Scholarly discussion of claims that Paul is a "false apostle"

The criticisms that Paul 'invented' Christianity, or 'distorted' the message of Jesus, often boil down to two primary claims:

Paul sought to abolish Torah observance
Paul deified Jesus, equating him with the God of Israel

1. Paul, and the role of Torah
A recent publication, The Jewish Annotated New Testament, contains commentary and perspectives by leading Jewish scholars. In the back is an essay titled Paul in Jewish Thought by Daniel R. Langton.1
In the opening of this essay, Langton summarizes a common Jewish view on Paul:

Generally speaking, Jews have regarded the apostle to the Gentiles suspiciously as a kind of self-hating Jew and as the "real" founder of the Christian religion.

Langton surveys a few Jewish perspectives on Paul from throughout history. In early Rabbinic literature, Langton sees 'some tantalizing references' to Paul as an antinomian who rejected the instruction of his teacher Gamaliel. The Medieval Toledot Yeshu ('Story of Jesus') apparently conflates Peter and Paul into a single individual: 'Simeon Kepha (or Paul, as he was known to the Nazarenes)'. This 'Paul' is again accused of rejecting Torah and introducing completely new practices into the community of 'those who followed Yeshu as the Messiah'.
The general portrait is that Paul brought in such innovation, the Christian movement was no longer recognizable as what had come before him. Even still, Langton insists, 'such an image was by no means widespread'. But then Langton comes to the nineteenth century rise of critical scholarship:2

German Protestant biblical criticism increasingly viewed Christianity as brought about by Paul's universalistic teaching. As the cliché states, Paul turned the religion of Jesus into the religion about Jesus. Among the earliest proponents of this view was the German scholar Heinrich Graetz (1817-91), whose immensely influential History of the Jews (1853-76 [English translation 1891-98]) presented Paul as the "inventor" of Christianity, distinguished Paul's superficial Jewish learning from Jesus' high-mindedness and moral purity, and argued that Paul's antinomian theology made him the "destroyer of Judaism."

In other words, the specific idea that Paul created a new religion by distorting Jesus' message mostly originated in the nineteenth century. Langton highlights other scholars who claimed Paul 'injected pagan elements into the religion of Jesus', including:

American Reform rabbi, Kaufmann Kohler (1843-1926), specifically his Jewish Encyclopedia article 'Saul of Tarsus'
German philosopher, Martin Buber (1878-1965)
Chief Rabbi of the United Synagogue in the United Kingdom, Jonathan Sacks (1948-), specifically his One People?: Tradition, Modernity, and Jewish Unity

But in contrast to Paul's critics, Langton also lists a few who 'argued that Paul remained authentically Jewish':

German Reform rabbi, Leo Baeck (1873-1956), specifically his article 'The Faith of Paul'
Montefiore
Hans-Joachim Schoeps
Samson Raphael Hirsch
Joseph Krauskopf
Isaac Mayer Wise

Close to the end of his essay, Langton summarizes the views of a few more recent Jewish commentators on Paul:3

Mark Nanos (1954-) has gone so far as to claim that Paul was entirely Torah-observant and that he expected other Jewish followers of Jesus to be so as well. . . . Daniel Boyarin (1946-) maintains that despite the fact that Paul had found the Law problematic, his letters ("the spiritual autobiography of a first-century Jew") show him to be a Jew facing many of the same kinds of challenges that Jews face today . . .

Mark Nanos also has an essay included in The Jewish Annotated New Testament, titled 'Paul and Judaism'. In this essay, Nanos writes:4

More controversial [than accepting Paul 'was born and raised a Jew'] is whether he continued to practice Judaism after his change from being a persecutor of the followers of Jesus to becoming an apostle to the nations (i.e., the Gentiles).

Nanos explains Paul with this:5

Paul's letters arguably indicate that he lived in a Torah-observant manner, including eating according to prevailing halakhic conventions for an observant Jew. But that is not the way he has been most commonly interpreted. Rather, his urging of non-Jews to remain non-Jews, and his own self-deprecating comments about the supposed superiority of his standing as a Jew relative to their own questionable standing in the larger Jewish communities, has led many to suppose that Paul was demeaning the value of Jewish identity and behavior, of Torah as well as Israel. If, however, we look at the rhetorical context of his comments, we see that in all his extant letters they are directed to non-Jews.

Bringing this into a context of the compatibility of Paul and Jesus: Paul himself did not stop following the Torah, and did not expect Jewish followers of Jesus to stop either. He only argued that non-Jews were not required to start following the Torah after coming to believe in Jesus as the messiah, and this argument spilled over into his letters.
Because Jesus said virtually nothing (recorded) on the issue of non-Jews following Torah (and there were a variety of Jewish views on this subject at the time, as there are now), and because Paul did not expect Jewish followers of Jesus to reject Torah (according to Langton, Nanos, etc.), there is little ground to see Jesus' and Paul's teachings as explicitly contradictory on this matter.

2. Paul, and Jesus as God
The other question is whether Paul was the first to deify Jesus, identifying him with the God of Israel. There is huge disagreement on this point in the scholarly community. Some take the critical opinion that Paul perverted Jesus' message by deifying him. Others argue that the perception of Jesus as God is entirely compatible with Jewish thought. Still others claim that neither Paul nor any of the earliest Christians actually perceived Jesus as God.

2a. Christians before Paul identified Jesus as God
Arguably, Richard Bauckham and Larry Hurtado are the two most well-known scholars who argue that not only did the earliest followers of Jesus (i.e. before Paul) perceive Jesus to be 'God', this idea, while never-before-seen in Judaism, was completely at home within the wider stream of Jewish thought, and should not be understood as a pagan 'corruption'.
In summary, Bauckham and Hurtado make similar arguments in their writings6 that, prior to Jesus, different Jewish groups wrote about exalted humans (e.g. Enoch, Abraham, or Moses), specialized angels (e.g. Michael, or Yahoel), or divine hypostases (e.g. God's Wisdom, or God's Logos) who mediated between God and his creation in a unique way. The language, ideas, and tropes surrounding these figures were then applied by the earliest Christians to Jesus, with one unique 'mutation': Jesus' followers identified him with the God of Israel:7

Now I turn to my second objective, namely, to demonstrate that earliest Christian devotion [to Jesus] constituted a significant mutation or innovation in Jewish monotheistic tradition. By "mutation" I mean that earliest Christian devotion was a direct outgrowth from, and indeed a variety of, the ancient Jewish tradition.

Please note that our knowledge of such mediator figures largely comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls, a huge swath of Jewish literature that was not discovered until long after Paul's critics had been accusing him of creating a new religion in his deification of Jesus. The people who accused Paul of corrupting Judaism into something pagan that allowed for a divine Jesus had no idea such language, ideas, and tropes were actually very common place within the Judaism of Jesus' and Paul's time, even if the actual perception of a human as God was a distinct 'innovation' within 'the Jesus movement'.
Hurtado argues that this identification of Jesus with God is evident in hymns (e.g. Philippians 2.6-11; Colossians 1.15-20) and creeds (1 Corinthians 8.6; perhaps also the Maranatha, 'Come, Lord!' of 1 Corinthians 16.22) that existed before Paul embedded them into his own letters, as well as devotional practices that had been going on before Paul began following Jesus (e.g. prayer and worship for God are directed 'through' Jesus; baptism is done in Jesus' name; Jesus is the center of the Eucharist).
In other words:8

All along, the evidence in the Pauline letters pointed to an origin of the cultic veneration of Jesus [i.e. as God] in the earliest years of the Christian movement and among Christians from an undeniably Jewish background, including Aramaic-speaking believers. Some earlier history of religion researchers apparently found it difficult to reconcile this with their notions of what could be expected of Jewish Christians. Thus they attributed the origin of the cultic veneration of the risen Christ to a later stage of the Christian movement and invoked the influence of pagan cults as the cause.

2b. Paul and early Christians did not identify Jesus as God
Still, an opposing view is that Paul never deified Jesus, nor did any of the other early Christians, and that insisting as much is a severe misinterpretation of Paul's letters.
Pamela Eisenbaum, a Jewish scholar of Paul, insists he remained 'a radical Jewish monotheist' even after becoming a follower of Jesus. Paul certainly revered Jesus greatly, above and beyond the Torah and other people. For Paul, 'Jesus has replaced Torah as the key to salvation'.9 But according to Eisenbaum, Paul made a consistent distinction between Jesus and God in his theology, even when writing his letters:10

. . . from the perspective of outsiders to the Christian tradition, Paul has sometimes been ridiculed for having abandoned monotheism. Such ridicule is part of a more general theological critique, advanced for centuries by Muslims and Jews, against the Christian doctrine of the incarnation, namely that God became human, and the notion of a triune God, namely that God is three-in-one, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. . . . Jesus is clearly a divine figure of unique status in Paul's letters, and this has led many historians to conclude that devotion to Christ as developed by Paul must have come from outside—that is, non-Jewish—influences.

Eisenbaum interacts with Hurtado on his views on the early acceptance of Jesus as a 'divine figure of unique status', but she homes in on different key points of the ancient Jewish texts about mediator figures and how those same ideas are used for Jesus. Her conclusion is that:11

A shift in devotional focus from God to Christ may have already begun with other New Testament writers, but these writers come at least a generation after Paul. As noted by many scholars, Paul carefully distinguished between Jesus and God and did not worship Jesus as if he were a god, nor does the apostle treat Christ as the equivalent of God, the use of similar language notwithstanding. Rather, confessing Jesus as Lord was supposed to point people toward God; it was not meant to distract people from God nor to complicate the unitary nature of God. One misunderstands Paul if one misses this point.

Conclusion
While Paul's exact views on either Torah or Jesus may still be debated, there is sufficient reason for thinking Paul did not 'invent' Christianity. Whatever his views on Torah or Jesus, there is at least a historical congruency between Paul's theology as represented in his letters, and the various beliefs in the stream of Second Temple Judaism. It is a huge question on where we should locate Jesus in this stream, but it's entirely possible Paul is much closer to Jesus than his critics tend to think.

Footnotes
1 Daniel R. Langton, 'Paul in Jewish Thought', in The Jewish Annotated New Testament (2011).
2 Ibid., p.586.
3 Ibid., p.587.
4 Mark Nanos, 'Paul and Judaism', in The Jewish Annotated New Testament (2011), p.551.
5 Ibid., p.553.
6 e.g. Richard Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism & Christology in the New Testament (1998); Larry Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (1988, 1998).
7 Larry Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (1998), p.99.
8 Ibid., p.125.
9 Pamela Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not A Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle (2009), p.173.
10 Ibid., p.177,178.
11 Ibid., p.189.


What is (or where can I find) a summary of David J Bartholomew's views on God and Chance?

David Bartholomew's view is that God uses chance.

The idea that God may have actually used chance, and still be using chance, may help to dispel the negative role it often plays in current theology. 1
As mentioned in a previous article, unpredictability is an all-pervasive part of life, and it contributes much to the excitement and interest of living. ... This may well be a mimicking of God’s ongoing creative activity on the cosmic scale. 2

God of Chance (free download)

From the Preface

The central message of God of Chance is ... that chance has to be seen as within the Providence of God. It is not something which requires the abolition of theism nor is it an illusion. We increasingly use chance as a tool in scientific work and it would surely be surprising if God had not got there before us.

Reviews

Uncertain Belief : Is it Rational to be a Christian?

Do miracles happen? Is the Bible true? What about the paranormal? Does God exist? The underpinning of belief have crumbled in a world where science sets the standard of what is true; people continue to ask these questions but there are no agreed upon answers. At the rational level, uncertainty is inevitable. Probability theory provides the tools for measuring and combining uncertainties and, thus, the key to progress. Assessing the state of the argument from a probabilistic perspective is long overdue. In Uncertain Beliefs, David J. Bartholomew examines and refutes some of the more extravagant claims, evaluates the weight of some of the quantitative evidence, and provides an answer to the fundamental question: is it rational to be a Christian?
More in-depth abstracts on each chapter here
Book Review

God, Chance and Purpose: Can God Have It Both Ways?

Scientific accounts of existence give chance a central role. At the smallest level, quantum theory involves uncertainty and evolution is driven by chance and necessity. These ideas do not fit easily with theology in which chance has been seen as the enemy of purpose. One option is to argue, as proponents of Intelligent Design do, that chance is not real and can be replaced by the work of a Designer. Others adhere to a deterministic theology in which God is in total control. Neither of these views, it is argued, does justice to the complexity of nature or the greatness of God. The thesis of this book is that chance is neither unreal nor non-existent but an integral part of God's creation. This view is expounded, illustrated and defended by drawing on the resources of probability theory and numerous examples from the natural and social worlds.
Book Review
Essay Review by William A. Dembski
1 http://religion.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.001.0001/acrefore-9780199340378-e-23#acrefore-9780199340378-e-23-div1-7
2 https://blog.oup.com/2016/10/christians-god-chance-compatibility/


What was Martin Luther King, Jr.'s understanding of salvation?

For King, individual salvation in some ways resembles that of historic Protestantism – man is a sinner needing salvation, which is by faith – but differs in other ways, such as in his rejection of a physical resurrection of believers.  This understanding fits neatly in his broader understanding of salvation, which applies not just to individuals, but to societies as well.
Individual salvation
Steps of individual salvation
King was uncomfortable with orthodox and neo-orthodox understandings of original sin, but he did accept that men are sinful and that they therefore need salvation:

The first thing necessary for ind. salvation is an honest recognition of one's estranged and sinful condition. One can never be saved until he recognizes the fact that he needs to be saved. ("What Shall We Do to Be Saved?", 1948–54)

King identifies faith, particularly an active faith, as saving:

Faith is fundamentally an act of commitment to that which is believe to be most valuable. Religiously speaking it is total surrender to God. Basically faith is not belief, (although belief is an element in faith) but an act.
For this reason faith is always significant. It is necessary for the very living of life. Even reason itself is a venture of faith. When faith is properly interpreted it is true that salvation is by faith. (Qualifying Examination Answers, Systematic Theology, 1953)

He sees repentance as crucial in bringing about fellowship with God:

Repentance is an essential part of the Christian life. Through repentance man is converted and brought into fellowship with God. ("How Modern Christians Should Think of Man", 1949–50)

For him, the "new birth" is a result of these steps:

Regeneration mean a new life that results after conversion and repentance. It is a new set of values. It is a new adjustment to God, man, and self. It is what Jesus referred to in the Fourth gospel as the new birth. (Qualifying Examination Answers, Systematic Theology, 1953)

Hope of individual salvation
For King, the hope of this individual salvation was not physical resurrection, as taught in the historical church and among the fundamentalists of his day.  Indeed, he rejected the idea of a physical return of Christ, a day of judgment, and the physical immortality of believers.  Instead, he expected an immortal "spiritual existence" of some kind, and described the future kingdom of God as follows:

Whether it come soon or late, by sudden crisis of through slow development, the kingdom of God will be a society in which all men and women will be controlled by the eternal love of God. When we see social relationships controlled everywhere by the principles which Jesus illustrated in his life—trust, love, mercy, and altruism—then we shall know that the kingdom of God is here. ("The Christian Pertinence of Eschatological Hope", 1949–50)

Collective salvation
With that understanding of the hope of salvation and the kingdom of God, it's easy to see how it connects to a concept of collective or societal salvation.  In the sermon "What Shall We Do to Be Saved?", King explicitly stated that "the process of social salvation is the same as the process of individual salvation."
Here's one example of how the two connect.  Earlier we saw that King referenced the new birth of John 3 as being "a new set of values" and "a new adjustment to God, man, and self."  For him, this lesson was just as applicable to a society as to an individual, as we see in the following excerpt from a speech entitled "Where Do We Go From Here?" (1967):

Jesus looked at him and said, "Nicodemus, you must be born again." [applause]
In other words, "Your whole structure (Yes) must be changed."
[...]
What I'm saying today is that we must go from this convention and say, "America, you must be born again!" [applause] (Oh yes)

Note that I've corrected obvious spelling errors in the quoted material.


How do Mormons understand 2 Nephi 5:16 in light of 2 Nephi 5:15?

Because the LDS don't believe the Book of Mormon contradicts itself ("the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth", Joseph Smith), it must be referring to other materials which weren't mentioned in 2 Nephi 5:15.

Here are some examples of materials which were used in the temple of Solomon that Nephi could have been referring to, which were not mentioned in verse 15:

Materials

1 Kings 5

costly stones [v17]

1 Kings 6

olive wood [v31]

2 Chronicles 2

purple, crimson, blue [v7]
cedar, fir, algum [v8]

2 Chronicles 3

palm trees [v5]
precious stones [v6]
fine linen [v14]

See also Bible Dictionary - Temple of Solomon


What is the basic Protestant understanding of oneness in these Scriptures?

According to the immediate context, the oneness of the believers with the Father and the Son in John 17 is oneness in terms of love.

John 17:11,22-24
11 And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one...
22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. 24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.

Even the greater context shows that the mutual indwelling is based on love and not on nature.

And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. 1 John 4:16
Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him." John 14:23


"Holy man / saints" in the point of view of God according to the Calvinist?

Unfortunately, the Calvinists in the web forum mentioned are misrepresenting the Calvinist position on Old Testament saints.

Westminster Confession of Faith 11:6 states: "The justification of believers under the Old Testament was, in all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers under the New Testament." (Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter XI: Of Justification.)

In context, it refers to the fact that justification is according to God's decrees for all the elect on the basis of Christ's death, with numerous additional clarifications. The point is that Christ's blood was equally efficacious for them.

Occasionally, you will hear Calvinist objections to calling a person, "Saint Such and Such," not because they believe it is incorrect, but because they think it can imply that there are special categories of Christians who qualify to be saints, while others are not. This has more to do with objecting to the Roman Catholic view of granting certain Christians sainthood after they die.

To Calvinists, a person who is in Christ by faith is a saint, and prior to the incarnation, there were Old Testament people who were in Christ.


In context, Proverbs 1 here is talking about joining with sinful men, plundering and gambling. It is a completely unrelated passage of Scripture.

Here it is in-context with the surrounding passages:

  Warning Against the Invitation of Sinful Men

  8 Listen, my son, to your father’s instruction
      and do not forsake your mother’s teaching. 9 They are a garland to grace your head
      and a chain to adorn your neck.

  10 My son, if sinful men entice you,
      do not give in to them. 11 If they say, “Come along with us;
      let’s lie in wait for innocent blood,
      let’s ambush some harmless soul; 12 let’s swallow them alive, like the grave,
      and whole, like those who go down to the pit; 13 we will get all sorts of valuable things
      and fill our houses with plunder; 14 cast lots with us;
      we will all share the loot”— 15 my son, do not go along with them,
      do not set foot on their paths; 16 for their feet rush into evil,
      they are swift to shed blood. 17 How useless to spread a net
      where every bird can see it! 18 These men lie in wait for their own blood;
      they ambush only themselves! 19 Such are the paths of all who go after ill-gotten gain;
      it takes away the life of those who get it.

Clearly, the condemnation is in pooling your resources with sinful people, not just pooling your resources altogether.

To try to link the two is a logic flaw. It would be like claiming that 2 Corinthians 6:14 says not to be yoked to (joined to, in a partnership with) anyone.

  Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness
  and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with
  darkness?

2 Corinthians 6:14 is speaking only of being yoked to unbelievers, just as the Proverb you cited is clearly about joining with evil.

There are some basic, commonly accepted rules for reading, understanding, and applying Scripture. One of them is not taking a single verse out of context with the surrounding text, intended audience, and meanings of words/statements at the time it was written. In context, it's clear there is no conflict here.


If the Bible is 100% accurate, it is accurate in a different sense than we would apply to other books.

Studies of Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica found an average of one serious error per ten articles (each)--this number is not stated but can be calculated from numbers given here.  An article is usually a few hundred words (exactly how many depends on the edition), so that's a serious error every few thousand words.

Unfortunately, most of the events described in the Bible are hard to rigorously validate, unlike encyclopedias where most every statement can be validated.  Nonetheless, we can attempt to validate the Bible against itself by comparing a straightforward interpretation (as one would use with an encyclopedia) of different passages in the Bible.

The best opportunity to do this is with the Gospels since they all describe the same period of time.  Thus, we can use them for cross-validation (when interpreted plainly as a historical account).

Matthew 1:16 (ESV) explains:

  and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.

But Luke 3:23 (ESV) instead says:

  Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,

Joseph is presumably not the son of both Heli and Jacob, so at least by the standards used with encyclopedias*, this is an error.

According to Matthew 2:13-15 (ESV), Jesus spent some time in Egypt (immediately following a visit by the wise men):

  13Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him." 14And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt 15and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "Out of Egypt I called my son."

Luke, on the other hand, seems to indicate that Jesus never left (Luke 2:21-42 are all relevant, in but brief):

  21And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb. 22And when the time came for their purification according to the Law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord

So within about 5000 words, we have one assuredly contradictory account and one probable contradiction--no better than encyclopedias (and perhaps worse, since this is not an exhaustive survey, and many accounts cannot be confirmed).

Thus, claims that the Bible is 100% accurate, if correct, cannot mean that it's 100% accurate in the way you would expect an encyclopedia to be 100% accurate.

*There is a "Levirate marriage" explanation for the discrepancy, but we generally don't expect encyclopedias to require us to go to so much trouble to figure out what is being said.  Also, there's Ram vs. Arni and Admin in the Abraham to David line; Ruth agrees with Matthew, not Luke on this.


Self-Examination in Reformed Practical Theology

So far I have found the following works, but have not had time to study them:

The address on self-examination in Discourses Suited to the Administration of the Lord's Supper by John Brown
The Necessity of Self-Examination by Jonathan Edwards (apparently in audio form here)
Practical Religion by J. C. Ryle

I also found these sermons, but have not studied them yet either:

One by Joel Beeke, who has saturated himself in the Puritans.
A series which seems to be about Richard Baxter's treatment of self-examination, by a man I'm unfamiliar with
One by Charles Spurgeon, a Reformed Baptist with close affinities to the Puritans (this is a transcript)

I also intend to look up the relevant passages in Calvin's Institutes, his commentaries, and John Gill's and Matthew Henry's commentaries. I intend to report further...


Can all Catholic sacramentals be re-consecrated after being desecrated?

Sacramentals can lose their blessing for a number of reasons.

  "Items lose their blessing or consecration if they are desecrated, if they are substantially broken such that they can no longer be used for their sacred purpose, or if they are publicly sold. If an item is sold by one individual to another for only the price of the material itself, that is, if no profit is made, the blessing remains. For example, if you were to give someone a blessed rosary or sell it to him at cost, he would not have to have it re-blessed. If you were to sell a blessed rosary to someone for profit, he would need to take it to a priest to be blessed."
  The word desecration is commonly used in regard to churches, altars, chalices, etc.

For churches, altars etc. lose their consecration:

  (1) A church loses its consecration or blessing when the building is destroyed either wholly or in greater part, or when an addition is made to it of larger extent than the original edifice. It does not become desecrated:

•(a) if a portion of the walls and roof falls in, provided the main portion stands, or

•(b) if all the interior plastering becomes detached, or

•(c) if all the crosses disappear, or

•(d) if all the walls are gradually renewed, provided on each occasion the old part is greater than the new, or

•(e) if converted for a while to profane uses, provided it is not polluted (cf. Many, De Locis Sacris).

  (2) An altar (fixed) loses its consecration:

•(a) by a notable fracture of table or its support; as, for instance, if the table were broken into two large pieces, or if an anointed corner were broken off, or if the support were seriously impaired, or if one of the columns were displaced;

•(b) by removal of the table from its support, so as to disjoint them;

•(c) by displacing the relics, or cover of the sepulchre (cf. Schulte, Consecranda, p. 222).

  (3) An altar-stone loses its consecration:

•(a) by removal of the relics;

•(b) by fracture or removal of the cover of the sepulchre;

•(c) by a notable fracture of the stone;

•(d) by breakage of the anointed corner of stone.

  (4) As to the chalice and paten, see ALTAR, under subtitle Loss of Consecration.

The Church has a special **Rite for the reconciling of a profaned church. **

  "If a church that was blessed is profaned, it may be reconciled by the pastor or by any priest who has his permission, expressed or presumed. The altar should be entirely bare. It should be prearranged that the officiants can conveniently go around the building, both outside and inside..."

There are also special prayers used in the Rite of reconciling of profaned cemetery.

Thus it stands to reason that if sacramentals are desecrated or lose their blessing through whatever means they may be re-consecrated or blessed by a priest.


Are wives still called to be a "help meet" for their husbands?

The word for "help meet" means more than just a helper. She was to be his counterpart. This is not limited to just man's ministry, but to everything in his life. She was not to be seen as lesser, or just a helper, but as his divinely appointed co-equal complement. This quote I believe explains it better.

  God Himself gave Adam a companion. He provided “an help meet for
  him”—a helper corresponding to him—one who was fitted to be his
  companion, and who could be one with him in love and sympathy. Eve was
  created from a rib taken from the side of Adam, signifying that she
  was not to control him as the head, nor to be trampled under his feet
  as an inferior, but to stand by his side as an equal, to be loved and
  protected by him. A part of man, bone of his bone, and flesh of his
  flesh, she was his second self; showing the close union and the
  affectionate attachment that should exist in this relation. “For no
  man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it.”
  Ephesians 5:29...

"The Faith I Live By" P.251

If you see it from this perspective, she is not limited to only help in man's ministry. They are to have one purpose and work together in every aspect of life. After sin came in, she was to be subject to her husband, but notice that this was as a result of sin. God's original plan was to have her be equal with her husband.


Is the Genesis creation account consistent with the Big Bang theory according to Catholic theology?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has

289 Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources. the inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture to express in their solemn language the truths of creation — its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation. Read in the light of Christ, within the unity of Sacred Scripture and in the living Tradition of the Church, these texts remain the principal source for catechesis on the mysteries of the "beginning": creation, fall, and promise of salvation.
290 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth":128 three things are affirmed in these first words of Scripture: the eternal God gave a beginning to all that exists outside of himself; he alone is Creator (the verb "create" — Hebrew bara — always has God for its subject). the totality of what exists (expressed by the formula "the heavens and the earth") depends on the One who gives it being.
295 We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom.141 It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance. We believe that it proceeds from God's free will; he wanted to make his creatures share in his being, wisdom and goodness: "For you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created."142 Therefore the Psalmist exclaims: "O LORD, how manifold are your works! In wisdom you have made them all"; and "The LORD is good to all, and his compassion is over all that he has made."143 God creates "out of nothing".
296 We believe that God needs no pre-existent thing or any help in order to create, nor is creation any sort of necessary emanation from the divine substance.144 God creates freely "out of nothing".145

Thus it may be seen that Catholic teaching, expressed in the Catechism, does not depend on the literal truth (or not) of Genesis 1. Other than a few brief words of literary analysis, it expresses no opinion — although St Augustine of Hippo certainly did. What is important is that Genesis 1 testifies that God created all that exists, and did so from nothing.
Although God is continually revealing himself and his methods, scientists have not reached the origin of creation, either by observation of the deep universe or by theoretical calculation. Even if one posits that the Big Bang was the means by which creation was effected, it is thought that everything emanated from a singularity: a point of infinite density and zero size — nothing.

128: Gen 1.1
141: Cf Wis 9:9
142: Rev 4:11
143: Pss 104:24; 145:9
144: Cf Dei Filius, cann 2–4 (1869)
145: Lateran Council IV (1215)


Are Roman Catholics required at any time to bow down to statues or images?

During Mass, as the occasion warrants, Catholic priests/deacons (not the lay faithful) are required to:
Bow before the tabernacle the first time they cross it.
Kiss and incense the altar and the Gospel book during mass.
Incense the Cross and the tabernacle
Every Catholic as a sign of belief and respect has to bow before the alter, genuflect before the reserved Blessed Sacrament and kneel if the Blessed Sacrament is exposed. This is done every time they cross these when moving from one place to another. Priests are excused from this norm when celebrating Mass.
In some Asian and African countries during mass, the sign of peace is exchanged by bowing to each other because of their culture. (In western countries they shake hands, I am not sure about the universal norm for this. GRIM 82 leaves it to the local Bishops' Conference.)

Ignoring these without a grave reason and on purpose is considered to be Sin (provided other conditions are met). Note that these are just customs, no one is going to accuse a lay person if they don't follow these things; In-fact if you don't do this because you don't believe in what church teaches, then you have greater problems than worrying about these actions. But if you do believe, then as Card. Arinze says,

  "If you believe that Christ is our God and He is present (in the Blessed Sacrament) why don't you kneel? Why don't you crawl? Why not show? Show respect."

Other than this there is no obligation on the part of Catholics to kiss or bow down to anything else (including persons).

It is to be noted that on Good Friday, during the veneration of Cross, the Cross is kissed. This is mandatory for priests. It is strongly recommended for lay faithful. But not obligatory.


The Servetus Controversy: What was Calvin's involvement?

Calvin's involvement

Calvin's involvement and even leadership in having a man guilty of heresy put to death according to the civil laws of his day does not seem something that can be denied based on his personal letters.

Here is the one most often quoted as the strongest recorded statement from Calvin on the Servetus affair is a 1561 letter from Calvin to the Marquis Paet, high chamberlain to the King of Navarre, in which he says:

  Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels, who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard.

This shows he openly admitted his involvement and direct leadership in the affair.

My opinion on Calvin's sinfulness

I think the question is not whether Calvin sinned or not, for he should have sought to remove the ability of the sate to punish heretics, but rather how big was his sin.

It is difficult for us to imagine a world where heretics were considered just like thieves and murderers liable to capital punishment as under the Old Testament. This does not excuse Calvin at all in my mind, but when we cast the first stone we are probably just as guilty ourselves in the unwarranted anger we have had against our neighbors.

  But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. (NIV Matthew 5:22)

The sins of the world at that time appeared to have infected Calvin. I do not think we can defend him, or overly judge him. After all Calvin was just a man, and though pretty clever, I have never imagined him the most holy. I find him sometimes precocious and annoying on a personal level.  Even though I agree with much of what he wrote, I often feel as though I would not have liked him personally. Luther I feel I would have loved.

I say this a a long-term Calvinist who is not really surprised or bothered in finding out Calvin's guilt in this matter. We sometimes romanticize church leaders above the realm of sin, and clearly such views of men are ungodly. Furthermore at a time in history so different from our own, we need not fall into shock over their failings.  They would probably faint if they had a glimpse into the great sins of our generation.

I suppose some might not like my indifferent attitude but it comes from a man that believes in the total depravity of human nature, even more than Calvin. The sin of anyone does not surprise someone as skeptical as me, neither do I believe those who claim to be so much holier than Calvin and ready to 'cast the first stone.'

Let's keep in mind the greatest sin is rejecting the love of God in the gospel, either by our doctrine or by our actions. Servetus probably did it both ways, every day, but Calvin also failed terribly in some of his actions also, especially in this one.

Does it help to recall that King David was more guilty in his sin, as he first slept with the man's wife before 'arranging' his murder?


When did tradition become first used as Tradition?

This is actually a very interesting question, which we could rephrase as "When did Tradition [in the Catholic/Orthodox sense] became a Dogma?"

Every historical declaration of dogma/doctrine by the Catholic Church is recorded in the Enchiridion (usually cited as DS; English version online here). Therefore, we can search that document for "tradition". As can be seen from the quotes and the heading in the DS document however, this concept is in the beginning often found tied with that of "Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff". In effect, under the view of the Catholic Church these are inseparable because, as expressed in Lumen Gentium:

  In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head. This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church, and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(Jn 21,15f.) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(Mt 16,19) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.( Mt 18,18; 28,16-20)

So, if we look for these concepts, we can find the following, in chronological order:

417 AD: Pope (saint) Innocent I, in the letter In requirendis, writes:

  In seeking the things of God . . . preserving the examples of ancient tradition . . . you have strengthened the vigor of your religion . . . with true reason, for you have confirmed that reference must be made to our judgment, realizing what is due the Apostolic See, since all of us placed in this position desire to follow the Apostle, from whom the episcopate itself and all the authority of this name have emerged. Following him we know how to condemn evils just as (well as how) to approve praiseworthy things. Take this as an example, guarding with your sacerdotal office the practices of the fathers you resolve that (they) must not be trampled upon, because they made their decisions not by human, but by divine judgment, ...

418 AD: The letter Quamvis Patrum traditio by Pope saint Zosimus:

  Although the tradition of the Fathers has attributed such great authority to the Apostolic See that no one would dare to disagree wholly with its judgment, and it has always preserved this judgment by canons and rules, and current ecclesiastical discipline up to this time by its laws pays the reverence which is due to the name of PETER, from whom it has itself descended . . . ; since therefore PETER the head is of such great authority and he has confirmed the subsequent endeavors of all our ancestors, so that the Roman Church is fortified . . . by human as well as by divine laws, and it does not escape you that we rule its place and also hold power of the name itself, nevertheless you know, dearest brethren, and as priests you ought to know, although we have such great authority that no one can dare to retract from our decision, yet we have done nothing which we have not voluntarily referred to your notice by letters . . . not because we did not know what ought to be done, or would do anything which by going against the advantage of the Church, would be displeasing.

422 AD: Pope (saint) Boniface I also wrote a doctrinal document with these issues, but it is a bit too long to put here. See the DS website linked above. It has the same type of "indirect" claims.

433 AD: Pope (saint) Sixtus III says (in the Latin version, sorry):

  De Dei autem Genetrice Virgine quemadmodum et sapimus et dicimus et de modo humanationis unigeniti Filii Dei necessariae, non additamenti causa, sed ad satisfactionem proprie desuper tam de divinis scripturis quam de traditione sanctorum patrum adsumentes habuimus, breviter dicimus, nihil omnino addentes fidei sanctorum patrum, quae in Nicaea exposita est.

The key is where he says (my translation) that the Truth about the human nature of Jesus through Virgin Mary, "has been received from old, both from the sacred Scriptures and the tradition of the Holy Fathers".

There are plenty of these - some might argue - "indirect" mentions. Yet, the issue seems to become clearer over time. One of the last examples is from Pope (saint) Simplicius, in 476 AD, and found under the heading of "The Unchangeableness of Christian Doctrine":

  Those genuine and clear [truths] which flow from the very pure fountains of the Scriptures cannot be disturbed by any arguments of misty subtlety. For this same norm of apostolic doctrine endures in the successors of him upon whom the Lord imposed the care of the whole sheepfold [John 21:15 ff.], whom [He promised] He would not fail even to the end of the world [Matt. 28:20], against whom He promised that the gates of hell would never prevail, by whose judgment He testified that what was bound on earth could not be loosed in heaven [Matt. 16:18 ff.]. (6). . . Let whoever, as the Apostle proclaimed, attempts to disseminate something other, than what we have received, be anathema[ Gal. 1:8 f.]. Let no approach to your ears be thrown open to the pernicious plans of undermining, let no pledge of revising any of the old definitions be granted, because, as it must be repeated very often, what has deserved to be cut away with the sharp edge of the evangelical pruninghook by apostolic hands with the approval of the universal Church, cannot acquire the strength for a rebirth nor is it able to return to the fruitful shoot of the master's vine, because it is evident that it has been destined to eternal fire.

Yet, what seems to be the first direct treatment of this as doctrine (i.e. in the DS), occurs in the acts of the Council of Constantinople, in 553 AD. We read, under the heading of "Ecclesiastical Tradition" :

  We confess that (we) hold and declare the faith given from the beginning by the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ to the Holy Apostles, and preached by them in the whole world; which the sacred Fathers both confessed and explained, and handed down to the holy churches, and especially [those Fathers] who assembled in the four sacred Synods, whom we follow and accept through all things and in all things . . . judging as at odds with piety all things, indeed, which are not in accord with what has been defined as right faith by the same four holy Councils, we condemn and anathematize them.

From all this, I conclude that, just as so many other dogmas, and without diminishing the value of such clarified truth (see below), the Church came to realise about the dogma of Tradition over several centuries, and was declared as such in 553 AD. Importantly, this does not mean that other Early Church Fathers did not write about it (even in dissimilar ways like Irenaeus or Augustine). It only means that it was not "entrenched" as doctrine until later.

I think it is worth adding here perhaps the clearest doctrinal declaration on the issue of the sources of Revealed Truth. It comes (perhaps unsurprisingly) from the fourth session (1546) of the Council of Trent. The entry in the DS is as follows:

  The sacred and holy ecumenical and general Synod of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Spirit, with the same three Legates of the Apostolic See presiding over it, keeping this constantly in view, that with the abolishing of errors, the purity itself of the Gospel is preserved in the Church, which promised before through the Prophets in the Holy Scriptures our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded "to be preached" by His apostles "to every creature" as the source of every saving truth and of instruction in morals [Matt. 28:19ff., Mark 16:15], and [the Synod] clearly perceiving that this truth and instruction are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which have been received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the apostles themselves, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit, have come down even to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand, [the Synod] following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and holds in veneration with an equal affection of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament, since one God is the author or both, and also the traditions themselves, those that appertain both to faith and to morals, as having been dictated either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Spirit, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession.

Having said this, the way you put the question is loaded, particularly knowing that you do not believe Tradition is a valid concept at all. Why is it loaded? Because for someone who does not believe in it, tradition became [wrongly] Tradition at a given time, because of non-supernatural inspired human decision. The answer to this perspective is then (if correct), the one given above. For someone who believe Tradition is Revealed Truth however, we know that the Catholic Church (Orthodox?) tells us that the establishment of a Dogma is not the creation of new truths, but the clarification of already Revealed Truths, made possible through the passage of time. Thus, in this sense, tradition never really became Tradition, since it always has been (as in the other answer).


When the early church was formalising the canon, what did they understand by the word 'Inspired'?

Further Clarification

The original person who asked the question asked for additional clarification on these two questions:

  1) Are inspired works closed as canon is? 2) Are there potentially other inspired historical works which are not in canon?

The answer to the first question depends on the view one has of the gift of prophecy and its possible continuation.  Those whom God used to produce an inspired text were those who had been given the gift of prophecy.  Those like myself who hold that the gift of prophecy ceased with the death of the last apostle hold that there will no longer be any New Testament books that carry the mark of inspiration.  Here the use of inspired is being used in a very technical sense -- literally a work in which God carried the author along.  That excludes works that we would view as inspiring in the non-technical sense.

There are some sects who hold that the gift of prophecy continues to this day.  Often times those groups will have layers or degrees to which a prophet or prophetess can produce inspired texts.  Most of these groups makes some sort of distinction between the canon of the Bible and the writings of the prophet or prophetess in question.

If the criteria for acceptance into the canon is the original apostolic authority then the canon is closed unless one holds to the idea that the apostolic office continues.

2) Are there potentially other inspired historical works which are not in canon?

The answer to this question depends to a great extent on where one falls on the doctrine of preservation.  For those like myself who hold to the doctrine of preservation (see below) then it would be contrary to the nature of God to inspire a text and then to leave it undiscovered by the church.  If preservation is denied then it is certainly possible that there were writings that were God-breathed that have been lost to history.  There are at least two letters written by Paul (probably more) that are lost to history.  1 Cor. 5:9 indicates that Paul had already written to the church at Corinth prior to his writing 1 Corinthians.  Also the letter to Laodicea that is mentioned in Colossians 4:16 has been lost to history.  Those who hold to the doctrine of preservation see those letters as not having been the product of inspiration and they were then lost to history.  For those who deny this doctrine, they can argue that they were inspired and then later lost.  This implies that once a person was a prophet they were always a prophet.  One difficulty in this is the passage Ephesians 2:20.  It may be that Paul was indicating New Testament prophets as part of the foundation.  Like the missing letters some have argued that there were other writings of the NT prophets who have been lost to history.  I hold that in the early church there was the prophetic gift that was serving the church through oral communication until such time as God had revealed all that we need in the New Testament and then the office of prophet ceased.

Implicit to these questions is the idea -- do we have everything we need in His word?  I think Peter answered this in the affirmative in 2 Peter 1 (one of the last books written in the NT).

  1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: 2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, 3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: 4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Here was the original answer

The Greek term that is behind the English word inspired is θεόπνευστος.  It is a compound word that literally means "God Breathed."  The process of inspiration resulted in the product -- an inspired word of God.  Theologians define the process as the human author was carried along by God so that what they wrote was both the words of the human author and at the same time the word of God.

Here are some thoughts by F.F. Bruce on inspiration:

  By inspiration in this sense is meant that operation of the Holy Spirit by which the prophets of Israel were enabled to utter the word of God. The vocabulary was theirs; the message was his. Only to certain individuals, and only occasionally to them, was this enablement granted.

F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 264.

Bruce points out various phrases in the New Testament that imply that the New Testament writers understood they were speaking on behalf of God through their writings:

"the book of this prophecy" Rev. 22:19
"The testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy" Rev. 19:10
Paul claimed to have the "mind of Christ."
Demonstration of the Spirit"
"in words not taught by human wisdom."

Different denominations view the subject of the canon of Scripture differently.  The Catholic Church has always claimed the power to determine the extent of the canon through the actions of the various Church councils in the fourth century.  Then affirmed in later councils.  Protestants on the other hand have suggested that the source of the canon is set by God and it is up to the Church to discover what books carry the signs of that inspiration.  These groups all hold to a closed canon.
Other groups have claimed that the gift of prophecy has continued and they add different criteria for the notion of the canon.  Those groups would hold to some level of an open canon.  Open in the sense of some new revelation that came after the apostolic age.

In the end it comes down to the criteria a church uses to establish the canon.

As a protestant I would hold that the canon was actually established much earlier than the councils of the Catholic Church.  2 Peter 3:16 declares that the writings of Paul were already considered Scripture just a few years after they were written.  The Church had recognized their authority from a very early stage.

Two excellent books on the subject are The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce and The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate by Kruger.  In Bruce's book he has a chapter on the criteria to determine what is in fact inspired by God:

The book had to have apostolic authority.  The signs and wonders of an apostle were given to substantiate the writings of the New Testament.  This is perhaps the most well known criteria for the mark of inspiration.  It is also why the debate lingered for some books like Hebrews where the question of apostolic authority was somewhat lacking since the author of Hebrews is an open question.  The early Church generally ascribed it to the apostle Paul.  For protestants the office of apostle has ceased and therefore the canon of Scripture has been closed since the death of the apostle John.
Antiquity, this is closely related to the first.  The book had to have been written at a time when it could be authenticated by those who had known the apostle associated with the book.  This criteria would exclude some long lost book that was discovered later and it is also why some books such the Shepherd of Hermes was rejected by the early church.
Since the book was produced by the apostles it had to be in agreement with the apostles doctrine and could not contradict it.  Since God is the co-author of Scripture He would never breathe out His word that would be contrary to His earlier revelations.  This is why the early Gnostic Gospels of the second century were rejected as well as one of the reasons that protestants reject the Old Testament Apocrypha.
The book had to have widespread acceptance by the early church.  No secret books that were only accepted by small groups such as the ones written by Marcion.
The book was used by the Church in their worship of God.

To this I would add one of my own:

Does the book carry the weight of authority to the extent that is fits 2 Tim. 3:16-17, "‘all scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for ...," what follows is a list of criteria that can be used to determine its use.

Most protestant denominations, the Catholic Church, and the Orthodox Church all consider the canon closed for the reasons that were listed above regarding criteria.  The number one of which is the fact that they had to have been written by the apostles.  There are some groups that claim the gift of prophecy has continued (I am not one of those) so I do not have a sense in which there is the potential for some future book of the Bible.  It is also why I would reject any book that was written after the apostolic age.  Even the idea of a long lost book does not fit the criteria that was used in the early Church so I am OK there as well.

Not a part of your Questions directly is the doctrine of preservation.  Did God act in such a way and does He continue to act in such a way to preserve His word for future generations after He had breathed it out?  One way to see this is the shear number of New Testament manuscripts.  There are over 6000 Greek New Testament manuscripts.  No other written literature of the ancient world can claim anything like the New Testament in the number of original attestations.  Even the sacred writings of the other religions come nothing close to the number of ancient copies of the Old and New Testaments. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls even substantiated the fact that we have the essential Old Testament text, largely unchanged since about 100 BC.  One comparison is the writings of Josephus, there are as many as five very distinct versions with significant and drastic changes between them.  Not so with the Old and New Testaments.  I take that as the providence of God so I am secure in my faith that He has given His word to us and we have everything we would need, so there is no need to worry about the concept of an open canon.


How do married clergy (preachers) in Protestant denominations support their family?

There's no singular answer to this question, and you'd likely see tons of different situations depending on the pastor and his church.

At my church, the pastor is full-time, and his salary is paid out of a portion of the tithes given to the church.  However, in some situations, pastors must find another job in order to pay the bills, typically because they're working in a smaller church where the tithes are not large enough to support him.  I've known pastors who are in this situation as well.  They'll work a factory job or something low-key and low-demand so that they can support themselves as they typically treat their clergy role as their "primary" job, even though it doesn't pay well enough to support a family.

Some protestant churches, however, are also set up in denominations, where the salary is paid by the denomination, and tithe money typically rolls into the denomination and not directly into the church.   It just depends on the situation.

Each church is different.

As for balancing time, again, just like any job, some have effective time management, and some don't.  My brother is a pastor, and he manages his time with his family by simply carving out time that is devoted to the family, and regularly blocking that time out so that he can properly perform his role as father and husband.  Other pastors may not have the same time management skills, and may indeed neglect their families to serve a "higher call".  This is an unfortunate fact that happens all too often (hence the stereotype of the "Pastor's Kid", who ends up being a wild child, largely due to his father's neglect).

Ultimately, the married clergyman would have the same approach to supporting his family as the unmarried clergyman would.  He would have to trust God to meet his needs, as well as the needs of his family if he has one.


How old was St. Joseph when he married the Blessed Virgin Mary?

According to ch. 1 of The Divine Favors Granted to St. Joseph (1973) by Père Binet, S.J., the general opinion among theologians is that St. Joseph was, when he married, "neither an old man nor a youth, but in the prime of life, between thirty and forty":

A secret inspiration from heaven caused both Mary and Joseph to contract this alliance, while adoring in their hearts the impenetrable counsel of the great God. Mary was in her fifteenth year; the age of Joseph is not known so exactly, tradition being silent on the subject. The opinion that he was about eighty years old is without reasonable grounds, and is not held by theologians, the most esteemed of whom think that he was neither an old man nor a youth, but in the prime of life, between thirty and forty. There are many reasons in support of this opinion, which is now generally held.

The first treatise on St. Joseph, the 1522 Summa de donis de S. Joseph by Isidore de Isolanis, O.P. (pp. 81-88, PDF pp. 110-17), advances several arguments:
in favor of a young St. Joseph

Spouses were roughly the same age. St. Mary was younger. ∴, St. Joseph was young.
St. Mary couldn't be thought to be St. Joseph's daughter.
St. Joseph needed to be young and healthy to protect St. Mary and Jesus, travel to different regions, and work for them.
The prophecy Isaiah 62:5: "For the young man [St. Joseph] shall dwell with the virgin [St. Mary]"

opposed to a young St. Joseph

He was middle-aged, but old enough to be manly and knowledgeable of Holy Scriptures.
He must have been old enough to have acquired a grave demeanor, prudence, and fortitude.
He stayed 7 years in Egypt. The Egyptians hated the Israelites, so he must have been old enough to defend against this.


To understand the "The Bible is the Word of God"

It's important to understand that the Bible is a man made thing--it's the name for a collection of 66 writings created throughout history that are recognized as the inspired word of God.

John Frame refers to the Bible as the Word of God, but what he really means is that the words contained within the Bible are the inspired words of God.

So the re-frame your question, could we say that God exists as the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and the Word? That would be a misunderstanding as well:

  John 1:1,2,14 ESV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God ... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Those that believe in the Trinitarian nature of God believe that Jesus, the son, is also the Word. So saying that the Trinity is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is true. And saying that the Trinity is the Father, the Word, and Holy Spirit is also true.


What are the biblical arguments that the Bible canon is closed?

The problem with this question is that the Bible is not a single book, and as such does not directly address what "other books" are considered canon.

Peter, for instance, writes that Paul's books are highly profitable for reading, "even if they are sometimes hard to understand," but there is no book anywhere that says "these books are canon, these are not."

Indeed, the "closed canon" of the NT wasn't even recorded in its entirety until 367, when Athanasuis published his festal letter. This letter is merely a recommendation list, much like the NY Times best-seller list. It lists books which are "profitable" (see 1 Tim 3:16) for a Christian to read, but it merely reflects consensus, not dogma.

As such, there has only been common consensus as to what is canonical and what is not.  (This is also why it is downright silly for people to talk about "suppressed" books or "hidden gospels", because frankly there is no authority on what is or is not canonical.)

That said, for the NT, one of the "marks" of canonicity has been aposotolic authorship.  While scholars will tell you that Paul, for example, probably didn't write many of the "Pauline" letters (and never claimed to write Hebrews!), they were traditionally ascribed to apostles. (This is why Jude got in - apostolic claim).  Because the original 12 apostles are no longer writing, this avenue of new canon is pretty much closed.

One biblical admonition that is often cited is Rev 22:19,

  and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

This can't really be used for canonicity claims, however, since "this book" would only refer to Revelation itself - a completely separate work from the other 65.


How does Calvinism explain how an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent creator could NOT have a plan for universal salvation?

I will first concisely explain the traditional Arminian and Calvinist views, directly addressing (in bold type) the OP's question in the section on Calvinism. I will then introduce one helpful and popular way of comparing the distinctions between traditional Arminian, Calvinist, and Universalist views. At last, I will provide two example alternate views, though there many more.
Calvinism and Arminianism function as internally-consistent rational systems for explaining how God can allow some certain people to become condemned ultimately.
Arminianism
Arminianism remains consistent because it claims that God loves everyone unconditionally, but is unable to save everyone he loves because his character prevents him from infringing upon human will (which assumes that it is not possible to save everyone without infringing upon human will).
Calvinism
Calvinism remains consistent because it claims that God is in fact able to save everyone (regardless of human will), but he has chosen to hate some people in order to demonstrate his glory through wrath and to save other people in order to demonstrate his glory through grace. Thus, he chooses to not save everyone from condemnation. God is not omnibenevolent in the unlimited way in which the OP is using it; God is benevolent to all creatures for some of the time, and some creatures all of the time, but not all creatures all of the time. His wrath as well as his mercy exists to demonstrate his glory.
These are the two most-popular integral Protestant non-Universalist solutions to the dilemma.
Thomas Talbott's Propositions
Thomas Talbott states the above synopses of Arminianism and Calvinism in other words, via his now-famous propositions:

(1) It is God's redemptive purpose for the world (and therefore his will) to reconcile all sinners to himself;
(2) It is within God's power to achieve his redemptive purpose for the world;
(3) Some sinners will never be reconciled to God, and God will therefore either consign them to a place of eternal punishment, from which there will be no hope of escape, or put them out of existence altogether.
If this is indeed an inconsistent set of propositions, as I believe it is, then at least one of the propositions is false. Calvinists reject proposition (1); Arminians reject proposition (2); and universalists reject proposition (3).

(See "The Inescapable Love of God" by Thomas Talbott for more.)
Two Examples of Views Which Are Neither Arminian, Calvinist, nor Universalist
C.S. Lewis' View
It is interesting at this point to note here that C.S. Lewis, in "The Great Divorce", takes something similar in kind to the Arminian view, but changes it sufficiently to make up a rather distinct view. He attempts to show how God never gives up on redeeming souls, so long as there is hope. God provides the means of salvation for perhaps millennia after our deaths, and does not operate his will to condemn anyone ultimately, but, despite his grace, many people will reach a point, by the operation of their own wills, from which God in his foreknowledge knows they will not return. Once that point is reached, in God's wisdom, he will, as it were, "close the gates of Heaven", in order that his grace will not be mocked without end. This results in a view that has aspects of all three primary systems: repentance after death (from Universalism), humans willing themselves into ultimate condemnation (from Arminianism), and God ultimately refusing his grace to certain people (from Calvinism). I find this to be an elegant way to resolve the Biblical and theological difficulties.
Molinism
Molinism is another attempt to reconcile the difficulties between Scriptural texts which seem apparently Arminian and texts which seem apparently Calvinist. (This view is quite popular among, for example, Baptists.) It centers around the concept of "Middle Knowledge". "Middle Knowledge" is the theoretical knowledge of not only all that has happened, all that is happening, and all that shall happen, but all that could happen and all that could have happened. Molinism asserts that "Middle Knowledge" is indeed possible, and that since it is possible, God of course has it and he takes this knowledge into account in his work of redeeming Creation. The result is that God, before the foundation of the world, peered into all possible timelines and saw the best timeline for maximum salvation (and/or maximum glory, depending upon whether one prefers the Arminian or the Calvinist view of God's goal); he then determined from before time who he would save and who he would condemn, making both a sovereign pronouncement of his grace and an affirmation of humans' use of the power of volition which he willed to grant them.


How do Protestantism and the LDS Church differ as to what is required for a believer to attain salvation and eternal life?

Protestants believe in Five Solas for how salvation is attained:

Sola Fide, by faith alone.

  To teach that besides faith in Christ other devices like works, or the
  observance of rules, traditions, or ceremonies are necessary for the
  attainment of righteousness and everlasting life, is to make Christ and His
  salvation of no benefit to anybody. 1

Sola Scriptura, by Scripture alone.

  What is asserted without the Scriptures or proven revelation may be held as an opinion, but need not be believed.2

Solus Christus, through Christ alone.

  A new creature is one in whom the image of God has been renewed. Such
  a creature cannot be brought into life by good works, but by Christ alone. 3

Sola Gratia, by grace alone.

  teaches that we must be saved solely by the grace of God 4

Soli Deo Gloria, glory to God alone.

  So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.5

So no action, ritual, or thing that you do helps because God's grace doesn't depend on our works. Some Protestants believe once you're saved there is nothing you can do to jeopardize your salvation. Others believe it is possible to lose it.

The LDS believe there are two parts of salvation:

Physical salvation

  All people eventually die. But through the Atonement and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, all people will be resurrected—saved from physical death.6

Spiritual salvation - you are saved after all that you can do. You show your faith by works/actions (James 2:17-26, Salvation by Grace or by Works)

  Salvation from Sin. To be cleansed from sin through the Savior's Atonement, an individual must exercise faith in Jesus Christ, repent, be baptized, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Those who have been baptized and have received the Holy Ghost through the proper priesthood authority have been conditionally saved from sin. In this sense, salvation is conditional, depending on an individual's continuing in faithfulness, or enduring to the end in keeping the commandments of God 6,7

For a more in-depth response to LDS belief on salvation refer to this answer.

The difference is that Protestants don't believe anything a man does matters as long as he follows the five solas (faith, scripture, Christ, grace, and glory to God alone) he is saved. The LDS believe that if you have faith you will repent, be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost, and endure to the end; then you will be saved by grace.

All emphasis was added

1 http://www.online-literature.com/martin-luther/epistle-to-the-galatians/5/, Ephesians 2:8

2 http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-34/dr-luthers-theology.html, Romans 15:4, 2 Timothy 2:16

3 http://www.online-literature.com/martin-luther/epistle-to-the-galatians/6/, Acts 4:12, Hebrews 7:25, Romans 8:34

4 https://reformedreader.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/luther-on-grace-alone-sola-gratia/, Ephesians 2:8

5 http://www.biblestudytools.com/esv/1-corinthians/10-31.html

6 https://www.lds.org/topics/salvation?lang=eng&old=true, 1 Corinthians 15:22

7 Acts 2:37-38, 2 Peter 2:20-22, John 3:5


This is a good question.  I would assert that just because there were giants both before and after the flood does not necessitate that giants survived the flood.  In fact, the Bible indicates that there was a drastic reduction in lifespan after the flood.  It is possible that other things were different as well, including average height.  So, a giant before the flood would have been noticeably taller than the average height before the flood, and a giant after the flood would have been noticeably taller than the average height after the flood.  However,  what may have been considered a giant after the flood may have been average before the flood.

This is speculation, to be sure, but it should at least be considered a possibility, and there is at least some evidence that makes this feasible.  The largest human skeleton ever found is known as The Giant of Castelnau, who  was apparently 11'6".  Goliath is estimated to have been around 9'6".  So, Goliath would have been small compared to this guy and would have been relegated to playing point guard on the team.

Noah himself could have been very tall, having grown up in the pre-flood environment, which may have been a much healthier place to live.  He may have even been a giant himself, albeit from a race different than the Nephilim.

In any case, it is certainly feasible that there was a race of giants that merely arose after the flood and did not survive the flood.  The genetic makeup for large humans was present prior to the flood.  Perhaps Noah and his family contained these genes as well, but perhaps they were recessive.

So, there are a few possible explanations for this that do not necessitate giants surviving the flood.


Nehemiah 9:2 were there foreigners in Israel at that time?

Q. Were there other people in Israel that didn’t have Israel descent at the time?

Yes. While there were always foreigners  in Israel, the foreigners at this point of time included those whom Shalmaneser, the king of Assyria, settled in Israel.

Quoting from NASB,

  2 Kings 17:24 The king of Assyria brought men from Babylon and from Cuthah and from Avva and from Hamath and Sephar-vaim, and settled them in the cities of Samaria in place of the sons of Israel. So they possessed Samaria and lived in its cities.

  Q. And did they build the wall as well?

No. Nehemiah made it clear that foreigners (among whom were Sanballat the Horonite and Tobiah the Ammonite official, and Geshem the Arab) would not have any part in it.

Quoting from NASB,

  Nehemiah 2:20 So I answered them and said to them, "The God of heaven will give us success; therefore we His servants will arise and build, but you have no portion, right or memorial in Jerusalem."

  Q. Did they worship the same God?

They did not worship the God of Israel. They continued their earlier practices of worship. See 2 Kings 17:30-32.   They did seem to fear the LORD, the God of Israel.
But they continued to serve their own gods.

Quoting from NASB,

  2 Kings 17:33 They feared the LORD and served their own gods according to the custom of the nations from among whom they had been carried away into exile.


What education requirements are imposed on ordination candidates in the Anglican church?

Funny you should ask.

I was ordained in the Baptist church, but I've really come to believe that I personally needed to Bette connected to an ancient church, so within the last month, I have begun that process.

Here in the Diocese of Virginia (TEC), ordination candidates with an M. Div. are required to take approx. 1 years addtl training before being made a deacon, then usually a few more months before being made a priest.

If you're going straight in, the process is:

undergo a discernment process with the bishop and your sending church.
start a 4 yr M. Div.
in your 3d year, begin a 2yr field work in another parish.
at the end of the this year, a review board will give you an interview, and make recommendations about whether or not to proceed with deaconal ordination
at the end of your 4th year, interview with a church. If they call you, essentially you will be ordained.


What are the general positions of different traditions on the question "did Jesus have to die?"

What you are basically asking is for different models of soteriology, which is a fancy way of asking: "What must I do to be saved?"
Typically there are three general schools of thought, grouped into:

Satisfaction Theories (God's wrath needs to be 'satisfied' in some fashion)
Ransom Theoriess (Satan needs to be defeated in some fashion)
Moral Influence theories (We need to learn something from Jesus' example in some fashion)

Only Satisfaction Theory requires Jesus to die. Ransom theories see it as part of the plan and may or may not require it. Moral Influence theories see the fact that Jesus was killed as a scandal that ought not have occurred.

The simplest theories to understand are the Moral Influence theories.  Typically associated with the Eastern Orthodox and yet often ascribed to Augustine and Peter Abelard, these theories focus on Jesus' teachings as the primary mode of salvation. It essentially says if you can learn from Jesus' example, you can be a good person. (Yes, the evangelical in me is saying: "But what about total depravity? - we'll get there.) In a form, this is also the position of many liberal Protestants today in practice - from the emergent church to Deists of all stripes.
Ransom theories & the Christus Victor model focus on the fact that Jesus, in dying, somehow conquered Satan. The powers of evil, having had taken possession of the Earth in the Fall, held sway until Jesus defeated Satan in Hell. As Gutav Aulen writes of this:  "the work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil." It too is ascribed to the earliest Church Fathers, and held sway until Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, introduced substitutionary atonement in the 11th Century. Anabaptists, Peace Churches, and people like Marcus Borg tend to focus on this view. Rob Bell also espouses this view in "Love Wins," but Christianity Today explains its perceived shortcomings as essentially ignoring the fact that Scripture rarely tends to separate the satisfaction piece from the victory piece.
Finally, you have correctly identified the substitutionary atonement models as the primary models used by Evangelicals.  Substitutionary Atonement models of salvation essentially view Christ's sacrifice as in terms of either satisfying God's wrath (aka Satisfaction theory) or paying some legal penalty (aka Penal theory of atonement).  Adherents tend to be older Protestants and was definitely the mindset of Lutherans, Calvinists, and the other reformers.  Indeed Penal theory is essentially a sine quo non of Reformed theology.


How did Reformed Theologians view works-based "Heavenly Rewards"?

John Calvin, the ur-Reformed theologian and prolific commentator, says of Matthew 16:27 ("For the Son of man will come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every one according to his actions"):

  When a reward is promised to good works, their merit is not contrasted
  with the justification which is freely bestowed on us through faith;
  nor is it pointed out as the cause of our salvation, but is only held
  out to excite believers to aim at doing what is right, by assuring
  them that their labor will not be lost. There is a perfect agreement,
  therefore, between these two statements, that we are justified freely,
  (Romans 3:24,) because we are received into God’s favor without any
  merit; and yet that God, of his own good pleasure, bestows on our
  works a reward which we did not deserve.

And on John 4:36 ("And he who reapeth receiveth reward, and gathereth fruit into life eternal") he says:

  And he who reapeth receiveth reward. How diligently we ought to devote
  ourselves to the work of God, he proves by another argument; namely,
  because a large and most excellent reward is reserved for our labor;
  for he promises that there will be fruit, and fruit not corruptible or
  fading. What he adds about fruit may be explained in two ways; either
  it is an announcement of the reward, and on that supposition he would
  say the same thing twice in different words; or, he applauds the
  labors of those who enrich the kingdom of God, as we shall afterwards
  find him repeating,

  I have chosen you, that you may go and bear fruit, and that your fruit
  may remain, (John 15:16.)

  And certainly both considerations ought greatly to encourage the
  ministers of the word, that they may never sink under the toil, when
  they hear that a crown of glory is prepared for them in heaven, and
  know that the fruit of their harvest will not only be precious in the
  sight of God, but will also be eternal. It is for this purpose that
  Scripture everywhere mentions reward, and not for the purpose of
  leading us to judge from it as to the merits of works; for which of
  us, if we come to a reckoning, will not be found more worthy of being
  punished for slothfulness than of being rewarded for diligence? To the
  best laborers nothing else will be left than to approach to God in all
  humility to implore forgiveness. But the Lord, who acts towards us
  with the kindness of a father, in order to correct our sloth, and to
  encourage us who would otherwise be dismayed, deigns to bestow upon us
  an undeserved reward.

  This is so far from overturning justification by faith that it rather
  confirms it. For, in the first place, how comes it that God finds in
  us any thing to reward, but because He has bestowed it upon us by his
  Spirit? Now we know that the Spirit is the earnest and pledge of
  adoption, (Ephesians 1:14.) Secondly, how comes it that God confers so
  great honor on imperfect and sinful works but because, after having by
  free grace reconciled us to himself, He accepts our works without any
  regard to merit, by not imputing the sins which cleave to them? The
  amount of this passage is, that the labor which the Apostles bestow on
  teaching ought not to be reckoned by them hard and unpleasant, since
  they know that it is so useful and so advantageous to Christ and to
  the Church.

Puritan commentator Matthew Henry says of Matthew 16:27:

  Men will then be rewarded, not according to their gains in this world,
  but according to their works, according to what they were and did. In
  that day, the treachery of backsliders will be punished with eternal
  destruction, and the constancy of faithful souls recompensed with a
  crown of life.... The rewarding of men according to their works is
  deferred till that day. Here good and evil seem to be dispensed
  promiscuously; we see not apostasy punished with immediate strokes,
  nor fidelity encouraged with immediate smiles, from heaven; but in
  that day all will be set to rights.

I heard it said by Reformed theologian John Gerstner that the matter waited for Jonathan Edwards, broadly considered the greatest theologian America has ever produced by liberals and conservatives alike, to sort it out. In short, Edwards says that there will be degrees of reward and happiness in heaven on the basis of works. In his sermon "The Portion of the Righteous" Edwards says (paragraphs added to ease reading):

  There are different degrees of happiness and glory in heaven. As there
  are degrees among the angels, viz. thrones, dominions, principalities,
  and powers; so there are degrees among the saints. In heaven are many
  mansions, and of different degrees of dignity. The glory of the saints
  above will be in some proportion to their eminency in holiness and
  good works here. Christ will reward all according to their works. He
  that gained ten pounds was made ruler over ten cities, and he that
  gained five pounds over five cities. Luke 19:17; 2 Cor. 9:6, “He that
  soweth sparingly, shall reap sparingly; and he that soweth bountifully
  shall reap also bountifully.” And the apostle Paul tells us that, as
  one star differs from another star in glory, so also it shall be in
  the resurrection of the dead. 1 Cor. 15:41. Christ tells us that he
  who gives a cup of cold water unto a disciple in the name of a
  disciple, shall in no wise lose his reward. But this could not be
  true, if a person should have no greater reward for doing many good
  works than if he did but few.

  It will be no damp to the happiness of those who have lower degrees of
  happiness and glory, that there are others advanced in glory above
  them. For all shall be perfectly happy, every one shall be perfectly
  satisfied. Every vessel that is cast into this ocean of happiness is
  full, though there are some vessels far larger than others. And there
  shall be no such thing as envy in heaven, but perfect love shall reign
  through the whole society. Those who are not so high in glory as
  other, will not envy those that are higher, but they will have so
  great, and strong, and pure love to them, that they will rejoice in
  their superior happiness. Their love to them will be such that they
  will rejoice that they are happier than themselves; so that instead of
  having a damp to their own happiness, it will add to it. They will see
  it to be fit that they that have been most eminent in works of
  righteousness should be most highly exalted in glory. And they will
  rejoice in having that done, that is fittest to be done.

  There will be a perfect harmony in that society; those that are most
  happy will also be most holy, and all will be both perfectly holy and
  perfectly happy. But yet there will be different degrees of both
  holiness and happiness according to the measure of each one’s
  capacity, and therefore those that are lowest in glory will have the
  greatest love to those that are highest in happiness, because they
  will see most of the image of God in them. And having the greatest
  love to them, they will rejoice to see them the most happy and the
  highest in glory. And so, on the other hand, those that are highest in
  glory, as they will be the most lovely, so they will be fullest of
  love. As they will excel in happiness, they will proportionally excel
  in divine benevolence and love to others, and will have more love to
  God and to the saints than those that are lower in holiness and
  happiness. And besides, those that will excel in glory will also excel
  in humility. Here in this world, those that are above others are the
  objects of envy, because that others conceive of them as being lifted
  up with it. But in heaven it will not be so, but those saints in
  heaven who excel in happiness will also in holiness, and consequently
  in humility. The saints in heaven are more humble than the saints on
  earth, and still the higher we go among them the greater humility
  there is. The highest orders of saints, who know most of God, see most
  of the distinction between God and them, and consequently are
  comparatively least in their own eyes, and so are more humble. The
  exaltation of some in heaven above the rest will be so far from
  diminishing the perfect happiness and joy of the rest who are
  inferior, that they will be the happier for it. Such will be the union
  in their society that they will be partakers of each other’s
  happiness. Then will be fulfilled in its perfection that which is
  declared in 1 Cor. 12:26, “If one of the members be honoured all the
  members rejoice with it.”

In more recent days, N. T. Wright, who is in the Reformed branch of the Anglican church, has made a bit of a stir with his take on the role of works at the final judgment. He says that our final justification at the last judgment will be “in accordance with” works, but not “on the basis of” works. One writer summarizes Wright like this:

  [F]aith is the first evidence that one has become a member of God’s
  covenant people.  Present justification follows immediately.  Present
  justification is “by faith” because faith in Christ is irrefutable
  evidence that God has indeed made one a member of his covenant people
  through the work of his Spirit.  Thus, in Wright’s view, when Paul
  speaks of present justification by faith, he means God’s declaration
  that one has been brought into the family of his covenant people.  The
  evidence that God cites to demonstrate that one has already been
  brought into covenant membership is the presence of faith.

  Wright’s understanding of the function of Spirit-inspired works in
  final justification is identical to his understanding of the function
  of faith in present justification.  Just as Spirit-produced faith is
  the initial sign that God has made one a member of his covenant
  people, so in final justification, Spirit-produced good works serve as
  the sign that one was truly a member of God’s covenant people from the
  point of one’s conversion on.  When Wright has said that good works
  are the “basis” of the believer’s final justification, he has meant
  that Spirit-inspired works serve as the evidence that one truly is a
  covenant member.  They are the “basis” for final justification the
  same way that a paternity test may serve as the “basis” for the
  verdict in a paternity lawsuit.  A paternity test does not make one a
  father; it demonstrates that one was a child’s father all along.  So
  also, Spirit-inspired works do not make one a covenant member in
  Wright’s view; they demonstrate that one has been a covenant member
  all along.

Finally, Reformed Theological Seminary professor Michael Kruger recently wrote on this topic, quoting Reformed Baptist John Piper:

  God can still be pleased with it, even though it is imperfect.
  Consider John Piper’s comments on this point:

    It is terribly confusing when people say that the only righteousness
    that has any value is the imputed righteousness of Christ.  I agree
    that justification is not grounded on any of our righteousness, but
    only the righteousness of Christ imputed to us.  But sometimes people
    are careless and speak disparagingly of all human righteousness, as if
    there were no such thing that pleased God. They often cite Isaiah 64:6
    which says our righteousness is as filthy rags…[But] when my sons do
    what I tell them to do—I do not call their obedience “filthy rags”
    even if it is not perfect.  Neither does God. All the more because he
    himself is “working in us that which is pleasing in his sight”
    (Hebrews 13:21).  He does not call his own, Spirit-wrought fruit,
    “rags.”

  It is only when we recognize that the obedience of the believer really
  does matter, and that we really can please our Father, that the
  rewards passages in the Bible will make any sense. And that can be a
  tremendous encouragement to those of us who labor heavily in ministry.
  When we toil for the cause of Christ, we want to hear, and are
  bolstered by hearing, the encouraging words of Paul: “Your labor is
  not in vain” (1 Cor 15:58).


What is the proper term for performing the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick on someone?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states the following:

  1516 Only priests (bishops and presbyters) are ministers of the Anointing of the Sick. It is the duty of pastors to instruct the faithful on the benefits of this sacrament. The faithful should encourage the sick to call for a priest to receive this sacrament. The sick should prepare themselves to receive it with good dispositions, assisted by their pastor and the whole ecclesial community, which is invited to surround the sick in a special way through their prayers and fraternal attention.

Thus bishops and priests are the ministers of the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick. And as such they are the ones to administer this sacrament.

The proper phrase you are looking for is: Administering the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick.

  The Oil of the Sick

  The oil used in administering the sacrament of Anointing of the Sick is called Oil of the Sick. It is one of the three Holy oils blessed by the bishop of the diocese at his cathedral on Holy Thursday morning, the other two Holy Oils being Holy Chrism and the Oil of Catechumens, which is used in Baptism.

  Oil of the Sick is pure olive oil—nothing being added except the blessing of the bishop. Its appropriateness as part of the outward sign of Anointing of the Sick is evident from the healing and strengthening effects which are characteristic of olive oil.

  The essence of the sacrament lies in the actual anointing and the short prayer which accompanies the anointing.

  In giving the sacrament, the priest anoints the sick person on the forehead and hands. During this anointing, the priest says: “Through this holy anointing may the Lord in his love and mercy help you with the grace of the Holy Spirit. May the Lord who frees you from sin save you and raise you up.” - The Anointing of the Sick: Comfort and Healing

Canon Law states:

  Canon 1003

  §1. Every priest and a priest alone validly administers the anointing of the sick.

  §2. All priests to whom the care of souls has been entrusted have the duty and right of administering the anointing of the sick for the faithful entrusted to their pastoral office. For a reasonable cause, any other priest can administer this sacrament with at least the presumed consent of the priest mentioned above.

  §3. Any priest is permitted to carry blessed oil with him so that he is able to administer the sacrament of the anointing of the sick in a case of necessity.