What are the 19 gifts of the Spirit, as listed by Leslie Flynn?

From the table of contents of the book you linked to*, the 19 are:

The Apostolic Gift
Prophecy
Evangelism
Shepherding
Teaching
Exhortation
Knowledge
Wisdom
Helps
Hospitality
Giving
Government
Showing Mercy
Faith
Discernment
Miracles
Healing
Tongues
Interpretation

*To see the list yourself, click on the link to the amazon product listing, click the book cover, then click the link for the table of contents.


Who is God in the Old Testament? (Trinity)

Whoever sees Jesus sees God (John 14:9).

John 1:18 (ESV)
No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.

No one has seen God. Jesus , who is God (by nature), is the One who reveals God (the Father) to us.
In the Old Testament, God said that no one can see him and live yet other accounts said that people did see him and they lived. The one whom they saw was the angel of the Lord, who was the pre incarnate Christ. This is not to say that Jesus was ontologically an angel. The word 'angel' (ανγγελος - messenger) refers to function.
Justin Martyr in the second century identified the angel of the Lord as the pre incarnate Christ.

"Moreover, I consider it necessary to repeat to you the words which narrate how He who is both Angel and God and Lord, and who appeared as a man to Abraham, and who wrestled in human form with Jacob, was seen by him when he fled from his brother Esau." (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Justin Martyr)

The Lord Jesus in the New Testament revealed was described as the following which consistently identifies him with the God whom ancient Israelites saw in the Old Testament:
(a) Christ is the image of the invisible God. (Col 1:15)
(b) whoever sees Christ sees God (John 14:9)
(b) Christ himself is God by nature (John 1:1, 1:18 cf. Col 2:9).
(c) Those who has seen Christ actually lived (John 6:40).

John 6:40 7(ESV)
For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

Conclusion
Based on the New Testament and Ante-Nicene father, the Second Person of the Trinity is the Lord God who appeared in the form of a man to the Jewish patriarchs.


Why is it important for people who believe in Trinity that Jesus is God?

The main reason that it is important to Protestants, that Jesus is the son of God, is because that is the basic precept on which their salvation depends. If Jesus were not deity, (or God) he could not keep the promises he made concerning salvation.
All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation.
example:

John 10:15 through 18  As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

In the above passage what you will find, is that Jesus has promised that he will give salvation to his sheep. Jesus used the example of a shepherd because the people were familiar with sheep herding, and he also referred to those being saved as his sheep.
But the really important part is the part about his laying down his life and being able to take it up again.
If Jesus did not have the power to take up his own life again, how would he ever have the ability to give eternal life to anyone else?

John 10:28  And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
John 6:54  Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Unless Jesus were God and not just a good man all of these would be hollow promises, since salvation is of God:

Luke 3:6 And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.

The veracity of Jesus claim is found in the Old Testament. Particularly in the Book of Isaiah, which is most descriptive, and also in many other Prophets from many years before his birth, which is foretold in Isaiah chapter 7:

John 5:39  Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Isaiah 7:13 and 14 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Finally; if Jesus were not God all who have put their trust in Jesus for their Salvation would still be lost with no hope of eternal life.

John 6:37  All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Mark 2:17 When Jesus heard [it], he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Luke 19:10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.


How does the Jehovah's Witness denomination deal with the filial piety among its East Asian believers?

Jehovah’s Witness policy is generally followed in a consistent manner regardless of the land in which a worshiper lives. Especially when it comes to the application of foundational precepts such as disfellowshipping there would be no cultural allowance granted to set aside the consequences of that ruling. From the perspective of Jehovah’s Witnesses, God’s law generally trumps national borders as well as traditional and cultural norms.
Having said that, let’s get to the overall question of what is the JW policy for association with disfellowshipped family members and then focus on the specifics of how that relates to parents. The most recent information regarding family member and disfellowshipping can be found in the August 2002 issue of the Kingdom Ministry, a monthly newsletter originating from the world headquarters in Brooklyn and used extensively in our weekly meetings for worship.
This issue, quoting from articles in previously published Watchtower magazines, makes several clear statements on the matter. First related to an individual living within the home: “The Watchtower of April 15, 1991, in the footnote on page 22, states: “If in a Christian’s household there is a disfellowshipped relative, that one would still be part of the normal, day-to-day household dealings and activities.” Thus, it would be left up to members of the family to decide on the extent to which the disfellowshipped family member would be included when eating or engaging in other household activities.”
In a situation like the one above the only area where association would be limited is in matters involving family worship. Whereas usually JW families are encouraged to worship together, a disfellowshipped individual could attend but would not be invited to lead those discussions or bring in information contrary to what is being discussed.
In the case of a relative outside the household the article says this: “The situation is different if the disfellowshipped or disassociated one is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home,” states The Watchtower of April 15, 1988, page 28. “It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum,” in harmony with the divine injunction to “quit mixing in company with anyone” who is guilty of sinning unrepentantly. Loyal Christians should strive to avoid needless association with such a relative, even keeping business dealings to an absolute minimum.”
So to the original question related to treatment of parents, in the case of healthy, independent parents, except where non-religious family matters are involved, there would be minimal contact. An exception though is made in the event of ailing parents or those facing other major difficulties. This exception is based on 1 Timothy 5:8: “Certainly if anyone does not provide for those who are his own, and especially for those who are members of his household, he has disowned the faith and is worse than a person without faith.”
That same article goes on to say: “For example, a disfellowshiped parent may be sick or no longer able to care for himself financially or physically. The Christian children have a Scriptural and moral obligation to assist. (1 Tim. 5:8) . . . What is done may depend on factors such as the parent’s true needs, his attitude and the regard the head of the household has for the spiritual welfare of the household.”—The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, pages 28-9.


Luke 8: Telling others - What's the difference between Jesus driving out demons & healing Jairus's daughter

The difference is that, in the pigs story, Jesus was asked to leave the region:

  Then all the people of the region of the Gerasenes asked Jesus to leave them, because they were overcome with fear. So he got into the boat and left.

Luke 8:37

So the formerly demon possessed man was possibly the only witness / preacher / disciple Jesus had in the region.

In other cases, Jesus' popularity has prevented Him preaching (Mark1:44-45) and even eating (Mark 6:31)! So He often told people not to tell others about the miracles.


What was the stance of Arius on John 1:1?

St. Thomas Aquinas discusses various errors of Arius and his followers in his Commentary on Chapter 1 of Gospel of John that are connected to Prologue of Gospel of John. If Arius had something to say on that part of Gospel of John it is very reasonable to believe that Aquinas would mention it. Aquinas does not mention Arius in commentary on John 1:1, however he mentions him in commentary on John 1:2.
Aquinas writes (in commentary on John 1:2):

The Arians were able to draw out another error from the above. They
think that the Son is less than the Father because it says below
(14:28): “The Father is greater than I” And they say the Father is
greater than the Son both as to eternity and as to divinity of nature.
And so to exclude this the Evangelist added: He was in the beginning
with God. For Arius admits the first clause, In the beginning was the
Word, but he will not admit that principium should be taken for the
Father, but rather for the beginning of creatures. So he says that the
Word was in the beginning of creatures, and consequently is in no
sense coeternal with the Father. But this is excluded, according to
Chrysostom, by this clause, He was in the beginning, not of creatures,
but in the beginning with God, i.e., whenever God existed. For the
Father was never alone without the Son or Word, but He, that is, the
Word, was always with God.
Again, Arius admits that the Word was God, but nevertheless inferior
to the Father. This is excluded by what follows. For there are two
attributes proper to the great God which Arius attributed solely to
God the Father, that is, eternity and omnipotence. So in whomever
these two attributes are found, he is the great God, than whom none is
greater. But the Evangelist attributes these two to the Word.
Therefore, the Word is the great God and not inferior. He says the
Word is eternal when he states, He was in the beginning with God,
i.e., the Word was with God from eternity, and not only in the
beginning of creatures (as Arius held) , but with God, receiving being
and divinity from him. Further, he attributes omnipotence to the Word
when he adds, Through him all things came into being.

Later Aquinas writes:

Eunomius declared that the Son is entirely unlike the Father. The
Evangelist rejects this when he says, and the Word was God. Finally,
Arius said that the Son was less than the Father. The Evangelist
excludes this by saying, He was in the beginning with God, as was
explained above.

Aquinas later continues:

The first clause, All things were made through him, is used to show
three things concerning the Word. First, according to Chrysostom, to
show the equality of the Word to the Father. For as stated earlier,
the error of Arius was rejected by the Evangelist when he showed the
coeternity of the Son with the Father by saying, “He was in the
beginning with God.” Here he excludes the same error when he shows the
omnipotence of the Son, saying, All things were made through him. For
to be the principle of all the things that are made is proper to the
great omnipotent God, as the Psalm (134:6) says, “Whatever the Lord
wills he does, in heaven and on earth.”Thus the Word, through whom all
things were made, is God, great and coequal to the Father.

He mentions him later in commentary (on the Prologue of Gospel of John), but for that you can just search "Arius" on the page here and see all places where Aquinas mentions him (in commentary on the Prologue of Gospel of John.)
I do not know whether this answers your question but I think it explains Arius stance on Prologue of Gospel of John.
Further Support
It seems that Arius would interpret words "and the Word was God" meaning that Christ was so perfect (yet inferior to God and not God himself) that he can reasonably be denoted as God. For Christ, in Arius stance, would be greater than inanimate matter, plants, animals, men and angels. It seems that for Arius, he would be so great as to be "almost" as true God (but as Aquinas says above, for Arius he lacks eternity and omnipotence and thefore would not be equal to God). Thefore, it seems that Arius would comment on the passage "and the Word was God" by saying that word "God" should here be understood not in the strict sense, but only to convey the point that he was most perfect creature of God and because he was most similar to God he himself was called God.
I think you could hardly make a better case for Arius. However, his heresy was refuted long time ago (you can find link to Aquinas's refutation of Arius arguments in my answer on this question).
I also found two works that touch upon our discussion.

St. Athanasius - Deposition of Arius

Now those who became apostates are these, Arius, Achilles, Aeithales,
Carpones, another Arius, and Sarmates, sometime Presbyters: Euzoïus,
Lucius, Julius, Menas, Helladius, and Gaius, sometime Deacons: and
with them Secundus and Theonas, sometime called Bishops. And the
novelties they have invented and put forth contrary to the Scriptures
are these following:— God was not always a Father , but there was a
time when God was not a Father. The Word of God was not always, but
originated from things that were not; for God that is, has made him
that was not, of that which was not; wherefore there was a time when
He was not; for the Son is a creature and a work. Neither is He like
in essence to the Father; neither is He the true and natural Word of
the Father; neither is He His true Wisdom; but He is one of the things
made and created, and is called the Word and Wisdom by an abuse of
terms, since He Himself originated by the proper Word of God, and by
the Wisdom that is in God, by which God has made not only all other
things but Him also. Wherefore He is by nature subject to change and
variation as are all rational creatures. And the Word is foreign from
the essence of the Father, and is alien and separated therefrom. And
the Father cannot be described by the Son, for the Word does not know
the Father perfectly and accurately, neither can He see Him perfectly.
Moreover, the Son knows not His own essence as it really is; for He is
made for us, that God might create us by Him, as by an instrument; and
He would not have existed, had not God wished to create us.
Accordingly, when some one asked them, whether the Word of God can
possibly change as the devil changed, they were not afraid to say that
He can; for being something made and created, His nature is subject to
change.
3 Now when Arius and his fellows made these assertions, and shamelessly avowed them, we being assembled with the Bishops of Egypt
and Libya, nearly a hundred in number, anathematized both them and
their followers. But Eusebius and his fellows admitted them to
communion, being desirous to mingle falsehood with the truth, and
impiety with piety. But they will not be able to do so, for the truth
must prevail; neither is there any communion of light with darkness,
nor any concord of Christ with Belial.  For who ever heard such
assertions before ? Or who that hears them now is not astonished and
does not stop his ears lest they should be defiled with such language?
Who that has heard the words of John, In the beginning was the Word
John 1:1, will not denounce the saying of these men, that there was a
time when He was not? Or who that has heard in the Gospel, the
Only-begotten Son, and by Him were all things made , will not detest
their declaration that He is one of the things that were made. For how
can He be one of those things which were made by Himself? Or how can
He be the Only-begotten, when, according to them, He is counted as one
among the rest, since He is Himself a creature and a work? And how can
He be made of things that were not, when the Father says, My heart has
uttered a good Word, and Out of the womb I have begotten You before
the morning star ? Or again, how is He unlike in substance to the
Father, seeing He is the perfect image and brightness Hebrews 1:3  of
the Father, and that He says, He that has seen Me has seen the Father
? And if the Son is the Word and Wisdom of God, how was there a time
when He was not? It is the same as if they should say that God was
once without Word and without Wisdom. And how is He subject to change
and variation, Who says, by Himself, I am in the Father, and the
Father in Me , and I and the Father are One ; and by the Prophet,
Behold Me, for I am, and I change not ? For although one may refer
this expression to the Father, yet it may now be more aptly spoken of
the Word, viz., that though He has been made man, He has not changed;
but as the Apostle has said, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday,
today, and forever. And who can have persuaded them to say, that He
was made for us, whereas Paul writes, for Whom are all things, and by
Whom are all things ?
4 As to their blasphemous position that the Son knows not the Father perfectly, we ought not to wonder at it; for having once set
themselves to fight against Christ, they contradict even His express
words, since He says, As the Father knows Me, even so know I the
Father John 10:15 . Now if the Father knows the Son but in part, then
it is evident that the Son does not know the Father perfectly; but if
it is not lawful to say this, but the Father does know the Son
perfectly, then it is evident that as the Father knows His own Word,
so also the Word knows His own Father Whose Word He is.

St. Alexander of Alexandria - Epistles on the Arian Heresy and the Deposition of Arius.

4 But that the Son of God was not made from things which are not, and
that there was no time when He was not, the evangelist John
sufficiently shows, when he thus writes concerning Him: The
only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father. John 1:18 For
since that divine teacher intended to show that the Father and the Son
are two things inseparable the one from the other, he spoke of Him as
being in the bosom of the Father. Now that also the Word of God is not
comprehended in the number of things that were created from things
which are not, the same John says, All things were made by Him. For he
set forth His proper personality, saying, In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were
made by Him; and with out Him was not anything made that was made.
John 1:1-3 For if all things were made by Him, how comes it that He
who gave to the things which are made their existence, at one time
Himself was not. For the Word which makes is not to be defined as
being of the same nature with the things which are made; since He
indeed was in the beginning, and all things were made by Him, and
fashioned from things which are not.Moreover, that which is seems to
be contrary to and far removed from those things which are made from
things which are not. For that indeed shows that there is no interval
between the Father and the Son, since not even in thought can the mind
imagine any distance between them.But that the world was created from
things which are not, indicates a more recent and a later origin of
substance, since the universe receives an essence of this sort from
the Father by the Son. When, therefore, the most pious John
contemplated the essence of the divine Word at a very great distance,
and as placed beyond all conception of those things that are begotten,
he thought it not meet to speak of His generation and creation; not
daring to designate the Creator in the same terms as the things that
are made. Not that the Word is unbegotten, for the Father alone is
unbegotten, but because the inexplicable subsistence of the
only-begotten Son transcends the acute comprehension of the
evangelists, and perhaps also of angels.

Later, we have:

3 Since those about Arius speak these things and shamelessly maintain
them, we, coming together with the Bishops of Egypt and the Libyas,
nearly a hundred in number, have anathematized them, together with
their followers. But those about Eusebius have received them,
earnestly endeavouring to mix up falsehood with truth, impiety with
piety. But they will not prevail; for the truth prevails, and there is
no communion between light and darkness, no concord between Christ and
Belial.2 Corinthians 6:14 For who ever heard such things? Or who, now
hearing them, is not astonished, and does not stop his ears that the
pollution of these words should not touch them? Who that hears John
saying, In the beginning was the Word, John 1:1 does not condemn those
who say there was a time when He was not? Who that hears these words
of the Gospel, the only-begotten Son;  John 1:18 and, by Him were all
things made, John 1:3 will not hate those who declare He is one of the
things made? For how can He be one of the things made by Him? Or how
shall He be the only-begotten who, as they say, is reckoned with all
the rest, if indeed He is a thing made and created? And how can He be
made of things which are not, when the Father says, My heart belched
forth a good Word;  and, From the womb, before the morning have I
begotten You?  Or how is He unlike to the substance of the Father, who
is the perfect image and brightness of the Father, and who says, He
that has seen Me has seen the Father?  John 14:9 And how, if the Son
is the Word or Wisdom and Reason of God, was there a time when He was
not? It is all one as if they said, that there was a time when God was
without reason and wisdom. How, also, can He be changeable and
mutable, who says indeed by Himself: I am in the Father, and the
Father in Me, John 14:10 and, I and My Father are one; John 10:30 and
by the prophet, I am the Lord, I change not?  Malachi 3:6 For even
though one saying may refer to the Father Himself, yet it would now be
more aptly spoken of the Word, because when He became man, He changed
not; but, as says the apostle, Jesus Christ, the same yesterday,
today, and forever. Hebrews 13:8 Who has induced them to say, that for
our sakes He was made; although Paul says, for whom are all things,
and by whom are all things?  Hebrews 11:10.

Edit 2.
We read on page 101 of Arius: Heresy and Tradition:

(vi) Again, he has presumed to say that the Word is not true God
(theos alithinos). "He may be called 'God' but he is not 'true God'.
It is only by participating in grace, like all others, that he too is
called by the name 'God'. All beings are, in respect of their
substance (kat' ousian), alien to God and unlike him (xenon kai
anomoion); and so too the Word is entirely different from and unlike
the Father's substance and property (idiotitos). He is 'proper' to
(idios) [the class of] made and created things and it is to this that
he belongs.


Did the New World Translation lead to any doctrinal changes?

The difficulty here is ascertaining whether changed doctrines came before the publication of the NWT, or after it. As the people responsible for producing the NWT seem loath to admit to having held to major doctrinal errors except up until around the 1930s, it's hard to say. The language the JW leaders employ is that of Jehovah causing "increased light" so that they are now "clearer" about doctrines than they were decades ago. They seem to believe in "progressive revelation".
However, there is one doctrine that might have developed after the original NWT, for the latest 2013 edition of the NWT translates certain words differently than previously. This has to do with the doctrine of life after death. In their 2013 edition of NWT, they render sheol and hades every time as ‘death’. That the one word 'death' is being used for every reference in the Bible to sheol and hades shows an astonishing attempt to simplify a complex subject, perhaps in the hope that JWs will not think beyond the idea of physical 'death'. It is tied up with the JW teaching that there is no conscious, aware part of a human that survives physical death. If they are wrong about that, you can be sure they are wrong to translate 'death' every time sheol or hades occurs! However, it's possible to examine the problem from the starting point of the JWs own admissions about the various words in the Bible that deal with the state of the dead.
In the JW 'Insight On The Scriptures' book they admit that the Hebrew word for 'grave' is qe'ver: "The Hebrew word qe'ver is the common word used to designate a burial place, a grave, or a graveyard. (Ge 23:7-9; Jer 8:1; 26:23) The related word qevurah' similarly may refer to an earthen grave or to a tomb excavated in rock. - Ge 35:20; 1 Sa 10:2
"In Greek the common word for grave is ta'phos (Mt 28:1), and the verb form (tha'pto) means 'bury'. (Mt 8:21,22)...
"Since these Hebrew and Greek words refer to an individual burial place or grave site, they are often used in the plural as referring to many such graves. They are, therefore, distinct from the Hebrew she'ohl' and its Greek equivalent hai'des... [which words must always be used in the singular.]
"Nevertheless, since one's entry into Sheol is represented as taking place through burial in an individual grave or at a burial site, words pertaining to such places of interment are used as parallel though not equivalent terms with Sheol." (Vol. 1 pages 994-5)
Now, JWs need to ponder that. Why, despite the admission of their leaders that a word completely different to sheol needs to be translated 'grave', are they trying to say that it's just sheol and hades that they have translated as 'grave'? They've just admitted that sheol is not the same as the grave! The grave is but an entrance into sheol! So, if sheol lies beyond the grave, what is it, and where is it, and what is the condition of those who go beyond the grave and end up in sheol?
The JWs have here admitted that the word for 'grave' is NOT an equivalent of the word 'sheol'! Are they trying to hide something important? Do they not want their readers to grasp the Jewish beliefs about the state of the dead, as taught by the rabbinic schools of Hillel and Shammai, which views were prevalent before Jesus, during Jesus' day, and after Jesus' day? It's only when you know what the Jews believed about the eternal part of man ending up in Sheol that Jesus' words in Luke 16:19-31 make sense! Note that the JWs have been told that nothing of what Jesus said there was actual, it was only a story (for everything Jesus said there contradicts what they believe about the state of the dead!)
Does this mean that Rev. 1:18 & 21:13 in the NWT just read 'death' and not 'death and Hades'? And does Rev 6:8 read "the one seated upon it had the name Death. And Death was closely following him"? Surely not?!
Yet it could be that the new 2013 edition of the NWT is a clear move towards supporting a development in their doctrine about life after death, which was not clear in the original NWT but which is now clearly supported by their 2013 edition. Yet I suspect that JWs will say they always believed that idea, in which case the translation came after the doctrine, and not before it.
"The Life And Times of Jesus The Messiah" by Alfred Edersheim (1971) Appendix XIX, On Eternal Punishment, according to the Rabbis and the New Testament" (see vol. II Book V ch. vi) http://www.ccel.org/ccel/e
"Josephus' Discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades" as in "The Works of Josephus" translated by William Whiston, 1980, page 637  http://www.ccel.org/search/fulltext/Josephus%27%20Discourse%20to%20the%20Greeks%20Concerning%20Hades


Did Jacob Arminius and/or the remonstrants believe they were in agreement with John Calvin?

Arminius on the Church Fathers, and Orthodox Doctrine

Jacob Arminius did in fact believe that his doctrines were in line with the ancient church fathers.  In Arminius' Dissertation Of The Seventh Chapter of Romans, we find the following quotation:

  If, lastly, I shall prove that the other opinion [regeneration] as it is in these days explained by most divines, cannot, without the greatest difficulty, be reconciled to many of the plainest passages of Scripture, that it is in no small degree injurious to the grace of the indwelling Spirit, that it has a hurtful effect on good morals, and that it [regeneration] was never approved by any of the ancient fathers of the church, but, on the contrary, disapproved by some of them, and even to St. Augustine himself; then may I be permitted by a most deserved right to admonish the defenders of that other sentiment [regeneration], that they reflect frequently and seriously, whether they be wishful to excite the wrath of God against themselves by an unjust condemnation of this better opinion [prevenient grace] and of those who are its defenders.

Arminius here is mainly concerned with the end of chapter 7, starting around verse 14 or 15.  In particular, he is arguing against a doctrine which today would be called "regeneration by irresistible grace."

While he is not arguing against the school of Calvin in general, his opinions about irresistible grace give us some insight:

He believed that regeneration (by irresistible grace) is not compatible with orthodox teaching
He believed that the church fathers even disapproved of this doctrine
He lists Augustine as one who disapproved
He believes that he is a defender of a "better opinion"

He doesn't just appeal to Augustine.  Here is a list of just some of the theologians that Arminius appeals to, in order to establish his doctrine as orthodox:

Clement of Alexandria
Irenaeus
Tertullian
Origen
Cyprian
Chrysostom
Basil the Great
Theodouret
Cyril
Macarius the Egyptian
Damascenus
Theophylact
Ambrose
Jerome

Arminius on Calvin, and His Institutes

Let's all start on the same page - John Calvin and Jacob Arminius were not contemporaries. Arminius came on the scene when Calvin's movement had become the dominant stance in reformed theology.  The name "Calvin" was now representative of a movement, and not just a person.

It should be pretty obvious that Arminius did not think his opinions were in agreement with the Calvinist movement.  Under I. "ON PREDESTINATION" from The Works of James Arminius, Vol. 1, we find the following statement:

  Commencing with this article, I will first explain what is taught concerning it, both in discourses and writings, by certain persons in our Churches, and in the University of Leyden. I will afterwards declare my own views and thoughts on the same subject, while I shew my opinion on what they advance.  On this article there is no uniform and simple opinion among the teachers of our Churches; but there is some variation in certain parts of it in which they differ from each other.

Arminius acknowledges that opinions on predestination are very diverse and at odds with each other - particularly, among those in the school of Cavlin, and those sympathetic to Arminius and Kolmann.

Arminius goes into more detail in his correspondence with Junius (DISCUSSION BETWEEN ARMINIUS AND JUNIUS, TOPIC: PREDESTINATION), where he outlines the differing beliefs of his contemporaries:

  I see, then, most renowned sir, that there are three views in reference to that subject, [predestination] which have their defenders among the doctors of our church. The first is that of Calvin to Beza; the second that of Thomas Aquinas and his followers; the third that of Augustine and those who agree with him.

He writes of the first doctrine the following:

  I am not pleased with the first theory [Calvin's view of predestination] because God could not, in his purpose of illustrating his glory by mercy and punitive justice, have reference to man as not yet made, nor indeed to man as made, and considered in his natural condition. In which sentiment I think that I have yourself as my precedent, for, in discussing predestination, you no where make mention of mercy, but every where of grace, which transcends mercy, as exercised towards creatures, continuing in their original, natural state, while it coincides with mercy in being occupied with the sinner, but when you treat of the passed by and the reprobate, you mention justice, and only in the case of such. Besides, according to that opinion, God is, by necessary consequence, made the author of the fall of Adam and of sin, from which imputation he is not freed by the distinctions of the act and the evil in the act, of necessity and coaction, of the decree and its execution, of efficacious and permissive decree, as the latter is explained by the authors of this view, in harmony with it, nor a different relation of the divine decree and of human nature, nor by the addition of the proposed end, namely that the whole might redound to the divine glory, etc.

If you continue reading, Arminius chooses to sympathize with the third view, namely, that of Augustine.  He considers this the "better option" because it does not require God to have been the author of sin, and it does not require God's unconditional damnation or reprobation of individuals to hell.

Conclusion

Here is what we can conclude, based on Arminius' own writings:

Arminius considers himself to be in line with the school of Augustine.
Arminius disagrees with the ideas of double predestination, irresistible grace, etc.
Arminius claims that Calvin supports double predestination, irresistible grace, etc.
Based on 2. and 3., Arminius does not consider himself to be in agreement with Calvin.

References

The Works of James Arminius, Vol. 1
The Works of James Arminius, Vol. 2
The Works of James Arminius, Vol. 3


What was earlier the Earth or the Solar System?

Creationists rarely think about the planets of the solar system. As we see at a site that calls itself YEC Headquarters, science is likely to "redefine the truth", and planets tend to make science the focus of discussion. This YEC site does not tell us what Young Earth Creationists think did happen, but only that scientists are wrong about the origin of the planets. Answersingenesis, probably the most widely read YEC site mentions planets only in so far as to claim scientific evidence that the world is only thousands of years old; once again avoiding the issue of just when the planets were created. The implication is that the answer is in the Bible and we need not consider any other explanations.

The Bible's first creation story (Genesis 1:1-2:4a) can be read as covering every aspect of God's creation, with nothing omitted, so there must be a reference to the creation of the planets. It  begins with the earth alone, so just a cold and lonely rock floating aimlessly through space. The planets are lights in the sky above, so the biblical creation of the planets of the solar system (or for that matter the planets of other stars) is to be found in Genesis 1:14-15:

  And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

Since creationists regard the second creation story (Genesis 2:4b-25) as a retelling of part of the first creation story, we know from the biblical genealogies that the creation of man can only have taken place around 4000 BCE. The planets were created on the fourth day. For Young Earth Creationists and some Old Earth Creationists, these were literal days, so the planets are only around 6000 years old. In this hypothesis, the solar system is at least somewhat younger than the earth.

The gap theory is an attempt to harmonise biblical creation with the science of geology, on the basis that God created the earth (Genesis 1:1) millions, or even billions, of years ago. The gap exists between this initial creation and the events of Genesis 1:2 onwards. However, this does not move the creation of the sun, moon and stars - including the planets- as they are still created on the fourth day. That is resolved by some Old Earth Creationists by assuming that the Hebrew word used here for 'day' actually refers to an indefinite period of time, possibly millions of years. This is an untidy solution, open to many objections, but it provides a semblance of consistency with science. In this hypothesis, the solar system is younger than the earth.


Whether beatific vision gives us univocal knowledge of God?

Beatific Vision

is direct knowledge of God

The Beatific Vision is not analogical knowledge but immediate (i.e., "with no intermediary") knowledge; it's direct, intuitive, non-discursive knowledge.

Pope Benedict XII's 1334 edict Benedictus Deus "On the Beatific Vision of God" says the blessed

  see the divine essence with an intuitive vision and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature by way of object of vision; rather the divine essence immediately manifests itself to them, plainly, clearly and openly, and in this vision they enjoy the divine essence.

  vident divinam essentiam visione intuitiva et etiam faciali, nulla mediante creatura in ratione obiecti visi se habente, sed divina essentia immediate se nude, clare et aperte eis ostendente, quodque sic videntes eadem divina essentia perfruuntur

However, this does not mean it is exhaustive, all-comprehensive knowledge of God. Only the Persons of the Holy Trinity know themselves exhaustively/infinitely. See St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles III q. 55 "That the created intellect does not comprehend the divine substance".

requires light of glory (lumen gloriæ)

The Council of Vienne (Denz. 475) condemned the proposition:

  That any intellectual nature in its own self is naturally blessed, and that the soul does not need the light of glory raising it to see God and to enjoy Him beatifically.

  Quod quaelibet intellectualis natura in se ipsa naturaliter est beata, quodque anima non indiget lumine gloriae, ipsam elevante ad Deum videndum et eo beate fruendum.

Thus, we cannot attain the Beatific Vision with our own natural human reason.

In SCG III, St. Thomas shows that "human felicity does not consist in the knowledge of God gained through demonstration" (q. 39) and even that "Human felicity does not consist in the knowledge of God which is through faith" (q. 40)!

A good overview of all this is ch. 29, "The Sublimity of the Beatific Vision," of Life Everlasting by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. He mentions analogical knowledge in ¶2, § "This Vision Is Intuitive and Immediate":

  By its clarity this vision is distinguished from the obscure knowledge which we have of God, either by reason or by faith. By its intuitive and immediate character it is immeasurably superior to all knowledge that is discursive and analogical, which does not reach God except by using His effects as principle. This intuitive vision is higher than all abstraction, all reasoning, and all analogy. It is immediate intuition of the supreme reality of the living God. Hence it surpasses by far all vision, even the intellectual visions which the great mystics receive here on earth, because these visions remain within the order of faith and do not give intrinsic evidence of the Trinity. The beatific vision, on the contrary, does give this evidence, showing that God, if He were not triune, would not be God.


Christening - what exactly does a Godparent have to promise to do / be?

In the Church of England you need to be able to answer the questions asked of godparents truthfully and sincerely:

  Parents and godparents, the Church receives these children with joy.
  Today we are trusting God for their growth in faith.
  Will you pray for them,
  draw them by your example into the community of faith
  and walk with them in the way of Christ?
  With the help of God, we will.

  In baptism these children begin their journey in faith.
  You speak for them today.
  Will you care for them,
  and help them to take their place
  within the life and worship of Christ's Church?
  With the help of God, we will.

Those may not be too bad: even a non-Christian theist might pray for a child and help them take their place in the Church, and support them in their pilgrimage of faith.

The next set of questions might be more of a challenge to a non-Christian.

  Do you reject the devil and all rebellion against God?
  I reject them.

  Do you renounce the deceit and corruption of evil?
  I renounce them.

  Do you repent of the sins that separate us from God and neighbour?
  I repent of them.

  Do you turn to Christ as Saviour?
  I turn to Christ.

  Do you submit to Christ as Lord?
  I submit to Christ.

  Do you come to Christ, the way, the truth and the life?
  I come to Christ.

  [Common Worship text]

In my [former] Church of England parish, a non-Christian would be advised to think seriously about whether he could sincerely answer these questions, and to consider whether he might do more service to the child’s faith by acknowledging how serious they are, by refusing the invitation in conscience.


Can a Catholic simultaneously profess more than one rite?

Other than biritual priests, who can "celebrate the liturgy and administer the sacraments in more than one rite," a Catholic belongs to one rite.

1983 Code canon 111 allows parents of different rites to choose which rite to baptize their children in:

  §1. Through the reception of baptism, the child of parents who belong to the Latin Church is enrolled in it, or, if one or the other does not belong to it, both parents have chosen by mutual agreement to have the offspring baptized in the Latin Church. If there is no mutual agreement, however, the child is enrolled in the ritual Church to which the father belongs.§2. Anyone to be baptized who has completed the fourteenth year of age can freely choose to be baptized in the Latin Church or in another ritual Church sui iuris; in that case, the person belongs to the Church which he or she has chosen.

Canon 112 governs changing rites:

  §1. After the reception of baptism, the following are enrolled in another ritual Church sui iuris:1/ a person who has obtained permission from the Apostolic See;2/ a spouse who, at the time of or during marriage, has declared that he or she is transferring to the ritual Church sui iuris of the other spouse; when the marriage has ended, however, the person can freely return to the Latin Church;3/ before the completion of the fourteenth year of age, the children of those mentioned in nn. 1 and 2 as well as, in a mixed marriage, the children of the Catholic party who has legitimately transferred to another ritual Church; on completion of their fourteenth year, however, they can return to the Latin Church.§2. The practice, however prolonged, of receiving the sacraments according to the rite of another ritual Church sui iuris does not entail enrollment in that Church.


Was the mode of execution for Jesus required to be crucifixion?

No Direct Theological Significance

Theologically speaking, crucifixion had no theological significance in itself.  Jesus had to die for sins, and God, in His omniscience, foresaw the manner in which this would happen.  Then He inspired prophets to predict that kind of death centuries before it happened.

However, it did, perhaps, have some symbolism.

The Tree of Life

In the Garden of Eden, there were two trees--the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life.  Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and sin entered into the world.

We don't know what happened to the tree of life, though.  Presumably, if they had eaten of it, they would have lived forever in their separation from God.

Four thousand years later, though, another tree is introduced--the Cross of Christ.  Jesus takes our curse by being "hung on a tree".  In essence, then, the Cross is the new Tree of Life.  Anyone who receives what hung on that tree receives life.

Interestingly enough, if you take fruit from a tree and remove the seeds, then you bury the seeds, then new life comes.  Jesus was taken down from Calvary's tree, buried, and then came forth with new life.

Conclusion

So, crucifixion was not theologically necessary per se.  However, it does fulfill prophecies that God gave us, knowing how Jesus would die.  It also seems to be symbolic.


When did sin and evil in the universe first appear?

When sin is defined as moving against God's will and evil is defined as the absence of God's presence it seems that sin and evil were first made when Lucifer rebelled against God and was cast from his position of glory and out of God's presence. The story is somewhat detailed in Isiah.

  “How you are fallen from heaven,
  O Lucifer, son of the morning!
  How you are cut down to the ground,
  You who weakened the nations!
  For you have said in your heart:
  ‘I will ascend into heaven,
  I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
  I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
  On the farthest sides of the north;
  I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
  I will be like the Most High.’
  Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol,
  To the lowest depths of the Pit.  Isiah 14

From the verses we see that Lucifer first sinned when he claimed that he would ascend to God's glory and usurp Him from His throne. He was removed from God's presence which then created evil.

This is the oldest account of sin and evil. It must have preceded the fall of man because it was Lucifer who tempted them to take and eat the fruit. Before we know assuredly that mankind was not in sin nor removed from God's presence, therefore, sin and evil must have originated with Lucifer, or at least not with mankind. Such is Lucifer's infamy that he is called the father of lies and Satan which mean adversary, which implies that he moves against God's will always.

It is possible that sin and evil originated elsewhere but they are not detailed in the 66 book version of the Protestant Bible. The other seven that Catholicism takes does not say anything on the topic either.

These verses in Revelation may be relevant:

  Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. Revelation 12

Here we see that Satan is permanently cast from heaven. Most scholars would argue that this event has not happened yet, and will occur shortly before the Second Coming. What may also be relevant is the passages in Job where Satan is actually conversing with God.

  One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them. The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?"
  Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.” Job 1

The conversation continues but what is noteworthy is in the first few verses. It is clear here that Satan can still enter God's presence, but he can also leave it. This supports the idea that he was 'cast' from heaven already, in some respects. How is a bit of a mystery. The issue with Job is that a good portion of scholars, but not near the majority, would say that it is poetry and cannot be taken as a literal event.


According to Evangelical Presbyterians, do ghosts exist?

Once upon a time the word 'ghost' was synonymous with 'spirit'. Every person had a 'ghost', and their 'ghost' went to be with God when they died. This is why the Holy Spirit is sometimes called the Holy Ghost, and where we get expressions like "give up the ghost'. In that sense virtually all Christians believe in the existence of ghosts, meaning that all people have a spirit.

Today the word 'ghost' specifically means a disembodied spirit that haunts people or places.  In that sense, there are no Christian denominations that require members to believe in ghosts. Since there are bible passages that refer to people returning from the dead, most biblical literalists believe in at least the theoretical possibility of disembodied spirits appearing on earth, but that is a long way from believe that all or most reported hauntings are real.

Practically this means that in any Christian denomination there will be some people who believe in ghosts, and some who don't.


I'm going to try my best, but please correct me if I stated anything incorrectly. It seems that most of your question lies in the separation between:

  1) knowledge of sin

  2) feeling of sin

  3) actual sin

In relation to "the knowledge of the truth".

Well first off, what is "knowledge of sin"? Where do we get that? Romans 3:20 says:

  Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

With this, we can figure out that God's law is how we become conscious of our sin. This is how we are able to find out we are sinners. If I am correct, this is referred to as "revelation". Knowledge of our sin is revealed to us through God's Word and His standards (the law).

Further we have Romans 7:7:

  What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”

What about "feeling of sin" and "uneasiness of sin"? I am unsure about how to answer you for this. Feelings are quite subjective and are hard to use as a basis. However, there is "conviction of sin" which goes a little deeper. This is because feelings are strongly tied to emotions whereas conviction involves a change of attitude toward sin. This is displayed by Joseph in Genesis 39:9 and Isaiah in Isaiah 6:5. They had a change in attitude toward sin. Note that this is different than having simply shame or a guilty conscious that anyone may have without any change in their action. "Uneasiness of sin" may be "conviction of sin" and since "knowledge of sin" is revealed through God's law, that should be the place to go to find out if that conviction is real.

Actual sin is any act contrary to the will and law of God. This can be through omission or commission. If you are truly concerned with whether something is an actual sin or not, sometimes it's best to check whether it is "definitely good" or "glorifying to God".

For this, there is Romans 14:23:

  “Everything that does not come from faith is sin”

And 1 Corinthians 6:12:

  “Everything is permissible for me—but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible for me—but I will not be mastered by anything”

There are some other passages you can check such as 1 Corinthians 10:31. Hopefully this would help clarify what is "not sin" so that you can know what "is sin".


At what point in history did Catholic priests begin to be called pastors?

In Catholicism a pastor is a priest who has the care of a particular parish (cf. Canon 515).
The New Testament word that Catholics believe refers to the lower clergy is πρεσβύτερος (presbuteros).  The etymology of the English word "priest" traces to presbuteros.  The New Testament does not refer to Christian leaders as sacerdotal priests (ἱερεύς - hierieus), but only as presbyters.  "Pastor" as a shepherding metaphor was probably present from the beginning, given that the shepherding metaphor was there from the beginning (e.g. John 21:15-17, Ephesians 4:11, 1 Peter 5:1).
Obviously some Christians disown a sacerdotal priesthood, and therefore prefer "pastor" or "minister" rather than "priest".  For this reason there is a common notion that pastors and priests are two different things.  Yet for Catholics the technical name of the priest who has charge of a parish is the "pastor".
See also Pastor (Wikipedia) and Presbyter (Wikipedia).


Christians believe that the Trinity consists of three distinct persons with one divine nature.

This Trinitarian Godhead exists infinitely and eternally, and therefore existed before time.

Christians also adhere to the very distinct doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, which is the belief that Jesus Christ has two natures.

One nature is truly divine. One nature is truly human.

These two doctrines are clearly stated in the first chapter of the Gospel of St. John:

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

The "Son" (2nd Person of the Trinity) existed "before all ages."  The Son was born into the world of a virgin roughly 2000 years ago. His name is Jesus Christ.

The Nicene Creed puts it best:

  We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally
  begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from
  true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through
  him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down
  from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from
  the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under
  Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he
  rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven
  and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in
  glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no
  end.

Was the Son eternally begotten?


What significance do Catholics see in the fact that Adam and Eve 'knew each other' only after original sin?

St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica question "Whether in the state of innocence there would have been generation by coition?" sheds some light on this. St. Thomas quotes a chapter of Gregory of Nyssa entitled "What we must answer to those who raise the question—'If procreation is after sin, how would souls have come into being if the first of mankind had remained sinless?'," who

  says (De Hom. Opif. [On the Making of Man] xvii) that in paradise the human race would have been multiplied by some other means, as the angels were multiplied without coition by the operation of the Divine Power. He adds that God made man male and female before sin, because He foreknew the mode of generation which would take place after sin, which He foresaw.

Yet, according to St. Thomas, "this is unreasonable" because

  what is natural to man was neither acquired nor forfeited by sin. Now it is clear that generation by coition is natural to man by reason of his animal life, which he possessed even before sin, as above explained (Question [97], Article [3]), just as it is natural to other perfect animals, as the corporeal members make it clear. So we cannot allow that these members would not have had a natural use, as other members had, before sin.

St. Thomas also quotes St. Augustine's De Civ. Dei [City of God] xiv, 26:

  We must be far from supposing that offspring could not be begotten without concupiscence. All the bodily members would have been equally moved by the will, without ardent or wanton incentive, with calmness of soul and body.

Thus, there is nothing sinful about sexual intercourse itself, nor is it the result of sin.

More to the point of your question is the objection St. Thomas poses in the same article:

  Objection 2: Further, our first parents were created at the age of perfect development. Therefore, if generation by coition had existed before sin, they would have had intercourse while still in paradise: which was not the case according to Scripture (Gn. 4:1 ["…Adam knew Eve his wife…" after the fall]).

to which he replies with St. Augustine's opinion:

  Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. [Literal Interpretation of Genesis] ix, 4), our first parents did not come together in paradise, because on account of sin they were ejected from paradise shortly after the creation of the woman; or because, having received the general Divine command relative to generation, they awaited the special command relative to time.

Here's the original Latin of St. Augustine with the translations from here:

  Quare primi parentes in paradiso non coierint.[Why was there no nuptial union in Paradise?]

  Cur ergo non coierunt, nisi cum exiissent de paradiso? Cito responderi potest: Quia mox creata muliere, prius quam coirent, facta est illa transgressio, cuius merito in mortem destinati, etiam de loco illius felicitatis exierunt. Non enim Scriptura tempus expressit, quantum interfuerit inter eos factos, et ex eis natum Cain.[Why, then, did they not have intercourse until they had left Paradise? The reason is that soon after the creation of the woman, before they had relations, they committed the sin because of which they were destined to die and because of which they went forth from the place of their blessedness. As a matter of fact, Scripture has not specified the length of time between their creation and the birth of their son Cain.]

  Potest etiam dici quia nondum Deus iusserat ut coirent. Cur enim non ad hanc rem divina exspectaretur auctoritas, ubi nulla concupiscentia tamquam stimulus inobedientis carnis urgebat? Ideo autem hoc non iusserat Deus, quia secundum suam praescientiam disponebat omnia, in qua et eorum casum procul dubio praesciebat, unde iam mortale genus propagandum esset humanum.[One might also say that the delay was due to the fact that God had not yet ordered them to come together in nuptial union. For why should they not await God's authorization for this, since there was no drive of concupiscence coming from rebellious flesh? God had not ordered such a union because He provided for everything in the light of His foreknowledge, in which He undoubtedly foresaw their fall, as a result of which the human race was to be generated as a mortal race.²²]²²[Translator's note: "I understand mortale as a predicate adjective referring back to genus humanum."]


What is appropriate age group for an altar call?

There is no age restriction. All are welcomed.

The Catholic church never restrict salvation and baptism to adults alone. The Catholic church believes in Infant Baptism, this site explains it. A passage from the site -

  More detail is given in Luke’s account of this event, which reads:
  "Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them;
  and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called
  them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder
  them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16).

Altar Call is practiced by many churches, especially in Evangelical churches. Christianity in general welcomes every one to Christ, young or old, rich or poor, black or white. During the Altar Call, the preacher would invite the audience to repent and give their life to Jesus and proclaim publicly by coming forward. Many times, there are situations where children would come forward with sincere heart and with tears. The people usually responded to this by giving thanks to God.

As an example, I have seen children below 10 years who received Jesus Christ during the Altar Call in Assemblies of God Church.


Are the gifts of the Holy Spirit still active today?

Short Answer: There are all sorts of opinions on this topic, but I will present what I believe to be the most clear and coherent argument - from Scripture, logic, history, and observation - which is that the gifts have always been "offered", but not always "accepted".  Thus, it can be seen that both the cessationist and non-cessationist views are built upon some truth: the former, historical; the latter, doctrinal.

I grew up in conservative churches (Nazarene, etc.), got "saved" and "baptized in the Spirit" in a Latter-Rain Movement church, spent some time in an Assemblies of God church, and am currently serving in ministry at a Baptist church.  I have heard, accepted, and believed each of the major positions at various points, and now feel that I understand the topic well enough to make a claim about the truth.

Scriptural Groundwork

First, "receiving the Holy Spirit" is the same as "the baptism in the Holy Spirit."  (See here for full justification.)  As such, there are not two classes of Christians (the "saved" and the "charismatic"); if you are born again, you have been baptized in the Spirit.

Second, this baptism is a promise to all believers for all time:

  And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” -Acts 2:38-39

This passage is in the context of an explanation of the "baptism" of Acts 2, not the isolated (and often misinterpreted) statement of John 20:22.

Third, the gifts are given according to the will of the Spirit, and are exercised according to the obedience of the individual.  That is to say, if you don't speak in tongues (for instance), either the Spirit hasn't given you that gift, or you aren't walking in it.

Fourth, the gifts did "cease" (as far as we can tell) after the time of the Apostles.  There may be exceptions, but let's face it, the scene in Acts was not the scene in AD 500.

However, it would not be correct to say that "because the gifts ceased, it must have been because God wanted them to cease."  That's just bad logic.
It would also not be correct to say that "because the gifts ceased, they are not for today."  It is entirely possible that the gifts are not in widespread operation today because modern Christians are unwilling to step out and look like a fool (by claiming to have a message from God, for example.)

A More Subjective Argument

To argue that "the Spiritual gifts are not for us today", one would have to show that the Spirit does not want believers to move in these gifts today.  Since the gifts were given to empower the church for ministry, build the church, and edify the church, I think it is strange to argue that they were only needed during the time of the Apostles; the job is not yet complete!  We still need His help!  The argument becomes stranger when we consider that there is not a single passage of Scripture to support this!  If we were to just look at Scripture, and ignore history for a moment, it would seem clear the gifts were intended for every generation.

The confusion comes in when we look at history and ask "why do they appear to have ceased?"

Some claim that God didn't want them in operation anymore, but this argument is unfounded.
The alternative is: the church began to reject the gifts of the Spirit - or at least, those gifts which were most uncomfortable!  (People generally don't claim that "teaching" or "evangelism" or "exhortation" has ceased... but when it comes to "healings" or "tongues" or "prophecy" they get nervous.)

With all of that "reasoning" aside, I can testify personally to the fact that all of the gifts are in operation today, but are not in widespread operation.  There are some who give themselves over to the Spirit when He leads them to lay hands on a person for healing; some who will prophesy; some who will give with liberality.  But let's face it - this stuff is 100% rejected by modern post-Enlightenment (humanist) thinking.  It's not "science" so it can't be true.  But it is true.

However, I can also testify that there are many "charismatic" things going on that are driven more by emotion and mimicry than the Spirit.  If a "prophecy" about the future doesn't come true, it wasn't coming from a "Spiritual gift" in the first place.  If a person can "pray in tongues" before they are even in relationship with God, it wasn't coming from a "Spiritual gift".  (Not to mention some of the made-up gifts modern churches have invented.)


What are the historical and scriptural reasons why women are prohibited and/or discouraged from wearing pants in some churches?

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; [1 Timothy 2:9 KJV]

Shortly before being martyred, executed by the Emperor Nero, Paul the apostle gives instructions to Timothy regarding order in the church and the conduct of congregations.
With regard to clothing, Paul enjoins that women should adorn themselves 'modestly' which has two meanings, firstly that of not drawing attention by 'costly array' and complicated hair arrangements, but also of modesty in regard to the fit of clothing.
The prophet Isaiah goes into considerable detail when he comments upon the 'daughters of Zion' and their conduct in regard to these matters (Isaiah 3:16 to 26) and comments, also, on the judgments that are about fall upon Jerusalem because of that contribution to a wider spectrum of behaviour, throughout Judah.
It is difficult to convey to those who are a lot younger than myself what a dramatic change has happened in the general arena of those professing the name of Christ over the past half dozen decades : the jettisoning of conduct that was, at one time, not questioned, but rather adhered to without complaint.
As a young boy brought up in the Highlands of Scotland where the influence of Presbyterian  Christianity was considerable, I saw the visible effect of many generations of the preaching and teaching of the gospel and of the adherence to Paul's words.
Men and women attending a place of Christian worship would - all - dress modestly. Makeup of any kind was just not used. Men wore jacket and trousers with shirt and tie. Women wore long skirts and their top clothing was buttoned up to the neck.
Every woman had long hair and every man had short hair. Women also wore a hat or a headscarf, in accordance with the apostle's words in 1 Corinthians 11:5.
Still, today, I know of many congregations in my own country, the United Kingdom, where such practice still prevails. It is considered essential conduct among those congregations.
I well remember a preacher in my youth, perhaps it was in the 1970s, encouraging modest Christian women to take no notice of one who had criticised a certain lady for wearing clothing which the onlooker called 'frumpy'.
The preacher's retort was to say, 'Leave her alone and let her 'frump' her way to glory'.
As a young, single male, growing up in a congregation, in my twenties (forty years ago) I can only say how much I appreciated ladies wearing modest attire. I always deemed it to be considerate and charitable of women not to put temptation in the way of young (and not so young) men.
The corollary would (I can only suppose) be true of men who also dress in such a way as not to draw undue attention to themselves.
If we 'believe in the Lord Jesus Christ' and 'love one another' (as Jesus enjoins us to do) then it should not be a difficult thing for us to consider others in regard to the way in which we dress ourselves.


A superb question Sir!

From my own studies into Catharism and the theology of Marcionism I have found that the Cathars came to identify the Old Testament God as an evil force in contrast to the Good God of Jesus in the New Testament due to their belief that the world and all matter was corrupt.  This belief in "Two principles" can be considered radical dualism in the sense that they believed:

That there is one realm of good/the soul/the True God
& another realm that is evil/all physical matter/the evil God

The Cathar's beloved book "two principles" outlines this theology in a very convincing manner.

http://www.gnosis.org/library/cathar-two-principles.htm

It is possible that (similar to Marcion of Sinopes theology years before Catharism) they considered the apparent contradictions between the loving God of the New testament and what they read to be the vengeful god of the Old testament to be two principle powers in opposition to one another; thus concluding, like Marcion before them, that the Old testament God is the evil principle who brought about this world along with all its pain and confusion.

I have questioned how the Cathers would have discerned which texts refer to the words of which principle power? (which I have asked here:If the premise for Marcion's Two Principles (Dualism) is correct; which words in the Bible belong to the Demiurge?) Because, like you say, Satan is referred to in Job as discussing a plan with God.

During my study into the Cathars, I felt that they could on the outset justify their theology as it is a rather neat package in solving the problem of evil which all generations and denominations have strived for; the Cathars saw themselves as "Sparks of Divine in Flesh" (Romans 7:23;8:5 & Job 5:7); they no doubt yearned to be away from the flesh of this evil world (Philippians 1:21).

I also questioned the actual Cathar premise that how could there be two principle powers? One evil and one good? The only way I can imagine it (within human limitations) is that the good principle is infinitely more powerful than the evil; however He is also infinitely merciful towards the evil (love thy enemies and all that) therefore the two can exist indefinitely in this sort of theology. How the two came about would be the Cathar's theological mystery.

With regards the question: What was the explanation for why Catharism identified the Old Testament God as Satan?  The answer is found in the Cathar's book of Two principles (Part IV. A Compendium for the Instruction of Beginners, section 7) which states the following about the evil principle/god and Satan/Devil:

  [7] On the Evil Principle.     For this reason, in the opinion of the wise it is firmly to be believed that there is another principle, one of evil, who is mighty in iniquity, from whom the power of Satan and of darkness and all other powers which are inimical to the true Lord God are exclusively and essentially derived, as was demonstrated above and will appear below, God willing.

Therefore it is evident from the above Cathar text that they saw Satan as a being who's power derived from the evil principle; therefore not the evil principle himself, but most certainly his agent...in contrast to Christ who is the True Lord's agent.

I hope this touches on answering your question.

All the best.


How did the Christian movement distinguish itself from Judaism?

In 70 CE, Second Temple Judaism came to an abrupt and traumatic end, with the destruction of the Temple and the enslavement of many leading Jews. Randall Price says in The Secrets of the Dead Sea Scrolls, page 137 (citing Dr. Lawrence Schiffman):

  Second Temple Judaism can now be seen as a transition period in which the sectarianism and apocalypticism of the period gradually gave way to rabbinic Judaism, on the one hand, and Christianity, on the other.  Indeed, it is now clear that the Second Temple period was a kind of sorting out process.

John Dominic Crossan agrees, saying in The Birth of Christianity, page xxxiii, that it is not really accurate to say that Christianity eventually broke away from  Judaism. He goes on:

  It is more accurate to say that, out of that matrix of biblical Judaism and that maelstrom of late Second-Temple Judaism, two great traditions eventually emerged: Christianity and rabbinic Judaism. Each claimed exclusive continuity with the past, but in truth each was as great a leap and as valid a development from that common ancestry as was the other.  They are not child and parent; they are two children of the same mother.

Christianity and rabbinic Judaism were picking up the pieces in 70 CE and, although competitors for the hearts and minds of those who had followed the former Second Temple Judaism, it was in the interests of neither to attack the other. In its early days, Christianity did not choose to distinguish itself from rabbinic Judaism, with Christians regularly attending the synagogues set up and controlled by rabbinic Judaism. It was eventually rabbinic Judaism that initiated the break, banning Christians from the synagogues in the 90s of the first century, probably in response to the increasing anti-Jewish rhetoric of the Christian movement and the refusal of gentile Christians to undergo circumcision. John Shelby Spong says, in Born of a Woman, page 65, the liturgy of the synagogues was reformulated by 85 CE to attack heretics, and the Christian Jews were finally expelled.

Everett Ferguson says in Backgrounds of Early Christianity, page 461-2, Gemaliel's grandson, Rabban Gamaliel II (active 80-120), introduced into the Eighteen Benedictions, the curse which effectively excommunicated Christians:

  “Let the Nazarenes and the heretics perish as in a moment, let them be blotted out of the book of the living and let them not be written with the righteous."


Are the gospel authors who we believe them to be?

I will start a little off-topic as it is relevant to do so.

An answer to this question would not have been easy if there was no early persecution of Christianity. It would have been a lot easier for detractors of Christianity to make a point that all the writings that we have today on which the foundation of Christianity is based upon, were in fact all cooked up and doctored with the help of the political and reigning powers at that time. But the fact is, all the worldly forces were trying to wipe out nascent Christianity by persecution and destroying all their literature. All that we have today has passed through a most turbulent period and has survived under most cruel persecution.  By the time Christians could live a serene living under a favourable reigning emperor, all present day Gospels were already in use , as independent books before they were canonised in this favourable time.

To answer the question:  We don’t have the original documents in our possession of any of the Gospels, thanks to this persecution.  Agnostics raise this point in casting doubt on the authorship of Bible books. But seen from the table below it can be said of any other ancient literature on the surface of this earth  and that too with no attempts of supression. That is the case with every historical writings and we find that evidence for authenticity of Gospel writers is much stronger than any of the other historical books.

Apart from this shortest timeline for the earliest copy, there are other numerous external written sources, which are but only positive indicators (and absolutely nothing negative) in early history, that the gospels were written by the persons to whom they were attributed by the early church (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John).

A point to note: The two of the gospels are ascribed to such minor characters as Mark and Luke -- neither of whom, by any accounts, were themselves neither disciples nor the eyewitnesses is solid indirect clue they were who they were. If early Christian evangelist wanted to acquire credibility for what they were writing (or forging as some claim) and preaching they would undoubtedly have attributed it to someone like Peter, Thomas or James. And precisely this was what the later second and third century Gnostic gospels did. At least Christians are saying that all the Gospels were written under the guidance of Holy Spirit and not claiming that they were handed down by God Himself or were found buried somewhere in the ground.  Or to think extremely they did not concise all the four gospels in to one book and say that it was written or dictated by Jesus himself.

This link cites the compelling evidence  where it is explained in detail.

Additionally further information for Gospel of Mark is found in this link and Similar readings can be found here for Gospel of Luke and another link for Gospel of Mathew


How man created by God gets along with anthropology?

God's word is unchanging; anthropology is not.
This article in the Smithsonian Magazine (not known as a hotbed of creationism) says that scientists are rethinking ideas about Naenderthals:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/rethinking-neanderthals-83341003/
Neanderthals were fully human. The differences between Neanderthals and modern humans are no greater than the differences between the most different current groups of humans.


Where does one draw the line between spritiual attack and spiritual defense?

I'm coming from a United Methodist tradition, if that makes a difference

The disciples asked Jesus why he spoke in parables.  He replied in Matthew 13:11-13 (NRSV)

  [Jesus] answered, ‘To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. The reason I speak to them in parables is that “seeing they do not perceive, and hearing they do not listen, nor do they understand.”

Jesus didn't want to take away from those who have nothing.

In other words, Jesus kept his audience in mind when he spoke about spiritual things.

Now, I'm assuming you have more than 2 Facebook friends.  I would say that you could post spiritual thoughts on Facebook, and you gave the justification.

  I stated that the aim of uploading this picture was to share the love of Christ, regardless of their acceptance of it, and to be fair, if they didn't want to accept it, they could have just ignored it, right?

Right, except that you also confessed this thought.

  I knew before I posted it that I would likely receive spiritual attack from this...

I don't mean this as personal spiritual guidance, but the question you (all of you) have to ask yourselves is, "Am I taking away from those who have nothing?"

Edited to add TRIG's comment (which I believe goes to the "heart" of posting):

  If the thought foremost in your mind as you uploaded that picture was other people's negative reactions to it, then you weren't actually doing it to "show your love of Jesus". You're just fooling yourself. On the other hand, if you uploaded it joyfully, with other people's negative reactions very much in the back of your mind, then you're probably okay.


Is SIN a sin just because God says it is sin?

Let's clarify the definition of "sin". Sin is often defined as performing acts that are contrary to specifically noted prohibitions in scripture. In the Old Testament, prohibitions against eating unclean animals, specific instructions about performing certain rituals and ceremonies, etc.

I believe the Biblical definition of "sin" is not so much about actions (dos and don'ts), but about our relationship with God. Sin is really unbelief, and as James taught us, our faith or our unbelief in God is manifested by the things we do (see James 2).

In John 16 Jesus speaks of how the Comforter, when He comes, would reprove of sin not because of a failure to keep ordinances (which the Pharisees excelled at), but because of unbelief.

John 16:8-9
And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
Of sin, because they believe not on me;

The Pharisees and religious men of Jesus' day lived spotless lives according to the law, but they were the greatest sinners of all, because they simply didn't believe His message. Outwardly they appeared holy and righteous, but inwardly they were "full of dead men's bones".

Matthew 23:27 -
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

Performing various actions is often considered "sin", but true sin is failing to take God at His Word, which becomes manifested by our actions. To answer your question pointedly, failing to take God at His Word will always be "sin".


How can the Bible say God was refreshed if he never gets weary?

The simplest explanation is that God did not literally rest, but simply that he "rested from creating."  From a Christian perspective, God did not rest, in the sense that he stopped doing anything, on the seventh day. In fact, he was then very active in his relationship with Adam and Eve, and all the rest of humanity.


What is depicted on this small piece of artwork with Mary and the Apostles?

This is a (very typical) depiction of Pentecost.

  Acts 1:12-14; 2:1-4 (DRB)  Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount that is called Olivet, which is nigh Jerusalem, within a sabbath day's journey. 13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James. 14 All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. ...  And when the days of the Pentecost were accomplished, they were all together in one place: 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a mighty wind coming, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared to them parted tongues as it were of fire, and it sat upon every one of them: 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they began to speak with divers tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak.


Jehovah's Witnesses and Shunning Reconciled with New Testament

Before reconciling the shunning arrangement with these Scriptures, I'll first explain the situation.
Being shunned by Jehovah's Witnesses is a consequence of a person being either disfellowshipped or disassociated. A disfellowshipped person is someone who was previously a baptized member of Jehovah's Witnesses but then was found to be unrepentant in committing a serious sin. A disassociated person is someone who was previously baptized as one of Jehovah's Witnesses but who later expressed that they no longer wished to be known as one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Shunning is a last resort for those who have not heeded the counsel of the elders in their congregation. A great effort has already been made to steer the person back, but it has failed. Now it is the responsibility of the elders to maintain purity and unity within the congregation. When a person is jeopardizing that purity and poses a danger to the faith of others in the congregation, the congregation must cease all association with that person. In time, the person may discover the error of their decision, and at that time the elders would be happy to help this person return to the fold.
The Biblical basis for the practice of shunning is found in these scriptures:

1 Corinthians 5:1-6, 11-13
1 Actually sexual immorality is reported among you, and such immorality as is not even found among the nations—of a man living with his father’s wife. 2 And are you proud of it? Should you not rather mourn, so that the man who committed this deed should be taken away from your midst? 3 Although absent in body, I am present in spirit, and I have already judged the man who has done this, as if I were actually with you. 4 When you are gathered together in the name of our Lord Jesus, and knowing that I am with you in spirit along with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 you must hand such a man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven ferments the whole batch of dough?
...
11 But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. 12 For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do you not judge those inside, 13 while God judges those outside? “Remove the wicked person from among yourselves.”

From this first scripture, we can see that Paul had the authority to judge a man in the congregation at Corinth. The command was to stop associating with the man who had committed sexual immorality, which is a serious sin. This drastic action was necessary in order to avoid the "leaven" from spreading to the rest of the congregation.

Romans 16:17-20
17 Now I urge you, brothers, to keep your eye on those who create divisions and causes for stumbling contrary to the teaching that you have learned, and avoid them. 18 For men of that sort are slaves, not of our Lord Christ, but of their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattering speech they seduce the hearts of unsuspecting ones. 19 Your obedience has come to the notice of all, and so I rejoice over you. But I want you to be wise as to what is good, but innocent as to what is evil. 20 For his part, the God who gives peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly. May the undeserved kindness of our Lord Jesus be with you.

In this scripture, we can see the command to avoid those who create divisions and causes for stumbling which disrupt the peace and unity of the congregation. Obedience to this command is a cause for rejoicing because it is seen by all.

2 Timothy 2:16-18
16 But reject empty speeches that violate what is holy, for they will lead to more and more ungodliness, 17 and their word will spread like gangrene. Hy·me·naeʹus and Phi·leʹtus are among them. 18 These men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred, and they are subverting the faith of some.
1 Timothy 1:20
20 Hy·me·naeʹus and Alexander are among these, and I have handed them over to Satan so that they may be taught by discipline not to blaspheme.

In these two scriptures, we can see the repeated mention of Hy·me·naeʹus, a man who participated in misleading the congregation and was thereafter disciplined by being "handed over to Satan," the same discipline that was given to the sexually immoral man in Corinth.

2 John 9-11
9 Everyone who pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. The one who does remain in this teaching is the one who has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. 11 For the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.

This scripture discusses how to treat those who do not remain in "the teaching of the Christ." It makes it very clear that even greeting these persons causes us to become associated with their wrongdoing.
We can see throughout all of these verses that shunning these wrongdoers has several purposes:

To prevent the congregation from following after their sinful course
To restore peace and unity to the congregation
To protect the reputation of God's people
To discipline the wrongdoer so that they might return to Jehovah

To reconcile these purposes with the commands to "stop judging" and to "love your neighbor as yourself," it's important to note the example of Jesus himself in how he demonstrated these principles. Did he show a judgemental attitude in how he dealt with others? Did he completely hold back from counseling others? No. Jesus was able to discipline others with righteousness by using the Scriptures. (2 Timothy 3:16)


Why is the word 'Lord' in all caps in the OT but not in the NT?

A convention in many Bibles is to do exactly as you say - convert the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) into LORD. To be sure, you should look at your Bible's preface. In the New Testament, which was composed in Greek, the word Kurios (e.g. Kyrie Elesion) is a title as opposed to a Proper Name.

  To be clear: יהוה (Yahweh) = LORD - specific name, אֲדֹנָי (Adonai) = Lord - title, κύριος = Lord - title

Interestingly, the Jews took the notion of protection against blasphemy so far, that they would not pronounce the YHWH. Instead, during readings, they would substitute the proper name of God for Adonai, which translates to "my Lord". When the Masoretes attempted to add the vowels between the 7th and 11th Centuries AD, they did not know the correct vowels to use, because the tradition of Adonai was so long entrenched. As a result, they adopted the vowels of Adonai and added them to the Y-H-W-H to get Yah voh (Yahweh), or as the English wanted to pronounce it: Jeh-hov-ah.


What does it mean for God to be a person?

If we are strict with our terminology, God is not a person. God is an infinitely-perfect being. But God is a personal being:

  When we say that God is a personal being we mean that He is intelligent and free and distinct from the created universe. Personality as such expresses perfection, and if human personality as such connotes imperfection, it must be remembered that, as in the case of similar predicates, this connotation is excluded when we attribute personality to God. It is principally by way of opposition to Pantheism that Divine personality is emphasized by the Theistic philosopher. (source)

Your concern, however, is valid:

  Yet sometimes men are led by a natural tendency to think and speak of God as if He were a magnified creature — more especially a magnified man — and this is known as anthropomorphism. Thus God is said to see or hear, as if He had physical organs, or to be angry or sorry, as if subject to human passions: and this perfectly legitimate and more or less unavoidable use of metaphor is often quite unfairly alleged to prove that the strictly Infinite is unthinkable and unknowable, and that it is really a finite anthropomorphic God that men worship.

When we refer to God as a person, we mean that He is personal, not that He is a magnified human.

When speaking of God, we usually try to reserve the term "Person" to one of the three Divine Persons of the Trinity. There is one God, who is a Trinity of three Divine Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Son is Jesus Christ, who is true God and true man. When speaking of Jesus being a person, we say that He is a Divine Person, not a human Person, and we say that He is God, in perfect unity with the Father and the Holy Sprit.


Was there an official Church of England response to the 2002 survey of clergy beliefs?

The survey in question was commissioned by a group called "Cost of Conscience". This is, or was,  a group within the Church of England which was originally opposed to the ordination of women priests, and later to lady bishops. It also aimed to protect the interests of persons opposed to women priests, for example by campaigning for the right of parishes to refuse to accept a lady vicar, and by campaigning for financial compensation for clergymen who resigned believing they could not, in conscience, remain in a Church which ordained women.

The survey was carried out in late 2001 and early 2002. Participants were not made aware who had commissioned the survey. The first results were published in July 2002 with some other results published at various times, sometimes in New Directions magazine. The early results focussed  on the extent of opposition to lady bishops. (Women priests were introduced in 1994 and bishops in 2015.) Subsequent ones showed that lady vicars were much less likely than gentleman vicars to say they "believed without question" in many of the doctrines of Christianity. Also, those most likely to support women bishops, were least likely to believe without question in Christian doctrines.

Some details of the survey can be found on this site.

Cost of Conscience said:

  The Copyright of the Survey belongs to Cost of Conscience.

  Given the importance of the findings, and the doubts which they raise about the accuracy of current thinking, the Committee of Cost of Conscience believes that it would be a mistake to publish it too hastily or all at one go.

  Our policy therefore is to release such findings as have a bearing on matters of particular interest at any given moment, and to write a series of articles in New Directions during the coming months which will gradually help to build up an accurate picture of whether and how opinion is changing.  For example, with General Synod in York due to hear the Presentation of Bishop Nazir-Ali's Report on the Progress of his Commission on Sunday 7th July we thought it appropriate to reveal some of the attitudes towards women bishops.

It added:

  If there is sufficient demand thereafter a publication of the Survey in its entirety will be considered.

I am not aware that it ever was published in its entirety, it certainly was not at the time.

This selective publication of the survey, presumably only those parts most favourable to Cost of Conscience's viewpoint, was a major criticism of it. Legally they may have held the copyright, they paid for it, but the many clergy who had taken time out from busy lives to complete it felt it should have been published in its entirety. They would not have completed it otherwise, and certainly not, in many cases, if they knew it would be selectively published to serve the interests of a particular agenda.

Another very major criticism, in relation to the questions on beliefs, was the choice of responses. The possible responses were:

  believe without question

  believe but not sure I understand"

  mostly believe

  not sure I believe this

and

  definitely don't believe.

Any response other than "believe without question" was interpreted by Cost of Conscience to as indicating doubt or disbelief. The only sound answer was "believe without question".

In logic, questioning something is not the same as doubting it. It is possible to believe something without fully understanding it. That, indeed, has been the position regarding the Trinity of many very eminent and perfectly orthodox  theologians. If  "believe without question" and "believe but not sure I fully understand" were mutually exclusive, it would perhaps be most surprising that 70% of vicars claimed they "fully understood" the doctrine of the Trinity. Wesley said expecting a man to understand God was like expecting a worm to understand a man (to which many add expecting a man to understand a woman).

If the survey had been released in full we might know how many actually said they definitely don't believe. This was not released initially, and I do not think it was ever released.

I am pretty sure that no official response to the survey was given.

Nevertheless there were and are  undoubtedly a number of vicars who did not, and do not,  believe in aspects of Christian doctrine; and this issue highlighted in the statistics was a matter of great concern. Perhaps partially in response to the survey there was a movement to establish tribunals at which vicars who professed openly not to accept Christian doctrine could be accused and, if found "guilty" defrocked. Although there was widespread support for this in principle there was also some concern over these proposed "heresy trials" and more and more members of the clergy began to worry about how tight the net might be drawn.

For these tribunals to be established a measure would first have to be approved by each House of the General Synod, then considered by the Ecclesiastical Committee of the UK Parliament and then approved  by the Parliamentary  Houses of Commons and Lords, and assented to by the Queen. In July 2004 the House of Bishops and the House of Laity both voted overwhelmingly in favour, but the House of Clergy voted against by a majority of 4 votes.Reference:


Origin of the saying: Ex Deo Nascimur, In Christo Morimur

Fama Fratemitatis

According to the Fama Fratemitatis, the origins of the saying appear to be from Christian Rosenkreuz (b.1378) who formed a small group in Germany in the early to mid 15th century for the purpose of inseminating a, "general reformation." This group created a series of Axiomata [Sayings] along with a secret dictionary, a mysterious wheel and a house to serve as their temple. When Rosankreuz died in 1484 he was placed in a tomb with an inscription on the vault instructing that the tomb be opened in 120yrs. When his body was exhumed in in 1604 he was found to be holding a parchment in his hands. At the bottom of that parchment was written: "Ex Deo Nascimur, In Christo Morimur, Per Spiritum Sanctum Reviviscimus."

Source: Rosicrucianism Renewed