Given a Catholic understanding of Hell and individual judgment, do Catholics believe that all Protestants will go to Hell?

I'm trying not to give an answer that's purely a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but the matter is discussed so well there that there isn't much I feel I can add to it:

  816 "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it.... This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him." [Lumen Gentium 8, section 2]
  ...
  817   In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church—for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame." [Unitatis Redintegratio 3, sec. 1] The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body—here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism—do not occur without human sin. ...

  818   "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers.... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church." [Unitatis Redintegratio 3, sec. 1]

  819   ... Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him.

(emphasis added)

It appears, then, that these other Christians will be treated as Catholics will, and will no more be "unable to choose to love the true God" than Catholics will.

Please comment on anything you feel I might be able to add to my answer.

Note: I was asked to comment on an answer elsewhere which quotes a papal bull written by Pope Eugenius IV and included among the documents of the Council of Florence, to the effect that pagans, Jews, and other non-Catholics will burn in Hell. I've read the document (not just the quote), and certainly have my own views on it, which I'll be glad to discuss with anyone in chat. However, the question requested official Catholic teaching. I will therefore say this: The quotations I've provided above from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, an official teaching document of the Catholic Church, indicate the current state of the Magisterium, and thus allow for the possibility that Protestants can be saved. As Unitatis Redintegratio (section 3) states,

  For [those] who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.

This appears to answer the statement of Pope Eugenius.

I'd just like to wrap up with a final quote from Unitatis Redintegratio (section 4):

  All in the Church must preserve unity in essentials. But let all, according to the gifts they have received enjoy a proper freedom, in their various forms of spiritual life and discipline, in their different liturgical rites, and even in their theological elaborations of revealed truth. In all things let charity prevail. If they are true to this course of action, they will be giving ever better expression to the authentic catholicity and apostolicity of the Church.

Please see also the accepted answer to "Has the Church stated any advantages or reasoning or prompting to re-formulating positively the Catholic Church's salvation doctrine?". The Church has two formulations to its salvation doctrine, and they should be understood together.


What did Luther consider to be novel in his theology of creation?

I do not have broad knowledge of early church Father views of Genesis but I know enough to say that some believed in a Trinitarian view, some did not.  Some believed in literal 24 hour days with the earth being created only thousands of years before Christ, while others did not. Most mixed Greek philosophy with their views.

Besides the rejction of mixing Greek philosophy with his interpretation, Luther must have felt extra 'alone' in that he did not think to highly about many of the church Fathers and the two he admired the most, Hilary and Augustine, they did not take it literally. This meant even his favorites must be left behind in his huge endeavor (5 Volumes of interpreting Genesis in a fresh new light).

This is what Luther say's himself in his introduction to Genesis which presents his attitude about it all.  First, your right he does say he is the first to clear things up on a significant scale:

  Until now there has not been anyone in the church either who has explained everything in the chapter with adequate skill. The commentators, with their sundry, different, and countless questions, have so confused everything in the chapter as to make it clear enough that God has reserved His exalted wisdom and the correct understanding of this chapter for Himself alone, although He has left with us this general knowledge that the world had a beginning and that it was created by God out of nothing.  (Luther's Works Vol 1, Introduction)

He pays respect to Hilary and Augustine but then proceeds to absolutely reject their symbolic view:

  Hilary and Augustine, almost the two greatest lights of the church, hold that the world was created instantaneously and all at the same time, not successively in the course of six days.  Moreover, Augustine resorts to extraordinary trifling in his treatment of the six days, which he makes out to be mystical days of knowledge among the angels, not natural ones.   (Luther's Works Vol 1, Introduction)

Luther proceeds to reject the mixture of Greek philosophy with Genesis interpretations which it appears many theologians did and he names Nicholas of Lyra as particularly guilty on this matter:

  As to Lyra’s belief that a knowledge of the philosophers’ opinion concerning matter is essential because on it depends the understanding of the six days of activity—I am not sure that Lyra understood what it was that Aristotle called “matter.” Unlike Ovid, Aristotle does not designate the shapeless and crude chaos as matter.12 Therefore, disregarding these needless opinions, let us turn to Moses as the better teacher. We can follow him with greater safety than the philosophers, who, without benefit of the Word, debate about unknown matters.  (Luther's Works Vol 1, Introduction)

I think you can gather from these points that Luther was starting something new when he adopted a simple interpretation without a) admixture of Greek philosophy, without b) using symbolism and without c) ignoring the Trinity. Although there were others before him who had a similar view none appear to have taken all three approaches together, at least none whose works were extant and available to theologians at the time.


Romans 10:17

  So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
  NKJV

Faith comes by reading and hearing the Word of God.

I personally try to speak out loud the Word of God as often as i can so that i can hear it. I have also heard from others (but have not tried it yet myself) that they enjoy listening to the audio versions of the Bible.


Is there any sense in being baptized as an adult after being baptized as an infant?

I'm Catholic, but I think this is sort of normal Christian advice, let me know if it doesn't make sense (logically at least).

Canon IX of the Seventh Session of Trent teaches that baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul of the faithful that cannot be removed:

  If any one shall say that in the three sacraments, Baptism, to wit, Confirmation, and Orders, there is not imprinted on the soul a character, that is, a certain spiritual and indelible sign, on account of which they cannot be repeated; let him be anathema.

But, if for whatever reason you had reason to believe that your original baptism was not valid (not just insufficient), then you'd probably want to get baptized (you don't need to call it re-baptized) because baptism is necessary for salvation and justification of the sinner (ibid. Canon IV):

  If any one shall say that [any or all of the] the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous, and that without them, and without the desire thereof, men, through faith alone, obtain of God the grace of justification; though all [the sacraments] be not necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

(the same logic is applied to Marriage and Annulment of Marriage)

But, the best advice is to follow the advice of your spiritual advisor. Don't go into baptism for the 'feeling' of it.


How did early childhood baptisms started in Catholicism?

The earliest recorded instance of child baptism is in the Acts of the Apostles when Lydia, a seller of purple of the city of Thyatira was baptized along with her household (Acts 16:14).  Other instances of child baptism recorded in the New Testament are in Acts 16:33, Acts 18:8, and 1 Corinthians 1:16.

This is all in accordance with the commandment given by Peter that all, including children, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38-39).


No, you are not a true believer.  If you are saying that "living accordingly", as in mouthing prayers, attending church services, and living a basically decent life, while not actually believing that Jesus died for your sins, then no, you are not saved.
Evidence: John 3:16 and Rom 10:9.

Yes, it is a way to God. If you are saying that going through the motions is a way to God, then yes.  Evidence:

1) "Faith comes by hearing" Rom 10:17.

2) Dietrich Bonhoeffer in
    Cost of Discipleship offers the advice of "He who obeys believes,
    and he who believes obeys." He then goes on to advise "obedience" as
    a remedy to weak faith

3) There's a folk tale of a Scottish pastor
    who started out as a charlatan. A nonbeliever, he wandered into a
    town and applied for a job as pastor.  The story goes that one day
    he broke down in tears while preaching, because he had converted
    himself.  One version of a similar story is here:
    http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/2007/07/george-whitefield-portrait-of-revival.html


There are at least two or three ways to possibly give this question a plausible answer, while at the same time safeguarding the Alexandrian Traditions' position on the subject of the Book of Enoch.

The first point to take into account is the fact that the only complete extant copy of the Book of Enoch is written in the Ge'ez language. This particular point does not answer the question, but merely shows why these Churches of North Africa are so attached to this book. The actual original language is unknown. It may have been Hebrew or Aramaic.

The next point to be made is that, as in the case with most of the different rites that were founded by one of the apostles or their disciples, there are many viable customs and traditions have been handed down to us from Time Immemorial. As such, no proof can truly be found, since it seems to possibly be in the domain of the Ethiopian Church's custom to believe that the Book of Enoch was written by Enoch himself. There are many pious customs and beliefs which cannot be verified one way or another. This one is no exception.

The Book of Enoch was not included in the Christian canon of books in the 4th century and is regarded as Scripture in only the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Eritrean Orthodox Church. Why? I think that Tertullian (155-240) holds the key!

  "Regarding the quotation in Jude, most of early Christianity considered it an independent quotation pre-dating the flood. Regarding the Book of Enoch itself Origen, Jerome and Augustin mention it, but as of no authority. Justin, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Lactantius, and others borrowed an opinion out of this book of Enoch, that the angels had connection with the daughters of men, of whom they had offspring ('the giants of the past'). Tertullian, in several places, speaks of this book with esteem; and would persuade us, that it was preserved by Noah during the deluge." Taken from this Wikipedia link: Enoch (ancestor of Noah).

And Again:

  The Epistle of Barnabas, young Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian all considered 1 Enoch to be Scripture. Tertullian wrote in "Concerning The Genuineness Of 'The Prophecy Of Enoch,' I am aware that the Scripture of Enoch, which has assigned this order (of action) to angels, is not received by some, because it is not admitted into the Jewish canon either…But since Enoch in the same Scripture has preached likewise concerning the Lord, nothing at all must be rejected by us which pertains to us; and we read that 'every Scripture suitable for edification is divinely inspired.'…To these considerations is added the fact that Enoch possesses a testimony in the Apostle Jude." [Tertullian, "On the Apparel of Women,"in The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. S. Thelwall, vol. 4 (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 15. Is Enoch Scripture?

Hope this helps.


I'd say not, but this is just my opinion, and not because I've ever heard of Ex Opere Operato so I'll keep this short and hopefully someone adds a better answer.  But Baptism leaves an indelible mark:

  Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation. Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.

CCC 1272

Which is more like chiseling yours and your bride's initials into a post with a big heart around it.


There is a fallacy in your argument.  You said:

  The Bible and Jesus clearly speak of giving money to the church and in turn fellow Christians should give up all they have and look out for one another.

You are conflating two bits of Scripture.

Jesus told the Rich Young Ruler (here from Mark)

  21 Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

In Acts 4, the early church was clearly looking out for each other

  32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

The conflation being made here is that Jesus told the church to live as one.  This communal form of living together arose from a belief that Jesus would return immediately.  (Indeed, as a side point, 2 Thessalonians is written to just such a community)

The possessions that are to be "sold and given to the poor" are given to just that - the poor.  Losing your job may or may not qualify you for that. Indeed, as a pastor, I have specifically hired people in the church who had temporarily lost jobs, and yes, I usually pushed the benevolent fund to church members first, but the point is - it is the poor, not the community that the intended beneficiary.


Slavery verses on the bible (1 Peter 2:18-20)

It was certainly "okay." The Israelites owned slaves purchased with money (Exo. 12:44). No explicit prohibition is ever declared of this practice in the NT. In fact, servants are commanded to obey their masters (Col. 3:22).

Slavery is not inherently evil but it can be abused like most things. The Bible explicitly prohibits abusing slaves (Exo. 21:20), for all men are made in God's image.

However, it is no longer "okay" because civil law prohibts it, and Christians are commanded to obey the authorities under which they live.


Do Protestants think of Mary as the "Mother of All Peoples"?

I am quoting, below, from the Second Helvetic Confession which is a generally accepted statement of the Reformation :

It was adopted by the Reformed Church not only throughout Switzerland but in Scotland (1566), Hungary (1567), France (1571), Poland (1578), and after the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Scots Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism is the most generally recognized confession of the Reformed Church. The Second Helvetic Confession was also included in the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.'s Book of Confessions, in 1967, and remains in the Book of Confessions adopted by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

Helvetic Confessions - Wikipedia

The Helvetic Confession only makes one mention of Mary, the mother of Jesus :

For Scripture has delivered to us a manifest distinction of persons, the angel saying, among other things, to the Blessed Virgin, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God" (Luke 1:35)

Chapter III - The Second Helvetic Confession

In regard to images in general there is this statement :

But in fact in order to instruct men in religion and to remind them of divine things and of their salvation, the Lord commanded the preaching of the Gospel (Mark 16:15) - not to paint and to teach the laity by means of pictures. Moreover, he instituted sacraments, but nowhere did he set up images.

Chapter IV - The Second Helvetic Confession

As noted in comment, above, the only place in scripture to speak of a woman being a 'mother' to all humanity is the pronouncement upon Eve when Adam named her :

And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

[Genesis 3:20, KJV]

As noted in comment, the Wikipedia entry on Anglican Marian Theology does not carry sufficient citation to be a reliable statement of the very broad spectrum of belief within the Anglican/Anglo-Catholic community.


The Bible prevents obscenity in many cases. Keep in mind that speech is a gift from God, so we must ask ourselves how he use this gift. Also, using obscenity usually shows what is in heart. Here are some verses that support this:

Ephesians 5:3,4

  But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or
  of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for
  God’s holy people. 4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or
  coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.

Ephesians 4:31

  Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along
  with every form of malice.

Psalms 19:14

  May these words of my mouth and this meditation of my heart    be
  pleasing in your sight,    LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer.

Luke 6:45

  A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart,
  and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his
  heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.


In John 14:16, according to the Catholic Church, who is the Spirit of Truth?

The Catholic Church holds that the "Spirit of Truth" here is simply the Holy Spirit:

  When he proclaims and promises the coming of the Holy Spirit, Jesus calls him the "Paraclete," literally, "he who is called to one's side," advocatus. "Paraclete" is commonly translated by "consoler," and Jesus is the first consoler. The Lord also called the Holy Spirit "the Spirit of truth." (Catechism, §692)

This section cites the verses you quote and a few others (John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7, and 16:13) in support of its statements, so it's fair to say that this is how these passages are understood.  The Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, though not as official as the Catechism, states in relation to John 16:13:

  The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth (14:17; 15:26) because he leads the disciples to understand in faith the meaning of Jesus' revelation. (source)


According to Reformed theology, why does God tell people to repent if they don't have the choice to do so, as in Exodus 10:3?

This is a good question and usually the misunderstanding of people who are curious of the doctrine.

I am going to address the second question first. When asking this question you are making a mistake in terms of what total depravity is. You are assuming that the individuals who are not called don't have a choice to repent. This is not what is believed. The person who typically believes in total depravity believes that by birth the individual is sinful (Psalm 51:5) and hates God and therefore will not look for God (Romans 3:10-11). Total depravity is not a choice that is given or not given, it is the state of a mans heart at birth. That his heart hates God because he loves sin (Romans 1:21). Nobody says that they do not have the option to repent. Rather that the individual DOES have the option to repent but they lack the desire to repent. Therefore because they don't want to repent they wont repent.

What happens to the individual that does repent is that God gives some a heart as a new gift (Ezekial 36:26). He makes the individual a new creature (2 Corinthians 5:17). God gives them a new desire for him. A longing to be with him. So because they have a desire for God they repent and turn to him. God never restricts anyone's repentance. Simply put they don't want to repent, because they don't want God. The people who do repent want God. God is not under any obligation to change a mans heart. Although He can and does. Typically they appeal to the many instances when God changes a man in scriptures or sets them apart from birth.

In the example of pharaoh, they do believe pharaoh has the option to repent. In fact it is clear that God tells him to. So he has the option to, and God demonstrates to him that he should over and over. But pharaoh hates God and doesn't want to repent and God is under no obligation to change his heart to make him want to repent. Even if God calls him to repent, because pharaoh has the option to repent. God gave him that option, and calls him to repent but pharaoh simply does not want God, and does not want to repent.

Hope this helps!


Are some spiritual gifts more important than others?

Answer: No.

The whole point of 1 Corinthians 12 is very simple and very straight forward - you should not boast about your Spiritual gift, because gifts don't make anyone special.

Indeed, if one is arguing about which gifts are "better", then you are missing the point of - get this - the gift. A gift is not dependent on the work of the recipient, but rather of the giver. Theologians have long held that the Corinthian church - oft beset by division and discord - were arguing precisely over such silly questions as "which is the most important gift," using their gift as evidence of "their" importance.

1 Corinthians 11:17-19 lays the problem out plainly:

  In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval.

In this situation, Paul unequivocally says - "KNOCK IT OFF! Your gifts are all equally important in God's sight!" And how do we know that this is the case?  Just about every word in chapter 12 is an admonition or an explanation that says - Your gifts don't make you any better than anybody else!

All gifts are from the same source

  There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. 5There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.

All gifts are gifts to be used to the same end in love for others

  Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good

All gifts are to be used together in concert - like as in the body

  Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13For we were all baptized byc one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.

  15Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, but one body

Finally, and most importantly, If you have to pick a "greatest gift" - it's love

  Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tonguesd ? Do all interpret? 31Now eagerly desire the greater gifts. And yet I will show you the most excellent way.

Whereupon we get the famous 1 Corinthians 13 - the hymn to love.

  If I speak in the tonguesa of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If 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 do not have love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. ... And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

In the context in which Paul lays out these gifts, he goes to extarordinary lengths to make it clear - the gifts are not what is special, but rather the giver. As Christians, the gift is just that - a gift which is supposed to be used for building up the body. The moment it becomes a point of pride - an idol - it ceases to be that.


Is the "belly of a whore" phrase from the Bible?

There is no such verse in the Bible. The reference to spilling one's seed on the ground comes from Genesis 38:9 NASB:

  Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to
  his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not give
  offspring to his brother.

From here.

There's a fuller explanation from the site I linked to as well.

This is usually a saying that comes up in reference to masturbation.  That's not really what the verse is talking about, but that subject has been discussed on this site here.


According to Preterism why wasn't Capernaum destroyed?

In my research I found this excellent article by Zeev Goldmann who argues that the famed synagogue that was unearthed and the ruins beneath it indicate that the city did in fact repent and turn to Christ:

http://zeevgoldmann.blogspot.com/2008/08/vi-capernaum-synagogue.html

So this is a case similar to that of Jonah, where he predicted the imminent destruction of Ninevah but they were spared when they repented.


Why is the Gospel of Thomas considered heretical by Nicene Christians?

Wikipedia does a good job of summarizing the heresy, but I want to pull out some source material.

Some of the sayings do attest to the synpotic Gospels, but there is a lot of heresy in there too:

From the top, selected parts of The Gospel of Thomas:

  These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded.
  1. And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death."

Gnostics were all about "special knowledge." That's where the word comes from: Gnosis - to know.  Orthodox Christianity tends to find "secret knowledge" repugnant.

  The dead are not alive, and the living will not die. During the days when you ate what is dead, you made it come alive. When you are in the light, what will you do? On the day when you were one, you became two. But when you become two, what will you do?"

This eschataology differs significantly.

  Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to something and tell me what I am like."
  Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a just messenger."
  Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher."
  Thomas said to him, "Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like."
  Jesus said, "I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended."
  And he took him, and withdrew, and spoke three sayings to him. When Thomas came back to his friends they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?"
  Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the sayings he spoke to me, you will pick up rocks and stone me, and fire will come from the rocks and devour you."

More secret knowledge, and an implication that Jesus is merely a teacher, nothing more.

  Jesus said, "When you see one who was not born of woman, fall on your faces and worship. That one is your Father."

Docetism

  22 ... Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."

Matter is evil according to gnostics, and the implication here is that matter cannot enter into the kingdom

  "If you do not fast from the world, you will not find the (Father's) kingdom. If you do not observe the sabbath as a sabbath you will not see the Father."

Legalism, and anti-materialism

  Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit, that is a marvel, but if spirit came into being because of the body, that is a marvel of marvels.Yet I marvel at how this great wealth has come to dwell in this poverty."

More anti-materialism

  His disciples said, "When will you appear to us, and when will we see you?"
  Jesus said, "When you strip without being ashamed, and you take your clothes and put them under your feet like little children and trample them, then [you] will see the son of the living one and you will not be afraid."

Gnostics were antinomian as a result of their anti-materialism.  This would be a kind of that.

  Jesus said, "The Pharisees and the scholars have taken the keys of knowledge and have hidden them. They have not entered nor have they allowed those who want to enter to do so.

More secret knowledge

  Jesus said, "If they say to you, 'Where have you come from?' say to them, 'We have come from the light, from the place where the light came into being by itself, established [itself], and appeared in their image.'If they say to you, 'Is it you?' say, 'We are its children, and we are the chosen of the living Father.'If they ask you, 'What is the evidence of your Father in you?' say to them, 'It is motion and rest.'"
  Jesus said, "Whoever has come to know the world has discovered a carcass, and whoever has discovered a carcass, of that person the world is not worthy."

More anti-materialism

  Jesus said, "I disclose my mysteries to those [who are worthy] of [my] mysteries.

More secret knowledge

  Jesus said, "Whoever has come to know the world has discovered the body, and whoever has discovered the body, of that one the world is not worthy."
  Jesus said, "Images are visible to people, but the light within them is hidden in the image of the Father's light. He will be disclosed, but his image is hidden by his light."
  Jesus said, "When you see your likeness, you are happy. But when you see your images that came into being before you and that neither die nor become visible, how much you will have to bear!"
  Jesus said, "How miserable is the body that depends on a body, and how miserable is the soul that depends on these two."

More anti-materialism

Do you see a pattern here?

Gnostics believe the body is inherently and irredeemably evil. Therefore, it doesn't matter what the body does - only your spirit matters.  That is the heart of the antinomian heresy that Gnostics teach.

Beyond this, yes, there is a lot of repetition of the Synoptic Gospels - after all Gnostics thought they were Christians too.  But the innovative parts of Thomas are the parts that orthodox Christians either thought "meh" or heresy.

That's why it never made the canon.


What's the basic premise behind "restorationist" movements?

To reform is to change what already is there, and to restore is to return to its original state.

It probably depends which congregation within Christianity you're asking. Some protestants may consider themselves restorationists, and others reformational. Other Christians use the term and eschew the "Protestant" label.

For example, Latter-day Saints wouldn't consider themselves Protestant since the LDS Church is considered a restoration of what already was on Earth anciently... regardless of religious protests and breakages through time. This group is particularly interested in differentiating reformation from restoration.

But generally, I do understand most uses of the word "reform" to refer to the 16th century movements -- and other uses of the word "restore" I'm not familiar with than what I've mentioned. I've also seen local congregations use the word "Reformed such-and-such Church" in direct reference to another local congregation from which they are a derivative.

I guess it depends who you ask.


How to verify if a "message from God" came from God?

It is good to remember that God is consistent. He does not change. This works out to our benefit. For example:1

  Malachi 2:6 (ESV)
  For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.

One of the ways in which this is good for us is that we are not trying to hit a moving target when it comes to understanding His will. His character, what pleases Him, what He expects from men, and other like topics are fixed, not variable truths.

This knowledge about God also allows us to say that He will not contradict Himself. If He has a message for you, you can easily check whether it's possibly true by checking it against a known corpus of teaching, His Word. He will never tell you anything inconsistent with the teachings he gave us in the Scriptures. This is why it is important to study and know them well so that as we are bombarded with messages from this world we will be able to discern which messages are an echo of His voice and which are crafts of the deceiver.

Most of the book of Jude tucked away at the end of the NT is a scathing warning against false teachers defined as any person or teaching that espoused any idea other than the Gospel as outlined by Christ and the early Apostles. It talks about people who see visions and follow them, reject the authority of the church, and fall into all manner of wrong roads. It ends with this call:

  Jude 1:17-21 (ESV)
  But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. They said to you, “In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.” It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit. But you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life.

There are numerous other NT references to the importance of sticking to the early teachings, many of them clearer than this passage. The long an the short of it is that we are to discern whether any message is from God by comparing it against the rest of the Word.

1 Note that this example is in a different context of God keeping his covenants even when men are faithless, but the principle of God not changing is also found many other places in Scripture so I think it's a valid proof here.

One of my favorite quotes in The Lord of the Rings echos the idea of right and wrong and the basis for the decisions we have to make in our lives not being variable.2 Faramir asks:

  "How shall a man judge what to do in such times?"
  "As he ever has judged,' said Aragorn. 'Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves, and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house."

2 This is not a source text!


What exactly is "Ordinary Time" in the Catholic Church's liturgical calendar?

The Ordinary time is a period within the Church's liturgical year that does not celebrate like Christmastide (25 of dic.- sunday after epiphany) or Pascha(Easter sunday-pentecost), nor is penitential like advent(4 sundays before Christmas-24 of dic.) or Lent(Ash Wed.-Holy Saturday). It is a period of Hope and growth in Christ. It occurs two times, the first from Christmas to Lent and the second from Pascha to Advent. It liturgical color is green.

Edit: "Ordinary Time" implies just that it is not seasonal, this page might help you look more in depth

In Wikipedia it gives a small history of the term

  Before the liturgical reforms of 1970, there were two distinct seasons in the Roman Breviary and Roman Missal, known as the season after Epiphany and the season after Pentecost, respectively. Liturgical days in these times were referred to as the -nth Sunday after Epiphany or Pentecost, or Feria II,III,IV,V or VI after the -nth Sunday.

www.cyberfaith.com/calendar/ordinary.html

Also Eastern Orthodox observe Ordinary Time.


Most theologians do not speculate as far as your question searches, but then again I think it is a valid question. The idea of the Son being begotten from the Father does not carry a connotation of time being that it was before time existed. Your question is therefore what connotation is expressed by 'begotten' if time is irrelevant? It would seem that the connotation of 'some essential filial' aspect of the Trinity is implied, so that in some sense the Father produces the Son, yet not independently of by his will alone. Without the Son there would be no Father, as God is Father, Son and Holy Ghost; eternally past, eternally present and eternally future, always and forever the same.  This may seem like a 'non-asswer' as it deals with the unknown but if we appreciate it as a basic manifestation of the triune relationships between the three persons of the unchanging Godhead, it naturally helps us understand that as God approaches time and his creation, he sent his Son and not himself. I mean the Father sent the Son to save us through an incarnation because the Father begets the Son and not viva-versa. The Spirit does not send the Son, the Son does not beget the Father, rather the Father begot the Son and both the Son and the Father sent the Holy Spirit.

The relational aspects within the three persons of the Trinity our incomprehensible to us as they stand outside of time because we only live and understand a world in time. We can only really perceive its meaning within the time that God has entered to make himself known, the gospel. So how is the Son produced? Eternally, we can't know the inner workings of the Trinity beyond its basic definitions and assertion, but as the Father does eternally produce the Son outside of the concept of time, the Father has partly manifested what that means 'in time' by the incarnation.


What were the reformers' views of biblical inerrancy?

Sometimes it is best to see a theologian in action to determine their view and attitude about inerrancy. There is a classical error in most of our Bibles in Matthew 27:9 where Matthew means to quote Zechariah 11:13 concerning the 'thirty pieces of silver' but it says ‘Jeremiah’.  I have glanced at a few modern explanations about this and it seems sufficiently resolved under several theories, one of which the original did not have the prophets name and the error creped in by a copyist mistake. The Syriac version, for example reads only, It was spoken by the prophet, not naming any.

Alright but how would Calvin and Luther approach this when maybe this kind of explanation was not readily available?

Here is what Calvin said:

  How the name of Jeremiah crept in, I confess that I do not know nor do I give myself much trouble to inquire. The passage itself plainly shows that the name of Jeremiah has been put down by mistake, instead of Zechariah, ( 11:13 ;) for in Jeremiah we find nothing of this sort, nor any thing that even approaches to it.Calvin's Commentaries, Vol. 33: Matthew, Mark and Luke

This is what Luther said:

  Jerome brings up the question why the evangelist Matthew cited this testimony as being from Jeremiah when it never appears in Jeremiah but in this prophet, Zechariah. Briefly, I have this to answer: the evangelists do not generally cite testimonies from the prophets word for word. They merely bring out the sense. This is what Matthew also does in the passage we mentioned above in chapter 9:9, where the prophet said: “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion. Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem.” Matthew cites this as follows (Matt. 21:5): “As it is written, tell the daughter of Zion, Behold, your King is coming to you, etc.” Here, clearly, the words are different. Yet nothing of the sense has been changed. Then, too, Matthew added (Matt. 27:9) “by the children of Israel,” which does not occur in the prophet This Matthew obviously did to explain that buying and selling and to warn that the children of Isarel were responsible for it. As to the fact that He cites the testimony as coming from Jeremiah, I have nothing else to respond than this common answer, that the prophet perhaps had two names or that in the custom of other evangelists, too, Matthew was quoting generally, without any concern for the name of the prophet. Augustine (q. v.) discusses this passage carefully, would not readily believe that the names of the books of the prophets were exchanged because of changed tittles. Then, too, there undoubtedly were with Matthew saintly and learned men, filled with the Spirit, who advised him that the Scripture which he cited was in Zechariah, not in Jeremiah. Admonished by their advice, he could have corrected that slight error, had he wished or had he thought it important. But there is no reason for us to bother ourselves with these and similar difficulties. After all, the life and sum of our faith do not lie in them. Those people who labor over nonessential matters of this sort are more than mad. Yet this is one thing which the prophets of our day try to do when they read Scriptures for the purpose of searching out texts like this which they can use as the handle and material of debate and controversy. In the meantime, they neglect the lifeblood of religion, when they ought to be performing this one duty especially—teaching a ruling Christ, This is something all the apostles do with unanimous agreement.

Conclusion: The reformers certainly believed in the inerrancy of scripture (as they usually make effort to resolve apparent contradictions) but they did not feel the need to resolve every little minute detail and fact and actually did not seem overly bothered if a small fact, unrelated to anything, was wrong.  They seemed less obsessed about small unrelated facts compared to us.  They did not seem to put their hands over the ears like Edward Much's famous painting 'scream' and think, ‘If we allow one mistake then who is to say that all is not a mistake, Oh boy, worry me, the sky is falling, what shall we ever do?’  I am not saying there are any mistakes in the original text, but I do wonder at times whether it matters. I think we could learn from the attitude of the reformers a bit on this one.


How do Anglicans interpret the great crowd (144,000) of Revelation 7?

From an Anglican Commentary on the whole Bible.  "The complete number of God's people....and that a large one (144,000 is the square of 12 a thousandfold) is being gathered together for everlasting safety.  The Church of Christ is spoken of in OT language....the tribe of Dan is not mentioned perhaps because of a Jewish tradition that Antichrist was to come from this tribe:   source:  A Commentary on the Holy Bible by Various Writers, edited by the Rev. J.R. Dummelow M.A., Queens' College, Cambridge


Does the Bible give the reasons (if any) for God choosing Abraham?

Scripture gives this answer:

  Genesis 18:18-19 King James Version (KJV)

  18 Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation,
  and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?

  19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household
  after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and
  judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath
  spoken of him.

God, in His perfect Omniscience chose Abraham because He knew Abraham would fulfill His purpose.

More here.


What is the biblical basis for the phrase "God wants the best for us"?

To me, the first consideration in answering your question is to identify exactly what the phrase means. It is easy enough to imagine that the phrase is used to mean that God wants us all to have "Hallmark" (R) moments--"When you care enough to send the very best". When you go to the butcher, God wants you to buy Prime grade instead of choice grade beef, Grade A eggs and dairy, and at the fish market, Grade A jumbo shrimp. Drive an Olds Delta 88 instead of a Chevy Chevette. In other words, God wants us to have the best things. But there is another way to read the sentence. That is, rather than God wanting us to have something which is best on some arbitrary scale, that God wants us to have what is "best for us". Grade A eggs are not best for someone allergic to eggs; Grade A milk is not best for someone who is lactose intolerant; and Grade A shrimp is not best for someone who has a shellfish allergy. And the notion of some kind of objective best is contrary to any number of Jesus' teachings: the lesson from the Sermon on the mount about not being concerned with what to eat, or what to wear (Matthew 7:25-33); the parable of the man who anticipated a large harvest, so he pulled down all his warehouses and built bigger ones (Luke 12:13-21); and the widow who put in a small offering which Jesus held in higher regard than the large offerings of wealthy people (Mark 12:41-44). These passages, and many others like them in Scripture, seem to support the idea that phrase is meant to teach that God wants us to have what is "best for us", not some "best" based on an arbitrary measure.

What, then, is the origin of the phrase? It is not, as far as I can tell, a direct quotation from any the translations of the Scripture with which I am familiar, though I do not claim by any means to be familiar with all of the tens of English translations that have been made. I suspect that this is an example of the somewhat common phenomenon of attempting to quote the Bible without verifying that the passage says exactly what they remember it says. In other words, this is another example like that when people assert that the Bible teaches "Money is the root of all evil". However, the closest the Bible comes to this is 1 Timothy 6:10, where Paul writes "The love of money is the root of all evil." The two sentences are similar, but not identical, and the meaning is significantly different. I take the statement "God wants the best for us" as another example of the same phenomenon, where the phrase is a well-meaning mis-quotation of Romans 8:28a: "We know that in everything God works for good"..., perhaps colored by other teachings of Jesus, e.g. Matthew 7:11, "If you, then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him?"

I would distinguish, too, between things that are meant for our benefit, and things that are meant for the edification of God. So I would set having a really good sound system in the Church so that the Word of God is heard better, or God is worshipped better is a different matter from having the very best sound system at home, so as to better hear a sporting event, or listen to one's own music. The former is an offering to God, and is consistent with the commands to make the items associated with worship of God, that is the vestments described for the High Priest of Israel, and the fixtures for Solomon's temple. The latter, to me, is more like the fellow described in Luke 12 cited above.


What does the Bible have to say about dinosaurs?

Some commentators (such as the Institute for Creation Research) have suggested that Leviathan (otherwise a Hapax Legomenon) in Job 41 is a dinosaur. Not all agree, but it is at least "out there" as a theory.
Prior to the 1820s, dinosaurs were unknown to (modern) man[1], so it is not surprising the are not mentioned in the Bible. (Indeed, the term would have had no meaning).
If the case is that Leviathan is a dinsoaur, then we read:

1 Can you pull in the leviathan with a fishhook or tie down his tongue with a rope?
2 Can you put a cord through his nose or pierce his jaw with a hook?
3 Will he keep begging you for mercy? Will he speak to you with gentle words?
4 Will he make an agreement with you for you to take him as your slave for life?
5 Can you make a pet of him like a bird or put him on a leash for your girls?
6 Will traders barter for him? Will they divide him up among the merchants?
7 Can you fill his hide with harpoons or his head with fishing spears?
8 If you lay a hand on him, you will remember the struggle and never do it again!
9 Any hope of subduing him is false; the mere sight of him is overpowering.
10 No-one is fierce enough to rouse him. Who then is able to stand against me?

Basically, they are big and strong, but God is bigger.

[1]: To be clear, most scientists believe that man was just a mouse during the age of the dinosaur, and even old earth Creationists suspect that the dinosaurs had died out in the "two days" before man.  During the 1800s, I believe it was Paley who suggested that the dinosaurs must have died out shortly after the flood.  A few die-hard Young Earthers (like the ICR) still advocate that, but for the most part "The Land of the Lost" is just that.


Calvinists: How to avoid justification from eternity?

You are asking for a solution to what you see as an intractable problem. A classically Arminian view has been stated. The Five Points of Arminianism include these three (which relate directly to your question):

1)  Man, although affected by the Fall, was not totally incapable of choosing spiritual good, and was able to exercise faith in God in order to receive the gospel and thus bring himself into possession of salvation.

2)  God laid his hands upon individuals who he knew (or foresaw) would respond to the gospel. God elected those that he saw would want to be saved of their own free will and in their natural fallen state – which was, of course, according to the first point of Arminianism, not completely fallen anyway.

3)  Christ died to save all men; but only in a potential fashion. Christ’s death enabled God to pardon sinners, but only on condition that they believed.

It would appear that you subscribe to the above, but Calvinists believe that man’s state is a total inability to gain, or contribute to his own salvation, so anyone thinking otherwise is never going to follow the line of scriptural reasons Calvinists offer on the second and third points, which proceed from the first one. Bishop J.C. Ryle said long ago that,

  “There are very few errors and false doctrines of which the beginning
  may not be traced up to unsound views about the corruption of human
  nature. Wrong views of a disease will always bring with them wrong
  views of a remedy. Wrong views of the corruption of human nature will
  always carry with them wrong views of the grand antidote and cure of
  that corruption.” (As quoted in ‘The Five Points of Calvinism’ by W.J.
  Seaton, page 9, Banner of Truth Trust, 1983 reprint.)

This, I respectfully suggest, is the reason why you have presented what you see as an intractable problem. You said, “If I put my Calvinist hat on, there's only two solutions I can come up with…” but you cannot put a Calvinist hat on until you agree that fallen man is unable to do anything to contribute towards his salvation, and as that affects understanding of all the five points of Calvinism, you are not even a one-point Calvinist. No wonder you see an impossible dilemma!  However, the logic of the five points of Calvinism can be simply stated like this:

  “Man is totally unable to save himself on account of the Fall in the
  Garden of Eden being a total fall. If unable to save himself, then God
  must save. If God must save, then God must be free to save whom he
  will. If God has decreed to save whom he will, then it is for those
  that Christ made atonement on the cross. If Christ died for them, then
  the Holy Spirit will effectually call them into that salvation. If
  salvation then from the beginning has been of God, the end will also
  be of God and the saints will persevere to eternal joy.” [op. cit.
  page 8]

The matter of when the saving effects of the atonement are applied will only be solved if you accept the solution lies in correctly diagnosing the nature of the sin that prevents man from even being able to contribute towards his salvation. But for as long as anybody thinks that God’s salvation is dependent on the person doing something before God can grant salvation, then God is not God Almighty – he is limited by sinful human choices! Yet, because God IS God Almighty, he has decreed from before the founding of the world that Christ was chosen to be a lamb without blemish or defect whose precious blood would redeem “God’s elect… who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood.” 1 Peter 1:1-2 and verses 18-21


What is the Biblical basis for the Catholic teaching that infant baptism cleanses from original sin?

There are biblical references to baptism as imparting new life in Christ on which to base the practice.

And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him." And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." [Acts 2:38–40]
We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. [Romans 6:4]
God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. [1 Peter 3:20–21]

The Church cannot deny the grace imparted by baptism to a child simply because he is a child.

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called [Cf Col 1:12–14]. [Catechism of the Catholic Church]

The Catechism holds that infant baptism is "an immemorial tradition", practised from the earliest days of the Church recorded in Acts.

1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole "households" received baptism, infants may also have been baptized [Cf Acts 16:15, 33; Acts 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16]


Works Rightouseness - Is there any Christian Group that focus on this

Dr. John Fonville, in the third part of his sermon series entitled Threats To Christian Freedom: Legalism, discusses two types of works righteousness about which Paul warns the Church in Galatia in the 5th Chapter of his Epistle to them, and gives examples of each that include theologies that, by this site's standards, are Christian denominations. He contrasts these types of theological legalism with functional legalism, which he describes as grace-centered Christians who unintentionally judge themselves according to the law.

The first, called simply legalism (nomism), includes Christian theologies and other religions that teach that salvation itself- justification in the final judgement- is not imputed but is earned by works during life. He cites Mormonism, Jahovah's Whitness, and Islam as examples of theological legalism, as well as Christian denominations that teach that a salvific work like baptism or other sacrament is required for salvation. Contrary to what it may seem, this type of legalism actually diminishes the law, since the standard of the law must be lowered in order to be achieved by the individual. Ultimately in this theology, the sacrifice and divinity of Christ are of no consequence, as he becomes simply an example of righteous works and not the source of righteousness.

The second, called covenant nomism, teaches that while the initiation of the salvific process is a result of grace and election, both sanctification and ultimate justification are a result of works. In other words, you get in by faith, but you stay in by works. This is what Paul means when he asks rhetorically, "Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?"  Dr. Fonville includes charismatic revivalism with its alter calls for rededication, the Roman Catholic Church with its doctrine of penance, and first century Judaism as examples of this type of works based righteousness. In this theology, the effectiveness of God's grace, the existence of the Spirit in the life of the believer, and the believers unity with Christ are discarded.

A remedy to both of these types of works based righteousness in the Church, Dr. Fonville concludes, is the constant exposure to the sound Gospel of salvation by grace through faith, citing 2 Peter 1:12-13,

  Therefore, I will always be ready to remind you of these things, even though you already know them, and have been established in the truth which is present with you. I consider it right, as long as I am in this earthly dwelling, to stir you up by way of reminder,


First, define a Christian ;p It actually isn't as simple as you'd think - for example, consider the definition this site uses:

  As far as the scope of this site is concerned, any group that identifies themselves as Christian are to be considered on-topic and allowed to label themselves Christian.

You would perhaps need to ask the author, but "cultural Christians" may be one answer; for example, the recent results of a UK MORI (i.e. well-respected/independent survey) of only people who self-identified as Christian showed that 65% are actually non-religious cultural Christians, i.e. identify as Christian for reasons such as "was Christened as a child", "parents are Christian", etc. Likewise, only 10% used religion as a primary tool in morality issues. Summary document - but emphasis: while the survey was commissioned by the Dawkins Foundation, the survery was conducted independently paying scrupulous attention to the actual questions to ensure the questions weren't leading, etc.

I can't know whether this relates to the thoughts of the answer you are thinking of, but that number is pretty telling, particularly when interpreting geographic religion statistics - i.e. how people identify might not actually relate much to their religious beliefs, but more to their historic/cultural identity.


To which Saints may a Catholic pray, and when can this begin?

Actually a catholic can privately pray to anyone whom he/she thinks can intercede on their behalf. In fact Catholics do not see any difference in asking you to pray for me and asking my dead grandma (if I believe she is in heaven or purgatory) to pray for me.

Is it restricted to only those who are designated as Saints by the Catholic Church?

Public prayers are restricted only to canonized personssee note 1. But private prayers/veneration is not. In-fact the actual canonization procedure can start if and only if for 5 years after the death of a person, the lay faithful have prayed to them privately and continuously. But such prayers can not be done publicly in a Church or Chapel. More specifically their statues and pictures cannot be placed in an alter of a church/chapel. They cannot be represented with halo around their head.

Is it the designation of sainthood by the current Pope on earth that allows someone in heaven to begin hearing prayers?

No it does not. The designation of sainthood or canonization only attests that the universal church can pray to them because this person is in heaven and has the power to intercede before God for us. The main purpose of Canonization is to show people Good example. This is revealed by infallible papal proclamation. Canonization is helpful only for people on this earth to recognize a saint, it does not give special powers to people in heaven. Private devotions are not restricted by this.

What prevents any Christian from hearing the prayers of people on earth? Would it have something to do with the time when they get out of Purgatory?

On the contrary, a catholic can even ask for the holy souls in the purgatory to intercede. Only thing is that souls in the purgatory cannot pray for themselves, but they can very well pray for us.

Points to note:

Persons who are beatified can be publicly venerated only in the concerned persons diocese. For public veneration outside of his own diocese the permission of the Bishop or the Bishop council of the country is required. Such restrictions do not apply for one who is canonized. For example Bl. Mother Theresa is permitted to be venerated all thru India by the Catholic Bishops council of India, even though she belongs to the Archdiocese of Calcutta.
There are some saints whose devotion is explicitly suppressed because faithful have been having devotion to them, but their life is not a good example or there is little to no proof for their existence. For example as late as 1173 Pope Alexander III, reprimanded certain bishops for having permitted veneration of a man who was far from being a saint. Also the names of St. Valentine and St. Philomina are removed from universal church canon, because of lack of evidence for them to have existed. But their veneration is permitted in local churches where it is traditionally held.


What does Unitarianism think about Judaism?

With all due respect, your question is inherently laden with false assumptions, which make its answering impossible (without granting false assumptions). As such this won't be  an answer proper.

For instance, Unitarianism (the beleif that God is one person) is not synonymous with Monotheism (the belief in one God), because Unitarianism refers to the doctrine that God is one person, not that there is one God only, which both Unitarianism and Trinitarianism - both monotheistic doctrines of God - posit. Additionally, the doctrine of the trinity is not synonymous with tri-theism (if for no other reason than that the trinity doctrine is false if there are more than the one true God - similar to how the incarnate is a false doctrine if God is in fact a man). One cannot deny this without strawmanning the doctrine of the trinity or the incarnation.

Second, Unitarianism goes farther back than the Reformation to the times of Marcion ('Old Testament God is evil - Jesus is the one true God') and the Sabellians ('the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are only three manifestations of the one person of God').

Third, Arianism did not view Jesus as 'just a cool bro' (a good teacher/Rabbi/Saviour) but merely denied that His generation from God the Father was from all eternity, but still placing Him before all creatures, and yet somehow after eternity. They definitely viewed Him as God, or at the very, very least, god beyond all other creatures (including angels).  What orthodox Christians were holding a Council over was the fact that they said the Saviour and subject of the entire New Covenant was a creature, although ascribing worship in practice to Him, via the liturgy (especially the Eucharist) etc. They accepted Nicene formulations, with Arian understandings, for example. Arians had no predecessors in the Christian faith - no one ever denied what they novelly - 200 years after Christ - denied.

All forms of Christians until Calvin also denied the presdestination we are familiar with in Calvinism (post 1600s). Predesintination until this point referred to the absolute surety with which God knew humans would behave, and thus end up, and to the surety with which this cannot (therefore) be any other way than it factually was, is and will be. It's just the doctrine that God knows the end already from the beginning, not that God predetermines the end by the beginning point (Isa. 46:10). Foreknowledge does not require God 'rigging' history, in other words.

Denying original sin is as simple as follows:

Saying that..

  John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

..is false.

If you do not have need of rebirth spiritually, then original sin is false. If that's not true, original sin is true - for that's all that has been meant by original sin.

Thirdly, Unitarianism is too wide a denominational swathe to determine that they all put "[low] emphasis on belief." And even if they did, what integrity has the group which claims that the New Testament is false in saying belief is at the heart of the gospel of Jesus? None at all - even if Christianity is false or reprehensible.


Which was written first Noah’s Flood or the Gilgamesh Epic?

The Epic of Gilgamesh was written before Genesis was written down but after the events of Genesis took place, and both were after the event of concern, the Flood of Noah (per your tag), occurred.

At least parts of the Epic of Gilgamesh were written by ~2100 BC, with the first complete version, the Akkadian version, dating from around 1300-1000 BC. See Wikipedia’s description of the history of the Epic of Gilgamesh.
Genesis, along with the rest of the Pentateuch, in the timeframe of 1445-1405 BC.
Related, the Sumerian flood story, the Atrahasis, dates to 1646–1626 BC.

Since you tagged the flood of Noah, I will say that the most important thing in discussing the account of Noah’s flood, however, is not comparing when the Bible was written with when these epics were written. The important thing is that all of these flood stories came after the actual event happened. Noah’s flood occurred around ~2300-2400 BC. See calculations from Answers in Genesis, Creation.com, and Bible Archeology (these are all probably YEC). It is well expected that many stories and myths, etc. would be written about this monumental, historical event as it was passed down orally before it was written down. So, the Epic of Gilgamesh, Atrahasis, and other flood stories can only serve to support (very indirectly) the account given in Scripture that God sent a worldwide flood to destroy the Earth as judgment.

You can also see the question Are other flood legends relevant to Christians? for more discussion.


If God is increasing in knowledge, then God is by definition changing.  As such, technically you would be rejecting the "immutability" of God, the doctrine that says God never changes.

While proponents of Open Theism would be more than happy to reject it, these are a fairly minor subset of Christians. Indeed, for the Open Theist, God is able to form relationships with humans only if he doesn't know what is happening in that relationship. And for the Open Theist, God's whole creation is a journey of discovery of the consequences of his Creation, hence God's knowledge is increasing.

That said, most Evangelicals and technically all Catholics would reject all of this.  In a nutshell, if God is mutable, he cannot be omniscient nor can he be omnipotent. Many heresies spring from Open Theism and rejection of God's immutability.  Amongst other mainline Protestants, you'll most likely find more reject the assertions of Open Theism than those who would accept it. Historically, the immutability of God was the point - that God never changes - and to deny it would be heresy.

There is much more in this question:

What is the basis of the argument that Open Theism is heretical?

and this one:

Can God Change his mind?

If you'd like to understand the relative merits of the positions.


Why is our righteousness as filthy rags?

To put it another way, is it because the expectation of a reward nullifies the benevolence of the act? If so, how does Christianity address this?

Your quote from Isaiah is similar to a quote from Romans;

  Romans 3:10  As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

These attestations of original sin or the inability of humans to raise themselves to righteousness indicate our fallen state. This is usually observed in religious practice as a type of theater;

  Matthew 6:2  Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a
  trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the
  streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They
  have their reward.

Christianity is rather unique in worlds religions. Most religions are works based and are described in terms of what you have to do to get something. Even some Christian denominations have been packaged as a "do this, get that" religious system.

At the core of Christianity is the gift of eternal life that is available through trusting in Jesus. There is nothing that has to be done to earn this gift.

True Christianity is about transcendence. Once we have new life in Christ and are filled with his Spirit, we should begin a transition away from those things that appeal to the flesh and are more drawn to those things pertaining to the Spirit. The letter to the Galatians describes much about this.

Christians are supposed to be growing in the image of Christ. This is leaving the world of selfishness and the flesh and maturing in the world of selflessness and love.

True "benevolence" comes from a heart not contaminated by "self". Jesus is our example in this of that to which we should aspire.

  Romans 5:8  But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we
  were yet sinners, Christ died for us.


Why does Genesis record only 10 names from Adam to Noah?

Noah's Lineage

Noah was definitely a significant figure, as it was he and his family alone who survived the flood.  The purpose appears to be to show Noah's lineage from Adam.  Adding in brothers and sisters at each level would be a bit tangential to that purpose.

Enoch was certainly a man of note due to his close relationship with God.

The Line of Cain

Genesis 4 tells us about both Cain and Abel, who were indeed brothers of Seth.  This chapter also gives us the line of Cain as follows:

Cain > Enoch > Irad > Mehujael > Methushael > Lamech.

Lamech's two wives were Adah and Zillah.

Adah bore Jabal and Jubal.

Zillah bore Tubal-cain and his sister Naamah.

So, we are actually given other names in the line of Cain in Genesis 4, even though both Cain and Lamech were murderers.  The line of Noah does seem to be a more righteous line, to be sure.

The Second Gospel

There is another interesting idea that has been put forward, specifically that the meanings of the ten names in Noah's lineage have significance--sort of a Second Gospel:

Adam        Man
Seth        Appointed
Enosh       Mortal
Kenan       Sorrow
Mahalalel   The Blessed God
Jared       Shall come down
Enoch       Teaching
Methuselah  His death shall bring
Lamech      The despairing
Noah        Rest, or comfort

Put together, this could be as follows:

  Man is Appointed Mortal Sorrow.  [The Blessed God] [shall come down], teaching.  [His death shall bring] to [the despairing], [rest (or comfort)].


Is it true that early Christians were baptised naked?

Quick answer: Yes, nude baptism was practiced in Ancient times.

From A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities p 160 ed W Smith & S Cheetam (1875)

  A comparison of all the evidence leads to the conclusion that the catechumens entered the font in a state of absolute nakedness. See particularly St Cyril, Hieros. Myst. Catech. ii ad init; St Ambrose, Serm. xx (Opp. t.v. p. 153, Paris 1642)and Enarrat. in Ps lxi 32 (BB t.i.p. 966); St Chrysostom, ad Illum. Cat. i (Migne, tom. ii. p 268). Possibly a cincture of some kind (quo pudori consuleretur) may have been worn, as indicated in some medieval works of art.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (4th Century)

  Therefore, I shall necessarily lay before you the sequel of yesterday's Lecture, that ye may learn of what those things, which were done by you in the inner chamber(2), were symbolical. 2. As soon, then, as ye entered, ye put off your tunic; and this was an image of putting off the old man with his deeds(3). Having stripped yourselves, ye were naked; in this also imitating Christ, who was stripped naked on the Cross, and by His nakedness put off from Himself the principalities and powers, and openly triumphed over them on the tree(4). For since the adverse powers made their lair in your members, ye may no longer wear that old garment; I do not at all mean this visible one, but the old man, which waxeth corrupt in the lusts of deceit(5). May the soul which has once put him off, never again put him on, but say with the Spouse of Christ in the Song of Songs, I have put off my garment, how shall I put it on(6)? O wondrous thing! ye were naked in the sight of all, and were not ashamed(7); for truly ye bore the likeness of the first-formed Adam, who was naked in the garden, and was not ashamed. 3. Then, when ye were stripped, ye were anointed with exorcised oil(8), from the very hairs of your head to your feet, and were made partakers of the good olive-tree, Jesus Christ. For ye were cut off from the wild olive-tree(9), and grafted into the good one, and were made to share the fatness of the true olive-tree.

Bishop Hippolytus of Rome:

  21 1 At the hour in which the cock crows, they shall first pray over the water. 2 When  they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring  or a flowing body of water. 3 Then they shall take off all their clothes.The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or  someone else from their family. 5 After this, the men will be baptized. Finally, the women, after they have unbound their hair, and removed their jewelry. No one shall take any  foreign object with themselves down into the water.
  ...

  9 When the elder takes hold of each of them who are to receive baptism, he shall tell each  of them to renounce, saying, "I renounce you Satan, all your service, and all your works."  10 After he has said this, he shall anoint each with the Oil of Exorcism, saying, "Let every  evil spirit depart from you." 11 Then, after these things, the bishop passes each of them on  nude to the elder who stands at the water. They shall stand in the water naked. A deacon,  likewise, will go down with them into the water. (Hippolytus. "Apostolic Traditions" of Hippolytus, 21:1-11. Translated by Edgecomb, Kevin P. Derived from Bernard Botte (La Tradition Apostolique. Sources Chretiennes, 11 bis. Paris, Editions du Cerf, 1984) and of Gregory Dix (The Treatise on the  Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome, Bishop and Martyr. London: Alban Press, 1992)

My understanding from seminary was that, for modesty, women were baptised in darkness. Eventually, for the same reason, the practice fell out of favor.


Why does the Christian doctrine seem so far from the Bible?

Welcome to the site. I'm assuming you are just starting to investigate Christianity. This is a good question, so I'll try to give you a simple answer.
Most of the Bible, which we call the Old Testament, was written for the Jews. It tells the story of their interaction with God, who gave them all sorts of laws and commands to follow. But one of the things he said was that there would be a person who would come who would set them free.
That person is Jesus Christ, and his story is in the later part of the Bible, the New Testament. The New Testament starts with the Gospels, and is the book of Matthew and everything after. Jesus (speaking for God) tells people that the old laws and commands weren't the point. You didn't have to follow all the old laws like circumcision or feast days, but a new law based around love. He gave his life specifically to free us from it. The old law is useful to know about, but the new law supersedes it.
So if you've been reading only the early part of the Bible, you will find a lot of things that Christians don't do. If you read the later part, especially the Gospels (the books Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) you will understand a lot more. I've simplified this a lot, and if there are specific points you don't understand then feel free to ask about them.


Which Roman Catholic doctrines are infallible?

Short answer: According to the catholic church, ALL of its doctrines are infallible.

Long answer:
The problem arises when someone questions whether a particular subject (matter of grave importance) is a Catholic doctrine or not. When that occurs, and there is an eminent danger of those people (who may or may not hold an ecclesiastical post) present a false doctrine as official church teaching, then pope has to step in and clear the matter by pronouncing a doctrine as a dogma. Now, there are some doctrines which will never be formally defined as dogmas, probably because no one will question them. (for example, virgin birth of Christ)

I understand that there is a room to wiggle around with respect to a doctrine. But as with a dogma, it is, with no second thought, infallible from a Catholic POV

Wikipedia article on Papal infallibility lists out seven instances of a pope speaking ex cathedra:

  "Tome to Flavian", Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
  Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
  Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just after death rather than only just prior to final judgment;
  Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
  Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
  Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception;
  Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary.

The above article also states that there is no complete list of doctrines or dogmas ever prepared by the Holy See. Which understandably is an impossible task.

My personal opinion: When ever a canonization occurs, it is infallible too, because it satisfies all of the criteria of an infallible statement.

Just a footnote: A dogma is a doctrine to be believed by Catholics that has been proposed by the Church to be divinely and formally revealed. A dogma can be defined by a valid ecumenical council, approved by the pope. Or by the pope himself alone. Doctrine just means teaching which are assumed to be accepted by the universal church. There is no formal declaration is needed for a doctrine. Always a dogma and a doctrine will not contradict the scriptures.


How do Baptists interpret Revelation 20 and 21?

Just to let you know, I haven’t had as much fun as this since lockdown started.  After hours of research, I’ve discovered lots of really useful information on General Baptists, Particular Baptists and Reformed Baptists.  I’ve delved into the London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689), the Westminster Confession of Faith and Calvin’s ‘Institutes.’  It has been a fascinating but futile journey because it turns out that Baptists throughout the world are split on the subject of eschatology.
From what I’ve read, it seems Charles Spurgeon was a premillennialist, English Reformed Baptists appear to be amillennialist whereas American Reformed Baptists are split 50/50 between historic premillennialist and amillennialist.
The only honest answer I can give is that Baptist eschatology can be summed up by saying Jesus Christ will return personally and visibly in glory to the earth; the dead will be raised; and Christ will judge everyone in righteousness.
As to how Baptists interpret Revelation, the jury is still out.  One thing is clear, though, and that is that Reformed and Particular Baptists follow in the theological footsteps of John Calvin, especially with regard to the doctrine of salvation. Here is one useful quote taken from his ‘Institutes’:

Book 3, Chapter 25, Section 6 – Condition and abode of souls from death till last day: It is foolish and rash to inquire into hidden things, farther than God permits us to know. Scripture, after telling that Christ is present with them, and receives them into paradise (John 12:32), and that they are comforted, while the souls of the reprobate suffer the torments which they have merited, goes no farther. What teacher or doctor will reveal to us what God has concealed? As to the place of abode, the question is not less futile and inept, since we know that the dimension of the soul is not the same as that of the body.  When the abode of blessed spirits is designated as the bosom of Abraham, it is plain that, on quitting this pilgrimage, they are received by the common father of the faithful, who imparts to them the fruit of his faith.
Still, since Scripture uniformly enjoins us to look with expectation to the advent of Christ, and delays the crown of glory till that period, let us be contented with the limits divinely prescribed to us--viz. that the souls of the righteous, after their warfare is ended, obtain blessed rest where in joy they wait for the fruition of promised glory, and that thus the final result is suspended till Christ the Redeemer appear. There can be no doubt that the reprobate have the same doom as that which Jude assigns to the devils, they are "reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day," (Jude ver. 6).
Book 3, Chapter 25, Section 12 – Happiness of Elect – Misery of Reprobate: Moreover, as language cannot describe the severity of the divine vengeance on the reprobate, their pains and torments are figured to us by corporeal things, such as darkness, wailing and gnashing of teeth, inextinguishable fire, the ever-gnawing worm (Mt. 8:12; 22:13; Mark 9:43; Isa. 66:24).
As we thus require to be assisted to conceive the miserable doom of the reprobate, so the consideration on which we ought chiefly to dwell is the fearful consequence of being estranged from all fellowship with God, and not only so, but of feeling that his majesty is adverse to us, while we cannot possibly escape from it. For, first, his indignation is like a raging fire, by whose touch all things are devoured and annihilated. Next, all the creatures are the instruments of his judgment, so that those to whom the Lord will thus publicly manifest his anger will feel that heaven, and earth, and sea, all beings, animate and inanimate, are, as it were, inflamed with dire indignation against them, and armed for their destruction. Wherefore, the Apostle made no trivial declaration, when he said that unbelievers shall be "punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power," (2 Thess. 1:9) Source: https://reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/books/institutes/books/indxbk3.html

During the first five years of my Christian life, I was a member of an English Baptist Church.  I can't recall the senior minister ever delivering a sermon on eschatology. I put that down to the fact that he was more concerned with preaching the gospel and making sure we had a firm grasp on the important doctrines to do with sin, salvation and the person of Christ Jesus.  Heaven and hell were taught as realities as was the second coming.  Dispensationalism and Millennialism were not subjects for Sunday sermons, although the senior minister had plenty books on the subject.  Had I been curious enough to enquire, I dare say he would have been willing to introduce me to those subjects.
Suffice to allow Calvin to have the last word: “It is foolish and rash to inquire into hidden things, farther than God permits us to know.”


Why does the NRSV-CE omit mentioning prayer and fasting in Matthew 17?

By "Other ancient authorities add verse 21, But this kind does not come out except by prayer and fasting" they mean that not all sources contain verse 21, and they come to the conclusion that it is a later addition and not originally there. So the translators omit the verse to be closer to the original text (which is unknown). It reflects a decision what sources the translators deemed more authoritative than others. Maybe because they are older, or there are more sources which confirm this reading.

I can't say anything about how justified this is in this particular case, but this is what should be understood from the footnote.


What Christian denominations do not require belief in mainstream Christian core doctrines?

The "coreness" of your stated doctrines should really be divided into two groups:
Group 1 (Requires Explanation - See Below)

Doctrine of the Trinity
Deity of Jesus

Group 2 (A Lot! see Methodists in particular)

Predestination
Millenialism
Dispensationalism

The doctrines in Group 2 are actually rather narrow in scope and are rarely considered requirements outside of certain Bible Church cultures. Indeed, finding all three together would be difficult in many places.
Dispensationalism, for example, pretty much didn't exist until Darby Ryrie in the 1800s. Outside of hardcore fundamentalist Baptist or evangelical Bible churches, the actual scheme of different salvations for different time periods is fairly rare.
Millenialism, popularized by the Left Behind books and Hal Lindsay is a 20th Century thing. (Ok, we can see its roots in the 1800s with Millerism, etc... too.  But the point is, it doesn't have the same tenure as say Trinitarianism.) The Roman Catholic Church explicitly rejects Millennialism, for example.
Predestination typically is reserved for Calvinistic movements. Methodists, for example, completely reject the notion.  Even "Free Will Baptists" reject Calvinistic notions.
As such, to find a church that doesn't consider anything in Group 2 to be "core" you have a whole lot of latitude - Everything from Orthodox to Roman Catholic to Methodist to Episcopalian to even liberal Baptist. These are issues that are more likely to be selectors for a church rather than against.
Group 1 Options
Group 1 is harder because the formulations are much, much more ancient.
The Doctrine of the Trinity was most famously formulated in the Nicene Creed of 325 AD - one of the most fundamental tenant of what most of the world assumes you are talking about when you say "Christian."  Likewise, Jesus' Deity is something that I, as an Evangelical, would say is fundamental to Scripture, but objectively can be seen to permeate the writings of Paul, John, and other 1st Century Christians. In rejecting those, I suspect one would naturally hold a much "looser" understanding of Scripture than again what most would consider "Mainstream."
As such, those are the core doctrines that would make you uncomfortable in a Roman Catholic Church, for example.  (Some more liberal churches like certain Methodist or Episcopalian ones might let you pass, but that's at the congregational level, not the denomination.)
Mormons (LDS)
For rejection of the Trinity and the creeds, the LDS (Mormon) Church is in agreement with you. Likewise, Jesus' divinity is more nuanced. Additionally, their emphasis on feeling doctrine would make you feel at home - but make no mistake, there is a very definite Mormon Orthodoxy that might rear its head on other issues you haven't listed.  Subjectively, I consider them to be highly orthopractic, meaning they are highly concerned with "right action," although not to the level of a Holiness movement church.
As a movement, however, Mormons are quite large and growing rapidly - and thus easy to find.  It would be a church that would make your consideration list.
Jehovah's Witness
Additionally, Jehovah's Witness reject the Trinity and the notion that Jesus is God.  Famously their "New World Translation" says that Jesus is a God, not the God. Again there, however, the rejection of these doctrines does not mean that they do not hold very rigidly to others.
Likewise, JW's are characterized by a radical rejection of racism, and are one of the most integrated 'churches' out there. This leads many to understand JW's as very 'tolerant,' but again, fidelity to core doctrines is rigid, and excommunication happens with some regularity if there is a perceived lack of fidelity to core teachings. Being thrown out of the very tight-knit community is a highly charged thing for JWs.
And, speaking as one who grew up in a Bible Church, I suspect you would find JW's treatment of Scripture to be downright maddening.  While they do not have their own Scriptures that add to the Bible (like, say, the Mormons, and bearing in mind that the WatchTower comes closes), their translation of the Bible is considered authoritative, and certain peculiar translations that are authoritative may drive you nuts.  ("I and the Father are One in Unity" I'm looking at you!)
Unitarian Universalists
If you are looking for a denomination that is most at home holding doctrines in general loosely, your "best" bet would probably be Unitarianism.  Tom Lehrer famously joked in the 60s, "How do you get a Unitarian out of your neighborhood? Burn a Question Mark on his lawn."  Unitarians explicitly reject the Trinity (hence their name) and like the Ba'hai understand all religions to have Divine Truth.  Most famously Ralph Waldo Emerson was a Unitarian - and since he grew up "Christian," Unitarians are often lumped together with Christians by scholars.
That said, most Nicene Christians would reject the idea that Unitarians are Christian at all.  Their rejection of such fundamental doctrines and what they would view as out and out syncretism makes them suspect to the eye of one grounded in the Scriptures. I say this not as condemnation but again, to place them in a mental model.
The 'Emerging Church' ala Brian McLaren
Here, you might also find some traction, as these seeker-friendly churches seek, in almost Agile-like Manifesto.  From Brian McLaren:

An awareness of and attempt to reach those in the changing postmodern culture.
An attempt to use technology, i.e., video, slide shows, internet.
A broader approach to worship using candles, icons, images, sounds, smells, etc.
An inclusive approach to various, sometimes contradictory belief systems.1
An emphasis on experience and feelings over absolutes.
Concentration on relationship-building over proclamation of the gospel.
Shunning stale traditionalism in worship, church seating, music, etc.
A de-emphasis on absolutes and doctrinal creeds
A re-evaluation of the place of the Christian church in society.
A re-examination of the Bible and its teachings.
A re-evaluation of traditionally-held doctrines.
A re-evaluation of the place of Christianity in the world.

Like Unitarians (only with a more modern bent), the rap is the same - they stand for so much change, so much 'people over process' that it is tempting for some Christians to ask if they stand for anything at all.


Perseverance of the Saints – Historical Interpretations before Calvin

To briefly summarize, in Calvinism, the central point of the doctrine of the "perseverance of the saints" is that those whom God has saved can never permanently fall away.  Some implications flow from this idea, such as the view that a Christian can (but might not) have assurance of his or her own salvation.  But the core of the doctrine is that God grants perseverance to those that he saves.
The church father that Calvin relied on the most was Augustine, and as expected, he is the most significant early proponent of a "perseverance of the saints" view similar (but not identical) to Calvin's.  Here are a few quotes from his work, On the Gift of Perseverance:

I assert, therefore, that the perseverance by which we persevere in Christ even to the end is the gift of God; and I call that the end by which is finished that life wherein alone there is peril of falling (1)
When that gift of God is granted to them,—which is sufficiently plainly shown to be God’s gift, since it is asked of Him,—that gift of God, then, being granted to them that they may not be led into temptation, none of the saints fails to keep his perseverance in holiness even to the end. (9)
When, therefore, God’s hand is upon Him, that we depart not from God, assuredly God’s work reaches to us (for this is God’s hand); by which work of God we are caused to be abiding in Christ with God—not, as in Adam, departing from God. For “in Christ we have obtained a lot, being predestinated according to His purpose who worketh all things.” This, therefore, is God’s hand, not ours, that we depart not from God. (14)

Unlike Calvin and the Reformed tradition, however, Augustine didn't hold that a believer could have true assurance of salvation.  The first quote above (chapter one) continues:

Therefore it is uncertain whether any one has received this gift so long as he is still alive. For if he fall before he dies, he is, of course, said not to have persevered; and most truly is it said. How, then, should he be said to have received or to have had perseverance who has not persevered? (1)

Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof summarizes Augustine's position as follows:

He held that the elect could not so fall away as to be finally lost, but at the same time considered it possible that some who were endowed with new life and true faith could fall from grace completely and at last suffer eternal damnation. (Systematic Theology, 4.11.A)

Perhaps a clearer way to say this is that of the many who receive blessings of faith and life, some are elect, and some are not.  The elect have been given the additional gift of perseverance from God.  This is opposed to Calvinism, in which the gifts of election, faith, life, and perseverance are all bound together.
Thus Calvinism diverges from Augustine in at least these two ways.  But the basic principle, that a man's perseverance depends on God's gift, and not his own efforts, can be traced to Augustine.


First off, we can't interpret "love" in the mushy Valentine's-Day sitcom sense we imagine today. "Love" here is a lot more significant and difficult than that.

Love in the Old Testament sense is not divorced from actions. Loving actions don't spring from love; they are an inherent aspect of love. As wax eagle points out in the comments above, sexual intercourse was the central way that a man loved a woman. There were other ways, such as giving gifts, favouring her sons, etc.

It seems to me that in this case it does not mean sexual intercourse. Let's look at the whole of chapter 3:

  The Lord said to me again, ‘Go, love a woman who has a lover and is an adulteress, just as the Lord loves the people of Israel, though they turn to other gods and love raisin cakes.’ So I bought her for fifteen shekels of silver and a homer of barley and a measure of wine. And I said to her, ‘You must remain as mine for many days; you shall not play the whore, you shall not have intercourse with a man, nor I with you.’ For the Israelites shall remain many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or pillar, without ephod or teraphim. Afterwards the Israelites shall return and seek the Lord their God, and David their king; they shall come in awe to the Lord and to his goodness in the latter days. (Hosea 3, NRSV)

It seems to me that what Hosea did was a kind of love that didn't involve sex, but was about his redeeming her (i.e. buying her back) and dwelling with her and keeping her from playing the whore.

Now, let's look at the book of Hosea and why this passage exists. The book was written as a denunciation of the cultic practices of the Northern Kingdom. It is an extended metaphor, where the prophet Hosea represents God and Gomer his wife represents the faithless people of Israel, who had been "playing the whore" by worshipping foreign gods. (Whether Hosea and Gomer were real people is entirely beside the point.)

Hosea's loving action in buying back Gomer represents God's loving action in buying back Israel despite her unfaithfulness. So Hosea's purer, less physical way of loving his wife is a promise of a time when Israel and God would once again live together in a pure form of love.