On what bases do Eastern-Orthodox reject total depravity?

This answer summarizes portions of the argument against total depravity presented by Alexander J. Renault in his book entitled "Reconsidering TULIP".

Eastern Orthodox Christians agree that sin has weakened human beings so that we are unable to come to God apart from His grace in our lives. But we diverge on whether this is a special grace given only to an elect few or a general grace given to everyone—with Orthodox Christians firmly believing the latter. Furthermore, Eastern Orthodox Christians do not believe that human beings are unable to come to God due to any fundamental change in human nature (i.e., original sin), but rather due to the environment of sin and death in which we operate. Humans thus sin because of garbage that is foreign to human nature, not because of sin being intrinsic to human nature.

Ontological Problems

Leaving aside epistemological problems with total depravity (it's a circular argument due to its implied claim of noetic corruption), there are serious ontological problems dealing with human nature, some of which go back to the early Church where differences in theology and anthropology arose due to differences in Greek vs. Latin thought. I do not have enough time to fully develop these arguments and as such will leave them as bullets:

Humans cannot be intrinsically sinful in their essence (i.e., "sinful nature"), lest God be the creator of sin.

The most prevalent objection to this is that human beings were created with a good nature but that nature changed.

A nature cannot change itself. A rock is still a rock even if all rocks are destroyed. The essence of a thing remains.
Only God can change a thing's essence (or nature).

If God changed human beings' essence, then He is still the author of sin.

The Church has historically taught that God created all human beings with a good nature. Humans are created in God's image—we are icons of God.

Humans are bound by sin and corruption, but this is like burying a gold bar in a pile of horse manure—it doesn't change the fact that there is gold (the essence has not changed).
Sin has no power to destroy God's creation nor to alter it.

Total depravity confuses person with nature.

Early Greek-speaking Christians used the terms hypostasis (ὑπόστασις) for "person" and ousia (οὐσία) for essence (or nature). The word "person" and the Latin concept is part of the problem here, compared to the Greek word and concept of hypostasis, but there isn't time nor space to elaborate on this here.

As a notable example of this, the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated in early Christianity stating that God is one in essence (ousia), but with three persons (hypostases).

Choice is a function of personhood, not nature. As such, it is incorrect to say that human beings have a corrupt nature that makes us unable to choose anything other than sin.

As an example, holiness is part of God's nature. Thus it cannot be separated from the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit (persons). On the other hand, "incarnation" is a personal attribute of the Son.
Sin is a personal attribute, not natural/essential.

If human beings chose to sin from our natures, then all of our actions are simply the result of whatever our natures dictate. By that same line of reasoning, God is also not free to act outside His nature (undoubtedly some Western Christians do believe in this notion that God Himself is bound which the Cappadocian Fathers and others rejected as pagan philosophy: Ananke (Ἀνάγκη, i.e. "Necessity")), and so God Himself has no free choice.

Eastern Christians emphasize that God created and redeems by His free choice, not out of some necessity of the divine nature.

If God could not choose to do anything else because of His nature (here assuming the confusion of person with nature inherent in the doctrine of total depravity), then ultimately God is the creator of both good and evil (i.e., omnicausal).

Underlying this is a historical debate about preceding causes and free choice, but for the sake of time I'm moving on from this. Thinking through these implications is an exercise left for the reader.

If the very nature/essence of human beings is sinful, then God cannot love us because He would love sin. In order for God to "hate the sin but love the sinner", it follows that sin is distinct from (i.e. not part of) human nature.

If sin is part of human nature, then either (i) God loved humans before the fall (but not anymore) or (ii) God doesn't really love us (at least not as we are) or (iii) God doesn't love all human beings (only the elect).

If you're a staunch Calvinist, you may not have a problem with iii, but from an Orthodox perspective, this God would be a very unloving parent who makes demands from His children (e.g., repent) that they are unable to fulfill. But this would also have to mean that the elect have a different nature than other humans, which is problematic.
Underlying a lot of this are classical debates on free will (compatibilism vs. libertarianism vs. determinism). The reader is left to read philosophical works on these topics as an exercise (or check out this one-hour talk by Jerry Walls that does a decent job of addressing this from an Arminian perspective).

If Christ did not have a human nature, then He cannot save humanity.

The Church has historically taught that Jesus is fully human and fully God (this was dealt with extensively in the first few ecumenical councils). This is necessary else He could not bridge the divide between humanity and God (see Hebrews 2:17).

Jesus must have had a human nature for this to be true. And yet He was without sin. If he had a different nature from the rest of humanity, then He was not truly human. Either (i) Christ was sinful (because he had the same nature as us) or (ii) Christ wasn't fully human and thus cannot save us.
"Have this in your mind, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God, didn’t consider equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to the point of death, yes, the death of the cross" (Philippians 2:5-8).

I would also recommend to the interested reader to check out James R. Payton, Jr.'s Light from the Christian East, especially chapter 6 entitled "Humanity as Created and Fallen".

Biblical Problems

Again, underdeveloped bullets are all I have time for:

Genesis 1:26-7, 31 — Humans are created in God's image, and God declared His creation "very good". In subsequent texts concerning "the fall", there is no mention of human nature being changed. In fact, Cain is told by God that he is to "rule over" sin (Gen. 4:6-7). Later in Gen. 9:6 (post-fall), God affirms to Noah that humans were created in God's image.
Proverbs 8:36 — Biblical wisdom literature indicates that sinning against God is unnatural (i.e. against human nature). As in Prov. 25:4, humans are intrinsically valuable (silver), but operate in an environment of sin and death (dross).
Mark 6:5-6 — Why would Jesus marvel at the peoples' unbelief if they were totally depraved and incapable of faith? Jesus' surprise indicates that they could and should have believed.
Romans 7:14-25 — Paul makes a clear distinction between "me" and "my flesh", indicating that it is not an intrinsic part of his nature (despite the awful translation of "flesh" as "sinful nature" by the NIV translators). I know some may use this passage as proof of total depravity (Paul could be taken to be saying he is incapable of doing good, despite this not being how this passage has historically been interpreted by the Church, e.g. see St. Chrysostom), but it is important to note Paul's careful distinctions between his personal will and how he sees "a different law in my members", not "in me", etc. Finally, in v. 24, Paul doesn't cry out to be delivered from himself (that is, his nature), but from "the body of this death".

Historical Problems

Unfortunately I don't have time to devote to this beyond saying that Augustine is largely responsible for much of these ideas, and was heavily influenced by Manichean Gnosticism and significantly toned down at the second council of Orange (specifically fatalism/predestination). The Church had historically affirmed the free will of human beings to choose God before this notable exception which came to dominate Western (Latin) theology (others have written extensively on how Augustine knew very little Greek and was trained in rhetoric and philosophy but not theology, not to mention he frequently claimed that his own teachings were speculative). But this section is unfair without additional sources, and so I commend to my readers Jaroslav Pelikan's excellent treatment in The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), especially chapter 6 on "Nature and Grace", particularly pp. 292-331.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Eastern Orthodox Christians agree that:

Humans have been weakened/wounded by sin
We have a propensity to sin and are capable of horrific evils
We cannot save ourselves and are completely dependent on God's grace (it's impossible to come to God apart from His grace)

However, Eastern Orthodox Christians disagree with some of the tenets of total depravity and must insist that:

Human nature is intrinsically good
God's grace has been freely extended to all people (not just an elect minority)
Choosing God (and thus life/grace) is not a meritorious act that detracts from God's glory or sovereignty
Jesus was fully God and fully man and had the same human nature as the rest of humanity
Jesus became a human being so that we might become [like] God, "becoming by grace what God is by nature"


Can I say Jesus' arrival was through conception of the Holy Spirit?

Matthew 1:18 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Conception and Birth of Jesus

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

As for a Catholic perspective, we have no problem declaring that Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. In the Apostles' Creed we profess this very fact:

"I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary."

The Church of England, the United Methodist Church and the Ecumenical version of the English Language Liturgical Consultation all share similar wording in their professions of faith.


Why is ”green martyrdom” green?
A green martyrdom is a type of spiritual mortification or martyrdom that the faithful may perform during the entirety of their life without shedding their blood or fleeing persecution to live an ascetic life style such as the Desert Fathers. Green is the color most commonly associated in Europe and the United States with nature, vivacity and life.
If someone were to say that it is simply because this terminology originated in Ireland and green is the colour of the Irish or leprechauns, I would say that symbolism is all wrong.

The modern image of the leprechaun sitting on a toadstool, having a red beard and green hat, etc. is clearly a more modern invention, or borrowed from other strands of European folklore. The most likely explanation for the modern day Leprechaun appearance is that green is a traditional national Irish color dating back as far as 1642.

The original colour of Ireland was blue, not green!

In reality, the authentic color for St Patrick, the patron saint of Ireland, is blue. It can still be seen today on Ireland's Presidential Standard and other ancient Irish flags. In the 1700s, green replaced blue and became the official color for Ireland. It is one of the three colors of the modern Irish flag. Green seems like a more logical choice when you consider that Ireland is known as the Emerald Isle because of its beautiful green countryside. The expression "the wearing of the Green" refers to both the shamrock that St. Patrick used to teach the Trinity and the bright green uniforms worn by soldiers during the Irish Rebellion of 1798. Green has also been the color that represents support for the Irish dream of independence.
The green of the Irish flag is the official color for St. Patrick's Day. It is a spring green with less blue in it than some of the other shades. - The Official Colors of St. Patrick's Day

So why is green martyrdom green?
First of all let us look at the symbolic colours of martyrdom which actually were mention by Pope Gregory the Great at a time in history that the Celtic Rite was very much alive within the Church. This is the same pope that called the Anglo-Saxons Angels. The story goes that Pope Gregory the Great saw some fair-haired and fair-skinned slaves in a slave market in Italy, and was told that they were Angles. “Not Angles but angels,” he replied.

Degrees of martyrdom
Some Roman Catholic writers (such as Thomas Cahill) continue to use a system of degrees of martyrdom that was developed in early Christianity. Some of these degrees bestow the title of martyr on those who sacrifice large elements of their lives alongside those who sacrifice life itself. These degrees were mentioned by Pope Gregory I in Homilia in Evangelia, he wrote of "three modes of martyrdom, designated by the colors, red, blue (or green), and white". A believer was bestowed the title of red martyr due to either torture or violent death by religious persecution. The term "white martyrdom" was used by the Church Father Jerome, "for those such as desert hermits who aspired to the condition of martyrdom through strict asceticism". Blue (or green) martyrdom "involves the denial of desires, as through fasting and penitent labors without necessarily implying a journey or complete withdrawal from life".
Also along these lines are the terms "wet martyr" (a person who has shed blood or been executed for the faith) and "dry martyr" which is a person who "had suffered every indignity and cruelty" but not shed blood, nor suffered execution. - Christian martyr (Wikipedia)

Thus a green martyrdom "involves the denial of desires, as through fasting and penitent labors without necessarily implying a journey or complete withdrawal from life*”.
From the Celtic understanding, adopted through out Christian lands, there are three types of martyrdom:

Red Martyrdom - those who die for the sake of the faith.
White Martyrdom - those who leave behind all possessions, titles, and relationships for the sake of the Kingdom of God. This includes hermits, anchorites, and most monastics.
Green Martyrdom - Living the ascetic life in the place and position where God placed you. It "...consists in this, that by means of fasting and labour he frees himself from his evil desires, or suffers toil in penance and repentance."

Green is the color of new vegetation and the most wide spread colour in nature. It symbolizes the hope of new life which is ours in the life of Jesus Christ. Because green martyrs practiced forms of penance without necessarily implying a journey or complete withdrawal from daily life of the Christian community, it is fitting that their form of martyrdom would be green!
The green martyrdom was a way to sacrifice when lives were no longer in danger.

The Irish monks in their ingenuity thought up another form of martyrdom that did not require persecution and bloodshed: they would come to call themselves, “Green Martyrs” and give their whole lives dedicated to worship and prayer.
The Green Martyr was one who followed the cost of discipleship that Jesus laid down, the “deny yourself, pick up your cross, and follow me” kind of commitment that leads to a self-sacrificial existence. It is in this sense that the symbolic colour of green should be understood.
They chose the most remote corners of the Island, places like Skellig Michael, a rocky outcropping some 8 miles southwest of the tip of the Irish coast. Literally, “the ends of the earth” as their maps simply did not go any further than this point.
Perhaps without realizing it, all of these modern movements have their roots in the ancient “Green Martyrs” of Ireland!
So here are 3 possible applications to becoming a modern “Green Martyr” (without having to move to Skellig Michael in Ireland):

Cultivate a lifestyle of radical commitment to God in prayer.

You can learn to cultivate a daily, hour by hour dependence upon the Spirit by new levels of self-control and self-discipline. Pray more! Pray fervently. Fast & pray, too. Try checking in with the Holy Spirit every hour of the day.

Read & meditate on scripture, daily.

The monks did. I visited the ruins of Nendrum Monastery, between Belfast and Downpatrick in Ulster, Northern Ireland. It contains the best-preserved ancient sundial in Ireland, where I noticed there were 8 markers which marked 8 distinct times of the day that these men and women of God would pause in their lives, pray, and meditate on Scripture. Try this: set some markers on your mobile phone to alert you to pause and pray throughout your day!

Find a spot in your home to dedicate as “holy space” to God.

The Christian Celts called these places, “thin places” because the veil between Heaven and Earth was so thin and they could sense the glory and presence of God lingering there. This could be a prayer room, or even a favorite chair where you commit to daily communing with the Spirit of God, interceding for others, or just reading Scripture. And the more time you spend in communion with God, the more you personally carry a “thin place” with you, wherever you travel, and can bring the presence of the King of Kings to others who need Him. - The Green Martyrs of Ireland at the Ends of the Earth

The following articles may be of interest to some:

Not just red anymore: the colors of martyrdom
Friday Fact: Red, White, and Green Martyrdom


Is the date of final compilation of the books of the Old Testament an integral feature of the Wellhausen Documentary Hypothesis?

Before we dive into the various hypothesis models, it it useful to list the points that all these models (and the wider academic historical circle) are in agreement on:

the Torah/Pentateuch is not a unified work from a single author, but is made up of sources combined over many centuries by many hands.
the Pentateuch was not dictated to Mozes
it is the product of a long evolutionary process
redaction/compilation was done by several individuals over a long period of time

The disagreement over the models is solely focused on:

the dating of the redaction and compilation moments, and
the number of sources involved in redaction and compilation

The main models with varying sources are usually illustrated by this combined diagram:

And for most of these components we have fairly accurate dates:

J: Yahwist (10th–9th century BCE)
E: Elohist (9th century BCE)
Dtr1: early (7th century BCE) Deuteronomist historian
Dtr2: later (6th century BCE) Deuteronomist historian
P*: Priestly (6th–5th century BCE)
D†: Deuteronomist
R: redactor
DH: Deuteronomistic history (books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings)

So if your question is "when was the most recent redaction/compilation done?" it could not have been earlier than the dates for the used components. So, for example, if you follow the D† argumentation, the last redaction could not have been before the 5th century BCE.

Modern scholars generally see the completed Torah as a product of the time of the Persian Achaemenid Empire (probably 450–350 BCE), although some would place its production in the Hellenistic period (333–164 BCE), after the conquests of Alexander the Great.

Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative
By Adele Berlin

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map


Why has a Brazilian church built a replica of Solomon's Temple?

Why Solomon's temple? What does it have to do with the Christian faith?

The temple that Solomon built was magnificent, and the glory of the Lord filled it 2 Chr 7:1 But it was only good because of the LORD. Otherwise it was just big stones and gold plating, valuable sure, but also meaningless, as Solomon himself would attest in Ecclesiastes.

Under Roman occupation, around the time that Jesus was born the Herod the Great was reconstructing the temple. Perhaps for reasons similar to those outlined by Dick Hartfield in another answer: to gain legitimacy. When one of Jesus' disciples noted how magnificent the temple was Jesus answered him: 'Do you see these great buildings? There will not be here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down'. In that passage Jesus foretold of his return and linked it to the even in 70 AD when the Romans destroyed the temple.

Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the temple was also one of the charges brought against him, but actually, he was using the word 'temple' to refer to his own body.

In Christianity we see the temple as a type of the real temple of God, which is Jesus, and indeed any human body in which the Spirit of God dwells. Having an ostentatious building might even be counterproductive in the Christian faith since it focusses our attention on this world, instead of looking toward the invisible God.

I was more interested in a deeper explanation of why they are choosing elements of the Old Testament.

There is a lot in the Old Testament that we ought to attend to: the repeated commands to justice, mercy and righteousness, the commands to fear the LORD, love one's neighbour and so on. But there are some elements that it would be wrong for a Christian to indulge in: cirumcision and animal sacrifice. Given Jesus' expressed disdain for the great temple building project in his day it might be appropriate to add temple building to the list.

And to indulge in a bit of end-times speculation. The temple builder might be trying to make some Jewish folk a bit jealous so that they hasten to build the third temple in Israel and restore the sacrifices until the Antichrist installs himself in the temple, claims that he is God and finally we can get on with the schedule outlined in scripture that culminates in the return of Christ Jesus!

EDIT: 11 Mar 16
Just to add another perspective to the end times speculation, some say that there is a wide misunderstanding of prophecy and the antichrist referred to in scripture, is actually a system of false belief that has been around for a long time. On this reading there is no need to look for a rebuilding of Solomon's temple near the end, for the sacrifice has already been abolished when Jesus performed the sacrifice of his sinless self.


First of all, it's interesting to note that in John 8:12, Jesus says, 'I [Jesus] am the light of the world," but here he says that "You [the Jewish followers of Jesus listening to Him at that time] are the light of the world."  One understanding of this is that Jesus is the light source, while we are the light rays.  Another way to understand it is that Jesus is the first candle, and each of us are candles that are lit by His flame.

Indeed, the Jewish people were given the revelation of God in order to be a testimony to the world, and indeed God used them to be that in Egypt (Exodus - "that the Egyptians will know there I am the Lord"), in the Babylonian and Medo-Persian empires through the lives of Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and in various other ways.

John 1:9 indicates that Jesus gives light to all people.  John 3:19 indicates that light has come into the world, but many people have rejected the light.

So, it seems the light is using a physical reality to demonstrate a spiritual reality.  The light, then, probably refers to the revelation of God.  Jesus was the revelation of God, as He states in John 17. We also are called to testify to the glory of God, so that a people living in darkness can see a great light and come to God in faith.


Paul says that he received his calling direct from God and not from man (flesh and blood), then went to Arabia, then Damascus and met Peter only after a further three years, in which he had already taken on the role of the apostle to the gentiles:

  Galatians 1:15-18: But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

Some prefer the somewhat different account in Acts of the Apostles, which says that Paul had a miraculous vision of Jesus and was taken to Damascus. According to this account, he was taught the gospel in Damascus by Ananias and other disciples, then preached, not to gentiles but to Jews. After escaping from Damascus he was taken to Jerusalem but it is unclear in this account just when he met Peter and the other apostles.


What is a "just cause" in the context of Code of Canon Law, Canon 308?

What is a “just cause” in the context of Code of Canon Law, Canon 308?

First of all let us look at what Canon 308 actually states:

  Can. 308 No one legitimately enrolled is to be dismissed from an association except for a just cause according to the norm of law and the statutes.

A Catholic commentary say the following about this particular canon:

  Even if Canon 304, n.1 does not require that the conditions for dismissal for an association of the faithful be written into the statues, it goes without saying, since in any case they included in the conditions of admission. In effect, if people wish to be admitted into an association, they must make a commitment to espouse it’s purposes, mode of action, government, etc. However, that is not sufficient. The statues protect the rights and duties of the members, as well as of the association itself; they must specify what causes will justify a dismissal, and even the procedures that will lead to it.

Generally speaking a just cause is normally interpreted as as reasonable cause.

We have many different types of associations in our parish. Once again our pastor has told me that dismissal from an association is done by the association against a member for any number of just reasons.

However, if a member desires to leave an association or confraternity, one is quite free to do so under no penalty of sin, since vows are not taken in order to become a member. Membership in many such said associations or confraternities, in fact are open to children.

One is free to leave a confraternity and remain in good standing. Readmission is thus also possible, if desired at a later date.


Thomas Aquinas cites Psalm 148 in STh Ia 61,1 (Whether the angels have a cause of their existence?), holding that the word "they" in verse 5 refers to all of what is listed earlier in the psalm:

  Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!
      3 Praise him, sun and moon, praise him, all you shining stars!
      4 Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens!
      5 Let them praise the name of the LORD! For he commanded and they were created

He seems to be following Augustine here. Compare City of God Book XI, ch. 9, where Augustine cites Psalm 148 and also cites a similar passage from the Prayer of Azariah Canticle of the Three Young Men in Daniel 3 (this portion of Daniel is considered apocryphal by some).

Augustine seems to take it for granted that Job 38:7 refers to the angels, and actually uses this passage as the starting-point in his argument that the creation of the angels is included in what Genesis calls the creation of light (because the angels already existed when the stars were created). I don't know what text of Job he would have had, but he quotes it thus:

  Quando facta sunt sidera, laudauerunt me uoce magna omnes angeli mei.

Literally, "when the stars were made, all my angels praised me in a loud voice". The entire (relatively brief) chapter is basically one fascinating answer to your question.


When people say "I am waiting on God." Are they afraid to take action in their own lives?

The Bible serves as a guide for Christian living (2 Timothy 3:16). For example, helping others is God's command, but you still need God's intervention to know WHOM to help. It says in the Bible that you should love your enemies. There is still a question of who, where, when, and how. This is where the Holy Spirit comes in. You ask God for His leading. If God wants you to improve yourself, He will give signs and make it obvious what to do. Personally, I always pray for God's wisdom because God IS wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:24). If God is in you, you're always right, for God is perfect and in control. You have nothing to worry about (1 Peter 5:7, Proverbs 3:5-6).


When did the idea of a scriptural "canon" originate?

The best reference for answering this question, is not surprisingly, from Bruce Metzger. He is probably the foremost textual critic of the 20th Century - a fact that both Dan Wallace and Bart Ehrmann would agree with. The UBS4 is, in large part, his baby. His work: The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance can be found online here.  Of key interest is the chapter "Attempts at Closing the Canon," which sort of gives a flavor for the process.

Summarizing, Metzger essentially asserts the following key points:

Prior to Augustine (c. 400), the Church is less about a "canon" than about a spectrum of the worth of various books.  Especially in the East, the key was "grading" the books into those that should be read out loud in church, those that should be read by the ecclesiasticals, those that should be read by layman, and those that were heretical.  Those lists were somewhat fluid, but a pretty solid consensus had formed by the mid 300s

  The Latin Church had, in general, a stronger feeling than the
  Greek for the necessity of making a sharp delineation with
  regard to the canon. It was less conscious than the Greek
  Church of the gradation of spiritual quality among the books
  that it accepted, and therefore was more often disposed to
  assert that the books which it rejected possessed no spiritual
  quality whatever. In the search for the highest authority it
  showed a far more lively feeling for an uncompromising Yea or
  Nay; a classification such as that of Origen, or still more that of
  Eusebius, was consequently quite unheard of.

Like so many things, Augustine's opinions really held sway for most of the Middle Ages. His opinions on what was "best" effectively closed the canon in practice, if not in dogma

  With Augustine, whose influence upon the Western Church
  was even greater than that of Jerome, we come to a natural
  terminus in our survey of debate concerning the closing of the
  New Testament canon. ... Augustine's treatise De doctrina Christiana ('On Christian
  Learning' in four books) might well head his works on Biblical
  scholarship. The greater part of it (i. i-iii. 24) was written in
  396-7, but completed only in 426. In ii. 13 he gives our present
  list of New Testament books (but places James at the end of the
  Catholic Epistles, thus giving Peter the first place): the four
  Gospels, fourteen Epistles of Paul, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and
  3 John, Jude, James, Acts, Apocalypse. Although he includes
  Hebrews in the list (following Philemon) as Paul's, in his later
  works when he quotes from it he assiduously avoids calling it by
  the Apostle's name." But while he came to hesitate as to the
  authorship of the Epistle, he had no scruples as to its canonicity

  Before citing the list of Biblical books, Augustine exercises
  critical judgement, recognizing that some books are received on
  weightier authority than others. The Christian reader, he says,
  "will hold fast therefore to this measure in the canonical Scriptures,
  that he will prefer those that are received by all Catholic Churches to
  those which some of them do not receive. Among those, again, which
  are not received by all, let him prefer those which the more numerous
  and the weightier churches receive to those which fewer and less
  authoritative churches hold. But if, however, he finds some held by
  the more numerous, and some held by the churches of more authority
  (though this is not very likely to happen), I think that in such a case
  they ought to be regarded as of equal authority (De doct. chr. ii. 12)".

  Twenty-seven books [in the New Testament], no more, and no less, is henceforth the
  watchword throughout the Latin Church. Yet it would be a
  mistake to represent the question of the canon as finally settled
  in all Christian communities by the beginning of the fifth
  century

The dogmatic interpretation that the received canon was closed was finally brought about in the Middle Ages, nearing the time of the Reformations.

  During the Middle Ages the Church in the West received the
  Latin New Testament in the form that Jerome had given to it,
  and the subject of the canon was seldom discussed. At the same
  time, however, we find a certain elasticity in the boundaries of
  the New Testament. This is shown by the presence of the
  Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans in more than one hundred
  manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate (including the oldest, the
  celebrated codex Fuldensis, A.D. 546), as well as in manuscripts
  of early Albigensian, Bohemian, English, and Flemish versions

  It was not until the Council of Florence (1439-43) that the See of Rome delivered for the first time a categorical opinion on the Scriptural canon.

Finally, the Council of Trent (1540s) formalized the doctrines of canonicity and its closedness. Note that Trent is largely seen as the beginning of the "Counter-Reformation" and the thing that creates a "Roman" Catholic Church distinct from the Protestant ones.

  Finally on 8 April 1546, by a vote of 24 to 15, with 16 abstensions, the Council issued a
  decree (De Canonicis Scripturis) in which , for the first time in the
  history of the Church , the question of the contents of the Bible
  was made an absolute article of faith and confirmed by an
  anathema . 'The holy ecumenical and general Council of
  Trent' , so the decree runs, '.. . following the example of the
  orthodox Fathers receives and venerates all the books of the
  Old and New Testament.. . and also the traditions pertaining
  to faith and conduct.. . with an equal sense of devotion and
  reverence (pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia).

Thus, the quick answer to your question is probably best summarized as thus:

The idea of "canon" originated in the Western (Roman) church, in response to a "gradation" approach in the East.
Augustine more or less definitively settled what was in the canon for the Nicene Church around 400AD.
In the Middle Ages and the Reformations, there were minor quibbles around individual books
Formally the canon itself is best "officially" classified as closed in the 1400s.
That dogma, however, is more a recognition of actual practice and solidarity than a "new" idea that it was closed.


How do non-trinitarians interpret John 14:26?

One thing to remember when translating is that the original Greek didn't use upper and lower case or punctuation, and that (like French and Spanish) nouns have gender, so the word for "it" is the same as the words for "she" and "he". (French has "il" and "elle" for "he" and "she", but no word for "it".)
So the first part of this verse could have been translated as "But the helper, the holy spirit, …".
Most translations are made by people that either believe in, or accept for translation purposes, the doctrine of the Trinity.
So it is natural for them to treat the words as referring to a person and capitalize them.
If the verse instead said:

But the helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you.

there is no reason (other than doctrinal eisegesis) to treat the sentence any differently than:

But the Bible, the Holy Book, which the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you.

Most Christians would accept that sentence as true, without ever thinking that "Bible" and "Holy Book" are meant to refer to a person.
It's only when one is already aware of the Trinity doctrine that the other interpretation arises.
To those that have no reason to believe that "holy spirit" refers to a specific person, God's holy spirit is literally that: the spiritual power through which God works.
It has no more individual personality than does air or water.
Christians receive some of this spirit at baptism, and combined with their own human spirit it provides them with intimate contact with God.
The Power of the Holy Spirit | United Church of God is an example of this doctrine.


Can Grace be irresistible and still be a gift?

Yes, salvation can still be considered a gift.  In general, something can be considered a gift if it:

Is positive/desirable
Is given rather than earned (otherwise it should be called a wage)
Is given without obligation of repayment (otherwise it should be called a loan)

Whether a gift can be resisted or not has no bearing on its "giftiness".  According to Calvinism, faith comes into play as the mode with which we receive the gift of salvation. So, in order to cause us to be saved, God regenerates us and then causes us to have faith.

The irresistible quality of the process (regeneration and subsequent faith) does not undermine it's "giftiness".  On the contrary. According to Calvinism, salvation would not be purely a gift if it were resistible, because then the act of choosing to not resist the gift could be construed as meritoriously earning it, at least in part.


When and why did the modern Young Earth Creationism movement gain such a large following?

Young earth creationism (YEC) holds that the creation of the universe took place (a) approximately 6000 years ago, and (b) lasted exactly six days.
Pre-Scientific Views
The first part, a 6000-year-old universe, was a common belief among Christians and Jews until the advent of modern geology in the 18th century. Many Christians over the centuries have attempted to use the Bible's chronologies to calculate the age of the universe. The best known of these was Bishop James Ussher, who published a chronology in 1650 stating that the universe was created on October 23, 4004 BC.
The second part, a literal six days, is of more recent origin. Ancient Christians generally held that creation happened instantaneously or that the days were either unspecified periods or represented 1000 years each.
The early reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin sought to discern the plain meaning of the text, and promoted belief in a 6000-year-old earth and a six-day creation. When Copernicus' De revolutionibus orbium coelestium was published, Luther and Calvin argued that a geocentric universe was the Biblical view.
Within about two generations Copernicus' views won the day, and the Bible's references to a geocentric earth were ignored. The 6000-year-old earth remained a popular belief until the 18th century, when Scottish scientist James Hutton published Theory of the Earth; or an Investigation of the Laws observable in the Composition, Dissolution, and Restoration of Land upon the Globe, laying the groundwork for modern geology, including the geologic time scale. Studies of rock strata convinced most scientists that the earth was much older than had been previously thought. By the 19th century, estimates of the age of the earth were in the millions of years. Most Christians at the time were prepared to accept the conclusions of geologists.
But then Ellen G White, founder of the Seventh Day Adventist movement, claimed that God had showed her visions of the creation of the universe and that it had literally happened in six days. (sources: 1 2 3)
Modern Young-Earth Creationism
The first attempt to give YEC a scientific footing was in 1906 when Adventist George McCready Price published a book titled Illogical Geology: The Weakest Point in the Evolution Theory in which he advanced the idea that geological strata were produced by Noah's flood. Though he had no formal training in geology, Price claimed to have "firsthand knowledge of field geology" due to having traveled extensively. Price's views were not taken seriously among geologists, and was not influential even among evangelical Christians for half a century.
In the 1950s, the seeds of the modern YEC movement were planted in reaction to two events. In 1954 evangelical theologian Bernard Ramm published The Christian View of Science and Scripture, which sought to reconcile scripture and modern science. Five years later, 1959 saw worldwide recognition of the centennial anniversary of Darwin's On the Origin of Species.
In response, hydraulic engineer Henry Morris (who acknowledge Price's influence) teamed with John Whitcomb, a Bible teacher who had studied some geology in college, to write The Genesis Flood which was published in 1961. The Genesis Flood brought Price's flood geology to mainstream evangelicals and kickstarted the creation science movement.
So YEC in its modern form—as an alternative to mainstream science—started to become popular in the 1960s, although its roots stretch back a little more than a century.


What is the basis for missions in a wider hope/inclusive framework?

I think this question deserves an answer from an LDS (Mormon) perspective, because our doctrine fits the requirements of the question: We have both an inclusivist perspective (at least as I understand your usage of the word inclusivist) and a heavy emphasis on missionary work. I apologize if you want your answer grounded in more traditional Christianity and I'll try to stay in the Bible as much as possible.

That said, I will now answer the question.

First of all, the Bible's pretty clear as to both the importance of missionary work and its intended purpose. The ends of both Matthew (28:19-20) and Mark (16:15-16) come to mind, and I assume you know both passages well. I think most denominations can agree on this.

Secondly, I assume you have experiences with Christianity that have changed you, given you joy, given life meaning, etc. I have as well. I have no source other than what I hear continually in Sunday School lessons, but the LDS perspective here is that if religion has been so transformative for us, then why should we not share it with others? (Actually, I do have a better LDS source: This talk given by Elder Bednar, an apostle, at a recent conference)

With that foundation I can address the idea of inclusivism, which I need to do from a position that is more specifically LDS, because our inclusivism is slightly different from what I've read elsewhere. We interpret 1 Peter 4:6 pretty literally, and in fact Joseph Smith corrects the verse to state that "Because of this, the gospel is preached to them who are dead" (JST, emphasis added). Doctrine and Covenants 138 describes a vision by Joseph F. Smith, 4th president of the Church, regarding this very subject, and it starts by considering both that verse and 1 Peter 3:18-20, which we associate with it. In fact, we believe that through this mechanism of preaching to the dead, literally every person who has ever lived, or who ever will live, will get the chance to hear the Gospel of Christ and decide for him or herself whether to accept or reject it. So not only is salvation a possibility for all, but nobody's moral agency is violated.

(I should here note that the entire LDS concept of baptism for the dead rests on harmonizing this concept with the idea that baptism is essential for salvation, which John 3:5 seems to state explicitly.)

Does the above doctrine absolve us of our missionary responsibilities? Not at all! It simply adds a new dimension to them. We expect to share the gospel with others both in this life and in the life to come.

  I beheld that the faithful elders of this dispensation, when they depart from this mortal life, continue their labors in the preaching of the gospel of repentance and redemption, through the sacrifice of the Only Begotten Son of God, among those who are in darkness and under the bondage of sin in the great world of the spirits of the dead. The dead who repent will be redeemed, through obedience to the ordinances of the house of God, and after they have paid the penalty of their transgressions, and are washed clean, shall receive a reward according to their works, for they are heirs of salvation. (Doctrine and Covenants 138:56-58)


Who were the "giants" mentioned in the Bible?

Over the years, there have been many theories to explain these Nephilim.  I'm not fond of list answers, but unfortunately, there's no better way to represent all of these wildly varying theories.

Possible theories:

Giants (giantism)

Historically, there have been people who have been over eight feet tall.  Archaeologists have uncovered tombs of these people who were probably in that height range source.

Even a glance at Wikipedia, shows people solidly over eight feet tall.

This theory holds that these people were simply giants--either particularly tall or had giantism.
Offspring of women and fallen angels

Genesis 6:1-2 says the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose (NIV).  If we look at Gen 6:1-4, we see that Nephilim were the children of these "sons of God".

Job 2:1 shows that these sons of God were definitely of the spiritual realm.  In fact, other translations interpret sons of God as angels.

Final support of this (as others have mentioned) is that the Hebrew word that "Nephilim" is based off the Hebrew word "fall" (as in "to fall" or "fallen").

These concepts put together give strong support that Nephilim were children of fallen angels that had sex with human women.
Nephilim were descendants of Cain/Seth (source)

The idea behind this is that godly men--ie "sons of God"--(probably descending from Seth) married descendants of Cain (more specifically, of Enoch).

Enoch was a paganistic society and so the idea that the children of the offspring were "fallen" kind of fits with this as well (per the Hebrew argument above).

Other support for this is based on Matthew 5:9 where Jesus says Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.  This, the theory goes, shows that "sons of God" is a good thing and therefore, the children of Seth were righteous men.

In this theory, however, the Nephilim would have been simply "heroes", not necessarily "giants".
They're completely fictional

If you take the Pentateuch as a history of legends, then clearly the Nephilim are just another part of the legend.

Other theories that are too far-fetched

Nephilim were descendants of Kings (source)

Since "sons of God" can equally be translated as "sons of kings", this theory holds that kings were philandering with common women, creating "heroes of old, men of renown" (Gen 6:4)
Nephilim were extra-terrestrials

Yes, some people believe this.  Yet there is absolutely no biblical or archeological basis for this.
Nephilim were Neanderthals (source)

The idea here is that the Neanderthals were stronger than humans and therefore "giants".  This is a clearly unbiblical theory (we seemed like grasshoppers in their eyes).

Primary Source

Those are some of the theories that have been used throughout time to explain these Nephilim.  The most popular is probably that the "sons of God" were fallen angels, although there are some problems with this theory. (Job seems to indicate that "sons of God" are good, not fallen; Mark and Matthew state that angels don't marry, etc. source.)

Ultimately, this is something we'll probably not know for sure until the end of the world.


What is the biblical basis for believing that Christ is the man upon the throne from Ezekiel 1:26?

The included commentaries include references to the following verses, among others (the citations in each have been preserved in this answer).

Daniel 7:13-14 In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a] coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 1He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
Rev 1:12-18 NIV I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man, dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. In his right hand he held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance. When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

Since he "was dead," but is "alive forever" it's clear that this person in the latter verse must be Messiah. Notice the similarity of the description of the person in the verses immediately following Ezekiel 1:26. These commenters found this to be strong biblical support to interpret the vision recorded there as one of Messiah.
Here is Matthew Henry's commentary on Ezekiel 1:26-28

The eternal Son, the second Person in the Trinity, who afterwards took the human nature, is here denoted. The first thing observed was a throne. It is a throne of glory, a throne of grace, a throne of triumph, a throne of government, a throne of judgment. It is good news to men, that the throne above the firmament is filled with One who appears, even there, in the likeness of a man. The throne is surrounded with a rainbow, the well-known emblem of the covenant, representing God's mercy and covenanted love to his people. The fire of God's wrath was breaking out against Jerusalem, but bounds should be set to it; he would look upon the bow, and remember the covenant. All the prophet saw was only to prepare him for what he was to hear. When he fell on his face, he heard the voice of One that spake. God delights to teach the humble. Let sinners, then, humble themselves before him. And let believers think upon his glory, that they may be gradually changed into his image by the Spirit of the Lord.

That Pulpit Commentary agrees that the man alludes to Messiah, if it was not his own appearance, and includes cross references from Daniel:

It is noticeable that this preluding anticipation of the thought of the Incarnation, not recognized in the vision of Moses (Exodus 24:10) or Isaiah (Isaiah 6:1), appears prominently in the two prophets of the exile - here and in the memorable Messianic vision of "One like unto the Son of man" in Daniel 7:13. What might have been perilously anthropomorphic in the early stages of the growth of Israel, when men tended to identify the symbol with the thing symbolized, was now made subservient to the truth which underlies even anthropomorphic thought (comp. Revelation 1:13).

Elliot's commentary briefly includes,

Yet possibly there may be even her a hint at the great truth of the incarnation. (Comp. Daniel 7:13; Revelation 1:13.)

Lastly I'll include the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, which is for our purposes the most poignant:

The Godhead appears in the likeness of enthroned humanity, as in Ex 24:10. Besides the "paved work of a sapphire stone, as it were the body of heaven in clearness," there, we have here the "throne," and God "as a man," with the "appearance of fire round about." This last was a prelude of the incarnation of Messiah, but in His character as Saviour and as Judge (Re 19:11-16). The azure sapphire answers to the color of the sky. As others are called "sons of God," but He "the Son of God," so others are called "sons of man" (Eze 2:1, 3), but He "the Son of man" (Mt 16:13), being the embodied representative of humanity and the whole human race; as, on the other hand, He is the representative of "the fulness of the Godhead" (Col 2:9). While the cherubim are movable, the throne above, and Jehovah who moves them, are firmly fixed. It is good news to man, that the throne above is filled by One who even there appears as "a man."


Did Jesus commit any sin pertaining to the Sabbath?

Part of the confusion as modern readers is that we miss what the Pharisees meant when they referenced "the Law." For the Pharisees, "the Law" had two parts. There was the "Written Law" (תורה שבכתב), and there was the "Oral Law" (תורה שבעל פה), which they claimed was also given to Moses at Mt. Sinai. You can read more about this in the Mishnah.

The Old Testament certainly does not prohibit anything that Jesus did; His whole life was lived in fulfillment of the (OT) Law. However, the oral tradition that the Pharisees also considered part of the Law did forbid many things that Jesus and His disciples did.

Regarding the Sabbath, the Mishnah contains a list of 39 classes of work that were not permitted on the Sabbath, per the "Oral Law." Many of these prohibitions were quite nit-picky. (For example, they could only walk a certain distance on the Sabbath.)

Jesus, for His part, showed very little concern (or respect) for the so-called "Oral Law," and constantly refuted it using the Old Testament. This was, of course, outrageous to the Pharisees, and this led to many conflicts between them.


Satan being allowed in the new Paradise on Earth

Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that after Armageddon Satan and his demons are thrown into the abyss (a state of inactivity)and a 1000 year long judgment day will begin.
During this time earth will be made a paradise, mankind will attain to perfection, the dead will be resurrected  all mankind will be judged.
A brief description of judgement day can be found here

At the end of the 1000 years a final testing described as taking a little while will take place when Satan is released and allowed to try to mislead mankind on final time.

The scripture that you are looking for is
Revelation 20:3 it reads from the new world translation :

  And he hurled him into the abyss and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not mislead the nations anymore until the 1,000 years were ended. After this he must be released for a little while.

And vs 7&8 read:

  Now as soon as the 1,000 years have ended, Satan will be released from his prison, 8  and he will go out to mislead those nations in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Maʹgog, to gather them together for the war. The number of these is as the sand of the sea.

Good news is this time of testing is brief and Satan is then eternally destroyed.


What is the Biblical basis for saying Lucifer is an angel?

Interesting question. In the Bible, this is strongly hinted at rather than directly stated. Here is the evidence:

In Job 1:6 we learn that Satan was in heaven with other angels.

  One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them.

That Satan is (was) in heaven is also seen in Zechariah 3:1-2, Luke 10:18 and Revelation 12:9. Revelation 12:9 gives a further clue to Satan's identity:

  The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

This thought is also stated by Jesus in Matthew 25:41:

  “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

That he has his own angels, is a further clue to him being a (former) angel. (And incidentally, Isaiah 14:12-15 is often used to show why Satan fell, because he wanted to ascend to God's throne).

Note also 2 Corinthians 11:14, which says that Satan can "masquerade as an angel of light."

Conclusion: we know that Satan lives / has lived in heaven, with other angels (some of which are his own), that he was (or will be) cast out of heaven. From this we infer that he is a "fallen angel".

Update: In my answer above I assembled evidence for Satan being an angel. But it's not proof (see comments below). Which leads me to consider proof by exhaustion: if Satan was not an angel, what could he be? I know of only three types of sentient beings in the Bible: God, man and angels. He's clearly not God, nor man. That only leaves one other option.

Update on Lucifer: @Dan asks where Lucifer is named as such. The answer is in Isaiah 14:12 KJV:

  How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

This verse and the wider passage are historically interpreted as referring to Satan, though it is not directly stated.

Footnote: there are only two named angels in the Bible. Michael (Daniel 10:13, Daniel 10:21, Daniel 12:1, Jude 1:9 & Revelation 12:7) & Gabriel (Daniel 8:16, Daniel 9:21, Luke 1:19 & Luke 1:26).


Does Pope Francis recommend giving communion under both kinds to the laity?

From General Instruction of the Roman Messal

  It is most desirable that the faithful, just as the priest himself is
  bound to do, receive the Lord’s Body from hosts consecrated at the
  same Mass and that, in the instances when it is permitted, they
  partake of the chalice (cf. no. 283), so that even by means of the
  signs Communion will stand out more clearly as a participation in the
  sacrifice actually being celebrated.[73]

This is not a recommendation from Pope Francis, but a valid option from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, so the Pope (obviously) approves it.

Communion under both species is most desiderable, but it often has some pratical difficulties in performing this option (OGMR 283).

  The diocesan Bishop may establish norms for Communion under both kinds
  for his own diocese, which are also to be observed in churches of
  religious and at celebrations with small groups. The diocesan Bishop
  is also given the faculty to permit Communion under both kinds
  whenever it may seem appropriate to the priest to whom, as its own
  shepherd, a community has been entrusted, provided that the faithful
  have been well instructed and there is no danger of profanation of the
  Sacrament or of the rite’s becoming difficult because of the large
  number of participants or some other reason.


What is the Unity teachings of Jesus' resurrection?

While the Wikipedia article mentions that there are no creeds or dogma w/in Unity, I have found by practical experience that this is not the case (by attending a service).

A list of creeds may be found on any of the church's sites, such as Unity Hills:

  Jesus Christ - Jesus is a master teacher of universal truths and the
  Way-Shower in Unity teachings. "Unity teaches that the spirit of God
  lived in Jesus, just as it lives in every person." Jesus expressed his
  divine potential and showed others how to express their divinity,
  which Unity calls Christ. Unity does not refer to Jesus as God, Son of
  God, Savior, or Messiah.

Further more per www.bible.ca:

  Unity rejects the traditional Christian view that Jesus is a deity to
  be worshiped; we point out that at no time did Jesus tell his
  disciples to worship him. Rather, we look upon Jesus as a great
  healer, miracle worker, and mystic who had a direct access to God. We
  believe that his actions can be emulated by believers today. One's
  life is to be dominated by love, and compassion, even toward one's
  enemies.

Unity does not directly address the resurrection of Jesus.


Is there really a Catholic "blessing for bacon?"

I really like this question.

It draws attention to an important point to be made, which is, of all the things explicitly managed by the Church, personal prayer is relatively low on the list.

As a Catholic belonging to a predominately Southern Baptist extended family (most of them consider fried chicken a sacrament in lieu of potluck), I must constantly remind myself that the Church can appear from the outside to be rather rigid.

The truth is that, although the Church explicitly defines the rituals surrounding the Sacraments and sacramentals, personal devotion and prayer is, for the most part wide open.

Can a Catholic pray a spontaneous prayer? Absolutely! – as long as it is not inappropriately interruptive. (e.g. not during functions such as weddings, funerals, Mass, etc.)

Can Catholics “wing” prayers? Sure…I know I have a time or two. My priest does all the time.

In all reality, my blessings aren't that much different than that of my ordained Baptist Brother-in-Law.

Is this “bacon prayer” an “official prayer” of the Catholic Church? No.

From what I can tell, this is, at best, a prayer of a particular localized pious tradition.
The closest “official prayer” I can find of this nature is found in the RITUALE ROMANUM,  which is a collection of the "officially approved" prayers to be used in the Church’s official rituals.

  Blessings of animals

  Lord God, King of heaven and earth, Word of the Father by whom were
  made all creatures destined for our sustenance; we beg you to look
  with favor on our lowly condition; and as you have given us assistance
  in our work and in our needs, so may you bless,   shield, and watch
  over these animals (this animal) with your mercy and heavenly care.
  And to us, your servants, be pleased to give everlasting grace
  together with creature needs, thus enabling us to praise and glorify
  and offer thanks to your holy name; through Christ our Lord. Amen.

The standard prayer for blessing soon to be eaten food (including bacon, fried chicken, and even pot-luck) is as follows:

  Bless us Oh Lord and these thy gifts which we are about to receive
  through thy bounty through Christ Our Lord, Amen.

Wherever you are in the world, this is probably the blessing prayed before all Catholic meals.

Even so…this doesn't necessarily have to be prayed over food - given the appropriate situation.

For instance - my 3 years old daughter and 5 years old son do good just to get out:

  In name of da Fater, Son, whole Spirit…tank you Jeus for dis food.
  Hayman!

We actually let the small children of the family pray the above prayer for all family functions, completely safe from canonical infraction.

All things considered, I’m afraid that what you read in your FB feed was perhaps a slight pseudo-caricature of Catholic devotion.

As for the above “bacon prayer,” I truly hope someone comes up with the origin of this prayer. It will make for a great conversation starter at my next pot-luck Knights of Columbus function.


What are the Journal of Discourses viewed as?

The Wikipedia article actually covers the answer to this fairly well:

  It is a compilation of sermons and other materials from the early
  years of the Church, which were transcribed and then published.  ...
  Questions have been raised about the accuracy of some transcriptions.
  Modern technology and processes were not available for verifying the
  accuracy of transcriptions, and some significant mistakes have been
  documented.

For perspective, see the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article on Record Keeping.  Among Latter-Day Saints, anything that was not properly recorded is not considered "official", in order to prevent confusion resulting from inaccurate records.

The sermons from the Journal of Discourses were written down unofficially by people in attendance when they were given, and in the absence of modern recording technologies, they were generally transcribed while they were being delivered, in some form of shorthand.  Obviously, this is not an optimal set of conditions for preserving accuracy, especially as it was common practice during those days to throw away the shorthand notes once they had been "decompressed" into longhand.

This allows for two places in which transcription errors can enter the material, with no way to verify their accuracy later.  It's not surprising, then, that "some significant mistakes have been documented" in the final product.

Because of this, the works preserved in the volumes of the Journal of Discourses, as interesting and historically valuable as they may be, cannot be considered canonical by the Latter-Day Saints.


Has the Vatican issued clarification for pictures which appear to show Pope St John Paul II kissing the Qur'an?

The book that the pope appears to be kissing looks like no Qur'an I have ever seen. The symbol on the cover is enough like that on the cover of my own copy of the Qur'an (no I am not a Muslim), but does not seem to be identifiably Islamic.  The problem with identity is that the 'book' looks more like a binder or outer cover - when you zoom in, it seems to be enclosed on both edges, whereas a Qur'an is not normally presented in this way. It may be that Pope St. John Paul II was simply following traditional Arabic custom by kissing a gift presented to him, whatever was held in that binder.  Nevertheless at least one website claims authenticity for the event:

  At the end of the audience the Pope bowed to the Muslim holy book, the Qu'ran, presented to him by the delegation, and he kissed it as a sign of respect. The photo of that gesture has been shown repeatedly on Iraqi television and it demonstrates that the Pope is not only aware of the suffering of the Iraqi people, he has also great respect for Islam.

The question becomes one of whether it is appropriate for the pope to show respect for members of another religion and for its holy book. The Second Vatican Council issued, in 1965, Pastoral Constitution On The Church In The Modern World. Part I, chapter II (28) states:

  Respect and love ought to be extended also to those who think or act
  differently than we do in social, political and even religious
  matters. In fact, the more deeply we come to understand their ways of
  thinking through such courtesy and love, the more easily will we be
  able to enter into dialogue with them. [My emphasis]

Either way, it appears the Vatican has not seen it necessary to post an explanation of the photograph.  I think we should give the pope the benefit of the doubt and believe that he acted with propriety and sensitivity to the feelings of the Catholic community he leads.


The Bible itself seems to indicate that Jesus performed no miracles until His ministry began.  Non-biblical sources may disagree, but they are non-biblical.

John 2 records to miracle at the wedding in Cana, where Jesus turns water into wine.  John completes the account with the following statement:

  This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him.  John 2:11 ESV

So, John records this as the first miracle.


Why is use of the phrase "for God's sake" often considered sinful?

Violating Commandments is commonly linked to sin

For an official teaching, the Catholic Church's teaching is that careless references to God violates the Second Commandment (Third Commandment in some other denominations).  Other denominations may have similar points of view, but to keep this answer concise I confine it to the Catholic view.

Exodus 20:7

  You shall not take the name of the LORD, your God, in vain. For the
  LORD will not leave unpunished him who takes his name in vain.

From the Catechism ...

  CCC 2143  "The Lord's name is holy." For this reason man must not
  abuse it. He must keep it in mind in silent, loving adoration. He will
  not introduce it into his own speech except to bless, praise, and
  glorify it.

See also Psalm 29:2 (KJV)

  Give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name; worship the Lord in
  the beauty of holiness.

And Psalm 113:2-3 (KJV)

  Blessed be the name of the Lord from this time forth and for evermore.
  From the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same the
  Lord's name is to be praised.

To use "For God's sake" per your definition 3 -- as a sign of annoyance, impatience, or urgency -- does not bless, praise or glorify God.  That usage also goes against the principle of Christian Charity1.

  CCC 2146 The second commandment forbids the abuse of God's name, i.e.,
  every improper use of the names of God, Jesus Christ, but also of the
  Virgin Mary and all the saints.

Pay respect where respect is due

In closing, St Augustine lays out the respect due to the Lord

  [God's] name is great when spoken with respect for the greatness of
  his majesty.  God's name is holy when said with veneration and fear of
  offending him.  ~ St. Augustine, De serm. Dom. in monte 2, 5, 19: PL 34, 1278.

1 388. What is charity?
From CCC 1822-1829, and 1844)

  Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all
  things and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God. Jesus makes
  charity the new commandment, the fullness of the law. “It is the bond
  of perfection” (Colossians 3:14) and the foundation of the other
  virtues to which it gives life, inspiration, and order. Without
  charity “I am nothing” and “I gain nothing” (1 Corinthians 13:1-3).


Why do some denominations not wash feet before taking communion?

While I am not familiar with any denomination that practices footwashing as part of communion celebrations, I can address an issue that is implicit in the questions.

Descriptive is not the same a prescriptive

In other words, just because the Bible describes some people as doing something that doesn't mean all Christians should always do that too. As an extreme example the Bible tells us of bad things done, even by people described as 'righteous, such as the adultery of King David, and Peter's denial of Jesus. We are not expected to follow their examples. We have to use judgement, and follow Biblical guidelines, as to what is an example to be followed and what is description.

The Lord's Supper itself is not just descriptive. As well as describing what happens, Jesus' command is recorded: "Do this as often as you eat/drink it". No such command is attached to washing the disciples feet. In fact Jesus makes it pretty clear that what he is doing is not actually about feet, but about leadership and humility. Jesus expects leaders to act with humility towards their followers and be their servants. Actual literal footwashing may or may not be involved. Most Christians would say that a leader who carried out literally the act of washing people's feet, but behaved arrogantly towards the people they lead was not carrying out Jesus wishes.


Is there biblical evidence of seraphims being angels?

Bible Gateway (RSVCE)  - Quick Search: Seraphim return results that show that in the Bible, seraphim is only mentioned in Isaiah 6: A Vision of God in the Temple.

If angel is understood from

  Used in Scriptural translations for Hebrew mal'akh (yehowah)
  "messenger (of Jehovah)," from base l-'-k "to send."

Only the action of the one of the seraphim in Is 6:6-7 (RSVCE) can be that of a messenger.

  6 Then flew one of the seraphim to me, having in his hand a burning coal which he had taken with tongs from the altar. 7 And
  he touched my mouth, and said: “Behold, this has touched your lips;
  your guilt is taken away, and your sin forgiven.”

Other than that the seraphim are above God's throne, one calling to another

  “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his
  glory.”

This appears to be their sole function and purpose in scripture.

  Meaning | SERAPHIM | Jewish Encyclopedia The passages cited
  furnish conclusive evidence against the idea, popular for a time, that
  the seraphim belong to the same category as angels. They have nothing
  whatever to do with the "messengers of God"; in the Jewish conception
  the two have always been distinguished.


According to the Bible, is it a sin to marry a non-virgin?

Why would it be a sin to marry non-virgin? Jesus said that nothing from outside (e.g. not washing of hands before eating) defiles a man but what comes from the heart. Not being a virgin does not make the person impure or a sinner.

If the person is a Christian I don't think it would be a sin to marry such person. It would be practical love if a Christian marries a non-virgin even after having the knowledge beforehand.

In the Bible, God asked Hosea to marry an harlot and have children with her. This did not turn Hosea to a sinner. Whatever God declares pure is pure.

If any man is in christ, old things have passed away and everything is new. If she has repented from her old ways then it is ok. We should show love to them and accept them because no matter what we do, God accept them.


Translation of the word from the original Greek to Said was only the choice of the translators. The actual word used was:

אָמַר

  'amar (aw-mar') v.
  1. to say (used with great latitude)
  [a primitive root]
  KJV: answer, appoint, avouch, bid, boast self, call, certify, challenge, charge, + (at the, give) command(-ment), commune, consider, declare, demand, X desire, determine, X expressly, X indeed, X intend, name, X plainly, promise, publish, report, require, say, speak (against, of), X still, X suppose, talk, tell, term, X that is, X think, use (speech), utter, X verily, X yet.

It could just as well have been translated into any of the above words, some of which (appoint, bid, desire, determine and so on) are not words indicating physical action. and since the original word used does not necessarily require any physical speech, it seems to me that we should also give it some latitude in translation


How many different Spirits do Biblical Unitarians believe God has sent or gifted to be in believers?

A Biblical Unitarian appendix to Biblical commentary Appendix 6: Usages of "Spirit" lists 15 different senses for the term 'spirit' ('pneuma' in the Greek) in the Bible.
However, as Appendix 11: What is the Holy Spirit? says:

"“HOLY SPIRIT” is primarily used in two very different ways: One way
is to refer to God Himself, and the other way is referring to God’s
nature that He gives to people.

So the first sense is a synonym for God. The second sense itself has synonyms. For example, the 'Helper' mentioned above in John 14:16 is another name for this second sense, so 'holy spirit' as a gift.

"18) The gift of holy spirit as “the helper” [...] The “holy spirit”
is identified as a “helper” to believers in John 14:26. [...] The
helper (the holy spirit) is sent by the Father (John 14:16-17) and
Jesus (John 16:7). It does not speak on its own, but it speaks only
what it hears (John 16:13). Thus, the gift of holy spirit is directed
by God and Jesus, which is what we would expect since it is God’s
nature born in us."

So Biblical Unitarians would understand various uses related to the holy spirit as mapping onto either of the two senses described above, and the second sense of a gift can be directed by either God or Jesus. As examples of both instances of the second sense from your list above, 'Helper', 'Spirit of truth', 'Spirit of your Father', 'Holy Spirit' = gift from God. 'Spirit of his Son' = gift from Jesus.
However, as mentioned, sometimes uses of 'spirit' would map onto other senses as listed in Appendix 6 above.


How did Karl Barth justify his relationship with Charlotte von Kirschbaum?

A 2017 Christianity Today article about this very issue was written by Mark Galli shortly after his own Karl Barth biography was published.  As curiousdannii suspected, he did use dialectical tension to justify it, part of the discussion by Christiane Tietz in Theology Today, of the personal letters Barth wrote to von Kirschbaum from 1925–1935.

A lot more details, analysis, and paraphrases from Tiez's article can be found in a very well-written blog article here.  The blog article in turn highly recommends a "book review" of Charlotte von Kirschbaum and Karl Barth, 1998 which actually not so much a book review since 85% of it is about relevant external history of their relationship.


How do Protestant Christians explain gender dysphoria/transgenderism?

I will answer from the perspective of Evangelical Christianity (Reformed).

We Evangelicals believe that transsexuals have a disordered gender identity and is suffering from an extreme form of mental illness:

  Anyone who really believes he is a woman when he is a man (or vice
  versa) is profoundly, dangerously ill.

  (Evangelical: The Transgender
  Phenomenon: Esther O' Reilly, 2016).

Gender dysphoria (DSM-5, 2013) is the mental distress that comes from gender incongruence experienced by transgenders both transsexuals and some of the intersex.

According to science, gender incongruence refers to the (normal) gender identity mismatching the genetic sex. Gender identity is one's gender according to one's sense of the self whilst the genetic sex refers to one's chromosomal sex (XX- female, XY- male) and its phenotype, its outward expression such as appearance of the body and the genitalia.

  "The researchers identified a region of the hypothalamus, known as the
  bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc), as being responsible for
  sexual behaviour. This area is always larger in men than women.
  However, in their study of six MTF GID sufferers, a female‐sized BSTc
  was present in all subjects. Additionally, the size of the BSTc was
  not influenced by taking sex hormones in adulthood. This implies that
  these individuals had a powerful biological force compelling them to
  be female, rather than just a psychological conviction" (Nicola Tugnet
  et al. 2007).

According to science, the most effective treatment for Gender Dysphoria is the combination of medical therapy (hormones and suyrgery) and psychiatry.

  Gender reassignment (which includes psychotherapy, hormonal therapy
  and surgery) has been demonstrated as the most effective treatment for
  patients affected by gender dysphoria (or gender identity disorder),
  in which patients do not recognize their gender (sexual identity) as
  matching their genetic and sexual characteristics (Selvaggi G, 2011).

Intersex peoples equally blurred the lines of the gender binary and much more so than transsexials because their sex was more deviant than the transsexual whose only deviance is either psychiatric or brain physiology.

  According to research conducted by Anne Fausto-Sterling of Brown University, one in 100 children are born with “bodies that differ from
  standard male or female” biology. This includes those children born
  with both a penis and a vagina, as well as those with vaginal
  agenesis, ovatestes, or genetic disorders such as Klinefelter
  syndrome. Apparently, God sometimes creates humans both male and
  female or neither fully male nor fully female. Intersex persons offer
  a critique of those who believe that gender is a static binary
  assigned from birth and divinely ordained. For example, what about a
  person who is a sexually “mosaic,” which means they have mixed gonadal
  dysgenesis such as the development of both ovaries and testes? It’s
  hard to say because Christian commentators almost never acknowledge
  the existence of these individuals

The Bible itself is sufficient to address our topic (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Romans 1:20-26

Romans 1:20-26 contain inspired texts of Scripture. In it, Paul had taken steps to condemn the practises common to the roman world of his time but that which argument is so general that its applicability encompasses all generations including that of ours in the 21st century. Paul is alluding Genesis creation in his argument saying that homosexual practices is in the same standing as idolatry (worshiping of idols, image of creatures according to context) because they deviate from the original design.

The teachings of Paul is as follows:

The gender binary (male and female) is the only truth. Romans 1:18

The gender binary is evident, obvious and can be clearly seen. The outward phenotype of the gender binary. Romans 1:20

To believe  gender expression other than the gender binary is to fail in honoring and giving thanks to God. Accepting the other-gender expression is said to be unintelligent since knowing God is knowing his design which is the correct knowledge to uphold by all. There is no wisdom (practical application of knowledge) in such a way of thinking since wisdom is created* by God, that is, his design is all-wise (note Proverbs 8:22-25). Romans 1:21-22

They gave honour to the images of creatures instead of honouring God. Romans 1:23

In such state, God allows them to become  lustful, dishonouring their bodies (as it experience sexual intimacy against the original design per 26-27). Romans 1:24

(i). Because they deny that only the gender binary is the truth and (i).  because they worship idols of the roman pantheon. Romans 1:25

God allows these people both male and female to practise homosexuality which is (i). Degrading passions (ii). indecent acts. Romans 1:26-27

Those who practise these things are like the other people who do improper things. They deserve to die -- both the one who practises and the one who supports such practise Romans 1:28-32

For Paul, the very essence of gender is in the phenotype ("clearly seen") of the sex per Romans 1:18-27. This is understandable as the concept of genetic sex (chromosomes) is unknown in the first century A.D. and thus, the ancients can only refer to what is visible.

Jesus spoke about people "who do not marry" and they are the eunuchs (Matthew 19:12) and Jesus classified them in great detail as (i). naturals eunuch, (ii). man-made eunuchs and (iii). voluntary eunuchism. The second type of eunuch is condemned in the Old Testament but is now blessed by Christ. The natural eunuchs might be those born with genital defects (i.e. transex/hermaphrodites ) and thus, Jesus was insisting on the design of God revealed in the genesis account in that marriage is only for those with the normal physique of the gender binary (Matthew 19:4-6). Why would Christ proscribe this for the natural eunuchs? Due to lack of capability of procreation and most manifestly, due to deformity (alien to the original design -- referring again to Romans 1). In this sense, Christians who strictly follow the Bible should deny marriage to the intersex.

What if the intersex had reconstructive surgery making their genitalia appear "normal"?

Jesus and Paul refers to phenotypic sex in their anthropological  theology. This is all what Biblical data gives us.  We should arrive at our conclusions very carefully with Scripture about medicine for us to decide as we do have authority to judge these things (1 Corinthians 6:1-5).

If the procedure is said to be safe and effective, then Scripture could support the intersex undergoing medical treatment and be eligible for marriage.

1 Corinthians 6:9

Arsenokites - practising homosexuality (NETBible)

Malakoi - effeminate (KJV), catamites (NKJV)

Arsekoites alludes to Levitical Law of Homosexual practise as sinful.

Malakoi - might historically refer to the passive man in homosexual act. Or effeminate behaviour of a man.

Arsenokites should be interpreted in light of Romans 1:18-27 where homosexuals are not using their phenotypic sex in agreement with the original design.

Malakoi is indeed referring to the outward expression of sex. Apparently, Scripture teaches that males should conform to society's standards and practises of masculinity (having authority over the wife, not having long hair, not wearing female clothing etc.).

Other texts 1 Timothy and Jude reiterated these points. The Genesis
account of Sodomy (raping men anally) is obviously a sin for it is
not only homosexual acts but coercive. Two types of sins at that.

We have discovered from Scripture that (1) phenotypic sex is the only basis of determining true gender, and (2) phenotypic gender should match behaviour and it means behaviour should conform to one's phenotypic sex. If male outwardly, be male outwardly. If female outwardly, be a female outwardly. Homosexuality, Gender Dysphoria and Intersex are all deviating from the gender binary  design of God but only Homosexuality is sin per se. Gender Dysphoria is a mental disease and not a sin and it needs paychological treatment not physical mutilation. To follow the world in the hormone therapy and sex change operations for Gender Dysphoric is to be in sin. The Intersex is also not a sin as it is correctly identified as eunuchism. An intersex who enters marriage will be in sin per Matthew 19.

   biblical exegesis

Reformed Evangelicals encourage the gender dysphoric patient to seek counselling from Christian psychiatrists. There are reported gender dysphoric who de-transition albeit suppressing their innate gender identity. There are others who continue to transition whilst receiving (yet righteous) judgment from other Evangelical Christians that they have been in Apostasy. Still, other transgenders received love and compassion despite their transitioning due to gender dysphoria clearly a mental disease. Those Evangelical Christians are hoping and praying that God will change these people with gender dysphoria  in his own timing. And that at the resurrection, our bodies will be conformed to the image of His glorious body, free from carnal defects of any kind.

The intersex (Hermaphrodite) in Christian fellowship

The ancient Church had no understanding of genetic sex and it is a novelty that is available now to God's people. Such a wider understanding influences our modern day Reformed Evangelical churches.

We see from two well-known Reformed Evangelical sites online: (i). Got questions.org and (ii).  CARM ,  about how Evangelicals  view the intersex:

  Transsexualism, also known as transgenderism, Gender Identity Disorder
  (GID), or gender dysphoria, is a feeling that your
  biological/genetic/physiological gender does not match the gender you
  identify with and/or perceive yourself to be.
  Transsexuals/transgenders often describe themselves as feeling
  “trapped” in a body that does not match their true gender. They often
  practice transvestism/transvestitism and may also seek hormone therapy
  and/or gender reassignment surgery to bring their bodies into
  conformity with their perceived gender.

  The Bible nowhere explicitly mentions transgenderism or describes
  anyone as having transgender feelings. However, the Bible has plenty
  to say about human sexuality. Most basic to our understanding of
  gender is that God created two (and only two) genders: “male and
  female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). All the modern-day speculation
  about numerous genders or gender fluidity—or even a gender “continuum”
  with unlimited genders—is foreign to the Bible.

  The closest the Bible comes to mentioning transgenderism is in its
  condemnations of homosexuality (Romans 1:18–32; 1 Corinthians 6:9–10)
  and transvestitism (Deuteronomy 22:5). The Greek word often translated
  “homosexual offenders” or “male prostitutes” in 1 Corinthians 6:9
  literally means “effeminate men.” So, while the Bible does not
  directly mention transgenderism, when it mentions other instances of
  gender “confusion,” it clearly and explicitly identifies them as sin.

  What about the possibility that those suffering with transgenderism
  have a brain that functions as one gender while the rest of the body
  is biologically the other gender? The Bible does not even hint at such
  a possibility. However, neither does the Bible mention hermaphroditism
  (a condition in which a person has both male and female sexual
  organs), which undeniably occurs (although extremely rarely). Further,
  people can be born with or develop all kinds of different brain
  defects or malfunctions. How can it be said that it is impossible for
  a female brain to be in a male body (or vice versa)?

  With hermaphroditism as evidence, it cannot be said that if the Bible
  does not mention something it does not occur. So, it might be possible
  for a person to be born with a brain wired in such a way that it
  contributes to gender dysphoria. This could also be an explanation for
  some instances of homosexuality. However, just because something might
  have a biological cause does not mean embracing the effects is the
  right thing to do. Some people are wired with a sexuality on
  hyper-drive. That does not make it right for them to engage in sexual
  immorality. It is scientifically proven than some
  psychopaths/sociopaths have brains with severely weakened
  impulse-control mechanisms. That does not make it right for them to
  engage in every deviant behavior that crosses their minds.

  No matter if the gender distortion has a genetic, hormonal,
  physiological, psychological, or spiritual cause, it can be overcome
  and healed through faith in Christ and continued reliance on the power
  of the Holy Spirit. Healing can be received, sin can be overcome, and
  lives can be changed through the salvation that Jesus provides, even
  if there are biological/physiological factors. The Corinthian
  believers are an example of such a change: “And that is what some of
  you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified
  in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1
  Corinthians 6:11). There is hope for everyone, transsexuals,
  transgenders, those with gender identity disorder, and transvestites
  included, because of God’s forgiveness available in Jesus Christ.

(What does the Bible say about the various forms of gender dysphoria? Got.questions.org) (source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gotquestions.org/amp/transsexualism-gender-identity-disorder.html)

  The Bible does not address this issue because it was not around at the
  time.  But, No, sex change operations are not okay.  God created
  people as male and female (Gen. 1:27).  People are ordained by God to
  be male or female because it is He who forms them in the womb:

  Isaiah 44:2, "Thus says the Lord who made you and formed you from the
  womb, who will help you, Do not fear, O Jacob My servant; and you
  Jeshurun whom I have chosen." Isaiah 44:24, "Thus says the Lord, your
  Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, 'I, the Lord, am
  the maker of all things...'" Therefore, to change the gender of a
  person through an operation is a violation of the natural birth gender
  that God has ordained for the person.  It also violates the
  distinction of those attributes which designate a male from a female.
  Furthermore, if, for example, a male becomes a woman and has relations
  with a male, then this would be homosexuality another sin clearly
  forbidden by scripture.

  If anything, this sexual identity dysfunction is due to sin in the
  world.  Transsexuals (those who have changed sexes) and claim to be
  Christian cannot appeal to the problem of a "biological goof" due to
  sin in the world.  It is due to sin, and its effects that such an
  issue of transsexualism even exists and an appeal to a sinful state
  should never excuse further sin.

  Nevertheless, we are not to abandon the transsexual.  Even though the
  person is in sin, the transsexual is still a person in need of full
  redemption, love, grace, and kindness.  We do not convince someone to
  repent by condemning and accusing.  Rather, they need to see the love
  of Christ in us so that His presence might convict and convince them
  of their sin.

(Are Sex Change Operarions Okay? CARM, Matt Slick) (Source: https://carm.org/sex-change-operations)

The new perspective of the 21st century church is genetic sex as the main identifyer of one's real gender. Such a shift in understanding is an influence of modern biological science in which the DNA sequence contains genetic instructions on how we should look like, what gender we are going to be and even to a limited extent on how we would behave. All of these in light of the concept of free will. And so affirming the dualism of body and soul.

Therefore, the Intersex is allowed the sex change operation provided that the Intersex suffers (i).  gender dysphoria, (ii). Has genetic incongruence.

On the other hand, the Transsex is not allowed the sex change operation because of (i). gender dysphoria without genetic incongruence.

The judgment made by our bishops and pastors in Evangelical churches about the transex is a novelty at best. It is a product of wisdom given by the Holy Spirit.

Based on the Evangelical ethics on the Intersex and Transex, The transsex who suffers gender dysphoria must have chromosomal tests to determine if genetic incongruence exists.

If it is proven to be the case,

(i). Sex change operation is warranted

If not,

(i). Christian psychiatrist must be consulted.

This is the current standard of Evangelical churches nowadays.

        ?

Based on Evangelical Tradition, the following should be followed by the Christian patient with gender dysphoria.

(i). Discouraging from Transitioning to the opposite sex. Citing Scripture that phenotypic sex is the end and citing tradition that genetic sex supports this phenotypic sex.

(ii).Counselling by a Christian Psychiatrist

(iii). Antidepressant drugs to off-set the depressive symptoms of Gender Dysphoria

(ix). Practise of Celibacy

(v). In most cases, suicidal gender dysphoric patients will end up dying. Within Evangelical point of view, this is similar to the concept laid out in Scripture: "the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 5:5). And thus, their death prevented them from further sin and pleases the Lord (Psalm 116:15).

    .

Should the transex also be given medical treatment of gender transition since they have genetic sex (female brain) that is not matching their phenotype (male)?

Intersex (e.g. XX male intersex)
Gender identity - female
Genetic sex - female
Phenotypic sex - male

Transex (e.g. transgender woman)
Gender identity - female Genetic sex - chromosome XY (brain, female per 2009 study)
Phenotypic sex - male

In my analysis of current Evangelical consesus, they should allow gender dysphoric Christian patients to transition medically to the opposite sex since the argument on genetic chromosomal  sex encapsulates the genetic brain physiology too as both arguments have their basis in the biological gender binary expressed in the DNA.

Strictly following Scripture, sex change operation to both transex and intersex shall not occur since Scripture honours phenotypic sex as final teaching on gender without regards to DNA analysis. And that celibacy is mandatory to these people. Their gender dysphoria should be dealt with by prayer and mere oral or intravenous anti-depressant medications. Suicides in this patients (as high as 50% among the population)  are inevitable and does not reduce the glory of God.

Gender dysphoria is a complex issue. Evangelical Christians ,people themselves, will be torn with such a painful problem if experienced first hand or felt through closest loved ones. Naturally, we do not want to compromise our faith but we also do not want our transsex/intersex fellows to suffer pain and to die because of gender dysphoria. Current medical science offers medical transition for gender dysphoric patients as the most effective treatment. Scripture does not seem to accept this concept of medicine based on the Mosaic Law on gender being upheld by the Apostle Paul and our God,  Jesus Christ. The insight of certain Evangelical bishops, pastors and doctors that transition is appropriately allowed by God to those with "genetic gender incongruence" is secondary to Scripture but it does hold authority since it is based on careful analysis of the Scripture appealing to the ancient Chist-centric concept of "  " , such an instance occurred when Jesus heals a man on the Sabbath day. The reservations to gender dysphoric with minor elements of genetic gender (brain physiology versus chromosomal) needs to be addressed by Evangelicals in their churches.Some evangelicals already accepts sex change surgery as a last resort:

   ,    ,
   .

     “

   ,   ,

    .” (
     '
  "
  " , 2015)


How could Jesus get followers so easily?

Luke 5 (CEV) tells a little more of the story:

One day Jesus was standing beside Lake Gennesaret (Galilee) when the crowd pressed in around him to hear God’s word. Jesus saw two boats sitting by the lake. The fishermen had gone ashore and were washing their nets. Jesus boarded one of the boats, the one that belonged to Simon, then asked him to row out a little distance from the shore. Jesus sat down and taught the crowds from the boat. When he finished speaking to the crowds, he said to Simon, “Row out farther, into the deep water, and drop your nets for a catch.”
Simon replied, “Master, we’ve worked hard all night and caught nothing. But because you say so, I’ll drop the nets.”
So they dropped the nets and their catch was so huge that their nets were splitting. They signaled for their partners in the other boat to come and help them. They filled both boats so full that they were about to sink. When Simon Peter saw the catch, he fell at Jesus’ knees and said, “Leave me, Lord, for I’m a sinner!” Peter and those with him were overcome with amazement because of the number of fish they caught. James and John, Zebedee’s sons, were Simon’s partners and they were amazed too.
Jesus said to Simon, “Don’t be afraid. From now on, you will be fishing for people.” As soon as they brought the boats to the shore, they left everything and followed Jesus.

So, there was a miracle.
(One explanation for the apparent contradiction with John is that the disciples encountered Jesus on more than one occasion. At the wedding the disciples believed, and at the lake they started to follow)


Why was Lot "let off the hook" for offering his daughters to be raped?

I've heard a variety of theories on this topic:

He "knew" (or hoped) the crowd wouldn't accept them (they were asking for men, after all)
Females were considered a sub-class of society, and therefore were his "possession" wherewith to do as he pleased
It was the offer of a desperate man trying to save the guests whom he suspected of being more than just "visitors" (but did not know were messengers of God)

Lastly, the "righteousness of Lot" does not indicate he was perfect, or even the best representation of a God-truster of the day - Abraham was "righteous", and yet on two occasions tried to save his own skin by telling his wife to say she was his sister.

Lot elected to go towards the greener pastures near the cities when Abraham offered him the choice of land on which to graze his flocks - and he continually migrated closer and closer to sin until he was living in Sodom: a phenomenal shift from being with Abraham and away from such obviously-evil influences.