What can be the Christian defence of the argument from J.L. Schellenberg’s “Divine Hiddenness”?

Two meanings of "divine hiddenness"
First, it's important to note (as the Stanford Encyclopedia entry makes clear in the first 2 paragraphs) that "divine hiddenness" as used in Schellenberg's argument should be distinguished from the age old meaning of "divine hiddenness" where believers agonize over the perceived absence of God in the believer's life, such as in Job, Jesus's cry on the cross, or "the dark night of the soul".  In Schellenberg's argument the person uses the hiddenness to justify the belief that God does not exist, but in the believer's case the belief stays intact but provides a cause for the believer to "cry out" to God for His action or His presence.  Thus, the two uses of "divine hiddenness" refer to two different facts.  The rest of this answer will tackle the use as in the Schellenberg's argument.
Summary of the Christian defense
A 2019 Themelios journal article The God Who Reveals: A Response to J. L. Schellenberg’s Hiddenness Argument (pdf here) by Daniel Wiley acknowledges that "as divine hiddenness is increasingly used to justify nonbelief, it will become increasingly essential for the Church to offer rebuttal." He then carefully restates the most up-to-date version of the syllogism (see Section 1), taking into account Travis Dumsday's definition in 2016 and Schllenberg's own update in 2017, to demonstrate that one or more of the premises are in error.
Daniel then demonstrates how Schellenberg's argument, which has the following 3 core foundations:

The positive correlation between love and one’s openness to personal relationships
Nonresistant nonbelief
The rationality of God as an omni-benevolent being

fails for three reasons:

It assumes a correlation between love and openness that does not reflect the way men and women establish openness to relationships.
It is not able to prove nonresistant nonbelief.
It has not established God’s omni-benevolence apart from Scripture.

Quotes from the article to support the 3 reasons
Perfect Love and Openness to Personal Relationships (Section 2)

The heart of this argument is found in the correlation between love as expressed by human persons and love as expressed by God. As Schellenberg argues, if there was no possible analogy between God’s love and human love, then human language could not speak about God at all.¹⁸ This correspondence is best witnessed in a parent’s love for his or her children. In normal cases, the best parents always love their children, and this love manifests itself through a parent’s openness to relationship with his or her children. Now, if a parent is not open to relationship with his or her children, he or she is seen by others as a bad parent. Therefore, God, who is the perfect “parent,” much always be open to relationship with his “children,” lest he falls short of omni-benevolence.¹⁹
The force of this argument is strong, and especially because of its emotional angle. Those parents who refuse relationship with their children are seen as abnormal and less than truly loving. If that is so, then how can a perfect God avoid such scrutiny if he is not open to relationships with finite creatures? Nevertheless, the implied assumption with the above argument is that one’s openness to relationship is positively correlated with one’s love. ...
2.1. Parents and Closed Doors
... However, we can conceive of scenarios in which a parent’s love does not determine the openness of a relationship.   For instance, a child could grow up and become delinquent in a way that would threaten the safety of his or her parents and family (examples include becoming a serial killer or a sex offender).  A good parent will always love that child, but would a wise parent keep that relationship open considering the circumstances? ...
2.2 A Response to Potential Counter Rebuttals

Rebuttal: ... he could argue that God is perfectly loving, and thus his openness is never affected by the imperfections of human relationships or purposes that influence openness.
Response: ... such logic would contradict Schellenberg’s own thesis. As stated above, we can speak of God’s love because we understand human love. Furthermore, having proven that openness is also determined by purpose and not just love in man, it would be impossible to correlate human love with God’s love if God’s love is the final arbitrator in determining his openness but human love is not. Without this correlation between humankind and God regarding love, the logic behind the hiddenness argument cannot stand.

Rebuttal: ... he could argue that God is sovereign, and thus can be open to any relationship that he wants to regardless of humanity’s sin or vice.²¹ Therefore, the dangers of human actions would not affect God’s ability to be open to any relationship with any finite person.
Response: ... to say that God can be open to relationship with all humanity says nothing about God’s necessity to be open to all humanity. The original version of the hiddenness argument draws the correlation between perfect love and openness, not ability and openness. This is changing the argument. Nevertheless, even if ability is included in the argument, it still does not override the fact that openness is also determined by purpose, as previously demonstrated. If human persons have various degrees of openness based upon purpose and not just love, then why can’t God’s openness also be dependent upon his purposes and not just his love?²²

Rebuttal: ... he could argue that the deviant child already knows of the parents’ existence, and thus the relationship is not truly “closed” in the sense that the child lacks awareness of their existence.
Response: ...  such logic would run contrary to Schellenberg’s own reasoning. Giving an example of a child who is enthusiastic about parents who do not have any relationship with the child, he concludes, “Their attitude towards him, whatever it is, doesn’t amount to the most admirable love, since they are closed to being in a personal relationship with him.”²³ At this point in the argument, openness vs. closedness is not indicative of existence vs. nonexistence, lest the above logic would make no sense (the closedness of the parents’ relationship in the example says nothing about their existence—they obviously exist!). Therefore, Schellenberg would have to retract his reasoning here (reasoning that is valuable to his argument) to make the rebuttal stand.

Nonresistant Nonbelief (Section 3)

According to Schellenberg’s logic, a perfectly loving God who is always open to a personal relationship with each finite person will make His existence knowable, for surely a God who hides evidence of Himself cannot be perfectly loving. Therefore, those who reject this necessary evidence for God must be in a state of resistance towards God.²⁵
However, Schellenberg also argues that there are many people who have not resisted or currently resist the idea of God but rather remained or currently remain unconvinced of His existence. These people include: (1) Early homo sapiens, who had no concept of or need to consider theistic religion, (2) Former believers, those who once held to theistic religion but converted out after reflection upon the evidence, and (3) Secularists who have felt no conscious desire to pursue discussion of God.²⁶ Schellenberg confidently concludes, “So anyone with some acquaintance with evolutionary history and a willingness to look truth in the eye will be able to see that, in the actual world, many people in our history have failed to believe in God without resistance of God in any way coming into the explanation of their nonbelief.”²⁷ In summary, if an all-loving God exists, then he would never close off relationships with finite creatures, and thus all nonbelief would be resistance. However, since there are some who do not resist God, then God must not exist. Unfortunately, as convincing as nonresistant nonbelief appears to be, this line of reasoning has numerous difficulties.
3.1. An Unprovable Assumption
... The reason for the unverifiability of nonresistant nonbelief is that nonresistant nonbelief is a conceptual thought of the mind. Therefore, there is no possible way for one to prove that one possesses nonresistant nonbelief beyond stating that one has nonresistant nonbelief.
...
... Nonresistant nonbelief as a provable state of mind is in no different a position than my inability to prove that I am thinking about taking my beautiful girlfriend for a ride in my new convertible or the believer trying to prove that God exists because he had a “personal encounter” with God. When this point is realized, Schellenberg’s proposed “evidence” simply becomes a “hand count” of all the people who claim to live or may have lived in a state of nonresistant nonbelief and not actual proof that nonresistant nonbelief exists. Even if one is truly in a state of nonresistant nonbelief and makes this claim with confidence, the fact that one cannot prove this claim makes the argument meaningless as an apologetic for atheism.
3.2. Ignorance of Resistant Nonbelief
The second difficulty is the assumption that resistance is always a conscious act. One’s personal belief that one is not resisting God is, alone, not proof of nonresistant nonbelief, for one could be deceived. Ironically, Schellenberg offers evidence for this rebuttal in his attempt to establish the existence of nonresistant nonbelief! Commenting on the nonresistant nonbelief of pre-theistic homo sapiens, Schellenberg argues,

Think about it. These are people who don’t believe in God. So they are nonbelievers–they are not in a state of belief in relation to the proposition that God exists. And how could they be resistant? It’s not even possible since resistance of God presupposes thinking about God, and their whole picture of the world is shaped in such a way that thinking about God just wouldn’t happen.²⁸

The reader will notice that Schellenberg contests that “resistance of God presupposes thinking about God.” However, the reader will also notice that these pre-theistic homo sapiens had a whole picture of the world “shaped in such a way that thinking about God just wouldn’t happen.” By this statement, Schellenberg admits that the thinking of these pre-theistic homo sapiens is so directing and controlling of the minds of these individuals that they would never think about God.
This thinking that is so directing and controlling is clearly evidence of a worldview, and understanding how worldviews work is essential in recognizing the importance of the previous point. God may have very well left evidence of Himself, but these pre-theistic homo sapiens developed a worldview that does not recognize God (at least in a theistic sense) and thus construe the evidence to fit their own worldview. ...
... As a final thought to this rebuttal, pre-theistic homo sapiens are not the only ones who could have a worldview that removes God from discussion. Is it not possible that a secular humanistic view of the world, which, by its very nature, attempts to define all life and purpose apart from God, would shape one’s mind in such a way that God becomes unimportant? Might a secular humanistic culture suppress the idea of God and interpret all the evidence God left of himself thought a secular lens and thus reject the idea of God a priori? Secularists may be convinced that they are not resisting God, but how can they be sure of this when they have, just as the pre-theistic homo sapiens did, a whole picture of the world that is shaped in such a way that thinking about God just wouldn’t happen?
...

The Omni-Benevolence of God (Section 4)

... arguing for the omni-benevolence of God apart from Scripture is Schellenberg’s challenge. ... Why would philosophers simply assume that God, if he exists, is all-loving? There is certainly much in the world that would suggest otherwise (this is why the problem is evil is so problematic!). Furthermore, love as an attribute of God has not been universally held by the world’s religions both past and present. ... popular historical viewpoints on God have been fine without omni-benevolence as necessary for God, for example, Deism.³⁵ Perhaps God’s omni-benevolence is not so obvious after all.
Nevertheless, Schellenberg is certain that it is “reasonable” to conclude that God, if he exists, is omni-benevolent. Commenting on the qualities a perfect person must possess, he remarks, “Contrary to what some of my critics have said, such reflection—and not just Christian prejudice—is what lay behind my claim in Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason that a God would be perfectly loving.”³⁶ Since cultures have disagreed on the status of “love,” and thus “love” is not universally recognized as a perfection, Schellenberg bears of burden of proof in arguing that love as a perfection is not simply a Western cultural perspective but a proposition that can be proven by reason apart from Scriptural revelation and cultural influence.
4.1. The Urgency of Schellenberg’s Defense
... If Schellenberg cannot prove that God must be loving, then he must rely on Scripture to prove that God is omni-benevolent. This, however, would be the death warrant for the hiddenness argument, for to be consistent, Schellenberg would have to use all of Scripture to define God and man rather than just what is convenient for the hiddenness argument. As even the most simple-minded Bible college student knows, the Scriptures present a worldview radically different than that presented by Schellenberg, a worldview that is purely modernistic. The most significant and obvious distinction between Schellenberg’s secular worldview and the biblical worldview is the nature of man. According to Scripture, man is not a morally-neutral being but is a sinner and in a natural state of rebellion against his Creator (Rom 3:9–19; Eph 2:1–3; cf. Gen 8:21; Col 2:13). Man does not reject God because there is no evidence for God, but because man twists the evidence to justify His own rebellion and hate of God (cf. Rom 1:18–23).
Of course, proponents of the hiddenness argument would hardly accept Scriptural testimony to the nature of man as a rebuttal of the hiddenness argument. For secularists, the Bible is a biased religious document and thus it is meaningless to reference Scripture to refute the hiddenness argument. Schellenberg follows the play-book well. ...
... the radical distinction between a biblical worldview and the hiddenness argument forces Schellenberg to argue for God’s omni-benevolence apart from Scripture. If Schellenberg cannot do so, then it is obvious that he must rely on Scripture to form the idea of God as all-loving. However, if he does so, then he must also accept the rest of the biblical testimony regarding the nature of God and man.
4.2. A Rationally loving God?
As urgent as the matter is, Schellenberg only offers one clear non-biblical argument in proof of God’s omni-benevolence in The Hiddenness Argument.⁴³ This argument proceeds as follows:

Here’s one way to think about it. Bring before your mind the concept of the greatest possible person—a person so great that none could be greater—and suppose also that this person has created a world including finite persons. Think about this person’s attributes. Now either your conception already embraces perfect love towards those other persons among its attributes or it doesn’t. If it does, I’ve made my case. If it doesn’t, then ask yourself what is the result of mentally adding perfect love to the collection of attributes you’ve conceived.⁴⁴

Schellenberg’s example fails to prove that love is a perfection for two reasons. First, the argument begs the question, for it assumes that a more impressive person would be “perfectly loving” without proving that love is a perfection. Second, it bases the judgment of love as a perfection completely upon the reader, as if the reader’s perception of the value of love determines whether love is a perfection. Just because Schellenberg’s reader assumes that the addition of perfect love makes one a morally impressive person does not actually make that person morally impressive. If the reader concluded “no,” then would love no longer a perfection? Western culture may value love (however it is defined by western culture), but western culture’s admiration for something alone does not make it “good” in an objective sense, much less a perfection.
...

Continuing relevance for Christian apologetics (Section 5)
Despite the argument's shortcomings for Christians, Daniel noted that Christian pastors and educators should seriously understand the appeal of this argument and its staying power, just as the problem of evil remains relevant today:

Although the argument is emotionally satisfying and comfortably coincides with a rising secularism in our culture, there are just too many unproven presuppositions in the hiddenness argument for it to stand scrutiny.
Nevertheless, even with its problems, the hiddenness argument is not likely to go away anytime soon. Just as the problem of evil remains in writing at the popular level in spite of its difficulties,⁴⁵ so likely will the hiddenness argument also persevere, and especially as secularism continues to grow in Western culture. Schellenberg acknowledges that the hiddenness argument “is now quite regularly explored alongside the venerable old problem of evil in philosophy classrooms and texts.”⁴⁶ Therefore, pastors, educators, and students of theology cannot be ignorant of this “new” argument and its shortcomings.


How can we be sure the Old Testament is accurate if Elijah was the only prophet left?

Just because there was only one prophet does not mean there were no priests or followers - prophets were messengers from God, priests actually served in the Temple, and adherents, well, they adhered.  In Isaiah, the notion of the Remnant God's select people who remain true even when most fall away is well understood.

Additionally, it does not diminish the text for Elijah to have engaged in hyperbole.  Even most inerrantists can accept that a human feeling all alone might exclaim, "I'm the only one left!"

Finally, if you read the context of 1 Kings 18 - you find just a few verses up (1 Kings 18:1 - 15) an encounter in which Elijah speaks with a fellow servant of the Lord - Obadiah - who would qualify as part of the remnant. And, as @RyanFrame points out, in 1 Kings 19:18, God reminds Elijah that he has "7000 who have not bended the knee".

To answer the related questions:

Most scholars assume the books of the Torah to have been pretty well settled no later than 600 BC - and these events are less than 200 years away from that.  Beyond that, the JEPD theory would argue that an iteration of the text was done as early as 1000BC - and depending on how liberal or conservative one is, there were no changes to some oral retelling changes in that time.
Some historians like to state that Ba'al and El Shaddai / Yahweh were originally in one narrative together.  The preserved Old Testament doesn't seem to reference this in any way, but other local myths do.  This answer, in particular speaks to the Ugaritic and Cananite understandings of Ba'al, and his consort-like status to Yahweh. Theoretically, if the prophets of Ba'al had corrupted the Scriptures, they would have preserved the role of Ba'al. As it is, the only mentions of Ba'al are negative (disputing her actual existence) and as a misguided belief only.  That they did not would seem to suggest that the preserved text was not influenced by the surrounding nations.


According to Eastern Orthodoxy why did we inherit the sin of Adam and Eve?

The sin is a damage we do to ourselves. Adam and Eve damaged themselves and we inherited this sin, like child inherits damage if his mother smokes or drinks alcohol during pregnancy.


Was Boaz named after the column in the temple?

If anything, it would be the other way around.

Boaz was David's great grandfather. Solomon was David's son.

The Temple wasn't built until Solomon's time.

According to Eerdmann's Dictionary of the Bible, some scholars believe the names of the columns may have gotten their names from "a dynastic inscription" upon them. Since Boaz is, indeed, in David's lineage, it is entirely possible that the column was named after Ruth's kinsman redeemer, the forefather of the great king.

(That was pretty cool, by the way, hadn't noted the connection before. Thanks!)


No, there are no passages in the New Testament where Jesus even speaks about contraception.  Coincidentally, He never mention airplanes, computers, fast food, or cell phones either.  :)

All of these are modern inventions for which there was no vocabulary or context in which teaching could be given.  (While there were examples of contraceptives in ancient history, the Jewish people don't appear to have used any.)  The basis of the teachings of the Catholic church and others comes from arguments of design.  God's design of intercourse leads to reproduction--not all the time, of course, but that is certainly a reasonably common outcome.  Additionally, there is a specific command given to Adam and Noah to fill the earth and multiply upon it, so taking unnatural action to prevent reproduction seems to go against that to some extent.

Also, the idea that Jesus would not have a strong opinion on the subject, merely because He Himself was the product of a miraculous conception, ignores the Biblical teaching that Jesus was Himself the eternal Son of God who took on flesh 2,000 years ago.  The Son of God, through whom all things were created, certainly has a strong opinion on truth and morality.


What is the Arminian view of God's providence?

General backround

I am going to quote from one prominent Arminian theology advocate, Roger E. Olson, a well-published professor of theology and ethics.  One of his books is the 2006 Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities.  He maintains a blog called My Evangelical Arminian Theological Musings.  In this March 2014 blog article Arminianism and Providence I think he addressed all your subquestions while omitting the soteriological aspect (as you requested) because he helpfully contrasts many elements you mentioned that are connected to providence: free will, God's will, sin/evil, foreknowledge, foreordaining, etc. although the blog article may not be to the level of details you are looking for.

Some quotes from that article:

  I have expressed my own overall view of God’s providence this way: “God is in charge but not in control.” However, some Arminians objected to that.
  Sin and evil are included in God's consequent will, not God's antecedent will.  God governs them but does not design, foreordain or render them certain. ... The only category of creaturely decisions and actions where God NEVER interferes with free will IN THE SENSE OF rendering them certain is sin and evil.  God permits them but does not design, foreordain or render them certain.  ... In relation to creaturely decisions and actions that are sinful, God never designs, foreordains or renders certain individuals’ evil decisions and actions that would cause their condemnation.
  God DOES interferes with free will in guiding and directing our lives as his people.  He is not the author of our sins or failures, but he does direct our lives in terms of opening and closing doors.
  If we shut him out of our lives and tell him to leave us alone he will, saying, reluctantly, "Okay thy will, not mine be done." This, too, of course, is within his will -- consequently but not antecedently.
  ... he foresees their sinful intentions and allows me to be in the path of their consequences insofar as that “needful and best” for me.  ... Much of what I suffer may very well be his will. I do not expect God to be “fair” to me or keep me from harm (although I believe praying for him to preserve my life and help me in times of trial is always good).

I think more details would be forthcoming from his two books, both highly rated in Amazon:

Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (2006)
Against Calvinism (2011)

Details on how God "arrange" things

  Say God decides he wants to bring X about - how does he 'arrange' things to achieve the desired outcome?

Answer: by

"placing people in circumstances where he knows what they will freely do because he needs them to do that for his plan to be fulfilled."
divine self-limitation so as not to be the cause of evil

God truly respects human freedom even to the point of reluctantly allowing evil to happen, which thwarted His perfect will, but then He work around them to orchestrate His plan because He foreknew the outcome of those evil actions.  "He has chosen to make himself partially dependent on his
human covenant partners while remaining the “superior covenant
power of holy love.”".  Thus He chose not to force miracle to happen in Nazareth but making it dependent on people's faith.  Thus He allowed Jesus to be crucified although He didn't tempt the people who made the decisions to sin but working around them to achieve the final result.

Basis for the answer

The answer above was based on Chapter 4 ("Yes to God's Sovereignty; No to Divine Determinism") of his book "Against Calvinism" referred to above.

Plan for Chapter 4.  After starting with 2 heart-wrenching examples to illustrate the insufficiency of Calvinistic divine determinism, he wrote a long historical summary of Calvinist teaching by discussing in individual sections the treatment by Zwingli & Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, Loraine Boettner, R.C. Sproul, Paul Helm, and John Piper.  Then he discussed in a section titled "The Problem of God's Reputation" quoting evangelical philosopher Jerry Walls who says "The Calvinist must sacrifice a clear notion of God's goodness for the sake of maintaining his view of God's sovereign decrees."  In the next section "The Freedom of God and Human Responsibility" he discussed the view of the various Calvinists focusing on this topic.  Finally he closes with the section "Alternatives to Divine Determinism" from which I constructed the short answer above.

Quotes from the final section of chapter 4 (emphasis mine):

  ... The main alternative to this strong doctrine of God’s sovereignty [i.e. Calvinist doctrine of divine determinism] is divine self-limitation.

  First, let it be clearly understood that those who appeal to divine
  self-limitation and passive permission as the explanation for sin and
  evil in the omnipotent, creator God’s world do not say God never manipulates historical circumstances to bring about his will. What God
  never does is cause evil. God may and no doubt sometimes does bring
  about some event by placing people in circumstances where he knows
  what they will freely do because he needs them to do that for his plan to
  be fulfilled. Such seemed to be the case with Jesus’ crucifixion. Even
  then, however, it was not that God tempted or manipulated individuals
  to sin. Rather, he knew what events, such as the triumphal entry, would
  result in the crucifixion.

  But what we must not say is that the fall of Adam, which set off the
  whole history of sin and evil, was willed, planned, and rendered certain
  by God. God neither foreordained it nor rendered it certain, and it was
  not a part of his will except to reluctantly allow it. How do we know this? We know it because we know God’s character through Jesus Christ.
  The doctrine of the incarnation proves that God’s character is fully
  revealed in Jesus such that “no interpretation of any passage [in the
  Bible] that undercuts the revelations of the divine mind inculcated by
  Jesus can be accepted as valid. What he says and does is what God says
  and does. He had no hidden decrees to conceal, no dark side of his
  Father to protect from disclosure, no reason to be defensive about the
  [ways of] God.”¹⁰⁵

  The high Calvinist doctrine of God’s sovereignty including evil as
  part of God’s plan, purpose, and determining power blatantly
  contradicts Scripture passages that reveal “God is love” (1 John 4:8),
  takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 18:32), wants
  everyone to be saved (Ezek. 18:32; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9), and never
  tempts anyone (James 1:13). To be sure, Calvinists have clever but
  unconvincing explanations of these and numerous other passages of
  Scripture. For example, John Piper argues that God has “complex feelings and motives,”¹⁰⁶ such that he genuinely regrets that sin and
  evil have to be part of his world, genuinely wishes that all people could
  be saved, and is grieved when those he predestined to die and even
  suffer in hell for eternity for his glory experience that fate. But these are not convincing explanations of these important passages that reveal the
  heart of God. They make God double-minded.

  So how might one deal with the reality of sin and evil in God’s world
  without placing undue limits on God’s power and sovereignty? The
  only way is to posit what Scripture everywhere assumes — a divine
  self-limitation in relation to the world of moral freedom, including
  especially libertarian freedom. That freedom is a wonderful and terrible
  gift of God to human persons created in his image and likeness. In
  other words, God allows his perfect will to be thwarted by his human
  creatures whom he loves and respects enough not to control them.

  Thus, God does have two wills, but they are not ones posited by
  Calvinism. As a result of Adam’s free choice to fall into sin (with free
  choice here meaning he could have done otherwise), God has a perfect
  will— also known as his antecedent will. (“Perfect” here means “what
  God truly wishes would happen.”) God’s perfect will is that none
  perish; this is God’s antecedent will (antecedent to the fall and to its
  resulting corruption in the world). God also has a consequent will—
  consequent to creaturely rebellion. It is that he allows some freely to
  choose to perish. But his allowing is genuinely reluctant and not
  manipulative.

  Evangelical theologian Stanley Grenz (1950 – 2005) offered a helpful
  distinction in God’s providence that corresponds to the two wills —
  perfect/antecedent and consequent — mentioned above. It is the
  distinction between “sovereignty de facto” and “sovereignty de jure.”¹⁰⁷ According to Grenz, with whom I agree, due to God’s voluntary
  self-limitation he is now sovereign de jure (by right) but not yet
  sovereign de facto (in actuality). His sovereignty de facto is future. This reflects the biblical narrative in which Satan is the “god of this age” (2 Cor. 4:4) (where “world” clearly means “this present evil age”), and God
  will defeat him in the coming age to become “all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28).
  The entirety of 1 Corinthians 15 can be interpreted in no other way; it
  assumes the distinction between God’s sovereign rule de jure now and
  de facto in the future. This is not to say, of course, that God is not
  actually sovereign now at all; it only says that God is allowing his
  sovereignty to be challenged and his will to be partially thwarted until
  then.

  Doesn’t this limit God’s power and sovereignty? No, because God
  remains omnipotent; he could control everything and everyone if he
  chose to. For the sake of having real, personal creatures who can freely
  choose to love him or not, God limits his control. Still, God is sovereign
  in the sense that nothing at all can ever happen that God does not allow.
  Nothing falls totally outside of God’s supervening oversight and
  governance. But not everything that happens is what God wants to
  happen or determines to happen. There is no exhaustive divine
  determinism.

  Of course, Jesus, being God, could have healed everyone in
  Nazareth when he visited there (Mark 6:5), but he “couldn’t” do
  miracles there because of their lack of faith. As God, he had the sheer
  power to do miracles. But he had limited his power ordinarily to do
  miracles in the presence of faith. He did not want to go around
  unilaterally healing people without some measure of cooperating or
  receptive faith on their part. So it is with God’s sovereignty. He could exercise deterministic control, but he has chosen not to do so. As
  theologian E. Frank Tupper says, God is not a “do anything, anytime,
  anywhere kind of God” because he has chosen not to be that kind of
  God.¹⁰⁸ He has chosen to make himself partially dependent on his
  human covenant partners while remaining the “superior covenant
  power of holy love.”¹⁰⁹

Footnotes:

  ¹⁰⁵. William G. MacDonald, “The Biblical Doctrine of Election,” in
  The Grace of God, the Will of Man: A Case for Arminianism, ed., Clark H.
  Pinnock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), 213.

  ¹⁰⁶. Piper, The Pleasures of God, 146.

  ¹⁰⁷. Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Nashville,
  TN: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 140.

  ¹⁰⁸. E. Frank Tupper, A Scandalous Providence: The Jesus Story of the
  Compassion of God (Macon, GA: Mercer Univ. Press, 1995), 334 – 35.

  ¹⁰⁹. Hendrikus Berkhof, The Christian Faith: An Introduction to the
  Study of the Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 146.

Recommendations for further reading

Del Rey Church Theology class material on Providence, Decrees, Creation.  Del Rey Church is an EFCA church which accepts both Calvinism and Arminianism.  The class material seems to be non-polemic and really tries to let each side states the position well.  I think this is an excellent way to survey various positions regarding Providence.  It's very long and detailed, but I think it's worth studying.
Thomas Oden's book Classic Christianity: A Systematic Theology which is his attempt to present ecumenical Christianity before the fall of Rome (thus before the schism) so not specifically Wesleyan / Arminian.  He limits himself to patristic interpretation of the Bible, which I think is very valuable to learn how the patristic fathers didn't spell out too much specifics on God's providence, leaving it open for later theologians to fill out the detail (which on the negative side can lead to unhealthy disputes that distract us from what's common to Christianity).  He himself is a Methodist, and in his earlier book The Living God: Systemic Theology: Volume One he has more details on the Arminian view of providence and the book was quoted by the class material above.


According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Origen and Origenism, the "sketchy" doctrines are:

Allegorism in the interpretation of Scripture
Origen believed that, being God-inspired and written by human hand, scripture must be interpreted in a manner than is worth of God. As such, some Biblical passages must be interpreted allegorically, lest we think God a tyrannical, blood-thirsty, etc.. It's important to note first, that a strictly allegorical interpretation of scripture was unorthodox. But secondly, Origen apparently took the allegorical interpretation train a little too far according to some. So, even at though allegorical interpretations may be OK, good, and in some cases necessary; Origen himself is an example of how difficult it can be to get off the allegory train. I.e., it's acceptable and good, but it's dangerous; be careful!
Subordination of the Divine Persons
The language in Catholic Encyclopedia is confusing (to me) as to whether Origen is for or against the "sketchy" Trinitarian tendencies of subordinating The Son to The Father or to what extent he believed what he did. But, the Wikipedia article on Subordinationism clarifies it quite succinctly for us:

  Perhaps the most elaborate of advocates in favor of Subordinationism
  was Origen of Alexandria. Origen taught that Jesus was a "DEUTEROS
  THEOS" (second God) He also said the Son was "distinct" from the
  Father. Finally Origen insisted that the Son is other in substance
  than the Father. It should be noticed that some of these same
  references are used to defend the concept of the Trinity. However,
  Subordinationism is not a differentiation or distinction between
  persons in the Trinity. In this regard they agree. Subordinationism
  rather suggests that the Son (and Spirit) are other in substance than
  the Father. (Subordinationism, Pre-Nicean)

Other things I've seem suggest that the extreme material distance placed between the Father and Son in this theology isn't actually Origen's intended understanding. Rather, it's termed Origenism because his ideas paved the way for the more radical, questionable, and non-orthodox understanding. But, I'm not at all 100% sure on that.

The theory of successive trials and a final restoration.
I didn't quite understand which details of the theology are technically part of this questionable doctrine. But, these are listed:

Eternal creation - An infinite number of universes/worlds have been and will be created  infinitely backwards in time and infinitely forward in time.
Intellectual creation - All intellectual entities were created equal. Some of them got bored and became naughty.
Matter exists for the spiritual - More unorthodox, I think, is the subpoint that without matter, the spiritual cannot be. If the matter would cease to be, the spiritual entity it serves would cease to be.
Universal, final restoration - Everything will be returned to its original state of glory and union with God. I.e., hell isn't really eternal, it just seems like it.


Other claimants to throne of David besides Jesus?

None of the seed of David, through Jeconiah, could ever inherit the throne of David due to the curse upon Jeconiah recorded by the prophet Jeremiah.
Jeremiah states of Jeconiah, king of Judah :

Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.      [Jeremiah 22:30 KJV]

Of this curse upon not only Jeconiah himself but on the succession of any king to the throne who was of that seed, Matthew Henry's commentary records the following :

Now that which is here to be taken notice of is that Jeconiah is written childless (v. 30), that is, as it follows, No man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David. In him the line of David was extinct as a royal line

Biblehub - Jeremiah
Thus only Jesus, the child of Mary (and the child of Mary's husband Joseph) who, alone, inherited all the rights to the throne from Joseph, but inherited none of the curse, being not of the seed of Jeconiah by natural generation.
Ellicott also comments :

The meaning of the prediction, as explained by the latter clause of the verse, was fulfilled in Jeconiah’s being the last kingly representative of the house of David, his uncle Zedekiah, who succeeded him, perishing before him (Jeremiah 52:31). In him the sceptre departed, and not even Zerubbabel sat upon the throne of Judah.

Biblehub - Ellicott


In the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit, what is the the distinction between the gifts of wisdom, understanding, and knowledge?

OK, I admit these are not explicitly Christian examples, but I would submit that they clearly demonstrate the difference between knowledge, understanding and wisdom.

Example 1:

Knowledge: you know when you press the "on" button, that the computer activates.

Understanding: you know that after pressing the "on" button, the electricity from the power grid enters your machine, is processed by the power supply, and is distributed with the proper characteristics for your computer to work.

Wisdom: You know that because lightning can generate power surges in the electrical grid that can damage electronic equipment, that it's better not to turn on activate the power button during a thunderstorm.

Example 2:

Knowledge: you know when your significant other is stressed upon arrival home after work, and requires some chill out time to regain a cheerful demeanor.

Understanding: you know that the stress is a result of the commute, and perhaps events that happened during the day, and has little or nothing to do with you personally.

Wisdom: you keep the first interval immediately upon arriving home for relaxing and stress reducing behaviors and activities, and save stress inducing ones for later.


What did the Early Christians Believe About the Trinity Before the Gospel of John?

1) First to establish a date for the Gospel of John
Papyrus p52 puts the date in the first century.  The traditional date is in the 90's, but these is a tendency to date the Gospel in the 70's before the fall of Jerusalem, but after Peter's death.
Here is more evidence for the authenticity of the Gospel of John.  The two words for love in John 21:15 has long been debated.  The second word that Peter used is the verb whose noun form means friend.  Sometimes people bring up that Jesus most likely spoke these words in an Aramaic influenced Hebrew rather than Greek, followed by dismissing the difference.  However, Samuel Olyan wrote in Friendship in the Hebrew Bible:

Although the biblical text has no word for “friendship,” there are a number of words for “friend.” Most common is rēaʿ and related nouns such as rēʿâ, raʿyâ, rēʿeh, and mērēaʿ, each apparently derived either from a root r ʿ h or a root r ʿʿ, both meaning something like “to associate with” or “to affiliate with,” suggesting a voluntary dimension to friendship." (Olyan, S. M. (2017). Friendship in the Hebrew Bible. (J. J. Collins, Ed.) (p. 4). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.)

What is interesting about this root is one of it's homonyms means to feed sheep, and is the verb used to translate such in John 21:15 in the Syriac (Aramaic) Peshitta and Hebrew translations of the New Testament.  Thus, Jesus made a play on Peter's words.  This play on words is too striking to be coincidence.  Not only does it substantiate the authenticity of the account, but also the historicity of the resurrected Jesus.
Here's more evidence that Jesus uses play on wordsa:

... (Lk 16:11, my translation). This text exhibits a play on words in Aramaic, which was the language Jesus spoke at home. He says:

If you have not been amin [faithful]
in the unrighteous mammon [your material possessions]
the amuna [the truth]
who will ja’min ith kun [entrust to you].

The root amn, which appears in the word amen, is used here four times.
--
Bailey, K. E. (2008). Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels (p. 379). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

It was a tool to help his disciples remember.
2) Christian belief before the Gospel of John
Paul's letter to the Galatians and 1 Corinthians, as well as Acts 15, show that theology among the church was not well established in the first century.  In Galatian Paul struggled with those who taught Christians must keep the Law of Moses.  This was settled in the Jerusalem conference in Acts 15.  In 1 Corinthians Paul confronted divisions in the church at Corinth.  In 1 Corinthians 15 he dealt with Greek philosophy of the spirit being set free from the body at death creeping into the church so that they did not accept the bodily resurrection.
Many of the letters in the New Testament show the church's struggle for orthodoxy.
Part 1 established the authenticity of the teachings of Christ.  The early church believed the teachings of Christ.  There was variation of belief in the early church, but because John based his gospel strongly on the Christ's teachings, which he quoted extensively, there is no reason to believe the the Apostles and the core of the church didn't believe what John's gospel contains.


Are there any examples of deductive arguments used to defend a doctrine?

I'll give the following "syllogism" to deduce the Trinity doctrine. But first I will define what is a syllogism? A syllogism in logic is a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from two given premises, one major premise and minor premise.
Here is a complex syllogism that "deduces" the Trinity.
If the Bible teaches that there is one God
and
If in the Bible The Father is identified as God
and
If in the Bible His Son is identified as God
and
If in the Bible their Spirit is identified as God
THEN the doctrine of the Trinity is valid
OR
The Bible is wrong.
So what is the definition of the Trinity? The doctrine of the trinity is not an "assumption." It is the normative systematic theology of God in Christianity and is BASED on the fact that the Bible is explicit in telling us that there is, was and forever will be only ONE God and the fact that the Bible "identifies three (and only three) persons as God.
So by what means does the Bible identify this ONE God?

His names
His titles
His unique attributes
His unique actions
His worship

I am not aware of any other literary, contextual means by which the Bible clearly identifies God. I could be wrong, but I think this list is comprehensive.
I will give two examples of of how this works. For example "His names." Called by the NAMES of God, (YHWH and its variants) either directly or indirectly, usually both.
Recognized with the TITLES of God, (Lord, king, savior, Alpha and Omega, first and last etc.) I think you get the idea. Enjoy!


What does it mean that baptism "erases original sin"?

The Church teaches that the human propensity to sin is a result of original sin:

  Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination toward evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul."

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 403; emphasis added)

Now as you note, Catholicism holds that baptism removes all sin, both actual and original. In addition to the excerpt you cite from the Catechism, St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica states:

  As the Apostle says (Rom. 6:3), "all we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death." And further on he concludes (Rom. 6:11): "So do you also reckon that you are dead to sin, but alive unto God in Christ Jesus our Lord." Hence it is clear that by Baptism man dies unto the oldness of sin, and begins to live unto the newness of grace. But every sin belongs to the primitive oldness. Consequently every sin is taken away by Baptism.

(Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 69, Article 1. The Bible quotes in this translation are taken from the Douay-Rheims Bible.)

However, the baptized person is in the same state as the unbaptized with regard to what (as you see in your quote) the Church calls "concupiscence", the desire to put one's own will over God's, and thus to sin. This "concupiscence" is not identical with original sin, but is inherited as a consequence of the original sin. Thus, even with baptism when the original sin is washed away, the consequences are not:

  By Baptism He takes away from man forthwith the guilt of original sin and the punishment of being deprived of the heavenly vision. But the penalties of the present life, such as death, hunger, thirst, and the like, pertain to the nature, from the principles of which they arise, inasmuch as it is deprived of original justice.

(Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 69, Article 3, ad 3)

In other words, we were created to live in God's justice ("original justice"); but the sin of Adam and Eve—the original sin—permanently removed all their descendants from that state by changing the nature of human beings, and consequently we are inevitably prone to actual sin, even when the guilt of original sin (and any prior sins we may have committed) has been washed away in Baptism.


Did any groups or noted theologians in early Christian history teach that the Holy Spirit is matriarchal?

The theory of Matriarchal Holy Spirit is a Gnostic Heresy. It doesn't have anything to do with the scriptures.

Jesus addresses the Holy Spirit by the masculine gender in the following verses of John 14:26

  But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my
  name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I
  have said to you.

And also in John 15

  John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you
  from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the
  Father, he shall testify of me.

Those who believe in a Matriarchal Holy Spirit are simply alluding to the fact that many in this world tends to understand God by things of the world that are
clearly visible.  They believe that since the human family on earth comprises
of a husband, wife, and son, the family in heaven too should comprise of God the
Father, the Holy Spirit as Mother, and Jesus as the Son.

Also remember the present day proponents of the idea of a Matriarchal Holy Spirit are some of the feminist groups and not any seriously religious groups.


Why didn't the KJV translators transliterate יהוה?

I couldn't find anywhere that any KJV translators spoke about their decision to translate the Tetragrammaton as "Lord." Not the preface, not the marginal notes, and I couldn't find any quotes from any of them on it (I wasn't too thorough in my search on the last one, so they could be out there somewhere).

The KJV draws significantly from Tyndale's earlier translation, and he too used "LORD" instead of a transliteration (except in some instances, where it was "Jehovah," as it would later be in a few instances in the KJV). He did not, as far as I could see, explain why he made this choice.

In the Septuagint, the Tetragrammaton becomes "kyrios," which means "lord" or "sir" or "master." This seems to be influenced by Jews' aversion to pronouncing the Divine Name out of deference to the Third Commandment. In synagogues today and dating back to ancient times, Jews use "Adonai," meaning "lord," which itself became "kyrios" in the Septuagint. In the New Testament, when quoting Old Testament verses which include the Tetragrammaton, it is "kyrios," following the Septuagint.

The Latin Vulgate follows the Jewish practice of replacing the Divine Name with "Adonai." In Wycliffe's English Bible, preceding Tyndale and the KJV, he rendered the Tetragrammaton "Adonai."

Around the same time as Tyndale, Luther translated the Bible into German and rendered the Tetragrammaton "Herr," meaning "lord" or "sir."

So although we don't have direct evidence of the translators' reasons via quotations, we do know that throughout history, and even in the New Testament itself, there has been conflation between the Tetragrammaton and the word "lord." At the very least, the KJV was a part of that historical trend.


What constitutes a "serious" crime for the purpose of LDS baptism preparation?

The Holy Ghost will give direction

It's hard to prove a negative, but the reference books for missionaries are preach my gospel and the missionary handbook, neither of which seem to define the term. Therefore, in an edge case, the missionaries probably would not know what to do. By default, they would therefore pray about it (most likely in their hearts if they do not have the opportunity to go to their knees). The Holy Ghost can then reveal what to do. In many cases, it might be to simply ask the mission president what to do.

See the section "Relying on the Spirit" (in Chapter 4)

  As the Lord’s servant, you are to do His work in His way and by His
  power. Some missionaries feel confident that they know how to be
  successful. Others lack such confidence. Remember, however, that your
  confidence and faith should be in Christ, not in yourself. Rely on the
  Spirit rather than your own talents and abilities. Trust the Spirit to
  guide you in every aspect of your work. (emphasis added)

Of course, direct revelation from the Holy Ghost is not the only way He speaks to us, but given the lack of specific direction, it seems the most likely way to obtain an answer in this case.

As for what criteria the mission president would use if you ask him, I'm not sure, but I would assume that he relies mostly on personal revelation for these issues as well.

Note: I was a lds missionary. Although I never had to deal with this issue in particular, I can testify that personal revelation from the Holy Ghost is a huge part of missionary work.


Isaiah 34:11 translation of animal names

Animal names are not very frequently used words.  They may appear only one time in the Bible, and as a result, their exact identification is not easy.  Not many classical Hebrew texts exist.  The Bible is basically it.  So if a word only occurs once in the Bible, it can be hard to pin down its meaning.  Older translations would go off of the traditional Christian translations (Septuagint, Latin Vulgate) as well as traditional Jewish understanding.

But some more modern ones have started using Ugaritic cognates to try and define these words.  Ugaritic is a Caananite dialect named after the city of Ugarit where some texts were discovered in it in 1929, and it was assumed that it would be close to Hebrew and similar sounding words would be cognate, and so many definitions are different to modern translators than they were to previous translators due to this redefinition based on a possibly faulty assumption (i.e. that the words are cognates).  There are, after all, such things as false cognates. For example, in Spanish the word embarazada does not mean embarrassed, but rather means pregnant.

So you can trust modern scholarship with its assumptions about Ugaritic cognates, or you can trust the more traditional translations.  But in the end, unless you're trying to keep Kosher, the exact identification of these animals doesn't matter much anyway.


Does the Eastern Orthodox Church consider belief in the existence of Jesus' soul before the incarnation a heresy?

The question is imprecise. It can be read as asking the existence of Christ before His incarnation (which is about the divine person) or about the existence of His human soul before incarnation (which is about His human nature). If it's the former the answer is definitively no. Even Arius of Alexandria while denying the Son is of the same essence with the Father he never questioned that the Logos is exist prior to His incarnation. If it's the later the answer is affirmatively yes. At the Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (553) the heresy of eternal humanity of Christ is condemned:

  If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall
  assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be
  anathema.

  First Anathema Against Origenism, Second Constantinople 553.

The confusion regarding the difference between what constitute a person and a nature. Jesus' human soul came into existence at the moment of His conception by Theotokos. Human soul is assumed by the Logos in His incarnation not prior. Why this is not the case? Because His humanity is not the proto-type of Adam, it's the other way around. His humanity was taken from Adam. He healed our humanity by assuming it. If He has His own humanity then our humanity is not healed because the fallen nature of Adam has not been assumed. This is why His human soul began to exist only after the conception not prior as argued by Origen.


Did the notion of "Youth Group" exist in the early church?

In Catholicism "youth ministry" is so recent that it was not available when I was growing up. We had CCD, which Protestants call Sunday School, but we were still expected to attend Mass with the adults. CCD was scheduled at a different time, and not always on Sundays. Students who attended Catholic schools did not have to go to CCD because they received religious instruction in school. These days many parishes (including my own) treat children like catechumens in the ancient church. That is, they attend the first part of the Mass (the liturgy of the word) with the adults, then they go off with their instructor to a classroom for a youth ministry of some kind while the adults have the liturgy of the eucharist. This never happened before Vatican II reformed the liturgy. The ancient church had no idea of a youth minister. Usually a parish only had one priest, so the catechumens would have been taught by a deacon. But the catechumens were usually adult converts. Children were baptized as infants, were taught the faith in the home, and attended the Mass with their parents even as infants.


Can we truly know anything about God's character?

As I understand it, you are talking about Strong Agnosticism (or similar).

However, this contains an inherent inconsistency. If we say, "it is impossible to know anything about God" we are actually making a statement about God. In other words, to be consistent, we would have to say, "it is impossible to know anything about God excluding this statement."

Therefore, we can learn at least some qualities about God. And, as Christians, we believe He wants us to learn about Him and has given us plenty of information in the form of the Bible.


Will we be able to eat anything in Heaven?

A great deal of this is copy-pasted from my answer to another, similar question.

First off, Revelations 19 has a wedding feast.

  Revelation 19:9 (NIV)
  9 Then the angel said to me,   “Write this:   Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!”   And he added, “These are the true words of God.”

(Emphasis mine.)

You can't really have a feast without food or drink. There is also the promise of Jesus that He will not drink wine again until this very same feast.

  Matthew 26:29 (NLT)

  29 Mark my words—I will not drink wine again until the day I drink it new with you in my Father’s Kingdom.”

  Mark 14:25 (NLT)

  25 I tell you the truth, I will not drink wine again until the day I drink it new in the Kingdom of God.”

  Luke 22:18 (NLT)

  18 For I will not drink wine again until the Kingdom of God has come.”

This statement takes place immediately after Jesus offers wine and bread at the first Communion. Now, if there weren't any grapes in Heaven, could there be wine? Now, obviously, God could very easily simply produce wine on the spot, and a miracle should never be excluded from the set of possibilities.

Now to actually answer your real question: we can't really know. I know of no verse that talks about whether or not there is any food or drink being consumed in Heaven right now. That said, what is there to keep Jesus and other people already up there from enjoying the gift of eating that God gave them? I mean...I could totally imagine Jesus munching on some fish with Peter, James, and John right now...

I read a great book several years ago - Heaven by Randy Alcorn - that essentially showed from Scripture how the New Earth would be like the Old Earth in pretty much every way, just bigger, better, and without sin and its effects. I also recently read another great book - Beautiful Outlaw by John Eldredge - that developed the personality of Jesus far beyond a shallow reading of the Gospels.

For example, remember when Jesus met the two disciples on the road to Emmaus after His resurrection? (Luke 24:13-34) I mean, c'mon! "What things?" (Verse 19)? He had have been practically smirking there! This is the same Jesus that generously produced nearly a thousand bottles of wine at the wedding in Cana and the same Jesus that fed a total of about 25,000 people on two separate occasions.

The same God made our taste buds that allow us to enjoy the delicious food He provided for us. Also, we will have bodies in Heaven (2 Corinthians 5:3). Such enjoyment that we have now...why would He deny us that in Heaven? Ha! I'm gonna have my cake and eat it too! Probably with Jesus at some point! I promise you, you'll have your chili-dogs! :D


Two common metaphors used throughout scripture are that we are "blind" and that we are "dead." In both metaphors, the idea is that there are entire worlds and goings-on of which we are unaware.  Paul even combines both metaphors when he describes the Gospel as "veiled to those who are perishing."

Certainly, then, the normal course of events is that we are unaware of this.

That said, the power of the Gospel can be compared to "a blind man receiving back his sight."  This typically doesn't happen until the end, however, for as 1 Cor 13:12 says, "For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror [ed or "as in a glass, darkly"]; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known..."

The point is that the supernatural part of Elijah's prayer wasn't that Elisha would see - but rather that he would see NOW as opposed to later.


What is the creationist view on animals equipped with lethal weapons?

The answer is He didn't create animals with lethal weapons in the beginning.  In the beginning (Genesis 1) there was no death, thus no animal ate another.  "By man came death" through the entrance of sin. (1 Corinthians 15:21, Romans 6:23)  Therefore after sin animals began to devour one another.  A full 40 minute well done presentation on the creation and fall of man is found here- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQmLVU_nvo8

Hope that helps :)


How does the Catholic church view Freemasons?

The Roman Catholic Church has offered the most persistent opposition to Freemasonry. The Church has prohibited its members from being Freemasons since 1738. Since then the Church made it clear that membership in Masonic associations will lead to excommunication.
The Catholic Church accuses that the Free Masons incorporate Deism and Naturalism as part of their masonic beliefs. Both of these philosophies have been condemned by the Church as atheistic.
After the Second Vatican Council many thought that the Church was going soft on Free Masonry. Questions arose in particular because the 1983 revision of the Code of Canon Law removed specific mention of Freemasonry from Canon 1374, which penalized "person[s] who join an association which plots against the Church".
In response to these questions, the Church position was reiterated by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in 1983. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger being the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the apostolic approval of Pope John Paul II, issued a Declaration on Masonic Associations, which reiterated the Church's objections to Freemasonry. The Declaration states:

The faithful who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion....
...the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association(s) remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden.

Responding specifically to the question of why mention of Freemasonry had been removed from the Code of Canon Law, Cardinal Ratzinger stated:

...  this circumstance is due to an editorial criterion which was followed also in the case of other associations likewise unmentioned inasmuch as they are contained in wider categories.

That is, the editors chose not to list specific organizations by name, but rather to prohibit the entire category regardless of the names of individual organizations.
Many Catholics believe that the prophecy in revelation about the second beast (Revelation 13:11) is made about the Free Masons. But the Church has never openly made any such claims.


Isaiah 35:5-6a,10 NIV:

  Then will the eyes of the blind be opened
    and the ears of the deaf unstopped.
  6Then will the lame leap like a deer,
    and the mute tongue shout for joy.
  (verse 10 shows context of Zion)
  10 and those the LORD has rescued will return.
  They will enter Zion with singing;
    everlasting joy will crown their heads.
  Gladness and joy will overtake them,
    and sorrow and sighing will flee away.

Just because you enter one way, doesn't mean you will stay that way. As the language of Isaiah is written you will be made whole. Besides Jesus wasn't stating you WOULD enter eternal life mamed, He was saying even if you were to enter heaven mamed, Wouldn't that be better than all of you being thrown in the fire of hell? Check out this link for other scriptures related to getting a new body in heaven, http://www.crossroad.to/heaven/contents/new_bodies.htm


According to churches which teach Believer's Baptism, what are the consequences of not being baptized with water?

I agree that Baptism is an outward expression of an inward change and isn't what saves you, yet even so, it is important to be baptised for three excellent reasons:

It is a rite of initiation into the Christian community - Although our confession before God (of our faith in Christ and his Lordship over us) is of primary importance, Public confession of our faith is important in terms of our relationship to the Christian community (the church) and our witness to non-Christians.  Another common community rite that we regard as good and useful is a wedding ceremony - it isn't what makes a marriage, but it's a good way for the community to gather, recognise, and - through their witness of sacred vows - solemnize a marriage - baptism is analagous to this. A refusal to be baptised implies an unwillingness to Confess Christ before men (cf. Matthew 10:32-35, 1 Corinthians 12:12-13).
In Baptism, though it is symbolic, we identify with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.  If we are unwilling to do this through fear of man or misunderstanding, such unwillingness testifies against a genuine identifaction with Christ as our Saviour and Lord. A refusal to be baptised indicates an unwillingness to identify with Christ and his work on the cross (cf. Romans 6:3-5).
While it may not be necessary for us to receive salvation, Baptism is a command of Jesus and his Apostles (cf. Matthew 28:19-20, Acts 2:38) - to ignore this command, even if the reason seems unnecessary to us, is an act of unbelief that may be more consequential than we realise - you are effectively saying you know better than Jesus and the Apostles about how you should live as a 'Christian' - dangerous stuff!  A refusal to be baptised indicates an unwillingness to trust Jesus as Lord (cf. Romans 11:17-22, Hebrews 3&4, 2 Kings 5:1-14).


What is an overview of teachings of Messianic Jewish Christians regarding circumcision?

Since the author of the question is seeking a general overview and not the view of specific congregations--I will offer an answer similar to Michael16, which is not itself wrong, but does lack specificity.

Right now there are two major branches of official Messianic Judaism. Those branches are the MJAA and the UMJC.  The former being the body which started first and the later, a breakaway movement, and as such the UMJC is more stringent in their observance, if only in their own view.

A google search of UMJC and Circumcision yields the following link: https://www.google.com/search?q=UMJC+circumcision

The first result (in my search) then becomes immediately relevant: Is Judaism Jewish? Early on (in the third paragraph of said document) the author, one Dr. Mark Kinzer, speaks of the same proof text Michael16 did: 1 Corinthians 7:18, 19. Kinzer states:

  "but keeping the commandments of God." Paul acknowledges with these words that the Torah commands Jews to be circumcised and to keep the mitzvot given to Israel, but expects non-Jews to keep only those commandments given to all human beings. Thus, what matters is not being Jewish or non-Jewish, but obeying those Divine commandments that apply to us.

Since the site bares the markings of the UMJC we can take this as an official position and not one individual congregation.

Next we come to the more lax MJAA.

Putting the terms, MJAA IAMCS Circumcision into a google search bar yielding the following results: https://www.google.com/search?q=MJAA+IAMCS+Circumcision

It should be noted that the results for the second search performed is far fewer than the first for the very reason that the MJAA has a less concrete positon on the matter than does the UMJC.

Quoting from a document among the results:

  The main Jewish life cycle events include circumcision, bar/bat mitzvah, wedding, and death and each of these events have their own set of liturgy and ritual. The first two are pertinent to this  study. In obedience to God’s command to Abraham, Jewish males are circumcised on the  eighth day as a physical sign of the covenant God made with Abraham in Genesis 17:11-12. (Messianic Jewish Liturgical Practices, by Elizabeth Ames, p. 10)

The only other relevant quote comes from Rabbi Jim Appel, a messianic Rabbi from New York whose congregation Shema Yisrael belongs to  the IAMCS.  This becomes relevant because when understanding his quote and how the IAMCS works, he would not be a member of that organization if his beliefs did not match theirs.  (The IAMCS is the governing body of the MJAA.)

A substitute document is Competing Trends In Messianic Judaism: The Debate Over Evangelicalism, which cites congregation Beth Yeshua as a forerunner for the MJAA position (though certainly progressive in its implementation). This article may be the best fit for your desire for an overview of Messianic Judaism as a whole as it does, like I have here done, break the movement into its two constituent bodies.


What did St. Thomas Aquinas write about Christ's passion?

This contains a collection of excerpts from St. Thomas's works (e.g., his Summa, quodlibetal questions, and commentaries on the Gospels) that pertain to the passion:

Meditations for Lent from St. Thomas Aquinas (audiobook)


Has Peter Lombard ever been venerated in the Catholic Church?
Has Peter Lombard ever been officially been given the title of venerable, as in the second step towards being canonized as a saint in the Catholic Church, the simple answer is no.
There seems to be no formal documentation to support the fact that he was venerated as such.
One of the biggest obstacles towards beatification and canonization is to have strong group of faithful to constantly push the case forward. Did Peter Lombard have this?
There is equally no doubt that Peter Lombard was indeed a very venerable and holy man.
On December 30,2010, Pope Benedict XVI dedicated his weekly general audience to the person of Peter Lombard. Nowhere in his address, did the pope refer to Peter Lombard as being venerable, as in the sense that his process of canonization had been opened. If he had of been already declared a venerable by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, Pope Benedict XVI would have placed this title prior to mentioning Peter Lombard.

During his general audience on Dec. 30, Pope Benedict XVI resumed his catechesis on the Christian culture of the Middle Ages. He spoke about Peter Lombard, an outstanding theologian, whose best-known work, the Sentences, became the standard introduction to theology for centuries, influencing the thought of scholars such as Sts. Albert the Great, Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas.
Dear brothers and sisters,
During this last audience of the year, I would like to speak to you about Peter Lombard, a theologian who lived during the 12th century and who is especially renowned because one of his works, the Sentences, was used as a standard text at schools of theology for many centuries.
Who, then, was Peter Lombard? Although there is little information about his life, we can reconstruct some essential facts. He was born between the 11th and the 12th centuries near Novara in northern Italy, in a land that had belonged to the Lombards for some time — hence the reason he was given the name of “Lombard.”
He came from a family of modest means, which we can deduce from the letter of introduction that Bernard of Clairvaux wrote for him to Gilduin, superior of the Abbey of St. Victor in Paris, asking him to take in Peter for free, since Peter wished to go to Paris to pursue his studies.
During the Middle Ages, it was not merely the nobles or the wealthy who could pursue their studies and aspire to important roles in the life of society at large or in the life of the Church. Even people of humble origins could attain such roles, like Gregory VII, the pope who held his ground in a confrontation with Emperor Henry IV, and Maurice of Sully, the archbishop of Paris who ordered the construction of the Cathedral of Notre-Dame and who himself was the son of a poor peasant.
Peter Lombard began his studies in Bologna, but later went to Reims and then to Paris. From 1140 onwards, he taught at the prestigious school of Notre Dame.
Respected and appreciated as a theologian, Pope Eugene III entrusted him eight years later with the task of examining the teachings of Gilbert Porretano, which had stirred up a great deal of controversy since they were regarded as not completely orthodox. After he was ordained a priest, Peter was named bishop of Paris in 1159, just a year before his death in 1160. - Peter Lombard, Theologian

Is Peter Lombard a Servant of God (Servus Dei)?
Personally, it is doubtful, for Benedict XVI never referred to Peter Lombard as a Servant of God.
To be declared a Servant of God, the first step towards canonization the process of canonization must be open at the local level by the local ordinary (bishop) or religious superior in the case the person is of a Religious Order.
To find this out one could email the Archdiocese of a Paris to find out.
Another way to actually verify this question is to check it out in the Index ac Status Causarum Beatificationis Servorum dei et Canonizationis ac Beatorum, if one can even locate this book.


Does Jesus ever claim to be God, or the son of God?

There are many occasions on which Jesus states his identity with God.

John 8:51-59 Jesus says

  John 8:58 (NIV)
  "Before Abraham was, I am"

This is a clear
reference to the name of God. Even if there were any doubt that this
is the reference the reaction of the Pharisees clearly indicates
that (in their eyes) this is a blasphemous claim.
Matthew 9:1-7 Jesus claims to forgive sins, which the local officials (correctly) believed to be the perogative of God only.
Thomas the apostle calls Jesus "My Lord and My God", which Jesus does not correct or deny.
Also, we see this in John

  John 14:9b, 10a (NIV)
  ... Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father... Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?

Matthew 26:63-64

  The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” “You have said so,” Jesus replied.

(There is a certain amount of dispute over the last item.  Many interpreters take Jesus statement as a colloquial affirmative, though some take it as meaning "so you say").

Insisting that statements by Jesus be 'literal' is missing the point. If Jesus made a statement that equated himself with God in a way that was clearly understood as such by his hearers, then that is what he did. The fact that it requires a little interpretation to our twenty-first century minds doesn't make it any less a claim.


How do Catholics speak with their Guardian angels?

Interaction with a guardian angel will vary from person to person because it takes on the character of a spiritual encounter.  There is some guidance in the Catechism that may help answer your question.

TL:DR; The most likely way to speak with your guardian angel is through prayer.   With the mind? Yes.  With the voice?  Yes.  In other ways?  Yes.

I'll explain how I arrive at that conclusion.  (Prayer need not be formal.  It can be informal communication of a prayerful nature).

On the nature of Angels

In (CCC 329) St Augustine is called upon to provide insight:

  'Angel' is the name of their office, not of their nature. If you seek
  the name of their nature, it is 'spirit'; if you seek the name of
  their office, it is 'angel': from what they are, 'spirit', from what
  they do, 'angel.'"

In the same article, the angels' role, to include some helpful guidance from Jesus:

  With their whole beings the angels are servants and messengers of God.
  Because they "always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven"
  they are the "mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of
  his word". (Matthew 18:10; Psalm 103)

A few articles down, we find this heading ...

The angels in the Life of the Church

CCC 334-336 explains it with reasonable brevity.

  ... the whole life of the Church benefits from the mysterious and
  powerful help of angels.  In her liturgy, the Church joins with the
  angels to adore the thrice-holy God.  She invokes their assistance (in
  the Roman Canon's Supplices te rogamus . . .{"Almighty God, we pray
  that your angel..."}; in the funeral liturgy's In Paradisum deducant
  te angeli. . .{"May the angels lead you into Paradise. . ."}).
  Moreover, in the "Cherubic Hymn" of the Byzantine Liturgy, she
  celebrates the memory of certain angels more particularly (St.
  Michael, St. Gabriel, St. Raphael, and the guardian angels).  From
  infancy to death human life is surrounded by their watchful care and
  intercession.1 "Beside each believer stands an angel as
  protector and shepherd leading him to life."2

How to communicate

Collectively, the church communicates with the angels through prayer.
Personally, any of the faithful can communicate to angels in prayer.  A classic example is this prayer to St Michael.

  St. Michael the Archangel,  defend us in battle.  Be our defense
  against the wickedness and snares of the Devil.  May God rebuke him,
  we humbly pray,   and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly hosts, by the
  power of God, thrust into hell Satan, and all the evil spirits, who
  prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

Through our actions.  The church believes that the guardian angel stands "beside each believer" -- the implication is that the angel is aware of what the believer they have the care of is doing.  Not too far of a reach, if you already accept as a matter of faith that there are angels, and that we each have a guardian angel.
Through personal prayer.  If the Church can collectively communicate with the angel through prayer, a single member of the faithful can do the same.  Since a guardian angel of the same nature as any other angel, prayer will work.
Through conversation.  Be it silent and mental, or verbal/spoken communication, a key to believing that we can communicate with our guardian angel is linked to their aforementioned capacity for intercession.  Prayers for intercession are very common forms of prayer.  Given that the angel is near by, simple prayer, or a simple request prayerful or otherwise, should be effective.

Isn't communication a two way street?

Yes.  How to listen, how to learn to listen, and how to pick up cues of response to prayer (be it angelic response or from higher authority) is one of the places where spiritual experience will vary.  You may hear your angel's voice.  I may only be provided signs and portents.  Another person may see something in particular.

Follow up on St Augustine: since the nature of the angel is of spirit, encounters with angels take on a spiritual character.  A common form of spiritual encounter is through prayer, although there are other forms.

What is prayer?  From CCC 2558:

  For me, prayer is a surge of the heart;
  it is a simple look turned toward heaven,
  it is a cry of recognition and of love,
  embracing both trial and joy.
  ~ St. Therese of Lisieux, Manuscrits autobiographiques

To sum up all of the above

The most likely way to communicate with one's guardian angel is through prayer.  It isn't the only way, but based on the church's teaching on guardian angels and angels in general, it seems to simplest way to do it.  To a certain extent it probably doesn't matter, since the guardian angel is aware of what we do and what we need.

If the desire to communicate arises  ...  communicate.

1 Matthew 18:10; ⇒ Luke 16:22; ⇒ Psalms 34:7; 1:10-13; ⇒ Job 33:23-24; ⇒ Zecharaiah 1:12
2 St. Basil, Eunomium III, I: PG 29, 656B.


Help in calculating cousin degree according to Catholic Church

The mode of calculation for canon law from the link in the previous question is reasonably clear.

The number of degrees is the number of people of the longer line of descent between you and your girlfriend back to but not including the first ancestor common between you.
You must be separated by at least 5 degrees.

You've been unbelievably unclear about your ancestry.  Not a little unclear, astronomically unclear.  Why are you complicating things by talking about your father's sister and your girlfriend's uncle?  Is your aunt not a blood relative of your father?  Is your girlfriend's uncle not a blood relative of one of her parents?  What does it mean that your father and your girlfriend's uncle are not related?  Do your father and his sister not share a parent?  Please note my concluding statement, below.

Anyway, all you need to do is draw a chart of your family tree back to the first common ancestor and count the number of generations between you and that common ancestor (count every person in the line, including yourself and the common ancestor, and subtract 2).  Do it for both you and your girlfriend.  If both numbers are 5 or more, you're good to go.  If either isn't, you're good friends.

Based only on what you've told us, you're separated by 2 or 3 degrees, max.

However, if your girlfriend's uncle is actually an uncle-in-law (someone married to your girlfriend's aunt), then the two of you may not be related by blood at all.  You need an accurate family tree, and you haven't provided one.

Please note that an analysis of your specific family tree is off-topic for this site and will not be considered.  The question of how Canon Law calculates degrees (assuming I'm right) has been answered.


Is there a consensus among early Christians on Romans 9?

The most important key in resolving an apparent conflicting passage in Scripture is by comparing it with how the same Holy Spirit guiding the early Christians throughout time interpreting the passage being disputed. If throughout time from the earliest moment a dispute was brought in attention and discussed down to the modern time show converging thoughts or cohesive consensus then that view has received the longest attention compared to others.
A popular ecclesiastical view that compatible with St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas of Aquinas doctrine on predestination and free will comes from a saint well respected by Catholics and Eastern Orthodox alike, a monk by the name John from Damascus in Syria. Instead of prioritizing free will by undermining predestination which leads to Pelagian heresy or emphasizing predestination at the expense of free will, this monk explains how the two are synergistically relatable.

One should know that it is customary for sacred Scripture to call God’s permission His action, as when the Apostle says in his Epistle to the Romans: ‘Or hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor?’ He does indeed make both the one and the other, because He is the sole Creator of all things, but it is the own deliberate choice of each and not He that makes them honorable or dishonorable. This is also clear from what the Apostle himself says in his Second Epistle to Timothy: ‘In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and of earth: and some indeed unto honor, but some unto dishonor. If any man therefore shall cleanse himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified and profitable to the Lord, prepared unto every work.’ It is clear that this cleansing is done freely, for he says ‘if any man shall cleanse himself,’ the converse of which rejoins that, if he does not cleanse himself, he will be a vessel unto dishonor, of no use to Lord, and only fit to be broken. Thus, the foregoing quotation and that which reads: ‘God hath concluded all in unbelief’ and ‘God hath given them the spirit of insensibility; eyes that they should not see and ears that they should not hear,’ are none of them to be taken in the sense of God acting, but in that of God permitting because of free will and because virtue is not forced.
St. John of Damascene, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 4, Chapter 19.

The focus that Damascene pointed out is in the aspect of providence namely divine permissive will. It is by focusing on God's providence St. Damascene was able to reconcile the two apparent contradiction harmoniously.


Are monks allowed by Church law to set up a religious order for clergymen with a particular profession (ex. developers)?

Monica, generally speaking, there is are typical pathways under which a person who wanted to set up a community of like minded individuals could do so and get some sort of ecclesiastical recognition for the community. The way it would be most likely to happen would be that the person recruits others to join his community, then seeks ecclesiastical recognition for that community. There is no reason that a "monk" could not do this, but it would be more likely to be someone who is not already a monk, as a monk is a man who is already part of an established community. The title "monk" is typically used for a person who is not ordained, and while he might be able to recruit to his proposed community people who already are, it is more likely than not that there would be unlikely to be "clergymen" among them, as clergymen are already ordained, and it is not common for ordained people to come under the authority of a lay person in ecclesiastical affairs.

The exact process and procedure by which such a group would be set up would depend upon a number of factors. A small group operating in one place might be able to set up such a community with the permission and oversight of the local bishop. A national group with several communities in different places within the same country might need the permission and oversight of the appropriate National council of bishops; an international community, with communities widely distributed around the globe might need the permission and oversight of the appropriate office of the curia. The exact procedures to be followed might depend upon the size of the group.

I suspect that someone who is highly motivated, and dedicated to setting up such a group as you propose could do so, by recruiting members, and working with the appropriate offices of the church. In fact, if I remember correctly, some years ago, I happened across the website of a monastery (operating under the Fransiscan rule, in Arizona, US, if I recall correctly) whose members supported themselves and the mission of the monastery by doing internet work. At the time their website was recruiting members with skills in several areas related to internet page design and creation. Regrettably, I no longer remember the exact name of the monastery, but one particular characteristic I remember of the monastic website was that the name of the title of the brother who was responsible for running the website was "webservant", rather than the then more common "webmaster".


Are there sola scriptura inerrantists who reject sensus unum as a general hermeneutic?

I am answering the question :

  "Are there any reformed persons who argue for such a position" that is to say who "reject sensus unum and yet still affirm biblical inerrancy from a view of sensus plenior" ?

I define sensus unum as the concept that any biblical text has a plain meaning, an obvious meaning and a single meaning.

I define sensus plenior as the concept that any biblical text may have several layers of meaning, or multiple meanings.

I define myself as 'Reformed' in that I agree with the the doctrine and the practice (largely) of such as Martin Luther, John Knox and other such.

Scripture is referred to by Paul the Apostle as 'inspired' II Timothy 3:16, which word is θεοπνευστος theopneustos, 'God-breathed'.

But Peter declares that some persons - unlearned and unstable persons - 'wrest' the scriptures to their own destruction, II Peter 3:16.

It is perfectly clear that in the matter, for example, of the turning of water into wine at Cana of Galilee, that there is a meaning to the whole passage. Underlying the narrative, the statement of historical fact of water being poured into stone pots until they were full, then the water being drawn out; and in the drawing out of the water, it is found to be wine - there is clearly a meaning beneath.

This was not a display of supernatural ability just to demonstrate supernatural ability. It is clear from the development of the book written by John that a spiritual truth is being expressed by the miracle - or 'sign' as σεμειον semeion is better rendered.

What is being expressed can be seen from the context and from what has just happened in John's unfolding text and from what will follow in John's proceeding narrative.

There is a clear meaning - a single meaning - from the supernatural sign.

But buried in the narrative is the fact of water being 'made' wine, and the word ποιεο poieo is used to convey that fact.

Which is the same word used by Paul to convey that Jesus Christ was 'made' sin in the offering up of himself in sacrifice, II Corinthians 5:21.

The demonstration of water being made wine, that is to say the fact that water had something added to it, and thus it became other than it had been, that thus there was - suffused throughout the whole body of water - something else which changed the character of that body of water : conveys something profound in relation to the other use of the word ποιεο poieo in Paul's epistle.

Thus, as a 'reformed' person I would personally argue not that the Cana miracle has multiple explanations in and of itself (for there is but one true and spiritual explanation of the meaning behind the miracle) but that there is more in the text to be seen.

For it is God, the Spirit - the Divine Person - who has inspired these most holy writings. And his masterful, brilliant, sensitive, artistic and immensely competent ability is seen throughout the passages, the texts the words - and even to the very individual letters upon the page.

There are layers of revelation in these God-breathed scriptures, is how I would express the matter. Layers of revelation and depths of profundity are encapsulated within inerrant and infallibly communicated documentation.

But one must be wary, for many foolish and unlearned persons wrestle with these holy writings and, in so doing, they do injustice to the words and they do detriment to themselves.


In broad strokes, the term "Biblical" gets used in one of two senses:

Content included in or coming directly from the canon of the Bible.
Something that is in essential agreement with what the Bible teaches about a subject.

The so called Testament of Solomon is Biblical in neither of these senses. It is not included in anybody's canon (not the Jews, Catholics, Protestants, any of the Orthodox churches, or any of the more recent denominations). In other words no branch of Christianity considers the work authoritative. Additionally its content directly contradicts the Biblical narrative of the same events on many points.


What was the pre-Babel language and what can be said about the mechanism used to confuse the languages?

It is held by some to be the Adamic language, properly named, though Midrash and Talmud say it was Hebrew. See wikipedia on the Confusion of Tongues.


Who was Saint Raynerius of Beaulieu?

St. Raynerius was Benedictine monk. He served at Beaulieu, near Limoges, France and died in 967. His feast day is celebrated on February 22.

The above information is about the most you will be able to glean off the internet.

One source has this to add:

  Let me introduce you to the Blessed Rainer.

  Rainer’s cult doesn’t seem to have stuck, but a man called Remi wanted it to and at some point in the reign of King Lothar III (954-967) he gave Beaulieu a manse in Oriols (in Davazac in the Limousin) for the benefit of his own soul and someone called Robert, and:

    “in honour of the blessed Rainer who was provost of the selfsame place already said, and because of this, that the selfsame man showed his great virtue to all who were there present, when a crippled adolescent who had been brought to his tomb, through the great felicity of his intercession, quickly came running before the altar of Saint Peter; and this great miracle was produced on the feast of Saint Martial.”

  This is almost all we get on Rainer; one other charter from 968 refers to a church or altar of St-Rainer that had already received some of the testator’s land in a place called Flexo in Puy d’Arnac, right by the monastery, so perhaps he was moved out into his own chapel, and that’s the last notice as far as I know (not that I have gone looking).2 Even here there are some interesting questions, though. Why didn’t the monks keep him, if he was already a focus of popular devotion? (Presumably one doesn’t dump one’s invalids in front of a nobody’s tomb when there’s an altar of St Peter nearby…) Why is it on the feast of Saint Martial (who was culted not here but at the local diocesan of Limoges) that all this occurred? It may be that, since this was a monastic church, people simply couldn’t access it except on feast days, of course, and the house’s ties to its bishops were usually pretty good early on so an open house for Beaulieu on St Martial’s in recognition of that is not implausible. - How a saint’s cult gets started

It seems that St. Raynier is one of those saints we know very little about. But let that not hinder you in order to try to find more information of this saint from Beaulieu.

Allow me to suggest three approaches in aiding you in your endeavour:

The Bollandists is probably your best bet. That is if you can find the the Lives of the Saints by the Bollandists. I can not recall how many volumes are in this, but I believe it to be around 18. If one can this saint anywhere, it will be here. These are hard to find books, so I suggest you try at some traditional Catholic Religious Orders, especially Benedictines.
Write or email the Diocese of Limoges with a request for further information.
Use google search engine in French (en Français of course) while employing various alternatives of spelling St. Raynerius’ name. This may be the least likely way to be of help, but it is a possibility anyway.

Good luck and hope this help.


What is the difference between belief and faith, from a Protestant perspective?

The understanding that I am most familiar with - a Protestant understanding, if it matters, is that "belief" is an intellectual belief, while "faith" is a matter of trust that leads to action.

This can be summed up in an illustration of Charles Blondin, a  tightrope walker who asks a crowd if they believe that he can safely walk a wheelbarrow across Niagara Falls on a tightrope.  Many in the crowd ask who believes that he can do this, and of course, most say that they do.  Then he asks who is willing to get into the wheelbarrow.  Only those whose "belief" reaches the point of faith will get in.

This is similar to how it's explained by many, many, Christian groups, and while I can't claim that the understanding is universal, it is quite common.  For example, The Feral Apologist has an article explaining the difference here.  They put it like this:

  How are we, as Christians, to understand our faith? We need to first
  discover the meaning of the word “faith” in the Bible, and how that
  meaning is somewhat different from the meaning many attach to it
  today. To avoid the cultural baggage associated with the term, let’s
  look at the Greek words that are used in the New Testament and
  translated as “faith.” There are three primary forms of this word in
  Greek, the noun form pistis, the adjective form pistos, and the verb
  form pisteuo. Each form’s meaning is a variant of the word “trust.”
  Hence pistis is “a trust” in someone or something, pistos is
  “trusting” as applied to someone adjectivally, and pisteuo literally
  means “I trust.” It is important to keep this in mind because we have
  often misunderstood these words (translated as “faith”) in our culture
  to be, not variants of the word trust, but variants of the word
  belief, used in an intellectual sense. It is true that some places in
  scripture, such as James 2:19, the verb form is rightly translated as
  “believe” because of contextual issues and what James was trying to
  accomplish. In other places, such as John 14:1, a variant imperative
  form of the verb is translated as Jesus’ exhortation to “trust” in
  him. When we encounter the word “faith” in scripture then, our default
  understanding should be that it means “trust.”

Faith Baptist Church, in New jersey also uses the Blondin story in one of their devotionals on the subject. The devotional says this:

  The historical stunts of Blondin help us understand what it means to
  have "faith". First of all, faith is not mere intellectual assent. If
  anyone in the crowd truly believe that Blondin could cross the raging
  Niagara with someone in the wheelbarrow, he or she would have
  volunteered to ride along. "Faith" always means that we are really
  trusting someone or something. "Faith" is more than the words of
  mental assent as the words that were shouted by the crowds lining the
  shores of Niagara. To say, "We believe" means that we believe not only
  with our head, but with our heart and our wills. Faith means that we
  believe that God can do what He has said and that we believe it so
  thoroughly that we are willing to fully act upon it. Faith does not
  mean that we believe God can do it, but that God can do it with us in
  that "wheelbarrow".


Why was Jewish High Priest commanded to have a golden plate inscribed “Holiness to the Lord”?

There is a specific purpose for every part of the Priest's attire, and that is most certainly true of the High Priest; since only he can ever enter the Holy of Holies, and then only once a year for the specific purpose of atoning for the sins of Israel.

It is worth noting that nearly all of Chapter 28 is devoted to describing only the High Priest's garments, and in meticulous detail.

  Exodus 28:33 through 38  And beneath upon the hem of it thou shalt make pomegranates of blue, and of purple, and of scarlet, round about the hem thereof; and bells of gold between them round about: 34  A golden bell and a pomegranate, a golden bell and a pomegranate, upon the hem of the robe round about. 35  And it shall be upon Aaron to minister: and his sound shall be heard when he goeth in unto the holy place before the LORD, and when he cometh out, that he die not. 36  And thou shalt make a plate of pure gold, and grave upon it, like the engravings of a signet, HOLINESS TO THE LORD. 37  And thou shalt put it on a blue lace, that it may be upon the mitre; upon the forefront of the mitre it shall be. 38  And it shall be upon Aaron's forehead, that Aaron may bear the iniquity of the holy things,* which the children of Israel shall hallow in all their holy gifts; and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the LORD.

In the above passage notice that there are two items that are designated with a specific purpose, that being the bells at the bottom of his robe and the plate.

the bells are to announce the identity of who is entering so that the ire of God is not unleashed, and he be killed.
The plate that identifies him as the bearer of the sins of Israel.

Hope this helps.