Are there any Christian churches or groups which teach that all religions are inherently good?

Yes.

All Christian churches and groups that base their beliefs on the teachings of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) believe that people of all religions can be saved if they believe in God and live a good life according to the teachings of their own religion. This belief is not a recent development, but has been part of New Church (Swedenborgian) doctrine since the church was first organized as a distinct sect in the late 18th century, a decade and a half after Swedenborg's death.

Here is an example of Swedenborg's teaching on this subject:

  It is an insane heresy to believe that only those born in the church
  are saved. People born outside the church are just as human as people
  born within it. They come from the same heavenly source. They are
  equally living and immortal souls. They have religions as well,
  religions that enable them to believe that God exists and that they
  should lead good lives; and all of them who do believe in God and lead
  good lives become spiritual on their own level and are saved. (Divine Providence #330.5)

By "the church" in this context Swedenborg means the Christian church as a whole, including all denominations and branches.

Swedenborg taught that all religions are provided by God, and that there are different religions because religion must be adapted to the culture and character of the different nations and peoples of the world. For more on this subject from a Swedenborgian perspective, see: If there’s One God, Why All the Different Religions?

Swedenborgians hold to this belief while themselves believing in a strongly Christian theology. Swedenborg taught that the salvation accomplished by Jesus Christ through his life, death, resurrection, and ascension made salvation possible for all people, not only Christians, and that those who believe in God are in fact believing in Jesus Christ because Jesus Christ is God, and there is no other God to believe in. For more on this, see Who is God? Who is Jesus Christ? What about that Holy Spirit? and Is Jesus Christ the Only Way to Heaven?


What is the basis for the belief that Christianity and Islam worship different gods?

The answer to your question lies in what each religion teaches about who God is.
Islam
From The Truth About Islam by Dr. David R. Reagan*:

God — The Koran asserts that the god of Islam is the God of Christians and Jews (Sura 29:46). Nothing could be farther from the truth.7
The god of Islam, Allah, is most definitely not the God of the Bible. Allah is presented in the Koran as an autocratic ruler who is aloof and arbitrary (Sura 5:40). Allah is unknowable whereas the God of the Bible is knowable (2 Timothy 1:12). Allah is impersonal, unlike the personal God the Scriptures reveal (1 Peter 5:6-7). Allah is unitarian (Sura 4:48) whereas the God of the Bible is trinitarian (2 Corinthians 13:14). Here is what the Koran says about the God of the Bible (Sura 4:171): “Believe in Allah and say not ‘Trinity.’ Cease! It is better for you! Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from his transcendent majesty that he should have a son.”
Allah is capricious (Sura 2:284), whereas the true God is trustworthy. And Allah is never anywhere presented as a god of love — which is the essence of the nature of the true God (1 John 4:7-16).
Jesus — The Koran denies point blank that Jesus was the Son of God (Sura 112:2-3). It also denies His atoning sacrifice by claiming that he never died (Sura 4:157). A substitute died for Him on the Cross. Jesus was translated to Heaven, like Enoch, where He will remain until He returns to kill all pigs, destroy all crosses, and convert the world to Islam. Jesus will marry, reign for 40 years and then die and be buried next to Muhammad in Medina.8 Jesus is characterized in the Koran as nothing more than “an apostle of Allah” (Sura 4:171).

The god that Islam teaches about is very different from the God of the Bible. Muslims and Christians may trace their roots back to Abraham but it's hard to claim they're the same god when they act so dramatically different.
Judaism
Because Christianity stems directly out of Judaism, it's clear they are worshiping the same god. The God of the New Testament is the same as the God of the Old Testament. For example:

Same character

Redeemer (OT - Isaiah 47:4)(NT - Luke 1:68)
Knowable (OT - Jeremiah 9:23-24)(NT - John 17:3)
Trustworthy (OT - 2 Samuel 7:28)(NT - Revelation 21:5)
Love (OT - Exodus 34:6)(NT - 1 John 4:8)
Just (OT - Psalm 145:17)(NT - Revelation 15:3)

Consistent interactions with man (do a Google search for "old testament types of Christ")
Same expectations of man (OT - Leviticus 11:45)(NT - 1 Peter 1:15-16)
Same consequences for sin (OT - Genesis 2:17)(NT - Romans 6:23)

Jesus himself even acknowledges that salvation comes from the Jews (John 4:22). Christians may believe the Jews overlooked the Messiah but they undoubtedly worship the same God.
*More info about Dr. David R. Reagan and his denominational ties can be found here:
http://christinprophecy.org/?staff=dr-david-r-reagan
http://christinprophecy.org/about/#Purpose


Is Christianity continuing to grow worldwide?

The numbers appear to be inconclusive, at least according to this site.

It appears the number of Christians is growing, but in terms of percentage of population, some studies show a slight growth, while others show a slight decline.  Of course the various studies are over different time periods, so it's impossible, with the given data, to draw any conclusive results.

Wikipedia estimates the 2007 growth rate of Christianity at 1.38%, which appears to be within the range of the various studies cited above.


What to do with a Nun’s silver wedding band?

From what I've read, I think that the wedding band given to a consecrated religious sister is given to her for the same reason it is given to a married laywoman.

Womanhood is fulfilled quite as perfectly in a life of virginal chastity as in human marriage. And that is why the Church's ancient and elaborate ceremonial for the consecration of virgins has for its climax the placing of a wedding ring on the finger of the newly professed nun. "Receive this ring that marks you as a bride of God." She is wedded to Christ. And the union is fecund with souls.
The Cloistered Life of a Poor Clare

And, if so, I think it would have the same sacramental status as a wedding band.  Catholic radio host and author Lisa Duffy, writing for the The Catholic Match Institute, says:

Therefore, the Church does not mandate that wedding rings must be kept or cannot be sold. What  happens to a wedding ring is a very personal decision and is left up to the spouse who remains in possession of it

and with regards to selling it, she quotes the Catechism's part on the sin of simony saying that you can't sell it as a magic totem or that it's better because it was a nun's ring (historical reasons may increase the value, but not spiritual reasons).
My first instinct reading your question was that it should be melted down and disposed of on holy ground like you would with the ashes from old palms or busted blessed scapulars.  But maybe that isn't the case for wedding rings.

The Church provides us with sacramentals (primarily articles that have been blessed, such as rosaries, crucifixes, holy cards, etc. but can also be prayers), for the purposes of instilling piety in the one who possesses them.

So the blessing is on the person who holds the ring and the ring, it's not on the ring itself.


Would it have been possible for Jesus to sin?

Yes
John 10:18 (NIV)

No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.

Jesus, in this verse, says that he has the ability to choose whether he laid down his life or not.
Because of this, he had the free will to choose to follow God's wishes or not.  Therefore, yes, he had the ability to sin.

Wow, I thought this was a pretty obvious answer.  Some more concepts to back up this idea:

Perfection does not preclude sin
Adam and Eve were perfect and sinless in the Garden of Eden.  However, they, who knew no sin, were tempted and succumbed to sin.  Clearly, perfection and not having previously knowing sin is not a preclusion to actually sinning.

Divinity does not preclude sin
Others claim that because of his divinity--more specifically, his part of the trinity--that he was incapable of sin.  However, John 10:18 (shown above), clearly shows that Jesus himself (not the other members of the trinity) had the authority to choose to sin and go against his Father.  Also, his prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane shows that his will and his father's will were separate.  Since their wills were separate and since he had the ability to choose to sin, it would have been possible for Jesus to have put his will first and chose to go against his father's will.

Therefore, Jesus had true and complete free will and the ability to sin.


What is the origin of the Church potluck?

A "potluck", in this context, is nothing more than a meal shared among members of a Church after a service.  There's no doctrinal or ritual significance to it, as you know, and it's not ordained.  it's simply sharing a meal amongst our Church family.

Jesus often ate with His disciples, so an argument could be made that Christians can trace it there.  You could use the miraculous feeding of the multitudes, I suppose.  However...

I'm sure the practice of eating after a service or worship, people bringing food, sharing time and a meal together far predates even New testament times.  You could probably, if you liked, trace it right back to Adam and Eve eating of the fruit of the Garden (even if only allegorically, as many would interpret that book.)  You may as well ask "When did the institution of greeting a brother in Christ" or "shaking hands after the second Hymn get it's start"

The answer is, of course, back at the beginning.  It's just what families do.  Our Church family, our co-workers, our biological family, or in-laws.  We just enjoy spending time with those we care about.

More here: http://www.fbcbennington.org/sermonsjhh/2011/7/15/in-search-of-the-new-testament-potluck-acts-237-47.html

Excerpt:

  On this final day of VBS, the adults and the children are exploring
  Acts 2:37-47.  Right in the midst of these essentials of the Church’s
  identity, we learn that we are not the first believers to connect
  “food” to the Christian faith.  Indeed, the first churches learned
  that “breaking bread together” gave them as much a sense of identity
  as did the teaching, the praying, and the sharing with one another.
  Being together at table is essential to church as any prayer, hymn, or
  sermon.

  When you think back over your life, do you remember a good meal at
  church?  I think of the dinner rolls of Anna Brown, a dedicated lay
  woman who had a kind word literally for every person around the table
  (a feat among Kansas Baptists, who are better known for having
  opinions on just about everything and everybody).  I recall the
  skilled cooking of Orman Halderman, who learned to cook during his
  WWII service years, able to rally a fine meal every month out of a
  volunteer group of men trying to cook, without Orman’s leadership
  otherwise would have brought new meaning to the phrase “green eggs and
  ham”.  I recollect the kindness shown by the search committee when
  coming to visit First Baptist, Bennington, five years ago.  You heard
  that Kerry was a vegetarian and made especial effort to offer a meal
  sensitive to her dietary convictions.  That meant a lot.  And later
  this morning, we will make our way down the hall for the meal that
  will recall the words of an old hymn:  “feed me till I want no more.”

  If you were to claim that “food” is somehow secondary to “church”, I
  would disagree gladly.  Without meals together, we forget skills and
  values that worship cannot impart to us.  In the pews, there’s a
  formalism that the supper bell sets aside.  At table, we get to know
  the person beside us in the pews.  (A good suggestion for potluck:
  Sit down by somebody later today that you have not connected with in a
  spell.  Breaking bread together is a great icebreaker for churches to
  get to know one another.  Better yet, find somebody you cannot recall
  getting to know yet.  It may be a little uneasy at first, but
  remember, the person across from you is a fellow congregant.  You have
  “First Baptist” in common!)


What does the LDS Church (Mormon) teach about marriage and polygamy in the afterlife?

Preparing for Exaltation Teachers Manual - Lesson 41: Eternal Marriage

  Explain that in the temple, through the power of the priesthood, Chris and her husband could be married for eternity, not just until death. Their children would then be “born in the covenant,” which means that they could be sealed together as a family forever.

If you are married in an LDS temple, for time and all eternity, and you reach the highest of the three degrees of glory after death, the celestial kingdom, and your wife and children reach the celestial kingdom, your marriage and your family is yours forever.

So no, eternal marriage and family are not for everybody.

If a man marries more than one woman while on earth, because of the first wife's death, then he will be married to both women in the celestial kingdom.

Women who make it to the celestial kingdom because of their faithfulness, and whose husbands don't make it to the celestial kingdom, because of unfaithfulness, are eligible to marry a different, faithful husband in the celestial kingdom.

Edited to add answers to the questions in Narnian's comment:

  Can you expand on the case where one woman would marry multiple men, because of death? Since she was married to multiple men, whose wife in the afterlife is she?

The woman would be the wife of the earliest celestially worthy husband.

  Also, if there happen to be more men than women in the highest degree of glory, would a woman have multiple husbands?

No.  There would be men who don't have celestial wives.


The Hebrew calendar is actually a luni-solar one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_calendar).

It is based not only on the moon, but also by the sun.  The reason is the moon revolves slower around the earth (about 29-30 days) than the earth around the sun (about 365.25 days).  This means that roughly every three years, the Hebrew calendar "added" a month (called intercalary month) of 29-30 days to bring the lunar time back in line with the sun's time.

This lunar/solar necessity is spelled out clearly in Ex. 12:2 (This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you.)  It is the beginning of months (plural).  This, in combination with the barley first fruit wave sheaf offering (Lev. 23:10) and other seasonal feasts.  If they merely followed the moon cycle, within a couple of years there would not be barley to wave, nor to harvest 50 days later at Pentecost (Lev. 23:15-22).  So, they "added" the month to bring "agriculture time" back into the moon and sun alignment so they could follow the commandments.

This necessity and time keeping is also clearly found centuries later with Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews Book 3 Chapter 10.5  ("5. In the month of Xanthicus, which is by us called Nisan, and is the beginning of our year, on the fourteenth day of the lunar month, when the sun is in Aries,").  The alignment time was thus marked as the spring equinox.  This means they required the new moon and full moon to both be after the Spring Equinox.  The sun would be in Aries and alight the new moon also in Aries.

So, the Seventy Years is in fact 70 years as measured by the rotation past the Spring Equinox and not by the lunar months (30 days or 360 days) alone.


Are the books known as the "Book of the Covenant" and the "Book of the Law" the same book or two separate books?

According to Jeffrey Tigay, Professor of Hebrew and Semitic Languages and Literatures at the University of Pennsylvania, Book of the Covenant refers specifically to what was given in Exodus 20:19-23:33, which begins The Lord said to Moses: Thus shall you say to the Israelites ....1

The word translated in the ESV as "Law" in Deuteronomy 29:21 is "torah", which also means "teaching".  The Jewish Publication Society Tanakh version of Deuteronomy translates this verse as:

  The LORD will single them out from all the tribes of Israel for misfortune, in accordance with all the sanctions of the covenant
  recorded in this book of Teaching.

As such, it would refer to all the books that Moses was in the process of writing (i.e. the Pentateuch) and which today are referred to collectively as the "Torah" by Jews.

So in a sense I think you are right, although the Book of the Covenant is not really a separate book, but rather a subsection of the greater Torah (Book of Law/Teaching).

1  The Oxford Jewish Study Bible (1st ed.), p.162n


According to Catholicism, is it unlawful to cause others to work on Sunday?

At least as regards some of the activities mentioned in the O.P.—especially, eating out—it is not problematic for those who are dedicated to providing others with leisure to do so on Sunday or other holy days.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states expressly:

  Sanctifying Sundays and holy days requires a common effort. Every Christian should avoid making unnecessary demands on others that would hinder them from observing the Lord’s Day. Traditional activities (sport, restaurants, etc.), and social necessities (public services, etc.), require some people to work on Sundays, but everyone should still take care to set aside sufficient time for leisure (no. 2187, emphasis added).

Regarding keeping stores open, the situation is less clear. Some stores are clearly a public service (pharmacies, etc.), and so keeping them open is not a problem. In other cases, whether there is truly a need to keep the stores open is a matter for prudential judgment, and so the Church has refrained from making any detailed pronouncements.

In any event, in societies (such as the United States) that are predominantly non-Catholic, it is simply not prudent or possible to control when stores will be open. Catholics are not expected to refuse to work on Sunday and holy days, especially if their future employment or advancement is placed in jeopardy. (It would, however, certainly be a good gesture on an employer’s part to allow Christians to take Sunday off, to the degree that it is possible.)

It follows, then, that there is no absolute prohibition against causing others to work on Sunday. An effort should be made to help others keep their Sunday rest to the extent possible, and so it seems prudent to refrain from unnecessarily requiring others to work—e.g., by doing the weekly grocery shopping on a Sunday. This is, however, a prudential judgment, not a question of a strict moral prohibition.

(My answer to the O.P.’s related question, According to Catholicism, is going to work on Holy Days of Obligation sinful?, will also shed light on this question.)


What are the steps to become Confirmed in the Catholic church?

I am pulling from this specific forum response on the same question for my answer: Catholic Answer Forums.

For non-baptized believers, the process as an adult is basically to go through the "Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults" (RCIA).  This will end with the believer being confirmed.

  385 The high point of their entire formation will normally be the Easter Vigil. At that time they will make a profession of the faith in which they were baptised, receive the sacrament of confirmation, and take part in the eucharist. If, because neither the bishop nor another authorized minister is present, confirmation cannot be given at the Easter Vigil, it is to be celebrated as soon as possible and, if this can be arranged, during the Easter season.

For baptized believers, it is left up to the individual churches to determine when they may be  confirmed.  I would assume there would normally be some sort of curriculum to ensure the believer can "receive both doctrinal and spiritual preparation".

  391 The baptised Christian is to receive both doctrinal and spiritual preparation, adapted to individual pastoral requirements, for reception into the full communion of the Catholic Church. The candidate should learn to deepen an inner adherence to the Church, where he or she will find the fulness of his or her baptism. During the period of preparation the candidate may share in worship in conformity witli the provisions of the Ecumenical Directory. Anything that would equate candidates for reception with those who are catechumens is to be absolutely avoided.


Why did Jesus address Yahweh as God at the Cross?

St. Thomas Aquinas's commentary on Matthew 27:46 explains that

  He calls Him His Father, in that He is God; He calls Him His God, in that He is man: wherefore, when He says, My God, My God, etc., it is clear that He is speaking insofar as He is a man; hence, He groans, to express the greatness of His human suffering.


How to know when a particular verse of the Bible have been or will be part of the Liturgy of the Word? (Catholic)

Divinum Officium (GitHub repository), written in Perl, can do this. It contains data files for the Mass in several languages. Bible verses begin with a "!" (e.g., "!Num 17:8"), so you can easily search those files for verses. Divinum Officium generates a liturgical calendar, too.


How do you know if you are under a trial or if you are just suffering?

In his book, Secrets of the Vine (based on John 15), Bruce Wilkinson addresses this very question.

In both situations, there is pain, so the presence of pain does not necessarily mean one is under God's discipline, although it could.

The key thing is to examine one's life to see if there is any unconfessed sin and to ask God  to reveal that.  One could also discuss it with a close friend or pastor to see if there is anything that other people have noticed.  If one is honest and there is nothing that God reveals, then it may be that the issue is purely one of growth.

Bruce Wilkinson distinguishes between the two by indicating that whenever there is pain because of sin, the pain continues until the person stops sinning.  However, if it is purely a matter of growth, the pain will continue until God has finished His work.


Is Jesus eternally the Son of God the Father?

The Nicene Creed (Wikipedia: "It forms the mainstream definition of Christianity for most Christians.") answers this question (emphasis added):

  And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
  the only begotten Son of God,
  begotten of his Father before all worlds,
  God of God, Light of Light,
  very God of very God,
  begotten, not made,
  being of one substance with the Father;
  by whom all things were made;


What was the difference between Ratramnus's view of the Eucharist and that of Calvin?

Ligonier Ministries has an article about this question posted on its website, addressing the Eucharistic controversy in which Ratramnus took part and discussing its relationship with Protestantism. The most relevant section:

  The views of Ratramnus are somewhat more difficult to pin down than
  those of Radbertus. He does not advocate a simple symbolic
  memorialism, as Zwingli would do centuries later. Nor does he advocate
  anything like the later Lutheran doctrine. If anything, there are some
  similarities between the views of Ratramnus and the views John Calvin
  would later teach, but even here we must be cautious because there are
  also significant differences. Calvin, for example, would agree with
  Ratramnus when he asserts that we partake of bread and wine with the
  mouth and the body and blood of Christ by faith. But Calvin would say
  that we partake in a spiritual manner of the true body and blood of
  Christ — not what Ratramnus refers to as “spiritual flesh.”


Genesis 19:14 NIV

So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to
marry his daughters[a]
[a] Genesis 19:14 Or were married to

They were in the first stages of marriage, which if it were modern times, it would be like engaged - but different (see below).  The marriage was not consummated and therefore they were still virgins. To further solidify this as the answer, it is obvious that his daughters still lived with him, therefore the marriage was not in the second stage (nuptials, chuppah) but still in the first stage (Kichah)
To find out more about the process of marriage in early Judaism please follow this link - I have included part of it below.

Kichah ("taking," the formal acquisition) approximates the economic
term kinyan and seals the marriage. Because this is the first stage in
the process of creating a covenant of partnership, unions that are
prohibited and void, such as incest, are never referred to in the
Torah by the term kichah, but as she'khivah (sleeping together). In
regard to almost all valid marriages, even those that are prohibited,
the Torah makes specific reference to kichah.
This first stage of marriage is not a preliminary agreement to
contract a marriage at a future date (like the western concept of
engagement), but an integral component of the two-step marriage
process. The betrothal portion is a sort of inchoate marriage; from
that point onward, the couple is considered married. Until the second
step is taken, however, the bride may not cohabit with the groom (or
any other man). In this social suspension that marks the difficult
transition from the single life to the married state, the couple is
together yet apart. Until the twelfth century, this first stage of
marriage lasted up to one year in order to make preparations for the
final step. The second stage of the marriage process is the
consummation. It is alternatively termed nissuin, meaning elevation of
status, from nassa, coming by carriage from the father's home to the
groom's; or chuppah, wedding canopy.


Does R.C. Sproul elaborate on his position regarding images of Christ?

I have found two places where Sproul deals with this subject.  The first is in Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, v2, where he expresses concern about the risks of "wrong images":

I can't say for sure that to depict the human nature of Jesus is a violation of the second commandment.  But I'm not sure this is wise because it could communicate an image to people that is inaccurate.  The Solomon's head of Christ, as beautiful as it is, has communicated to generations of people an effeminate Jesus who is somehow less than strong.  I would rather communicate nothing artistically about how Jesus looked than put wrong images in people's minds.

The second is in his teaching series, "Recovering the Beauty of the Arts," particularly lecture 7, on images.  Here he focuses on why he is not categorically opposed to these images:

I say to my friends who prohibit it, let's get over our gnosticism.  When we're painting images of Jesus, we're recalling the human Jesus just as we do the apostles.  That's part of nature, and we're not trying to capture the divine nature in those representations.
Jesus didn't say before he left to his disciples now I want you to blot out of your memory any recollection of what I look like. Because obviously they couldn't block that out of their recollection, and there was nothing wrong with Jesus manifesting himself with the likeness of human flesh.
I don't see anything that would prohibit that from being reproduced, artistic creativity, in the life of the church. But obviously any use of art in church runs the risk of degenerating into idolatry.  But I also think that the cure for abuse is not disuse.  Historically we have God adorning his presence with the beautiful, and I think that he has placed a pattern there, a principle there, that remains forever. [starting around 22:30]

The context for the last statement comes from elsewhere in the lecture, where Sproul defends the use of art more generally on the basis of God's direct command to artisans to fashion the ark of the covenant with cherubim, as well as other artistic elements for use in the tabernacle and the temple.
Within the Reformed tradition more broadly, many have written defenses of the didactic use of images of Jesus.  But perhaps the defense most relevant to the question is found in the 1981 RPCES Synod report, pages 89–107.  It deals with both the historical context and exegesis of Exodus 20, and concludes:

(1) Contrary to L.C. 109, we do not find pictures of Christ prohibited by the Second Commandment.
(2) In regard to the Second Commandment, we do find Scripture urging caution in making portraits of Christ, that their purpose not be primarily to render a "likeness," to show what Christ looked like.
(3) That other pictures of Christ, depicting events from His earthly ministry, are permissible. (103)

The relevance of the RPCES report is particularly heightened because it was written just a year before the RPCES joined the PCA, the denomination in which R. C. Sproul ministered.  Of course, that's not to say that he had identical views as those who wrote the report, but it at least provides additional theological discussion from Sproul's peers on this subject.


Is there biblical evidence that the New Earth is our final destination?

The Bible does indicate that the earth will always be mankind's home and it will never be destroyed. (Psalm 104:5; Psalm 37:29, 115:16).

There are several clues in the scriptures which help us to see that we will not have repeating cycles of history with mankind falling into sin and corruption and needing to be restored.

For one thing, the Bible indicates that Jesus only needed to die once, for all mankind, forever. (Hebrews 7:27, 28) The value of his sacrifice is completely satisfactory forever, because his perfect human life corresponded to Adam's. (1 Timothy 2:6; 1 Corinthians 15:45) That ransom gives God the legal right to forgive repentant sinners and restore them to perfection without breaking his own standard of justice. (Deuteronomy 19:21). Once the value of this ransom has been fully applied to mankind, and those living have regained the sinless and endless life that Adam gave up, any future offspring would be born without any inherited sin or death. (Romans 5:12; Revelation 21:4)

Another line of evidence is that Satan and his demons will be completely destroyed after the final test at the end of Christ's thousand year reign. Prior to this they are only restrained, so that they can be "released from his prison" to see who will still choose to follow them even after attaining perfection. After that final test Satan and all who choose to follow his course of rebellion against God are completely destroyed in the "lake of fire". (Revelation 20:2, 7-10) Fire is here used to represent destruction (which is what fire does). Burning there "forever and ever" indicates that their destruction is permanent, as in they will never receive a resurrection. After the rebels are destroyed, those remaining will have already been tested and proven to be faithful. It is unlikely that a person would choose to rebel after that, but if they did, they could simply be destroyed quickly without dragging the rest of us down. This is because any future rebellion by any individual person could be handled totally differently from the initial rebellion of Satan, Adam, and Eve. At that time it made more sense for God to allow them to choose an independent course in order for humans and spirits to see that such a course can never work for them and their offspring. Certainly by the end of the final test, God's universal sovereignty, or his right and ability to rule will have been fully proven to the satisfaction of all reasonable humans and spirit creatures. (Jeremiah 10:23; Psalm 34:8)

Another way we know our problems are being handled in a permanent way is because of God's qualities such as love, holiness, wisdom, and power. His love makes him want to end suffering forever. (1 John 4:8) His holiness makes him incapable of allowing wickedness to exist forever. (Isaiah 6:3) His wisdom and power make him capable of knowing and achieving the best and permanent solution. (Daniel 2:19)

This is what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. For more information visit jw.org


What is the biblical basis for the doctrine that salvation can be lost?

The Biblical Basis comes from the following verses (whether interpreted literally, figuratively, or out of context - these are the main texts used):
Core Verses
 - Galations 5:1-5 "fall from grace"
 - Romans 11:18-22 being "cut off"
  - Rev. 22:19 unforgivable sins
 - Ephesians 5:3-5, 1 Cor 6"9, Galations 5:19, Revelation 21:6-8 unforgivable sins
"Supporting" text
 - Matthew 6:5; 19:21-35; 10:22-32
 - Luke 12:41-46
 - 1 Cor. 15:1-2
 - Colossians 1:22-23
 - Hebrews 3:6, 14
 - 2 Peter 2:20-22

The biblical basis is clear based on these texts.

In Gal 5:1-5, Paul warns of those who have "fallen away from Grace."
Again in Romans 11:18-22 he warns not to be "cut off" and many people who believe you can lose your salvation interpret this to mean that God will "prune" the saved (those who have fallen away).

Revelation 21:6-8 has a list of people who will burn in the fire and sulfur and those who believe you can lose your salvation state that once you sin after salvation you are adding sin to the Cross and therefore taint it again. Therefore, these verses show that if you are a liar you cannot enter heaven which means you have lost your salvation and need to accept Christ again.

Again in Revelation 22:19 it says that "God will take away his share in the tree of life" which leads the reader to believe that someone who once was saved has been stricken from the "book of Life."

And of course Hebrews 6:4-6 where the author refers to "falling away" after being enlightened. This, as Drew put it, is the main text along with Mark 3:22-30 and Matthew 12:31-32 which cover the "unforgivable sin." They claim that if someone commits the unforgivable sin after accepting salvation then they MUST lose their salvation because the sin is, well, unforgivable.

The other verses I have listed make small references to either falling away, lists of people who cannot enter the kingdom of God, or other minute details that might mean we can, in fact, lose our salvation. I hope that answered your question for the biblical basis/argument for it.


There was this question on this site: “Was Jesus Crucified?, which I believe was closed and deleted. There were some good answers for that question which made many things clear as to why Quran deviates from Bible on many events and one of this is because Mohamed was more influenced by Gnostic and other literatures than by actual Bible account of the events.

There are some references from Quran to the events in Bible, which when seen even from neutral perspective clearly shows ignorance of the geographical location and historical dates of these events.

One example is the story of Samaritans and Moses where Muhammad places the Samaritans at the time of Moses when such people had not existed at that time.

Another place he confuses Mary, mother of Jesus with Miriam, sister of Aaron and Moses. These two women lived 1500 years apart. The Quran says.

  She brought (the babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms), They said: “O Mary! Truly a strange thing has thou brought! “O sister of Aaron, thy father was not a man of evil, nor your mother a woman unchaste!” Q. 19:27-28

This is repeated in verse 66:12 where Muhammad calls Mary, daughter of `Imran.

The reason for this is because Mary and Miriam are both translated in Arabic as Maryam. Muhammad heard Jesus’ mother was Maryam and also Aarron’s sister was called Maryam. He thought the two are one and the same.

Also Muslims say that Jesus was not crucified but God deceived them by planting a lookalike on cross.

Why would Muhammad say something that is contrary to all Gospels? That’s because Muhammad’s knowledge of the Scriptures was based on hearsay. He personally had not read the Bible.

At the time of Muhammad, there were Christians groups in the Northern Arabia and Damascus who were called Nestorian. They thought that it is impossible to kill the Son of God. Based on this belief they had developed a doctrine that maintained God must have tricked the Pharisees and the person who was crucified must have been someone else who took the resemblance of Jesus. That is how Muhammad came to know about the story of crucifixion. His knowledge about the Bible was superficial as well as sketchy and shows that he had very little understanding of the Bible.

During his youth days while listening to Christian preachers in the market of Okaz, he heard many Biblical stories, but because he did not read that book personally, he confused many of its events as also the protagonists and this may be one of the reason for Surah 19:1-7.


How do Jehovah's Witnesses explain Mark 1:1–3?

Mark 1:1-3 quotes two other passages from the Bible, so they must be taken into account to get the context of these verses in Mark. The first quote found in verse 2 is of Malachi 3:1 (quote in bold):

  “Look! I am sending my messenger, and he will clear up a way before me. And suddenly the true Lord, whom you are seeking, will come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant will come, in whom you take delight. Look! He will certainly come,” says Jehovah of armies.

This verse mentions three entities: "my messenger", "the true Lord", and "the messenger of the covenant". The first messenger must be John the Baptist, and Jehovah God is the "true Lord" whose "way" is being cleared up. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus accompanied Jehovah God as the "messenger of the [Abrahamic] covenant" to cleanse the temple and to first grant the opportunity of becoming Kingdom heirs to the Jews. —Insight, Vol. 2 pg. 385.

The second quote found in Mark 1:3 is from Isaiah 40:3:

  A voice of one calling out in the wilderness:
  “Clear up the way of Jehovah!
  Make a straight highway through the desert for our God.

This prophecy speaks of the "way of Jehovah", which is a common expression in the Bible that refers to a right and just way of living that is approved by God. This prophetic concept of a "highway" appears in several places: Isaiah 11:16; 35:8; 49:11; 57:14; 62:10; Jeremiah 31:21. It is clearly not a literal path which John the Baptist was calling to clear, but a figurative one. He was calling people to pure worship, preparing their hearts to obey Jesus' commandments, which come from Jehovah. (John 7:16-18) Jesus himself is known as "The Way". —Acts 9:1, 2; 19:9; 22:4.

Therefore, having a thorough understanding of the prophecies at play in Mark 1:1-3, we can show that John the Baptist's call to "clear up the way of Jehovah" is understood to refer to Jesus as Jehovah God's messenger and representative, and as the role model (or "Way") which God's people use to come to a close relationship with Jehovah God.


What were the 45 theologians' theological censures of «Amoris Lætitia»?

The 45 theologians found 12 heretical propositions and 8 propositions falling under lesser censures:
Theological censures of propositions drawn from the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia

A - HERETICAL PROPOSITIONS

1) AL 83 : ‘The Church ... firmly rejects the death penalty’.
If understood as meaning that the death penalty is always and everywhere unjust in itself and therefore cannot ever be rightly inflicted by the state:

Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
Perniciosa.

Gen. 9:63:

Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.

See also: Lev. 20-1; Deut. 13, 21-22; Matt. 15:4; Mk. 7:10; Jn. 19:11; Rom. 13:4; Heb. 10:28; Innocent I, Letter to Exsuperius, PL 120: 499A-B; Innocent III, Profession of Faith prescribed for the Waldensians, DH 7954; Pius V, Catechism of the Council of Trent, commentary on the 5th commandment; Pope Pius XII, Address to the First International Congress of Histopathology of the Nervous System, AAS 44 (1952): 787; John Paul II, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2267.
2) AL 156 : 'Every form of sexual submission must be clearly rejected.’
If understood not simply as denying that a wife owes servile obedience to her husband or that the husband has authority over his wife that is the same as parental authority, but as also denying that the husband has any form of authority over his wife, or as denying that the wife has any duty to obey the legitimate commands of her husband in virtue of his authority as husband:

Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
Prava, perniciosa.

Eph. 5:24:

As the Church is subject to Christ, so also let wives be to their husbands in all things.

See also: 1 Cor. 11:3; Col. 3:18; Tit. 2:3-5; 1 Pet. 3:1-5; Pius V, Catechism of the Council of Trent, commentary on the sacrament of matrimony; Leo XIII, Arcanum, ASS 12 (1879): 389; Pius XI, Casti connubii, AAS 22 (1930): 549 (DH 3708-09); John XXIII, Ad Petri cathedram, AAS 51 (1959): 509-10.
3) AL 159 : 'Saint Paul recommended virginity because he expected Jesus’ imminent return and he wanted everyone to concentrate only on spreading the Gospel: “the appointed time has grown very short” (1 Cor 7:29). . . . Rather than speak absolutely of the superiority of virginity, it should be enough to point out that the different states of life complement one another, and consequently that some can be more perfect in one way and others in another.'
Understood as denying that a virginal state of life consecrated to Christ is superior considered in itself to the state of Christian marriage:

Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
Perniciosa, suspensiva gravis resolutionis.

Council of Trent, Session 24, canon 10:

If anyone says that the married state surpasses that of virginity or celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity or celibacy than to be united in matrimony, let him be anathema” (DH 1810).

See also: Mt. 19: 12, 21; 1 Cor. 7:7-8, 38; 2 Thess. 2:1-2; Apoc. 14:4; Council of Florence, Decree for the Jacobites, DH 1353; Pius X, Response of the Biblical Commission, DH 3629; Pius XII Sacra virginitas, AAS 46 (1954): 174; 2nd Vatican Council, Decree Optatam totius, 10.
4) AL 295 : ‘Saint John Paul II proposed the so-called “law of gradualness” in the knowledge that the human being “knows, loves and accomplishes moral good by different stages of growth”. This is not a “gradualness of law” but rather a gradualness in the prudential exercise of free acts on the part of subjects who are not in a position to understand, appreciate, or fully carry out the objective demands of the law.’
5) AL 301: ‘It is [sic] can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.’
Understood as meaning that a justified person has not the strength with God’s grace to carry out the objective demands of the divine law, as though any of the commandments of God are impossible for the justified; or as meaning that God’s grace, when it produces justification in an individual, does not invariably and of its nature produce conversion from all serious sin, or is not sufficient for conversion from all serious sin:

Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
Impia, blasphema.

Council of Trent, session 6, canon 18:

If anyone says that the commandments of God are impossible to observe even for a man who is justified and established in grace, let him be anathema” (DH 1568).

See also: Gen. 4:7; Deut. 30:11-19; Ecclesiasticus 15: 11-22; Mk. 8:38; Lk. 9:26; Heb. 10:26-29; 1 Jn. 5:17; Zosimus, 15th (or 16th) Synod of Carthage, canon 3 on grace, DH 225; Felix III, 2nd Synod of Orange, DH 397; Council of Trent, Session 5, canon 5; Session 6, canons 18-20, 22, 27 and 29; Pius V, Bull Ex omnibus afflictionibus, On the errors of Michael du Bay, 54, (DH 1954); Innocent X, Constitution Cum occasione, On the errors of Cornelius Jansen, 1 (DH 2001); Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus, On the errors of Pasquier Quesnel, 71 (DH 2471); John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et paenitentia 17: AAS 77 (1985): 222; Veritatis splendor 65-70: AAS 85 (1993): 1185-89 (DH 4964-67).
6) AL 297 : ‘No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!’
If understood as meaning that no human being can or will be condemned to eternal punishment in hell:

Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
Scandalosa, perniciosa.

Matt. 25: 46:

These shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting”

See also: Mt. 7:22-23; Lk. 16: 26; Jn. 17:12; Apoc. 20:10; 16th Synod of Toledo (DH 574); 4th Lateran Council, DH 801; Benedict XII, Constitution Benedictus Deus, DH 1002; Council of Florence, decree Laetentur caeli, DH 1306; John Paul II, Letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Recentiores episcoporum, AAS 71 (1979): 941; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1033-37.
7) AL 299 : ‘I am in agreement with the many Synod Fathers who observed that “the baptized who are divorced and civilly remarried need to be more fully integrated into Christian communities in the variety of ways possible, while avoiding any occasion of scandal. The logic of integration is the key to their pastoral care, a care which would allow them not only to realize that they belong to the Church as the body of Christ, but also to know that they can have a joyful and fruitful experience in it. They are baptized; they are brothers and sisters; the Holy Spirit pours into their hearts gifts and talents for the good of all. ... Such persons need to feel not as excommunicated members of the Church, but instead as living members, able to live and grow in the Church and experience her as a mother who welcomes them always, who takes care of them with affection and encourages them along the path of life and the Gospel”.’
If understood as meaning that the divorced and civilly remarried who choose their situation with full knowledge and full consent of the will are not in a state of serious sin, and that they can receive sanctifying grace and grow in charity:

Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
Scandalosa, prava, perversa.

Mk. 10:11-12:

Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery”.

See also: Ex. 20:14; Mt. 5:32, 19:9; Lk. 16:18; 1 Cor. 7: 10-11; Heb. 10:26-29; Council of Trent, Session 6, canons 19-21, 27 (DH 1569-71, 1577); Session 24, canons 5 and 7 (DH 1805, 1807); Innocent XI, Condemned propositions of the ‘Laxists’, 62-63 (DH 2162-63); Alexander VIII, Decree of the Holy Office on ‘Philosophical Sin’, DH 2291; John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 65-70: AAS 85 (1993): 1185-89 (DH 4964-67).
8) AL 301 : ‘It is [sic] can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.’
Understood as meaning that a Catholic believer can have full knowledge of a divine law and voluntarily choose to break it in a serious matter, but not be in a state of mortal sin as a result of this action:

Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
Prava, perversa.

Council of Trent, session 6, canon 20:

If anyone says that a justified man, however perfect he may be, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church but is bound only to believe, as if the Gospel were merely an absolute promise of eternal life without the condition that the commandments be observed, let him be anathema” (DH 1570).

See also: Mk. 8:38; Lk. 9:26; Heb. 10:26-29; 1 Jn. 5:17; Council of Trent, session 6, canons 19 and 27; Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus, On the errors of Pasquier Quesnel, 71 (DH 2471); John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et paenitentia 17: AAS 77 (1985): 222; Veritatis splendor, 65-70: AAS 85 (1993): 1185-89 (DH 4964-67).
9) AL 301 : ‘It is [sic] can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding its inherent values, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.’
Understood as saying that a person with full knowledge of a divine law can sin by choosing to obey that law:

Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
Prava, perversa.

Ps. 18:8:

The law of the Lord is unspotted, converting souls.”

See also: Ecclesiasticus 15:21; Council of Trent, session 6, canon 20; Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus, On the errors of Pasquier Quesnel, 71 (DH 2471); Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum, ASS 20 (1887-88): 598 (DH 3248); John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 40: AAS 85 (1993): 1165 (DH 4953).
10) AL 303 : ‘Conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal.’
Understood as meaning that conscience can truly judge that actions condemned by the Gospel, and in particular, sexual acts between Catholics who have civilly remarried following divorce, can sometimes be morally right or requested or commanded by God:

Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
Scandalosa, prava, perversa, perniciosa, impia, blasphema.

Council of Trent, session 6, canon 21:

If anyone says that Jesus Christ was given by God to men as a redeemer in whom they are to trust but not also as a lawgiver whom they are bound to obey, let him be anathema” (DH 1571).

Council of Trent, session 24, canon 2:

If anyone says that it is lawful for Christians to have several wives at the same time, and that this is not forbidden by any divine law, let him be anathema” (DH 1802).

Council of Trent, session 24, canon 5:

If anyone says that the marriage bond can be dissolved because of heresy or difficulties in cohabitation or because of the wilful absence of one of the spouses, let him be anathema” (DH 1805)

Council of Trent, session 24, canon 7:

If anyone says that the Church is in error for having taught and for still teaching that in accordance with the evangelical and apostolic doctrine, the marriage bond cannot be dissolved because of adultery on the part of one of the spouses and that neither of the two, not even the innocent one who has given no cause for infidelity, can contract another marriage during the lifetime of the other, and that the husband who dismisses an adulterous wife and marries again and the wife who dismisses and adulterous husband and married again are both guilty of adultery, let him be anathema” (DH 1807).

See also: Ps. 5:5; Ps. 18:8-9; Ecclesiasticus 15:21; Heb. 10:26-29; Jas. 1:13; 1 Jn. 3:7; Innocent XI, Condemned propositions of the ‘Laxists’, 62-63 (DH 2162-63); Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus, On the errors of Pasquier Quesnel, 71 (DH 2471); Leo XIII, encyclical letter Libertas praestantissimum, ASS 20 (1887-88): 598 (DH 3248); Pius XII, Decree of the Holy Office on situation ethics, DH 3918; 2nd Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 16; John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 54: AAS 85 (1993): 1177; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1786-87.
11) AL 304 : ‘I earnestly ask that we always recall a teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas and learn to incorporate it in our pastoral discernment: “Although there is necessity in the general principles, the more we descend to matters of detail, the more frequently we encounter defects... In matters of action, truth or practical rectitude is not the same for all, as to matters of detail, but only as to the general principles; and where there is the same rectitude in matters of detail, it is not equally known to all... The principle will be found to fail, according as we descend further into detail”. It is true that general rules set forth a good which can never be disregarded or neglected, but in their formulation they cannot provide absolutely for all particular situations.’
Understood as meaning that moral principles and moral truths contained in divine revelation and in the natural law do not include negative prohibitions that absolutely forbid particular kinds of action under any and all circumstances:

Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
Scandalosa, prava, perversa.

John Paul II, Veritatis splendor 115:

Each of us knows how important is the teaching which represents the central theme of this Encyclical and which is today being restated with the authority of the Successor of Peter. Each of us can see the seriousness of what is involved, not only for individuals but also for the whole of society, with the reaffirmation of the universality and immutability of the moral commandments, particularly those which prohibit always and without exception intrinsically evil acts” (DH 4971).

See also: Rom. 3:8; 1 Cor. 6: 9-10; Gal. 5: 19-21; Apoc. 22:15; 4th Lateran Council, chapter 22 (DH 815); Council of Constance, Bull Inter cunctas, 14 (DH 1254); Paul VI, Humanae vitae, 14: AAS 60 (1968) 490-91. John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 83: AAS 85 (1993): 1199 (DH 4970).
12) AL 308 : ‘I understand those who prefer a more rigorous pastoral care which leaves no room for confusion. But I sincerely believe that Jesus wants a Church attentive to the goodness which the Holy Spirit sows in the midst of human weakness, a Mother who, while clearly expressing her objective teaching, “always does what good she can, even if in the process, her shoes get soiled by the mud of the street”.’
If understood as meaning that Our Lord Jesus Christ wills that the Church abandon her perennial discipline of refusing the Eucharist to the divorced and remarried and of refusing absolution to the divorced and remarried who do not express contrition for their state of life and a firm purpose of amendment with regard to it:

Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
Scandalosa, prava, perversa, impia, blasphema.

1 Cor. 11:27:

Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.”

Familiaris consortio, 84:

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance, which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they ‘take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples’.”

2nd Lateran Council, canon 20:

Because there is one thing that conspicuously causes great disturbance to holy Church, namely false penance, we warn our brothers in the episcopate, and priests, not to allow the souls of the laity to be deceived or dragged off to hell by false penances. It is certain that a penance is false when many sins are disregarded and a penance is performed for one only, or when it is done for one sin in such a way that the penitent does not renounce another” (DH 717).

See also: Mt. 7:6; Mt. 22: 11-13; 1 Cor. 11:28-30; Heb. 13:8; Council of Trent, session 14, Decree on Penance, cap. 4; Council of Trent, session 13, Decree on the most holy Eucharist (DH 164647)); Innocent XI, Condemned propositions of the ‘Laxists’, 60-63 (DH 2160-63); John Paul II, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1385, 1451, 1490

B) PROPOSITIONS FALLING UNDER LESSSER CENSURES
[…]

Endnotes
1 Cf. Lucien Choupin, Valeur des décisions doctrinales et disciplinaires du Saint-Siège, 2nd ed. (Paris: Beauchesne, 1913), pp. 52-55; and A.-M. Aubry, Obéir ou assentir ? De la « soumission religieuse » au magistère simplement authentique, Paris, DDB, collection « Sed Contra », 2015. .
2 See H. Quilliet, ‘Censures doctrinales’, DTC II, 2101-2113, and the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ‘Doctrinal commentary on the concluding formula of the Professio fidei’, June 29th, 1998.
3 Scriptural references are taken from the Vulgate or from the neo-Vulgate.
4 All references to Denzinger are taken from the 43rd edition.


Was Jesus perfect his entire life? - Isaiah 7

In the passage you mention it never says Jesus sinned or did evil.  We can find the answer to that question in Hebrews 4:14-15

  Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through
  the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.
  For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our
  weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.

More info here - http://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/18/t/christs-human-nature.aspx


What is the family tree diagram explaining how Sarah was Abraham's half sister?

The article by a Jesuit scholar Felix Just, S.J., PhD The Family of Abraham contains the family tree you are looking for, demonstrating how Sarai is indeed Abram's half sister from another (un-named) wife of his father, Terah:


Why don’t Unitarians believe that Jesus Christ pre-existed before incarnation?

The difficulty in trying to answer the question WHY is that only a Unitarian could possibly know.  There is no problem in explaining WHAT they believe with regard to the person of Jesus, but as to why they deny that Jesus pre-existed before coming to earth, then any explanation given by a Trinitarian, for example, would be denied by a Unitarian.  Let’s start with WHAT they believe and from that we may discover the WHY part:
Unitarianism teaches that God is simply one (unity). Unitarianism rejects the doctrines of the Trinity and the deity of Christ.  Unitarians teach that Jesus was an inspired man, a great teacher, and an example to follow but he certainly is not God.

Today there are a number of Unitarian groups throughout the United States and the world; probably the most well-known and influential group is the Unitarian Universalist Church. Unitarianism is usually accompanied by (or perhaps inspired by) rationalism and anti-supernaturalism. In the final analysis, Unitarians reject the specific teaching of Scripture regarding the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Beyond that, they usually reject the Bible as divine revelation in favor of human reason. Horizontal relationships between human beings are considered more important than the vertical relationship between a holy God and sinful man.  https://www.gotquestions.org/unitarianism.html
To the Unitarian Universalist, Jesus was a good moral teacher, but nothing more. He is not considered to be divine, and every miracle associated with Him is rejected as being outside of human reason. Most sayings of Jesus recorded in the Bible are regarded as embellishments on the part of the authors. Among the Universalist beliefs: Jesus did not die to save mankind from sin, as man is not a fallen sinner; emphasis is placed on humankind’s capacity for goodness; sin is completely relative, and the term itself is rarely used; man saves himself through personal improvement, salvation being a purely worldly experience, a "waking up" to the world around oneself. This is very important, for death is final. Most Unitarian Universalists deny the existence of an afterlife, so all we have on earth is all we’ll ever get.  https://www.gotquestions.org/unitarian-universalism.html

From this we can deduce that Unitarian Universalists place their own reasoning above the teachings of the Bible.  Since they reject the Bible as God’s inspired word, then they are unlikely to grasp who the biblical Jesus really is.  Their Jesus appears to be a man-made concept, designed to fit in with their own ideas.
Then we have Biblical Unitarians who believe that the Bible is the source of truth.  They represent the more “conservative” branch of Unitarianism and many beliefs of Biblical Unitarians are in keeping with orthodox Christian beliefs. However, they depart from orthodoxy on one major point in regards to their doctrine of God.

Biblical Unitarians deny the Trinity, teaching that God is one being (hence the word Unitarian in their name). Jesus, according to Biblical Unitarianism, is not the eternal Son of God; rather, He was created by God in the womb of Mary. Jesus was later exalted by God and given authority over creation, making Him like God, but He remains a finite, separate being with a beginning.  https://www.gotquestions.org/Biblical-Unitarianism.html

WHY do they reject what the Bible tells us about Jesus being the eternal Son of God?  It all boils down to their view that the One Being of God must exclude the eternal co-existence of Jesus.
Jesus said this to the religious leaders who refused to acknowledge who he REALLY was:

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life (John 5:39-40).

It would be interesting to get an answer from a Unitarian that defended their position with regard to Jesus being created, because I would really like to know WHY they hold that view. I have my own opinion, but I'm keeping that to myself!


Why isn't consecrated virginity a sacrament?

Pope Pius XII writes in his 1954 encyclical Sacra Virginitas:

We have recently with sorrow censured the opinion of those who contend that marriage is the only means of assuring the natural development and perfection of the human personality.⁶⁰ For there are those who maintain that the grace of the sacrament, conferred ex opere operato, renders the use of marriage so holy as to be a fitter instrument than virginity for uniting souls with God; for marriage is a sacrament, but not virginity. We denounce this doctrine as a dangerous error. Certainly, the sacrament grants the married couple the grace to accomplish holily the duties of their married state, and it strengthens the bonds of mutual affection that unite them; but the purpose of its institution was not to make the employment of marriage the means, most suitable in itself, for uniting the souls of the husband and wife with God by the bonds of charity.⁶¹

Fr. Hardon, S.J., defines "ex opere operato" as:

A term defined by the Council of Trent to describe how the sacraments confer the grace they signify. Trent condemned the following proposition: "That grace is not conferred 'ex opere operato' by the sacraments of the New Law" (Denzinger 1608). Literally the expression means "from the work performed," stating that grace is always conferred by a sacrament, in virtue of the rite performed and not as a mere sign that grace has already been given, or that the sacrament stimulates the faith of the recipient and thus occasions the obtaining of grace, or that what determines the grace is the virtue of either the minister or recipient of a sacrament. Provided no obstacle (obex) is placed in the way, every sacrament properly administered confers the grace intended by the sacrament. In a true sense the sacraments are instrumental causes of grace.

And living in consecrated virginity requires grace ex opere operantis (subjective dispositions to receive grace), not grace ex opere operato. This also seems related to why virginity must be freely chosen (Mt. 19:12: "He that can take, let him take it.") and is not for everyone.


Baptismal certificates are still used by Churches for whom Trinitarian baptism is important. This is so that they can be certain that someone has been validly baptised. The Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox Churches recognise each other’s baptisms and those of many other denominations as a valid, once-for-all and transferable sacrament. But it can only be transferable if it can be proved to be so.

When I and others joined the Roman Catholic Church under Anglicanorum Coetibus, we were required to produce evidence of our baptism. I no longer had my certificate, and others were baptised by a Free Church and never given one in the first place.
     In my case, the [Anglican] parish church had recorded my baptism in a register, as the Church of England requires. It had since deposited its registers with the local authority archive, and they had scanned them and made them available online. So I could easily get a copy of the register entry, and the Catholic Church was satisfied that I had been baptised using a valid Trinitarian formula.1
     Others were not so fortunate, and on joining the Catholic Church had to be baptised by that Church. This was so that the Church could be satisfied that they had been validly baptised: if any previous baptism had been valid, doing it again would make no difference; and if not, then they’d be doing it for the first time.

Certificates of baptism do still have uses within the Christian Church.

1 When I was a churchwarden, I used to do similar searches of registers we held in the parish for those who had been baptised at the church and now wished to marry in the Catholic Church, or even be confirmed in the Church of England.


Unfortunately a Catholic living in the state of grace and has never committed a mortal sin could be diabolically possessed by a demon(s) through no fault of their own. Sometimes a person is unaware that the possession has happened until it is too late.

Fr. Gabriele Amorth in his book, An Exorcist Tells His Story (pages 56-63) gives the following reasons for persons becoming possessed by the devil:

  With God's permission.
  Being cursed by someone.
  When subject to an evil eye.
  A grave and hardened state of sin.
  Association with evil people and places.

I know this does not sound fair, but a saint or someone living a saintly life could be diabolically possessed and there are examples to prove this.

St. Benedict of Nursia dealt with the enemy of mankind on several occasions as we can see in the Dialogues of St. Gregory. In Chapter 30, for example St Benedict delivered a monk from the hands of the Evil One, who wanted to disrupt the building of a monastery.

Saint Benedict Restores a Monk to Life after he's been crushed by a falling wall; by the crumbling stone, an imp hovers, waiting to cause more trouble.

Possession With God's Permission alone is extremely rare in comparison to someone being possessed by being cursed by someone. Saint Mariam of Jesus Crucified (5 January 1846 – 26 August 1878) is an excellent example of this. She was actually possessed by the devil during her lifetime. Sister Mary of Jesus Crucified was beatified by Pope John Paul II on 13 November 1983 and was canonized on 17 May 2015 by Pope Francis.

  Little Mariam Baouardy, now known as Sister Mary of Jesus Crucified, was professed on 21 November 1871 as a Carmelite Religious. Prior to that action she was subjected to severe supernatural adversities. One of the most terrible was diabolic possession for a period of 40 days. She persevered in her simple child-like faith in God the Son and His Holy Mother Mary. Her rewards were those reserved for the most privileged of humans. She was fixed with the stigmata of her crucified Savior, experienced levitations, transverberations of the heart, knowledge of hearts, prophecies, possession by the Good Angel, and facial radiance. - "The Little Arab"

Mariam (St Mary of Jesus Crucified)

Protecting oneself against the Devil is not magic (pardon the pun), but the Church does offer some helpful tools in our spiritual life towards union with God.

  Live a holy and sacramental life going to Mass and receiving Holy Communion in the state of grace.
  Go to Confession on a regular basis (once a month). Fr. Gabriele Amorth tells us that this sacrament is the primary step to be freed from the Devil's clutch.
  Wear or carry close to your person a blessed Medal of St. Benedict.
  Wear the Miraculous Medal around one's neck. "All who wear them will receive great graces" when blessed.

On a personal note: I wear the Miraculous Medal everyday and carry a St. Benedict Medal in our car at all times. The Medal of St. Benedict I get blessed by the Abbot of a local monastery according to the Roman Ritual of the Extraordinary Rite because this blessing contains a minor exorcism. The ones I occasionally give away are gold plated are also blessed by a priest of the Extraordinary Rite of the Mass on the Feast of the Epiphany with the blessing for Gold, Frankincense and Myrrh (Benedictio Auru, Thuris et Myrrhae in Festo Epiphaniae) which also contain a minor exorcism within this blessing. This blessing is reserved for this feast.

  What is the difference between a major exorcism and a minor exorcism?

  While both forms of exorcism are directed against the power of the devil, the Rite of Major Exorcism is employed only when there is a case of genuine demonic possession, namely, when it is determined that the presence of the devil is in the body of the possessed and the devil is able to exercise dominion over that body.

  Minor exorcisms are prayers used to break the influence of evil and sin in a person's life, whether as a catechumen preparing for Baptism or as one of the Baptized faithful striving to overcome the influence of evil and sin in his or her life. - Frequently Asked Questions about Exorcism


What is the biblical basis for the concept of being "slain in the spirit" and what exactly is it?

From http://www.bible.ca/tongues-slain-in-spirit.htm come the following scriptures, which the website says charismatics use to prove the biblical basis of being slain in the Spirit.

II CHRONICLES 5:11-14 - And it came to pass, when the priests were come out of the holy [place]: (for all the priests [that were] present were sanctified, [and] did not [then] wait by course: Also the Levites [which were] the singers, all of them of Asaph, of Heman, of Jeduthun, with their sons and their brethren, [being] arrayed in white linen, having cymbals and psalteries and harps, stood at the east end of the altar, and with them an hundred and twenty priests sounding with trumpets:) It came even to pass, as the trumpeters and singers [were] as one, to make one sound to be heard in praising and thanking the LORD; and when they lifted up [their] voice with the trumpets and cymbals and instruments of musick, and praised the LORD, [saying], For [he is] good; for his mercy [endureth] for ever: that [then] the house was filled with a cloud, [even] the house of the LORD; So that the priests could not stand to minister by reason of the cloud: for the glory of the LORD had filled the house of God.

MATTHEW 17:5-7: While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. And when the disciples heard [it], they fell on their face, and were sore afraid. And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid.

JOHN 18:5-6: They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am [he]. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. As soon then as he had said unto them, I am [he], they went backward, and fell to the ground.

ACTS 9:3-4: And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

This is what the author of the article, "Slain in the Spirit?", says on the website (in a slightly edited version) regarding these four Bible passages:

None of the above texts resemble anything remotely close to what happens when believers are slain in the spirit today. In 30 years of combined charismatic experience, my wife and I have observed fewer than 10 people fall, with no human instigation, under the power [of the Holy Spirit]. When people get slain it is due to the direct instigation of another person, not a sovereign act of God, as we see in 2 Chronicles 5:11-14.  Invariably, charismatic people fall down when hands are laid on them. There are no examples in the Bible of people falling down when hands were laid on them.

The author goes on to say,

[In the Chronicles passage,] all the priests fell down, not just some. There is no record of a Pentecostal or charismatic service where all the people fell down simultaneously under the power of God.  Keep in mind, the number of priests at the dedication numbered in the hundreds, and all of them had the exact same experience.

The following is my paraphrase of the author: In the Matthew passage, the disciples were not slain in the Spirit, but they were very much afraid; so much so, they fell on their faces (and not backward when someone touched them on the forehead!).
And an exact quotation of the author, with his emphasis:

This text [regarding Paul's conversion experience on the road to Damascus] cannot legitimately be used to prove the machinations taking place in charismatic circles. No one laid hands on Paul. According to the Biblical record this was not a regular occurrence in his life or ministry. Paul himself never testifies to laying hands on anyone and having them slain in the spirit, nor do any of the other writes of the New Testament, or Old Testament for that matter. Paul never lost consciousness, his faculties were very sharp, he was able to speak, he rationally answered the Lord

Finally, the author cites John White, who used the following two verses in his book When The Spirit Comes With Power to justify falling down under the Holy Spirit's power:

Daniel 10:9-10 But the sound of his words came to my ears, and on hearing his voice I went into a deep sleep with my face to the earth. Then a hand gave me a touch, awaking me, and putting me on my knees and my hands.

Rev. 1:17 - And when I saw him, I went down on my face at his feet as one dead. And he put his right hand on me, saying, Have no fear; I am the first and the last and the Living one.

And here is what the author says (with only minor changes by me) about White's use of these verses to prove the biblical nature of being slain in the Spirit:

In the event in Daniel we encounter the writing prophet at the banks of the Tigris. He alone sees the angelic being who has come to deliver to Daniel a sweeping revelation concerning the prophetic economy of God. This Old Testament account is totally devoid of any comparison of what takes place in Pentecostalism. First, Daniel was a writing prophet and as such the Lord manifested His Word to those prophets in various ways (dreams, visions, divine appearances, etc.).
Second, Daniel's experience was unexpected, whereas people fully expect to be slain in the spirit. The purpose of the manifestation to Daniel was to reveal a significant prophetic word to God's prophet. Next, while Daniel was overcome the angel touched him and gave him strength. This is something we do not see in today's services. I have seen multitudes fall, but none received supernatural strength. Notice also that Daniel fell face forward, whereas almost one hundred percent of charismatics who are slain in the Spirit fall backward; hence the need for catchers, since it is very difficult to catch people who are falling forward. It is interesting to note that in the biblical accounts when people have fallen, it is the sinners who fall backwards (John. 18:6). There simply is no legitimate manner in which this verse can be used to shore up a doctrine of being slain in the Spirit.
The text in Revelation 1:17, when examined, also fails to meet the test. John the beloved was an apostle of the Lamb. There are no more apostles today. Second, the reason John fell was because he saw his resurrected Lord. The purpose for the Lord Jesus appearing to John was to give him the final installment of the canon of Scripture. John was given a revelation of immense importance, but he never lost consciousness. Moreover, he also fell face forward.


What is truly meant when it is said that Holy Scripture is 'inerrant' according to the Catholic Church?

According to the Catholic Catechism,

we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.

This statement is purposely ambiguous, as there is debate among Catholic theologians about what inerrancy entails.  By saying the text is inerrant on matters God desired to communicate for our salvation, it opens up the possibility that the text contains incidental details that are not inerrant.  However, the ambiguity also allows that it is possible all details are also correct.  It just depends on what God chose to do, which humans can't know for sure.

Catholics United is a good example of a more strict interpretation within the Catholic Church:

Some have taught that the Scripture’s inerrancy is restricted only to “religious matters,” arguing that the Bible is without error only when it deals with matters of faith and morals. However, when it comes to non-religious matters of history or “background details,” these critics argue that God may have permitted human errors to exist alongside more important religious truths.
But this position has been refuted repeatedly by the Church because it necessarily limits God’s inspiration of the sacred texts.
...
When it comes to matters of natural science, the Church teaches that the sacred authors did not necessarily intend to teach physics, astronomy, or chemistry. For example, when the Scriptures describe the sun as moving around the earth (cf. Ps. 19: 4-6; Eccles. 1:5), the sacred writer was not intending to give astronomy lessons. A literalistic approach would have to deny the modern scientific data showing that the earth revolves around the sun.
However, the writers were intending to report what appeared to their senses, and did so accurately.

While David Bennett offers a good defense of a less strict interpretation:

The early Fathers held that the Bible was inerrant... However, this is the case only when the Bible is properly understood, interpreted by the Church. This is inerrancy by ancient standards and not modern, fundamentalist standards. The early Fathers did not think that minor contradictions rendered the Bible errant, nor did they insist all stories were meant to be interpreted literally. For instance, the creation stories were often allegorized, interpreted in ways so as to prefigure Christ, or interpreted through the lens of the science of the day (or all three!). Thus St. Augustine could say each day in the Genesis creation story was equal to a thousand years, or that the science of the day should shape our understanding of the creation stories, without ever denying the divine inspiration of the Scriptures.
...
Thus the view of the early Church is that the Bible is an accurate, God-inspired testimony, the written document accurately reporting the foundations of the faith, but not necessarily inerrant as defined by modern criteria, and the Old Testament is certainly not inerrant when exclusively interpreted literally.
...
In conclusion, Catholics believe that the Bible is God-inspired, inerrant when interpreted correctly by the Church (and this is fluid to a degree, as science and other observations help us with this task), but not necessarily inerrant by the Protestant definition.


What is the distinction between a sacrament and an ordinance?

It is not only Catholics who believe in sacraments. All Orthodox and most Protestants believe in them as well, but with some differences between them. It is only Baptists and their offspring which eschew the word sacrament and prefer ordinance.
The word sacrament comes from the Latin sacramentum, which is itself a translation of the Greek mysterium. These words mean "mystery," which is a concept in the Bible too complex and controversial to get into adequately here, but the way it relates to the word sacrament is that the sacraments of the church mysteriously and invisibly convey grace to the recipients. Catholics, Lutherans, and Presbyterians all define "sacrament" similarly:

The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1131).
Sacraments [are] rites which have the command of God, and to which the promise of grace has been added. (Defense of the Augsburg Confession, Article XIII. (VII)).
Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and his benefits, and to confirm our interest in him: as also to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church, and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word. There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers. (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 27).

Catholicism considers the following to be sacraments: baptism, Eucharist, confirmation, penance, anointing of the sick, marriage, and Holy Orders (ordaining priests and such). Presbyterians only consider baptism and the Lord's Supper (what Catholics call the Eucharist) sacraments, and Lutherans consider, baptism, the Lord's Supper, and penance to be sacraments. Protestants believe in marriage and confession of sins and may or may not believe in the other things Catholics call sacraments -- they just don't call them sacraments.
According to one Eastern Orthodox source, "Usually seven sacraments are counted: [the same seven as in Catholicism.] The practice of counting the sacraments was adopted in the Orthodox Church from the Roman Catholics. It is not an ancient practice of the Church and, in many ways, it tends to be misleading since it appears that there are just seven specific rites which are 'sacraments' and that all other aspects of the life of the Church are essentially different from these particular actions. The more ancient and traditional practice of the Orthodox Church is to consider everything which is in and of the Church as sacramental or mystical."
Baptists call baptism and the Lord's Supper "ordinances" because they are rites "ordained" by God in the Bible. This is a difference in terminology but it signals an underlying difference in theology. If you call it a "sacrament" you are confessing it to be an act done by God through his church which confers grace on the participants. If you call it an "ordinance" you are confessing it to be an act done by you the participant as a statement of your faith (in the case of baptism) or as a memorial of Christ's death (in the case of the Lord's Supper). Note that there is some overlap in these definitions, and that Presbyterians for example wouldn't object to calling the sacraments "ordinances" as well as "sacraments." But those who object to the word "sacrament" do believe that no grace is conferred objectively by the act itself.


According to Protestants, is it sinful to practice Yoga?

I would say it's impossible to do so without first acknowledging that the historic grounding in and modern implementation of pagan spirituality is real. The next step would be identifying how both Hinduism (or spiritual Indian wisdom or whatever moniker you give it) and Christianity see the intrinsic relation between the spiritual and physical realms. If someone is able to paint at least a general picture of the differences, I would start asking what the purpose of trying to separate them would be. Personally I fail to see any advantages in continuing to dwell in a Dorothy-house removed clean away from it's foundations and now situated on someone else's land.

Before I rant on this, let me start by giving a little ground here. I do think that is possible to have physical exercises perhaps physically modelled after those of some other religions ritual without it necessarily making us participants in a false religion. However several objections remain. Certainly not all situations are equal and I have limited experience in the matter, mostly dating to quite a few years ago and discussions I had with folks who were involved. These included some who embraced the conjunction of spiritual and physical exercise, and some who could care less what religion it came from as long as it left them with better digestion.

Now for my rants.

First of all let us address the often forwarded notion of being able to retain the religious elements, but merely in name not in fact. This seems preposterous to me, sort of like trying to use the gutter language of crime to speak of things fair and beautiful. Without the right diction you are stuck in a little box of your own making. Speaking of boxes, it's also like taking the engine out of a car because it ran on the wrong kind of fuel. Without putting another engine in, it make a really useless vehicle, although I suppose it would be good exercise.*

Secondly, the idea that the religious connection can be lost altogether doesn't sit well with me. My initial objection in the first paragraph was that this discussion does not get past square one until we have come to some agreement about there being a connection. The first things I would bring into the discussion is the historical connection, but I think we then need to continue into a discussion about what modern spirituality is like and what kind of world view thinks there is no connection between the spiritual and physical.

I do not think false religions should have all the best exercises any more than I think we should let them have all the best music. However I don't think our best option is to start a bunch of "christian" bands flooding the market with half baked goods but rather to bring back a theological understanding that we are artistic and creative because we are ourselves made in the image of an artistic and creative God. Those who produce anything good or beautiful do so only use a grace given them on loan and it is our job to point out the source and through an understanding and acknowledgement of that grace turn it into worship.

I think something similar ought to be done for exercise. Instead of trying to separate the physical from the spiritual at all, I think it would behove us to develop a biblical understanding of how these things actually relate, then modeling our exercise lives around this. While the things we do with our bodies might resemble Yoga or Tai Chi, it should be carefully delineated what we believe about our bodies being temples of the Spirit so that it is entirely clear to the world what makes us different than them. It seems to be that this is best done at the instructor level and that an individual participating under an instructor with a different world view who is not actively identifying his spiritual beliefs to himself and those he interacts with runs a great risk of not only muddling his own spiritual life but misleading others.

Our sensibilities and sensitivities ought to lead us to actions and words distinct enough that no-one, whether from Hindu, humanistic, christian or undecided world view, could mistake our participation for tacit acceptance of either the premises of a false religion or the decoupling of physical and spiritual realms.

Sometimes it is suggested that such ritual meditations pre-date Christianity and as such might be able to be considered separately from it rather than in competition with it. I think there is a fallacy here in that Christianity did not begin 2k years ago with Jesus or Paul or John the baptist or anyone else, it began with Christ before he created man. And, since the first Adam, Christianity has always looked forward to the coming of the Christ. Thus I think it is silly to claim that anything is pre-christian in the sense of time. Certainly there are sources and influences so we be careful to consider whether the things we include in our lives and practice of Christianity conforms to the Word. I think some pagan rights are actually perversions of things that originated with us. For example ceremonial washings in Islam do not originate there but are actually adaptions of Mosaic law.

*Forgive the pun.


Guidelines for "becoming" a believer, according to the Catholic Church

St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa contra Gentiles ("Summary treatise against [the errors of] the pagans") was written precisely to convert those who do not accept the authority of the Christian Holy Scriptures. From bk. 1 ch. 2 ("The Author's Intention in the Present Work") [3]:

  …the Mohammedans and the pagans, do not agree with us in accepting the authority of any Scripture, by which they may be convinced of their error. Thus, against the Jews we are able to argue by means of the Old Testament, while against heretics we are able to argue by means of the New Testament. But the Muslims and the pagans accept neither the one nor the other. We must, therefore, have recourse to the natural reason, to which all men are forced to give their assent. However, it is true, in divine matters the natural reason has its failings.

cf. this bibliography for the English translations of the Summa contra Gentiles


Did it reflect poorly on St. Francis De Sales that he offered a bribe to convert Beza?

Theodore de Beza was a close friend of, and collaborator with, Calvin. When Calvin died, in 1564, he became his successor as the spiritual leader of  the Republic of Geneva. Although Beza was not quite ten years junior to Calvin, he survived him by over forty years.

He was a scholar and a very influential Protestant who had travelled widely in France and Germany as well as Switzerland. By the late 1590s he had relinquished most of his public duties and was in his late seventies (he was born at Midsummer in 1519).

St. Francis de Sales was, in April 1597, not quite thirty. He had already had some success in converting Protestants to Catholicism and had received permission from the Pope to read Calvin's Institutes and other works.

The Protestant cause in Europe  had been weakened by the conversion to Catholicism of Henry IV of France, in 1593. He was said to have remarked  "Paris is worth a mass."

St. Francis de Sales and his friend Esprit de Beaume conceived a plan to convert Beza to Catholicism. Beaume was to obtain from the Pope assurances that Beza would be welcomed if he converted to Catholicism.  Sales was to use his skill and zeal to persuade Beza that his Protestantism was in error.

The renunciation of Protestantism by such an influential figure as Beza might be expected to cause a collapse in confidence in Protestantism, and not only in France. Sales and Beaume did not seek to convert Beza solely out of a concern for Beza himself, but for the weakening of the Protestant cause generally, and so indirectly for the conversion of many.

De Sales met with Beza in Beza's  home, which had been Calvin's home, in Easter Week 1597, and again later that month. Both had been born into minor nobility. Both were keen and zealous exponents of their respective beliefs. Beza was 77 and Sales 29. Neither man converted the other. Sales was initially hopeful in that Beza conceded some of his points, but that did not mean Beza accepted Sales conclusions. Neither man converted the other.

In July, realising that Beza was not about to change his beliefs, De Sales offered him, on behalf of the Pope, a lump sum and a pension for life, if he would at least abandon Geneva. Beza refused to hear any more.
Beza had been in receipt of a pension from Henry IV which ceased on the latter's conversion, and still had his pastor's salary.

De Sales would have liked to  convert Beza, but failing that bribing him to abandon Geneva, or to renounce Protestantism insincerely (the terms which might have been agreed cannot be known since Beza drew the discussion to a close) would also weaken Protestantism and so was a good thing, from a Catholic perspective.

Having failed to convert Beza, or to induce him to leave his post, the next best thing was to convince people that he had done so, or was about to do so. Rumours were circulated that Beza and the Republic of Geneva were returning to Rome. The people of Sienna, in Italy, were convinced Beza would pass through Sienna on his way to Rome and gathered to welcome him at the time he was due.

Rumours then began that Beza had died on the way to Rome, or had converted on his deathbed in Geneva.  Beza himself assured people he was alive and Protestant.

De Sales did not believe that he could buy Beza's conversion, but did hope to buy his influence.

Whether this reflects poorly on him is ultimately a matter of opinion, and will depend on how important one feels it was to weaken Protestantism, and in so doing bring many to the Catholic Faith.

This article describes the matter from Catholic sources. See also this.


What is an overview of beliefs on how one can lose salvation?

Many christian groups teach that if you do not continue to repent of each sin, you can lose out on the salvation. Rather than talk about that or compare how different faiths teach that (I'm sure someone else will do a great job answering that way) I would like to point out the one and only unforgivable sin.
Mark 3 (KJV)

28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:
29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.
30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.

Here we see that to "blaspheme against the Holy Ghost" will cause you to "hath never forgiveness"
This is said again in Matthew 12 (KJV)

31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

This is restated again in Luke 12:8-10 and in a less direct way in Hebrews 6:4-8 and Hebrews 10:26-29
I have talked to a couple of different faiths in the past and found that different faiths have different views of what it takes to blaspheme the Holy Ghost.
Catholics state that while it is an unforgivable sin, there is no sin that cannot be washed away by baptism and penance. So you can have this sin washed away. See Cathechism 1864
John Calvin believed that this sin could not be committed by believers. He came to this conclusion because of Hebrews 6:4-6. See Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion Book III Chapter III Section 22
William W Combs summed most of these beliefs up here. He said that someone would have to have witnessed a sign miracle and then rejected the holy ghost, and he states that sign miracles no longer occur so today believer or not, you can't even commit the sin.
The general consensus of protestants that I have found so far that if you commit this sin, you are no longer able to repent.
The LDS church agrees with protestants about forgiveness not being possible, but they have specifically spelled out what it takes to commit this sin. It is very difficult for someone to commit it. If you do, (as far as I know) it is the only way someone living today can end up living with Satan in "outer darkness." Basically becoming a "son of perdition."
I have not been able to find the view of Orthodoxy churches on this. Specifically if they disagree with the Catholics or not.


According to Jacobus Arminius's definition of free will, did Pharaoh have free will?

It depends on what one means by “free will.”

If, by free will, one means, a person (in this case, Pharaoh) can make free choices ACCORDING to his nature, then yes, Pharaoh had free will. He had a sinful, fallen nature, so he was able to freely act in accordance with that nature—to sin and practice evil.

All who are born in Adam have a fallen nature, free to be what they are: sinners. But no one has the freedom within that fallen nature to not sin, nor to obey God, because their desire is for sin and their mind is corrupt. It requires a NEW NATURE to be able to obey God, and only God can grant that new nature to a person, according to the good pleasure of His sovereign will, to the praise of His glorious grace.

Man fell (in his nature) when Adam sinned, and this act of rebellion was decreed by God from all eternity, even though Adam was truly free to either obey God or disobey God, as in his original state, he did not have a fallen nature and could do what he wanted without the propensity to sin, unlike ourselves (and Pharaoh).

When it says that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, it doesn’t mean Pharaoh acted against his will; it means that he acted according to his already fallen nature, which was hardened, and so God carried out His will through Pharaoh, to not free the Hebrews upon Moses’ plea, until such a time that God could display His great power and glory against Egypt, which was a type and shadow of bondage to sin (exactly what the sinful nature is). Ultimately, God is control of all things, and if God had freely chosen to show mercy to Pharaoh, he would have. But His purpose for Pharaoh was different.

Romans 9:17-18

  17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have
  raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name
  might be proclaimed in all the earth."
  18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith - On Free Will 1