Why was Jesus condemned for blasphemy by the Jews?

The charge of blasphemy in the Gospels, both during Jesus' ministry and in his trial, does not refer to the specific and technical definition of blasphemy, which according to the Mishna, tractate Sanhedrin, Chapter VII, Mishna VI, requires the blasphemer to have mentioned the Name, i.e. the Tetragrammaton, which Jesus never did.  Rather, the charge of blasphemy refers to Jesus' claim of divinity.  Below I present the Gospel passages that show this to be the case both during Jesus' ministry and in his trial.

a. Charges of blasphemy during Jesus' ministry

The meaning of the charge of blasphemy is clear in the very first encounter of Jesus and the scribes recorded in all synoptic Gospels, when Jesus forgives the sins of a paralytic in Capernaum and then heals him:

  And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your
  sins are forgiven." Now some of the scribes were sitting there,
  questioning in their hearts, "Why does this man speak like that? He is
  blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (Mk 2:5-7; also Mt
  9:2-3 and Lk 5:20-21).

In John, the substance of the charge against Jesus is clear in all three occasions when "the Jews", not the Sanhedrin, decided, or actually tried, to kill Him during his ministry. Of these three occasions, only in the third is that charge given a name, which is precisely blasphemy:

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

  Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I
  am." So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself
  and went out of the temple. (Jn 8:58-59)

  (Jesus said) "I and the Father are one." The Jews picked up stones
  again to stone him. Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good
  works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?"
  The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to
  stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself
  God." (Jn 10:30-33)

b. Charge of blasphemy in Jesus' trial

I will quote the text in Mark as it is more likely to have greater literal fidelity to the words spoken, as Simon Peter was a direct witness of the trial and Mark composed his Gospel from what he heard from Peter, most probably in Jerusalem in the 40's:

  But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked
  him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said, "I
  am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power,
  and coming with the clouds of heaven."  And the high priest tore his
  garments and said, "What further witnesses do we need? You have heard
  his blasphemy. What is your decision?" And they all condemned him as
  deserving death. (Mk 14:61-64)

I hypothesize that, while Caiaphas asked his question in Aramaic, Jesus answered in Hebrew, both the "I am" and the following scriptural quote, so that his "I am" was clearly understood by those knowledgeable in the Torah as the "Ehyeh" of Ex 3:14, the Name of God in first person, i.e. when used by God Himself. This would have been an explicit claim of divinity in addition to the one implied in the following combined quote of Psalm 110:1 and Dan 7:13.


How do sola-scriptura adherents reconcile the role of the Holy Spirit as a teacher?

We do not deny the role of the Holy Spirit as a teacher.  We believe that the Holy Spirit does serve to teach us, and to guide us.  The Holy Spirit also serves to convict sinners that they may come to repentance.

From the article you linked to:

  Consequently, sola scriptura demands that only those doctrines are to
  be admitted or confessed that are found directly within or indirectly
  by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning from
  scripture. However, sola scriptura is not a denial of other
  authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply
  demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be
  corrected by, the written word of God.

The problem lies in the fact that many false teachers have come into the world, and any of them can (and do) claim to have teachings from the Holy Spirit, from angels, from God the Father through divine revelation, or through personal encounters with Jesus Christ Himself. Likewise, our own hearts and thoughts are not trustworthy and can deceive us.(Jeremiah 17:9)  The Bible warns us not to trust every spirit, but to test them to see if they are false or true.  The test is simple.

  1 John 4:1-6 (KJV)

  1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they
  are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
  2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that
  Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And every spirit that
  confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God:
  and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it
  should come; and even now already is it in the world. 4 Ye are of God,
  little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is
  in you, than he that is in the world. 5 They are of the world:
  therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. 6 We are
  of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth
  not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

Based on this Scripture, as well as John 15:26, we believe that before believing the teaching of the Holy Spirit, we need to first test to ensure that what we perceive of as the Holy Spirit meets the test, and is the Holy Spirit.  The test is found in Scripture, which is unchanging, and serves as a plumb-line to ensure that the teaching of the Holy Spirit lines up.

Therefore, the Holy Spirit cannot teach anything that is not in accordance with God's Word, whether explicitly or implicitly.


Is one's predestination influenced by one's parents?

This response addresses the question from a Reformed perspective, informed by concepts such as monergistic regeneration and sola gratia.

The Westminster Assembly, in the Confession (quoted below), taught that the elect were chosen by God "before the foundations of the earth."

Regarding your question as to God's choice of the elect & the sins of the parents, I'm tempted to simply say, "No -- God doesn't/didn't choose the elect depending on any parents' sin, or the sin of anyone at all, for that matter." (Bear in mind the doctrinal framework that is being used for this response, as noted above).

But, then, we don't actually know how God chose the elect.* All of the references I've ever read have been similar to what was provided by the Westminster Assembly: that God made his decision of who to elect "according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will" (WCF 3.5).

But then, again, when it comes to the idea of choosing the elect based on parents' righteousness or sinfulness, we have verses such as the following:

God is not, nor has he ever been a "respecter of persons." That is to say, he's not impressed, and he doesn't "play favorites." (Rom 2:11, Acts 10:34, etc.).
Everyone is guilty in his sight (Rom 3:23), and all of our righteousness is like "filthy rags" (Isa 63); even the angels aren't good enough (Job 4:18), and rightfully so, because God is surpassingly holy, so much so that sin cannot even enter his sight (Habakkuk 1:13 & many more).

(I was thinking of working in an Ezekiel 18 reference, but that's a complex chapter, especially when one tries to reconcile it with Exodus 20, the doctrine of original sin, etc.).

So, before this response becomes more disjointed, I think I'm simply going to segue to the Westminster Confession with the quote that follows. It may help to get further research started.

* Note: Several groups throughout history have offered variations on the idea that God elected the people that he "foreknew" would choose him. And that interpretation, and the associated verse from Paul, has been at the heart of disputes for centuries. Many groups still believe that interpretation, and many don't; the Reformed doctrines are in the latter camp.

According to the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter three, article five:

  Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory,(9) out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto;(10) and all to the praise of His glorious grace.(11) (emphasis added)

Here are the scripture proofs, referenced in the original:

(9)

Ephesians 1:4, "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love"
Ephesians 1:9, "Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself"
Ephesians 1:11, "In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will."
Romans 8:30, "Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."
2 Timothy 1:9, "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began."
1 Thessalonians 5:9, "For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ."

(10)

Romans 9:11, "(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)"
Romans 9:13, "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."
Romans 9:16, "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."
Ephesians 1:4, "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love."
Ephesians 1:9, "Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself."

(11)

Ephesians 1:6, "To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved."
Ephesians 1:12, "That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ."


Why is the Bible subject to a high level of interpretation?

The Bible is subject to several different types of interpretation and criticism. This is for various reasons:

It was originally written in languages that are no longer spoken. The ancient Greek and Hebrew that it was written in are similar but dramatically different than the current forms of those languages (languages morph and change over time).
Translation from one language into another is not a lossless conversion process. You can lose some of the meaning and significance in the translation from the source material. You can also introduce noise into the new copy through lingual nuance. This is why so many different English translations of the Bible exist; reading several translations will often give a clearer picture, but sometimes you just have to go back to the original language.
It was written for and by ancient cultures that we share very little cultural reference with.
It was written over a great deal of time by a variety of people in a variety of places on a changing cultural landscape.
It's a piece of historical literature and thus subject to the same interpretation and criticism as all historical literature is subject to. Pages and volumes of ink has been spilled on Chaucer and Shakespeare, in more recent times, and Plato, Aristotle and Josephus in more ancient ones.
It is considered to be the word of God. If God spoke it then it should be examined carefully to see what it says.
Finally, it is considered to be "living" meaning that it is constantly applicable to our daily lives, even though it was written ages ago. To emphasize this Hebrews 4:12-13(NIV)

  12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. 13 Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.


Who instituted the practice of sacrifice?

According to several sermons I've heard, the first animal sacrifice was recorded in Genesis 3:21 (KJV).

  Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins,
  and clothed them.

He used the skin of some animal to cover their nakedness.

One source for such a teaching is at Sermoncentral.com.

  The First Sacrifice is recorded in Genesis 3:21.

  Remember the setting? Adam and Eve sinned against God, their eyes were
  opened, they realized they were naked, and they were ashamed. So they
  tried to cover their nakedness with fig leaves. But fig leaves make
  lousy clothes. So God intervened, sacrificed an animal, and make
  garments of skin for them.

  This is the first sacrifice mentioned in the Bible. An innocent
  animal, most likely lamb, lost it’s life so that Adam and Eve could be
  covered.

Thus, as with all of God's institutions, it was established by God Himself.


What are the different Categories of Charismatic Graces?

St. Paul enumerates 9 types of charismatic grace (gratia gratis data) in I Corinthians 12:8-10:

"word of wisdom"
"word of knowledge"
"faith"
"grace of healing in one Spirit"
"working of miracles"
"prophecy"
"discerning of spirits"
"diverse kinds of tongues"
"interpretation of speeches"

They are categorized in Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.'s Grace ch. 4, where he commentates on St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica I-II q. 111 a. 4 ("Whether gratuitous grace is rightly divided by the Apostle [in I Corinthians 12:8-10]?"):

However, St. Paul's list is not exhaustive (cf. pp. 796-802, PDF pp. 419-422, of Teología de la Perfección Cristiana by Antonio Royo Marín, O.P.).


Here's a definition of "biblical theology" from Wayne Grudem's popular Systematic Theology (pages 22-23):

  "Biblical theology" has a technical meaning in theological studies. [...] [It] gives special attention to the teachings of individual authors and sections of Scripture, and to the place of each teaching in the historical development of Scripture.  So one might ask, "What is the historical development of the teaching about prayer as it is seen throughout the history of the Old Testament and then of the New Testament?"

Here the difference between systematic and biblical theology is blurred, but he continues:

  Yet there is still a difference, for biblical theology traces the historical development of a doctrine and the way in which one's place at some point in that historical development affects one's understanding and application of that particular doctrine.  Biblical theology also focuses on the understanding of each doctrine that the biblical authors and their original hearers or readers possessed.

While systematic theology builds on biblical theology and may sometimes use its methods,

  the focus of of systematic theology remains different: its focus is on the collection and then the summary of the teaching of all the biblical passages on a particular subject.

Thus, your original understanding of biblical theology is incorrect: it is not limited to a single book of the Bible.  And by extension, no, biblical theology does not "automatically" become systematic theology just because multiple books of the bible are used.  Systematic theology requires careful organization of biblical teaching on doctrines, with the specific goal of communicating those doctrines accurately, clearly, and concisely.


Can an indulgence be applied to a deceased non-Catholic Christian?

Can an indulgence be obtained for a deceased non-Catholic Christian?
The short answer is possibly and even probably.
There are several reason, why I believe that yes indulgences may be applied to souls that were non-Catholic Christians in this life, but are now in purgatory and are converted.
Not wanting to politicalize this question, I would simply like to bring up a certain point to start off with. Masses are offered for any number of reasons and this includes Masses being offered for the conversion of a particular Protestant of simply for their intentions. Can not tell you how many times I have read the Mass intention listed in our parish bulletin for the intentions of a certain Donald Trump. We all know the the former President of the United States is not Catholic, yet the intentions of the Sacrifice of  Mass have been offered for him.
Being in purgatory presumes that non-Catholic Christians that they have been converted and as a result can reside in purgatory, just like Catholics.
Anne Catherine Emmerich has the following to say on the subject:

I was present when God passed sentence on notorious sinners. Great is His justice, but still more inconceivable is His mercy. He damns only those who are determined not to be converted; they who have a spark of good will are saved... I have seen in Purgatory Protestants who were pious in their ignorance; they are very desolate, for no prayers are offered for them... I saw that by our prayer and suffering, many a soul who labours not during life, can be converted and saved at the hour of death. - Purgatory for those who are saved outside the Church?

Some of these messages given to Catherine Emmerich were, 'that every parish and diocese, each city and country has its own particular and powerful guardian angel.' This Catholic mystic was to see and be told many things including these messages from Heaven, She revealed that to gain an indulgence we must approach the Sacraments with true repentance and a firm purpose of amendment or we do not gain it. She deposes that it is more holy to pray for the Poor Souls in Purgatory than for sinners who are still alive, for Anne had a particular love and devotion for the poor souls in Purgatory. She was also told that 'more Protestant souls stayed in Purgatory the longest not because they were worse than anyone else, but because so few people prayed for the repose of their souls or offered up Masses for their soul.'
Being in purgatory, means that these poor souls are converted and thus I would lean towards the possibility that an indulgence can be applied to a deceased non-Catholic Christian?
Now an indulgence can only be gained by a practicing Catholic under certain conditions. However the Church does not stipulate as who may be the receive an indulgence when applied to the faithful departed when applied to the souls in purgatory.

The Gift of the Indulgence

To gain indulgences, whether plenary or partial, it is necessary that the faithful be in the state of grace at least at the time the indulgenced work is completed.

A plenary indulgence can be gained only once a day. In order to obtain it, the faithful must, in addition to being in the state of grace:

— have the interior disposition of complete detachment from sin, even venial sin;
— have sacramentally confessed their sins;
— receive the Holy Eucharist (it is certainly better to receive it while participating in Holy Mass, but for the indulgence only Holy Communion is required);
— pray for the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff.

Visit to a Cemetery (Coemeterii visitatio)

An indulgence, applicable only to the Souls in Purgatory, is granted to the faithful, who devoutly visit a cemetery and pray, even if only mentally, for the departed. The indulgence is plenary each day from the 1st to the 8th of November; on other days of the year it is partial. - The Enchiridion Of Indulgences

A soul in purgatory is a soul in purgatory. No where does the Church define that an indulgence for particular soul in purgatory has to be named in order to receive an indulgence when we meet the requirements on their behalf. Thus the faithful may apply an indulgence to a particular member of their family, any soul in purgatory or even for the poorest soul in purgatory.
There are more ways to relieve the sufferings of the souls in purgatory than obtaining an indulgence in order to release them from their pains. Obtaining an indulgence for them is very common, especially during November. I was taught in the seminary that when we pray for a particular soul in purgatory and that that soul is no longer in need of our prayers that God will apply the merits to another soul in need. Prayer is never in vain.


Are love and hate in a harmonious balance within God?

Jonathan already explained from a Biblical perspective how God is a God of hate as well as love. I will try not to duplicate that.

The 'problem of evil' is utterly unrelated to the attribute of hate. Evil and hate are not at all the same thing. God is good: 100% pure good. He is, in fact, the only standard of what good is; we measure whether something is good or not by comparing it to the character and decrees of God. God is not evil! The fact that part of his character demands that he hate does not make him evil, it makes him fully good! Evil, note hate, is the correct opposite of good. Evil could even be defined by its hate of good: good hates that which is evil, evil hates that which is good.

It is logically impossible to be good and love good without hating the opposite of good.1 One must hate evil in order to love good. If you love Jews, you must hate the holocaust. If you love unborn babies, you must hate when they are aborted. If you love women, you must hate when they are abused.

The character of God is utterly different than what Eastern religions teach about balance. The standard of good that he demonstrates is not 'a little bit of good and a little bit of bad keeping each other at bay' or some mystic balance between forces. God is FULL of love just as he is FULL of hatred. Both attributes are taken to their full EXTREMES, not balanced in the middle. They are complementary characteristics, not opposites.

Good and evil are opposites. There is no evil in God and he will not permit evil to continue.2 Our world is but a temporary stage3 on which his final and decisive defeat of evil4 is played out (to demonstrate his glory not because it was ever in doubt) and he demonstrates how good he is in that he can even redeem evil and use it for good.5

But do not be deceived: evil is never in itself a good. Its defeat and destruction are good and that God both can and chooses to redeemed anything from the kingdom of darkness is purely astounding.6

  Isaiah 61:8a (ESV)
  For I the Lord love justice;
  I hate robbery and wrong

  Ezekiel 35:6 (ESV)
  ... therefore, as I live, declares the Lord God, I will prepare you for blood, and blood shall pursue you; because you did not hate bloodshed, therefore blood shall pursue you.

  1 Peter 5:10 (ESV)
  And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you.

  Acts 2:24 (ESV)
  God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.

  1 Peter 1:6-7 (ESV)
  In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

  Romans 3:26 (ESV)
  It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.


The celebrant’s position and proximity to the participants?

There is certainly not enough historical evidence to give an exact date on this usage within the Holy celebration of the Mass. It may in fact have come from the Apostles, but we just do not have the proper data at hand.

What is certain, is the fact that this practice existed very early within the Church, along side of the priest saying Mass facing the people.

  Catholic Teaching and Liturgical Tradition

  First, let’s consider what the Church currently teaches about the the priest’s orientation at Mass. In September 2000, the Congregation for Divine Worship (CDW) responded to the question whether the General Instruction of the Roman Missal should be read as dictating that the priest must always say Mass versus populum (“facing the people”). In a formal document signed by the prefect and the secretary, the CDW explained that the answer was “no.” Priests can also say Mass versus apsidem (“facing the apse,” which is the front of the Church). More important, whatever physical direction the priest faces, “his spiritual attitude ought always to be versus Deum per Jesum Christum [toward God through Jesus Christ]” (cf. GIRM, 78).

  Second, let’s consider the teaching of the Second Vatican Council. Although the Council did not speak about the priest’s physical direction at Mass, it did say that what we do in the liturgy is a consequence of who and what we are before God. Since the human body “shares in the dignity of the ‘image of God’” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 364), “in the Liturgy the sanctification of the man is signified by signs perceptible to the senses, and is effected in a way which corresponds with each of these signs” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 7). That action is principally “an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ” before the Father in heaven (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 7), while “in the earthly liturgy we take part in a foretaste of that heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the holy city of Jerusalem toward which we journey as pilgrims” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 8).

  There are two primary ways in which Christians in their worship in the first centuries of the faith embodied this communal pilgrimage toward heaven:

  ‐ By facing one another for proclamation and dialogue. The priest in the patristic era faced the people during the Liturgy of the Word (as we now call it) so as to fulfill his role, which was to act in persona Christi, both when proclaiming the gospel to them and during those parts of the Mass when he prays in dialogue with them.

  ‐ By facing east for the eucharistic prayer. As Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI points out in his book The Spirit of the Liturgy, priests in the patristic era almost universally faced east, the direction of rising sun, during the eucharistic prayer, anticipating thereby the glory of Christ’s return to earth. In most churches, this also meant that they faced the apse, with the people. Acting again in persona Christi, priests embodied the fact that Christ the Priest became completely as one of us when he journeyed toward the cross and invited us to follow him. - Cardinal Robert Sarah proposes that the Church recover a piece of its tradition.

At some point in time, the tradition of saying Mass ad orientum became the norm. When this exactly happened is lost to history.

The tradition of facing East is as we see was well established in the Early Church, if not in the Apostolic Era itself.

Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say on this subject:

  Orientation

  The custom of praying with faces turned towards the East is probably as old as Christianity. The earliest allusion to it in Christian literature is in the second book of the Apostolic Constitutions (200-250, probably) which prescribes that a church should be oblong "with its head to the East". Tertullian also speaks of churches as erected in "high and open places, and facing the light (Adv. Valent., iii). The reason for this practice, which did not originate with Christianity, was given by St. Gregory of Nyssa (De Orat. Dominic., P.G., XLIV, 1183), is that the Orient is the first home of the human race, the seat of the earthly paradise. In the Middle Ages additional reasons for orientation were given, namely, that Our Lord from the Cross looked towards the West, and from the East He shall come for the Last Judgment (Durand, Rationale, V, 2; St. Thomas, Summa Theologica II-II:84:3). The existence of the custom among pagans is referred to by Clement of Alexandria, who states that their "most ancient temples looked towards the West, that people might be taught to turn to the East when facing the images" (Stromata, vii. 17, 43).

Cardinal Ratzinger held the tradition of facing East in high regard.

  Five years before he became Benedict XVI, Joseph Ratzinger wrote that, notwithstanding various liturgical innovations, “one thing has remained clear for the whole of Christendom: praying towards the east is a tradition that goes back to the beginning.” As he wrote in The Spirit of the Liturgy:

    The common turning toward the east was not a “celebration toward the wall;” it did not mean that the priest “had his back to the people.” . . . For just as the congregation in the synagogue looked together toward Jerusalem, so in the Christian liturgy the congregation looked together “toward the Lord.” . . . They did not close themselves into a circle; they did not gaze at one another; but as the pilgrim People of God they set off for the Oriens, for the Christ who comes to meet us. - Facing East


In the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, is the body and blood of Christ his living body or his deceased body?

The answer to the O.P.'s question is rather straightforward: the body that is adored in the Eucharist is Jesus’ resurrected body.

As the Church solemnly defined in the Council of Trent (which simply formalized what the Church has believed from the beginning),

  Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation (Council of Trent, Council of Trent, Session 13, Ch. 4, Denzinger-Schönmetzer [DS] 1642, quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] no. 1376.).

However, we are not to understand that the Eucharist under the species of bread is exclusively Christ’s body, nor that the species of wine is exclusively Christ’s blood. Rather,

  Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ (CCC 1377; see also the Council of Trent, DS 1641).

In other words, the whole substance of Jesus is present—his human nature (including his body) as well as his Divine Nature. Christ, of course, only has one body, which is now a resurrected body. Therefore, it is Christ’s resurrected body—not a corpse—that Catholics (as well as Orthodox and other Christians from an apostolic Church) adore in the Eucharist.

Regarding Eucharistic miracles, I will also observe that, much as such miracles are helpful for the Faith, the ones that are actually converted into human flesh actually no longer have the Real Presence. As the Catechism says,

  The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist (no. 1377).

Since the appearance (species) of bread or wine is now gone, so too is the Eucharistic presence.

(This idea is masterfully expressed in the Eucharistic hymn Lauda Sion Salvatorem, attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas:

  Sub diversis speciebus,
  Signis tantum, et non rebus,
  Latent res eximiæ.

  Caro cibus, sanguis potus:
  Manet tamen Christus totus,
  Sub utraque specie.

  A sumente non concisus,
  Non confractus, non divisus:
  Integer accipitur.

  Sumit unus, sumunt mille:
  Quantum isti, tantum ille:
  Nec sumptus consumitur.

  Under diverse appearances,
  which are merely signs, not the reality,
  lies that most remarkable reality.

  The Flesh is food, the Blood is drink.
  Nevertheless, Christ in his entirety is present,
  under both appearances.

  By the receiver, he is not torn asunder,
  nor is he broken, nor is he divided.
  He is received whole.

  Let one person receive him; let a thousand receive him:
  the one receives him just as much as the thousand do.
  He is not depleted by being received.

I opted for a literation translation, which falls a bit flat poetically, but captures the meaning of the original.)


What is the biblical basis for the assignment of patron saints?

The word "saint" can historically and philologically be shown to originate in the Greek texts that would later be bound together as the NT, although Christianity retroactively applied the title to non-humans in the OT (like angels, as in St Michael). The invocation of saints is a phenomenon that started in the Roman period, so clearly something changed regarding the interpretation of the Greek word in Latin.

Let's look for example at Acts 9:13:

In Ancient Greek, the word for saints here is ἁγίοις (note that throughout the NT the word is always used in, or implies, plural). The word ἅγιος appears 229 times in the Greek New Testament, and has few usages in older Greek texts. Its primary meaning is "devoted to the gods".

Note that Acts refers to a time when Christianity did not exist or was not widespread (the text is dated to around 70 CE), so the "saints" referred to here are generally held by philologists to be all Jews or Christians, i.e. God's chosen people. So in the original Greek, the word does not refer to any specific select group of Christians or Jews who served "better". This is confirmed in the translations of Acts 26:10, Romans 1:7, 1 Corinthians 1:2, and 1 Peter 1:15-16

The word ἅγιος stems from Proto-Indo-European *Hyeh₂ǵ-yus. Cognates include Latin iēiūnus (mostly used in Latin as "to sacrifice (to the Gods)", which interestingly is not used in any Latin translation although the meaning is closer to the Greek than sanctus, which is used in most Latin translations.

The word sanctus has widespread use in texts predating Christianity in Latin, mostly in Roman religion. The word divus or devus, also referring to Roman religion and frequently used as a title for Roman emperors, was used as well as a translation for ἅγιος in early texts. This is illustrated in a pamphlet, published in 1865 in Italian, titled "Sulla deificazione nel senso pagano e nel senso cattolico ... relativi all'uso della voce latina "divus" nell'epigrafia cristiana". This can be translated as "On the deification of the pagan meaning and the catholic meaning ... relative to the use of the Latin term "divus" in christian epigraphy."

So in stead of iēiūnus the Latin texts used sanctus and devus, probably because these words had more resonance with the Roman population of the day, but this is the probable root of the re-interpretation of ἅγιος implying all Jews or Christians to "a select few", and the worship of those "select few", as had been the tradition in Roman culture. Thus the worship of Saints very likely finds its roots in the deification and worship of important Roman figures like the Roman emperor, not in the original Greek NT.


How can I know that GOD really loves me?

The basic premise that God loves everyone is found in John 3:16

  For God loved the world in this way: He gave his one and only Son, so
  that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal
  life.

Going deeper you will find this concept agreed on by everyone who knows Him.

Peter knew the Lord intimately and said,

  "God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble. Humble
  yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God, so that he may
  exalt you at the proper time, casting all your cares on him, because
  he cares about you." (1 Peter 5:6b-7)

These aren't just fuzzy feelings that the Heavenly Father has for us. He actually proves His love by humbling Himself and serving us in many ways.

In Acts 17:25 Paul said that God is not

  served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself
  gives everyone life and breath and all things.

Jesus said we will truly be like God when we love even our enemies

  For He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends
  rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. (Matthew 5:45)

I think my favorite quote from Paul is,

  But God proves his own love for us in that while we were still
  sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)

The Father of all Creation loves you enough to die for you so His righteousness can become your righteousness. He redeemed us so we can be adopted as sons and daughters. This is why we say He is worthy of all the glory and praise. He did the impossible because He loves us.

If you really want to see how God much loves you, simply look at the response of Jesus to everyone who comes to Him. He never turns anyone away who comes to Him humbly (willing to be corrected) and trusting His loving kindness, but heals and forgives every one. In John 5:19 Jesus said,

  Truly I tell you, the Son is not able to do anything on his own, but
  only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, the
  Son likewise does these things,

meaning He is the very image of God. The gospel of John says that Jesus is the Word of God made flesh.

Look at Jesus. Search the scriptures and you will see that His sacrificial love and forgiveness is always front and center. Even though all people, even God's own people, have committed unspeakable sins, God made a way to forgive that sin by putting all of our punishment on His Son Jesus. That means He can legally dismiss your case!

Three days after He nailed our sin to that cross, He rose from the dead signaling victory over death, hell and the grave. Turn from your sin and put all of your trust in Jesus Christ who loves you and gave Himself for you, and His victory becomes your victory. He promises to give you a new heart and to renew your mind as you come to understand His word by the power of His Holy Spirit who is with everyone who believes. Remain in Him and He will keep His promise to give you everlasting life. Get to know Him through His word and prayer, and I pray that your eyes will be opened to see how much He already loves you!


Is it valid to baptize multiple persons at once?

The rite of the baptism in the Catholic Church used to be in three forms: immersion, affusion or aspersion.

However the rite of aspersion as well the rite of affusion have been set aside in the western Catholic church due to practical and liturgical reasons.

Is it still possible to baptize multiple people by aspersion.

According to this source: "Although, as we have said, immersion was the form of baptism that generally prevailed in the early ages, it must not thereby be inferred that the other forms of infusion and aspersion were not also employed and held to be valid. In the case of the sick or dying, immersion was impossible and the sacrament was then conferred by one of the other forms. This was so well recognized that infusion or aspersion received the name of the baptism of the sick (baptismus clinicorum). St. Cyprian (Epistle 75) declares this form to be valid. From the canons of various early councils we know that candidates for Holy orders who had been baptized by this method seem to have been regarded as irregular, but this was on account of the culpable negligence supposed to be manifested in delaying baptism until sick or dying. That such persons, however, were not to be rebaptized is an evidence that the Church held their baptism to be valid. It is also pointed out that the circumstances under which St. Paul (Acts 16) baptized his jailer and all his household seem to preclude the use of immersion. Moreover, the acts of the early martyrs frequently refer to baptizing in prisons where infusion or aspersion was certainly employed."


Why did Paul VI strip József Mindszenty of his archbishopric?

This can be understood in the context of the "Vatican Ostpolitik".
The Vatican made a secret agreement with the Eastern Orthodox not to mention Communism at the Second Vatican Council; indeed, the word "Communism" appears in none of its promulgated documents.
From De Mattei's The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story, pt. 2, § 11c:

Cardinal [Tisserant] confided […] that he had participated in the negotiations with the schismatic Russian Orthodox: “Moscow demanded that no one speak against communism in the council, and Rome agreed,” he said, adding that he thought it “possible to speak against materialism and atheism without mentioning communism; in this way the council, which deals only with religion, could accomplish its mission perfectly.” […] Cardinal Mindszenty had remained the last symbol of ecclesiastical resistance to communism, after the death of Cardinal Alojzije Stepìnac, who had died of poisoning on February 10, 1962.

ibid. pt. 7, §9 "The Vatican Ostpolitik":

One of the most famous victims of the Vatican Ostpolitik was Cardinal József Mindszenty, primate of Hungary and hero of the anti-communist resistance. Mindszenty, who had been a prisoner from 1948 to 1956, took refuge after the Hungarian revolt in the American embassy in Budapest and always remained resolutely opposed to any idea about dialogue or negotiations with communist governments, convinced that that could only strengthen them. He steadfastly disputed the Vatican Ostpolitik, telling the Secretary of State, Cardinal Villot: “Why do you appoint bishops in the countries of the Eastern bloc? It would be better if there were none, rather than those whom the governments allow you to appoint.”162 On November 1, 1973, when Paul VI asked him to renounce his title of archbishop of Esztergom and primate of Hungary, the cardinal replied with a respectful but clear refusal. Paul VI took it upon himself to declare the primatial archdiocese vacant, informing Cardinal Mindszenty on November 18, 1973, of his dismissal as archbishop.163
162. A. Wenger, Le cardinal Villot, op. cit., 260.

The announcement of the removal of Cardinal Mindszenty was made in L’Osservatore Romano. According to the Giornale d’Italia dated February 6–7, 1974, the Vatican had “offered his head on a silver platter to his Herod, the communist government of Budapest.” The February 13 issue of the Zürich newspaper Die Weltwoche wrote that now Rome itself was the one to martyr Mindszenty, since it was worried about getting rid of its anachronistic image for the sake of the Vatican’s new Ostpolitik. On February 5, 1974, when the news of his dismissal had become common knowledge, Cardinal Mindszenty issued a communiqué in which he declared that he had never resigned from his post as archbishop nor from his rank as primate of Hungary, underscoring that “the decision was made solely by the Holy See” (Memorie, op. cit., 372).


Was the dogma of the Immaculate Conception formulated in response to someone challenging Mary's ability to bear a perfect Son?

It's important to distinguish between three different, but related, beliefs:

Belief in the sinlessness of Mary (that is, that she never actually committed a sin)
Belief in the sanctification of Mary (that is, that she was through the intervention of God cleansed of original sin)
Belief in the immaculate conception of Mary (that this sanctification occurred specifically in the instant of Mary's conception)

Expression of the first two of these beliefs seems to date (as the Catholic Church interprets tradition) at least as far back as the early third century (making them about as old as the expressed belief that God is Three Persons in One Trinity). The third belief took a great deal longer to settle—Thomas Aquinas asserted the first two of these beliefs, but (because of his Aristotelian understanding of prenatal development) not the third. Based on some of your comments elsewhere, Pam, I'm presuming that you're primarily concerned about the first, closely associated, pair of beliefs. In which case your questions become:

Was there a heresy, or at any rate an asserted belief, in the Church—early or later—to the effect that Jesus could not have been the Savior if he were not born of a perfect woman?
If so, was the doctrine of the sinlessness and sanctification of Mary developed in response to such a belief?

Although it can be very difficult to prove a negative, I'm not aware of any belief in the early Church that Jesus could not have been God, the Messiah, or the Savior had he been born of a sinful woman (that is, either a woman who had in fact sinned or a woman "stained" by original sin). It would seem that the appropriate response to such a belief would be to reiterate that indeed Jesus could have been born of such a woman. And in fact in the 13th century Aquinas argued for this very statement. Questioning "Whether the matter of Christ's body should have been taken from a woman?" (Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 31, Article 4), he anticipates that some people will object that:

those who are conceived of a woman contract a certain uncleanness: as it is written (Job 25:4): "Can man be justified compared with God? Or he that is born of a woman appear clean?" But it was unbecoming that any uncleanness should be in Christ: for He is the Wisdom of God, of whom it is written (Wis. 7:25) that "no defiled thing cometh into her." Therefore it does not seem right that He should have taken flesh from a woman.

Aquinas' response is:

There is no uncleanness in the conception of man from a woman, as far as this is the work of God. ... But if there were any uncleanness therein, the Word of God would not have been sullied thereby, for He is utterly unchangeable. Wherefore Augustine says (Against Five Heresies v): "God saith, the Creator of man: What is it that troubles thee in My Birth? I was not conceived by lustful desire. I made Myself a mother of whom to be born. If the sun's rays can dry up the filth in the drain, and yet not be defiled: much more can the Splendor of eternal light cleanse whatever It shines upon, but Itself cannot be sullied."

In other words, Aquinas maintains, it was indeed possible for Christ to have been born of sinful woman; Christ's glory would not have been diminished thereby. But, he states elsewhere, it would have been inappropriate:

God so prepares and endows those, whom He chooses for some particular office, that they are rendered capable of fulfilling it, according to 2 Cor. 3:6: "(Who) hath made us fit ministers of the New Testament." Now the Blessed Virgin was chosen by God to be His Mother. Therefore there can be no doubt that God, by His grace, made her worthy of that office. ... But she would not have been worthy to be the Mother of God, if she had ever sinned. First, because the honor of the parents reflects on the child, according to Prov. 17:6: "The glory of children are their fathers": and consequently, on the other hand, the Mother's shame would have reflected on her Son. Secondly, because of the singular affinity between her and Christ, who took flesh from her: and it is written (2 Cor. 6:15): "What concord hath Christ with Belial?" Thirdly, because of the singular manner in which the Son of God, who is the "Divine Wisdom" (1 Cor. 1:24) dwelt in her, not only in her soul but in her womb. And it is written (Wis. 1:4): "Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins."
We must therefore confess simply that the Blessed Virgin committed no actual sin, neither mortal nor venial; so that what is written (Cant 4:7) is fulfilled: "Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee," etc.

In other words, there's no indication I can find that the doctrine was formulated in response to an assertion that Jesus couldn't have been born of a sinful woman. Instead, it seems to have followed reflections on the glory of Christ, and what a woman who truly deserved the title of Theotokos would be like.


Is it a correct to say that Jesus did not entertain His family’s request in Mark 3:31-35?

I have come across some interpretations of Mar 3:31-35, where this verse is being quoted by some to portray a kind of rejection by Jesus of His family. To interpret this verse in such a manner is to depict ignorance in understanding of the real and true nature (and message) of Jesus, who is source of all love and taught us to love our neighbours as we love ourselves. This interpretation is without any essence since Mary mother of Jesus is much nearer to Him.

This approach of His relatives emanated out of their concern to the safety and wellbeing of Jesus on account of His relentless and unorthodox teachings against the powers at the helm of religious affairs at that time. Jesus makes them known that He is not out of His mind but knows what He is doing by continuing His preaching in spite of their request to meet Him. Jesus never taught us nor did Himself practice rejection of any of His creations. We find at many places in Bible that He said that He has come to save the lost ones. He said that it is sick who needs a doctor not the who one is well.  So in a nutshell when it is not in His nature nor His teachings to hurt or reject someone not even sinners nor His own enemies then how one can say that He rejected His own family? When He is the author of the commandment “ Honour your father and mother" how in a figment of imagination can we say that He did not honour His family members.

We can imagine this scene similar to Luke 5:17-19, where Jesus was once again surrounded by a large crowd of people (Mark 3:32) in a hall. He is in the midst of His sermon and with no access to people from outside. Because of the crowd His mother and brothers possibly found it difficult to approach and converse with Him. So they sent a word through others.

In the midst of this teaching when someone from the crowd suddenly tells Him that His mother and brothers are looking out for Him, what Jesus said was in the right perspective.  Grabbing this opportunity and possibly stressing further on what He was already teaching them, Jesus proclaims that His relations are not confined to earthly relations in flesh with only a handful of humans but rather with whole of humanity. Jesus is also telling us that whoever hears, accepts and proclaims the Good News is a part of this family which is not bound by blood relations but are related spiritually to each other. We find a similar message being conveyed by Jesus in the following verse:

  Luke. 2:48 When his parents saw him, they were overwhelmed. His mother said to him, “Child, why have you treated us like this? Look, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously.” 2:49 But he replied, “Why were you looking for me? Didn’t you know that I must be in my Father’s house?

With these two instances Jesus is trying to convince to His close relatives that He is not to be confined to a small earthly family but has come to make all those who believe in Him as one big God’s family.  Whoever does the will of Father are His mothers, brothers and sisters. It is not that His family did not do the will of the Father. Mary always did the will of the Father and that is how our Saviour came visiting us:

  Luke 1:38 So Mary said, “Yes, I am a servant of the Lord; let this happen to me according to your word.” Then the angel departed from her.


Did a married couple live in fornication if annulled? (Catholic)

The short answer is, “not exactly,” and they are probably not culpable for their sexual relations. In fact, to the degree that each party thinks he is fulfilling his marital obligation to the other, such acts, far from being sinful, would actually be meritorious.

The first observation to be made is that the text from the Diocese of Oakland, it seems to me, needs some clarification. A declaration of nullity (the term “annulment” is never used in Church legal jargon) makes no judgment regarding the sincerity  of the parties involved. The marriage tribunal simply analyzes the relationship in question and asks, “Is this relationship a marriage?” If the answer is “yes,” then it is declared “valid;” if the answer is “no,” then it is declared “null” (invalid).

So, in fact, a declaration of nullity affirms that no marriage existed between the parties, or, if you prefer, that the conditions for a marriage were never in place.

As regards the O.P.’s question, as Geremia pointed out, sexual relations between two persons who are not married is called fornication not adultery:

  Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 2353).

On the other hand,

  Adultery refers to marital infidelity. When two partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations—even transient ones—they commit adultery (CCC 2380).

However, before coming away with the idea that couples in a putative (but invalid) marriage are living in sin, it is important to recall that couples in a putative marriage usually believe sincerely that they are married while that putative marriage lasts. In that case, they are not (to use the terminology from moral theology) formally committing acts of fornication. In other words, they are not guilty of any personal sin for the mere fact of having sexual relations.* Indeed, since each party probably believes that he is fulfilling his marital obligation to the other (and to the degree the each one is convinced of that), the actions would actually be meritorious.

(It should be noted that one of the possible grounds for a declaration of nullity is the existence of a previous marriage, kept secret from the other party. In that case, the sexual relations would, objectively speaking, be a kind of adultery. Naturally, the degree of culpability would depend on the knowledge and deliberateness with which each party acted.)

* According to Catholic moral theology, three conditions must be fulfilled in order for a person to commit a grave (mortal) sin: (1) the action itself must be gravely immoral, (2) the person must know fully what he is doing, and (3) the person must give full consent of the will (he must be not be motivated by grave fear). Regarding condition (2), the lack of knowledge can be about the particulars of the situation (e.g., when a soldier mistakes a fellow soldier for an enemy and accidentally shoots him), or else about the norm itself (e.g., many Catholics are not aware that contraception is gravely immoral). See CCC 1857. In the case of a putative but invalid marriage, there is clearly a lack of knowledge of the particulars of the situation, even though, objectively speaking, any sexual act would be a kind of fornication (or adultery in a few cases). In such a case, the sexual act would not even entail venial sin (and, to the degree that each spouse thought he was fulfilling his duty to the other, would even be meritorious).


Were the early Christians known by any other name?

Were early Christians known by other names than Christians?

Take your pick, those who followed Jesus were called Christians, Sect of the Nazarenes, Followers of the Way and Sheep.

  The early Christians were called by different names.

  Christians--"and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch," (Acts 11:26).

  Sect of the Nazarenes--“For we have found this man a real pest and a fellow who stirs up dissension among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes," (Acts 24:5).

  Followers of the Way--"and [Saul who became Paul] asked for letters from him to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem," (Acts 9:2).

  Sheep--“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand," (John 10:27-28).

They were also called saints:

  Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them. - Acts 26:10


Can the God of the Old Testament be seen as a consistent moral law giver?

I wouldn't have answered this had you not added the context.  However, with the context added....

It sounds like what you're looking for is an answer that will sound reasonable to an atheist that's asking this question.  As a former atheist and anti-theist, who thought that the Christian God was not only made-up, but that the (Please forgive me, Lord) "God that these Christians made up" was cruel, evil, and unjust, I'm sorry to say that there is no argument that can be given to someone with this mindset.

There are some things that God has commanded that are very hard to understand without the proper understanding of God's nature.  Understanding God's nature, and his view of sin is necessary to answer questions, such as "How could a moral God command the Israelites to kill all of the inhabitants of the various lands they took in Deuteronomy?".

To answer these questions alone sound hollow.  The answers are completely unsatisfying to an atheist that doesn't even believe that God exists, much less is wiser than us.

For  samples question and Christian answer, see this link: http://www.rationalchristianity.net/genocide.html

The first question and answer:

  Why were the cities destroyed?

  The primary reason was punishment for wrongdoing. The populations of
  the destroyed cities had long histories of grievous sins (Gen 15:16,
  Dt 25:17-19), which often included sacrificing their children to false
  gods (Dt 12:29-31). Their consciences should have told these people
  they were doing wrong. Had they listened and changed their ways, they
  would not have been destroyed. God has said that if any nation is
  about to be destroyed as punishment but repents, he will forgive them
  and not destroy them (Jer 18:7-8). In fact, this occurred in the city
  of Ninevah (Jonah 3:4-10).

  In the cities that were given to the Israelites as their inheritance,
  there was a secondary reason: totally depraved cultures were destroyed
  so that they would not corrupt the Israelites into committing the same
  evil acts (Dt 7:1-4, 20:16-18). This did in fact occur: when the
  Israelites didn't obey God and destroy cities, they too began
  practicing child sacrifice (Ps 106:34-40).

  Additionally, the destruction of wicked nations served as an
  instructive warning to contemporaries (Josh 2:1-11) and future
  generations (1 Cor 10:1-11).

The above answer is completely unsatisfying to an atheist, who believes that the God of the Bible is made up.  In order for the explanation to sound reasonable, we ahve to first accept that

God exists
He is the God described in the Bible
He knows better than us
He is righteous and incapable of doing wrong, therefore his actions were righteous.

An atheist, particularly, and anti-theist believes none of that.  Pretty much every answer to the questions about God's apparent "immorality" are based on an initial assumption.  That God exists and is good.   That becomes  circular reasoning, and an atheist can recognize it.  To satisfy an atheist, you would have to first convince them that God exists and that He is the God of the Bible.

Personally, when confronted with this type of question while witnessing, I answer honestly and say, "If you can accept that God might exist, I can answer this question, and it probably won't satisfy you.  If you believe firmly that He doesn't exist, then nothing I can say will answer this for you..."  and move on to something else.


In light of Mark 10, how can Christians in good conscience purchase luxury items?

Let's go back and re-read the incident that prompted Jesus' teaching:

  And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” And he said to him, “Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth.” And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.—Mark 10:17-22 (ESV)

Notice that:

Jesus says "No one is good except God alone."  While He was apparently taking advantage of the honoring address of the man, the point was important to the overall story.  Nobody is perfect in goodness except God.  The whole purpose of Jesus dying on the Cross is to fix that problem.
Jesus mentions all but one of the commandments related to our horizontal relationships.  Jesus knew beforehand the problem the rich man faced: "You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor."
The man lacked one thing: freedom from the bondage of possessions.  Jesus answered his question, but the man would not make himself free.  We know from verse 22, that the reason the man did not follow Jesus was because he could not give up his stuff.  The slavery to the material world was too great an obstacle for him.

Jesus teaching based on the incident was less about anti-materialism and more about the worldly bondage that blocks people from following Him.  It is the wealth of the rich that tends to stand in their way, but not everyone is bound by the same rope.  In fact, we have an indication that Jesus' disciples did not have the same bondage to wealth as the rich man:

  Peter began to say to him, “See, we have left everything and followed you.” Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”—Mark 10:28-31 (ESV)

Jesus warned them about pride, which seems prescient:

  And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came up to him and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.” And he said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?” And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.”—Mark 10:35-37 (ESV)

Not only were James and John trying to get a leg up on the other disciples, Jesus also had to deal with the other ten's misplaced jealousy.  Each of us have our own unique set of spiritual struggles and it doesn't pay to feel superior to those whose struggles we don't share.

One of the traps we fall into is overgeneralizing.  Yes, Jesus' diagnosis for this man was to sell everything in order to take up his cross and follow Him.  (See Mark 8:34-38.)  But Jesus had another diagnosis for the one whose hand causes them to sin: cut it off!  Get rid of the foot or eye that erects a barrier between you and the Kingdom of God.  (See Mark 9:42-50.)  But not all people in the Kingdom have one hand, one foot, and one eye.  Not all of the people in the Kingdom have sold and given everything.  That's not how God made us.

All of us must deny ourselves something.  This text suggests that the something we must give up is the something that we wish most desperately to retain.  For you, it might be a love of luxury.  For me, it is almost certainly comfort and intellectual pride.  I have placed those things from time to time as gods to be worshiped.  They appear more trustworthy than Jesus more often than I care to admit.  So I can't follow Jesus if I am too busy following comfort and knowledge that puffs up.  Jesus says a man can not follow two masters (see Matthew 6:19-24) and therefore I'm only following Him when I give up those idols.

Summary

Few of us take seriously Jesus' command that the author of Hebrews summarized: "Let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely". (Hebrews 12:1 ESV)  But we need to be honest with ourselves about what causes us to sin.  If it is wealth, by all means, give it away.


Where does the Bible support the idea of church budgets, for those traditions that think it does?

Since of the Bible doesn't have a direct reference/listing of budgets, I believe the idea would come from teaching throughout.

Everything from Joseph's wisdom

  Genesis 41:35-37
  They should collect all the food of these good years that are coming and store up the grain under the authority of Pharaoh, to be kept in the cities for food. This food should be held in reserve for the country, to be used during the seven years of famine that will come upon Egypt, so that the country may not be ruined by the famine.”

  The plan seemed good to Pharaoh and to all his officials.

To the Temple tax

  Exodus 30:13-15
  Each one who crosses over to those already counted is to give a half shekel, according to the sanctuary shekel, which weighs twenty gerahs. This half shekel is an offering to the Lord. All who cross over, those twenty years old or more, are to give an offering to the Lord. The rich are not to give more than a half shekel and the poor are not to give less when you make the offering to the Lord to atone for your lives.

The tithe

  Exodus 23:19
  “Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the Lord your God...

The teaching of Jesus

  Luke 16:10-11
  “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches?

  Luke 14:28
  “Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it?

  Luke 14:31
  “Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand?

And Paul

  1 Corinthians 4:2
  Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.

And many more.

So, I would submit that managing what we have been given wisely, which is what a budget is, is very biblical.


Do any denominations teach that humans exist before birth?

I'm not sure if you'd include Mormonism as a Christian denomination, but the Mormon church definitely believes this. They believe that people were "Heavenly Father's" spirit children in heaven, who are now in the flesh on earth: Spirit Children of Heavenly Parents.


How was Queen Keran, wife of Leo II of Armenia, able to become a nun?

While not specific to Queen Keran's situation, this section from Medievel English Nunneries 1 may provide some clues.

Motives for taking the veil: a refuge for widows and occasionally for wives.

  The occasional cases in which wives left their husbands to enter a
  convent were less likely to provoke discord. Such women as left
  husband and children to take the veil must have been moved by a very
  strong vocation for religion, or else by excessive weariness.

After fifteen or sixteen children (three pairs of twins!), who could fault Queen Keran for claiming excessive weariness?

  It was necessary for a wife to obtain her husband’s permission before
  she could take the veil, since her action entailed celibacy on his
  part also, during her lifetime. Sometimes a husband would endow his
  wife liberally on her entry into the house which she had selected.

1. Medieval English Nunneries c. 1275 to 1535 by Eileen Edna Power, Section 5b (Cambridge At The University Press, 1922)


Is *infallibilitas in credendo* a new or established doctrine within the Roman Catholic Church?

This doctrine is taught in The Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of the Second Vatican Council, paragraph #12 as follows:

  "The holy people of God shares also in Christ's prophetic office; it spreads abroad a living witness to Him, especially by means of a life of faith and charity and by offering to God a sacrifice of praise, the tribute of lips which give praise to His name.(110) The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One,(111) cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples' supernatural discernment in matters of faith when "from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful" (8*) they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God.(112) Through it, the people of God adheres unwaveringly to the faith given once and for all to the saints,(113) penetrates it more deeply with right thinking, and applies it more fully in its life."


What is an overview of the interpretations of Acts 16:31 "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."?

The Protestant overview of salvation as described in Acts 16:29-34 is that this particular incident does not promote belief in universal “household salvation” simply because the head of the house has come to saving faith in Christ Jesus.

  In Acts 16 the Philippian jailer asks Paul and Silas, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” Paul and Silas answer, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

This promise is given to a specific individual in a specific context, namely that he and his household will be saved.  The promise is universal in the sense that when a person believes in the Lord Jesus they “will be saved.”  In this instance, salvation came to the jailer’s household as the result of their hearing the Word of God and individually responding in faith.

  Paul and Silas “spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house... he had come to believe in God – he and his whole family” (Acts 16:32).

The whole family heard the gospel. They were all saved, just as God had promised, but their salvation was not due to their being a part of the jailer’s household; they were saved because they believed the gospel for themselves.  The principle of salvation is summed up concisely in the words of the Apostle Peter who said:

  All the prophets testify about him [Jesus] that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name (Acts 10:43).

To be saved, a person has to believe in Christ Jesus.  Salvation is individual, not collective.  Adults are responsible for either accepting or rejecting Christ Jesus.  That is why belonging to a particular religious denomination does not save a person either.  The Protestant view is that “household salvation” is not a universal promise to any and all families where the head of the house is a saved Christian.  Salvation comes only to people who acknowledge they are sinners, who repent and place their faith in what God, in Jesus, has done to save us from the consequences of our sin.

  Charles Spurgeon made this observation: “Though grace does not run in the blood, and regeneration is not of blood nor of birth, yet doth it very frequently . . . happen that God, by means of one of a household, draws the rest to himself. He calls an individual, and then uses him to be a sort of spiritual decoy to bring the rest of the family into the gospel net.”

In the instance of the jailer, he and his family believed in Jesus after hearing the gospel message, and were immediately baptised.  In other situations, the head of a family may be used by God to help bring unbelievers within his household to saving faith.  But there is no “blanket cover” for household salvation – salvation is personal, it is individual and it is the gift of God.


Whom does Jesus refer to as 'infants' at Luke 10:21?

My Perspective
My view is that "infants" refers to the true disciples that Jesus had.
It is commonplace to let Scripture interpret Scripture. Ergo, I will provide a few verses to support my view.
Firstly, John says that whoever believes and accepts Jesus is given the privilege of becoming a child of God.

12Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. John 1:12-13 NIV

So we learn here that it is whoever that believes that become like a child.

16But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” Luke 18:16-17 NIV

Also, those who wish to get into the kingdom must accept the kingdom like a little child as you can see from the verse. So the servants/subjects/citizens of the kingdom are like little children. That means since the disciples of the kingdom are like little children, they could be referred to as such in metaphor. Moreover, there is one especially damning (pun not intended) evidence to the fact that the "infants" being spoken of here are the true disciples of Jesus.

42And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones who is my disciple, truly I tell you, that person will certainly not lose their reward.”
Matthew 10:42 NIV

The context here is that Jesus is talking about the persecution that the disciples will face in their life when they preach the gospel to the nations. So he directly refers to a disciple as "one of these little ones", which sounds extremely close to "infants" (probably a result of translation differences).
Catholic Church's Perspective
So onto the second part of your question, I believe that the Catholic Church would agree with me. If not because of my reasoning and the context of the passage referring to his disciples and his ministry, then because that one of their own venerated Saints said

“Whosoever is a LITTLE ONE, let him come to me.’ (Proverbs 9:4) And so I succeeded. I felt I had found what I was looking for. But, wanting to know, O my God, what You would do to the very little one who answered Your call, I continued my search and this is what I discovered: ‘As one whom a mother caresses, so will I comfort you; you shall be carried at the breasts, and upon the knees they shall caress you.’ (Isaiah 66: 13,12) Ah! Never did words more tender and more melodious come to give joy to my soul. The elevator which must raise me to heaven is Your arms, O Jesus! And for this I had no need to grow up, but rather I had to remain little and become this more and more.” - St Therese of Lisieux

The source of that quote is found here.
Since a saint was referred to as a little one in her own words, she must have been taught or taught that a disciple/believer was to be like a little one, and therefore must have perceived the verse in Luke 10:21 as a reference to the believers and disciples of Jesus.
As of what exactly they teach on this, there is always the chance to ask Catholic priests either in person and even online! I'm sure they would agree with something along the lines of the answer given under My Perspective. Thanks for reading and I hope this answers your question!


What is the meaning of peoples being divided up "according to the number of the gods" in Deuteronomy 32?

The word, "'elohiym" in Hebrew can properly be seen as meaning, "God", "gods", "divine beings". So, you might say that the meaning was that he was keeping house of Jacob apart from the rest of the world and marking it as, "his" in the chosen sense of the word.

This reinforces the idea that being "holy", in Hebrew, really means being separate, set apart (see Strong's).


It is probably a reference to 2 Thessalonians 2:10

...which includes:

  they received not the love of the truth

...the implication being that the speaker of "received the truth in the love of it" has acquired something that the subject of 2 Thessalonians 2:10 did not because they lacked a "love of it" (i.e. no "love of the truth").

That says nothing to where the original specific quote comes from, but this is the most likely allusion.


Regarding women participation in extraordinary ministry (Roman-Catholic Church)

The women are most likely extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, in which case there is no problem.

The current liturgical law for the Latin Rite, the General Instruction for the Roman Missal (GIRM) permits laypersons to distribute Communion:

  The priest may be assisted in the distribution of Communion by other priests who happen to be present. If such priests are not present and there is a very large number of communicants, the priest may call upon extraordinary ministers to assist him, i.e., duly instituted acolytes or even other faithful who have been deputed for this purpose. In case of necessity, the priest may depute suitable faithful for this single occasion (GIRM 162).

Moreover, the Code of Canon Law stipulates

  When the need of the Church warrants it and ministers are lacking, lay persons [Latin: laici, which is distinguished from viri laici, that is, lay men; hence laici can be men or women], even if they are not lectors or acolytes, can also supply certain of their duties, namely, to exercise the ministry of the word, to preside offer liturgical prayers, to confer baptism, and to distribute Holy Communion, according to the prescripts of the law (Can. 230 §3).

Therefore, if those lay persons are properly deputed extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, and there is an authentic need for them (e.g., to prevent the Mass from being excessively long; see Inaestimabile donum no. 10), then it is not a problem for them to distribute Communion.

Liturgical law does specify that there must be a true need for extraordinary ministers. The instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum spells out the criteria:

In a Mass, the priests present should never delegate distribution of the Eucharist entirely to extraordinary ministers (no. 157).
“[T]he extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged” (no. 158).


Does the Catholic Church believe that we become just souls after we die?
The short answer is yes!
But the Catholic Church also teaches that when we die, our souls are separated from our earthly bodies. However our earthly bodies will be reunited with our souls at the general judgement.
This is why the Church technically refers to souls in Heaven as saints and not as persons. For the human person is technically composed as having a soul united with an earthly body! This will all change at the end of times!
Nevertheless, many refer to the saints in Heaven as saints. The souls in purgatory are interestingly enough referred to as the Souls in Purgatory!

Our Church teaches that immediately after death, our soul separates from our earthly body and we stand before God for judgement. We then enter heaven, Purgatory or hell.
Heaven is the ultimate end and fulfillment of the deepest human longings, the state of supreme, definitive happiness. Those who are free from all sin enter heaven immediately.
Purgatory is a place of purification, for those who die in a state of grace and friendship with God but who are not yet fully purified. Those in Purgatory are assured a place in heaven after their purification. We pray for those in Purgatory, that they may soon be with God in heaven.
Hell is for those who have willingly chosen to reject God and his love. If we persist in a state of serious sin, we damn ourselves to hell.
At the end of time, our Lord will come again to judge the living and the dead. All souls will be rejoined with their bodies, and those in Purgatory will be joined to the blessed in heaven. The Last Judgement will reveal that God’s justice triumphs over all the injustices committed by his creatures and that God’s love is stronger than death.  What Happens to Us After We Die?

The following article on The Human Person is quite informative:

The unity of soul and body
Man is not merely a body (that is materialism). Nor is he merely a soul (that is spiritualism). Nor is he two beings, like a ghost in a machine (that is dualism). He is one being in two dimensions, bodily and spiritual. “The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the ‘form’ of the body [‘form’ here meaning not ‘external shape’ but ‘intrinsic meaning’]:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature” (CCC 365).
The human soul is not imprisoned in the body, as Plato taught, but expressed in it, as the meaning of a play is expressed in its words. And the body is not enslaved by the soul but fulfilled by it, as a beautiful piece of marble is fulfilled and brought to perfection in a great work of sculpture.
The human soul
The human soul is not a pure spirit, like an angel. It is the “form” of the body; it is meant to inform a body. The body is not a house and the soul is not a ghost. We are not haunted! The soul is not something strange, occult, or alien. Just the opposite. It is who we are; it is our personality. God gave it to us at conception (that magical moment that was also the beginning of our body), and we shape it through all of life’s choices.
The Church’s most important teachings about the soul are “1 that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God – it is not ‘produced’ by the parents – 2 and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and [3] it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection 235” (CCC 366).
On each of these three points there is good reason for our faith:

The soul must be created rather than evolved, because matter cannot make spirit any more than space can make time or color can make sound. They are two different dimensions. “You can’t get blood from a stone,” and you can’t get self-consciousness and free will from atoms and molecules.

The soul must be immortal because it is not made of atoms spread out in space and capable of being cut into parts. It is not composed, so it cannot be decomposed.

The soul must be reunited with a  new body because God made man as a soul-body unity, and God makes no mistakes. Therefore the resurrection of the body is needed to complete and perfect our human nature in Heaven. (Between death and resurrection, we are incomplete.) We do not become angels any more than we become ants.


How do Trinitarians interpret John 14:10?

The Orthodox Christian interpretation is that the essence of the Father and the Son is the same, but that they are still different persons.  This is the Christian dogma of homousia that was affirmed at the First and Second Ecumenical Councils in the 4th century, and is stated in the Nicene Creed.  At the First Council of Nicea in 325 the Church affirmed:

  We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God ... that is of the
  essence of the Father [ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρός] ... being of one
  substance with the Father [ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί]

Theophylact of Ohrid (1055-1107), summarized the Orthodox understanding of the passage you cite as follows:

  The Son is in the Father.  This means that the Son is revealed in
  the essence of the Father, and the Father is revealed in the essence
  of the Son.  Similarly, a king is visible in his portrait [if it is
  well drawn], and the portrait is visible in his person.  This is
  because of the characteristics shared by the portrait and the king.
  To show that His essence is the same as that of the Father, Christ
  declares, The words that I speak unto you I speak not of Myself.
  This means, "I speak only what the Father speaks.  I have nothing of
  My own that is separate from the Father.  Everything We have, We
  possess in common.  We share one essence in two distinct hypotheses
  [persons].  The words I speak and the works I do are the Father's.
  Because Our works are divine, the Father is God and I am God:  they
  are the works of a single essence.  Whatever I do, the Father does.
  Whatever the Father does, I do.

  Believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me

  This means, "The very names Father and Son are sufficient to
  indicate that Our essence is identical.  However, if this does not
  convince you that Our works are one in essence and honor, and that the
  Father is manifested in My essence and I in His, then believe Me for
  the very works' sake, for they are the works of God."

  Explanation of the Gospel of John (tr. Chrysostom Press),
  pp.227-228

Perhaps, however, as you suggest some sort of argument supporting a different theology can be constructed on the basis of John 14:10 alone.  This would be a very weak theology, though, would you agree?  Any dogma proposed would have to find support throughout all of Scripture, without contradiction.  We have for example, the testimony at the very beginning of John's Gospel (1:3):

  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
  was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made
  through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.

Furthermore, if the "Son" was only the "flesh", how do we interpret the tripartite division of body, soul and spirit? (1 Thessalonians 5:23).  Did the "Son" refer only to the body, but the soul and spirit to God?  How could the body only then pray to God the Father, as Jesus is shown to do in the Gospels.


What is the difference between baptism of the Holy Spirit and receiving the Holy Spirit?

Note:  The answers here will really depend on your doctrinal perspective.

The word baptism is not a translation from the Greek, but a transliteration.  The word was used when describing the dying of fabrics.  The fabric was plunged into the dye and then changed forever as the dye stayed with the fabric.

So, baptism of the Holy Spirit seems to either refer to us being plunged into the Spirit or the Spirit being plunged into us.  Receiving the Holy Spirit, then, would seem to be pretty similar, or perhaps the result of baptism by the Holy Spirit.

Perhaps we could say that in baptism, we receive the Holy Spirit.


Looking for a specific sermon about Barnabas

Looks like Willow Chicago had something regarding Barnabas in February 2012. Could that have been it?


What are the reported effects of a pilgrimage to Saint James of Compostela?

Though not as holy as Rome or Jerusalem, the Cathedral of Santiago, believed to be the resting place of St. James, did confer special status.

Specifically:

Pilgrims who completed the journey in a Jubilee Year were often given a plenary indulgence, forgiving them of the (earthly) consequences of a crime.

Additionally:

  There is still a tradition in Flanders of pardoning and releasing one prisoner every year under the condition that this prisoner walks to Santiago wearing a heavy backpack, accompanied by a guard. (from Wikipedia)


What biblical support do Arminians and open theists find for libertarian free will?

I will address some background issues prior to bringing the point home.

Yes, most believe in a sinful nature for mankind. I believe along with Dallas Willard and all those in the Wesleyan tradition that total depravity is not the description of mankind. It is interesting to note that Calvin himself believed that babies are born innocent. Luther on the other hand would require baptism for babies since he did not believe they were born innocent. So, except for that discrepancy, evangelicals believe that depravity is not total. Usually what the Calvinist means by this phrase is total inability. I would identify with Dallas Willard when he talks of sufficient depravity (as evidenced in Rom 3:23) At present there are less Calvinists than not, not that numbers prove a position. Once total depravity is accepted, the rest of TULIP just naturally flows logically.

I do not believe in original sin. What is sin? Sin is a missing of the mark. If one can miss the mark at the moment that one is born then we have more capability than we know. Babies are born innocent. Calvin got that right. Just because my father sinned does not mean that any of those sins were transferred to me. That is true all the way back to Adam. (c.f.Ezekiel 18:20)

I do believe in the Sovereignty of God as expressed in the Bible. I also believe eternal security, though not as expressed in the P of TULIP. The Sovereignty of God does not override the free will of man. The free will of man in no way threatens the Sovereignty of God. In fact God in His sovereignly has decided that the angels and man are to have free will. This in no way thwarts God's plans. I am stating these without reference to any particular scripture, but do have many in mind. I will get around to those shortly.I do not believe in total depravity. Let's say for sake of argument, man is totally depraved. We believe that Jesus is totally God and totally man. Scripture affirms this.

How can Jesus be fully man if man is fully depraved from birth?... from Matt Elton (who is Monotheist while I believe in the Trinity)

The answer is that man is not fully depraved from birth. Man is born innocent. David in the Psalms said that man is born into sin - notice - not with sin. Psalm 51:5 David said that he would go to his son by Bathsheba -the son that died. (2 Sam 12:23) Paul talking in 1 Cor 14:20 has reference to babies being innocent as the basis for an argument. He assumed it, and assumed that his audience assumed it. Otherwise his argument would fall apart. There are other times that God is talking about the innocent blood of children being spilled in pagan sacrifices. (Psalms 106:38 and others - From Rich Deem's website) Babies are innocent. Realize also that when Jesus spoke of being born again, He was indicating that we needed go through a process to become innocent once again - as we were when we were born.

We do come to an age of accountability. Adam did and so do we. This is referenced by Paul in Romans 7:7-11. Adam did not lose perfection, he lost his innocence.

What is the point of the book of Job? Surely Satan has free will or God would have just changed Satan's mind instead of working to convince him about Job's allegiance. And if Job had no free will then what was being determined - that Job could be a puppet? Oh and by the way, there is a verse that says that we will judge angels. If God judges man arbitrarily, then that is our example for how to judge the angels later. (1 Corinthians 6:3)

Matthew 22:1-14 talks about chosen. This chosen is the same Greek word as in Romans. Here Jesus himself explains how the kingdom is working. The first part of the parable signifies those who choose not to participate in the kingdom. Note that the King is enraged. If the King already knew that they would not choose to participate - why would he be enraged? The last part of the parable is about those who choose to participate in the kingdom. Then the last statement is "many are called and few are chosen" So riddle me this - If the Calvinist take was taken, then it should have been "many are called and many are chosen" - or "few are called and few are chosen"

If there is no free will, then at least five things do not make sense... repentance, prayer, evangelism, rewards, and punishment. Hence this is why some (most?) Calvinists do not adhere to no free will after salvation. Choice is implied in all the Bible, but is made most obvious in some scriptures (Deut 30:19 and Joshua 24:15)

God's sovereignty is not encroached on by our free will. God controls when we die (Sodom and Gomorrah, the Worldwide Flood, etc) As well as other means of affecting people without affecting free will (Blinding (Genesis 19:11), Changing their language (Genesis 11:9), etc.)

God is Sovereign and Just. If God's love is greater than our love, then it would seem to follow that God's justice is greater than our Justice. His ways are higher than our ways. His thoughts higher than our thoughts. (Isaiah 55:9) Note that in James 1:13  "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." If God does not tempt someone, then why would He do something more intrusive like harden someone's heart? Apologetics Press addresses the topic "Who Hardened Pharaoh's heart?"(see (1) below)

The Book of Life is interesting in regard to predestination. Exodus 32:32-33 is its first mention and where God says that those who have sinned will be blotted out of the Book of Life. Another place it says that those in the Book of Life are from there from the foundation of the world  "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:" (Ephesians 1:4) If the elect are from the foundation of the world, and they are known ahead of time, why would some of the elect be blotted out? Did God make a mistake? Do you see the problem here? The problem is resolved if we realize that the word elect is the word for chosen. And those that are chosen are those that chose first. And God made the system, grace, whereby it is possible for us to choose. Note that this implies that the Book of Life originally had everyone's name. Some references in Revelation muddy the waters, but they may be referring to people who have done the unforgivable sin and are just around until their death happens.

Predestination is not predestination to be saved. It is once saved being predestined therefore to be conformed to  the likeness of Christ.

Who did Christ die for? All are wanted. Reference 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 John 2:2.

Also, what comes first belief or regeneration? (see John 1:12 and John 20:31)

Calvinism purports to promote and magnify God and demote man. What it does in the end is to demote God and promote and magnify man. What do I mean by that? Man is promoted to a place where he doesn't have to worry about his actions (or at least his salvation) - because they are all predestined - determined. He also is in a place where God needs him to further God's kingdom - God can't do without him, and so appoints him to salvation. God is demoted in that no longer is God "just" in man's estimation - and heaven's estimation. God arbitrarily chooses who He will and rewards them for God's efforts. Those who God does not see fit to choose to further the kingdom are punished without any recourse for something that they do not have any chance of affecting. This is the end conclusion of accepting total depravity. This is what atheists hear about and have a justifiably good argument that that God is not one to be admired and worshiped. (see (1) below)

So while we do partner together Wesleyan and Neo-Calvinist, I will not back down from promoting God and His true justice so that sinners see a great God - not a monster God. And promote letting the Bible say what it has to say. Using the obvious verses to interpret the harder verses to understand. (2 Peter 3:16 and 2 Tim 2:15)

(1) http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1205

(2) http://watchmanforjesus.blogspot.com/search/label/Calvinism%20Heresy


The New Testament indicates that the Apostoles baptized all members of some families, and we can assume in a family, there are kids :

"And I baptized also the household of Stephanus; besides, I know not whether I baptized any other." (1 Corinthians 1, 16)
(About Lydia) : "And when she was baptized, and her household" (Actes of the apostles 15, 16)
(Paul, to the keeper of the prison) : "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" ... "And he, taking them the same hour of the night, washed their stripes, and himself was baptized, and all his house immediately." (Actes of the apostles 15, 31.33)

Baptism is indeed sequel to conversion and faith (cf. Mark 16, 16; etc.) but as you see in the examples above, kids have been baptized on the basis of the faith of one parent. In the Catholic Church, for an infant to be baptized licitly, "there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason" (canon 868 §2).
Baptism brings other graces that it is worth children benefit :

it makes them enter the Church
it ereases original sin
"According to the Apostle Paul, the believer enters through Baptism into communion with Christ's death, is buried with him, and rises with him (Romans 6,3-4 cf. Colossians 2,12). [...] The baptized have "put on Christ" (Galatians 3,27). Through the Holy Spirit, Baptism is a bath that purifies, justifies, and sanctifies (1 Corinthians 6,11 12,13)" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1227)

Baptizing children is clearly letting them come to Christ. Let's not forbid them :

"And they brought to him young children, that he might touch them. And the disciples rebuked them that brought them. Whom when Jesus saw, he was much displeased, and saith to them: Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God" (Mark 10, 13-14)