Do Cessationists believe that there are no modern miracles?

I suspect the nit-picky answer would be "Some do, some don't", but in general, cessationists believe miracles still happen.

I doubt there is a common universally accepted answer to "why" cessationists don't believe in certain miracles.  I'd stay away from "why" because it's not part of the question, but the answer feels too short and incomplete without it.

The best I can offer is the reason why some cessationists believe certain miracles were for the early Church only, and as a result, which miracles we believe have ceased, and a few examples of those we believe in.  And because it's easy, and our Church (Fundamentalist independent Baptist) is cessationist, I'll use teachings from our own pulpit.

The strongest Scriptural evidence for Cessationism, in our understanding, comes from 1 Corinthians 13  (NIV) (

  1 If I speak in the tonguesa of men and of angels, but have not love,
  I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift
  of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I
  have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
  3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the
  flames,b but have not love, I gain nothing.

  4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast,
  it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not
  easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight
  in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always
  trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

  8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease;
  where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is
  knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in
  part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When
  I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I
  reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind
  me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall
  see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as
  I am fully known.

  13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest
  of these is love.

In short, the teaching goes like this (and I'm probably butchering it by keeping it short.)

Verses 1-7 are not speaking specifically of the cessation of gifts, but instead show that the gifts are imperfect.  The idea that they are not perfect gifts comes into play later in the teaching...

Verses 8 and 9 tell us that certain gifts will pass away.

Verse 10 tells us that when they will pass away - when perfection comes.

Verses 11-12 expound on the why they will pass away, and add meaning to the when - they will pass away because at some point they will be no longer needed.  For this next point, it's important to note that the word used for "perfection" and "perfect" can also be translated as "mature".

While I realize this can be taken any number of ways, the general understanding in our Church is that this is speaking of the canonization of Scripture and the full understanding of God's revealed Word.  In the New Testament Church, they didn't have the full Word of God.  it was still being written.

Also, the signs and miracles described were always demonstrations of authority.  They accompanied the Apostles as signs to show that they had the power of God, and therefore authority to instruct in His name.  This is consistent with Christ's ministry, as His miracles weren't just for show - they were to establish His power and Authority.  Once the Church was established, there would be no more need for these showy miracles.

As to which miracles would cease, we include the ones listed, but also, in general, tend to view Faith Healers as frauds, and reject "showy" miracles  due to the implications of verse 1.  The way most people present these miracles today tends to bring glory and honor to themselves, not to God.

However...

We do believe in God's healing power.  We believe He can miraculously heal the sick.  We have a little girl in our Church, born with half a heart, and given a 10% chance to live that is alive and well in spite of incredible odds, and we attribute this to the power of God, responding to the fervent prayers of His people.

We believe in His ability to guide us through the Holy Spirit.  We actually believe He can perform any miracle.  In fact, we do believe He could and will again use prophecy and tongues.  The two witnesses in Revelation - when they speak and everyone hears them in their own language, and prophesy, that will occur, and will be of God.

On that note, I'll throw in one other reason that we don't believe in speaking in tongues in particular.  In the New Testament, the example is given in Acts 2:6

  When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment,
  because each one heard them speaking in his own language.

This has nothing to do with the unintelligible babbling that many call "speaking in tongues" today.

Again, this is the teaching of a particular set of believers.  It's not universal.  Views vary.


If God is unable to change, why did he (after the Flood)?

When we talk about God's attributes we can't assume He has the same characteristics as the human beings, because we have mortal bodies, limited languages and understanding and a sinful nature, while God is infinite, has a 100% sinless nature, infinite understanding, etc. So, when the bible talks about God's changes of mind, is probably because the author (Moses, for instance) couldn't express in a better way what he was receiving from God, using a limited language as the Hebrew.

It is an interesting question anyway.


What is the biblical basis for the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers?

The imputation of Christ's righteousness is typically defended in light of arguments for the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement and/or the doctrine of salvation by faith alone.  In this context, perhaps the three strongest and most commonly cited passages used to extend to this particular aspect of justification are Romans 5 (particularly verse 19), 2 Corinthians 5:21, and Philippians 3:8–9.  We'll look at each of those in some detail, and then following that briefly mention a few other relevant verses.
Romans 5
John Murray, in Redemption: Accomplished and Applied, argues that justification of believers entails two things – first, God makes or constitutes Christians righteous, and then he declares them righteous.  The imputation of Christ's righteousness is a key aspect of the first of these actions, and Romans 5, particularly verse 19, is seen as evidence for this:

For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. (ESV)

That is, the obedience of the "one man," Jesus, makes (or constitutes) many people righteous.  Murray continues:

In Romans 5:17 [Paul] speaks of those who receive "the free gift of righteousness" and in verse 18 of the judgment which passes upon men unto justification of life "through one righteousness." It is clear that the justification which is unto eternal life Paul regards as consisting in our being constituted righteous, in our receiving righteousness as a free gift, and this righteousness is none other than the righteousness of the one man Jesus Christ; it is the righteousness of his obedience.

Romans 5 is particularly relevant, Charles Hodge says, because in it Paul draws a parallel between Adam's sin ("the one man's disobedience") with Christ's righteousness. Thus, he says, the scriptural basis for the imputation of Adam's sin to mankind can also be employed to defend the imputation of Christ's righteousness.
2 Corinthians 5:21
Another commonly cited passage is 2 Corinthians 5:21:

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (ESV)

Like Romans 5:19, some might argue that "righteousness of God" in this verse refers to increasingly moral behavior in the believer.  But Hodge argues that such an interpretation causes the analogy to break down:

As Christ was not made sin in a moral sense; so we are not (in justification) made righteousness in a moral sense. As He was made sin in that He “bare our sins;” so we are made righteousness in that we bear his righteousness. Our sins were the judicial ground of his humiliation under the law and of all his sufferings; so his righteousness is the judicial ground of our justification. In other words, as our sins were imputed to Him; so his righteousness is imputed to us. If imputation of sin did not render Him morally corrupt; the imputation of righteousness does not make us holy or morally good.

Philippians 3:8–9

For [Christ's] sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith (ESV)

Wayne Grudem and Hodge both point to this passage as well, and Hodge explains why it should be interpreted as teaching the imputation of Christ's righteousness:

[Paul] “suffered the loss of all things,” that he might be found in Christ, not having his “own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.” Here again one’s own righteousness is contrasted with that which is of God. The word must have the same sense in both members. What Paul trusted to, was not his own righteousness, not his own subjective goodness, but a righteousness provided for him and received by faith.

Other passages
Charles Hodge and others mention 1 Corinthians 1:30, saying that it indicates a distinction between receipt of righteousness via imputation and the process of sanctification.  John Murray cites Isaiah 61:10 ("he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness") and Isaiah 54:17 ("their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord") as evidence for God being the source of the Christian's righteousness. And Wayne Grudem argues that Christ's desire to "fulfill all righteousness" in Matthew 3:15 is related as well:

[Jesus] had to "fulfill all righteousness" for our sake; that is, for the sake of the people whom he was representing as their head.  Unless he had done this for us, we would have no record of obedience by which we would merit God's favor and merit eternal life with him.  Moreover, if Jesus had needed only sinlessness and not also a life of perfect obedience, he could have died for us when he was a young child rather than when he was thirty-three years old.

And in the debates over this doctrine in the Westminster assembly, J. V. Fesko relates how proponents also pointed to passages connecting life with obedience to the commandments, such as Leviticus 18:5 and Matthew 19:17 ("If you would enter life, keep the commandments," ESV).  Without the imputation of Christ's obedience of the commandments to them, the argument goes, Christians could not enter life.
Summary
Proponents of the imputation of the Christ's righteousness typically build on their arguments for penal substitutionary atonement and salvation by faith alone and contend that several passages, particularly Romans 5:19, 2 Corinthians 5:21, and Philippians 3:8–9, support the doctrine.  To them, the discussion of the righteousness of God/Jesus and its application to Christians in these verses refers to the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers as a basis for and an aspect of their justification.

References

Fesko, J. V., Theology of the Westminster Standards, Chapter 7
Grudem, Systematic Theology, 570–71.
Hodge, Systematic Theology
Murray, Redemption: Accomplished and Applied, Chapter 5

See also Robert L. Reymond, Systematic Theology, Chapter 19.


What does the phrase "God of God" means in the Nicene Creed?

The phrase “God of God” means that a person came from a person ( like an offspring from a parent) and that they are of same nature. It is analogous to the phrase “Human of Human,” That is, a human offspring of a human parent.

  To beget is to produce someone to have one’s nature.

Seth is begotten of Adam. Seth and Adam are of same nature.
A human person from a human person. Therefore, Human of Human.

The Son is begotten from the Father. The Father and the Son are of same nature.A divine person from a divine person. Therefore, God of God

The phrase “God of God” originated from John 1:1.In this text, it is said that the self-knowledge and self-expression of God is “God.” That is, “the thought ( of God about himself) was God” or simply put, “the Word was God” as majority of English translation reads.Θεος in John 1:1c as well as in John 1:18a is anarthrous yet it is translated into English as a proper noun: “God.”

  John 1:1 (ESV)

  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
  God, and the Word was God.

The disciple John didn't write John 1:1 in vacuum. He had Jewish ideas which helped him out to write it. In his day, the concept of the λόγος was very well known because of first century Hellenistic Judaism in the Second Temple Judaism. This is evident in the Septuagint as well as in religious Jewish writings in the inter-testamental period. Due to its popularity, John took advantage of this concept to spread the Good News. Genesis 1:1 (LXX), Psalm 45:1 (LXX), 33:6 (LXX) and Proverbs 8:22-30 (LXX) are the foundational biblical basis of John 1:1-3.

The Greek word λόγος has many meanings like speech, word, message, plan and reason. It depends on the context of the text as to what meaning it takes.

Thought and word. These definitions are what John had in his mind when he wrote John 1:1. Both definitions entails 'reasoning' ( thinking from the mind).In fact, it can simply be defined as “expression from the inside out.”

In John 1:1, the λόγος is the self-thought of God. The reason is that God alone existed before creation and is the only one present in the beginning of creation ( John 1:1-3). John 1:1 underscores God in relation to Himself. God knows in his mind that he is 'God.' KAITHEOSENOLOGOS( and God was the thought). Before anything else come into existence, only God exists and yet he was not alone for he has with Him his λόγος (self-thought, self-knowledge, self-expression).

Thinker = God

Thought = God

This is clearly the “God of God” in the Nicene Creed. It is a faithful preservation of the biblical truth in a creedal statement.

The self-knowledge of God is towards God [himself] and hence, self-expression (i.e. The Word).The Word or self-expression (from self-knowledge) is "God." God does not think that he is partly God.Rather, God thinks that he is 'God' in all his fullness.

  Proverbs 23:7 (KJV)

  For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he.

According to John 1:1, the Word of God is “God of God.”

References

http://biblehub.com/john/1-1.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2821.htm

http://www.tektonics.org/guest/psnicea.html


How is the idea of the ritual purity implemented in the Catholic Church?

Although the Old Law's ceremonial precepts are no longer in force since Christ's passion, ritual purity is a prominent aspect of priestly celibacy.

Essence of priestly celibacy

Celibacy = unmarried, although in this context it can also mean perpetual continence, as priests can be married (and unmarried priests have never been permitted to marry).

Besides the practical reasons (which can apply to non-priests, too) of

being freed from the solicitudes of married life, not being so tied to worldly matters, or having a heart divided between wife/husband/family and pastoral duties (1 Cor. 7:33-34*);

*"But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband."

or

the spiritual reasons of being able to attain a higher degree of charity/holiness/perfection (Trent sess. 24 can. 10; Mt. 19:29*; Apoc. 14:4†) by following the evangelical counsels and not just the precepts;

*"And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting."
†"These are they who were not defiled with women: for they are virgins. These follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were purchased from among men, the firstfruits to God and to the Lamb"

ritual purity is probably the strongest argument for priestly celibacy because it pertains to the essence of the priesthood, which is to offer sacrifice (sacerdos = "giver of the sacred"; sacer = "sacred", dare = "to give").

Ritual purity

On ritual purity in the Old and New Testaments, see Priestly Celibacy: Theological Foundations by Fr. Gary Selin, pp. 139-144.

Ch. 3 goes over the threefold dimension of priestly celibacy: christological (conforming to Christ), ecclesiastical (under which he classes ritual purity), and eschatological (because celibacy points to the life to come, where "they shall neither marry nor be married", Mt. 22:30).

Separation/distinction honors the sacred.

Magisterial Teaching

Pope Pius XII, 1954 encyclical Sacra Virginitas §23:

  Consider again that sacred ministers do not renounce marriage solely on account of their apostolic ministry, but also by reason of their service at the altar. For, if even the priests of the Old Testament had to abstain from the use of marriage during the period of their service in the Temple, for fear of being declared impure by the Law just as other men,42 is it not much more fitting that the ministers of Jesus Christ, who offer every day the Eucharistic Sacrifice, possess perfect chastity? St. Peter Damian, exhorting priests to perfect continence, asks: "If Our Redeemer so loved the flower of unimpaired modesty that not only was He born from a virginal womb, but was also cared for by a virgin nurse even when He was still an infant crying in the cradle, by whom, I ask, does He wish His body to be handled now that He reigns, limitless, in heaven?"43

  42. Cf. Lev. XV, 16-17 XXII, 4; I Sam. XXI, 5-7; cf. S. Siric. Papa, Ep. ad Himer. 7; PL LVI, 558-559.43. S. Petrus Dam., De coelibatu sacerdotum, c. 3; PL CXLV, 384 [English transl.].

Old Testament

Ibid. ch. 3 §"Ritual Purity in the Judaic Law", pp. 139-141:

  tahor (clean, pure) or tame (unclean, impure). […] Separation  is the concrete, visible expression of the exalted holiness of God, and the ritual purity laws maintained this protective system of separation. […] To come into contact with blood was to come into contact with the divine and thus one contracted a ritual impurity, “a holy contamination,” rather than a moral impurity. […] In certain rabbinic texts, the liturgical objects themselves were understood to “pollute,” for example, the handling of a sacred scroll would soil the hands of the rabbi, and he was required to wash his hands after reading it. [fn. 103: "[…] Even today, the liturgical vessels used at Mass are said to be purified when elements of the sacred species are removed."]

New Testament

Ibid. ch. 3 §"Ritual Purity in the Patristic Tradition" p. 144 quotes Ambrosiaster's Questiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti, 127, in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 50, 415:

  Compared to the stars, the light of a lamp is but fog; while compared to the sun, the stars are obscure; and compared to the radiance of God, the sun is but night. Thus are the things which, in relationship to us, are licit and pure, and are as if illicit and impure with respect to the dignity of God; indeed, no matter how good they are, they are not appropriate to the person of God.

This is the same reason for why women and other are sacred vessels are veiled in church.

Abstaining from conjugal relations

before sacrificing

So as not to confuse two different sacreds, similar reasons are given for abstaining from conjugal relations before offering sacrifice.

1 Samuel 21:2-6:

  And David said to Achimelech, the priest: The king hath commanded me a business, and said: Let no man know the thing for which thou art sent by me, and what manner of commands I have given thee: and I have appointed my servants to such and such a place. Now therefore if thou have any thing at hand, though it were but five loaves, give me, or whatsoever thou canst find. And the priest answered David, saying: I have no common bread at hand, but only holy bread [for sacrifice], if the young men be clean, especially from women? And David answered the priest, and said to him: Truly, as to what concerneth women, we have refrained ourselves from yesterday and the day before, when we came out, and the vessels of the young men were holy. Now this way is defiled, but it shall also be sanctified this day in the vessels. The priest therefore gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there, but only the loaves of proposition, which had been taken away from before the face of the Lord, that hot loaves might be set up.

Daniel G. Van Slyke, “Abstinence from Conjugal Relations Before Reception of the Body of Christ: A Brief History,” Antiphon 20, no. 2 (2016): 151–72.:

  This passage indicates two situations in which men and presumably their wives abstained from sexual relations during David's time. First, David's soldiers abstained in order to be consecrated at arms or prepared for battle. Second, the priests abstained when serving before the Lord in the Tabernacle and partaking of the holy shew-bread. On this exceptional instance in which non-priests partook of the holy bread, those non-priests could do so only upon affirming that they had abstained from sexual relations.

before receiving Holy Communion

Innocent XI's Cum ad aures (February 12, 1679) on frequent communion (DZ 1147):

  In the case of married persons, however, let them seriously consider this, since the blessed Apostle does not wish them to "defraud one another, except perhaps by consent for a time, that they may give themselves to prayer" [cf. 1 Cor. 7:5], let them advise these seriously that they should give themselves more to continence, because of reverence for the most holy Eucharist, and that they should come together for communion in the heavenly banquet with a purer mind.

  In coniugatis autem hoc amplius animadvertant, cum beatus Apostolus nolit eos ‘invicem fraudari, nisi forte ex consensu ad tempus, ut vacent orationi’ (cf. 1 cor 7, 5), eos serio admoneant, tanto magis ob sacratissimae Eucharistiae reverentiam continentiae vacandum purioreque mente ad caelestium epularum communionem esse conveniendum.

(Pope St. Pius X cited (but did not quote) this in his Sacra Tridentina on daily Communion.)

source: this answer to "Is celibacy essential to the Catholic priesthood?"


I think we need to be careful with our terms here.

It is good to believe the truth, including a belief in God, and a belief in His ability to miraculously impact the physical realm.
It is not good to believe lies.  You were not made for the purpose of believing lies, and it can actually be destructive to you physically (mentally).  I think what Psychologists are observing is the destructive effects of believing what is not true, whether that be "I am a gorilla", or "I am going to be a gorilla tomorrow" (an "unrealistic expectation").

So in that sense, it is not good to believe in the "unrealistic."  But it is not fair to equate the "supernatural" with the "unrealistic" or "impossible", as if all that which were possible must exist in the natural (physical) realm.

To the extent that the supernatural realm is "real", it would be best to believe in it.  To reject the God who really exists would be extremely unhealthy!

Bottom line: Christianity is about truth, not blind faith in unrealistic fantasies.

  “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” -Jesus (John 8:31-32)


Does water baptism or a subconscious intention to be baptized with water by a human being necessarily and logically follows one's spiritual salvation?

  Romans 6:3-4  Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into
  Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?  Therefore we are buried
  with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from
  the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in
  newness of life.

Baptism can be a difficult subject to address. The first problem is that there is an invisible reality of being immersed (baptized) into Christ when we believe in him and receive new and eternal life. This merger with Christ is also called baptism.

The public demonstration of our identification with the death burial and resurrection of Jesus is a reflection of a desire in the heart to proclaim publicly our new life. It would be expected that there would be variance in the intensity of these feelings based on the suddenness of conversion, personality of the person experiencing the conversion, and circumstances such as the requirements of a specific church. In the early church it was not uncommon for new Christians to wait until Easter to be baptized to further emphasize their identification with the death burial and resurrection of Jesus.

One other facet of Baptism is that when Jesus gave the great commission to the disciples, Baptism was part of their mandate.

  Mark 16:15-18  And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and
  preach the gospel to every creature.   He that believeth and is
  baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
  And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they
  cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;   They shall take
  up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt
  them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Some feel that the supernatural elements described of “all” believers make these verses applicable to the immanently anticipated kingdom restoration. This view is supported by the statement of Paul that even though he did baptize some people, that was not what the Lord sent him to do;

  1 Corinthians 1:17  For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach
  the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should
  be made of none effect.

There are some churches that make public baptism a significant part of Christian life and there are others that are not that concerned about it. All should agree that the inward “baptism” into new life in Christ is essential to be a Christian.

For the outward actions we may wish to consider Paul;

  Romans 14:5  One man esteemeth one day above another: another
  esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own
  mind.


On the validity of the anticipated absolution in absence of the related confession

Two questions seem to be asked:

1) When can absolution be anticipated to actual confession?, and

2) What happens if the "postponed" confession does not come to pass?

In regards to when our sins are forgiven in anticipation to confession, The Church teaches that this should happen only in cases of physical or moral impossibility (CCC 1484, in part):

  "Individual, integral confession and absolution remain the only ordinary way for the faithful to reconcile themselves with God and the Church, unless physical or moral impossibility excuses from this kind of confession."

When absolution of one's sins is absolutely needed --- dangerous circumstances that could lead to death --- and access to a priest for confession is a physical or moral impossibility, The Church advises to make a perfect act of contrition.  As noted in other answers to this question (CCC 1451-1452):

  Among the penitent's acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is "sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again."

  When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called "perfect" (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible.

So, what happens if the anticipated confession does not come to pass?

Well, a close examination of CCC 1452 reveals that, as long as we have made a perfect act of contrition: a) venial sins are forgiven, regardless of whether we confess later or not; b) mortal sins are forgiven provided that, in addition, we make a "firm resolution" to go to confession as soon as possible.  Note that only a "firm resolution" to confess as soon as possible is needed, and not necessarily the actualization of such a resolution --- this covers the cases where we die before finding a priest!  Of course God knows whether our firm resolution is sincere or not, and he can act accordingly.

As for imperfect contrition: well, in that case we are out of luck if we don't have access to confession.  The only ordinary way that The Church knows how to deal with that is through confession --- though God may still in act in extraordinary ways which we do not know --- (CCC 1453):

  The contrition called "imperfect" (or "attrition") is also a gift of God, a prompting of the Holy Spirit. It is born of the consideration of sin's ugliness or the fear of eternal damnation and the other penalties threatening the sinner (contrition of fear). Such a stirring of conscience can initiate an interior process which, under the prompting of grace, will be brought to completion by sacramental absolution. By itself however, imperfect contrition cannot obtain the forgiveness of grave sins, but it disposes one to obtain forgiveness in the sacrament of Penance.


Biblical support for why something is a sin?

It's like when your kid asks questions.

Kid: "Why do you work?"
Me: "To earn money."
Kid: "Why do you want to earn money?"
Me: "So that I can support you and mommy."
Kid: "Why do you want to support me and mommy?"
Me: "Because I love you and mommy."
Kid: "Why do you love me and mommy?"
Me: "I love you and mommy because Jesus told me to love you and mommy."
Kid: "Why did Jesus tell you to do that?"
Me: "Because he loved us first."
Kid: "Why does he love you?"
Me: "Ummm....."

Ultimately, every question we ask about anything in scripture will ultimately come down to an "Ummm..." at the end of it.  In other words, at some point, we have to accept that some things are true and good, simply because they're true and good, and are based in the character of who God is.  Why he is who he is will always be a matter of "Ummm...".

The issue comes, of course, when a person's own instincts about right and wrong don't agree with the scriptural, Biblical concept of right and wrong.  Of course, this comes down to the person's understanding of who God is.  Our own depravity is our handicap when it comes to determining right from wrong, and also our handicap when it comes to having the humility under God to admit that we might be wrong.  Combine that with our educated society, and you have a culture of people who won't believe anything they can't understand.

Mark Driscoll puts it this way: Our education has surpassed our intelligence.

The problem with your first question, is that any explicit justification that would be given anyways would ultimately come back to the fact that God gave us the command, which would ultimately be based in his character.  Love is defined by God (because God is love), not by us, and the great problem in dealing with explanations of sin, is that these conversations usually have two people who start with different presuppositions.  Given that, we can't properly defend a command, without both parties understanding the nature of God.  Without God as anchor, we're all lost at sea.

So what's the answer, if there's a command without scriptural justification?  Don't try to defend the command, try to change the presupposition.

The only way to change presuppositions is to point people towards Jesus.  Those who don't believe in Jesus have nothing to gain from "cleaning up their act".  They're still fallen, and without Christ.  The best they could hope for is a nice, sanitized, relatively nonviolent life that would still end with their soul in hell.  Pointing the unbeliever to Jesus, and explaining his unconditional love, and his death on the cross is the best way to bring about a realization of what is right and what is wrong in that person's life.  Just as a child doesn't want to disappoint a good father, one who is in Christ will ultimately grow to grieve disappointing his heavenly father.

In short:

Every commandment ultimately, when put up to a depraved mind demanding answers about why, will ultimately fail when presented with any justification regarding any sin.  It's only when we stop demanding justifications that we begin to accept the command as right.  Some people stop when the justification is "so that it doesn't offend someone else", and some people stop when the justification is "so that it doesn't offend God."
I don't know of any scripture that talks about whether God explains his commands or not.  Some he does, some he doesn't.  Sometimes, the best explanation is "For I am your God."
The right course of action is to not defend the command, but to present Christ, and allow the introduction of the Holy Spirit into a person's life defend the command for you.  Those who do not have the Holy Spirit don't need to obey a command, they need Christ.  If the person's refusal to acknowledge the command as right is preventing the person from admitting their own need for Christ, switch to a different command, then use the fact that it is broken to point them again to Christ.  On the other hand, for those who are believers, you should hopefully be able to point towards the Bible, and hopefully that will be enough.

On a practical note, I once knew a guy who believed that some of the Bible was true, and some of it wasn't.  I told him to get a magic marker, find 2 Timothy 3:16, and mark it out, then proceed through reading the Bible, marking out all the parts he disagreed with.

He gave up pretty quickly.  The Bible is meant to be accepted as a whole, and not in part.


I found this paper "Cajetan and Luther: Revisiting the Roots of a Schism" written by Dr. Adam Cooper, a Lutheran pastor turned Catholic, who has a repository of his academic papers here.  The paper delves into how Cajetan became very alarmed as he detected (with prophetic insight) the far reaching consequences of Luther's view during the October 1518 conversations.  The Extravagante Papal teaching mentioned by the pamphlet is covered in this academic paper along with technical discussion of the treasury of merits.  The purpose of the paper is precisely what you are looking for.

From the Introduction:

  Like most non-specialist students of the Reformation, my access to the
  exchange between Martin Luther and Cardinal Cajetan in the city of
  Augsburg, October 1518, has by and large been limited to Luther’s own
  account of the event, or else to secondary sources understandably
  writing with a Protestant bias. Recently, however, I made it my
  business to read Cajetan himself, who, like other Catholic
  polemicists, has suffered virtual demonisation in Lutheran folklore.
  This essay is an attempt to restore some balance to the popular
  picture of Luther and Cajetan’s exchange in Augsburg by way of an
  examination of the latter’s own theology as manifest in the documents
  he wrote at that occasion.
  My aim is to show that Cajetan’s negative impression of Luther’s
  theology – taken on its own terms - was not as illfounded, irrational,
  or unbiblical as is often implied. On the contrary, it will become
  clear that in Cajetan’s estimation, Luther’s theology represented a
  radical shift away from mainstream Christian doctrine, and a
  capitulation to the subjectivist, humanistic tendencies of the
  nominalist school of philosophy.

  In reckoning as much, Cajetan may well have been mistaken. I shall
  leave that judgement to the reader. Yet it is only by grasping the
  Cardinal’s deep-seated intuition that Luther’s protestations, embodied
  in the Ninety-five Theses, threatened the very foundations of a truly
  efficacious sacramental theology, that we can, to my mind, make sense
  of the ecclesial breach that followed and recognise, in humility, its
  fundamentally tragic character. I therefore offer this study as one
  small contribution to an ongoing conversation in the hope that, in due
  course, such a breach may one day be righted and the Christ-like
  prayer of the Roman Pontiff for ‘full and visible communion’ answered.

As for the full text of Luther's letter to George Spalatin mentioned in the pamphlet, this PDF from archive.org contains scholarly footnoted collection of Luther's letter (volume 48) covering those years (warning: large file, 26.2MB, high-DPI book scan, OCR-ed).


Parallel German (Martin Luther's 1534) and English Bible in PDF format?

If you are looking for a free digital (non-pdf) solution, The Sword Project allows for multiple Bibles to be viewed at once, and does include as one of its available Bibles:

  German Luther Übersetzung von 1545 (moderne Rechtschreibung)

Unfortunately, depending on your needs, this version includes modern German spellings, and appears to be an edition a few years later.  Additionally, while it is not in PDF, it should be accessible on a variety of platforms.


Multiple wives and concubines | male and female "original" intent

I think the Pharisees understood quite well that their ancestors were not perfect. The fact that they did X does not make X right. The example of David that you bring up is a case in point: He was guilty of adultery and murder. The Bible is unusual in that it holds someone up as a hero at the same time that it freely recounts his character flaws -- sometimes big ones like this. I don't think the Pharisees supposed that murder was okay because David did it, or would have found this in any way confusing.

(Ever notice that most history books and biographies tend to present their heroes as 100% good? Their character flaws are often whitewashed: he was forced into it by circumstances; this was accepted practice at the time, etc. There are exceptions, of course, but I see this a lot. But the Bible goes to rather the opposite extreme, being quite emphatic about its heroes’ sins.)

That said, the Old Testament does seem to at least tolerate polygamy. There are some clues in the OT that indicate that God intended marriage to be monogamous. For example, Gen 2:24 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." Note "wife", singular, not "a man shall be joined to his wives". Etc. But these are subtle enough that one could debate them, and I don't know of anything in the OT that clearly, explicitly mandates monogamy. There are plenty of places where a person's sin is called out, and I don't know of anyplace where polygamy is called out as a sin. I'm interested if anybody else here can point to such a verse.

As Flimzy notes, Jesus was condemning divorce, not polygamy. That doesn't mean polygamy is okay, of course, I'm sure there are lots of sins that the Bible does not record Jesus discussing. But that's not what he was talking about here.


In which one of the four Gospels is the Old Testament quoted the most?

The answer to this question depends somewhat on the definition of "quoted," but we can draw some high-level conclusions.  BlueLetterBible.org provides a list of New Testament citations and allusions to the Old Testament, and an examination of that dataset reveals the following:

Book       Direct/indirect citations    Total citations & allusions
Matthew            44 (49)                       77 (102)
Mark               18 (23)                       30 (39)
Luke               20 (24)                       52 (68)
John               14 (17)                       31 (49)

The first number is the number of unique NT references to OT passage(s).  The number in parentheses is the total number of cited OT passages (since a single NT verse can cite more than one OT verse).  No matter how you count it, however, Matthew is the clear winner, given BLB's definition of citations and allusions.

Matthew's dominance is also confirmed by commentators.  Craig L. Blomberg, writing in the Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, writes:

  The Hebrew Scriptures [...] permeate Matthew's Gospel.  Approximately fifty-five references prove close enough in wording for commentators typically to label them "quotations," compared to about sixty-five for the other three canonical Gospels put together. [...] In addition to explicit quotations, numerous allusions and echoes of Scripture may be discerned in every part of this Gospel, roughly twice as often as in Mark, Luke or John.

Blomberg's numbers vary somewhat from BLB's, but demonstrate that even with varying definitions of what a "quote" or "allusion" is, Matthew refers to the Old Testament significantly more than the other Gospel writers.


Saviour of all people, ESPECIALLY of those who believe

At least three early adherents of apocatastasis refer to this passage.  But not all their references to it are necessarily defenses of that particular doctrine.  For example, Origen uses it to argue for the general love of God for his creation:

  We both read and know that God loves all existing things, and loathes nothing which He has made, for He would not have created anything in hatred. [...] For He Himself is said to be the Saviour of all men, especially of them that believe; and His Christ to be the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (Against Celsus, 4.28)

Clement of Alexandria's Stromata is often cited to demonstrate his belief in universalism, and he quotes this verse in it:

  And to speak comprehensively, all benefit appertaining to life, in its highest reason, proceeding from the Sovereign God, the Father who is over all, is consummated by the Son, who also on this account “is the Saviour of all men,” says the apostle, “but especially of those who believe.” (6.17)

He also quotes it in Exhortation to the Heathen, which may be the earliest reference to the verse by a universalist (c. 195):

  You may, if you choose, purchase salvation, though of inestimable value, with your own resources, love and living faith, which will be reckoned a suitable price. This recompense God cheerfully accepts; “for we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of those who believe.” (Chapter 9)

And finally, Gregory of Nyssa cites the verse in his argument for the trinity, "On 'Not Three Gods'":

  And as the Saviour of all men, specially of them that believe, is spoken of by the Apostle as one, and no one from this phrase argues either that the Son does not save them who believe, or that salvation is given to those who receive it without the intervention of the Spirit; but God who is over all, is the Saviour of all, while the Son works salvation by means of the grace of the Spirit, and yet they are not on this account called in Scripture three Saviours

There's some debate over whether these three all believe in "universalism" as it is defined today.  But these three authors are certainly among the most likely candidates for that label in the early church.


What does Catholicism teach about 'The Massacre of the Innocents'?

From the Daily Roman Missal, According to the Roman Missal, Third Edition

  THE HOLY INNOCENTS, MARTYRS, Feast, December 28

  This feast celebrates the memory of the male children King Herod ordered to be killed in his attempt to kill the infant Christ. These
  innocent victims thus bear witness to Christ in the world and God's
  care for even the most helpless of people

The bold is therefore the Church's Teaching.

  Continuing to the ENTRANCE ANTIPHON

  The innocents were slaughtered as infants for Christ; spotless, they follow the Lamb and sing for ever: Glory to you, O LORD.

Their reward for dying for Christ. [Most likely for their mothers too]

How are Catholics taught to respond if they observe infanticide, genocide, or a mass killing in their own lives, when it appears like the event might be fulfillment of prophecy? Are they taught to simply mourn the dead? Or are they taught to organize and respond in some way?

[My thoughts:] Prayer then action are an appropriate Catholic/Christian response. Prayer for God's care and justice for the victims, and prayer for mercy and forgiveness for the perpetrators. Action: do all one can to mitigate what is coming [save as many as one can; the Holy Family escaped to Egypt] and christian charity after it happens.


What is the Biblical basis for the formal 'membership' requirements that some Baptist churches have?

In 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 Paul says

  12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?  13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

Church membership is how we know who is and isn't a believer. The church, as a whole, is charged with the task of declaring who is and isn't a believer based on their testimony. In Matthew 18:15-17 Jesus gives another example of the church having members:

  15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

How are we to know who is or isn't a believer if we don't have membership? The ability to exclude someone from the church means that there was also inclusion/membership/a group defined as "the church". Here are a couple other verses to consider when thinking of church membership:

  Acts 5:12-13: “Now many signs and wonders were regularly done among the people by the hands of the apostles. And they were all together in Solomon’s Portico. None of the rest dared join them, but the people held them in high esteem.”

So, people faced the decision of whether or not they would join the church in Jerusalem.

This joining is more public and definite than an informal association.

2 Corinthians 2:6: Paul talks about a man who had been excommunicated,

  “For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough, so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow.”

A majority can't have decided on the exclusion unless there was a definite set of individuals who could make that decision as a church.


What are the general categories of benefits of being part of a denomination?

Pragmatic concerns

A denomination allows churches to cooperate and share the cost of many things which are needed to support the Gospel ministry of those churches, including: insurance, banking, and other financial services; HR and other personnel services; legal services; child safety; etc.

Doctrinal centering

With all the various theological debates among Christians, it helps to be able to identify yourself with like-minded Christians, and to be able to easily communicate the broad shape of what your church teaches to visitors and potential new members. No denomination specifies exactly everything their members believe, but there is usually enough that hearing that a church belongs to a denomination will give you a reliable idea of the core of their beliefs. For people who are needing to find a new church, it helps to be able to quickly get a good idea of what each church will be like, rather than spending months slowly uncovering each church's distinctives. Denominations don't reveal everything, but they help you form a shortlist to consider more.

But these denominational identities are not just taken from surveys of what their members believe. In a way they're aspirational. The churches of a denomination know that not all their members agree with everything, but together they believe they can put forward the best case for how they read the scriptures, and will in time strengthen the faith of their members as they grow in their understanding of the core of their doctrine. So I've labeled this section "Doctrinal centering" as I think this is more active than a mere doctrine classification and identification would be. For example, not everyone in a Baptist church will necessarily believe in Believer's Baptism, and that's okay. But the churches that join together as a Baptist denomination don't do so merely because the majority of their members are personally Baptists, but because they believe that their doctrines work to encourage aspects of faith outside of the immediate corollaries of baptism, and that drawing attention to Baptism as they do gives strength to the growth of the Gospel.

In the friendly debates within Christianity, denominations help give structure to our disagreements. As most denominations originated over major theological disagreements, when we want to revisit those debates the denominations remain relevant groupings. They help us work together to put forward the best possible arguments in the debates between camps (such as between Reformed and Arminian for example), as well as giving space for gifted theologians to debate the subtleties of each camp internally, as they consider questions which can be highly important to those within the denomination but may not even make sense to those outside.

I've seen this in regards to theological colleges. Some independent colleges value giving a balanced overview of what all Christians believe but end up not personally challenging their students as much as denominational or confessional colleges. From the perspective of formal academics this is a great strategy, but from the perspective of faith our colleges should be places which encourage the iron sharpening iron of deepening personal faith. I went to a college where I wasn't part of their denomination, but I believe my faith greatly benefited from being challenged by the more subtle arguments that wouldn't have been presented at an independent college even when I wasn't persuaded by all of them.

Mission strategy

Denominations help us plan, coordinate, and carry out our God given mission. At both the local and global level, they help us plan how to take the Gospel into every community, so that none are neglected, and so that we don't step on each other's toes unnecessarily. This is not to say that great Gospel work doesn't get carried out by non-denominational parachurch groups, and many of the largest mission agencies aren't denominational affiliated. But they help churches cooperate to run theological colleges and seminaries, to strategically plant new churches, and to share resources so that ministry work can happen in difficult unpleasant places, and not just beach towns and ski villages. Mission strategising can take place outside of denominational structures, but it's often easiest to work together when you know you're on the same page theologically.


Did Martin Luther effectively teach that our justification is like white snow covering over dung?

According to this article: Has Martin Luther's "Snow-Covered Dunghill" Mystery-Legend Been Solved?! the answer to the question is, "No, he did not say that, but it sounds like something he would have said."

Luther said:

  Conceived in sorrow and corruption, the child sins in his mother’s
  womb. As he grows older, the innate element of corruption develops.
  Man has said to sin: ‘Thou art my father’—and every act he performs is
  an offense against God; and to the worms: ‘You are my brothers’—and he
  crawls like them in mire and corruption. He is a bad tree and cannot
  produce good fruit; a dunghill, and can only exhale foul odors. He is
  so thoroughly corrupted that it is absolutely impossible for him to
  produce good actions. Sin is his nature; he cannot help committing it.
  Man may do his best to be good, still his every action is unavoidably
  bad; he commits a sin as often as he draws his breath. (Werke, (Wittenberg Edition), Vol. III, p. 518.)

In Luther's commentary on Psalm 51:7, which refers to snow cleansing our sins:

  "How can we become "purer than snow" even though the remnants of sin
  always cling to us? I answer: I have always said that man is divided
  into spirit and flesh. Therefore, as far as the total man is
  concerned, there remains remnants of sin or, as Paul calls them (2
  Cor. 7:1), "defilements of body and spirit." . . . Still we have
  obtained Baptism, which is most pure; we have obtained the Word, which
  is most pure; and in the Word and Baptism we have by faith obtained
  the blood of Christ, which is surely most pure. According to this
  purity, which in spirit and faith we have from Christ and from the
  Sacraments that He instituted, the Christian is rightly said to be
  purer than snow . . . even though the defilements of spirit and flesh
  cling to him. These are concealed and covered by the cleanness and
  purity of Christ . . .

  . . . if you look at a Christian without the righteousness and purity
  of Christ, as he is in himself, even though he be most holy, you will
  find not only no cleanness, but what I might call diabolical
  blackness. . . . Therefore if they ask: "Sin always clings to man;
  how, then, can he be washed so as to make him whiter than snow?" you
  reply: "We should look at a man, not as he is in himself, but as he is
  in Christ."

The linked article above provides many more words from Luther, and goes much deeper into detail about the question, and even quotes a "snow over refuse" analogy by Luther, but that analogy has more to do with his belief in sanctification. The conclusion in the article is that Luther did not exactly describe God's forgiveness as Christ simply covering over our sinful souls, like a blanket of snow covering a manure heap, but that this unofficial quote was constructed from many different things that Luther did say.


When Pilate offered up Jesus or Barabbas for release, was this to the crowd for their justice or for pardon?

John Shelby Spong says in Jesus for the NonReligious, page 168, that in his research, he  has been able to find no evidence that there was a custom of releasing a prisoner at the time of the Passover. He says the original crucifixion story could have been related to Yom Kippur because in this tradition, one lamb or goat was killed for our sins and one had the sins of the people symbolically transferred to him, after which he was chased away. Following this tradition, Barabbas was to be pardoned.
Historian Richard Carrier agrees with Bishop Spong that Barabbas took the role of the Yom Kippur scapegoat. His view on this is available online as part of a review he wrote for a book by Dennis R. McDonald:

[A] practice [of releasing a prisoner] could hardly have been approved by Rome, since any popular rebel leader who happened to be in custody during the festival would always escape justice.
Of course, Barabbas means "son of the father," and thus is an obvious pun on Christ himself. He also represents the violent revolutionary, as opposed to the very different kind of savior in Jesus (the real "Savior") . . . The Jews thus choose the wrong "son of the father" who represents the Old Covenant (symbolized by the rainbow, and represented by the ideal of the military messiah freeing Israel), as well as the scapegoat (the lamb) sent off, bearing the people's sins into the wilderness, while its twin is sacrificed (Lev. 16:8-10, 23:27-32, Heb. 8-9).

In the above extract, Carrier discusses the parallel passage in Mark's Gospel. New Testament scholars overwhelmingly regard this as the main source of information used by the author of Luke's Gospel, so it is equally relevant to most questions about Luke.


How literally is Romans 10:14 supposed to be taken?

The letters to the seven churches in Revelation have a recurring theme, "he who has ears, let him hear" - and yet they were written letters!

Literally believing a deaf person cannot be saved, I believe with the larger context of scripture, is wrong.

The bible was written - yes, if you had been born deaf, you may have only been minimally literate 2000 years ago. However, there were also many cases of folks becoming deaf with age, who earlier were not, and who were still at least somewhat literate.

Likewise, in the introduction of Revelation a blessing is pronounced upon the reader and the hearer.

The message of the gospel does not require hearing, it requires being delivered, processed, understood, affirmed, and believed-in.


What "things" is Jesus talking about in Matthew 11:25?

"Things" is simply Truth, these Truths.

It is better to be humble than proud.
Grace is better than triumph.
That all credit for anything we achieve belongs to God.

Things like that.


How does one discern a calling to the vocation of priesthood?

My own pastor has shared stories that he knew at a young age that he was called to the priesthood. As a young boy of 8 or 9 he says he "just knew" which is in keeping with a seed planted by God for the vocation. Oftentimes, young boys who are part of church-going families will mimic the parts of Mass and that is something that shows their interest. Of course discernment is an on-going process and once such a boy becomes a teen, it is best for him to be able to further his discernment through connections with a seminary professor etc. In the meantime it is always important for Catholic families to help their children know about consecrated vocations. They can do this through wonderful books and positive conversations meant to show all the ways that God might be calling.

Other times a young man or grown man will feel a tug at his heart to become a priest. Again it seems to be God initiating the process but it is important for all people to be open to "hearing" God which is why studying Scripture and spending time with at least some like-minded friends will help each of us be able to see and follow the movements of God.

There was a time when discernment wasn't really part of the process to become a priest--when just about every Catholic family had a priest from its members; but times have changed and it is being seen more as a "call" and the depths of the vocation are better understood for today's men pursuing the priesthood.


The books you want are the "Kyriale" and the "Graduale".  The former contains the words and music for the ordinary of the mass (Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei), and the latter contains the words and music for the variable parts of the mass (Introit, Gradual, Alleluia verse, Offertory, and Communion verse).


Was Jesus The Lamb of God or the High Priest (that offers the lamb as a sacriffice)?

He was both, but offered Himself, His own body as the perfect sacrifice. The book of Hebrews goes into great details. If you have a little time, read an overview commentary of Hebrews; if you have a medium amount of time, read a study Bible or commentary that goes verse by verse; If you have a lot of time, I strongly recommend the Naked Bible podcast by Dr. Michael Heiser, wherein he breaks down the book in great detail using a lot of knowledge of 1st Century Middle Eastern cultural background, but explains things in laymen's terms. He covers the book of Hebrews over several episodes. If you wish, you could focus on Hebrews 10, which deals specifically with the sacrifice.

Starting from verse 4 (I'm using the NLT):
"4 For it is not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 That is why, when Christ came into the world, he said to God,

“You did not want animal sacrifices or sin offerings.
    But you have given me a body to offer.
6 You were not pleased with burnt offerings
    or other offerings for sin.
7 Then I said, ‘Look, I have come to do your will, O God—
    as is written about me in the Scriptures.’”

8 First, Christ said, “You did not want animal sacrifices or sin offerings or burnt offerings or other offerings for sin, nor were you pleased with them” (though they are required by the law of Moses). 9 Then he said, “Look, I have come to do your will.” He cancels the first covenant in order to put the second into effect. 10 For God’s will was for us to be made holy by the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all time.

11 Under the old covenant, the priest stands and ministers before the altar day after day, offering the same sacrifices again and again, which can never take away sins. 12 But our High Priest offered himself to God as a single sacrifice for sins, good for all time. Then he sat down in the place of honor at God’s right hand. 13 There he waits until his enemies are humbled and made a footstool under his feet. 14 For by that one offering he forever made perfect those who are being made holy.


The word "vocation," the word that many people use to describe their line of work, means "calling."  To say that vocations outside of the ministry are not part of God's work is deny what many protestants believe about work.
Just to cite one prominent example, Martin Luther writes:

God is milking the cows through the vocation of the milkmaid

and

vocation is a "mask of God." He is hidden in vocation. We see the milkmaid, or the farmer, or the doctor or pastor or artist. But, looming behind this human mask, God is genuinely present and active in what they do for us.

In short, God uses our work to be glorified.  The same article goes on to say:

Luther's Doctrine of Vocation
To understand fully the doctrine of vocation, one should begin not with the Puritans-who tended to turn the doctrine of vocation into a work ethic-but with Luther and with Lutherans, from the composers of the Book of Concord to modern theologians such as Billing and Gustaf Wingren. It goes something like this: When we pray the Lord's Prayer, we ask God to give us this day our daily bread. And he does. The way he gives us our daily bread is through the vocations of farmers, millers, and bakers. We might add truck drivers, factory workers, bankers, warehouse attendants, and the lady at the checkout counter. Virtually every step of our whole economic system contributes to that piece of toast you had for breakfast. And when you thanked God for the food that he provided, you were right to do so.
God could have chosen to create new human beings to populate the earth out of the dust, as he did with the first man. But instead, he chose to create new life-which, however commonplace, is no less miraculous-by means of mothers and fathers, wives and husbands, the vocations of the family.
God protects us through the vocations of earthly government, as detailed in Romans 13. He gives his gifts of healing usually not through out-and-out miracles (though he can) but by means of the medical vocations. He proclaims his word by means of human pastors. He teaches by means of teachers. He creates works of beauty and meaning by means of human artists, whom he has given particular talents.
Many treatments of the doctrine of vocation emphasize what we do, or are supposed to do, in our various callings. This is part of it, as are the various aspects that I outlined above, but it is essential in grasping the magnitude of this teaching to understand first the sense in which vocation is God's work.

The sense of God acting in vocation is characteristically Lutheran in the way it emphasizes that God works through physical means. Luther and his followers stress how God has chosen to bestow his spiritual gifts by means of his Word (ink on paper; the sound waves emanating from a pulpit) and Sacrament (water; bread and wine). And he bestows his earthly gifts by means of human vocations.


What is the protestant apologetic for James' explicit statement that we are justified by works?

According to the New Bible Dictionary, 2nd Ed., "Justifiction" entry, Paul used justify as a technical term, but James used it in a general sense of being vindicated, or proved genuine and right with God and man (p. 649).

  "James quotes Gn. 15:6 for the same purpose as Paul does -- to show
  that it was faith that secured Abraham's acceptance. But now, he
  argues, this statement was 'fulfilled' (confirmed, shown to be true,
  and brought to it appointed completion by events) 30 years later, when
  'Abraham (was) justfied by works when he offered his son Isaac upon
  the altar' (v 21). By this his faith was 'made perfect', i.e. brought
  to due expression in appropriate actions; thus he was shown to be a
  true believer" (p. 649).

Paul would have agreed with James when he wrote, "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). There should be a real change of life when believing that you are a sinner before God and have repented from it.

John echoes this point when he writes, "Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous" (1 John 3:7). Righteous is as righteous does. These are acting out what God has called them to be.

The children of God have been declared righteous and justified when they believed in Christ. But we can tell by their behavior afterward which ones took their faith seriously, no? This is what James seems to be saying. Those who are taking their faith seriously by their works are doing what Peter wrote, "Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you do these things [the fruitful works of vv. 5-8] you will never stumble" (2 Peter 1:10).


Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions

It seems that it has more involved than just Acts 15:28-29.

The following is my attempt to try and answer this question based on my findings but if anyone has more on this I am open to what they have to give.

The Jehovah's Witnesses book What Does the Bible Really Teach, it talks about Misuse of blood - Genesis 9:4; Acts 15:20 & 28-29.

Later in the book it says

  After the Flood, Jehovah told Noah and his sons: “Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you.” However, God set this restriction: “Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat.” (Genesis 1:29; 9:3, 4) Clearly, Jehovah links very closely the life and the blood of a creature [...]

  What if a Christian is badly injured or is in need of major surgery? Suppose doctors say that he must have a blood transfusion or he will die. Of course, the Christian would not want to die. In an effort to preserve God’s precious gift of life, he would accept other kinds of treatment that do not involve the misuse of blood. Hence, he would seek such medical attention if that is available and would accept a variety of alternatives to blood.

  Would a Christian break God’s law just to stay alive a little longer in this system of things? Jesus said: “Whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” (Matthew 16:25)  We do not want to die. But if we tried to save our present life by breaking God’s law, we would be in danger of losing everlasting life. We are wise, then, to put our trust in the rightness of God’s law, with full confidence that if we die from any cause, our Life-Giver will remember us in the resurrection and restore to us the precious gift of life.—John 5:28, 29; Hebrews 11:6.

Jehovah's Witnesses also point out that for information on alternatives to blood transfusion, you must see the chapter entitled “Quality Alternatives to Transfusion” in the brochure How Can Blood Save Your Life? published by Jehovah’s Witnesses.


Is there any denomination that fully embraces Dispensational Premillennialism?

Dispensationalism tends to be most prevalent in baptist, charismatic, and non-denominational churches.  However, the largest baptist and charismatic denominations (like the Southern Baptist Convention and the Assemblies of God) do not take a firm stance on a pre-tribulation, pre-millennial rapture.  Still, there are sizable denominations and associations of churches that specifically hold to this doctrine.

A full list is beyond the scope of this site, but one major charismatic denomination holding to this is the International Pentecostal Holiness Church (3.5 million members).  Its statement of faith reads:

  The second coming of Christ will occur in two stages; the first for the purpose of catching away His saints who are prepared for the Rapture before the Great Tribulation period; and the second at the end of the Great Tribulation, when He shall come back with His saints to destroy the armies of the Antichrist, to judge the nations of the world, and to inaugurate the millennial reign. (source)

Another group, perhaps not meeting your definition of "denomination," is Calvary Chapel, an association of churches with about 25 million members in total.  It, too, clearly describes dispensational eschatology in its statement of faith:

  We believe in the Pre-Tribulation Rapture of the Church through which all believers will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air, and be taken out of the world prior to the Tribulation that will then come upon the earth. (source)

So yes, not all denominations influenced by dispensationalism avoid clearly stating dispensational doctrine in their statements of faith: there are significant denominations and associations that specifically hold to the doctrine of a pre-tribulation, pre-millennial rapture.


What is the importance of reading the Bible?

The Sadducees posted a question on Christianity.SE about married life after resurrection (they didn't believe in resurrection of the dead) and Jesus replied (Matthew 22:29):

  But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.

Reading the bible == knowing the scriptures helps us to prevent developing erroneous views that hinder our spiritual growth or potentially lead us astray. Sometimes even preachers from the pulpit preach doctrines that have errors or even heresies in them and though the preachers responsibility is greater, the listener is not without one.


Tap Tap Tap by Maranatha Kids on the Album Tiny Tots Pwaise vol 6
(https://music.apple.com/pg/album/tiny-tot-pwaise-vol-6/715831200)


Have any Wesleyan theologians compared Outler's Quadrilateral to PaRDeS?

As a United Methodist pastor for nearly forty years, a contemplative mystic, I have found PaRDeS to be illuminating in all facets of spirituality.  In short, PaRDeS points to four ways of seeing the world (i.e., worldviews).
The quadrilateral pertains to only one worldview.

Peshat: the worldview of followers, or the multitude;

Remez; the worldview of discipleship;

Derasha: the worldview of the prophets and apostles of the
Spirit-led early Church

Sod: the mystics and those whose worldview is the kingdom of heaven.
Each of the Gospels emphasizes a particular perspective:
Mark: Peshat; Matthew: Remez; Luke: Derasha; John: Sod.

{I am currently writing commentaries on the Scriptures (the whole N.T. plus) based on PaRDeS}.  The whole of Scriptures can be illuminated and understood by PaRDeS.


(LDS view) Do animals have a possibility to eternal life and is this dependent on Jesus atonoment applied to them?

Not much is written about animals going to heaven. In answer the OP quotes from EoM Animals and here is the whole first paragraph with answers (#1 bold, #2 italics):

  Latter-day Saints believe that animals, like humans, have spirits, in the form of their bodies (D&C 77:2). Like humans and plants, animals were created first as spirits in heaven and then physically on the earth (Moses 3:5). Mortal and subject to death, animals will be saved through the Atonement of Christ (TPJS, pp. 291-92). Humans and animals will eventually live in peace on this earth (Isa. 11:6-9; 2 Ne. 30:12-15; D&C 101:24-26). The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that animals will be found in heaven, in myriad forms, from myriad worlds, enjoying eternal felicity, and praising God in languages God understands (TPJS, pp. 291-92).

In summary, yes animals are saved through Jesus Christ's blood and animals will live forever (independent of their belief).


Why was Peter Fishing Naked (John 21:7)?

The ESV renders the verse in question:

  That disciple whom Jesus loved therefore said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his outer garment, for he was stripped for work, and threw himself into the sea.

It seems to contain the implication that he was wearing some kind of inner garment while working, and likely was not naked.


Overview of Trichotomous vs Dichotomous views of Man

Which is the "safer"/"more Biblical" view, and why?

My instinct is that it might be safer to understand the Dichotomous view primarily based on my own experience in transitioning from a Trichotomous view early in my Christian life.  Having said that, someone like A.W Pink probably has a healthy version of the a Trichotomous view and I would not call it heretical.

My introduction to the Trichotomous view was very early in my Christian life by reading Watchman Nee and just a few years later I tossed out his books as I had then encountered Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones and saw a clear difference between Biblical exposition and a kind of mysticism that Nee promoted. The reason why the Trichotomous view (in this case) led to a sort of mysticism is that the ‘spirit’ as ‘opposed’ to the ‘soul’ was focused on as the true Godly part, and one was encouraged to sort of ignore the mind, emotions and will and try to reach out for a more ‘spiritual’ state ---- in communion with God.

As I started to read older Bible commentaries and works from reformed theologians from the 16-18th centuries, I noticed a switch to a Dichotomous view that seemed more aligned with a spiritual sense of God through understanding of his Word. To make a long story short I sort of adopted the Dichotomous view without really thinking about it.

Now many years later I will just summarize the perspective that I have found in various older Bible commentaries, in support of the Dichotomous view.

First let me quote a book that others have noted that provides a good summary of both views:

  The dichotomous theory.
   Strong states the theory thus:
  The immaterial part of man, viewed as an individual and conscious life, capable of possessing and animating a physical organism, is called psuche; viewed as a rational and moral agent, susceptible of divine influence and indwelling, this same immaterial part is called. The pneumu, then, is man’s nature looking and capable of receiving and manifesting the Pneumu the psuche is man’s nature looking earthward, and touching the world of sense. The pneumu is man’s higher part, as related to spiritual realities or as capable of such relation. Man’s being is therefore not trichotomous but dichotomous, and his immaterial part, while possessing duality of powers, has unity of substance.

  The trichotomous theory
   This theory holds that man consists of three distinct elements: body, soul, and spirit. The body is the material part of our constitution, the soul is the principle of animal life, and the spirit is the principle of our rational life. Some add to this last statement “and immortal life.” This can, however, not be made an essential part of the theory. Those who take this extreme view hold that at death the body returns to the earth, the soul ceases to exist, and the spirit alone remains to be reunited with the body at the resurrection. (Lectures In Systematic Theology, Henry Clarence Thiessen, P160)

Second let me explain why a good understanding of the dichotomous theory does have some similarities with the trichotomous theory, but better explains that commonality.

The basic situation when looking at many places in scripture where the soul or spirit are spoken of, one quickly finds that the meanings overlap but also convey separate senses. Therefore in general the spirit means something different than the soul even though they are indicating the same vital non physical lfe of man.

From a basic standpoint of occurenes in the Bible in the Old Testament נָ֫פֶשׁ (soul) is used almost always as the English ‘soul’ but commonly just ‘life’ or functions of the mind, will or heart that are more often related to ‘desire’. In the New Testament ψυχῆς (soul) is alsmot always ‘soul’ or ‘life’.  Looking at the word ‘spirit’ we find similar but different meanings.  ר֫וּחַ (spirit) in the Old Testament is almost always ‘Spirit’, ‘spirit’, or ‘wind’. In the New Testament (πνεύματος) it is almost always just ‘Spirit’ or ‘spirit’.

I think this establishes Strong’s definition quite well for the soul is therefore the essential life of man ‘looking earthward’ and the ‘spirit’ that same principle of life breathed (like wind) into man from God, that can look towards and experience God.  One must accept this different cast used by spirit or soul upon the principle of life in man, because later the idea of carnal and spiritual are assigned to these different aspects. This is where the commonality of both views occur.

For example, in 1 Corinthians 2:14-15 we have a phrase a ‘natural man’ does not accept the things of the Spirit of God. Here the natural man is ψυχικὸς psuchikos (natural, of the soul or mind) is used which has a strong relationship to the word soul (ψυχῆς - psychēs).  In verse fifteen in contrast to the carnal man, we find the phrase 'he that is spiritual'. Spiritual πνευματικὸς (pneumatikos) has a strong relationship to the word 'spirit' πνεύματος (pneumatos).  So sometimes 'soul' indicates an identification with the unregenerate parts of man' soul (or essential life) being considered 'carnal' and the regenerate parts of man’s soul (called spirit) being spiritual.  This division is what commentators often notice. For example, in Hebrews where the word of God is said to divide spirit and soul, the carnal and spiritual parts of a man might be understood.

The other thing of notice, that I have found commentaries often do, when they context does not allow a carnal or spiritual division, is refer to the 'seat of emotions' as the soul  and the 'mind' denoted by spirit, such as loving God with 'soul and mind', or 'who knows the thoughts of a man accept the spirit of a man'? (Math 22:37, 1 Cor 2:11)

Conclusion: A  dichotomous view is a safer view as it seems more grounded in the Bible and in reformed theology. In an in-depth analysis of the soul and the spirit, one finds different aspects of the 'same single vital immaterial life God breathed into Adam' called soul or spirit. However, the soul and spirit often denote different aspects of that life. In a believer, in the struggle of sin, they often denote the difference between the carnal and spiritual mind and affections, for the soul looking heavenward (spirit) is very actively opposing its former lusts (soul looking earthward). When this distinction is 'over pressed', however, a 'Trichotomous view' is established that is not common with earlier theologians. In its more extreme version, like in Watchman Nee, it starts to promote ‘super spirituality’ and ‘mysticism’ that could become ‘less safe’ as it no longer rests on spirituality by God's word but by 'inner motions' and 'senses' - actually encouraging a carnal view of the spiritual life.


Calvinist Regeneration, Interpreting Colossians 2:12

My friend and bible study teacher Patricia Peterson has written 2 wonderful books about the order of salvation/redemption history, election and God's decree. The Ordo Salutis (her 1st book) & Whatsoever Comes to Pass ~ The Absolute Nature and Precious Comfort of God's Decree. I pulled some of this from her 1st book The Ordo Salutis.

Faith comes from hearing Rom 10:17. God calls His chosen ones through faith in the truth 2 Thess 2:13-14. Truth is the word of God John 17:17. The call is effectual because the elect sinner is "in Christ" FROM eternity.

We do not enter the "in Christ" relationship when we are called. God chose the elect sinner "in Christ" before the foundation of the world, in the covenant of redemption Eph 1:4; 2 Tim 1:9. The Father elected from eternity, but He elected in Christ. There was no election of the Father in eternity APART from Christ. There has never been a time when those "in Christ" were not "in Christ". Christ is the object of our faith. Maybe some food for thought? Patrictia Peterson's books have been a blessing to me.


Are there any buildings standing that Jesus visited?

Many smaller locations are often debated.

Herodian architecture is unique and identifiable, making it a good reference for what was around at the time of Jesus' birth. Unfortunately, only one Herodian building is still standing: The Enclosure of the Cave of the Patriarchs, Hebron.

The Wailing Wall was also standing there in Jesus' day, but it is hardly a standing building.


What is the meaning of "let the dead bury their dead"?

To me, this is a very offensive direction that Jesus gives.  And that isn't a bad thing -- frequently the Bible gives directions that are offensive to what we are accustomed to believing.  We should always take them seriously.

In this case, I think the message is that we must put following Christ above everything, even our most important worldly concerns.  In Hebrew culture, it is a son's duty to bury his father -- an important duty -- but Jesus is telling him to forget about that, to put following him first.  The options are "bury your father, and get around to following me in a bit" or "follow me".  As far as Jesus is concerned, there's only one choice.  It's quite similar to Matthew 19:29:

  And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and will inherit eternal life.

As to the specific wording, I would suggest that "follow me" is contrasted to death.  So following Jesus is life, tarrying about with worldly duties is death.  So the dead in spirit are left to bury the dead in body: the living are following Jesus along the way.


When 1 Timothy cautions against "endless geneologies", is it talking about the Bible?

The focus of this invective isn't so much on the genealogies themselves as it is the way in which people use them to puff them themselves up.  Even barring earthly lineages, the poor of the church of Corinth managed to put themselves into faction. In 1 Corinthians 3, Paul writes:

Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready.  3You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans? 4For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings?
5What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task.

Notice Paul's focus here - he is concerned that his church isn't "growing up." When the focus is on where one comes from, the focus necessarily is moved off of what one has become.
Note also in the text you quote, that the problem with 'myths and genealogies' is that they lead simply to 'endless speculation.' Put another way, Paul is admonishing believers to stick to the actual teaching, rather than indulging in the desire to read as much into a text as is desired.  The genealogies in Scripture are there for a reason - they place Scripture in a particular time and place, and show that God is no respecter of persons. (Abraham, in Genesis 11, is just another guy in another line).  When people dwell on these things, however, they are looking for themselves - puffing themselves up - and that is not the point.


Do I need to be rebaptized to take communion in a Catholic Church if I have no proof of my original baptism?

Explain your situation to your priest, they may be able to get your baptismal record from your original home parish or just excercise his prudential judgement and allow you to receive communion.

This is pastoral advice, which isn't the norm for this site, but it may be good to confess attending worship services with other Christians, you'll usually see that mentioned in guides to examinations of conscience (don't want to offend my Protestant friends here, but it is an occasion of sin for Catholics to participate in your services).

Beyond that, there is no such thing as re-baptism (even for those validly ordained in other Christian sects )

  1246 "Every person not yet baptized and only such a person is able to be baptized." CCC 1246

So, that bit of doctrine probably justifies this question.  If you know you were Baptized the Church's ministers will probably give you the benefit of the doubt.


Did a pre-schism Roman Bishop say he is not special?

Found it in this question:

What exactly did Pope Gregory the Great mean by “Universal Bishop?”

Pope St. Gregory the Great, 6th century, from his epistles.


Why are Mormon Temples Ceremonies kept secret from non-Mormons?

There seems to be two questions here.  First, "why are LDS temple ceremonies kept secret, seeing as how Old Testament temple ceremonies were not?"

The simple answer is that the Old Testament temples operated under the Law of Moses and were administered by the Levitical priesthood, whereas modern temples operate under the Law of the Gospel and are administered by the Melchizedek priesthood, which necessarily means that things will work differently.  (See Hebrews chapter 7, particularly verse 12.)  Therefore, it's unreasonable to expect that the Old Testament temple ceremonies--many of which had to do with matters of blood sacrifice and similar rituals of the Law of Moses, which were fulfilled in Christ--should be perpetuated in modern temples.

Second, the slightly broader question, "why are LDS temple ceremonies kept secret at all?"

The answer to this is somewhat subtle, and some people will probably find it unsatisfying, but the Church does not hold them to be secret at all, but rather it considers them sacred.

The value of a secret is exclusivity.  The less people who know about a secret, the greater the power it confers upon those who know it.  Throughout history, people have been known to go to great lengths to keep secrets, up to and including committing murder to prevent (or retaliate for) the sharing of a secret.

By contrast, the Latter-Day Saints do not see the temple ceremonies as something secret and exclusive at all, but rather as something that is highly sacred.  The church has spent a great deal of effort, time and money in both building temples throughout the world, and sending missionaries to teach people the Gospel, with the explicit intended goal of bringing them to the temple.  This is the exact opposite of a secret: it is something that the Latter-Day Saints put a great deal of work into sharing as broadly as possible!

But because these matters are viewed as sacred and highly spiritual, that sharing is done within strict boundaries: only people with a certain degree of spiritual preparation are allowed to participate.  This is quite in harmony with Paul's teaching on the Lord's Supper:

  1 Corinthians 11:27-29

  27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the
  Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

  28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread,
  and drink of that cup.

  29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh
  damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

As the purpose of the temple ceremonies is to help people along the path to salvation, and not to help condemn them, the church requires that certain standards of preparation and worthiness be met before participating in these sacred ceremonies.


What's the reasoning behind sacramental architecture?

It can be argued that the interior of many Christian Churches, especially Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran, lies in the architecture specified for the Tabernacle (The tent constructed during the Exodus) and the Temple in the old textament, where there were three area set aside for specific purposes. The area where the Altar is located in the churches I named above, especially older buildings, corresponds to the area of the Temple where the Ark of the Covenant resided, and which only the Priests of Israel entered. The main part of the church corresponds to the larger part of the Tabernacle, and the Temple, where the faithful gathered, and the foyer corresponds to the outer court, which was open to a larger number of people.

In a Christian church, the other elements of the architecture provide focal points to call the attention of the faithful to the sacraments, hence the presence of the Baptistry, or baptismal font, and location at which the Mass or communion is celebrated. In a Roman Catholic church, the location in which the Body of Christ is housed is supposed to be front and center, and in the churches I named above, a Cross or Crucifix are always present to call to the viewer's mind the salvific acts of God. Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and to a somewhat lesser extent, some Anglican and Lutheran buildings will contain representations intended to call to the viewer's mind members of the community of the faithful departed by icons, stained glass windows, or statues, including Mary, the Mother of God, the Apostles,  the Mighty Acts of God, including creation, perhaps the Flood, or the other sacraments or rites. One thing all of the churches have in common (and most other protestant ones as well) is a pulpit or lectern in a prominent place, from which the word of God can be proclaimed.

These elements have been interpreted in different ways by different architects, and by different theological emphases of various Christian groups, at different times, and in different places, taking to account local materials and customs.


Any philosphers arguing that the Christian worldview is the most rational?

You are not the first person in history to make such observations. One person who articulated it well is the late Clive Staples:

  "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." -- C.S. Lewis

Another man, circa the same erra and place, who argued emphatically that Christianity is the only view that makes sense of the world we live in is G.K. Chesterton. I emphatically disagree with the man on many points of theology, but he does hold an interesting place in literature -- commanding respect from people on both sides of theological divides for his articulation of ideas.

While not his greatest treaties on philosophy, my favorite work of his is The Ball and the Cross. Throughout the story, a wide variety of philosophical ideas are aired in the context of two men debating whether atheism or Christianity is a more rational position.

It is difficult to convey the context of the statements he makes without the whole story, but let me set the stage with this quote:

  "Well, we won't quarrel about a word," said the other, pleasantly. "Why on earth not?" said MacIan, with a sudden asperity. "Why shouldn't we quarrel about a word? What is the good of words if they aren't important enough to quarrel over? Why do we choose one word more than another if there isn't any difference between them? If you called a woman a chimpanzee instead of an angel, wouldn't there be a quarrel about a word? If you're not going to argue about words, what are you going to argue about? Are you going to convey your meaning to me by moving your ears? The Church and the heresies always used to fight about words, because they are the only things worth fighting about.

In the end, these two parties agree to carry on an extended debate (played out dramatically with an ongoing duel) about the rationality of their respective views. In the dialogue that develops, Chesterton forwards many ideas about the nature of Christianity and it's relation to reason.

  Christianity is always out of fashion because it is always sane; and all fashions are mild insanities.

This thought gets considerably more developement, although this quote will not do it justice:

  The Church always seems to be behind the times, when it is really beyond the times; it is waiting till the last fad shall have seen its last summer. It keeps the key of a permanent virtue.

In parting, he poses many questions about sanity vs. madness in relation to Christianity vs. the humanism -- questions I think men would do well to continue wrestling with.

  In the long run, which is most mad--the Church or the world? Which is madder, the Spanish priest who permitted tyranny, or the Prussian sophist who admired it? Which is madder, the Russian priest who discourages righteous rebellion, or the Russian novelist who forbids it? That is the final and blasting test. The world left to itself grows wilder than any creed.

In another place:

  That is the only real question-- whether the Church is really madder than the world. Let the rationalists run their own race, and let us see where they end.

In a round* about way, Chesterton argues that it is only rational to understand the world through the lens of the cross:

  Turnbull, we cannot trust the ball to be always a ball; we cannot trust reason to be reasonable. In the end the great terrestrial globe will go quite lop-sided, and only the cross will stand upright.

Chesterton takes a much more conventional approach to reason in his book Orthodoxy.

  Thoroughly worldly people never understand even the world; they rely altogether on a few cynical maxims which are not true.

Here he also makes a few lucid observations about the nature of religious vs irreligious world views:

  Neither modern science nor ancient religion believes in complete free thought. Theology rebukes certain thoughts by calling them blasphemous. Science rebukes certain thoughts by calling them morbid.

Chesterton highlights many of the ways in which reason runs aground when not grounded on Christian doctrine:

  Only the Christian Church can offer any rational objection to a complete confidence in the rich. For she has maintained from the beginning that the danger was not in man's environment, but in man.

While I disagree with Chesterton's view of free will, still the call he places on us to not just see the world in light of the only thing that makes it all make sense but to do something about that view is indeed part of orthodox Christian thought.

  The vast and shallow philosophies, the huge syntheses of humbug, all talk about ages and evolution and ultimate developments. The true philosophy is concerned with the instant. Will a man take this road?

* Excuse the puns!


What O.T passages do premillenialists believe to be about the Millennial Kingdom?

I am Word of Faith we are pretribulational dispensational premillennialism. We believe Zechariah 14 and Ezekiel 43-48 are all used to describe the millennium kingdom of Christ on the earth. Zechariah 14 describes the return of Christ with His saints from a governmental standpoint. Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible Zechariah 14:5 holds the idea the millennial reign is being discussed throughout this chapter. Ezekiel 43-48 largely focuses on the Glory of God returning to Israel and the return of their priesthood during the millennial reign. Its difficult to point to one reliable source which states this but many independent sources say as much on google and I know it is what is taught by Billye Brim in her School of Eschatology on Ezekiel which is no longer available for purchase. While Rev 20 is on the same topic since it is describing a different aspect of the return of Christ it doesn't directly correlate to either chapters from the Old Testament.

Zec 14:5  And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible Zechariah 14:5

and the Lord my God shall come; the Lord Jesus Christ, who is truly God, and the God of his people; and who will appear to be so at his second coming, which is here meant, by raising the dead, gathering all nations before him, and separating them; by bringing to light all secret and hidden things; judging the whole world, and executing the sentence on them; and particularly by taking his own people to himself:
and all the saints with thee: the Targum, and the Septuagint, Syriac, and Arabic versions, read, "with him"; meaning either the holy angels; so Aben Ezra, Kimchi, and Ben Melech; who will attend him partly for the glory of his majesty, and partly for terror to the wicked, and also for service; or rather glorified saints, the spirits of just men made perfect, whom Christ will bring with him to be united to their bodies, which will now be raised, and to be with him in the new heavens and new earth, which will now be formed, and to be presented to him, and dwell with him, during the thousand years.

and

Eze 44:3  It is for the prince; the prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, and shall go out by the way of the same.


Is there a Catholic council that established the dogma that the eschaton is in "Heaven" rather than in the Promised Land?

It appears that a belief in a new creation which would have some earthly aspect to it has never been abandoned, though this is not well-known.  See The Catholic Encyclopedia (1917) on the New Advent website under "Eschatology," the last paragraph:

  There is mention also of the physical universe sharing in the general consummation (2 Peter 3:13; Romans 8:19 sqq.; Revelation 21:1 sqq.). The present heaven and earth will be destroyed, and a new heaven and earth take their place.


Parable of weeds - where did the enemy get seeds from?

The enemy himself is the original tare.
Jesus explains this clearly in Matthew 13: 37-40.

He that soweth the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.