, the parents' help is important. So too is the role of the godfather and godmother, who must be firm believers, able and ready to help the newly baptized—child or adult—on the road of Christian life. Their task is a truly ecclesial function (officium). The whole ecclesial community bears some responsibility for the development and safeguarding of the grace given at Baptism.

Paragraph 1253 adds:

  Baptism is the sacrament of faith. But faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe. The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. The catechumen or the godparent is asked: "What do you ask of God’s Church?" The response is: "Faith!"

The Code of Canon Law, which deals with baptismal sponsors in canons 872–874, simply reiterates that a sponsor

  assists an adult in Christian initiation. ... [and] also helps the baptized person to lead a Christian life in keeping with baptism and to fulfill faithfully the obligations inherent in it.

But this task, important as it is, doesn't in itself require intimate knowledge of the personality or character of the baptizand. It requires some level of knowledge and friendship, and a Christian love; but need not require more. For this reason, it's completely appropriate for a sponsor to be someone else from the parish, even if they are not a close friend.

Canon law even anticipates that it may not be possible to find an acceptable sponsor; it does not require one absolutely:

  Insofar as possible, a person to be baptized is to be given a sponsor...

However, this is (so it appears) intended to be a last resort. The Rite of Baptism for Adults does anticipate that there will be sponsors for each catechumen, and (along with the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults generally) gives an important role to them.

The RCIA in fact appears to draw a distinction between a sponsor and a godparent—see this handbook (PDF) used by the Diocese of Columbus, Ohio, page 3-2. According to this document, the sponsor, who is present at the beginning of the process,

  is a person from the community who comes to know the candidate well, who accompanies the candidate on their lifelong faith journey, and who testifies publicly in liturgical ceremonies to the candidate's moral character, faith and intention—that is, to the candidate's readiness to advance to each new step in the process.

The godparent

  establishes a spiritual relationship with the catechumen that lasts forever. ... A godparent upholds the catechumen in times of fear or hesitation, testifies to the catechumen's readiness, serves as a model and guides the catechumen in the Christian life.

The document states that the catechumen may select their sponsor as the godparent, but need not. The fundamental difference, though, is that the sponsor is to help the catechumen discern their readiness to enter the Catholic Church, whereas the godparent helps them (both before and after baptism) to live a Christian life and grow in faith. But at any rate it doesn't appear necessary from these descriptions that either sponsor or godparent be one who initially knows the catechumen intimately.


What are some good resources that explain the rational reasons behind the faith for a questioning Atheist?

Technically this is off topic and your absolute best course of action is to talk with pastors, priests etc... But your query is so obviously crying out for one witness in particular that I want to break the "rules" of this site and give you an answer.  I do not wish to speak to your personal circumstance - you really need a person for that, but there is one answer that I suspect you'll hear a lot if you ask.

Fifty years ago today (November 22, 1963), C.S. Lewis died. If there ever was a man "convinced by reason" into the Kingdom of God, it was he. Lewis was an Atheist Oxford don whose rationality and logic convinced him of the existence of God.

His semi-autobiography "Surprised By Joy" will probably seem very familiar to you.
"Mere Christianity" is a classic if densely packed work of systematic theology see below that also seeks to present the reasons for the basics of the faith in a clear, rational fashion.
"The Weight of Glory" is a brief sermon in which Lewis talks about the real reason for the faith - JOY, and not just mere pleasure.  He argues that faith in God enables a man to see more clearly what man was created for, if man is willing to trust in God.
"The Lion, the Witch, and The Wardrobe" is a children's book, in which an allegory in which the sacrifice of Christ and its role in salvation is pretty explicit.
"The Abolition of Man" is a brief invective against an educational system that seeks to remove virtue from its aims. "Men without chests" is a phrase he uses to decry the condition.
The "Screwtape Letters" further explores how Christians can avoid the truth of the love of God in extraordinarily clever writing.
The "Great Divorce" highlights how the choices we make have logical consequences in the afterlife. It has changed my life.

Finally, if C.S. Lewis isn't your cup of tea, consider Lee Stroebel's "The Case for Faith".

If you are an academic looking for the meatiest of systematic theologies and something older, consider Calvin's The Institutes of Christian Religion.  Any good systematic theology - J.I. Packer, Wayne Grudem, Thomas Aquinas, Peter Lombard, Francis of Assisi, Karl Barth, Alistar McGrath, Louis Berkhof, etc... - these are all books that attempt to systematize and explain the reasons behind the articles of dogma many Christians take for granted.  While rarely a starting point to convince someone of the faith, they are really good for explaining it.

Finally, for most people, reading the Bible (John is usually a good book to start) and talking to other Christians and or trying out several churches is usually the best way to go. I have a particular passion for the intellectual who is seeking with rationality and faith so I get your reluctance to start with the followers and I wish you well on this journey.


What is the biblical basis for the belief held by Jehovah's Witnesses that Jehovah and Jesus Christ are separate entities?

I think the Jehovahs Witnesses make the matter pretty clear on their website.

TL;DR - Jehovah used to appear to the ancient prophets as "God Almighty", Jesus Christ never identified as "God Almighty".

  Does God Have a Name?

  The Bible’s answer

  Humans all have personal names. Wouldn’t it be reasonable for God to
  have a name? Having and using personal names is a vital part of human
  friendships. Should it be different when it comes to our friendship
  with God?

  In the Bible, God says: “I am Jehovah. That is my name.” (Isaiah
  42:8) Although he also has many titles, such as “God Almighty,”
  “Sovereign Lord,” and “Creator,” he honors his worshippers by inviting
  them to address him by his personal name.—Genesis 17:1; Acts
  4:24; 1 Peter 4:19.

  Many translations of the Bible contain God’s personal name at Exodus
  6:3. That passage says: “I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac and
  Jacob as God Almighty, but as respects my name Jehovah I did not
  make myself known to them.”

  Jehovah is a rendering of God’s name in English that has been used for
  centuries. While many scholars prefer the spelling “Yahweh,” Jehovah
  is the form of the name that is most widely recognized. The first part
  of the Bible was written not in English but in Hebrew, a language that
  is read from right to left. In that language, the divine name appears
  as four consonants, יהוה. Those four Hebrew characters—transliterated
  YHWH—are known as the Tetragrammaton.

  Is God’s Name Jesus?

  The Bible’s answer

  Jesus referred to himself as “God’s Son” or “the Son of God.” (John
  10:36; 11:4) Jesus never identified himself as Almighty
  God.

  Moreover, Jesus prayed to God. (Matthew 26:39) And while teaching
  his followers how to pray, Jesus said: “Our Father in the heavens, let
  your name be sanctified.”—Matthew 6:9.

  Jesus revealed God’s name when he quoted an ancient passage of
  Scripture and said: “Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one
  Jehovah.”—Mark 12:29; Deuteronomy 6:4.

  Is Jesus Almighty God?

  The Bible’s answer

  Jesus’ opposers accused him of making himself equal to God. (John
  5:18; 10:30-33) However, Jesus never claimed to be on the
  same level as Almighty God. He said: “The Father is greater than I
  am.”—John 14:28.

  Jesus’ early followers did not view him as being equal to Almighty
  God. For example, the apostle Paul wrote that after Jesus was
  resurrected, God “exalted him [Jesus] to a superior position.”
  Obviously, Paul did not believe that Jesus was Almighty God.
  Otherwise, how could God exalt Jesus to a superior position?
  —Philippians 2:9.

www.JW.org, Jehovah's Witnesses Bible Questions Answered - God, Jesus.


Why are Ahimelech and Abiathar reversed in 2 Sam. 8:17?

I have a list of alleged Biblical contradictions that contains this question.

We must first attempt to establish a reference point in time for these verses.

1 Samuel 22:20-23 occurred before David ascended to the throne.  King Saul was then in pursuit of David, and had recently ordered the deaths of 85 priests, after accusing them of treason [1 Samuel 22:17, 18].  Abiathar, son of Ahimelech, was one who had escaped death.
2 Samuel 8:17 occurred at least 7 1/2 years into David's forty-year reign [2 Samuel 5:4].

2 Samuel 5:5:  David reigned over Judah in Hebron 7 1/2 years; then 33 years over all Israel in Jerusalem.  2 Samuel 8 was during his [early?] reign in Jerusalem.

Next, we must attempt to identify these men.

"Ahimelech" was a name given to at least two men that David knew:

The first was identified as a priest in 1 Samuel 22:20-23.
The second was identified in 1 Samuel 26:6 as "Ahimelech the Hittite."
Though possessing the same name, these are clearly not the same person.

What, then, of the third Ahimelech, in 2 Samuel 8:17?

We know he was a priest; apparently, he was much more.

Zadok was not only a priest in David's reign; he was the High Priest--the lineage can be verified in Ezra 7:1-5.
This Ahimelech was apparently a co-High Priest; he is paired with Zadok several other times in Scripture:  2 Samuel 15:24, 29, 35; 17:15; 19:11; 20:25.
He must have died early in Solomon's reign; in 1 Kings 4:4, we read of "Zadok and Abiathar" as priests.

I conclude, though "Ahimelech" and "Abiathar" are named in both passages, they are not the same two men in both passages.  Therefore, there is no contradiction.


How many commandments in the New Testament are in the imperative in the Greek?

The answer to the last part of the question, in the body rather than the heading, is no. A commandment is not necessarily in the imperative. Jesus said

  You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.  This is the great and first commandment.  And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbour as yourself.  On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.  Matthew 22 37-40

This is in the future indicative tense, rather than the imperative. This applies to the original Greek, and to some modern translations. Other modern translations use the imperative in English, but the Greek text is future indicative.

In English we might be told "You will report for duty at 0600 hours".  This would be a command expressed in the future indicative.

Even many of the Ten Commandments in the Old Testament are in the future indicative (e.g. "Thou shalt have none other gods but me") while others are in the imperative (e.g. "Honour thy father and mother").

Just as not all commands are imperatives, not all imperatives are commands. "Come in" called by a parent whose children are playing outside is a command, but addressed to a friend at the door is an invitation. In the Lord's Prayer we say "Give us our bread". Addressed to a servant this would be a command, to a baker a request, and to God a prayer. There is no grammatical difference and whether an imperative is a command, a suggestion, an invitation or a plea sometimes requires subjective judgement.

Apart from the two commandments mentioned by Jesus in the above passage, there are no other commands in the New Testament which are very widely referred to  by the specific term "commandment"; although many could be considered as such.  Some commands of Jesus or of the writers of the epistles may be considered to apply to all Christians. Some clearly applied only to a specific situation and were not intended to apply  generally. When, on Palm Sunday, Jesus told two of his disciples to go and fetch a donkey, He clearly wasn't issuing a universal commandment  (at least, as far as I know, nobody thinks He was). Some instructions have been argued over as to whether they applied only to those they were directly given, or to all Christians, or to the successors of the apostles (however defined).

James Boyer, of Grace Theological Seminary, counted 1,632 imperatives in the New Testament and discussed the grammatical use of the imperative, in this article


What does the Catholic church say about its own presence or absence when the tribulation starts?

The Catholic Church (CC) believes Christ already reigns on earth through her.  She does not believe in a future rapture at the time of or immediateely preceeding the tribulation and then a 1,000 year millenial reign of Christ.

Some view the idea of tribulation is that it preceeds the millenial reign of Christ for the 1,000 years.  The Catholic Church believes Christ already reigns (through the Catholic Church); there won't be some separate reign when Christ Himself is present on earth. To be clear, she believes in the second coming, but what happens thereafter has nothing to do with the view of a tribulation apart from believers who might be raptured.

  669 As Lord, Christ is also head of the Church, which is his Body. Taken up to heaven and glorified after he had thus fully accomplished his mission, Christ dwells on earth in his Church. The redemption is the source of the authority that Christ, by virtue of the Holy Spirit, exercises over the Church. "The kingdom of Christ [is] already present in mystery", "on earth, the seed and the beginning of the kingdom".
  -CCC-

  671 Though already present in his Church, Christ's reign is nevertheless yet to be fulfilled "with power and great glory" by the King's return to earth. This reign is still under attack by the evil powers, even though they have been defeated definitively by Christ's Passover. Until everything is subject to him, "until there be realized new heavens and a new earth in which justice dwells, the pilgrim Church, in her sacraments and institutions, which belong to this present age, carries the mark of this world which will pass, and she herself takes her place among the creatures which groan and travail yet and await the revelation of the sons of God." That is why Christians pray, above all in the Eucharist, to hasten Christ's return by saying to him: Marana tha! "Our Lord, come!"
  -ibid-

So, to answer the OP, the Catholic Church is looking for a "final trial", but one in which she remains present, rather than raptured.  She believes we are already in the millenial reign, but Christ will return.

  675 Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.


When and why were stained glass windows first incorporated into the design of a Christian place of worship?

Architecturally, Gothic churches required large trusses in order to support the ceiling.  This would make the buildings very dark. That said, the spaces between the trusses could be turned into windows in order to lighten the area.

Since the 400s, Mosaics had already been used both as art and as teaching tools. (See Ravenna for some of the best!) Combining the need for light with the established tradition of mosaics would have been a natural technological progression.


If "Elohim" can refer to angels and demons, then does Jesus being called "God" really prove anything?

Great Question! Arguing for the trinity is one of the most complex apologetic tasks you can undertake.

Context is essential to understanding the meaning of any word, especially in Semitic languages (e.g. Hebrew/Arabic) since the same word can have several connected but different meanings. Your questioner seems to be using a faulty analogy since the words are not precisely identical in meaning. Consider challenging with counter questions.
Suggestions for greater clarity:

Consider focusing your question in terms of specific verses - in context, some are clearly referring to angels and others have always been interpreted by Christian and Jewish interpreters as referring to 'God'. Does your interlocutor genuinely believe that the use of 'Elohim' in Genesis 1:1 is referring to Angels (contra millennia of interpretive tradition)?
There is a vast difference between saying that a word can be 'translated' one way and saying it is perfectly equivalent. The Holy God of the bible is not easy to understand and is never fully known (see doctrines of divine simplicity etc.) so the words used in various languages for 'God' are always approximations apart from God's use of his own name. For example, Elohim is plural whereas Theos is simply a generic word for god (not necessarily 'God'). Does your opponent believe that the generic use of 'man' CANNOT we used to refer to humanity (men and women)? If they have not difficulty with that, it shouldn't be difficult to understand how the word for 'strong one' can refer to both angels and God in different verses.

Conclusion: Just as a woman can say she is a member of man-kind to declare that she has the dignity due to all humanity, so Jesus can use Theos/Elohim/God to declare that he is worthy of being worshiped as Creator and Sustain-er of the world.

Some background on the terms themselves: http://embracedbytruth.com/God/Names%20of%20God/Elohim%20and%20Theos.htm


Is Job's statement that his redeemer lives and would stand upon the Earth, a statement of faith or a prediction of Christ?

In the NIV, there is a note associated with word ‘Redeemer’ which indicates ‘Vindicator’ could be used. In the on-line NET Bible, the note for ‘Redeemer’ (#59) contains: “The word is well-known in the OT because of its identification as the kinsman-redeemer (see the Book of Ruth). This is the near kinsman who will pay off one’s debts, defend the family, avenge a killing, marry the widow of the deceased. The word “redeemer” evokes the wrong connotation for people familiar with the NT alone; a translation of “Vindicator” would capture the idea more.”

To help get the context, we read Job 19:23-24 where Job wants his words etched into something so permanent that they would last forever. In Job 19:25, the verse in question, Job is not questioning who that vindicator will be or if there is one yet to come. Job already knows his Redeemer and that his Redeemer lives but his distress is that his Redeemer is presently hiding His face from him. In the NIV, this verse reads:  “I know that my redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand on the earth.”

Job wants his words written down and saved throughout history until his Redeemer comes and stands on the earth and can read them and vindicate Job for what has happened to him. Job thought God had turned His face from him and no longer knew what was going on. Job thought if God knew what was going on, He would have stepped in and done something about it as He had in the past. With what happened to him ‘etched in stone’, Job could even die but would still be vindicated. He had a problem believing God would not be doing something if He already knew.

This is not a messianic prophecy but the cry of a servant trying to understand why everything was happening to him and wanting vindication for it. I left a link below to an article that shows how this suffering brought Job to the point of humility where such an attitude of vindication was no longer necessary. As Job learned, “I had heard of You by the hearing of the ear but now my eyes have seen You” (Job 42:5) and “I know you can do all things; no purpose of yours can be thwarted” (Job 42:2). In humility Job came to realize his suffering was but momentary intended to do what it accomplished, drive him closer to God. He no longer needed vindication, he had God.

References:
Job 19:23-29 (NIV - www.biblegateway.com)
Job 19 (on-line NET Bible - net.bible.org)
Go to www.bible.org and search for: "The Ideal of Submission (Job)"

Updated!

Messianic Prophecy is scripture recording future events related to Messiah.

Messianic prophecy is recorded evidence produced by many people disconnected across time or distance that finds complete fulfillment in the life of Jesus Christ. It is never an interpretation or idea just thought up by an individual or group or somehow passed down through tradition. It is not possible for all the different people to record different prophecies with such coherency and accuracy without guidance in what they were recording. Messianic prophecy is revelation from a single source, the Holy Spirit.

  2 Peter 1:20-21 - "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (NKJV)

Throughout the Bible there is other prophecy recording future events that are not necessarily related with Messiah. Yet this too carries the distinction that it is not thought up by an individual or group but was revealed by the Holy Spirit.

As we analyze the book of Job, we do not see the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit like we do in Isaiah 53. There the suffering servant is described in such detail and in a number of ways that the only one who can fit is Jesus Christ. For example: as one who will be marred so badly he didn’t look human (speaking of the beating Jesus Christ received); as one who people would question if God’s power really was revealed through him (speaking of the leaders who did not want to believe his miracles were of God); or as one who would be elevated, lifted high, and greatly exalted (speaking of the resurrection of Jesus Christ to the right hand of God). In all of this, Isaiah could have written all of these only if the Holy Spirit was revealing them to him.

  Job 19:25 reads: I know that my redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand on the earth.

But if we add the context around the verse we find an indication that Job wanted to be vindicated by God but thought he was going to die before that happened. As a result, he desired a permanent record of the events so they could be on hand when God would stand on this earth. As I ponder this, what I think it is referring to is the final judgement before God that all people will go through in the future. Hebrews 9:27 refers to judgment after one dies. But what I think connects better is Revelation 20:11 thru 22:5. This is where the Great White Throne Judgement takes place followed by the New Jerusalem descending to the earth and lit up with the glory of the Almighty God and his Lamb, Jesus Christ.

If Job knew something of what is recorded in Revelation, then that would be when he would be able to plead his case and that would be when God would stand on the earth. But nowhere else in the book of Job do I see an indication that the Holy Spirit was leading Job to record a revelation. If we care to assign a revelation to Job 19:25, I think it must be a revelation of the Great White Throne Judgement and New Jerusalem being setup rather than Messianic.


Is there an instance of parents lying to their children that was approved by God in the Bible?

Finding God's approval for men's actions is uncommon. More often than not, the actions of people are recorded in all their embarrassing detail without an explicit endorsement or condemnation by God.

I concur with the problematic comparison of humans to God, for God knows exactly who he is and what he should do, he is sovereign and sinless, and doesn't exactly have to behave the same way as we do (e.g. worship, prayer, etc.).

I cannot think of an instance in the (Protestant) Canon when a parent lied to his children in an attempt to do something morally good.

Is Lying Ever Allowable?

On the contrary, one could make an argument that God doesn't want us to lie at all. One example I can think of is Jesus' praise of Nathaniel: "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!" (Jn 1:47, NASB)

There are at least a few instances where people lied for "good reasons" and God blessed them (without necessarily approving of their method, but perhaps of their motives). One example is the Hebrew midwives who wouldn't murder the newborn sons they were to help deliver (Ex 1). Perhaps they were actually telling the truth and only deliberately arrived after the children were born, but I think it's safe to say that they deliberately employed a measure of deceit in what they told Pharoah.

A strict "no-deceit" rule of personal conduct does introduce difficult questions, like when I play a strategy game and do things to trick my opponent. It doesn't seem like it ought to be wrong since everything is strictly hypothetical and your opponent has no assurance that you are attempting to represent yourself in a plain and transparent way, but I consider this a weakness either in my argument or in the way I live.


How is repentance understood in Lutheranism?

Lutherans would say that we are by nature sinful and unclean, and are only able to repent because we are enabled by the call of God the Holy Spirit to respond to the Grace of God.


Are there aspects of the Imitation of Christ that are biased towards a Devotio Moderna perspective? What are some of them?

There's little information about the Devotio Moderna, in spite of its influence on several key figures of the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. However, I managed to get a reference to a study published by the Brazilian Society for the Advancement of Science.
Translating the "Results" and "Conclusion" sections of the description, we have some information arrayed below, slightly edited for readability:

RESULTS:
The Imitation of Christ reaffirms themes which are dear to the Devotio, like humility, obedience, simplicity, devotion, piety, individual prayer and meditation, among others. Like the Devotio, it constantly emphasizes inner life, seeking to describe a life of disciplined devotion, centered in the meditation of following the life of the Christ.
Certain rites remained necessary in the Devotio Moderna like Mass and the Eucharist[sic]. There was a re-descovery of Sacred Scripture, of the Christ of the Gospels and of the writings of the Church Fathers, emphasizing a more intimist, less ritualist religion, but which did not exclude completely the priest on account of him being ordained to celebrate Mass and the only one who can consecrate the Body of Christ. In neither the Devotio Moderna movement nor the work The Imitation of Christ there is a contempt for the Sacraments, particularly the Eucharist, but also Matrimony and Penitence were valued.
The Saints are venerated both in the Devotio Moderna and in the Imitation and some are cited as models to be followed: St. Lawrence, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Agatha, not to mention the Apostles, etc., even though it is emphasized that Jesus Christ is the supreme model to be imitated in His perfection and piety...
CONCLUSION:
The reformers of the 16th Century — both Catholic and Protestant — were heirs of the Devotio Moderna, particularly in relation to a more interior religion, more centered on the individual and in reading Sacred Scripture. The Imitation of Christ, faithful to the movement which originated it, gave more emphasis to interior life and the spreading of a popular piety where charity, faith and humility became more important than the formalism of rites, without belittling the cult of Saints and Sacraments.
The Catholic mystics and reformers appropriated that; meanwhile, as F. Lau affirms: "It was from the ideal of piety of The Imitation of Christ (...) that Luther later distanced himself (Lau, 1980).
Thus, we can affirm that the Devotio Moderna is, after a fashion, in the root of Modern Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant; but Luther and his followers distanced themselves from the piety put forth in the work The Imitation of Christ. At the same time, Catholic mystics and reformers, particularly in the 16th and 17th Centuries, knew, read and possibly let themselves be guided by that work. Therefore, The Imitation of Christ had influence only on the Catholic mystics and reformers.

The researchers quoted above mention that the Devotio focused on a more inward-facing, contemplative spirituality, which is well represented by The Imitation of Christ. At the same time, devotion for the Sacraments (particularly the Eucharist, Penance and Matrimony) and  the Saints is emphasized by both. These themes are all present in The Imitation, as befits a work that was written by a member of that movement


What is the significance of the burning bush?

There is a concept found throughout the Old Testament that God is a consuming fire:

  Deuteronomy 4:24 (NIV)
  For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.

The idea behind this consuming fire is that it is the fire of God's judgment.  Just before that verse in Deuteronomy, it says not to make idols (starting in verse 24) because the God is a consuming fire.  We can see pretty clearly that this fire is a picture of God's judgment and wrath.

By comparison, one thing that is striking about the image of the burning bush is that there is fire that does not consume.

This is showing us that the imagery of the burning bush is one of mercy.  The consuming fire engulfs the bush, but the bush is not consumed.  The judgment is brought, but mercy is shown.

Source

Another theory is that the burning bush indicates that Israel will not be consumed by the upcoming plagues in Egypt.  It was, the theory goes, a way to indicate to Moses that there will be fires and judgments but the nation will not be consumed.

Source

A final, simpler theory is simply that God used an item that was present at that time in that location (a bush in the desert) to indicate his glory.  The fire that burned was simply his glory illuminating the bush.  (Fire, at that time, was the only known source of light besides the sun.)

Source (same as previous)


The greatest commandment is given to us by Jesus.

  Matthew 22:36-40 NIV
  36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

  37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and
  with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first
  and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your
  neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on
  these two commandments.”

I believe it'd follow that the greatest sin would be breaking this commandment.  So I would say acting in an unloving manner would be the greatest sin.  Being unloving towards God would be the greatest, followed by being unloving towards your neighbor.

Also, since the commandment is the action of loving, having a lack of love could also be considered a sin.

Putting sin in that light is convicting.


According to ch. 6 of Brown, O.F.M.'s The Life of Mary as Seen by the Mystics, a compilation of the approved private "Revelations of St. Elizabeth of Schoenau, St. Bridget of Sweden, Ven. Mother Mary of Agreda and Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich," she married because her parents died and young girls' service in the Temple was not perpetual:

WHEN MARY reached the age of thirteen and a half, having grown considerably for her age, Almighty God in a vision commanded her to enter the state of matrimony. Because of her intense love of chastity and her early vow of perpetual virginity, which she had often renewed, this divine order meant to her a sacrifice as painful as that of Abraham when God commanded him to offer up his son’s life.
When Mary heard this unexpected decree, she was astonished and became greatly afflicted. Nevertheless she prudently suspended her own judgment and preserved her faith and hope more perfectly than Abraham. Still hoping against hope, she meekly replied:
“Eternal God, Thou, O Lord, canst dispose of me, Thy worthless little worm, according to Thy pleasure, without making me fail in what I have promised. And if it be not displeasing to Thee, my good Lord, I renew my desire to remain chaste during all my life.”
Thus Mary in her great trial, though she felt some human uneasiness and sadness, obediently resigned herself entirely to the Will of God. And the Lord answered her:
“Mary, let not thy heart be disturbed, for thy resignation is acceptable to Me. And by My disposition, that will happen which is best for thee.”
Then, as God intended, while left between uncertainty and hope, Mary gave herself over to fervent prayer and inner acts of love, faith, humility, obedience and chastity.
Meanwhile the Lord spoke in sleep to the High Priest, who happened to be St. Simeon, and commanded him to arrange the marriage of Mary, whom He regarded with special love, to whomever it seemed right to the council of priests. After consulting together, the priests appointed a day on which all the bachelors of the line of David, which was also Mary’s, were to assemble in the Temple.
Nine days before that date, Simeon called in Mary and gently explained to her that as she was an orphan and a first-born daughter with an inheritance, now near the age when the young girls had to leave the service of the Temple and marry, the priests were planning to find her a worthy husband. Though deeply moved, Mary replied with great composure and modesty:
“As far as my inclinations are concerned, I desire to preserve chastity during all my life, and I never had the intention to enter the married state. But you, my master, will teach me God’s holy Will.”


Why is the "serpent" in the Fall believed to be literal by many?

The Bible employs animals as descriptions of character, as we do also.

In the verse that you allude to, it expressly says "the" Serpent and draws a distinction from the beasts of the field.

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Elsewhere we are informed : 2Co 11:3  But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

(You notice, through his subtilty? more subtle than any beast of the field, the physical animals)

Rev 12:9  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

(You notice, that old Serpent?)

Rev 20:2  And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

2Co 11:14  And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

So we can see that The Devil, Satan appeared to Eve as an angel of light.
Consider too, apart from the fact that animals do not talk, would Eve really listen to or take any notice of an animal subject to her, over which she had dominion?

When the Serpent is cursed, he is cursed below the creatures of the field, that is relegated to a lower position, and limited to the belly, the seat of carnal affections,(Php 3:19  Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.) and restricted to the despicable and execrable state of perdition in feeding off man, created from dust. (Psa 14:4  Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD. )

And the Serpent was set to bruise Christ's heel, which he did through the crucifixion which also bruised his head. Christ's crucifixion accomplished salvation and victory over the Serpent, as it were, mortally wounding the Serpent.


For those who deny the Immaculate Conception, why did Jesus not have original sin?

There are at least several ways that this is explained.  Here are three common ones.

One approach, taken by early and medieval theologians before the doctrine of the immaculate conception was widely held, is described by Thomas Aquinas:

  As Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. x, 20), Christ was in Adam and the other fathers not altogether as we were. For we were in Adam as regards both seminal virtue and bodily substance, since, as he goes on to say: "As in the seed there is a visible bulk and an invisible virtue, both have come from Adam. Now Christ took the visible substance of His flesh from the Virgin's flesh; but the virtue of His conception did not spring from the seed of man, but far otherwise—from on high." Hence He was not in Adam according to seminal virtue, but only according to bodily substance. And therefore Christ did not receive human nature from Adam actively, but only materially—and from the Holy Ghost actively; even as Adam received his body materially from the slime of the earth—actively from God. And thus Christ did not sin in Adam, in whom He was only as regards His matter. (Summa Theologica, 3rd part, Q15, Art. 1, reply to objection 2)

So to Augustine and Aquinas, the invisible, spiritual side of Christ's human nature came directly from God, not Adam.

This is somewhat similar to the view of the Anabaptists, which believe, as summarized by Louis Berkhof:

  The prevailing opinion among the Anabaptists was that the Lord brought His human nature from heaven, and that Mary was merely the conduit or channel through which it passed. (Systematic Theology, 3.2.1.B)

But in the Reformed tradition, greater emphasis is placed on Christ's human nature coming from his mother, and as a result his sinlessness is instead attributed to the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.  He thus has two roles in the conception of Jesus – first, as the "efficient cause" of the conception, and second:

  He sanctified the human nature of Christ in its very inception, and thus kept it free from the pollution of sin. (Systematic Theology, 3.2.1.B)

So we see that there isn't a single answer to the question, but rather a variety of ways to explain how Jesus could have human nature and yet be sinless.


Is there a denomination which espouses hard-determinism?

John 3:35 says that God has placed everything in the hands of his Son.    After his resurrection and before Jesus ascended into heaven to return to his Father, Jesus said that all authority in heaven and on earth had been given to him (Matthew 28:18).  If these verses prove that human behaviour is also in the hands of Jesus, or that he controls human behaviour, then we must all be robots, incapable of exercising any form of free will.  Those verses do not support “hard determinism.”

  “Hard determinism (or metaphysical determinism) is a view on free will which holds that determinism is true, and that it is incompatible with free will, and, therefore, that free will does not exist.”  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_determinism

After spending a considerable amount of time looking for any denomination that supports “hard determinism” I drew a blank.  However, I am aware that a few Protestants support a form of hyper-Calvinism:

  “Hyper-Calvinism is the belief that God saves the elect through His sovereign will with little or no use of the methods of bringing about salvation (such as evangelism, preaching, and prayer for the lost). To an unbiblical fault, the hyper-Calvinist over-emphasizes God's sovereignty and under-emphasizes man's responsibility in the work of salvation... The gospel of the hyper-Calvinist is a declaration of God's salvation of the elect and His damnation of the lost... Hyper-Calvinism takes a biblical doctrine, God’s sovereignty, and pushes it to an unbiblical extreme. In doing so, the hyper-Calvinist downplays the love of God and the necessity of evangelism.”  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/hyper-calvinism.html

Please be aware that hyper-Calvinists are not a denomination, and that very few Christians take this radical position with regard to election and free will.


What evidence is there that the Chinese script reflects a knowledge of Genesis 1-11?

Background

As missionaries have gone to China over the centuries to proclaim the gospel.  Learning the script as an adult can sometimes involve breaking the symbols down into their components to remember them more easily.  In doing so, some missionaries have found some curiosities in the characters that seemed to point to things found in the first eleven chapters of Genesis.

Indeed, if the Bible is true, the creation of languages and the spreading of mankind over the face of the earth began at the Tower of Babel.  All of those people at that time would have had a common history that included the accounts found in Genesis 1-11.  (The account of the Tower of Babel occurs in Genesis 11.)

Ethel Nelson has written a few books on this, the last and best of which is entitled God's Promise to the Chinese.

Characters

Create

The word for create is interesting, combining the characters for speak, dust, life, and walk.  Genesis records that God "spoke" things into existence and specifically formed man from the dust of the earth and breathed into him the breath of life.

  Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.  Genesis 2:7 NAS

Covet

The word for covet or desire is the combination of two symbols (or three):  two trees and a woman.  This references the account in Genesis 3.  There were two trees, one of which was forbidden.

  When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband.  Genesis 3:6 NIV

Forbidden

The word "forbidden" is also interesting, being the combination the characters for two trees adn God.

Boat

The word boat is the combination of three other characters:  the number eight, person, and vessel.  So, the boat character is "an eight person vessel".  Of course, Noah's ark was populated by him and his wife, his three sons and their three wives.  Thus, the first and only boat recorded in Genesis 1-11 was "an eight person vessel".

Many others

In God's Promise to the Chinese many more characters are examined.  A few characters can be explained away, but after seeing dozens of characters that so closely reflect the Genesis account, it is much more plausible to conclude that the author of the Chinese script was likely quite familiar with the Genesis account.

As a note, Nelson's latest work analyzes the oldest known script.


What is the biblical basis for the JW belief that only 144,000 go to heaven?

Not wishing to re-invent the wheel, I will not repeat the biblical basis in user9485's answer regarding the Jehovah's Witness doctrine that only 144,000 people will ever get into heaven, that number being culled from the time of Christ up until the still future point at the great tribulation, when JWs say the 'heavenly calling' will end, all those remaining on earth with that 'calling' suddenly dying and being whisked up to join Jesus in heaven. However, allow me to put a spoke in - one that is missing from the JW Wheel of Theology so far presented.

Nowhere in the Bible does it ever say that "only 144,000 ever go to heaven", as in your question. When asking for "a biblical basis' for any doctrine, you will always get one from those who hold to that doctrine. Thus, the JWs have anticipated the problem you raise, namely, that Revelation describes two distinct groups of people in heaven, worshipping before the very throne of God in heaven: the great crowd that is innumerable, humanly speaking, taken from all nations and having come out of the great tribulation, then the 144,000 taken from 12 tribes of Israel and 'redeemed from the earth'.

This is the spoke in the wheel, for when a huge number of people are depicted as dwelling in heaven, of which a particular group of 144,000 forms but a part, then the only way any doctrine could be formed on the basis of other scriptures would be to so interpret those other scriptures as to dispense with the 'inconvenience' of Revelation chapters 7 and 14 saying there's a huge number of humans in heaven. That is why a critical step in persuading JWs to accept the 144,000 only doctrine is to explain away the great multitude as only being symbolically in heaven, worshipping, and not literally being in heaven. This means that the verses about the 144,000 worshipping in heaven require that number to remain literal but the humanly uncountable number to be symbolic.

Anyone taking a bit of a verse as literal, but the rest as symbolic, does not have a biblical basis for any resulting doctrine. This is the spoke in the Revelation wheel with regard to how many humans are in heaven. To go on at great length about Jesus' parables, claiming many of them support this doctrine, is back to front, because the number 144,000 occurs only twice in the entire Bible, both times in the book of Revelation. That is where biblical truth about them must start, and any other biblical points claimed in support must always agree with what has been said about this specific group in Revelation. If so, then there truly is a biblical basis to be claimed, but if not, then interpretation about the 144,000 has failed to be consistent with what the Bible actually states about them.

I have the JW book "What Does the Bible Really Teach" and agree with the question as to what their doctrine states - but their book evades the problem in Revelation that you flag up (as an example). The answer given by user9485 first presents the JW formula for interpretation, then claims that because there are distinctions between the 144,000 and the great crowd, this must mean that they are in different locations. The first point is back-to-front (as Revelation must be examined and believed first), and the second point is illogical. The following points about parables are beside the point, given the errors of the first two points, and the last point alludes to a teaching about "a future covenant" for those 144,000 in heaven. Is that a JW one, or that of another group which has similar beliefs, though with variations? That may be beside the point. Sticking to the remit of your question, I would say that user9485's answer deals with main parts of it, but the missing spoke is trying to make lots of other Bible verses appear to fit with a doctrine that does not actually have Revelation chapters 7 and 14 as its foundation. This makes for a rather bumpy biblically-interpreted 'ride'.


According to amillennial Christians, has Christ fulfilled the fall festivals?

Amillenial Christians do not believe in a literal 1,000-year reign of Christ.  They believe Christ is now sitting on the throne of David and that this present church age is the kingdom over which he reigns.  Although I could not find any specific reference to how they view the Festival of Trumpets, the Day of Atonement and the Feast of Tabernacles (or Booths), I did find an article that explains how they interpret unfulfilled prophecy as being “spiritual” or non-literal:

The amillennial view comes from using one method of interpretation for unfulfilled prophecy and another method for non-prophetic Scripture and fulfilled prophecy. Non-prophetic Scripture and fulfilled prophecy are interpreted literally or normally. But, according to the amillennialist, unfulfilled prophecy is to be interpreted spiritually, or non-literally. Those who hold to amillennialism believe that a “spiritual” reading of unfulfilled prophecy is the normal reading of the texts. This is called using a dual hermeneutic. (Hermeneutics is the study of the principles of interpretation.) The amillennialist assumes that most, or all, unfulfilled prophecy is written in symbolic, figurative, spiritual language. Therefore, the amillennialist will assign different meanings to those parts of Scripture instead of the normal, contextual meanings of those words.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/amillennialism.html

It would seem that amillennial Christians do not anticipate any literal fulfilment by Christ of the three autumn/fall festivals.
Preterism falls into two camps: full (or consistent) and partial.  Full preterism takes an extreme view that all prophecy in the Bible has been fulfilled in one way or another. Partial preterists take a more moderate approach, and many partial preterists consider full preterists to be guilty of heresy.  The following extracts sum up partial and full preterism:

According to partial preterism, there is no rapture, and passages describing the tribulation and the Antichrist are actually referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and the Roman emperor Titus. Partial preterists do believe in the return of Christ to earth and a future resurrection and judgment, but they do not teach a millennial kingdom or that Israel as a nation has a place in God’s future plan. According to partial preterists, the Bible’s references to “the last days” are speaking of the last days of the Old Jewish Covenant, not the last days of the earth itself.

The partial preterist viewpoint leads to a belief in amillenialism (or post-millenialism) and is associated with covenant theology. Of course, it rejects dispensationalism. But its main problem is its inconsistent hermeneutic and its allegorizing of many biblical prophecies that are better understood literally. While partial preterism is within the scope of orthodoxy, it is not the majority view among Christians today.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/partial-preterism.html

According to preterism, all prophecy in the Bible is really history. The preterist interpretation of Scripture regards the book of Revelation as a symbolic picture of first-century conflicts, not a description of what will occur in the end times. Preterism is the view that the biblical prophecies concerning the “end times” have already been fulfilled—in the past.

Preterism is the view that all the end-times prophecies of the New Testament were fulfilled in AD 70 when the Romans attacked and destroyed Jerusalem. Preterism teaches that every event normally associated with the end times—Christ’s second coming, the tribulation, the resurrection of the dead, the final judgment—has already happened.  With regard to the final judgment, it is still in the process of being fulfilled.  Jesus’ return to earth was a “spiritual” return, not a physical one.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/preterist.html

I can only conclude that since amillennial Christians have no expectation of the Rapture of the Church or that Christ will return to earth and dwell with His people, any reference to Jesus fulfilling the last three fall feasts are to be taken spiritually and not literally. Preterists believe end-time prophecies have already been fulfilled, and the final judgment is in the process of being fulfilled.


Is there a quote/saying in bible "Do not close the mouth of a bull which threshes the grain"?

The original verse is Deuteronomy 25:4:

Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.(NIV)

The verse is referenced twice in the New Testament where it is explicitly said to apply to workers and wages:

For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned? (1 Cor 9:9)
For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.” (1 Tim 5:8)


What were the main doctrinal disagreements between Luther and Calvin?

It should be noted that Luther and Calvin thought pretty highly of one another, despite their disagreements. Also keep in mind that when Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door, Calvin was less than 10 years old. It must also be remembered that a lot of what is taught under the banner of "Calvinism" today was not necessarily taught nor believed by Calvin, and the same applies to Luther and Lutheranism.

Salvation: They were both monergists, meaning they believed God completely accomplishes our salvation - human choice and deeds play no role. Luther taught the the will was bound until Christians are spiritually regenerated, and thus grace is resistible. Calvin believed that free will was gone permanently because God is completely sovereign, and thus His grace is irresistible. They essentially agreed on predestination, but Calvin believed that Christ died only for the elect ("limited atonement"), while Luther believed that Christ died for all humanity. Luther taught what is often called single predestination, which essentially means that God predestines people to heaven, but no one is predestined to damnation. Calvin on the other hand taught double predestination, that God predestines people either to heaven or hell.

Lord's Supper: Luther believed in the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament, but disagreed with the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Calvinists like to label this view as consubstantiation, but present-day Lutherans reject this label. Calvin affirmed the presence of the living Christ in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper by the action of the Holy Spirit, but disagreed with Luther's view because he felt it "localized" Christ to the elements. Calvin believed that Christ was "truly and efficaciously" present in the Lord's Supper, but in a spiritual sense, and through the mysterious intervention of the Holy Spirit, the communicant partakes spiritually of Christ's body" (cf. Institutes IV, 17, 18). It is argued whether Calvin's view is rightly called symbolic, or if it is a halfway point between Luther's view and the popular evangelical symbolic position. Either way, both Luther and Calvin felt that this was the biggest disagreement between them. Many Calvinists have argued that this disagreement was semantic and a result of clashing worldviews, while many Lutherans believe that these views are truly mutually exclusive.

Law/Gospel Emphasis: Calvin taught that God is absolutely sovereign, and man was created solely to bring glory to him. Luther did not necessarily disagree with this point, but his emphasis was much different. The motivation for glorifying God in Calvin's teaching was because this was man's obligation to God, which Luther felt was a Law-based focus. In Luther's teaching, while he didn't necessarily disagree with Calvin, man is privileged to serve God because of His grace and mercy, a Gospel-focused approach. This gets extended in each man's view of the Church (Calvin's emphasis of the visible vs. Luther's dual emphasis of the visible and invisible Church), but this is somewhat speculative. The Law/Gospel emphasis is a very subtle point, but most Lutherans believe it is extremely significant. Many modern-day Calvinists think this is an insignificant semantic argument (as well as with the Lord's Supper).

My Thoughts: This paragraph represents my opinion, and thus contains a Lutheran bias (I consider myself an Eastern Lutheran, which is somewhat oxymoronic). Having a Calvinist and a confessional Lutheran weigh in would be helpful to the discussion. Theology consists of a series of antinomies. They are not mere paradoxes that can be logically resolved, but both/and statements of truth. For instance,

Jesus is completely divine and yet fully human.
Jesus said "This is my body... this is my blood" and yet it is clearly bread and wine.
God is completely sovereign yet man has free will.
Christians are simultaneously sinners and saints (simul justus et peccator).
Law & Gospel (You must be perfect, but your works contribute nothing to salvation).
God is three and yet One.

Theological distinctives are often honest attempts to resolve these antinomies, but this places fallen human logic as judge over God's Word. It involves attempting to understand things that are beyond us, concepts for which our language and thinking are insufficient. Luther appeared to be more tolerant of antinomies, while Calvin often developed logical resolutions to many issues, viewing them as mere paradoxes (which only appear contradictory but can be logically resolved). In this sense, Luther was more tolerant of "mystery" while Calvin emphasized human logic more so. Both emphasized Western logic in many respects (Luther identified with Augustine's views on concupiscence which affects his belief of total depravity / original sin), but Luther vehemently attacked Aristotelian philosophy while defending Augustinian philosophy. Understanding Scholasticism and the philosophical underpinnings in German and French culture is crucial to understanding the deeper worldview issues influencing Luther and Calvin.

Overall I think both Luther and Calvin were honest, sinful men (just like the rest of us) who struggled with understanding God and His Word in their given historical and philosophical contexts. We are often unaware of our deepest biases, and this is no doubt the case for these men and for us as well. Their primary doctrinal disagreement centered in their views on the Lord's Supper, with significant philosophical underpinnings affecting this point of contention. It is my opinion that by embracing mystery and accepting the fact that our logic is fallen and corrupt, we will better "become partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).


How do Calvinists interpret "Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path" and "He shall direct your paths"?

Reformed Theology (Calvinism) does teach that God is absolutely in control over everything, which means predetermining every tiny detail.
John Piper was asked the question 'Has God Predetermined Every Tiny Detail In the Universe, Including Sin?' (video and transcript), and he begun his answer with this:

Yes.
There's a great quote from Spurgeon about dust motes. You may not even know what a dust mote is, but when I get up in the morning in my room, there's a window to the side of the bed, and a beam of light will be shining through it at certain times of the year when I get it.
Now when I look through the dark I see nothing. But when I look through the beam I see the dust in the room. It's flying around, and I say, "I'm breathing that stuff!?" Yes, you are. And Spurgeon says that every one of those particles is keeping its position and moving through the air by God's appointment.
Now the reason I believe that is because the Bible says, "The dice are thrown in the lap, and every decision is from the Lord" (Proverbs 16:33). Proverbs 16 has a bunch of these verses in it.
Why would he choose "the die is cast into the lap"? It's because he's trying to think of the most random thing he could think of. And he says that. So randomness is not random to God.
God is not the least taxed by keeping every sub-nuclear particle in its place. I used to say electrons, but now there's something smaller than electrons. Everything in the middle of the molecule moving, and the electrons—he's got them all in orbit, just like he has the planets in orbit.


If Moses had said: "Okay, go ahead", would God have done it?

You can take a look at the narrative of Abraham and Sodom (Genesis 18:16-33) as an example of this opposite case.  Abraham, of course, doesn't say "Okay, go ahead and destroy Sodom"—but he doesn't ask for mercy either.  His intercession is based on justice instead: it would be unjust, he argues, to destroy righteous people along with wicked people.  He talks God down to the idea of saving an entire city full of unrighteous men, women, and children for the sake of ten hypothetical righteous ones—but can we doubt that if Abraham had been bold enough to ask for mercy instead, God would have spared them altogether?  (Moses, who surely knew the story of Sodom—if he didn't write it himself—knew better than to base his pleas for mercy on the righteousness of the Israelites.  Likewise, we ourselves cannot be saved on our own merits.)

  So, the question is: Did God REALLY want to destroy the people of Israel? I certainly would, but would God really?  [...] I have a little problem of getting God's unlimited love and grace to sum up with these two places where he wants to destroy the people of Israel.

It does look bad—to understate it—to see the one we recognize as a God of love and grace calling for genocide.  But the real issue is an even bigger one: we as humans "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23), and "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23).  We all face judgment, not just the Israelites in the wilderness—they just happened to be faced with receiving it early.

Did God really want to destroy the people of Israel?  Well, does God really want to destroy any of us?  The answer to that is surely in the negative.   In 2 Peter 3:9 we read that God is "not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance".  We're told that God says "I desire mercy, not sacrifice" (Hosea 6:6, Matthew 9:13).  We're told that God loves the world—so much so "that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)  If God must destroy anyone, it is surely with regret, not with relish.


Did God create other people besides Adam and Eve?

According to the Bible, God created no other people besides Adam and Eve.  Adam was created from the dust of the earth, while Eve was created from Adam (perhaps his rib).

Genesis 5 indicates that Adam and Eve had quite a few children.  We have names for Cain, Abel, Seth, other sons (plural) and daughters (plural).  So, at a minimum, they had seven children.  If we assume that the birthrate for women is just equal to that of men, then Eve may well have had five daughters, pushing the total to ten.  The earth at that time was very fruitful, and people lived a very long time, so she may well have had more than that.

Genetically speaking, it is not impossible at all that one couple could give birth to all humanity.  Just because one scientist asserts something to be true does not make it so.

See this article regarding skin tones and this article regarding a challenge to that claim altogether.


John Wesley's influence by ancient fathers

Interesting question. Wesley, as an Anglican, would have learned to understand Scripture through the lenses of Tradition and Reason. Tradition for him would have included everything from his contemporary Pietists back to the early church fathers.

I did a quick search and discovered that Wesley believed those closest to the beginning of the church had an advantage over modern Christians:

  Can any who spend several years in those seats of learning, be excused if they do not add to that reading of the Fathers the most authentic commentators on Scripture, as being both nearest the fountain, eminently endued with that Spirit by whom all Scripture was given. It will be easily perceived, I speak chiefly of those who wrote before the council of Nicea. But who could not likewise desire to have some acquaintance with those that followed them with St. Chrysostom, Basil, Augustine, and above all, the man of a broken heart, Ephraim Syrus. [source]

Wesley's teaching on Christian Perfection was partly influenced by his reading of the fathers, and his doctrine of Prevenient Grace appears to have been derived from Chrysostom; beyond that, I'm not sure how much he drew from the ancient fathers. The primary influences on his theology would have been his contemporary Pietists as well as the writings of Jacobus Arminius.


How should/must Catholics handle, transport, and use holy water?

Your question really deals with that of all blessed objects. Holy water is a sacramental of the Catholic Church.

Holy water should be treated like any other blessed sacramental object that is at our disposal!

  As Catholics, we are accustomed to having religious objects “blessed,” which signifies the permanent sanctification and dedication of an object for some sacred purpose. I think every weekend someone asks me as well as the other priests to bless a rosary, a statue, or some other religious object. Once a religious object is blessed and dedicated for divine worship or veneration, it must be treated with reverence and must not be used in either an improper or profane way (cf. Code of Canon Law, #1171).

  What happens when the rosary or statue breaks and is irreparable? Or, when the palm dries out, and the following Palm Sunday provides us with new palm? The basic rule for the disposition of these items is to burn or to bury them.
  - Fr. Joseph Edattu, VC

Personally, I have some holy water in my home and in my car at all times. I am sure that many priests do this also, as it is never known as to when one might have a need for it. I even know of one priest that carries holy water on his person in a holy water sprinkler the size of a pen!


Jesus said I am the Way, how does the Catholic Church best explain this passage?

I find your question a little hard to understand. I think you're saying that you think the Catholic Church must have difficulty with these passages, presumably because of the apparent belief that the Church functions as a mediator. The stereotype in certain Protestant circles is that the Catholic Church displaces Christ as the mediator of salvation. This is not correct.
Let's start with paragraph 74 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a lengthy summary of the Church's teachings:

God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim 2.4): that is, of Christ Jesus (John 14.6). Christ must be proclaimed to all nations and individuals, so that this revelation may reach to the ends of the earth

So straight away, you can see it clearly stated that Jesus is the sole truth, and the sole means of salvation. This paragraph cites one of your verses, and the verse immediately before the other.
Elsewhere, we have paragraph 1698:

The first and last point of reference of this catechesis will always be Jesus Christ himself, who is "the way, and the truth, and the life."

Or paragraph 2466:

In Jesus Christ, the whole of God's truth has been made manifest. "Full of grace and truth," he came as the "light of the world," he is the Truth.

Or paragraph 2614:

Faith in the Son introduces the disciples into the knowledge of the Father, because Jesus is "the way, and the truth, and the life."

I think these clearly indicate the unique mediatorial role of Jesus.
With regard to the 1 Timothy passage, the key part of the Catechism is paragraph 618:

The cross is the unique sacrifice of Christ, the "one mediator between God and men". (1 Tim 2.5) But because in his incarnate divine person he has in some way united himself to every man, "the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery" is offered to all men. He calls his disciples to "take up [their] cross and follow (him)", for "Christ also suffered for (us), leaving (us) an example so that (we) should follow in his steps." In fact Jesus desires to associate with his redeeming sacrifice those who were to be its first beneficiaries.  This is achieved supremely in the case of his mother, who was associated more intimately than any other person in the mystery of his redemptive suffering. Apart from the cross there is no other ladder by which we may get to heaven.

This is a wonderful explanation of Catholic ecclesiology. Christians have a share in Christ's saving action, uniting their sacrifices with the one perfect sacrifice of the Cross.
It is not for a second about diminishing the unique place of Christ's sacrifice, or his unique mediating role.
Similarly, we can see this in 1544f.

Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the "one mediator between God and men." (1 Tim 2.5) The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, "priest of God Most High," as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique "high priest after the order of Melchizedek"; "holy, blameless, unstained," "by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified," that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross.
The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once for all; yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church. the same is true of the one priesthood of Christ; it is made present through the ministerial priesthood without diminishing the uniqueness of Christ's priesthood: "Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers."

The priesthood of the Church in this present age is precisely a participation in the one priesthood of Christ. The sacrifice of the Mass is precisely a participation in Christ's sacrifice on Calvary.
As you say, I think a correct interpretation of this is important for ecumenism. It is vital for the correct Catholic teaching to be understood by the Catholic faithful and by other churches, rather than the popular and misleading caricature that perverts the Gospel and sets Christians against each other.


What is the biblical basis for venial and mortal sins?

The distinction between mortal and venial sins is only very roughly that "venial sins are kind of bad and mortal sins are really bad". More accurately one could say that all sins adversely affect one's relationship to God; but venial sins, because they don't involve a complete turning away from God, "merely" damage the relationship, while mortal sins destroy it and require a new outflow of grace from God—a "reboot" of the relationship.

As far as finding a Biblical basis for this distinction: The first thing to understand is that given an arbitrary Catholic belief, there may or may not be a Biblical basis for it. In this case, however, we can find at least something to go on.

There is one quotation which the Catechism of the Catholic Church cites as underlying the belief in a distinction between mortal and venial sins:

  If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.

(1 John 5:16–17; emphasis added)

The Catechism specifically states that "the distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture, [citing the quote above] became part of the tradition of the Church." It goes no further in supplying any scriptural support. The Summa Theologica of Aquinas, however, has an extensive discussion of sin (First Part of the Second Part, Questions 73 and 74—titled "Of The Comparison Of One Sin With Another" and "Of The Subject Of Sin") in which Aquinas concludes (among other things) that there are reasons for believing that certain sins are judged less grievously than others, either because of the kind of sin or because of the circumstances. Among the quotations Aquinas gives are 1 Timothy 1:13:

  I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and an arrogant man, but I have been mercifully treated because I acted out of ignorance in my unbelief.

Aquinas also quotes John 19:11:

  Jesus answered [him], "You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above. For this reason the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin."

and interprets this (as the Church appears to have always interpreted it) as saying that Judas' sin is greater than Pilate's.

I see that my original answer to the question does not address your specific query about the Biblical basis for the belief that "the knowledge/deliberateness of one's sin impacts its effect on the relationship between the sinner and God." The Catechism addresses this question indirectly, stating that "freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary" and "every act directly willed is imputable to its author". As an instance of the deliberateness of an act playing a part in its evil, the Catechism cites 2 Samuel 12:7–15 (the story of the prophet Nathan's confrontation with David after the arranged killing of Uriah). But as far as knowledge or deliberation making an act worse, the Catechism states that

  sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest

(paragraph 1860)

but it offers no direct Scriptural support. Nor can I find anything direct in the Summa. But Aquinas, in his Catena Aurea ("The Golden Chain"), an edited collection of commentaries on the Gospels, quotes the commentaries of John Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria on Luke 12:47–48:

  That servant who knew his master’s will but did not make preparations nor act in accord with his will shall be beaten severely; and the servant who was ignorant of his master’s will but acted in a way deserving of a severe beating shall be beaten only lightly.

(New American Bible, Revised Edition)

Chrysostom's commentary, as cited by Aquinas, is

  For all things are not judged alike in all, but greater knowledge is an occasion of greater punishment.

To this Cyril of Alexandria adds

  For the man of understanding who has given up his will to baser things will shamelessly implore pardon, because he has committed an inexcusable sin, departing as it were maliciously from the will of God, but the rude or unlearned man will more reasonably ask for pardon of the avenger.

Thus it appears that the doctors of the Church have commonly interpreted knowledge and deliberation as adding fault to the sin.


What is the difference between Reformed and Presbyterian

There are Reformed Christians who are not Presbyterian (or at least wouldn't call themselves that), especially in the Dutch or Continental tradition such as the RCUS and URCNA. There are also Presbyterians that are not Reformed, such as many in the PCUSA, who would be better called "liberal". Further complicating the matter is that, as Brian Johnson pointed out, the word 'Reformation' would certainly include Luther, who would not now be called Reformed or Presbyterian.

I would define someone who is Reformed as a "covenantal Calvinist". There are Calvinists who are not Reformed (such as Calvinistic Baptists like John Piper or John MacArthur or Mark Dever or Al Mohler, Jr.) I would define a Presbyterian as one who subscribes to the presbyterian form of church government, especially the plurality of elders elected by congregations and the connectedness of the wider Church. It is representative, like the American republic.

You could argue, actually, that some of the Dutch Reformed denominations such as the RCUS and URCNA are presbyterian in their polity, and there's some truth to that, even if their names for things are a bit different. Still, the label isn't usually applied to them, because they subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity (the Canons of Dordt, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Belgic Confession)  instead of the Westminster Standards (Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Directory for Public Worship, and the Form of Church Government).

Indeed, the Westminster Standards typify what it means to be Presbyterian and Reformed.

In summary: the words are not exactly synonymous, though they are certainly related in church history.

The typical Reformed or Presbyterian, rather than getting all uptight about whether you're using the words accurately or not, would, I hope, just try to explain it to you! Labels can be helpful, but they are only labels; sometimes they are not so helpful.


Reason for rise in evangelical observance of Lent in the United States

While observance of lent is definitely on the rise; this is especially true of Denominations closely related to the Catholic and Orthodox Denominations, as is commonly known both in the Christian and non Christian societies. I can only speak for my Southern Baptist faith.

In most of our churches fasting is being more emphasized, as a strengthening factor for prayer. And that precept is based on:

  Matthew 17:20 and 21 NKJV  So Jesus said to them, "Because of your unbelief; for assuredly, I say to you, if you have faith as a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you. 21  However, this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting."

and:

  Mark 9:25 through 29 NKJV  When Jesus saw that the people came running together, He rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, "Deaf and dumb spirit, I command you, come out of him and enter him no more!" 26  Then the spirit cried out, convulsed him greatly, and came out of him. And he became as one dead, so that many said, "He is dead." 27  But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him up, and he arose. 28  And when He had come into the house, His disciples asked Him privately, "Why could we not cast it out?" 29  So He said to them, "This kind can come out by nothing but prayer and fasting."

My personal opinion is that as the World as a whole becomes more and more evil, while Christian attitude among the general public wanes, and God is increasingly being removed from Society more and more Christians are adding fasting to their prayer vigil. This is the prevalent attitude among my co-members.


According to Protestants, what is the lesson being taught by scripture when God killed so many men for looking into the Ark?

Sin really did abound when the Law was given in the old testament, and every form of disobedience or sin, as little as it can be, was dealt with strict punishment or Death.

Jesus came to fulfil all laws (Matthew 5:17-20) and destroy sin and death.
This means that we no longer live in sin but by Grace and we can walk boldly to his throne (Hebrews 4:16) without fear or guilt like Old Testament people.

The Law has been abolished and Jesus took every judgement upon Himself.


Healthy human hair can absorb 30% of its weight in water. This gal's hair weighs 25lbs when wet.

This analysis by a skeptic offers some details about average human hair. (Read the comments, too.) According to his calculations, 29 years' growth of hair (for an "average" human) could weigh that much. If Absalom was indeed unusually locked, his numbers could be even smaller.

On a side note, one human hair can support 3.5 oz, so, if the average person has 100K hairs, it wouldn't be too much for Absalom's to get tangled in a tree and hold him off the ground.


Why do we use the order "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"?

I believe one reason for the order is because of the Great Commission in Matt. 28:19, in which it is written,

19 Therefore, go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
ΙΘʹ πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος TR, 1550

Ontologically, the Son is begotten by the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but the Father is neither begotten nor proceeding.
In the creed established at the First Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D., the Lord Jesus Christ is described as “he who was begotten of the Father” (τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα), while the Holy Spirit is described as “the one who proceeds from the Father” (τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον).
Furthermore, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (cp. John 15:26). Thus, the Father would be listed first, the Son would be listed second, followed by the Holy Spirit.


Surnames didn't exist in Jesus' day.

People typically referred to somebody by referring to their parentage.  So Jesus would have most likely been referred to as "Jesus son of Joseph" or "Jesus son of Mary", much in the same way as Peter was referred to as "Simon, son of Jonah" in Matthew 16:17 and "James son of Zebedee" in Mark 3:17.

While nobody is entirely sure when the concept of the proper surname began, one guess, at least for English speakers, is around the 13th or 14th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_name#Modern_era


This question is about confusion in reading the creation account in Genesis 1:1-2:4a, and the confusion arises because you are trying to see the creation story as a literal account. The existence of daylight and evening before the creation of the sun and moon is only the most superficial issue in understanding the creation story. Contrary to science, a literal reading would also mean that the earth was a cold and lonely rock floating through the emptiness of space until the sun, moon and stars were created on day three. Yet there was liquid water at the beginning of creation, and plants grew before the sun was there to warm them.

Faced by the apparent contradictions in Genesis, it is more reasonable to see the creation account as allegorical, just as many early Church Fathers did. For example, Origen (De Principiis, Book 4.1.16):

  ... as even these do not contain throughout a pure history of events, which are interwoven indeed according to the letter, but which did not actually occur. Nor even do the law and the commandments wholly convey what is agreeable to reason. For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? and again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that any one doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally...


How do Trinitarians interpret John 3:35?

(As always a draft).

The key word that I will try to portray is a model. But first some definitions when dealing with the Trinity. It is necessary to point out the difference between the essential Trinity and the economical Trinity. The essential Trinity is a matter of the essence of the Triune God for His eternal existence; the economical Trinity is a matter of God's arrangement for His operation in His move to accomplish His eternal purpose.

The essential or the ontological Trinity refers to the essence of the Triune God for His existence. In His essence, God is one, the one unique God (Isa. 45:18b; 1 Cor. 8:6a). In the essential Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit coexist and coinhere at the same time and in the same way with no succession. There is no first, second, or third.

Essentially, God is one, but economically He is three—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit (Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14). In God's plan, God's administrative arrangement, God's economy, the Father takes the first step, the Son takes the second step, and the Spirit takes the third step. The Father purposed (Eph. 1:4-6), the Son accomplished (vv. 7-12), and the Spirit applies what the Son accomplished according to the Father's purpose (vv. 13-14). This is a successive procedure or a succession in God's
economy to carry out His eternal purpose.

Karl Rahner, in his book, The Trinity, postulates:

  There is only one outward activity of God, exerted and
  possessed as one and the same by Father, Son, and Spirit,
  according to the peculiar way in which each of them possesses the Godhead…

  The activity which is common to all three persons and
  appropriated only to one is (as with the divine essence)
  possessed by each of the three persons in his own proper
  way. The threefold way of subsisting of this activity (considered principiative) is as intrinsic and necessary for its
  existence as it is necessary and essential for the divine
  essence to subsist as threefold.

God's eternal purpose is to work Himself into us and make us the same as His Firstborn Son. The Firstborn Son of God is the standard model for God's economy. This standard model has both divinity and humanity. Originally, He was the Only Begotten Son of God. As the Only Begotten Son of God, He was the embodiment of God, for all that is in the Godhead was embodied in Him (Col. 2:9). He was also the expression of God (Heb. 1:3). As the embodiment and expression of God, He became incarnated, bringing divinity into humanity and joining humanity to divinity. But before the incarnation, divinity had never been joined to humanity. Since the day of His incarnation, there was in this universe a wonderful Person who was both human and divine.

Your question touches on the fundamental question of why there is a biblical revelation of the economic Trinity.

With the above background, we can see the Triune God's purpose is to work Himself into us and make us the same as His Firstborn Son (Rom. 8:29). The Firstborn Son of God is the standard model for God's economy. This standard model has both divinity and humanity.

Originally, He was the Only Begotten Son of God. As the Only Begotten Son of God, He was the embodiment of God, for all that is in the Godhead was embodied in Him (Col. 2:9). He was also the expression of God (Heb. 1:3). As the embodiment and expression of God, He became incarnated, bringing divinity into humanity and joining humanity to divinity. But before the incarnation, divinity had never been joined to humanity. Since the day of His incarnation, there was in this universe a wonderful Person who was both human and divine.

As the Only Begotten Son, Christ was already in glory. That did not require glorification. However, once He was on earth in His humanity, He needed to be glorified (John 17:1, Luke 24:26). Since He was already in glory, why did He still need to be glorified? Although He was in glory as the Only Begotten Son, since He had put on humanity, the human part of His being had to be glorified, to be processed into glory. In His resurrection Christ entered into His glorification (Luke 24:26).

Without knowing Christ, in His humanity, sets before his disciples, a model of One who partakes of the Father's divine nature, then Peter would never wrote that we will be "partakers of the divine nature". (2 Pet. 1:4).

In His divinity as the only begotten Son of God, Christ had authority over all. However, in His humanity as the Son of Man to be the King of the heavenly kingdom, all authority in heaven and on earth was given to Him after His resurrection. Christ lived as One who is under authority (seen in His contact with the centurion's sick daughter - the centurion who lived under authority saw and recognize Christ as One who does also). This became a model for the church life as the kingdom of God for the believers' exercise and equipping in the divine authority—Rom. 14:17; Rev. 1:9; Acts 14:22; Matt. 18:18.

As God, before His incarnation, the Lord Jesus was the Lord already. But after His incarnation, this very God became a man. God was the Lord, but man was not. Yet the Lord became a man, and this man was crucified on the cross, buried, and resurrected from the dead. It was at this time that the man Jesus became the Lord. For God to be the Lord, there is no need of any kind of inauguration. But for a small man from a lowly town in a despised country to be made the Lord requires a real inauguration. He was not made the Lord as God. As God He was Lord already. Now this man from Nazareth was inaugurated to be the Lord of all.

Peter, preaching on the day of Pentecost, said, "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." Peter not only preached Christ as the Savior, but also as Lord of all. He never realized that Jesus was so great before the ascension. By the ascension he realized that the very man Jesus, whom he had been following for three and a half years, had been inaugurated to be Lord of all!

In other words, the extent to which we understand and appreciate the economy of the mystery is the extent to which we will understand, appreciate, and experience. Our experience of the economic Trinity reveals the eternal will, the intentionality of the immanent Trinity, that we can partake further and deeper of the organic dispensing that He immanently is and through which He economically flows.

The Triune God is revealed economically in the New Testament to implicitly and subjectively communicate
the axiomatic principles of His being, thereby convincing
the believers of the reality of the possibility of fellowship,
the communion of communication, within the sphere
of the mingled, organic identity of God and man, first in
the person and work of the incarnated Son and then in
the enlarged sphere of the many sons of God.
because, axiomatically, He is both organic and He exists
as an eternal dispensing (Revelation 22:1).


What is the Baptist response to 1 Corinthians 7:14 if the children are believers but the parents are not?

What does not appear to be taken into your question is the age of consent. That is a strict belief in the Baptist Denomination. While a child is under the age of consent they are covered by the Grace of God (or in other words they are not judged by their not accepting Jesus as their Savior. They are accepted as were Adam and Eve prior to the fall).

Later when they are of age it is taken into consideration whether or not their parents of someone else have presented the path of Salvation with them.

  Matthew 18:10 KJV Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

Here we see that prior to the Crucifixion these little ones received special consideration in the face of God.

  Matthew 24:14 KJV  And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Here we see that judgment of the World will not come until all of the World has seen the opportunity to accept Christ as their Savior. This requirement is that those capable of making that decision must elect Salvation. We also believe that God is love and would not condemn anyone who for any reason was incapable of making that decision, to the outer darkness (or what is better known as the lake of fire).

There is of course much more included in the Baptist Denomination about eligibility for Salvation than this, but I hope this gives you the basic understanding of the Baptist concept of your question.