From some of Luther's quotes shown by his critics (such as Peter Hermann Wehner's book, *Martin Luther: Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor*), it seems Luther had an aversion to reasoning and free will. These famous quotes are said to be from the context of responding to the alleged heretics and "fanatics" on the topics like water baptism. What did he mean by such teachings, and how do the modern Lutheran followers respond to this *reasoning*, which appears to be self-refuting and irrational? >“Reason is the Devil’s greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil’s appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom … Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism… She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets.” [Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148] And again >But since the devil’s bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she’s wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because [reason] is the Devil’s greatest whore. [Martin Luther’s Last Sermon in Wittenberg … Second Sunday in Epiphany, 17 January 1546. Dr. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe. (Weimar: Herman Boehlaus Nachfolger, 1914), Band 51:126, Line 7ff] It is one thing for Luther to attack his enemies, but the constant, filthy abuses to reason itself seems to me to show he naively rejected all logical reasoning or what we call as the correspondence theory of truth and rationality itself, as he also abused Aristotle. I say "naively" because nobody can rationally condemn reason without employing reason itself, as Luther did throughout in his writings.

This is probably a loaded question but I'm happy to learn of what you'll bring to the table if you think of some good input regardless of how you interpret the question. I've noticed an mostly 'unspoken' discrepancy between Christian communities which leads to substantial differences in outcomes regarding them living out their faith (I'm in USA mostly around protestant circles for reference but I wouldn't be surprised if this conversation happens (maybe implicitly as well) in other places) I am trying to wrap my mind around this and so far have only heard 'lessons' regarding these things which assume the audience to know/believe something about their lives and God which is never fully fleshed out. Recently I heard John Mark Comer say something like [It's about the switch from decision making to discernment, or full surrender]. This is just the most recent example of such an idea that I've heard. Frequently I've heard teachers explain away over-analyzing things through this lens like "what t-shirt you wear, what to eat for lunch etc. is not important in the grand scheme" but I've yet to hear a rigorous system of understanding these things. As an ideology it is captivating as one can believe themselves to be behaving under the direction of God and making personal 'sacrifices' in offering up the outcome of decision to God, 'neglecting their personal desires and honoring more holy ways of being'. But this same ideology can inspire guilt, as one could ask themselves "am I listening for/to God well enough, and not doing my best as a Christian?". When they are potentially expecting something of themselves that isn't actually expected (or desired) of us by God. So that's where I'm at, I'm familiar with Proverbs 3:5-6, John 10: 27-28 and probably some other relevant verses I'm forgetting now, but I believe these things in layman circles get misconstrued and I'm looking for ways to understand how to apply these things in my own life (and maybe hopefully clear up confusion regarding these teachings for others if they've suffered in similar bouts of confusion/guilt). To steal a quote from Dallas Willard "I don't have the [characters] to explain everything I don't mean" by this question so I hope I've done a decent enough job. Let me know if you think edits would be helpful. I imagine it possible some early church father has some highly fleshed out discussion about internally walking through these things, but maybe I'm looking towards the past with too much of an enchanted lens. I just don't know of how to search for this concept in few words. Thanks!

On many occasions I have seen that the Virgin Mary is described as a 13 or 15 year old girl when she had Jesus Christ. The main argument I have heard is based on the fact that in the culture of Israel girls were married as soon as they were 13 or 14 years old. I feel that with this argument are confusing the Hebrew culture of biblical times with the customs of India, China and Africa. In the whole Bible we do not find that such a custom existed in Israel, on the contrary, we see episodes in which one realizes that the marriageable women were 20 years or more. In fact, if a man was not considered an adult until 20, a woman would not be considered an adult before that age either. In the Old Testament we see that men who had already reached the age of 20 were called to contribute to the offering (*Ex 30:14; 38:26*), to go to war (*Nm 1:3, 20*) or responsible and fit for punishment for their sins (*Nm 32:11*) So what argument, apart from the one indicated *(If I am wrong in this argument, you could also indicate why)*, is applied to designate the age of the Virgin Mary as an adolescent?

You will often hear people say things like, "The Psalms cover every human emotion and situation." There's even a John Calvin quote somewhere. And the "covering every emotions" part may be true. But something has bothered me about this type of statement for a while. Now, I certainly could be missing something, but as I have read the Psalms more lately it seems that it only addresses really two types of suffering: **a)** Attacks/false accusations from enemies and **b)** suffering caused by sin/iniquity. Many Psalms feature the general 'cry of the afflicted' but when the reason is given, it seems to always come down to the two forms I mentioned above. Here's a couple examples: - Psalm 103:3 speaks of "healing our diseases" but there is disagreement from commentators whether this is really referring to the "disease" of sin. - Psalm 34:18 "The Lord is near to the broken-hearted" might at first glance be read as anyone who is grieving or suffered a loss. However in Derek Kidner's commentary on the Psalms he asserts that this "broken-heartedness" is referring to those who are broken over their sins. What does this mean for us? Is this a theological lesson that these two forms of suffering are the only ones that matter? What about physical suffering not caused by sin or enemies? What about the death of a loved one? What about an unexpected job loss? It seems possible to read the testimony of the Psalms as teaching us that these things aren't really important.

One core reason of the "KJV-only" tenet that I often encounter when speaking to its proponents is their insistence that the original-language textual basis for the NT **MUST BE the *[Textus Receptus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus)*** as opposed to the [*Nestle-Aland*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece) . An example they often give is that the latter text is more susceptible to Trinitarian and Christological heresies because the textual basis for both doctrines is "weaker". There are also other doctrines that could be affected, not relevant to the question here. As far as I know, they are fine with the common use of *Masoretic Hebrew* text for the OT translation. The obvious question is what to do with evangelism. **Is it okay to do Bible translations to Chinese Mandarin (to use an example) when using *Textus Receptus* as the basis for NT while using KJV 1611/1769 for translation guidance?** Otherwise, evangelism would necessarily involve teaching them English *first*, although I can foresee how they would spread the gospel in Mandarin first. But would they insist that proper Bible study can only be done in English using KJV 1769? **Can Bible Study by people who have low proficiency in English be done, in principle, with non-English translations that has been "certified" as faithful to *Textus Receptus*?** Or Bible studies using those Bible translations will forever be deemed as having a "second class citizen" status? Or do they adopt the position of most evangelicals today, that proper Bible study should be done by consulting the original texts (thus studying Greek & Hebrew in seminary) although lay Bible readers can profit from reading a translation? **P.S.** From reading [*Wikipedia*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement#Variations) it turns out there are 5 variations of this movement (by apologist James White). It would be helpful for the one answering this question to identify which group's perspective they are answering from. This question is primarily interested in the answers coming from either the "*Textus Receptus* Only" group or "The Inspired KJV Group".

Are there any advocates of "King James Bible Only" today who insist using only the original 1611 version? What reasons do they give? For example, do they reject the Young Literal Translation that is also faithful to *Textus Receptus*? The real old English is extremely hard to understand.

When talking to my generally reformed friends on the topic of pedo-baptism they often say that baptism is the new circumcision, circumcision was done on babies to bring them into the Old Covenant, therefore we baptize babies to bring them into the New Covenant. I have a hard time with this because before infant circumcision was not based on the faith of the child but on the parents and their adherents to God's command to do so. But in the New Covenant, this same theological truth does not apply. I can not come into the covenant unintentionally or outside of my will. I am sure Reformed Theology has an answer to this and I just have not seen it yet, so how would Reformed Theology answer this?

When I was a baby I was baptized in a Reformed church descended from the [Dutch Reformed Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Reformed_Church) . I still have my certificate of baptism. Then I went to Sunday school with other kids in the neighborhood. When I was in middle school, I went to catechizing class taught by the pastor along with the other Sunday school kids my age. After about a year, there was a [public confirmation ceremony](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation#Presbyterian,_Congregationalist_and_Continental_Reformed_Churches) (part of a regular Sunday service) where I received another certificate. From then on, I became an official member of the church and I needed to go to the "adult" service. I didn't know much about Reformed theology at the time. I didn't even know that my church's theology was "Reformed". I found out later that the pastor recommended Louis Berkhof's [Systematic Theology](https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/berkhof/systematic_theology.html) if I wanted to learn more, and that's how I knew that my church was Reformed. In Catholicism, there is a sacrament of Confirmation, which is also given at about the same age (11-16) for candidates already baptized (baptism is when they received the indwelling Holy Spirit). The sacrament's primary purpose is exactly what the priest said as he traces the sign of the Cross on the forehead of the candidate as he says "Be sealed with the Gift of the Holy Spirit." (*[source](https://www.cathedral.dol.ca/confirmation)*) . Unfortunately I didn't remember what the pastor said during the ceremony when I was confirmed, nor do I remember what gestures he used. **My question**: In comparison with the Catholic sacrament of confirmation, what is the purpose of confirmation according to Reformed theology? Related questions that an answer may want to address as well: - Is it understood that there is a similar "sealing with the gift of the Holy Spirit"? - Is there a connection with the forvigeness of Original Sin which in the Catholic understanding was given in infant baptism so babies can go to heaven, but in Reformed theology this "not going to heaven if you are not baptized" is no longer applicable because of predestination? - What is the Biblical basis for this practice in Reformed churches? - What did Calvin say about it? - Since when it was practiced? - Which Reformed denominations do public confirmation today?

In the book of Daniel chapter 10 , Daniel is in a period of mourning because a great war is coming. He fasts for 21 days and then sees a vision of what I presume to be an angel. Before the angel explains what will happen to Daniel's people, the angel explains why he is "late" in meeting him: > 12 Then he said to me, "Do not be afraid, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart on understanding this and on humbling yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to your words. > > 13 "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia was withstanding me for twenty-one days; then behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia. > > —Daniel 10:12–13 , NIV It seems very unusual to me that an angel would be delayed for three weeks by any force, and that Michael (the archangel?) had to come to help free him from the "kings of Persia" (demons?). I suppose I've always had the image that an angel could just poof to a place instantaneously, as usually happens in popular media, so being stuck in a location for three weeks and needing a stronger angel to help seems really bizarre to me and doesn't seem to match up with depictions of other angels of the Bible (e.g., the ones that appeared to Mary and Joseph). I'm really at a loss for how to explain this. What is an overview of the most common explanations for the angel being delayed here in Daniel?

I am not, here, inquiring about who the elect are or about how they are elected. There have been other questions about that and it seems to me there is no agreement on those matters. But I am interested in *the characteristics of the elect* as someone has just asked me how anyone would know if they are one of what the bible calls 'God's elect'. Jesus gives us some information about that : >And shall not God avenge his own elect, **which cry day and night unto him**, though he bear long with them? [Luke 18:7 KJV] It seems that the elect cannot forbear from crying unto God in prayer. Not only can they not forbear for a twenty four hour period, they seem unable to last for even twelve hours without praying to Him. Paul adds some more information about them : >Put on therefore, as the elect of God, **holy and beloved**, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; [Colossians 3:12 KJV] Paul addresses the elect as 'holy and beloved'. He said of himself 'The Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me' so he, himself, knew he was loved by the Lord. So did John, calling himself 'the disciple whom Jesus loved'. And they are 'holy'. Not only so, they are willing to have the apostle tell them to be even more so, with bowels of mercies, kindness, humility of mind, meekness and longsuffering : all characteristics displayed in regard to their fellow men. Not a matter of doing religious works to earn a reward from Deity, I notice. And Paul gives more information : >Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, **according to the faith of God's elect**, [Titus 1:1 KJV] ---------------------------------------------------- So is it the case that if someone is of these characteristics (prayerful, holy, beloved and believing) then they may be called 'one of God's elect'. And is this how Paul was able, himself, to discern that some were, indeed, of God's elect, such as those who received his preaching. And John, too, who calls someone 'the elect lady'. Are these the characteristics which gave good reason for some to be singled out and addressed in that especial way as 'God's elect' ? What other characteristics could be added to my brief research ? ------------------------------------------------------------------ This question is not scoped on the basis of a divide in doctrine. It is not aimed at one party or another. I am simply asking about characteristics and application. But I am addressing Protestant Trinitarians, for the sake of simplicity and brevity.

The [staircase in Loretto Chapel in Santa Fe, New Mexico](https://www.lorettochapel.com/staircase) is said to have been built by St. Joseph, the patron saint of carpenters. According to the story, the Sisters of Loretto prayed to St. Joseph for nine days to help them find a builder for a staircase. On the last day, a man appeared with a donkey and toolbox and offered to build the staircase. He worked alone using only hand tools and disappeared without being paid or identified. The Sisters believed the man was St. Joseph himself. The staircase is a helix-shaped spiral that stands 20 feet tall and has two 360-degree turns. It was built without nails, only wooden pegs, and has no visible means of support. The staircase's design is considered innovative and baffling, and some of its design considerations remain a mystery to experts today. My question: what is the official stand of the Catholic Church on the aforementioned staircase?

Regarding the Old Testament canon, Protestants follow the Jewish canon based on the assumption that this is the canon accepted by Jews before the coming of Christ. However, the historical evidence that the canon of the Hebrew Bible was decided before Christ is far from conclusive. There are some ancient claims (as can be found in Justin Martyr for example) that the Jews altered their OT in order to elide the parts that might look Christian, and I have heard some Catholics say that the deuterocanonical books were left out of the Jewish canon for the same reason. I guess I'm a little skeptical that this makes sense. **Is there anything in any of the deuterocanonical books that would be objectionable to Jews?** To be clear, I am asking specifically about the *contents* of the books. The well-established fact of their late authorship (relative to the protocanon) and the fact that many of them were not composed in Hebrew were probably also factors influencing the Jews' decision not to canonize the Apocrypha. However, I am wondering whether there are additional reasons related to what the books actually say. I don't need an example from each of the deuterocanonical books, I would be satisfied by just one or two examples of statements from them which Jews would disagree with but not Christians would not.

This is just a question that has intrigued me and I can't think of a definite answer. I understand that the presence of God dwelt first in the Tabernacle and then in Solomon's temple in Jerusalem. God promised to dwell with His people as long as they were faithful to Him, but Israel rebelled. God allowed them to be taken captive by the Babylonians who then destroyed the temple as well. Also, [Ezekiel](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+10&version=ESVUK) talks about God's presence leaving the temple due to Israel's unfaithfulness. Israel is eventually restored and the priesthood continues, as well as the temple and sacrificial system. God promises countless times about the full restoration of the temple, obviously pointing forward to Jesus. So my question: **Did God's presence ever return to the temple in post-exile Israel?** If so **Was God's presence still dwelling in the temple while Jesus was on Earth?** I'm sorry my Scripture references are lacking, I hope this question makes sense.

At John 2:14-16 (NRSVCE) we read: > In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. He told those who were selling the doves, “Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father’s house a marketplace!” We see Jesus adopting a lenient approach towards sellers of doves *vis-a-vis* those selling sheep and cattle. Is it because His parents had offered doves at the time of His own presentation to the Temple (Luke 2:24)? What do the teachings of Catholic Church reveal on the said 'differential treatment' of Jesus towards various merchants ?

Most people think that Papal Apostolic Constitutions (which have higher level of authority than most other types of papal documents) are infallible, but in fact only Papal *ex cathedra* statements having 4 characteristics are infallible (see the *Necessary Conditions* section [here](https://fatima.org/news-views/catholic-apologetics-229/)) : 1. Exercising role as the supreme teacher, not simply as private theologian 1. On a matter of faith or morals, not on practical or disciplinary matters 1. Makes an explicit declaration of his intention to define a doctrine Catholics are obligated to assent 1. Makes clear that ALL Catholics, including in all future ages are bound in conscience to this teaching and there have been only [2 instances of this faculty being used](https://uscatholic.org/articles/201105/is-there-a-list-of-infallible-teachings/) , namely for the dogmas of the: 1. Immaculate Conception of Mary (1854, [*Ineffabilis Deus*](https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9ineff.htm) by Pope Bl. Pius IX) 1. Assumption of Mary (1950, [*Munificentissimus Deus*](https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12munif.htm) by Pope Pius XII) which were defined and taught through an *ex cathedra* [Apostolic Constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_constitution) . **Why the two Popes found it expedient to declare the 2 dogmas of Mary using the rare facility of infallible pronouncements (i.e. *ex cathedra*)?** I'm primarily interested in the **historical situations** which must have contributed to the (first?) use of this facility for a Pope to *personally* teach infallibly. Why wouldn't the two Popes use a less authoritative vehicle (such as a *regular* Apostolic Constitution or through a canon of an ecumenical council)? Was there an urgent "heresy" to be dealt with, as it was during the early days of the Protestant Reformation by the Council of Trent? Even if it was urgent, surely a non-*ex cathedra* pronouncement wouldn't be less dogmatic for Catholics? Also, given debate in previous centuries regarding the Immaculate Conception, wouldn't a council be a more appropriate venue for the dogma to be clarified by the whole Church? ----- #### P.S. Impact on ecumenism Now that Vatican II is almost 60 years behind us, the issue of the infallibility of the Pope and these 2 infallible Marian dogmas remained the top reasons why Protestants are hesitant to convert because they would like to see that all that are **necessary** to be believed need to have an *explicit* Biblical basis like every proposition in the Apostle's Creed, for instance. (Just to clarify, *sola scriptura* does NOT say Tradition does NOT have a role, only that Scripture has to NORM Tradition. So as a Protestant who is *not* a Biblicist / proponent of "naked scripture" I can also say that although the 2 dogmas don't have *explicit* support, they are not inherently condemned by Scripture either. For example, even Elijah had his assumption to heaven, and Jesus was immaculately conceived. So I acknowledge that the reasons that most Protestants adduced are largely irrelevant to Catholic way of constructing dogmas, which look to both Scripture and Tradition, with her own hermeneutical principle to interpret Scripture. But STILL, I agree with the Protestant principle that doctrines that do *not* have explicit support should be **optional**, such as baptismal regeneration or the nature of the Eucharist, which Protestants regard as *less* essential than the Trinity, which has become the basis for ecumenism among Protestants.) But history has shown in the past 150 years or so, that both Papal infallibility and Marian dogmas has remained THE single most persistent barrier of entry for **MOST** Protestants to "come back" to the Catholic fold (now *more* than justification by faith alone, for a hint see [2017 Pew Research Survey](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/08/31/u-s-protestants-are-not-defined-by-reformation-era-controversies-500-years-later/) , 7% and 9% respectively). Because Catholicism elevates them to the status of "**required**" *on the same level of the Trinity*! So it seems **less prudent** (ecumenically) in the age of ecumenism especially since Vatican II that embrace adherents of other religions with its inclusive language regarding the fate of non-Catholic adherents (*cf* *Lumen Gentium*) and designate Protestants as "ecclesial communities" rather than heretics who are anathema, to clarify the 2 Marian teachings as two infallible dogmas using the *ex cathedra* personal pronouncements by the two Popes. To Protestants, it's a **"double whammy"**. Surely both Popes realized this? Why incur the unnecessary ecumenical cost when a non-*ex cathedra* pronouncement PLUS a council document would have sufficed to clarify the matters for Catholics? Yes, the historical **time** is opportune to clarify the Marian dogmas (as Ken Graham pointed out in his answer), but what historical **situation** made it expedient to clarify the dogmas *using* the *ex-cathedra* facility? It's not as though there was an intra-controversy within the Catholic church that risk rupturing the church like the Arian / Donatist controversies, for instance. Or the situation leading to Council of Ephesus declaring that Mary is *theotokos* which Protestants **DO** affirm and consider it as an important support (against heresies) for proper understanding of the Incarnation (see [Gavin Ortlund's arguing for it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwgHGsODNDw)) . Was it necessary for Catholics to have the matters clarified *ex cathedra*?

I have a background involving the worship of Ganesha, the Hindu elephant-headed deity, and I’ve recently begun exploring Christianity. Since this transition, I’ve faced troubling experiences and feelings of torment by this pagan deity, especially on days significant to Ganesha like tuesdays or 4th day after full moon or new moon, leading to deep depression and frustration. While I believe in Jesus, my family continues to honor Ganesha, complicating my situation. I feel that the influences of this pagan god are affecting my life and mental well-being. My questions are: Can Jesus deliver individuals from the torment of pagan gods like Ganesha? Additionally, can Jesus deliver these pagan gods themselves from any spiritual influences

The word for 'weakness' (astheneo) of the flesh (Rom.8:3), or the 'infirmity' (astheneo) of the flesh (Rom.6:19) seems to indicate that the inclination to sin is in our fallen flesh nature and not from the concept of 'original sin' A few examples: "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is 'weak' (astheneo)" (Matt.26:41). "For what the law could not do in that it was 'weak' (astheneo) through the flesh, God sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh." (Rom.8:3). "For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our 'weaknesses' (astheneo), but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sinning."(Heb.4:15)

As per Acts 21:24, Paul keeps the law. If Paul keeps the law, why does he say that he is not under the law in 1 Corinthians 20-21? If he is not under the law, then why did he perform the nazirite vow in Acts 21? I am confused

In the book The Trail of Blood by James M Carroll, the author makes the claim that 50,000,000 early Baptists were martyred under persecution by the Catholic Church. The author makes the claim multiple times without any sourcing for that number. My question is essentially two parts. Is the claim of 50,000,000 Baptist martyrs accurate, and if so, can someone point me to a source that validates the claim?

Does the Bible tell why God gave the Ten Commandments to his people Israel, as depicted in book of Exodus? Does the Bible tell us what was the reason why God gave the Ten Commandments?