How does intercession of saints and Exodus 20:3 not clash?

I'm a Methodist now, so praying to Saints in a group setting is not done. I grew up Catholic, so I don't find asking saints to intercede on my or someone else's behalf unusual, for the reasons given on catholic.org. Here is one relevant bit:

Do Catholics pray to saints?
We pray with saints, not to them. Have you ever asked anyone to pray for you when you were having a hard time? Why did you choose to ask that person?
You may have chosen someone you could trust, or someone who understood your problem, or someone who was close to God. Those are all reasons we ask saints to pray for us in times of trouble.
Since saints led holy lives and are close to God in heaven, we feel that their prayers are particularly effective. Often we ask particular saints to pray for us if we feel they have a particular interest in our problem. For example, many people ask Saint Monica to pray for them if they have trouble with unanswered prayers, because Monica prayed for twenty years for her son to be converted. Finally her prayers were answered in a way she never dreamed of -- her son, Augustine, became a canonized saint and a Doctor of the Church.

As for Biblical references for this belief, take your pick from this article: Saints and Intercessory Prayer
Edited again:  Here's Exodus 20:1-3 (NRSV) to provide some context to verse 3.

Then God spoke all these words:
I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me.

God is telling Moses that the people should worship God and not anything else, like a golden calf.  As the catholic.org reference says, people pray with saints, not to saints.  So those people aren't setting another god before God.


In the Old Testament you will find special blessings for Israel; but even then, God did not bless only Israel. He promised Abraham that "in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed" (Genesis 22:18).
Once we look to the New Testament, we have Jesus commanding His disciples to preach His gospel throughout the world (Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:15*, Luke 24:46-49, Acts 1:8).
Paul said that in Christ:

Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised [the Jews] by faith and the uncircumcised [the Gentiles] through faith. (Romans 3:29-30)
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. (Galatians 3:28-29)

God is not the God of America only, or the God of Israel only -- He is the God over all the world and wishes to draw every person from every nation to Himself (John 3:16-17, 12:32).

And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth." (Revelation 5:9-10, emphasis mine)

* Early manuscripts do not include verses past 16:8


It may not be clearly represented that God instructed Eve, but it is clear that she knew:

  1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?"
  2 And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden,
  3 but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" - Genesis 3:1-3 ESV

Also, note that Adam was present, as we learn a few verses later:

  So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. - Genesis 3:6 ESV

Keep in mind that the bible is not like a screenplay, in that not every event or conversation is documented.  But in reading Eve's response to the serpent, she clearly knew that God had forbidden eating from the tree of life.


Does the Catholic Church allow the use of birth control to save the woman's life?

The Purpose of the medication cannot be to prevent life, but to heal or prevent further illness.  An example might be Chemotherapy, that weakens the body or some kind of hormone treatment (of which I don't know I'm not a doctor) that would effect the normal reproductive cycle.

Lawful Therapeutic Means

The Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.

Paul VI. (1968). Humanae Vitae. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.'

The idea mainly is that the Act of Sexual intercourse between a man and woman who are in the union of Sacramental marriage should always be open to the possibility of life. If the act of bonding is for purely lust of the flesh, it damages the relationship, even if it does not appear to do so on the surface. The desire for union between a Husband and Wife, is Good and beautiful, as long as that desire is is open to the relationship God intended it for.  LIFE


Vid means widow. Reference. The date 1949 is probably when the relic was last verified and sealed.

St Margaret may well be St Margaret of Scotland. But there are a number of other candidates — Wikipedia lists the following, and there may well be more:

Saint Margaret the Virgin of Antioch (died 304) [unlikely, since widow is stated!]
Saint Margaret of Scotland (c. 1045–1093) [widowed]
Saint Margaret of England (died 1192) [never married; a nun]
Saint Margaret of Hungary (1242–1271) [never married; a nun]
Saint Margaret of Cortona (1247–1297) [never married]
Saint Margaret the Barefooted (1325–1395) [widowed]
Saint Rita of Cascia (1381–1457) [widowed]
Saint Margaret Clitherow (1556–1586) [married but not widowed]
Saint Margaret Ward (died 1588) [no marriage recorded]
Saint Marguerite Marie Alacoque (1647–1690) [never married; a nun]
Saint Teresa Margaret of the Sacred Heart (1747–1770) [never married; a nun]

You don't say what the relic is, but St Margaret of Scotland is certainly the best-known widow of that name. If the seal is identifiable, then there may be records available (for which the date and serial number will be useful).


Why was it important that Isaac's wife be from within Abraham's family?

Why intermarriage with Canaanites was forbidden
It says in Exodus:

Observe what I command you today. See, I will drive out before you the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. Take care not to make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land to which you are going, or it will become a snare among you. You shall tear down their altars, break their pillars, and cut down their sacred poles (for you shall worship no other god, because the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God). You shall not make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to their gods, someone among them will invite you, and you will eat of the sacrifice. And you will take wives from among their daughters for your sons, and their daughters who prostitute themselves to their gods will make your sons also prostitute themselves to their gods. (Exodus 34:11–16, emphasis added)

And again in Deuteronomy:

When the Lord your God brings you into the land that you are about to enter and occupy, and he clears away many nations before you—the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations mightier and more numerous than you—and when the Lord your God gives them over to you and you defeat them, then you must utterly destroy them. Make no covenant with them and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for that would turn away your children from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly. But this is how you must deal with them: break down their altars, smash their pillars, hew down their sacred poles, and burn their idols with fire. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on earth to be his people, his treasured possession. (Deuteronomy 7:1–6, emphasis added)

All of the seven nations listed except the Perizzites (whose origins are unknown) are descended from Canaan, son of Ham (see Genesis 10:15–19), who was cursed by Noah in the incident recorded in Genesis 9:20–27. This incident and curse on Canaan is the origin story for a lasting conflict between the Hebrew people, who were descendants of Shem, and the Canaanites, who occupied much of the Holy Land at the time Abraham, and later the Israelites, first entered it.
Aside from the implicit directive to avoid intermingling with the descendants of Canaan because they were seen as cursed, a more explicit reason for the prohibition on marrying them given in the above two quotations is that intermarriage with them would cause the Israelites to begin honoring and worshiping their gods, thus forsaking the God of Israel, who demanded their sole worship and obedience.
In a nutshell, then, the Hebrews, and later the Israelites, were forbidden to intermarry with the descendants of Canaan because:

Canaan and his descendants were considered cursed.
Intermarrying with them would cause them to become unfaithful to their God.

Abraham also wanted to avoid intermarrying with descendants of Canaan
Although the explicit commandment not to intermarry with the descendants of Canaan is recorded in the Bible narrative long after the time of Abraham, many of the commandments given to the Israelites after the exodus from Egypt were codifications of rules that had already long been in place. For example, the law of levirate marriage recorded in Deuteronomy 25:5–10 was already being observed much earlier, during the time of Judah (see Genesis 38:1–11).
We can therefore presume that even during the time of Abraham, intermarriage with descendants of Canaan was not acceptable for Hebrews such as Abraham. This is borne out in the opening lines of the story of Abraham sending his trusted servant to get a wife for his son Isaac:

Now Abraham was old, well advanced in years; and the Lord had blessed Abraham in all things. Abraham said to his servant, the oldest of his house, who had charge of all that he had, "Put your hand under my thigh and I will make you swear by the Lord, the God of heaven and earth, that you will not get a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I live, but will go to my country and to my kindred and get a wife for my son Isaac." (Genesis 24:1–4, emphasis added)

Here Abraham specifically mentions the Canaanites among whom he lives as not being suitable to provide a wife for his son Isaac. And though there were other, non-Canaanite nations in the region as well, they, too, would worship other gods, making it too risky to marry his son Isaac to one of their daughters. Instead, he chose to seek a wife for his son from among his own relatives.
The covenant with Abraham
Earlier in the Bible narrative, just before and just after the Great Flood, God had made a covenant with Noah, which would cover him, his descendants, and all living beings on earth. In this covenant, God promised never again to cause a flood that would destroy all living beings. See Genesis 6:18; 9:1-17.
Later, however, God made a more specific covenant with Abram, whom he renamed Abraham. This covenant is first recorded in Genesis 15, and repeated with further detail in Genesis 17. In this covenant, God promises to give to Abraham and to his descendants the land of Canaan. In return, Abraham, all of the males in his household, and all of his descendants and the males in their households must be circumcised as a sign of their covenant with God.
This more specific covenant did not apply to all of humankind, but only to Abraham and his descendants. Further, it did not even apply to all of Abraham's descendants, but only to his designated heir, Isaac, and Isaac's descendants:

And Abraham said to God, "O that Ishmael might live in your sight!" God said, "No, but your wife Sarah shall bear you a son, and you shall name him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. As for Ishmael, I have heard you; I will bless him and make him fruitful and exceedingly numerous; he shall be the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this season next year." (Genesis 17:18–21, emphasis added)

This covenant, then, was very specific to Abraham and his designated heir Isaac, miraculously borne by Abraham's wife Sarah in her old age. Therefore a suitable wife for Isaac must not come from any of these other nations—even the non-Canaanite ones—but must come from as close to Abraham's own family line as possible.
Abraham therefore sent his trusted servant to his immediate relatives living north of the land of Canaan in Aram-naharaim, in the city where his brother Nahor had settled (see Genesis 11:27–32; 24:10). From there, as told in Genesis 24, Abraham's servant got as a wife for Isaac Rebekah, granddaughter of Abraham's brother Nahor, making her Isaac's first cousin once removed.


Interpreting Acts 2:38 together with John 1:12

Peter does not say "and if you don't get baptized you won't be saved".

Almost all Christian denominations take the view that baptism is the normal thing to do, and that Christians should do it. That doesn't imply that failing to do so for some reason invalidates your faith or excludes you from salvation. Likewise there is nothing in the Acts passage that implies that.


It is true, as you say, that God covenants with Abram (later called Abraham) and does not ask anything as part of the covenant making. However if you read verse 6, you will find that Abram had already "given" God something -- his trust.

Abram believed the LORD, and the LORD considered his response of faith as proof of genuine loyalty. (Gen 15:6 NET)

Most versions say the LORD "counted it to him as righteousness."

It is my understanding that whenever anyone believes in God and puts his or her complete trust in God's message, God responds with promises of eternal fellowship. God didn't need to ask Abram to do specific things or to respond to later requests; it was already in Abram's heart to seek God's will as mentor and ruler. When Abram later did what God asked him to, it was not with any thought of getting a benefit for doing so; it was because he knew God asked for something that would be good for Abram in the long run and would enhance his relationship with God.

Ishmael was a member of Abram's household, and considered part of the covenant, although God told Abraham that the most important part would be fulfilled through his later son, Isaac. There was no guarantee that every descendant of Abraham would have numerous descendants, just that Abraham himself would. Abraham pleaded with God that Ishmael would also have blessings, and indeed Ishmael's descendants were numerous. Having an ancestor in the covenant was no guarantee of having the full benefit of the covenant. Each person had to choose whether he or she would also put full trust in God as Abraham had done.


How do Catholics explain Hebrews 13:10 and John 6:54?

According the Catholic interpretation of the passages in the O.P.'s question, there is no contradiction between them.

To see this, it is helpful to look at the broader context of Hebrews 13:10. Chapter 13 is essentially an exhortation to live Christian charity, and in general living the Christian life, in its various aspects:

  Let brotherly love continue. Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them, and those who are mistreated, since you also are in the body (Heb. 13:1-3, ESV).

Part of living the Christian life is adhering to the true doctrine and not being led astray by heresy:

  Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings, for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited those devoted to them.

It is not certain what “foods” the author is referring to here, but it seems likely that he is referring to the meat that is sacrificed, either in the Jewish temple or at pagan temples. (In both cases, the priests would often eat a portion of the sacrificed meat.)

If we assume that the author is referring to the Levitic priests of the Old Testament (as he did in Hebrews 10), then verse 10 seems easier to interpret:

  We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat.

“Those who serve at the tent” (οἱ τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες) would, then, be the Levitic priests. The “tent” would, therefore, refer to the Tent of the Meeting or “Tabernacle” that was used in Israel from the time of Exodus to the construction of the Temple.

In any case, whether it is the Levitic priests or pagan priests, what the author of Hebrews appears to be saying is that we Christians have an “altar” that those priests—since they are unbaptized—do not have a right to serve at (and hence cannot partake of the sacrificial banquet).

Hence, the “altar” mentioned could indeed be taken to represent the place where the Eucharistic Sacrifice is offered; but the author is saying, in essence, that the non-Baptized, even if they are priests in their own religion, are not to partake of it (and cannot benefit from it if they attempt to do so).

There is no contradiction, therefore, with John 6:54, in which Jesus tells his followers that his flesh (interpreted by Catholic exegetes to mean the Eucharist) is the means par excellence to obtain eternal life:

  Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day (John 6:54, ESV).

In other words, argues the author of Hebrews, despite the fact that they make many sacrifices of animals, until they are baptized, even the priests of the pagan and Jewish religions will be excluded from the heavenly banquet (the Eucharist) that brings them eternal life.

(Source for these reflections: the Ignatius Study Bible: New Testament.)


What is the history behind Angelus prayer?

V.-Leader says

R.-All say

  V. The Angel of the Lord brought the message to Mary,

  R. And she conceived from the Holy Spirit.

  V. Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.

  R. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

  V. See the servant of the Lord;

  R. Do to me according to your Word.

  V. Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.

  R. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

  V. And the Word was made flesh,

  R. And lived among us.

  V. Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.

  R. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

  V. Pray for us, holy Mother of God.

  R. So that we will be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
  Let us pray: Lord, through the angel's message we have come to know that Christ your Son became human. We pray to You, pour Your grace into our hearts so that by His cross and suffering we will be brought to the glory of His rising from the dead, through Jesus Christ, our Lord.

  R.Amen.

Another Revision is as:
[edit]

  V. The angel of the Lord declared unto Mary,

  R. And she was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

  V. Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

  R. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

  V. Behold the handmaid of the Lord.

  R. Be it done unto me according to thy Word.

  V. Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

  R. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

  V. And the Word was made flesh.

  R. And dwelt amongst us.

  V. Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

  R. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

  V. Pray for us, O Holy Mother of God.

  R. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

  V. Let us pray: Pour forth, we beseech thee, O Lord, your grace into our hearts, that we to whom the incarnation of Christ Thy Son was made known by the message of an angel, may by His Passion and Cross be brought to the glory of His resurrection; through the same Christ our Lord.

  R. Amen.

The prayer is a simple recitation of the Biblical Tradition:

Luke 1:28, 35, 42 (and end of Jeremiah 37:3)

Luke 1:38

repeat Luke 1:42 & end of Jeremiah 37:3

then John 1:14

repeat Luke 1:42 & end of Jeremiah 37:3

Jeremiah 37:3 & Hebrews 13:18-19 & other places asking "Pray for us".

Hebrews 13:9-11

Almost any source on the subject introduces with the Catholic Encyclopedia quote "The history of the Angelus is by no means easy to trace with confidence, and it is well to distinguish in this matter between what is certain and what is in some measure conjectural."

The first record of such a prayer in writing comes from an Italian Franciscan monk Sinigardi di Arezzo (died 1282). The Angelus is used as the introduction to the Hail Marys in an 11th-century monastic custom of reciting three Hail Marys during the evening bell.


Why did the popes begin issuing encyclicals?

That is actually a fairly accurate assessment. Most of the documents which came out of the Vatican were Papal Bulls, and they would be one, possibly two, per papacy. You can find most of them at papalencyclicals.net. Unfortunately, we didn't even bother keeping the documents from Gregory the Great through until the Renaissance (poss. later, you can find the exact information in the book Europe: A History (sorry, I am far too lazy to go through the relevant 200 or so pages to be more specific)) Leo XIII changed that. (Don't know if it was the assertion of infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, or what), but since then there have been exponentially more documents released by the Vatican.

Of course, it could have to do with the fact that not only was in inexpensive to print documents (the offset press was invented 8 years before his election), it was also possible to transmit data across the Atlantic in real time (the trans-Atlantic telegraph cable was first laid in 1866). Though it might also have had to do with the declarations of Vatican I. Though the teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff had been long established, this was (as near as I can tell) the first time that the authority was so clearly laid out.

And then another reason he might have written was the Holy Spirit (he's always makin' mischief).


Which Jesus' movie is shown in this image?

This is from the famous Mel Gibson movie, "The Passion of the Christ". The scenes of Jesus' torture and crucifixion are available in the Youtube clip, The Passion of Christ By His Blood . The full movie can be viewed (for a fee) from a link in the description of the clip, or you can read more about the movie at wikipedia: The Passion of the Christ.


Remember that for the first century of Christianity, it was really difficult to distinguish Christianity from Judaism. See Acts 15, for example, where the Jews are being to accommodate Christian Gentiles.  As such, Jewish practices in the first century would have largely set the  tone for Christian worship.

Likewise, the book of Hebrews presents Christ as the sacrifice and the High Priest, and represents the earliest Christian understanding of sacrifice.

By the time of the Didache (one of the earliest Church Fathers - a "manual" that early Christians used to "do" church), we already see that early Christians were equating communion with sacrifice, as evidenced by this reference from Book Five:

  Now according to the Lord's day, gather together and break bread and give thanks, after acknowledging your wanderings to one another, so your sacrifice would be a clean one.

It wasn't until the late 300s AD that Gentiles outnumbered Jews, so "imitation" isn't really the right word. "Just doing what they've always done" might better describe it, but in reality, it is just an extension of existing practice.

The extension of this perogative to non-Jews would have been substantiated by Acts 10 (the Cornelius vision, declaring formerly unclean things clean), Acts 15 (the Apostles' letter saying that Gentiles were not subject to the restrictions of the law), and Galatians 3:26 (In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek...)

What made this accessible to the average person was the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, promulgated during the time of the Reformations.


What are the main reasons of EOC for why the Protoevangelium of James was not to be included in the canon?

While I can't speak on behalf of my EOC brothers, I may be able to offer some insight as to why the Coptic Orthodox Church considers it apocrypha, and for that matter, give some reasons as to why the EOC considers it the same.

There are certain criteria for canonization that each book of the Holy Bible must follow in order to be accepted by the Church as divinely inspired.

Criteria for Canonization

Apostolicity
Orthodoxy
Antiquity
Catholicity (Universaility)
Intrisic soudness

The Protoevangelium of St. James is dated to be written in the second to third century. Therefore, he would not have been alive at the time of the writing of this document which brings some question in regards to the apostolicity of the text.

The teachings of the Protoevangelium differ from Orthodoxy in general in that it mentions that Joseph was married prior to his betrothal to St. Mary. This differs from the teachings of the 4 gospels. It is upon this basis that the author builds the idea that James and our Lord Jesus Christ are step-brothers. This idea deviates from Orthodoxy as well as Catholicism and is not accepted.

As previously mentioned while the text may seem of old age, dating back to the second and third centuries, in comparison to the Gospels, it is not. All four gospels were written prior to the second century and entail none of the mentioned events that occurred in the Protoevangelium of James. A book that was written after the gospels by several hundred years, contains items that none of the 4 evangelists wrote about. While second and third-century texts may seem ancient, in regards to the gospels, they are not.

The Catholicity speaks for itself. The Orthodox church regards the book as Apocrypha, therefore it is not widely accepted by all of the churches as other books of the bible are.

Finally is intrinsic soundness. The Protoevangelium offers some embellishments such as the birth of Jesus in a cave and his hiding in a trough.

Each one of the New Testament books of the Holy Bible stood in front of these 5 criteria and were canonized. The Protoevangelium stood in front of these same five criteria and even if it was only slightly flawed in one, the church fathers made sure that documents such as these, would not be included in the Holy Bible.

Some sources

Protoevangelium of James in the Bible?

Orthodox Wiki on the Protoevangelium of

Decretum Gelasianum

Coptic Heritage | James, the brother of the Lord

St. Mary in the Orthodox concept


Can a disfellowed JW marry after being reinstated?

If I understand you correctly, you are actually already married, but would like a Witness marriage ceremony to acknowledge that.

The fact is that Witnesses recognise civil marriages as valid. If you married before returning to the faith, then you are married in their eyes. In fact, such marriages are also perfectly acceptable for those within the faith. My sister married in a registry office. Both she and her husband were and are baptised Witnesses, and no one has suggested that their marriage is in any way invalid because they did not marry in a Kingdom Hall.

So the direct answer is No, you cannot have a marriage ceremony in your situation.

However, it is possible that some form of acknowledgement, or “renewal of vows” ceremony could be held. I have never heard of such within the Witness faith, but congregations’ bodies of elders have broad latitude (especially for weddings and funerals) to accommodate local customs. There is a handbook for elders, but it’s private, so I can’t tell you what it says about this. I have seen it, and can tell you that it’s a slim volume. I would guess that it doesn’t cover this situation, in which case your local body of elders would have to use their discretion.


How did Pascal reconcile his wager with 2 Corinthians 9:7 and Psalms 50?

I don't think Pascal intended the Wager to be pulled from Pensées and used as an independent, discrete argument for God.  But don't take my word for it, here's what the man says himself:

  Let us now speak according to natural lights.

  If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him.

  Who then will blame Christians for not being able to give a reason for their belief, since they profess a religion for which they cannot give a reason? They declare, in expounding it to the world, that it is a foolishness, stultitiam; and then you complain that they do not prove it! If they proved it, they would not keep their word; it is in lacking proofs, that they are not lacking in sense. "Yes, but although this excuses those who offer it as such, and takes away from them the blame of putting it forward without reason, it does not excuse those who receive it." Let us then examine this point, and say, "God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.—Pensée 233

Stultitiam is Latin meaning folly and is a direct reference to:

  For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.—1st Corinthians 1:21 (ESV)

In other words, Pascal rejects the Aquinian project to prove God and proceeds to defend the Christian's warrant1 to nevertheless believe that "God is".  It is a practical demonstration of the flaws of René Descartes' skepticism.  Life is more complicated than merely acting on true beliefs and not acting on false ones.  In fact we generally don't know the outcome of our decisions until long after they are made.2  But that doesn't prevent us from making those decisions—Pascal asserts that by merely existing, we must make the Wager; we must decide what our purpose in life is to be.

Pascal's further point is that even when we don't know the probabilities, the payoff of one of the choices may be so large as to make the decision of which horse to bet on easy.  Again, let's let him speak:

  The end of this discourse.—Now, what harm will befall you in taking [the Christian] side? You will be faithful, honest, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, truthful. Certainly you will not have those poisonous pleasures, glory and luxury; but will you not have others? I will tell you that you will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognise that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing.

Pascal argues that even if God is not, giving up "poisonous pleasures" will cost nothing since they will be replaced by other pleasures in this life.  So the Wager isn't so much believing in order to avoid the loss of heaven, but substituting one type of pleasure for another in the expectant hope of an infinite reward.  In fact, he seems to be giving the same advice that David gave:

Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good!
    Blessed is the man who takes refuge in him!
Oh, fear the LORD, you his saints,
    for those who fear him have no lack!
The young lions suffer want and hunger;
    but those who seek the LORD lack no good thing.

  —Psalm 34:8-10 (ESV)

Summary

Pascal isn't arguing that the Christian life is something to be entered into on the off chance that we will win the cosmic lottery.  Rather, he is proposing that Christians are not wrong to believe what they cannot prove.  Or as Jim Elliot wrote:

  He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose.

Footnotes:

For a more comprehensive defence, see Alvin Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief.
One of the most monumental decisions in my life was to attend UCLA to study Atmospheric Sciences.  But the ripple effects of that decision are still not settled.  I've already won the bet in the most unexpected ways, including finding my wife.


Where does the Bible say to read itself?

I don't think there are any verses in the Bible that say "read the Bible", since the Bible as one book is a concept that came after the books were written.

But the following are some of the verses that talk about reading God's word or His teachings.

  8 This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall
  meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do
  according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your
  way prosperous, and then you will have success. Joshua 1:8 NASB

The Psalms have a lot on meditating on God's law.

  1 How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the
  wicked,  Nor stand in the path of sinners,  Nor sit in the seat of
  scoffers!  2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD,  And in His
  law he meditates day and night. Psalm 1: 1-2 NASB

And of course the famous Psalm 119, I'd suggest you read all of Psalm 119:

  12 Blessed are You, O LORD;  Teach me Your statutes.  13 With my lips
  I have told of  All the ordinances of Your mouth.  14 I have rejoiced
  in the way of Your testimonies,  As much as in all riches.  15 I will
  meditate on Your precepts  And regard Your ways.  16 I shall delight
  in Your statutes;  I shall not forget Your word. Psalm 119: 12-16 NASB

That's all I can think of for now. But I will update this answer as I remember/find more.


Why would popes choose the name Pelagius in light of the Pelagian heresy?

That's interesting! Catholics tend to avoid using heretical names. In fact, I believe that it's in canon law that baptismal names cannot be the names of heretics, and that it is the priest's duty to prevent such a name from being used. So it is very strange that any pope would the name of a known  heretic.

So why do we have two popes with the name of a heretic, and a very recent one, at that? Perhaps it is because Pelagius of the heresy himself might have denied important aspects of that heresy:

  This theological theory is named after Pelagius, although he denied, at least at some point in his life, many of the doctrines associated with his name. (Wikipedia)

Still it is strange, because the name would still have been associated with the heresy. So let's look further. From Wikipedia:

  Beginning in the sixth century, some popes adopted a new name upon their accession to the papacy; this became customary in the 10th century, and every pope since the 16th century has done so. [...] During the first centuries of the church, the bishops of Rome continued to use their baptismal names after their elections. The custom of choosing a new name began in AD 533 with the election of Mercurius.

It is because "Pelagius" is the original name of both popes! 1

Mercurius becomes Pope John II in 533 (first change)
Pelagius becomes Pope Pelagius I in 556
Pelagius becomes Pope Pelagius II in 579
Practice becomes customary circa 1000

It's still a question exactly why neither chose to follow the example set by Mercurius (named after the Roman god Mercury), but I suppose the practice was only taking root around that time.

1: This is not certain, but seems very probable: the name-changes of other popes around that time are well-recorded but no change is recorded for either of these popes, and I can find no record of either Pelagius being called by a different name before becoming pope.


What does Paul mean when he speaks of "in Christ"?

Since there are tons of different places in which Paul uses the phrase, some specific references might help here.

In Acts 24:24, for example, Paul refers to "faith in Christ Jesus." Faith here refers not to the pseudo-power claimed by the "word of faith" movement, but rather having faith in the testimony of Christ.

Romans 6:3, on the other hand, refers to being "baptized into Christ." Here the Greek word baptizo literally means "immersed" or fully a part of Christ. It could also refer, in this context, to being baptized in the name of Christ.

Romans 8:1 provides another variation of the phrase: "There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." [emphasis mine] Perhaps this is the type of phrase you're looking for, as Paul uses this terminology quite a bit. The Complete Jewish Bible may provide a clarification in its translation: "Therefore, there is no longer any condemnation awaiting those who are in union with the Messiah Yeshua." [emphasis mine] (Yeshua is the commonly accepted Hebrew name translated into Greek and Latin as Iesus, or into English as Jesus.)

Galatians 2:20, while it may not use the phrase in all translations, may further explain the concept. "I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So the life I now live in the body, I live because of the faithfulness of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." To Paul his old life as Saul of Tarsus, persecutor of Christians, was gone. Saul was dead, crucified as Christ was. His new life through a full-bonded union with Christ was represented by his new name, Paul the apostle. His life was completely subsumed by the lift of Christ. Obviously, as @Narnian points out, this is not a physical movement into a place or person, but a metaphysical or spiritual replacement.


What person(s) of the Trinity were the people of the Old Testament interacting with?

John 6:46
  οὐχ ὅτι τὸν πατέρα τις ἑώρακέν εἰ μὴ ὁ ὢν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ οὗτος ἑώρακεν τὸν πατέρα

  Not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; this [one] has seen the Father.

Nobody has ever seen the Father.

If they saw God in the Tanakh (and, they did), then it was not the Father.

Conundrum?

No. I can quote many Early Church Fathers who insist that they saw pre-incarnate Christ. But, hey, let's dig a little deeper, shall we?

  John 12:41
  Isaiah said these things when he saw his glory and spoke about him.

  Isaiah 6:1
  In the year that king Uzziah died, I also saw Adonai sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.

So, they saw the pre-incarnate Son of God. If you read the targumim (Aramaic translation/ interpretation of the Hebrew Tanakh), you will see that in many places where it says that YHVH is interacting with His creation, the targumim say that it is the Meimra d'YHVH (Word of YHVH) interacting with the creation.

Quite phenomenal if you ask me. =)


Which Christian sects promote faith healing?

The concept of "faith healing" is pretty broad and you would need to supply your own definition if you want a very specific answer. Lacking that, here is the general lay of the land.

Most Christian traditions actually believe (have faith) that God can and even does heal people. However I doubt this is what you are referring to. Where most denominations back off is when it comes to the recipient being able to demand (in faith?) to be healed and the result is seen as reflecting on the amount of faith rather than strictly God's sovereign will to say yes or no.

Of the latter kind of faith healing, it is most prevalent among Pentecostal and extreme Charismatic groups. It is given varying degrees of importance from a sometimes mentioned subject to a key item used as primary evidence of belief and even for evangelism.

A few less common groups with less direct ties to Christianity such as the Christian Scientist movement also promote this, although their implementation often varies from the kind of thing you see trumpeted on questionable TV channels.

It does sometimes pop up in other circles, even Catholic ones, but is generally not well received by other traditions. Again, other traditions may believe that God can and does grant healing and our faith plays a role in that, but the kind of belief and practice that probably comes to mind from watching TV evangelists is mostly the domain of Pentecostal movements.


Did the events of Good Friday take place during winter?

Christ died during Passover, which is around Spring in Israel, which is in the Northern Hemisphere. I think it's still cold early in the morning during that time, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover#Date_and_duration


Was Billy Sunday the first evangelist to equate the "altar call" with salvation?

The altar call predates Billy Sunday, though possibly not by that name.

Charles Finney pioneered many evangelistic methods in the 1820s and 1830s, including what he called the "anxious seat" or "anxious bench", where sinners could come forward to receive instruction and counseling.

William and Catherine Booth, founders of the Salvation Army, used similar techniques—although they renamed the "anxious seat" to the "mercy seat". Like Finney, the Booths considered the altar call to be just the first step toward salvation.

  Sometimes people would stay there all night, and on a few occasions, even a few days, weeping and confessing their sins with broken hearts. There were always some who would stay right there to instruct them further, encouraging them to make a clean sweep of sin from their lives.

Dwight Moody began having altar calls after the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 killed more than 300 people and destroyed Moody's church building, just after he had preached about repentance.

  Moody asked his congregation to evaluate their relationships to Christ and return next week to make their decisions for Him. That crowd never regathered. While Sankey was singing a closing song, the din of fire trucks and church bells scattered them forever, for Chicago was on fire. The Y.M.C.A. building, church, and parsonage were all to be lost in the next 24 hours.

After the fire Moody vowed never to delay in asking his listeners to make a decision for Christ. Moody, however, stressed that the altar call itself did not bring about salvation.

  It is not our work to make them believe. That is the work of the Spirit … I cannot convert men; I can only proclaim the Gospel.

However, by insisting that they make an immediate decision, Moody began to blur the line. At least one reporter understands Moody's methods to imply a connection between the altar call and salvation.

  Moody was quick to point out that only the Spirit awakens sinners, and the individual’s trip to the altar is simply a sign marking one’s salvation.

So it's fair to say that no preacher prior to Billy Sunday explicitly equated the altar call with salvation, but it's possible that the "immediate decision" that Dwight Moody asked of his listeners could have been understood that way.


A partial answer is that I understand that the Greek word for truth is also the same as reality. So Jesus is making a profound statement similar to Paul's:

Acts 17:28
‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’

Paul is referring to God. When Jesus (earlier) referred to Himself as Truth / Reality, it was probably to His listeners a claim to divinity.
So, He claimed to be The Way, The Truth and The Life. In other words, He said, "I'm the Path to God, I'm God and I'm what you experience when you're with God."
Footnote: He is certainly not claiming to be just a moral teacher...


How is the atonement sufficient for salvation according to Calvinists?

This is a very old debate, and I remember this and other questions from my Bible College years as a student.

God is a choosing God, and that not all are destined for salvation seems quite understandable despite the atonement of Christ being sufficient for all.

I think it unwise to say that if writings we have constituting the Bible (library) does or does not mention something specifically then it is or is not true.

I believe we forget sometimes that until the reformation, these writings that are held in such esteem now played no part in a believers life. It was the often ignorant, uneducated and debauched clergy who told people what God had said in these writings, what they meant and what He demanded.
As soon as the reformation took hold in many places in Europe and the papacy was "dethroned", to fill the void left by papal authority, Bible literature was given a status that remains to this day in that most non catholic groups hold it as the absolute be all and end all of Christian authority. Catholics hold to this also but equally with church tradition.

My question by way of answering you is when has God ever been anything else than a choosing God as seen in the scriptures? A God who decides what is to happen and ensures that it does happen?

Jesus was asked by those close to Him when would He stop teaching in parables? He said parables are so you can understand, but not these around us "less they turn to me for repentance".Christ was selective not universal in his ministry.

He talked to Pilate but not to the Idumean puppet king Herod who had Johns head removed you will notice, but why if not selective.Did God not intend for Herod to repent?

As believers in this world of trouble our job is to tell all about the good news of Christ, so that "many are called', but then knowing 'few will be chosen".

Incredible don't you think that those destined for salvation were listed in the book of life "before the foundations of the world". People as yet unborn had there names down already, and were not dependant on their own feelings at the time they heard the message of Christ eons of time later.

They were destined and pre ordained to Salvation. God never instigated the Gospel atonement, and then left it in the hands of sinful people to accept or reject! As it is written, faith itself is a gift of God and if not given it is impossible to come to Christ. This is Election.

John Calvin was outdone by those of like mind who came after him, and many subsequently went further than he had gone sadly, and all that they said has been tagged under the term "Calvinism".

Calvin did say that when a person is converted and born again, it is because that person has received a "dose of irresistible grace". In my own life I can attest to that as true. My brother whom I loved dearly was told the gospel many times and to him it remained as fairy tales, and he died early in life unsaved.

No dose of grace for him for some reason not understood by me, but God is God and makes some crockery for destruction, and we don't like it much that He does.

This is a wonderful subject that we are not capable of saying any one of us understands completely, but it has never surprised me that God saves some, but that He would save any at all at such mysterious cost to Himself. In all my life as a Pastor and Bible college teacher I have seen God touch people and leave others in stoney disbelief, and it continues on! This is Him doing what He wills to do, and the word fairness has no part in it. God is not fair, He is a theocrat, albeit a benevolent one.

How wonderful He is that His ways are not mine, because I would not have saved me on the cross!

Petros


Is there any clue/hint in the Bible that tells us “why or how” we won't sin on heaven?

Great metaphysical thinking here!  I like your reasoning that leads to the conclusions:

We can't blame the material world for the existence of sin.
Experiencing the presence/power in heaven or via the Holy Spirit makes us unable to sin.

Before proceeding, I must point out a number of assumptions made in this question, not all of which are accepted by various schools of Christianity.

Only the spirit/soul goes to heaven: a number of Christian denominations believe that while our present material bodies are left behind, we will be given a new physical body (Phi 3:20-21).  There is also a system of belief that everything physical is stained by evil is known as Gnosticism, which was pronounced heresy back in the early centuries of Christianity.
Free will is the cornerstone of Christianity: Actually, this is a hotly-debated issue by many Christian denominations.  I highly recommend you do some research on this issue before claiming it is a "cornerstone."
Adam and Eve sinned while in heaven: Yes, they sinned while in the Garden of Eden, but whether Eden = Heaven depends on your reading of Genesis.  Gen. 2 places this garden "in the east" and at the head of a river that splits into the rivers Pishon, Gihon, Trigris, and Euphrates.  If we take a literal interpretation of this passage, it seems to have been located in the middle east.  If we take a mythological interpretation, then Eden = Paradise = Heaven.
Evil can pop into existence: This is a statement of belief on the origin of evil, which is another hotly debated issue among Christians.  You probably want to do some research on this before making a claim.
Our "most pure stage" is a baby child: This relates to the issue of original sin and the sin nature, also hotly debated.  You seem to indicate that babies don't have a sin nature, which is at issue with Psa 51:5.

Now to answer your question for Biblical clues that sin will be gone in heaven, I first suggest you watch this YouTube video.  It explains a Biblical view of heaven, versus the common belief that it's a city where we sit on fluffy clouds and play harps.  It also gives a clue of why there won't be sin in heaven: the sacrifice of the Lamb of God takes away sin.

Next, consider these verses for your question why:

Rev. 21:4: There will be no more death in heaven (recall, death is the wage of sin per Rom 3:23).
Is. 35:8-9, Rev. 21:8, 21:27, 22:15: Sin and sinners are excluded from Heaven.
Phi. 1:6: God will complete his good work in us (i.e. sanctification) on that day (cf. 1Th 5:23, 1Jn 3:2)
Hab 1:13: God does not tolerate sin in his presence, but paradise involves communion with God (Gen 3:8, Rev. 21:1-4).

For your question of how, that depends on your understanding of free will.  You seem to believe in this doctrine, so I'll try to answer briefly within that system of belief (for an explanation of how from the contrarian belief system that there is no free-will, see this post by John Piper)

Why do we sin?  It is because of our sinful desires and enticement (Rom, 7:8, Jam 1:14), which is otherwise known as the sin nature.
The absence of sin nature does not violate free will, since God has free will (Rom 9:11, 15) but no sin nature (Jam 1:13)
Death destroys the sinful nature (Rom 6:7)

A fuller response from the free-will perspective is provided here.


A Question regarding arguments against the Nicene Creed

Warden's thesis is not strange at all. That is what the word was used for in a several ancient Greek texts:

μονο-γενής, ές, Ep. and Ion. μουνο-, (γένος): the only member of a kin or kind: hence, generally, only, single. Used as such in Hes.Op.376, Hdt.7.221, cf. Ev.Jo.1.14, Ant.Lib.32.1; of Hecate, Hes. Th.426.

The association with "begotten" is logical for a Latin speaker, as the Greek γενής shares the same IndoGermanic root as the Latin verb genere, which can both mean to be born and to beget.


How do Jehovah's Witnesses define "active" membership?

The definition of an inactive JW is that they are not active in their primary commission, which is of course the preaching of the good news of God's Kingdom. [Note: This refers specifically to preaching to non-Witnesses, whether in door-to-door "field service" or by some other method. This activity is structured, and time spent is recorded, reported, and compiled.] To my knowledge, this is the case if a Witness does not engage in preaching for a whole calendar month, but extenuating circumstances can be taken into account with the elderly and infirm being able to report much smaller intervals of activity. If a person is inactive they remain classified as this for three months following until they show that they are once again active in the service. Having said this inactivity is can also be accompanied by non attendance of meetings etc, but the primary definition is due to not being involved in preaching which in itself is a condition of "membership".

The difference between an active and inactive member can involve the duties that they are able to perform in the congregation as only those in good standing may be involved in some teaching assignments in the congregation (what would be the point of someone telling others to preach when they themselves do not?). Also persons that become inactive will be given extra attention to try and find the reason for inactivity and help them to return to service.

The count of members published per country every year includes only "active" members.


It's the dwelling place of God the Father

Matthew 6:9 (NIV)

  “This, then, is how you should pray:

  “‘Our Father in heaven,
  hallowed be your name

It's a place of treasures that thieves can't steal.

Matthew 6:20 (NIV)

  But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.

It has many rooms

John 14:2 (NIV)

  2 My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?

It's an actual place

John 14:2-4 (NIV)

  2 My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going.

It's being prepared for us

Compare this to the idea that it's just a "state of being".  It's not.  It's a place that is being prepared.

John 14:2 (NIV) supports this.  Also:

Jesus said in Matthew 25:34 (NIV)

  "Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world."

It's a place of reward

This is in the middle of a parable that Jesus was telling regarding what heaven would be like.

Matthew 25:23 (NIV)

  His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’

There won't be a need for marriage in heaven

Luke 20:34-36 (NIV)

  34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.

It is everlasting/eternal

John 3:16 (NIV)

  For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Does the flesh of the peace offering get offered to women?

I think it is clear from the text that the eating of the trespass offering in the OT was restricted to males.  Women were generally not allowed to touch sacrifices, not sin and trespass offerings anyway, since they menstruate, as is explained in the Apocrypha, in Baruch 6:29 RSV-CE (Also known as Letter of Jeremiah 1:29 in some others translations) "Sacrifices to [idols] may be touched by women in menstruation or at childbirth. Since you know by these things that they are not gods, do not fear them."   The fact that this offering had to be eaten in the holy place itself would automatically restrict it to males only.  For some of the other offerings, they only had to be eaten in a clean place. Some of the verses about offerings that women could eat:  Leviticus 10:14, Numbers 18:11, 18:19.

I suspect your real question, due to the reference to 1 Cor 11, is why women are allowed to eat the bread in the communion, since Christ's sacrifice was a sin offering?  The simplest answer, from a Protestantish perspective, is that the communion is a memorial of Christ's sacrifice and not the sacrifice itself. Plus the concepts of ritual purity/impurity from the Old Testament are done away with in Christianity anyway.


Ritual cleansing was a common part of some Jewish sects around the turn of the era. One of the best examples of this (that I know of) comes from Khirbet Qumran (where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found)—where there were found several miqvot (sn. miqveh) used for a sort of "baptism." It is commonly held that the people living at Qumran were Essenes, and some have speculated that John the Baptist may have been a part of this group or one similar to it.

The Qumran community began slightly before the turn of the age and continued into the early 1st century CE, so it was roughly contemporaneous with Jesus. For a really nice intro to the Archaeology of Qumran, see Jodi Magness' The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

There is a ton of literature from and about the "inter-testamental" period (usually referred to as the "Second Temple Period" by scholars). I'll point you to the great intro to the corpus by George Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature Between The Bible And The Mishnah.


Can one be baptized and become a Catholic if they don't believe in every particular Catholic dogma?

You asked about "every particular Catholic dogma." I think there are many good Catholics who, not being theologians, don't even know what all the particular dogmas of the Catholic Church are, and who therefore don't explicitly believe them. But they implicitly believe them, in the sense that (1) they believe that the Catholic Church has received from Christ the authority to declare certain doctrines as being revealed by God and (2) they would therefore believe any of these revealed doctrines if they were informed about them.  What is incompatible with Catholicism is to deny a doctrine even though one knows that the Church has declared it to be divinely revealed.  That's heresy and would put one outside the Church (even though one's baptism would remain valid).


Catholic Church - What happens when a married couple will never have sex?

In the general case marriage requires consummation, but the Catholic Church allows an exception which is called a "Josephite Marriage."  This is the kind of marriage that the Catholic Church believes Mary and Joseph entered into: a marriage without sex.

Despite the fact that no consummation took place, a Josephite marriage is not intrinsically invalid.  Even so, a marriage that has never been consummated would be more easily exited than a marriage that has been consummated.  Indeed the condition of consummation goes hand in hand with indissolubility.  If a marriage is consummated, it is indissoluble.  If it is not consummated, it is dissoluble.  Whether or not it is consummated, the marriage exists.

Dissolution of a marriage is actually different from annulment of a marriage.  Annulment says the marriage never existed; dissolution means that a partial marriage is being dissolved.  If a marriage is ratified and consummated then there exists the possibility of annulment, but not the possibility of dissolution.  If a marriage is ratified but not consummated then both the possibility of annulment and dissolution exist.

  Canon 1141 explains the Church's theological understanding of the
  significance of the consummation of a valid marriage: a marriage which
  has been ratified and consummated (ratum et consummatum) cannot be
  dissolved by any number power, or by any cause other than death.  If a
  couple have been validly married, and have consummated their
  marriage, the Church holds that their marriage is indissoluble.
  Period.

  But if the couple were validly married, yet had never consummated
  their marriage--a marriage ratum sed non sonsummatum, in other
  words--the situation is theologically quite different!  Such a
  marriage can be dissolved by the Roman Pontiff for a just reason,
  at the request of one or both parties to the marriage (canon
  1142).  A ratum sed non consummatum marriage is not
  indissoluble, because the indissolubility of a valid marriage comes
  about through its consummation.

  -Canon Law and Consummating a Marriage


According to Catholic doctrine, what effect does the Last Judgment have on those who are already in heaven?

Two important things will happen to us at the last judgment that were not already done at our particular judgment. First, although our souls will already have gone to heaven (possibly via purgatory) or to hell, at the last judgment our bodies will be reunited with our souls, to join in their joy or suffering.  Second, the last judgment will be public, seen and understood by the whole world, whereas our particular judgment was private, just between God and ourselves.  At the last judgment, everyone will see how each of us has cooperated or failed to cooperate with the graces God has given us. Both God's mercy and His justice will be visible to all, and even those who, in this life, worry about how a good God can condemn anyone to hell forever will see that those condemnations are entirely appropriate.


Is it appropriate to say that some denominations are more "extreme" than others?

I'm going to take a risk with an initial assumption:  Since it's hard to find non-hostile documentation referring to specific denominations as "extreme" or "extremists, I'm going to offer the next best thing:  Denominations that are widely accepted as Fundamentalists.

The assumption is that by "extreme" you mean "fiercely attached to a core set of beliefs, and less likely to compromise on those positions." This somewhat fits, because of your comparison with "more liberal" people, and Fundamentalism emerged as a counter-force to liberal movements within the Church.

I do realize that there are other ways the term "Extreme" could be interpreted.  It could mean "dangerous" as in those that would kill to defend their beliefs, or the ones that would hole up on a compound somewhere, arming themselves against the invasion of Satan's armies.  My answer doesn't address that type of "extreme".  I'm shooting for what I THINK you're looking for.  Forgive me if I'm wrong.

Fundamentalist Christians are defined as such:

  Fundamentalist Christianity, also known as Christian Fundamentalism or
  Fundamentalist Evangelicalism, is a movement that arose mainly within
  British and American Protestantism in the late 19th and early 20th
  centuries among conservative evangelical Christians, who, in a
  reaction to modernism, actively affirmed a fundamental set of
  Christian beliefs: the inerrancy of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the
  virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the
  bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent personal return of
  Jesus Christ.

Various sources can be found that compare Fundamentalists with Mainline Christianity, and Pentecostals.  Of course, all of these are relative terms, but I think the closes you can get to the list you're asking for - a list of denominations that are more extreme would be to look at a list of denominations that are accepted as Fundamentalist.

There are such lists on the Internet, but (oddly enough) the best I found was at Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fundamentalist_denominations

My denomination is listed there, and I'd agree - I fit that definition of Fundamentalist, as to my fellow Church members.  However, nobody in my church (by that, I mean my local West Salem Baptist Church, not Baptists as a whole) would dream of using our devotion to the "old fashioned" positions as an excuse for hostility toward others, as hinted at in the question you linked to.  We take the commandment to love our enemies as seriously as we do the Trinity, or any of the other beliefs that define Fundamentalists.

Other than that, the Handbook of Denominations in the United States gives information similar to what you're looking for - the core beliefs and tenets of each denomination, but not with a chart or ranking in order of Fundamentalism.  You can look at each denomination on your own and use your own definition of Extremism to determine which you think are extreme.


What things did John the Baptist say that the elders and priests did not believe?

Well, in the preceding verses, they were questioning Jesus about his authority.  Jesus answered by asking them about John the Baptist's authority, to draw an analogy.  So the obvious answer would be that they didn't believe John's testimony of Jesus:

  John 1:19-34

  19 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and
  Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?

  20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the
  Christ.

  21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am
  not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.

  22 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer
  to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?

  23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make
  straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.

  24 And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.

  25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if
  thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?

  26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there
  standeth one among you, whom ye know not;

  27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's
  latchet I am not worthy to unloose.

  28 These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was
  baptizing.

  29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold
  the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

  30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred
  before me: for he was before me.

  31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel,
  therefore am I come baptizing with water.

  32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from
  heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

  33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the
  same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and
  remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

  34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.


Is there any Christian group that takes Matthew 23:8-10 literally?

Matthew 23:9 must be understood in the traditional Jewish cultural and religious context.
Students (talmidim) would often refer to their teachers by various titles that indicated significant esteem. These titles included רב (Rav), רבי (Rabbi), מר (Mar), and אבא (Abba). This translate into English as "great one," "my great one," "lord," and "father," respectively.

מר (Mar)

Marcus Jastrow: A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, p. 834.

Example: Babylonian Talmud, Seder Nezikin, Tractate Sanhedrin, Chapter 11, Folio 94a (English/ Hebrew)

Where did he deport them to? Mar Zutra said, "To Africa." Rabbi Chanina said, "To the mountains of Salug."
להיכא אגלי להו מר זוטרא אמר לאפריקי ורבי חנינא אמר להרי סלוג

רבי (Rabbi)

Marcus Jastrow: A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, p. 1442.

Example: Babylonian Talmud, Seder Nezikin, Tractate Sanhedrin, Chapter 11, Folio 94a (English/ Hebrew)

Where did he deport them to? Mar Zutra said, "To Africa." Rabbi Chanina said, "To the mountains of Salug."
להיכא אגלי להו מר זוטרא אמר לאפריקי ורבי חנינא אמר להרי סלוג

Hebrew רב (Rav); Aramaic רבא (Raba)

Marcus Jastrow: A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, p. 1438.

Example: Babylonian Talmud, Seder Mo'ed, Tractate Pesachim, Chapter 9, Folio 92b (English/ Hebrew)

Rav Nachman said, "It is accepted." Rav Sheshet said, "It is not accepted."
רב** ששת אמר לא הורצה רב נחמן אמר הורצה**

Example: Babylonian Talmud, Seder Zera'im, Tractate Brakhot, Chapter 1, Folio 3b (English/ Hebrew)

But Raba said, "There are two kinds of neshef: when the evening disappears and the morning arrives; when the day disappears and the evening arrives.
אלא אמר רבא תרי נשפי הוו נשף ליליא ואתי יממא נשף יממא ואתי ליליא

There are a few others, but I believe this demonstrates the context sufficiently.
Edit: To clarify, there is no reason you may not call your own biological father, "father." It is stated in both the OT and the NT that we are to "honor your mother and father."
The issue concerns calling those in positions of authority (especially religious) by titles of esteem, especially those in the Church. Yeshu'a said that those who were great and first among us were to be our ministers and servants (cp. Matt. 20:26-27). A master does not call his servant, "lord"; likewise, we should not call those who serve us by such titles. For example, "Papa" for the Pope, "Father" for priests, "Rabbi" for Jewish teachers. These are exactly what Yeshu'a was referring to. In addition, to think that he told his disciples that they were not to call the Jewish religious leaders Rav, Rabbi, Mar, Abba, etc., but then Gentile believers can call their religious leaders, "Pope," "Father," is simply nonsensical.
The entire premise behind this prohibition is that there is one alone deserving of esteem, and that is our Lord (Master). All those who believe in him are his servants.


Where can I find the Graduale Romanorum in Latin or Croatian in physical format?

Check out Benedictine monasteries in your region or other institutes of religious formation, especially for Croatian sources. Then again their is always Amazon.

Graduale Romanum

Addendum:

The Benedictine Order in general and Solemnes Monastery in particular have been asked by Rome to preserve the heritage of Gregorian Chant as the official Sacred Music of the Church in the Latin Rite.


I'm still no expert, but I've been able to determine the following through research and reading of the site's content as well as watching a few of the messages.

The Crossing Church noted in the question seems to be a collection of Churches in the state of Minnesota, and don't appear to be directly related to other Churches with the same name elsewhere in the country, although the theology and style are similar.

This Church falls squarely in the "Purpose-Driven" "Emergent Church" category.  As such, there is quite a bit of theology that falls in-line with "mainstream" Protestant Christianity, and also, quite a bit that could be considered controversial, and even heretical by many standards.

The Church's Statement of Faith reads like almost any other Protestant denomination's Statement of Faith. (Link to their statement in PDF format, sorry, it's all they offer.)  The statement covers:

Biblical inerrancy
The Trinity
Virgin birth and identity of Jesus as fully God, and fully Man
Man created in God's image, separated by sin, original sin
Jesus' death as a substitutionary payment for our sins
The coming personal, visible return of Christ
Salvation by Grace through Faith in Jesus
bodily resurrection of the just and unjust, eternal joy of the saved, enternal, conscious punishment of the unsaved
Indwelling of the Holy Spirit for the saved
Baptism by immersion for believers as a sign of obedience (not as necessary for salvation)
Participants in the Lord's Supper should be believers, in good fellowship with Christ
The Universal Church - all believers

They also list "The Code" (also a PDF link), which makes it very clear that they are intensely focused on evangelism, using any means possible to reach the lost.

Rather than listing all the bullet points, here are a few that stand out:

  We are united under the visionary.  The Crossing is built on the vision God gave Pastor Eric.  We aggressively defend our unity and his
  vision.
  We are an invasion force, not a fortress.  We invade our city with Christ; we don't hide from the city and condemn people.  We are
  always missional.
  We are all about the numbers.  Every number is a life influenced.  We unapologetically set goals and measure progress so God
  can influence more lives or His kingdom.

Note:  This next section could clearly be simply the opinions of disgruntled ex-members.  It's included to answer the "Are their beliefs in-line with mainstream Protestant Christianity.  I've cited sources, but cannot vouch for their reliability, having no first-hand experience myself.

Going beyond their own website, we start to see some statements by ex-Church members that would because for concern in more conservative mainstream Christianity.

From http://apprising.org/2011/07/29/eric-dykstra-and-the-crossing-church/

Putting untrained, struggling people in a leadership position.  Most Churches consider Godly living, and strong personal testimony to be a requirement for eligibility in a leadership position.  This Church appears to take a different approach, encouraging people that are "not qualified" to become leaders in the hopes that this will strengthen their walk with the Lord.

  In July 2009, my wife and I were in counsel with “Pastor” Bruce Rauma.
  We were going through a lot of stressful personal things, and I was
  still grieving my Mother’s death that had happened in May of 2009.
  Bruce called a meeting with us to meet him at the Church and told us
  that he thought we should become Small Group leaders.

  I explained to Bruce that we were not ready to shepherd people, as we
  were broken ourselves.  He said “no” that we were ready, and that
  running a group would help us with our own problems.  So we became
  Small Group leaders.  There was no training, no interview of our
  backgrounds, nothing.  Then we were recruited to by “Pastor” Chris to
  leave the Elk River Campus and plant the Zimmerman Campus.

Allowing non-believers to be Pastors:

  There was a young man named Jeremy who was on our FIT team.  He was a
  seeker who started going to The Crossing.  One week he took me aside
  and told me that he was planning on moving to Florida and did not
  think that he “buys” into this Jesus thing.

  The following week, he was running around telling everyone that he was
  now going to become the next “campus pastor”.  I asked my leader what
  was going on, and how that it Biblical, he said that Eric thinks that
  Jeremy H. needs to be challenged to push him along in faith.

The above practice seems to be in line with the philosophy of  Alan Hirsch:

  we need to reframe evangelism within the context of discipleship…even
  “the Twelve” (and “the Seventy”) were all what we would call
  “pre-conversion disciples.” (source)

The Church is also, apparently, very harsh to those who choose to leave the fold.  (source)

As for the history, it appears that the main Pastor, Eric Dykstra, was "given a vision by God" to start the Church.  (See point 1 in "The Code" above.)  This is a theme that seems to be quite common in the Emergent Church as well.

Currently, the Church operates in four different campuses, all near Minneapolis Minnesota.

Other, completely unrelated Churches go by the name "The Crossing" and seem to be similar in many respects - boilerplate statement of faith, but with strong indication that they fall squarely into the definition of "The Emergent Church".


How do non-Reformed Theologians interpret Romans 9:11-23?

Many interpret it in light of the rest of the larger section, Romans 9-11, which indicates that Paul's language of election is about Jews and Gentiles. In fact, cutting off that section at verse 23 is quite artificial, and even the Reformed-leaning ESV translation groups 9:1-29 into a single pericope. On this interpretation, election is not a choice by God of an individual for salvation but of a group. Arminians believe that God elected the Church, but that he did not preordain exactly which individuals would compose the Church.

Others (myself included) interpret election as a primarily missional term, not a primarily salvific one. This, too, takes into account Paul's assertion of Israel as the original elect and interprets that as a restatement of the covenant in Genesis 12, in which Israel was appointed as the nation through whom "all the families of the earth will be blessed." The elect, then, are not the only people who will be saved, but rather are the people through whom God will work to bring about the salvation of many (or, to some interpreters, of all).

Sources for further reading:

N.T. Wright - Justificiation, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, and other writings. (This blog post has some relevant excerpts from PFG). Justification is part of a larger dialogue with John Piper, so I recommend that book if you're looking for something that specifically addresses the claims of neo-Calvinism.

Douglas J. Moo - The Epistle to the Romans (New International Commentary on the New Testament series). Moo provides one of the most comprehensive catalogues of the various views held on this passage.

Corporate Election on Wikipedia.


There are a number of points amillennialists disagree on: the nature of the millennium, who takes part in the 'first resurrection', what the 'first resurrection is, etc.

But the main point of disagreement is when the thousand years of Revelation 20 begin:

1. Millennium begins at the cross (c. 30 AD)

Perhaps the more well-known variation of amillennialism associates the binding of the dragon with the crucifixion (and/or resurrection) of Jesus. Appeal is made to passages like John 12.31 or John 16.11 in combination with Matthew 12.22-29. Within this framework, the binding of the dragon is a symbolic reference to the satan suffering 'judgment' and being 'bound up' through the cross. Hence, the thousand years began at that time (i.e. about 30 AD).

2. Millennium begins at the destruction of the temple (70 AD)

Some amillennialists believe the dragon was bound not when Jesus was crucified, but when the temple of Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD, and thus the millennium began at that time. This view is most common within a specifically preterist eschatology.

3. Millennium begins at the fall of Rome (4th-5th centuries AD)

And a third set of amillennialists see Revelation 19-20 as foretelling the collapse of the Roman Empire, whether by conversion (i.e. Constantine's reforms) or by conquest (barbarian invasion of Rome). Interpreting one (or both) of these as the triumph of Christianity over paganism, the dragon is believed to have been bound, and the millennium begun, around this time.

Reconciliation

There is no direct conflict between the amillennialism expressed in views 2 and 3 with the activity of the satan as described in 1 Peter 5.8. Because, in these two views, the millennium begins after 1 Peter 5.8 was written (believed to be c.62-64 AD), it may be understood as only applying to the time frame between the epistle's authorship and the start of the millennium. (A critical dating of 1 Peter's authorship, c.80-100 AD, is more problematic for view 2.)

This leaves view 1 unaccounted for, the view that says the millennium began when Jesus died.

But reconciliation is made between 1 Peter 5.8 and view 1 (and really all three views) on the basis of an alternate understanding of what Revelation 20 is actually describing. The point of debate often centers around when the dragon is bound or when the millennium begins, but some authors have instead framed Revelation 20.1-6 around the nature of the dragon's imprisonment.

In specific response to the use of 1 Peter 5.8 as an objection to amillennialism, Riddlebarger argues:

  The apostle John told us in Revelation 20 what this binding of Satan actually entails. Confined to the abyss, the devil is no longer free to deceive the nations until he is released before the end (20:3). This does not mean that the binding of Satan prevents all forms of satanic activity in this age.1

In his commentary on Revelation 20, G.K. Beale (who interprets the millennium as spanning 'from Christ's resurrection until his final parousia', i.e. view 1), also responds directly to the use of 1 Peter 5.8, saying:

  But the "binding" (δέω) of Satan in Mark 3:27 (= Matt. 12:29) does not restrict all his activities but highlights the fact that Jesus is sovereign over him and his demonic forces. Therefore, context, and not the metaphor by itself, must determine what degree of restriction is intended. That Satan is "cast out" (ἐκβάλλω) by Christ's death does not restrict Satan in every way. Rather, it keeps him from preventing "all people" throughout the earth being drawn to Jesus (John 12:31-32). [...] God's seal on Satan prevents him from harming the salvific security of the true church, though he can harm it physically.2

In other words, amillennialists see the dragon's imprisonment in Revelation 20 not as an absolute restriction of all of the satan's activity in the world, but a more specific restriction of the satan's ability. G.K. Beale continues by defining what he thinks this specific restriction is:

  But what kind of deceiving activities are to be restrained? The following context, 20:7-10, provides the nearest answer, especially since v 7 begins where v 3 leaves off (cf. "until the thousand years should be completed . . . it is necessary that he be loosed" and "when the thousand years are completed, he will be loosed"). In vv 7-10 the devil is released "to deceive the nations . . . in order to gather them together" to exterminate the community of God's people on earth. This will occur at the end of history immediately before Christ's final coming, when he will destroy the nations with fire.3

This is similarly argued by David Chilton (who followed a synthesis of views 1 and 2):

  For all these reasons, it is generally suggested by both postmillennial and amillennial authors that the binding of Satan, so that he should not deceive the nations any longer, refers to his inability to prevent the message of the Gospel from achieving success. And, as far as it goes, this interpretation certainly has Biblical warrant: Before the coming of Christ, Satan controlled the nations; but now his death-grip has been shattered by the Gospel, as the good news of the Kingdom has spread throughout the world. [...] That Satan has been bound does not mean that all his activity has ceased. The New Testament tells us specifically that the demons have been disarmed and bound (Col. 2:15; 2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6) – yet they are still active. It is just that their activity is restricted. And, as the Gospel progresses throughout the world, their activity will become even more limited. Satan is unable to prevent the victory of Christ’s Kingdom. [...] the precise thrust of Revelation 20 seems to be dealing with something much more specific than a general binding and defeat of Satan. St. John tells us that the Dragon is bound with reference to his ability to deceive the nations – in particular, as we learn from verse 8, the Dragon’s power "to deceive the nations . . . to gather them together for the war." The stated goal of the Dragon’s deception is to entice the nations to join forces against Christ for the final, all-out war at the end of history. [...] The specific point of the binding of the Dragon, therefore, is to prevent him from inciting the eschatological "war to end all wars," the final battle – until God is ready.4

In other words, amillennialists identify a difference between the activity of the satan in 1 Peter 5.8, and the activity the dragon is prevented from doing in Revelation 20. In the former the activity the satan does is understood as a more personal type of persecution, while the latter is understood as the dragon being restricted from carrying out an overt attempt at a global annihilation of all of God's followers. Amillennialists believe that a restriction of the latter does not include a restriction of the former.

Footnotes

1 Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, p.242

2 G.K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, p.985-986

3 Ibid.

4 David Chilton, Days of Vengeance, p.199-201 (bold and italics original).


Why do Pentecostalists often use the word "fire" during exorcisms?

There are two basic analogies for fire in the NT: first is the everlasting
fire the condemned souls are cast into; the second one is the purifying
fire associated with the Holy Spirit. Mt 25:41 is an example of the former:

  Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me,
  ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Also Luke 9:54:

  And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou
  that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as
  Elias did?

Of the second, there's Mt 3:11:

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

And obviously, the famous Pentecost narrative from Acts 2:

  1 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place.
  2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven
  and filled the whole house where they were sitting.
  3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came
  to rest on each of them.

Now, the thing about Pentecostalism is that there isn't a Catechism or
some sort of definitive compendium of doctrine, but in general, a pastor
will invoke fire as a combination of the two metaphors: the fire that
purifies the possessed person from the unclean spirit, and the fire that
punishes the same unclean spirit in the “place prepared for the devil and
his angels.”


How can the Son not know what the Father knows?

The theological term here is kenosis

From Phillipians 2:6-7

  though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself ...

In short, Jesus gave up the perks of being God in order to identify with humanity.


Were the early Christians an apocalyptic sect?

There are a variety of views. Modernists (e.g., Albert Schweitzer) have tended to see Paul (and Jesus!) as benignly delusional when it comes to end times, whereas conservatives have tended to see them as puzzles to figure out.

There was certainly a strain in Paul (and Jesus himself in the Olivet Discourse) of expecting an imminent consummation of all things. See for instance his letters to the Thessalonians, which are generally regarded as his earliest letters. But there is also a sense of preparing for the long-haul -- the appointing of elders and instructions for running the church, for instance.

Some, called partial preterists, think that much of the Olivet Discourse and Revelation were fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, taking care of the imminentness of some of the eschaton (or end times).

Regardless of one's view of partial preterism, many Christians subscribe to "innaugurated eschatology" where the Kingdom transformation has begun but is not yet complete -- the "now but not yet."


What are the differences between demoninations regarding baptism/confirmation?

I think your question is probably about infant baptism, not child baptism. The latter isn't really a term used by churches. Those that would baptism young children but not infants would generally call this "believers baptism". If the child is too young to make even a simplistic declaration of faith then they probably fall under the umbrella of "infant" baptism.

Of those churches that practice infant baptism some major ones (including Catholics) usually implement some form of confirmation before offering communion and full membership in the visible church.

On the other side, there are many traditions (some Presbyterians and other Reformed traditions for example) that understand children of believers to be full participants in the visible church—recipients of God's grace and promises and as such responsible for keeping his commandments. In addition to infant baptism, these churches will usually offer communion to children of believing members. Children are both under the instruction and discipline of their family and, like their family heads, also under the instruction and discipline of the church. They may, of course, choose as they grow up to reject what they have been taught and believe or practice something contrary to the teachings entrusted to them. In this case they are automatically considered responsible based on what they have been given and like any other member of the church, disciplined up to an including excommunication which is simply a declaration that their life is in some way unrepentant and therefore not to be included in the visible church. (See this answer for further explanation of what that is about.)


According to proponents of penal substitutionary atonement, were the Levitical sacrifices also penal substitutions?

Charles Hodge (Systematic Theology, 3.7.6) and Herman Bavinck (Reformed Dogmatics, v3, III.7) are two Reformed theologians who make a number of exegetical arguments from Old Testament passages to defend penal substitution.  I'll focus on their treatments of the sin offering and similar sacrifices, on the following points:

Significance of blood (Leviticus 17)
Placing of hands and bearing of sin (Leviticus 16)
Satisfaction by a substitute (Deuteronomy 21)

The significance of blood
Hodge begins by arguing for the significance of blood in OT sacrifices for expiation, that is, "to cover [sin] from the sight of God’s justice."  He cites the prohibition on eating blood in Leviticus 17:10–12, and writes:

The last clause of the verse, which in our version is rendered, “For it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul,” is more literally and correctly rendered, “For blood by (its) soul or life makes atonement;” or, as Bähr and Fairbairn translate it, “The blood atones through the soul.” The latter writer correctly remarks, “This is the only sense of the passage that can be grammatically justified; for the preposition ב after the verb to atone (כפר) invariably denotes that by which the atonement is made; while as invariably the person or object for which is denoted by ל or על.”

Based on this analysis, Hodge argues that this and similar passages cannot be considered mere symbols of devotion or means of reforming a sinner, and must be understood as "giving soul for soul, life for life."
Bavinck cites the same passage to argue that the blood itself achieves atonement:

The idea was not a death for the sake of death but to obtain by it the blood that had to effect atonement. [...] the blood is the bearer of the soul, the carrier of a life that had again been made free from sin after and by the slaying.

The placing of hands and the bearing of sin
Hodge and Bavinck argue that the placing of hands on the sacrifice is significant.  Bavinck writes that "by the laying on of hands, the offerer transferred his sin to the animal":

In Scripture the laying on of hands always implies some kind of transmission: of a blessing (Gen. 48:13; Matt 19:13), of a curse (Lev. 24:14), of an office (Num. 27:18; Deut. 34:9), of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17), and so on, and similarly in the case of bloody sacrifices as well as burnt and thank offerings (Lev. 1:4; 3:2) for sin that has been acknowledged and confessed.

Hodge calls special attention to the goats of Leviticus 16, arguing that two goats are needed in order to fully portray the atonement:

In the solemn services of the great day of atonement, the import of this rite is rendered especially clear. It was commanded that two goats should be selected, one for a sin-offering and the other for a scape-goat. The two constituted one sacrifice, as it was impossible that one could signify all that was intended to be taught. Of the scape-goat it is said, “Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, . . . . and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited.” This renders it plain that the design of the imposition of hands was to signify the transfer of the guilt of the offender to the victim.

Once transferred, the victims are said "to bear the sin" of the offender.  Hodge argues that in this context this phrase must refer to expiation, not spiritual renovation:

In point of fact the words in question [נָשָּׂאצָיֹו;] always refer to bearing the punishment and thus removing the guilt of sin, and never to the removal of moral pollution. This is plain, (1.) Because נָשָּׂא is interchanged with סָבַל which never means to remove, but only to sustain, or bear as a burden. (2.) Because usage determines the meaning of the phrase and is uniform. In Numbers xiv. 34, it is said, “Ye shall bear your iniquities forty years.” Leviticus v. 1, “If a soul . . . . hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness; . . . . if he do not utter it, he shall bear his iniquity.” Leviticus v. 17, “He is guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.” Leviticus vii. 18, “The soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity.” Leviticus xvii. 16, “If he wash not . . . . then he shall bear his iniquity.” Leviticus xix. 8; xx. 17; xxii. 9, “They shall keep my ordinance, lest they bear sin for it.” Numbers ix. 13, If a man forbear to keep the passover, he shall be cut off from the people, “he shall bear his sin.” See also Numbers xviii. 22, 32. Ezekiel iv. 4, 5, it is said to the prophet enduring penance, “So shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel.” “Thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days.” “Lie thou upon thy left side . . . . according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it, thou shalt bear their iniquity.” Ezekiel xviii. 20, “The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father; neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son.” In all these, and in other like cases, it is simply impossible that “bearing sin” should mean the removal of sin by moral renovation. The expression occurs some forty times in the Bible, and always in the sense of bearing the guilt or punishment of sin.

Satisfaction
For treatment of the idea of satisfaction more explicitly, we must turn to other types of offerings.  Regarding Numbers 35:31, Hodge writes:

In Numbers xxxv. 31, it is said, “Ye shall take no satisfaction (כֹּפֶר, λύτρα, pretium), for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death; but he shall be surely put to death . . . . the land cannot be cleansed (יְכֻפַּר; Septuagint, ἐξιλασθήσεται; Vulgate, nec aliter expiari potest) of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.” Here again there can be no mistake. To cover sin, כּפֵּר, is to expiate it by a penal satisfaction; that expiation is expressed, as we have seen, by כֹּכֶּר, which literally magnifies that which covers, and, in such connections, that which covers sin so that it no longer demands punishment.

Here, only the muderer's own blood can satisfy.  But in Deuteronomy 21:1–9, when the murderer cannot be found, the death of a heifer can satisfy:

A כֹּפֶר is a satisfaction. This satisfaction must be made either by the offender or by some one in his stead. In the case of murder, if the perpetrator could not be discovered, a victim was to be slain in his stead, and thus satisfaction was to be made. The law in reference to this case makes the nature and design of sin offerings perfectly plain. The elders of the nearest city were commanded to take a heifer which had not borne the yoke, and wash their hands over it in attestation of their innocence of the blood of the murdered man; the priests being present. The heifer was to be slain, and thus expiation made for the offence.

Verses 7 and 8 contain the testimony of the elders:

‘Our hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes see it shed. 8 Accept atonement, O Lord, for your people Israel, whom you have redeemed, and do not set the guilt of innocent blood in the midst of your people Israel, so that their blood guilt be atoned for.’ [ESV]

Hodge concludes, "The removal of guilt by a vicarious death is, therefore, the Scriptural idea of a sin offering."
Summary
Bavinck and Hodge are both quick to note that the Old Testament sacrificial system had a number of deficiencies, such as its applicability to only a few sins, the sinfulness of the priests, and its requirement of endlessly repeating sacrifices.  Its effectiveness thus ultimately depended on Christ's atonement, but it nonetheless served as a type that pointed to that perfect sacrifice.  Thus, they argue that OT indications of the significance of the blood, the transmission of guilt, and the substitute's satisfaction are key elements in Christ's sacrifice, and evidence for the penal substitutionary view of atonement.