What does "in persona Christi Capitis" mean?

It means: "in the person of Christ the Head [of the Church]".
Christ is the High Priest, in Whose person all other ordained priests act when they offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
When a Catholic priest consecrates the host and wine, he truly identifies Himself with Christ when he says "This is my body." and "This is my blood."
St. Robert Bellarmine writes (Controversiis t. 2, De Missa, 1, c. 27), as quoted in Pope Pius XII's encyclical on the sacred liturgy, Mediator Dei §86:

The sacrifice is principally offered in the person of Christ. Thus the oblation that follows the consecration is a sort of attestation that the whole Church consents in the oblation made by Christ, and offers it along with Him.
Sacrificium, inquit, in persona Christi principaliter offertur. Itaque ista oblatio, consecrationem subsequens, est quaedam testificatio, quod tota Ecclesia consentiat in oblationem a Christo factam, et simul cum illo offerat.


Why do people have different chances of becoming Christian?

The Reformed take on the answer is that no one becomes a believer by chance, but rather by divine election whereby God utilizes someone to preach the gospel to sinners, and causes the sinner to be regenerated (born-again), such that they receive the gospel as good news and believe in Jesus, and thus receive forgiveness of sins on account of Jesus' death on the cross and resurrection.


What is the difference between an Apostle and an Evangelist according to Charismatic Christianity?

From a Pentecostal perspective that believes in a restored five-fold office-gift ministry:
An apostle is a "Sent One" & and an apostle's "sentiness" manifests in the supernatural authority they bear in terms of enacting the mission that they have been entrusted with. Apostles are leaders par excellence, and are usually identified after they have pioneered the establishment of new networks of churches. They tend to be very focused on discipling and raising up effective leaders who can further multiply disciples and oversee congregations or ministries. They excel in imparting the vision they carry to others. While church planters and missionaries may be engaged in "apostolic work", they tend not to be recognized as apostles until they have successfully overseen the establishment of many individual congregations.
It could be argued that evangelists are also "sent ones" as they have received a burden from the Lord to go out and win souls at every opportunity. While apostles may also be effective soul winners, they are distinguished from evangelists by their grasp of the bigger picture - how the whole church can function effectively and grow in maturity; an evangelist on the other hand primarily concerns themself in conversion of the lost, content to leave ongoing discipleship and church governmental issues in the hands of others, although the most effective evangelists are usually actively involved in discipling, raising up and empowering more evangelists.
Examples of people regarded as modern day apostles are Chuck Smith and Phil Pringle.
Examples of people regarded as modern day (office-gift) evangelists are Billy Graham and Reinhard Bonnke
This perspective retrospectively applied to the interesting case of the two principal leaders in the (first) Methodist revival - George Whitfield, the greatest soul-winner of his generation is rightly acknowledged as an office-gift evangelist; whereas John Wesley although a very gifted soul-winner as well, possessed a superior organisational ability that marks him as the apostle of Methodism. While the two had significant theological differences (Calvinism vs Arminianism), the former acknowledged the wisdom of the latter's establishment of his "classes" (effectively small group discipleship meetings) in these terms:

Whitefield met an old friend, Mr John Pool and accosted him in the following manner:
“Well, John, art thou still a Wesleyan?”
Pool replied, “Yes, sir, and I thank God that I have the privilege of being in connection with him, and one of his preachers.”
“John,” said Whitefield, “thou art in the right place. My brother Wesley acted wisely—the souls that were awakened under his ministry he joined in class, and thus preserved the fruits of his labor. This I neglected, and my people are a rope of sand.” (source)


What happened to the Book of the Law in the time of Josiah?

tl;dr> This clip from the end Raiders of the Lost Ark probably captures the essence of what happened rather well - it's not that it was "lost" so much as ignored and forgotten.

King Josiah ruled Judah over a period in which the re-discovery of YHWH overall was in vogue.  For the past 57 years, two very wicked kings had ruled - Manesseh and his son Amon.
Of Mannesseh, it is said:

and he did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, yaccording to the despicable practices of the nations whom the Lord drove out before the people of Israel. For he rebuilt the high places zthat Hezekiah his father had destroyed, and he erected altars for Baal and made aan Asherah, bas Ahab king of Israel had done, cand worshiped all the host of heaven and served them. And he built altars in the house of the Lord,  ... And he burned his son as an offering* and used fortune-telling and omens and dealt with mediums and with necromancers. He did much evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking him to anger.

The wickedest king of Israel presided over a huge decline in the worship of God.  In such a regime, especially if new altars were being built in the Temple, it would not at all be surprising if the Book of the Law was "filed away" and forgotten.
And, unlike today, when book ownership is prevelant, mis-filing one copy really could prevent anyone from knowing about it.  Books and Scrolls were, in antiquity, extremely expensive things.  Even for an epistle as short as Romans, Raymond Brown has estimate that the parchment and ink alone would have cost $3000 - a fortune in those times.
Even today, "discoveries" are being made, not out in the field, but in museum vaults! Mere possession of an object, and knowledge that one has it, are two completely different things.  Just look inside the drawers of your bathroom sink (if you live in the West) if you don't believe me.

So, to answer your questions directly:

Was the Book of the Law lost for a long time that King Josiah never saw it before?
It had been ignored for up to 57 years - after the days of Hezekiah, but during the 55 year reign of Manessah, 2 years of Amon's reign and 18 years of Josiah's reign up to this point.

Does this discovery of the Book of the Law mean that the location of the book was not known before?
Whether or not it was "known" is debatable.  It was in the Temple and always had been.  But imagine trying to find a single artifact in a large building that served as a storehouse.  (Remember, people didn't enter the Temple on a regular basis - only the priests did.  It wasn't a church!)

Which copy of the Book of the Law was it? Was it the copy for the King or from the Levitical priests? (Deuteronomy 17:18)
There is nothing to suggest that it was anything other than the copy in the Temple.  The copy for the King would definitely not have been kept, as Josiah's two predecessors did not belong to the cult of YHWH.

Did their ignorance of the presence of Book of the Law mean that nobody at that time cared to go inside the Temple to read from the Book of the Law?
Yup.  (At least from the priest's point of view.) Remember, ordinary people were not allowed inside the Temple. Indeed, women weren't even allowed in the inner courts. Only the Priests had access to the interior storehouses, and only the Chief Preist had access to the Holy of Holies.

How may we refute people who say that someone forged the book and put it there?
Scholars can't and don't even try. Indeed, the "JEDP" hypothesis suggests that while the text itself formed orally over a period of 400 years (from roughly 1000 BC until 600BC), claims such as "Josiah being the greatest king that ever ruled Israel" suggest that the form we have today was last edited during his reign.  That said, ultimately, even a biblical perfectionist such as myself understands that the Bible we have today is the one that God intended for us to have. This is the doctrine known as 'preservation.' Whether or not it has been edited is of little consequence - the church has done quite well with the Bible it has.


If I die before I can confess my sins, can I just confess them to God in Heaven?

Catholic teaching states that you must make a sincere effort to confess all mortal sins in the sacrament of confession. It is often encouraged that all grave sins be confessed as soon as possible, and certainly all mortal sins. However, if the sinner is unable to confess before death, the effortful intent to confess is taught to be valid, provided it is a sincere and effortful intent!

It is also the Catholic Church's teaching God normally works through the sacraments of the Church, but that God is not at all inhibited from working outside them.

And as an important side-note, if the recipient of confession is not sincere, even in making an act of confession, the confession is not valid.


A paradox that arises from Christian duty as "ambassador"

The problem with the paradox, as I see it, is with one of your premises:

  5) These non-Christian modes of behaviour, such as the books published by Dawkins, inevitably offend many Christians.

While Christians may be offended by Dawkins, they should not love him any less.

Clearly this is not always the reality.  Many Christians do take offense at those who disagree with them, often violently, as seen throughout history.  But to the extent that Christians respond out of hatred rather than out of love, they are not behaving as Christians ought.

Matthew 5:43-45, NIV (emphasis added):

  43“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’44But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

From this verse, we see that a Christian's response to one like Dawkins (who "persecutes" Christians--at least intellectually, I don't think he's ever physically persecuted them), is to pray for him.

A Christian who prays for Dawkins is not likely to have an ugly confrontation with him, should they ever meet. Instead, he will share God's love with him (your point #2), whether Dawkins ever accepts Christ or not.


What is the name of the theory or thesis that the brothers of Jesus came from a previous marriage of St. Joseph?

During the first century, the continuing virginity of Mary after the birth of Jesus does not appear to have been important. Matthew 1:25 concedes that Joseph and Mary began sexual relations after Jesus was born, or is at least ambiguous:

  And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Wikipedia states:

  There was no full consensus on the doctrine of perpetual virginity within the early Church by the end of the second century ... However, wider support for the doctrine began to appear within the next century.

The church was moving towards a universal doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. The question was, where did the brothers and sisters, mentioned in  Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55, John 7:3, Acts 1:14 and 1 Corinthians 9:5, come from? Wikipedia again:

  Origen (185-254) was emphatic on the issue of the brothers of Jesus, and stated that he believed them to have been the children of Joseph from a previous marriage. But careful analysis of this hypothesis brings up a number of problems, and it remains only one of several explanations put forward. Another popular hypothesis is that the term "brothers and sisters" actually meant cousins.

The Catholic catechism states (my emphasis):

  499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it." And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin".

  500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, "brothers of Jesus", are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary". They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.

  501 Jesus is Mary's only son ...

In summary, the thesis that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage is quite ancient, if not universally accepted among Christians, but does not appear to have a specific name.


What could be the reason for Jesus not telling His disciples to write down whatever He was teaching them?

1) Don't assume that Jesus neglected to instruct his disciples on this matter.  There are many things Jesus said and did that are not recorded in Scripture.  (The vast majority in fact.)

  And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written. -John 21:25

2) God's plan was for them to hear the words of Jesus, and then later be reminded of them by the Spirit, who would inspire them to write.

  But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. -John 14:26


What's the goal of Catholic/Protestant ecumenism?

Very interesting question.
First, what should be the goal of ecumenism? I believe it has to be reunification. Pardon my translation of choice (NIV) (added own emphasis)
Paul talks about our differences in 1 Corinthians 12:12-14

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

In the broader context of the passage, this is talking about gifts and each of us are called to do different things for the body of the Church. But it does highlight that we are not all the same, we have our differences.
But the overall goal of the true church should be unity.

Ephesians 4:4-5 (NIV)
4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

But why not reconciliation? When I hear that word, I think of the definition to compose or settle (a quarrel, dispute, etc.). Given that there has been millenia for people to offend each other and great chasms in the different denominations, it seems unreasonable to believe we can work through all that history.
Besides, it is a christian command to forgive one another. But it has to be our prayer to be united in Christ so the world will know he is from God

John 17:22-23
22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

So to answer the question Also, are they polar opposites, if we proceed toward Reconciliation do we throw out Reunification?: I don't believe they are polar opposites, but using the above definition of reconciliation, I don't think it's necessary to reconcile in order to reunify.
As for the official progress of ecumenism, wikipedia has some history on it from a (mostly) Catholic point of view. Focusing on the section of 'recent' progress:

The mutual anathemas (excommunications) of 1054, marking the Great Schism between Western (Catholic) and Eastern (Orthodox) branches of Christianity, a process spanning several centuries, were revoked in 1965 by the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.

I find it interesting that ecumenism between Catholics and Protestants don't seem to be a main focus. It seems to be between Catholics and Orthodox, and the various denominations of Protestants.

Organizations such as the World Council of Churches, the National Council of Churches USA, Churches Uniting in Christ, Pentecostal Charismatic Peace Fellowship and Christian Churches Together continue to encourage ecumenical cooperation among Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and, at times, Roman Catholics.

Most recently, the US Episcopal Church seems to have made a blunder in uniting the beliefs (also from that wikipedia article):

The decision by the U.S. Episcopal Church to ordain Gene Robinson, an openly gay, non-celibate priest who advocates same-sex blessings, as bishop led the Russian Orthodox Church to suspend its cooperation with the Episcopal Church

But the American denominations are making some progress by remaking an organization to unite the churches in 2002.


What is the Biblical basis for Limited Atonement?

Limited Atonement Defined

Limited atonement is defined in the Canons of Dort:

  The Second Main Point of Doctrine: Christ's Death and Human Redemption Through It

  Article 3: The Infinite Value of Christ’s Death

  This death of God’s Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice
  and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more
  than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.

  Article 7: Faith God’s Gift

  But all who genuinely believe and are delivered and saved by Christ’s
  death from their sins and from destruction receive this favor solely
  from God’s grace—which God owes to no one—given to them in Christ from
  eternity.

  Article 8: The Saving Effectiveness of Christ’s Death

  For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention
  of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his
  Son’s costly death should work itself out in all the elect, in order
  that God might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead
  them without fail to salvation. In other words, it was God’s will that
  Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new
  covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation,
  and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to
  salvation and given to him by the Father; that Christ should grant
  them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit’s other saving gifts, he
  acquired for them by his death). It was also God’s will that Christ
  should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original
  and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith;
  that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end; and that he
  should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without
  spot or wrinkle.

  Article 9: The Fulfillment of God’s Plan

  This plan, arising out of God’s eternal love for the elect, from the
  beginning of the world to the present time has been powerfully carried
  out and will also be carried out in the future, the gates of hell
  seeking vainly to prevail against it. As a result, the elect are
  gathered into one, all in their own time, and there is always a church
  of believers founded on Christ’s blood, a church which steadfastly
  loves, persistently worships, and here and in all eternity praises him
  as her Savior who laid down his life for her on the cross, as a
  bridegroom for his bride.

  Rejection of the Errors

  Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors
  of those

  Who teach that God the Father appointed his Son to death on the cross without a fixed and definite plan to save anyone by name, so
  that the necessity, usefulness, and worth of what Christ’s death
  obtained could have stood intact and altogether perfect, complete and
  whole, even if the redemption that was obtained had never in actual
  fact been applied to any individual.
  Who teach that the purpose of Christ’s death was not to establish in actual fact a new covenant of grace by his blood, but only to acquire
  for the Father the mere right to enter once more into a covenant with
  humanity, whether of grace or of works.

I have quoted three articles and a rejection of two errors, but for a fuller definition of limited atonement, click the link and read all nine articles and a rejection of seven errors.

Other Names for Limited Atonement

You can see above, in article 3 juxtaposed with articles 7-8, that the atonement is "sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world" but that the cross "should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father." This has been summarized by many apologists as, "sufficient for all, efficient for only the elect."

Therefore the atonement is not "limited" in its power, but in its purpose. It's common for opponents of reformed theology to advance the argument that a limited atonement means the cross wasn't "powerful" enough to achieve the purpose of the salvation of every person; that's not the case. God's purpose was to save the elect, and that purpose was accomplished on the cross.

To better capture the fact that the atonement's purpose was to redeem a "particular" people and that it is "definite" in its scope, some have begun calling it by other names:

particular redemption
definite redemption
actual atonement
intentional atonement
definite atonement

Direct Biblical Support

Now for the meat.

It's all throughout the Gospel of John that Christ died for his "people" or his "sheep" and not for everyone else:

  John 6

  37 Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me, and the one who
  comes to me I will never send away. ... 39 Now this is the will of the
  one who sent me—that I should not lose one person of every one he has
  given me, but raise them all up at the last day.

  64 But there are some of you who do not believe. ... 65 Because of
  this I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has
  allowed him to come.

  John 10: The Good Shepherd

  11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for
  the sheep. ... 14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own
  know me. ... 26 But you refuse to believe because you are not my
  sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they
  follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; no
  one will snatch them from my hand.

  John 17: Jesus Prays to the Father

  6 I have revealed your name to the men you gave me out of the world.
  They belonged to you, and you gave them to me, and they have obeyed
  your word. ... 9 I am praying on behalf of them. I am not praying on
  behalf of the world, but on behalf of those you have given me, because
  they belong to you.

In Matthew 1:21 we see the same idea, of God saving "his people":

  She will give birth to a son and you will name him Jesus, because he
  will save his people from their sins.

God's chosen people is Israel, or the church. In reformed theology, a continuity between the two is recognized, so that the "true Israel" and the "invisible church" is the same as the "elect." The scriptural support for this idea is beyond the scope of the current question, but it's worth mentioning since Peter said in Acts 5:31 that Christ died for Israel:

  God exalted him to his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give
  repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.

It is also the teaching of Paul that Christ died for "the church":

  Acts 20:28

  Watch out for yourselves and for all the flock of which the Holy
  Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he
  obtained with the blood of his own Son.

  Ephesians 5:25

  Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave
  himself for her.

This is consistent with the song the saints sing in Revelation 5:9-10:

  At the cost of your own blood you have purchased for God persons from
  every tribe, language, people, and nation. You have appointed them as
  a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the
  earth.

John Owen contends in his classic defense of limited atonement The Death of Death in the Death of Christ that Romans 8 supports the doctrine:

  Romans 8:34

  Who is the one who will condemn? Christ is the one who died (and more
  than that, he was raised), who is at the right hand of God, and who
  also is interceding for us.

  Owen's Commentary in The Death of Death

  That he died for all and intercedeth for some will scarcely be
  squared to this text, especially considering the foundation of all
  this, which is (verse 32) that love of God which moved him to give up
  Christ to death for us all; upon which the apostle infers a kind of
  impossibility in not giving us all good things in him; which how it
  can be reconciled with their opinion who affirm that he gave his Son
  for millions to whom he will give neither grace nor glory, I cannot
  see.

Consistency with Other Doctrines

There is one other point to consider. I could have titled this section "indirect Biblical evidence." The fact is that rejecting limited atonement would make for an inconsistent system of theology. The following two quotes should demonstrate what I mean.

A. A. Hodge says in his book The Atonement:

  Every form which it is possible for the General Atonement Theory to
  assume necessarily involves the hypothesis that in its essential
  nature the Atonement effects only the removal of legal obstacles out
  of the way of the salvation of men, making God reconcilable, not
  actually reconciling him; making the salvation of all men possible,
  not actually saving any. But the Scriptures teach that Christ actually
  came to save those for whom he died ... Again the Scriptures decleare
  that the effect of Christ's death is reconciliation and justification.
  ... The design of Christ, moreover, was to secure for those whom he
  died the direct effect of remission of sins, peace with God, and
  deliverance from the curse of the law, from wrath, from death, from
  sin, &c. ... But to make salvation possible, to make possible
  purification, deliverance, reconciliation, is something very different
  indeed from actually saving, purifying, delivering or reconciling. No
  man has the right to empty the glorious terms in which the gospel is
  revealed of all their saving power.

Hodge cites Matthew 18:11; Luke 19:10; Romans 5:10; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 1:4, 3:13, and 4:5; Ephesians 2:14-16; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; 1 Timothy 1:15; Hebrews 2:14; and 1 Peter 1:18.

Robert Morley similarly said in his book Studies in the Atonement:

  When Christ lived, died, was buried, arose, ascended, and sat down at
  the right hand of the Majesty on high, we are told that the ones for
  whom He did these things are to be viewed as being in such a life
  union with Him as their covenant head and representative that it is
  said that they lived, died, were buried, arose, ascended and sat down
  at the Father's side 'in Christ' (Rom. 6:1-11; Gal. 2:20; 6:14; Eph.
  2:5-6).

  To say that Christ died for all is to say that all died in Christ. It means that unbelievers are to be told that they have been crucified
  with Christ, been buried with Christ, have been resurrected with
  Christ and have ascended and sat down with Christ. This position is so
  manifestly false that it should grieve the child of God even to
  consider it.

For more on the "consistency" point, visit the link to the Canons of Dort and scroll to "Rejection of the Errors" under the second main point.

All scripture quotes are from the NET. I closely consulted this article by Brian Schwertley to write this answer. The article is excerpted from a broader work.


What is on the cover of this printing of Ladder of Divine Ascent?

These books are published by Paulist Press, a Catholic publisher. This is not a Orthodox symbol, but there will be a description of the cover art on the page opposite the Table of Contents page.


How are Supererogative acts even possible in Catholicism?

I've misplaced my copy of David Heyd's Supererogation or else I'd quote it directly, but that's among the seminal texts you'll want to read for a Catholic view on this topic.  In lieu of that, Standford's Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy has great article on the topic.

I think your key misunderstanding comes in here:

  why must we go beyond what a perfect omnipotent being guides us to do?

What I think you have in mind is that there are a set of things God requires us, but there is also a level of goodness that we can opt for beyond that.  For example, God's law required Israel to leave the corners of its fields unharvested for the poor and indigent, but farmers could also have chosen to leave more of their land the indigent if they so chose.

However, what makes an act truly supererogatory in the sense used in Catholicism is that it goes above and beyond what someone could reasonably be compelled to do.  We could reasonably compel a certain farmer to give more if there were enough people in need in the countryside, but one could not compel a farmer to give his entire harvest to the poor--that could devastate the farmer's livelihood.  Nevertheless, if a farmer chose to give his entire harvest to the poor, we would understand that he has done a very great good, a supererogatory good.  Supererogation arises out of the awkward place we're put in by acknowledging that the farmer's actions are good but yet no one could reasonably say that one is morally obligated to follow such an action.  What is good is bad not to do, and what is bad is good not to do, but what is supererogatory is good to do and not bad not to do.

For Catholics, this makes for a nimbler approach to ethics.  Because salvation in Catholicism is contingent on our continued friendship with God within the salvific cycle of sin, confession, penance, and Eucharist, it would be a pretty big problem for Catholics to be compelled to go to the absolute greatest level of goodness on all actions, because such friendship would seem impossible.  For Protestants, who typically deny the existence of supererogatory acts, the inability to carry out such profound acts of goodness is precisely what's of value, because it rids us of any illusion that we can attain God's level of perfection.  Conversely, Protestants have typically argued that the existence of supererogatory acts would suggest that it is possible to exceed God's moral requirements and, by implication, that it is therefore possible to fulfill God's moral requirements.

Some more food for thought:

1) Catholics often note that Paul advises that it is better to be unmarried but not wrong to get married (1 Cor 7).

2) Moses and other prophets frequently intercede with God on Israel's behalf, begging God not to bring harm unfaithful Israel when God would otherwise destroy them.  What is Moses had said "yes" to God out of obedience?  Surely, we couldn't fault Moses for obeying and deferring to God, but surely it is also good (indeed, quite heroic!) to stand before God and make the case to save Israel.

3) Can anything really be thought of as supererogatory in light of a savior who took up death upon the cross out of obedience, which implies a command (Phil 2:8)? If even the greatest act of compassion is an act of obedience to God, what else could possibly exceed "mere" obedience to God?

4) While I'm not typically Kantian on ethics, it's worth noting the question posed by the Categorical Imperative:  "What would the world look like if everyone acted like this?"  To that point, mandating supererogatory acts can create significant problems.  For example, proponents of supererogation would count giving away all of your possessions as supererogatory.  Yet, if everyone were required to do this, it would be unsustainable.  Half of us would give up our possessions to the other half, but in order to be morally upright, that other half would now have to give it back, and at the end of the matter, we'd probably have to destroy all of our possessions, whereupon we'd all die of starvation and exposure, and that's definitely not a moral good.  In such a world, giving to someone would oblige that person to give to someone else with no morally justifiable end recipient.  Giving would thus cease to be praiseworthy, since it would become a matter of divesting our material guilt onto others and forcing them into a conundrum that has no morally valid resolution.


What is the origin of the Doctrine of Trinity?

The Trinity described:
The Athanasian Creed, formulated a few hundred years after the death of Jesus, defined the Trinity this way: “The Father is God: the Son is God: and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods: but one God.”
Did Jesus start the Trinity?
Many would say that it's origin started with Jesus Christ, however that would conflict what the bible say even about his "own" origin (creation) about him being equal:

Colossians 1:13-15
13. Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14. In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15. Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16. For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or
dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by
him, and for him:

Was the Origin of the Trinity in the bible?
No where in the scriptures does it make mention of Trinity.
In its 1999 issue on the Trinity, The Living Pulpit observed: “Sometimes, it seems that everyone assumes that the doctrine of the trinity is standard Christian theological fare,” but it added that it is not “a biblical idea.”
“The doctrine of the trinity . . . is not a product of the earliest Christian period, and we do not find it carefully expressed before the end of the second century.”—Library of Early Christianity—Gods and the One God.
Where then could the Origin of the Trinity come from?
In his book The Church of the First Three Centuries, Dr. Alvan Lamson states that the doctrine of the Trinity “had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; that it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers.”
Who were these “Platonizing Fathers”? They were apostate clerics who were infatuated with the teachings of pagan Greek philosopher Plato.
The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato’s] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel (Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.
History shows that the ancient civilizations and cultures that believed in a Triad god or gods were: Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome which all were conquering nations, one after another, could have carried their beliefs into Christianity after Jesus' death - during the time of the Romans and of which historically were Pagans.


According to Catholicism, in the Eucharist, does the bread become Christ’s “spiritual body” or “natural body”?

There's no difference between the two in respect of Eucharistic transubstantiation; hence answering "the spiritual", "the natural", or "both" are equally meaningless.

My answer to a question on the Catholic understanding of the nature of transubstantiation is supposed to make it clear that what is changed in transubstantiation is the substance of the bread; that is (more or less), what makes the bread bread. The material takes on the substance of the body of Christ; and it is in this sense that we say that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ.

But the substance of the natural body and the substance of the glorified or spiritual body are the same. St. Thomas Aquinas, in discussing the nature of the resurrected body, raises the question, "Whether in the resurrection the soul will be reunited to the same identical body?" (Supplement to the Third Part, Question 79, Article 1). He concludes that

  The soul rising again and the soul living in this world differ, not in essence but in respect of glory and misery, which is an accidental difference. Hence it follows that the body in rising again differs, not in identity, but in condition, so that a difference of bodies corresponds proportionally to the difference of souls.

(Reply to Objection 2)

In other words, he's saying, the resurrected body (the "spiritual body") is different in appearance to the "natural body": it has different characteristics and qualities (for example, it can no longer suffer injuries). However, he argues, these different characteristics are accidents: things that just happen to be true of a person's body. They don't alter the fact that this is the person's body. That is, they don't make it a different body in substance.

Therefore Christ's body, whether the natural body he had before his resurrection or the glorified/spiritual body he had afterwards, was one body in substance; and thus there is no meaning to the question: the substance of his body is not different, and there's no distinction between the two in the change of substance that takes place at the consecration of the Eucharist.


How do you answer the unanswerable questions?

My general response is to redirect the questioner to what their real issue is - most often, these questions are asked as a way of attacking fringe aspects of Christianity, and the real issue the questioner has is at his heart: he's not yet saved, and is scared that God's not happy with him, so to make himself feel better, he posts strawman and fringe-topic questions to make the Christian he is speaking with look like an idiot.


How does C. S. Lewis define the "natural" and "supernatural" in his book Miracles?

From my notes on chapter 2 of Miracles:

Miracle: “An interference with nature by supernatural power.”
Naturalists: “Those who believe that nothing exists except nature.”
Supernaturalists: “Those who believe that, besides nature, there exists something else.”
Nature: Defined by naturalists as “everything there is.” More rigorously, the natural is “what springs up, or comes forth, or arrives, or goes on, of its own accord: the given, what is there already: the spontaneous, the unintended, the unsolicited.”
Supernature: “That which causes nature to exist.”

The naturalist's contention that "nothing exists besides nature" basically means that everything that has ever happened is explainable via natural laws (a viewpoint also known as "physical determinism"). The Supernaturalist believes that someone or something can intervene and subvert the natural course of events. From my notes on chapters 3-4:

In principle, everything that exists in Nature must be explainable as arising from elsewhere in Nature, according to the Naturalist. Anything that is unexplainable (not merely unexplained) from this standpoint would destroy the entire premise of Naturalism.

In chapter 3 or 4, Lewis mentions advances in quantum physics as evidence that others have put forward for the existence of the Supernatural. Many quantum events are to date unexplained, and, many Christian apologists argue, unexplainable. Lewis says that he doubts they are physically unexplainable (and therefore not a proof of Supernaturalism) but casually uses the word "Subnatural" to describe the hypothetical existence of unexplainable quantum events. He essentially says that such events would, strictly speaking, be "Supernatural" but he avoids using that word because it would be "a shock" to the reader.
Lewis says elsewhere in chapter 2 that multiple natures may exist. A fictional example of this would be his Chronicles of Narnia. If you recall, The Magician's Nephew establishes that there are many worlds (which are all separate universes), including our own world and that of Narnia. Each of these worlds was created separately and is governed by its own laws (Narnia in particular being a much more magical place than our world). At times, however, there may be divine intervention to bring the two worlds together, like when Aslan calls the Pevensie children from our world into the world of Narnia. In this example, our own world/nature is the "Supernature" to the world of Narnia, because things that existed in their own right in our world sprang into existence, from Narnia's perspective, seemingly from nothing. Similarly, when Aslan visited our world in The Silver Chair, there was no way for our laws of physics to explain his presence or his existence; in this case, his intrusion into our world was by "Supernatural power" (that is, power foreign to the "Nature" that we know, being from Narnia) and therefore "miraculous."
If I recall correctly, Lewis did not give a specifically Christian defense of miracles until later in the book. Therefore he does not mention God at this point. But God himself would be the ultimate Supernature, seeing as he exists entirely in his own right and for his own sake, is sustained by nothing, and sustains everything.
In Lewis' conception, heaven qualifies as a "Nature" and, when angels visit our world, heaven qualifies in such a context as "Supernature."
Lewis, if I remember right, acknowledges that his definitions are novel, but says that he defined his terms the way he did by necessity. There hadn't been a technical book on the existence of miracles prior to this one, and even the word "miracle" was defined by him in the book a little differently than it often is used in casual conversation. However, the ideas he expresses through his technical language are not novel, except perhaps for his idea of the "cardinal difficulty of the naturalist."


Are there any Christian denominations that don't believe Jesus is the only way to salvation?

Catholics believe that Only those baptised in Jesus' name will go to heaven.

But we also believe that

  God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments. ccc 1257

So, there is hope for:

People who never have heard of Jesus, even those born before him.
Children or catechumens who die before baptism.
People who die a holy death, but lived a bad life.

These people receive a different kind of the same Baptism one would receive in a Church, and it's all done through Christ.


Why did foot washing become a common practice in Christianity?

The act of washing feet predates the Reformation. It was encouraged of the abbot of a Benedictine Monastery to wash the feet of guests by the Order of St. Benedict(c. 530). The washing of the feet is done yearly in the Roman Catholic Church.

I do not know what all denominations practice the washing of feet.

For more information, you can read about it in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

  The liturgical washing of feet (if we can trust the negative evidence of our early records) seems only to have established itself in East and West at a comparatively late date. In 694 the Seventeenth Synod of Toledo commanded all bishops and priests in a position of superiority under pain of excommunication to wash the feet of those subject to them. The matter is also discussed by Amalarius and other liturgists of the ninth century. Whether the custom of holding this "maundy" (from "Mandatum novum do vobis", the first words of the initial Antiphon) on Maundy Thursday, developed out of the baptismal practice originally attached to that day does not seem quite clear, but it soon became an universal custom in cathedral and collegiate churches. In the latter half of the twelfth century the pope washed the feet of twelve sub-deacons after his Mass and of thirteen poor men after his dinner.


A priest I requested kindly to bless salt and oil did not use the prescribed prayer but used his own, is the blessing valid?

If a priest blesses salt and oil, but does not use the prescribed prayer, but used his own wording, is the blessing valid?

The short answer is yes.

But there is a caveat to my response.

Rome allows objects to be blessed by deacons, priests and bishops. The traditional method would be to use the prayers contained in the Rituale Romanum, making a sign of the cross over the object to be blessed and sprinkling it with holy water.

A priest saying a few word in blessing, while employing the sign of the cross is sufficient to make the blessing valid.

  Sometimes the clergy member blessing something will say a few words of their own before giving the words of blessing, and sometimes the cleric will simply say a silent prayer over the object and make the Sign of the Cross over it. Any of these methods is a valid blessing done with the intent of the Church. - Q & A: Blessing Objects and Things

Not using the traditional formula will weaken the efficaciousness of some prescribed blessings, especially if a minor exorcism is involved.

Some priest chose to do such simple blessings since there is no holy water on their person.

Some of the formulae contained in the Rituale Romanum are in fact minor exorcisms. In these cases the ritual must be followed word for word, with the sprinkling of holy water at the appropriate moment.

For this reason alone, I carry a Pocket Holy Water Sprinkler with me when attending church. I also bring with me a hard copy of the prayers I desire the priest to employ.

Some priests will no doubt be uncomfortable with this, but more traditional priests will not have any problem.

There is a Benedictine Abbey near my residence and the abbot carries an Aspergillum as seen below to bless objects (usually medals), but employs his own words of blessing. If a particular object have a blessing listed in the Rituale Romanum, I make a hard copy to take with me when getting it blessed. Most priests do not carry the Book of Blessings with them, but some do.

Pocket Holy Water Sprinkler Made of Stainless Steel with Holding Case

As Peter showed in his comment, some blessings are in fact minor exorcisms and just not simple blessings. In theses cases the prayers prescribed by Rome must be followed.

  Minor Exorcisms

  According to Catholic belief demons or fallen angels retain their natural power, as intelligent beings, of acting on the material universe, and using material objects and directing material forces for their own wicked ends; and this power, which is in itself limited, and is subject, of course, to the control of Divine providence, is believed to have been allowed a wider scope for its activity in the consequence of the sin of mankind. Hence places and things as well as persons are naturally liable to diabolical infestation, within limits permitted by God, and exorcism in regard to them is nothing more that a prayer to God, in the name of His Church, to restrain this diabolical power supernaturally, and a profession of faith in His willingness to do so on behalf of His servants on earth.

  The chief things formally exorcised in blessing are water, salt, oil, and these in turn are used in personal exorcisms, and in blessing or consecrating places (e.g. churches) and objects (e.g. altars, sacred vessels, church bells) connected with public worship, or intended for private devotion. Holy water, the sacramental with which the ordinary faithful are most familiar, is a mixture of exorcised water and exorcised salt; and in the prayer of blessing, God is besought to endow these material elements with a supernatural power of protecting those who use them with faith against all the attacks of the devil. This kind of indirect exorcism by means of exorcised objects is an extension of the original idea; but it introduces no new principle, and it has been used in the Church from the earliest ages. - Exorcism (Catholic Encyclopaedia)

I get olive oil blessed each year if possible during Eastertide according to traditional old rite, in Latin, by priests who say the Mass of the Ordinary Form and generally have no problems. Know your priests first. Some will be uncomfortable with it and many do not even read Latin, in which case one can always find a vernacular translation somewhere online.


Is foot washing a form of sin cleansing?

The story of Jesus washing the feet of Peter and the other disciples has two related meanings.
When Jesus washes Peter's feet, Peter objects, since he believes Jesus should not be doing such a lowly task for him. Jesus response tells Peter that this washing is an integral part of Jesus and Peter's relationship and so Peter enthusiastically accepts not just the foot washing but as much washing as Jesus wants to give him.
There is clearly an element here in which Jesus is foreshadowing that he is about to perform an even more lowly task for Peter (and the others, and us) that of dying on the cross for our sins.
Jesus then explains the message that he wants the disciples (and hence us) to take away which is that since he will perform not just the symbolic lowly act of foot washing, but also the ultimate lowly act of dying, for us, we should also serve one another.
When we as Christians re-perform the symbolic foot washing act we are reminding ourselves of this. However unlike Jesus our actions do not cleanse others from sin, so that part of the initial story is not part of the reenactment. Our actions merely teach and remind us of the call to mutual service and submission.


What does Romans 13:13-14 mean by "behave decently, as in the daytime"?

Jesus and others in the Bible have used day and night figuratively. In general, light and day refer to positive aspects of a believer's relationship with God while darkness and night refer to more sinful aspects.

For instance, in John 3:19-21, we read,

  19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people
  loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20
  Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the
  light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives
  by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that
  what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

The light in this case is God sending Jesus into the world to save us, and especially to make us aware of that need. The darkness here is that part within us that prefers to hide from God's truth about our sinful state rather than have our sins exposed and forgiven. But "whoever lives by the truth," that is, he who is honest with himself about his shortcomings and recognizes the need for God's remedy, comes to the light -- comes to the need for faith in Jesus and forgiveness.

Darkness refers to the "shady dealings" of mankind, where people will do what's wrong secretly in order not to be found out and accused. Being people "of the day" (1 Thess. 5:5) means to be bold and open in one's conduct, unafraid because it is right and honest and good.


What is a Pacifist interpretation of the Cleansing of the Temple?

Christian Pacifism does not imply that one does not get angry.  It doesn't even mean that one doesn't stand up against oppression. It only suggests that one eschews violence and use the least force required to achieve justice.

When the Pacifist Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King marched or conducted sit-ins, sometimes there were altercations.  People on both sides could get hurt - but comparatively speaking, the movement attempted to avoid killing and death.
Quaker Pacifists would object to fighting in a war with guns, but they would often serve humanitarian causes supporting the side of right. Sometimes, this could even mean fisticuffs.
Winston Churchill, speaking of Chamberlin's capitulation to the Nazis is reported to have said: "One can always appease the lion by allowing oneself to be consumed."  Nonviolent pacifism seeks justice - not appeasement.

Other biblical justifications can be found here and here for example. Ted Grimsted, following  Yoder (probably the best person to consult in re: Christian Pacifism) admits that the definition is hard to pin down, but ultimately writes:

  “Pacifism” is the in-principled unwillingness to engage in lethal violence, including most obviously the unwillingness to participate in warfare.

Non-violent protest does not mean the absence of harm - it means the least amount of harm to effect justice.

In Jesus' case, his father's house had become a den of thieves, a place in which people were abusing other people who had come to worship. Jesus used the least amount of violence needed to relieve suffering of others. There is no suggestion that anybody was killed or irreparably injured. Jesus just meted out the physical whoopin' that these money-changers had metaphorically been dishing out themselves.


What do Christians mean by "Jesus took our illnesses upon himself on the cross" and why?

In Isa 53, the word you are translating "illnesses" is more often translated as "transgressions" or "iniquities."  Both of those words highlight the fact that Jesus took our sins with him on the cross, and by the wounds he suffered, we were healed - from the iniquity of sin.

The basic idea of salvation in Christainity is often summarized as this -

We are sinners
Because of this sin, we deserve eternal death - separation from God
Jesus paid the penalty for that sin by dying on the cross, thus we are healed and given eternal life.

(For the purposes of this answer, lets not get into all the different ideas of atonement, etc... I'm going for the overview here!)

The point is "illness" is not a physical thing here, but a legal one. (Indeed, I've never seen that translation before - perhaps its just being confused with iniquities?  An iniquity is an evil, a cause of suffering and distress, not necessarily a bodily thing.)  We are "suffering" from sin, and the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 pays for that sin, so we are healed.

Beyond that, I've never seen a promise that Christians would never get sick.  Even the early church recognized that believers would still die.  The Good News, however, is that in our resurrected state, there would be no more corruption in our bodies - i.e. no sickness - but that's on the other side of the Jordan, not this one!


This is actually a question I asked at my church during the last election season.

I'll break this down into 2 parts

Voting:

I don't see any scriptural support for or against it. I reject the notion that it is a sin not to vote, as I haven't heard any sound scriptural evidence. I have heard people use "Pray for your leaders" (1 Tim 2:2) and "Submit to authority (Romans 13). But the reason we pray for our leaders is because "it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth".

As for submission to authority, until it is illegal to not vote, we are ok.

I see this as a matter of conscience. Romans 14:23b - "For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." and Romans 14:5 - "Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind."

I think it is good to vote, it is a privilege, but there are times when your conscience will not let you vote for any of the choices, because each person represents something ungodly, that's ok too.

Party Affiliations:

When has any one political party totally held to exclusively biblical view points?

Isn't it hypocritical to vote in a person because they stand for your beliefs but they themselves cheat on their wife? How does this glorify God? We put people in office to uphold a moral standard, but they themselves don't care to keep it. I think this actually does more harm than good.

Romans 2, describes those who are in position to judge others, but they don't do what they demand of others. This is the same complaint Jesus had against the Pharisees. Are we really doing God a service by voting for people that cater to us, when they don't live like us? Rom 2:24 in the context of hypocrisy - "For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."

Referring to 1 Tim 2:2, we pray for them not so they can merely act Christian, but so they can be Christian. Can the unsaved be spiritually minded? Can they obey the Spirit(1 Cor 2:14)? They are still slaves to the flesh (Rom 6:15-23). The unsaved will always reject biblically guided laws, because it is foolishness to them.

The greatest way to spread Biblical views is still the great Commission, Matt 28:18-20. My main caution is... yeah let's vote, but let's make sure we don't replace evangelism with political activism.


Yes, Anglicans do have deacons, and while there are people who perform the tasks of some of the minor orders, particularly acolyte, and lector, and while they often have some training in the role they serve, they are not officially sanctioned "minor orders" in the sense of being provided for in canon law. The only official orders in the Anglican church besides Deacon are Bishop and Priest.


What is the difference between "love" and "worship"? Do "love God" and "worship God" mean the same thing?

C.S. Lewis had trouble with the idea of praise and worship, as if God were continually seeking compliments from us. He warmed up to the idea slowly. See this:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/c-s-lewis-on-the-theology-and-practice-of-worship/
One essential aspect of worship is that it is two-way. In praising God through our worship, he imparts his presence and his communicable attributes to us. Like a seal pressed into wax, we waxy people begin to be reshaped into the likeness of the seal. Worship brings wax and seal together. Or God is the light which shines upon us. Our praise lets the light in and we are warmed and energized and made radiant. After Moses met with God, he face literally glowed.
Worship is the treasuring of that which is true treasure, not the junk we store in attics and closets. The act of treasuring the eternal brings the eternal into us and transforms us.
If you read 1 Corinthians 13, the definition of love will confuse you, because love seems to swallow up all the other virtues under its umbrella. Notice how that chapter has negative things to say about some approaches to obedience. Love is not so much the things done as the reason they are done: for the benefit of others, not our own aggrandizement. Thus worship is not love, but love distinguishes acceptable worship from fear, manipulation and bargaining for a benefit.


Job tells of the time when the universe was created, and the angels sang and praised his work:

  Tell me, since thou art so wise, was it thou or I designed earth’s
  plan, measuring it out with the line? How came its base to stand so
  firm; who laid its corner-stone? To me, that day, all the morning
  stars sang together, all the powers of heaven uttered their joyful
  praise. -- New Advent -- Job 38:5-7

These spirit beings (stars are symbolic of angels) obviously preceded the creation of mankind.

The Catholic Encyclopedia contains a long article about the Devil, giving great detail about Satan and his fallen angels.  In particular:

  ... the words of St. Jude: "And the angels who kept not their
  principality, but forsook their own habitation, he hath reserved under
  darkness in everlasting chains, unto the judgment of the great day"
  (Jude 1:6; cf. 2 Peter 2:4).

  In the Old Testament we have a brief reference to the Fall in Job
  4:18: "In his angels he found wickedness". But to this must be added
  the two classic texts in the prophets:

  How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the
  morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the
  nations? And thou saidst in thy heart: I will ascend into heaven, I
  will exalt my throne above the stars of God, I will sit in the
  mountain of the covenant, in the sides of the north. I will ascend
  above the height of the clouds, I will be like the most High. But yet
  thou shalt be brought down to hell, into the depth of the pit. (Isaiah
  14:12-15)

  This parable of the prophet is expressly directed against the King of
  Babylon, but both the early Fathers and later Catholic commentators
  agree in understanding it as applying with deeper significance to the
  fall of the rebel angel. And the older commentators generally consider
  that this interpretation is confirmed by the words of Our Lord to his
  disciples: "I saw Satan like lightning falling from heaven" (Luke
  10:18). For these words were regarded as a rebuke to the disciples,
  who were thus warned of the danger of pride by being reminded of the
  fall of Lucifer.

  ...

  The parallel prophetic passage is Ezekiel's lamentation upon the king
  of Tyre:

  You were the seal of resemblance, full of wisdom, and perfect in
  beauty. You were in the pleasures of the paradise of God; every
  precious stone was thy covering; the sardius, the topaz, and the
  jasper, the chrysolite, and the onyx, and the beryl, the sapphire, and
  the carbuncle, and the emerald; gold the work of your beauty: and your
  pipes were prepared in the day that you were created. You a cherub
  stretched out, and protecting, and I set you in the holy mountain of
  God, you have walked in the midst of the stones of fire. You were
  perfect in your wave from the day of creation, until iniquity was
  found in you. (Ezekiel 28:12-15)

The spiritual creation and later Lucifer's rebellion and fall obviously occurred before the seven days of creation.

  ... it is clearly taught that the Devil and the other demons are
  spiritual or angelic creatures created by God in a state of innocence,
  and that they became evil by their own act.


Has there been a paradigm shift in the `image' of devil?

Yes, there has been an evolution in thinking about the nature of the devil. Jeffrey B. Russell says, in The Prince of Darkness, page 37, that in Job, Satan is already a personality with the function of accusing, opposing, and harming human beings. He is not yet the principle of evil, for he is still one of the heavenly court and does nothing without God's consent and command. Here, Satan works as the shadow, the dark side of God, the destructive power wielded by God only reluctantly.  It is Satan himself who as mal'ak goes down to the earth and torments Job. In the somewhat later, apocryphal Book of Jubilees the evil mal'ak has become Mastema, prince of evil spirits and virtually independent of the Lord.  He tempts, accuses, destroys and punishes humans, taking onto himself all the evil characteristics Russell says were once ascribed to God.

Many modern Christians see Lucifer as a second name for Satan, and Russell says (page 43) the earliest Christian text making the equation of Lucifer with Satan is Against Marcion (2.10), by Tertullian. On page 63, Russell says it was Justin who established the connection between the Devil and the serpent of Eden, accepted by Christians forever after.

Russell explains that in the early Middle Ages, the monastic tendency to emphasise the Devil's power was balanced by the opposite tendency of folklore and legend to make Satan seem ridiculous and impotent.  This was a natural psychological reaction against the terrors of the monastic view.  The more threatening Satan's power, the more comedy was needed to tame him and relieve the threat. Giving the devil an absurd name was a popular antidote to the terror he struck. A host of popular nicknames followed through time, including Old Horny, Old Hairy, Black Bogey, Lusty Dick, Dickon, or Dickens, Gentleman Jack, the Good Fellow, Old Nick, and Old Scratch, with comparable names in other languages. The pagan god Pan was feared for his association with the wilderness and for his sexuality, so Pan's horns, hooves, shaggy fur, and outsized phallus became part of the Christian image of Satan. Even today, as we think of Satan's evil powers, we can also think of his horns and hooves.

The Reformation did not introduce a sudden change in the belief in the Devil.  To Luther, the devil was a real, living power, a concrete personality, and he used to characterise him as the good Lord's hangman, and the instrument of his anger and punishment. He believed God needs the Devil for a servant and utilises his malignity for the procreation of the good.

Martin Luther saw no place for comedy in the understanding of Satan. Russell says Luther came to the conclusion that the Devil, against his will, always does God's work.  All evils come from both the Devil and God, but the Devil wills the evil in them and God wills the good that comes out of them.  “God incites the Devil to evil, but he does not do evil himself.”

The Catholic catechism (2851) takes a somewhat different view than Martin Luther, saying that Satan, the Evil One, is the personification of evil, and opposes God. We can compare this to Satan's role in the Book of Job, where he talks to God about ways of testing Job to prove whether Job was really as righteous as he believed himself to be.


Why did Magdalena use her hair to dry Jesus' feet?

There are a number of possible meanings to help us understand this event, though none seem particularly compelling. It's possible that the full import of the event was clear to people living in the Levant 2,000 years ago, but are obscure to use today.

One of the most obvious meanings is that Jesus is a great King. The Hebrew Bible itself has many examples of the anointing of kings (1 Samuel 16). According to Keifer, the large amount and description of nard as "pure" implies kingly status (Oxford Commentary, 2001).

Many scholars recognize that Jesus is the "ultra" or "ultimate" in all His roles - if Moses and Elijah fasted for 40 days, Jesus spent 40 days without food or drink, making Him the "ultimate prophet." So while it's unusual to anoint the feet rather than the head of a king, the amount of nard (far too much for one person's feet), purity, and location of the anointing elevate Jesus to an ultimate status.

This also fits the cosmogony of ancient Israelites. The head is the highest and most respected part of the body, the feet the dirtiest and lowest (Hanson and Oakman, 1998).  A woman's hair is her "glory" (1 Cor 11:15).   When Mary used her hair to wipe Jesus' feet it may have been a shocking tribute.

It's already somewhat scandalous that Mary entered a room where men are dining, since that was a shameful violation of male space that implied she had no self-respect (Fiorenza, 1983).  To lower herself by using her hair on Jesus' feet might be even more disturbing.  It points to Jesus' heavenly status, a challenge to male status that might have led Judas to speak - as he couldn't wait to initiate a final showdown between Jesus and the Jerusalem authorities later, so Judas couldn't keep silent as all cultural mores were upended.

The anointing of Jesus' feet also echoes the "sinful woman's" (was her sin that she merely violated male space?) anointing of Jesus' feet with tears in Luke 7. John is considered the latest-written of the four gospels and seems to have included elements from the three earlier (Perkins, 2012). So some of the symbolism may foreshadow Jesus' death as atonement for others' sins, as that meaning was paramount in Luke 7.

Further symbolism includes the intimate nature of Mary's hair caressing Jesus' feet. Some point out that "feet" was a euphimsim for sexual organs, but that doesn't seem to make much sense here - it would be extremely strange for Judas to then object to the cost of nard!  Only unqualified scholars stretching to impute sexual overtones in John's largely asexual depiction of Jesus could waste time on that possibility.

Instead, there's a stunning intimacy about stroking another's feet with hair that is in itself disruptive. Numerous scholars and anthropologists point out that outside of blood relations and marriage, male and female spaces were highly divided (for some of the best scholarship on distinct spaces, see Douglas, 1999).  To allow this intimate gesture was taboo, and probably even more rare for a religious teacher. The Lukan account (probably of a separate anointing) more explicitly captures this aspect, as the host objects to the nature of the touching. Again, this points to Jesus' heavenly status - it's no problem for Jesus to accept the woman's ministrations, since they are only His due.

It's also notable that only in John does Nicodemus offer spices for the burial anointing. So the anointing by Mary of Jesus' feet is clear foreshadowing, a basic literary tool. But this particular foreshadowing helps John share his Christology: Jesus was already the fully-realized Son of God even prior to the Resurrection, which seems to be in slight tension with Mark. Since in John, Jesus' glory is fully realized on the Cross (when He is "lifted up") rather than after risen, the book-ends of royal anointings - Mary before death (right after the Sanhedrin formally decides to kill Jesus) and Nicodemus (at least in intent) after His death, helps maintain the Crucifixion as the high point of Jesus' influence.

Each of these paragraphs can lead to a lot more detailed consideration. It's worth saying that while all of these interpretations are solid not only because they make sense but also because they fit John's narrative arc very well, none of them alone seems to warrant including such an odd and potentially scandalous scene in this or any gospel.


What do Reformed Baptists think about a Christian refusing to be baptised?

Before considering whether Reformed Baptists view baptism as a salvation issue, it might be worth clarifying that “Reformed” refers to those Baptist who adhere to John Calvin’s doctrine of salvation.  Particular Baptists differ from General Baptists on this fundamental doctrine.  Particular Baptists hold to the Calvinistic understanding that Jesus died only for the elect, and He died to actually secure their salvation, i.e., particular atonement.  It is my understanding that Reformed Baptists flow out of this Particular Baptist stream.

Most Reformed Baptist churches subscribe to the London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) as their doctrinal standards; the 1689 LBCF is essentially the Westminster Confession of Faith reworded as it pertains to baptism.  Here is a partial quote from the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith:

  Chapter 28: Of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
  1. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world. (Matt. 28:19, 20; 1 Cor. 11:26)

  Chapter 29: Of Baptism
  1. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life. (Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12; Gal. 3:27; Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16; Rom. 6:4)
  2. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance. (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36, 37, 2:41, 8:12, 18:8)
  Source: http://www.whbc.co.uk/content/pages/documents/1280075798.pdf

The question, “Is the sacrament of baptism a means of grace according to Reformed Baptist theology?” is answered below with this declaration:

  Therefore, baptism is a means of grace in Reformed Baptist theology.  Source: http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~sjreeves/personal/baptism_faq.html#6

Another question discussed in the same document is “How can baptism be a means of grace in Baptist theology when Baptists assert that a person must already be saved to be eligible for baptism?”  Source: http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~sjreeves/personal/baptism_faq.html#7

Basically, I understand the article to mean that baptism is not a salvation issue but results from grace experienced after the person comes to saving faith in Christ Jesus.  Salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9).

I found the following quote by Dr. Kenneth Wuest, author of Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, with regard to 1 Peter 3:21 which seems to link baptism with salvation:

  “The Old Testament Jew was saved before he brought the offering. That offering was only his outward testimony that he was placing faith in the Lamb of God of whom these sacrifices were a type. Water baptism is the outward testimony of the believer's inward faith. The person is saved the moment he places his faith in the Lord Jesus. Water baptism is the visible testimony to his faith and the salvation he was given in answer to that faith.  Peter is careful to inform his readers that he is not teaching baptismal regeneration, namely, that a person who submits to baptism is thereby regenerated, for he says, 'not the putting away of the filth of the flesh.' Baptism, Peter explains, does not wash away the filth of the flesh, either in a literal sense as a bath for the body, nor in a metaphorical sense as a cleansing for the soul. No ceremonies really affect the conscience. But he defines what he means by salvation, in the words 'the answer of a good conscience toward God," and he explains how this is accomplished, namely, 'by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,' in that the believing sinner is identified with Him in that resurrection.”  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-1Peter-3-21.html

After I came to saving faith in Christ Jesus, I was baptised by full water immersion in a U.K. Baptist Church.  Nobody said my salvation depended on being baptised.  However, it was made clear by the ministers that baptism is in obedience to Jesus’ command:

  Matthew 28:19: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”

Submitting to water baptism as a public declaration of my faith was the obvious thing to do after my sins were forgiven and I finally understood what God, in Jesus Christ, had done to save me.

  Acts 22:16: “And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptised and wash your sins away, calling on his name.”

There was an elderly lady in my U.K. Baptist church who had resisted baptism for many years but eventually felt the need to submit to a form of public baptism – she was too frail to be fully immersed in the baptismal pool so the minister sprinkled her with water at a Sunday morning church service.  It was obvious that she had come to saving faith in Christ Jesus a long time ago.  Her reasons for not being baptised were known to the minister.  Happily, our minister was very patient and never pressed the lady.  He simply waited on the Spirit to do whatever was needed.

I have no idea what any Baptist minister would think about a Christian who refused to be baptised by full water immersion.  Neither do I know if any Baptist church has issued any doctrinal statement with regard to an outright refusal to be baptised.  All I know is that you can’t become a member of a Baptist church unless you have been baptised.

One thing is clear – baptism is not viewed as essential to salvation.  Was the repentant thief on the cross next to Jesus baptised?  No.  Was he saved?  Yes.  (Luke 23:39-43)  When asked, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” Jesus did not say you must be baptized and take communion.  Rather, Jesus pointed to faith as the only “means of grace”: “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent” (John 6:28-29).  The rest follows.

Edit: Just found this article by the Baptist Union of Great Britain which explains (in some detail) what they believe about baptism.  Bottom line is they would take a very dim view indeed of any professing Christian who refused to be baptised (for any reason)! I have to close down for this evening but will revisit your question tomorrow to insert a summary.  The relevant section is from pages 23 to 27.

https://www.baptist.org.uk/Publisher/File.aspx?ID=111290

The document in the link is a reproduction of the 1996 booklet which is now out of print.  Part of the section about baptism says the following:

  The ordering of the Declaration places believers’ baptism as a secondary issue dependent on the primary convictions about the sole and absolute authority of Christ, the revelation of Scripture, and the liberty of each local church under the Holy Spirit...  When someone responds to Christ both these things should follow - baptism and instruction.

  Jesus commanded that disciples be baptised and his command does not expire until ‘the very end of the age’ so we must practice it.  Jesus made ‘Repent and believe’ his kingdom clarion call (Mark 1:15), so linking inextricably together these two sides of commitment... Believers’ baptism testifies to this supreme experience of salvation.

  The London Particular Baptist Confession of 1644 states that faith is ordinarily begotten by the preaching of the gospel and that baptism is “... an ordinance for persons professing faith or that are Disciples or taught.”

  What is common to the development of all Christians are the three tenses of salvation: Christians have been saved, we are being saved (through continual growth in our relationship with God) and we shall be saved at the final appearing of Christ. Baptism is then regarded as a decisive moment in the process of being saved, whenever the process of salvation actually began (See 1 Peter 3:21).

Based on this document, it seems clear that the British reformed Baptists expect believers' baptism to follow conversion just as day follows night.


Is compatibilism compatible with the doctrine of the Catholic Church?

The Catholic Church Rejects Determinism and Compatibilism

My argument for the Catholic rejection of Compatibilism is this: Compatibilism entails the rejection of Libertarian Free Will*, but Catholicism affirms Libertarian Free Will and rejects determinism, therefore Catholicism rejects Compatibilism.  Here is some support for the second premise, the Catholic affirmation of the commonsensical understanding of free will:

  Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act,
  to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one's own
  responsibility. By free will one shapes one's own life. (Catechism of
  the Catholic Church, 1731)

  Man has free-will: otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands,
  prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain. (Thomas Aquinas,
  Summa Theologiae, Ia, Q 83, A 1)

  Some have held that the human will is necessarily moved to choose
  things.  But they did not hold that the will is coerced, since only
  something from an external source, not everything necessary, is
  coerced.  And so also some necessary movements are natural but not
  coerced.  For what is coerced is as contrary to what is natural as to
  what is voluntary, since the source of both the natural and the
  voluntary is internal, and the source of what is coerced is external.

  But this opinion is heretical.  For it takes away the reason for merit
  and demerit in human acts, as it does not seem meritorious or
  demeritorious for persons to do necessarily what they could not avoid
  doing.

  It is also to be counted among the oddest philosophical opinions,
  since it is not only contrary to faith but also subverts all the
  principles of moral philosophy.  For if nothing is within our power,
  and we are necessarily moved to will things, deliberation,
  exhortation, precept, punishment, and praise and blame, of which moral
  philosophy consists, are destroyed.  And we call like opinions that
  destroy the foundations of parts of philosophy odd, as, for example,
  the position that nothing is moving, which destroys the foundations of
  natural science.  And some individuals were indeed led to hold such
  positions partly because of impudence, partly because of sophistical
  arguments that they could not refute, as the
  Metaphysics15 says.

  -Thomas Aquinas, Quaestiones Disputatae de Malo, Q 6, A 1 (Tr. Richard Regan)

  Man was not weakened to the point where the moral life would be
  impossible for him: he still retained free will, understood as freedom
  from necessity: not only from aviolence or
  bconstraint, but also with respect to cthat
  necessity which was voluntary only in the original sin as its cause
  (Adam), 1939, 1941, 1952, a1966f., b2003,
  c2301; free will is useful not only with respect to sin,
  1927-1930, 1965, 2438-2440; the value of free will is defended against the affirmations: [It was totally adestroyed,
  bit is an empty concept, cit is an invention
  of Satan], a331, a336, a339,
  b1486, abc1555, 6245f.; cf. L 1b (contingent
  freedom, obliged to the good); L 1f (moral act).

  -Denzinger Enchiridion, Systematic Index D 2bc

  The consciousness of freedom and human dignity as important
  characteristics of our time, 4750; cf. C 4kc (contemporary changes);
  the value of freedom promises an advance of man toward perfection,
  4505; cf. C 4ie (progress).

  Man also possesses freedom in the state of fallen nature: D 2bc
  (effect of original sin); if there were a fated necessity, it would
  suppress the responsible character of human actions such as reward and
  punishment, 283.

  Because of free will, man is autonomous and can act freely, 4752;
  freedom confers on him the dignity of having power over his actions,
  3245, 4752; his dignity demands that he act by a free and conscious
  choice, that is, personally, 4317; only in freedom can man direct
  himself toward the good, 4317; he is obliged to observe God's
  commandments through free will, 227, 245; freedom as an intrinsic
  attribute of the human person, 4765; vocation of man to full freedom,
  (4752), 4815; even if it is limited by circumstances, freedom is not
  entirely suppressed, 4754; cf. L 1b (contingent freedom, obliged to
  the good); L 1f (moral act).

  -Denzinger Enchiridion, Systematic Index C 4fc

It is perhaps worth noting that the Catholic position on issues such as these is inevitably nuanced and robust.  For example, philosophically and theologically it would be more common to say--rather than what you said in your question--, "Predestination would entail Determinism, which is rejected by the Catholic Church."  And yet the Catholic Church does not deny predestination, for She does not believe predestination to entail determinism.

*Libertarian Free Will can be a rabbit hole in philosophical discourse, but I am using it in a very simple and common way.  By the term I mean that commonsensical free will exists, humans have the ability to do otherwise, and determinism is false.  The ability to do otherwise means that if I chose A then I could have chosen B.

(Quoting from Denzinger's Systematic Index carries with it the danger of confusion, and yet I think it is warranted due to its comprehensiveness.  Each of the references from the SI points to a different Catholic dogma or doctrine promulgated at some point in the past 2,000 years.)


Reading "Mere Christianity" and having a hard time with book III, chapter 12

This is a fairly straightforward reference to the teaching that once saved, God works on us to make us more Christ-like. (More here)  This is a very common belief, in mainstream Christianity, and in not-so-mainstream denominations, such as the LDS Church.  It is also known as Sanctification.

  Progressive sanctification

  "Indeed, the more sanctified the person is, the more conformed he is
  to the image of his Savior, the more he must recoil against every lack
  of conformity to the holiness of God. The deeper his apprehension of
  the majesty of God, the greater the intensity of his love to God, the
  more persistent his yearning for the attainment of the prize of the
  high calling of God in Christ Jesus, the more conscious will he be of
  the gravity of the sin that remains and the more poignant will be his
  detestation of it....Was this not the effect in all the people of God
  as they came into closer proximity to the revelation of God’s
  holiness." -John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied

The first paragraph you quoted alludes to the experience that in the beginning of our Christian walk, we all think about the rules a lot.  We think about avoiding this sin, trying to increase this positive trait.  As we become more conformed to the image of Christ, these things become more natural.  Our minds become more confirmed to the image of Christ through God's continuous work on us, and our own submission to His will that we no longer think about nit-picky rules, but instead, simply live in a way that is more Christ-like.  We don't think about it, we don't verbalize it, it becomes who we are.

In the end, we're not thinking about being good, we're too busy focusing on Christ Himself, the source of all goodness.

The last few sentences are indicating that Lewis didn't think he'd reached the same point in his walk as other, who were more closely confirmed to God's image than he was.

Taking this a step further, it is a quite lovely way of saying that Christianity isn't about rules, regulations, or morality, it's about Christ, and our relationship to and with Him.  We are "good" (or at least as good as we can be) because of the work He does in us, not because of our obedience to rules, but because of who we are through Him.  Our morality is based on our love for Him.  This is discussed here.


In the LDS Church, who decides where to place new Churches, and how?

From page 6 of the Facilities Management Guidelines:

Factors that affect planning future meetinghouse needs include (1) the characteristics of typical Church units in the area, (2) past growth rate and patterns, (3) projected growth, (4) planned unit divisions, and (5) the size, location, and extent of existing building use

Matt is also right; on page 1, it says:

Planning New Facilities
Area administration office staff maintain plans for meetinghouse needs in all stakes. The stake president is asked to update the information for his stake in those plans regularly. For matters pertaining to new meetinghouse space, the stake presidency consults with the administration office.

Meetinghouses used to be funded by individual units, but are now paid for by tithing. Sacrament meeting attendance has been used to measure the need for a building in some wards I've lived in.
For instance, the Chinese branch in Manhattan met in a one room office until they had enough people attend that they became a ward and got their own chapel. However, because it was just one small ward, the church was one floor of a building. Meanwhile, Harlem had several wards, and their growth caused the LDS church to build a new meetinghouse there (all this was from 2003-2005 or so).
Likewise, temples are built according to the number of nearby active members (paying tithing, attending church) and demand on other nearby temples.


How do Trinitarians understand what it means for Jesus to grow 'in favor' with God?

According to Philippians 2 we are to have within ourselves the same mind that was in Christ Jesus.  So then Jesus had, in himself, the mind that:
Though he was in the form of God He did not cling onto that but instead He emptied himself by taking the form of a servant. (v. 6-7)
Having been found in human form (servant) he humbled himself by obedience all the way to death. (v.8)
So, Jesus' mindset was that he had let go of the morphe (form) of God and took on the morphe of man.  He knew this about himself.
Obviously growth would be necessary.  He had to grow physically, mentally, etc. from a human fetus.  He had to learn language, custom, etc. as a human child.
By the time the verse in question (Luke 2:52) comes along Jesus is 12 years old.  He knows enough about who He is, at this point, (Phil 2, again) to say:

Luk 2:49  And he said to them, “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?”

Literally he says "the Father of me", which is the same sort of claim for which the Jews wanted to kill him later on:

Joh 5:18  This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

And he has just been in the temple for three days listening and asking questions which amazed everyone who was there:

Luk 2:46-47  After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers.

So Jesus increased in wisdom (mental) and in stature (physical) as a human being.  And also in favor (actually grace) with God and man.  He grew in grace by obedience through humility, as we all must.  This growth was part of his humility...part of the great condescension of Philippians chapter 2...part of the mystery of Godliness.
He did not grasp at the form of God which He had but He emptied Himself and took on our form.  Just as He did not abandon the form of God that He had when he came down (He did not abandon but emptied), so He did not abandon the form of a man when He went back up and lives forever as our mediator, high priest, Lord, and king.


Can a Jehovah's Witness say that they know they have eternal life?

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe ‘Once Saved Always Saved’ is taught in the Bible.
Instead powerful promises like the words in John assure us that God will surely reward those who endure to the end. He will never fickly renege on his promise when a faithful anointed one endures to their death.
So John’s words that those who believe can know they have eternal life should be juxtaposed with those who do not believe. It is only those who believe that will be saved but belief is the first step in our walk with God. The Christian must continue that walk until the end to gain the reward.
Most of your question focuses on an anointed Christian brother or sister. As your question makes clear the individual who is spirit anointed has been given a token as it were, a special operation of the Holy Spirit, that serves as a pledge or guarantee  of what is to come.

After you believed, you were sealed by means of him with the promised holy spirit, which is a token in advance of our inheritance.” (Eph. 1:13, 14)

Paragraph 7 of the Watchtower  you cite asks:
Does the individual who is thus anointed have a guaranteed future in heaven?
The answer is no. While sure of their invitation, whether they finally receive their reward in heaven will depend on their proving faithful to this calling.

Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and choosing sure for yourselves, for if you keep on doing these things, you will by no means ever fail. In fact, in this way you will be richly granted entrance into the everlasting Kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” (2 Pet. 1:10, 11)

An anointed Christian must continue to remain faithful. Otherwise his heavenly calling, or invitation, will be of no value to him. — Heb. 3:1; Rev. 2:10.
As with all promises from Jehovah we don’t have to worry about Him holding up His end of the deal. We do have to concern ourselves with maintaining our standing with Him in such a way that we don’t void the guarantee.
If an anointed person turns aside from a faithful course they  don’t then qualify for a “runner up”reward of earthly eternal life.
It’s not as if a Christian  with a heavenly calling has to hit a longer tee shot than a fellow Christian with an earthly hope.
Both are called upon to maintain a course of integrity during their lives.
None of us can claim that eternal life is ours, only that we believe it is promised to us if we are faithful to the end.
Consider the words found in Philippians 3:12-16.  (ESV)

12 Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. 13 Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. 16 Only let us hold true to what we have attained.

Additional info is found in this article.


If Jesus is not God according to Jehovah’s Witnesses, why was He accused of blasphemy?

The Jehovah's Witnesses have published in their literature their explanation - that the religious leaders who accused him of trying to make himself God misunderstood. In their New World Translation of John 10:33, they have those leaders saying, “because you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” This is also in their 2006 book, The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived, section 81, giving the JW explanation as to why there were further attempts to kill Jesus. After quoting that verse, the book asks,

“Since Jesus never claimed to be a god, why do the Jews say this?”

JWs say that Jesus was not God, but “a god”, and have rendered John 1:1 that way too. However, your question is not about that, but as to why JWs say religious leaders back in the day misunderstood Jesus as claiming to be God.  Even if that is taken to include the idea that Jesus was “a god”, which would also warrant stoning to death in the view of those religious leaders, why do the JWs claim that they had misunderstood Jesus? That book states:

“The Jews, however, overlook the fact that Jesus acknowledges
receiving authority from his Father. That Jesus claims to be less than
God, he next shows by asking, ‘Is it not written in your Law [at Psalm
82:6], ‘I said: “you are gods”? If he called ‘gods’ those against whom
the word of God came,… do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and
dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s
Son?”

Without going into any argument as to why Jesus’ quoting of that Psalm need not mean what the JWs think it means, the outstanding question is, why did his explanation not pacify the Jews so that they realised Jesus was not claiming to be God? According to the NWT rendition of Jesus’ next comment, those who ‘misunderstood’ him would have had it completely cleared up when he added, according to their NWT,

“…believe the works, in order that you may come to know and may
continue knowing that the Father is in [union with] me and I am in
[union with] the Father” (John 10:38).

That could not be clearer, could it? Jesus was apparently denying being God but only claiming to be in union with God the Father. Why, those religious leaders would likely make the same claim of themselves! They were appointed god-like status as representing God on earth, entitling them to respect (not stoning to death), and they were zealously seeking to act in union with God.
This shows that the NWT has Jesus effectively denying being God. The NWT does not give reasons for that slant, but masses of JW literature reiterates their belief that Jesus had a starting point in time, being the first and only direct creation of Jehovah as the Word. This is the basis for their renditions of John 1:1 and 10:33, 38, and why they won’t have Jesus taking the Divine Name, the I Am, to himself.
The problem of how those religious leaders could have possibly continued to ‘misunderstand’ Jesus’ claims here simply increases with the NWT rendition of events. According to the NWT, Jesus is really denying being God. He is making clear that he is merely ‘a god’ and only ‘in union with’ God – not “in God” as all other translations of the Bible state. By changing “God” to “a god”, and “in him” to “in union with him”, that is the same as Jesus saying, “I’m not God! Why are you trying to kill me? I’m not God!”
Of course, we all know that the Bible nowhere has Jesus saying, “I am not God,” but the NWT in those verses comes as close as it can to that. Not because the JWs have misunderstood the words of Jesus, any more than those religious leaders back then did, but because they cannot have their rendition of the Bible saying in any sense that Jesus is God, and that he is in the Father, as the Father is in him. Thus, the NWT tries to have Jesus portrayed as “a god” and saying he is merely “in union with the Father.”
If that is correct, then in the NWT Jesus disabused those religious leaders of a false notion, that he was claiming to be God. He would have taken all the wind out of their sails, and none of them would have picked up a stone to kill him. It is only according to other translations that we see they did not misunderstand Jesus. They knew full well that Jesus was claiming to be God.


To my understanding of Scripture, it is fairly safe to assume there were at least three, since there are three differing gifts named, but as you said the Bible does not tell us exactly how many there were. Even the belief that there were three cannot be accurately determined since one of them may have brought more than one gift, or even all three.

As a matter of fact the word used in Matthew is:

μάγος    magos

which can be either singular or plural depending on how it is used.


How do one know that the Bible is absolutely true and is not a "make believe" fiction?

The faith the bible talks about is different than a mere conjecture on a given set of factoids. The faith is specified in the bible, therefore it is not the same as a belief in the quran as a source of truths.

People who deny the archaeological evidence for the accuracy of the bible have left the realm of logical reasoning and sound argumentation for one reason or another. It may not be a logical step at that point to argue further.

The archaeological evidence for the bible is rich and beyond the sort of forgeries and fudgeries some want to lead you to believe. Of course, as with anything, if you want to use it as an argument, you first have to learn it and the associated discussion.

However, the crux of the matter lies in the fact that many (so-called) skeptics do not allow for the existence of a spiritual plane besides the natural. Regardless how illogical that position is, they will always come back to that, if not consciously then subconsciously.

The answer then would be to ask the question: how do you know that the supernatural (the spiritual) does not exist?

Another point of discussion is the question whether knowledge is even possible without a spiritual plane. What is knowledge? Let the skeptic define the term and see if they can explain what they are talking about.