Assuming Ann is Catholic and married to Bob. She later gets a civil divorce from Bob and gets married outside the church to Chris. Bob later dies. Is Ann's new marriage now valid? If not, can she get a dispensation? Or does she need to marry Chris a second time?

In Bible prophecy, a single day literally stands for one thousand years. In the book of Hosea chapter 6 verse 2 then it says that: > *After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him*. I was led to believe that this verse might be referring to the death and resurrection of the Christ but then there is the use of a plural word *us*. Since this verse is foretelling the resurrection of the saints because technically speaking it's the saints who get to live in God's presence at the end of the age, is it okay to conclude that the second coming and the resurrection of the dead will happen on day 3 which is 3000 AD?

As a school assignment I'm supposed to compare two authors on the topic of morality. Specifically the question is: how ought a person to relate to Christianity / how should Christianity affect one's life? I was really hoping that Chesterton could be one of my authors, but I'm struggling to find a place where he writes about that topic. Here's where I've read of him so far: - For fiction, I've read some Father Brown and The Man Who Was Thursday. - For nonfiction, I've read some of Orthodoxy, most of What's Wrong w/ the World, and most of Everlasting Man. I was especially hoping that Everlasting Man would give me good fodder, but it seems like he's making more of a historical / anthropological argument instead of a moral one. Anyway, I'm sort of at my wits end here, and would love input. tldr; Does anyone have a suggestion for a good Chesterton book/essay that talks about morality?

The New Testament is _very_ clear that Christians should love their enemy and turn the other cheek. Similarly, Christians should defend others and stand up against injustice. These things are _somewhat_ at odds. An idealised Christian behaviour would be to accept mistreatment of _oneself_ over harming their enemy, and easily forgiving grievances. But what about harming "the enemy" who is mistreating someone else? As far as the end result is concerned, should a Christian harm "the enemy" attacking some other "innocent party", so as to protect the weak, or stand by, out of love for the "enemy"? Should the Christian do the minimal harm to the enemy that pushes against the immediate danger to the "third party", or go further than that, seeking more long-term security to the "third party"? Should a "Christian defender" easily forgive crimes committed against the third party out of love to "the enemy", or pursue them to correct the injustice, in favour of the "third party", causing harm to "the enemy"? Defending "the innocent party", or more broadly pursuing justice, may require doing a lot of harm to "the enemy" (think, for example, in the cases of armed robbery, or intervention in an unjust war), how should a Christian balance these responsibilities? I'm most interested in a Catholic perspective, but any Christian perspective is most welcome!

When I first became a Christian my Baptist minister spoke about sanctification, holiness and aspiring toward Christian perfection in our lives. Personally, I doubt any of us will see perfection this side of heaven, although those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus are called to be holy (1 Corinthians 1:2). My understanding of sanctification is that it is both a done deal and a daily work. It’s on-going. In the past, through saving faith in Christ Jesus, God grants us justification. Through the process of sanctification, God guides us to maturity, a practical, progressive holiness. In the future, God will give us glorification, a permanent, ultimate holiness. These three phases of sanctification separate the believer from the penalty of sin (justification), the power of sin (maturity), and the presence of sin (glorification). With regard to the Methodist view of sanctification, I found a 1988 book ‘What Methodists Believe’ by Rupert E. Davies, which said this on page 58: >One of John Wesley’s favourite teachings was that it was actually possible for a Christian in his life on earth to reach perfection in the love of God and of his neighbour; that is, by the power of the Spirit, really and truly to love God and his neighbour in the way described by Jesus without any imperfections whatever. Is this view of sanctification and attaining perfection in love unique to Methodists? Or is it common amongst Protestant Christians? I am interested in exploring the similarities and differences between Methodists, Baptists and other Protestants on the process of sanctification. Rather than expect people to compare the views of different denominations, I would be content to read views representing individual Protestant denominations. Otherwise, I fear people may be put off from answering!

Note that I'm not asking whether envy is bad. It's common sense that envy is bad and that it's also bad to make others feel envy. What I'm asking is whether experiencing envy is blameworthy. **That Envy Is Blameworthy:** * It made the 10 commandments (Exodus 20:17, Deuteronomy 5:21) * Paul lists love as not being capable of envy (1 Corinthians 13:4) **That Envy is Not Blameworthy:** * Unlike the adulterer (Proverbs 6:32) or the liar (Proverbs 19:5, 19:9), King Solomon does not judge the envious in the Book of Proverbs. He just observes that it feels terrible. (Proverbs 14:30) * In the Book of James, the author says that "You covet, and have not: you kill, and envy, and can not obtain. You contend and war, and you have not" (James 4:2a). Notice that he says that the reason the reader envies is not because he's ungrateful or because he overlooks the good gifts he already has (which is worldly wisdom). He says that the envious reader has a genuine lack in objective reality.

If a husband man loses his wife to death, is it possible for him to become a Catholic priest in the Latin Rite? What about any children of this marriage union? Can this man now become a priest in the Latin Rite and climb the priestly ladder (bishop, archbishop, ect)?

I am a Catholic and I would like to know if the Book of Revelation in the Catholic Bible (or in other Christian Bibles) has anything to say about whether human souls will be fighting during Armageddon. For example, are there any passage(s) in the Book of Revelation that indicate that the human souls that went to Heaven will be fighting alongside God's angels against the demons and the human souls that went to Hell? Does the Book of Revelation indicate whether human souls will be fighting during Armageddon?

Just to be clear, I'm only referring to activities that are victimless, or at least harm nobody except for those who willingly participate. If I understand Calvinist (TULIP) theology correctly, criminalizing something perceived to be a sin won't save anyone because refraining from that sin isn't enough to avoid hell. On the other hand, for someone who has already been born again, it is impossible to lose their salvation no matter what sin they commit. I don't mean to start a debate; I just want to gain some perspective.

What is the Biblical basis for preachers to be paid from members' tithing?

Recently our minister preached a sermon based on Luke 9:42: >Even while the boy was coming [to Jesus to be healed], the demon threw him to the ground in a convulsion. But Jesus rebuked the evil spirit, healed the boy and gave him back to his father. The minister drew a parallel with people who are in the process of coming to saving faith in Christ Jesus, or new Christians, and who then experience "spiritual attacks" that prevent them from continuing on the path to salvation. Then I found a sermon preached by Baptist minister Charles H. Spurgeon [sermon # 1746, Volume 29 – The Devil’s Last Throw](https://www.spurgeongems.org/sermon/chs1746.pdf) which said, in part: >When a person had almost believed in Christ, but not quite, Satan seemed to multiply his temptations around him, and to bring his whole force to bear upon him. It is amazing how the ungodly will lay all kinds of traps for one who is escaping from his sins. They are fearfully set on keeping him from Christ. Toward the end of his sermon he said: >I never dare to preach to anybody a temporary salvation. “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved,” not for merely tonight, but forever. When God saves a man, he is saved, not for weeks and years, but eternally. If Christ turns the devil out of him, he shall enter into that man no more, forever. Now this is a salvation that is worth your having, and worth my preaching. To prevent asking a question that will attract only opinion-based answers, is there any biblical basis for believing that Satan will do his uttermost to prevent a sinner from coming to saving faith in Christ Jesus?

All human beings share a common nature/essence, yet are not one "being", but the 3 persons of the Trinity share a common essence/nature and are one being. I have 3 questions here: 1. What exactly does "essence" mean? I've seen a lot of answers like "nature" or "being" but that doesn't really explain the meaning of the term. 2. What is the significance of sharing one divine essence/nature? If humans have a common essence/nature but are not in perfect union, why does sharing one divine essence/nature mean the 3 persons of the Trinity are in perfect union? 3. What is it that makes the perfect union (and the biblical-basis for it)?

Im Methodist..my mom is sanctified..I don't understand the Holy Spirit..it scares me..she preaches over me and prays over me like I'm here guinea pig, instead of getting behind the pulpit..I can't live my life comfortably because every move I make she says I'm going to hell or being disobedient and I'm 42 years old. When she prays it feels like someone is putting voodoo on me..it's very uncomfortable. I feel like she's harassing me..how can I make her stop throwing her religion on me without my permission

The First Vatican Council, *Dei Filius* (1870) Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith defined the following: > If anyone shall have said that the one true God, our Creator and our Lord, cannot be known with certitude by those things which have been made, by the light of human reason: let him be anathema. (Item #1 of **2. On revelation** set of canons ) From what I understand, this pronouncement was motivated at the time by those who were denying *natural theology*. Can someone elaborate on some of the specifics regarding those who were denying "natural theology" at the time that Pope Bl. Pius IX made this (*de fide*) declaration?

I read the book by C.S. Lewis some years ago. I would be interested in finding more fiction or nonfiction works offering relatively contemporary perspectives on the experience or functioning of dark forces within lived (e.g., practiced or historical) Christian faith. For example, I would like to be made aware of an ostensibly nonfiction polemic specifying how FDR's New Deal appears to have met the criteria for a work of the devil; and I would also like the book list to identify a fictional piece visualizing Satan in the halls of FDR's White House. The problem is, I don't know how to characterize what I'm searching for. I seem to lack a name for what this literature would be called. For instance, Warnke's *Satan Seller* would be within the scope of my interest, though it is not an apologia or otherwise obviously similiar to *The Screwtape Letters*, beyond its generally satanic orientation. Satanology comes to my attention, but I don't believe I'd want to get bogged down in the theology of Satan. I'm relatively familiar with biblical remarks on the subject. I'm looking more for arguably real-world elaborations or applications - for material that might tell me something I haven't already heard. But what is a name for that body of publications?

Does the Catholic Church have any *explicit* laws regarding priests and the ownership of or the carrying of firearms? I am under the impression that Canon Law (someplace) forbids for all clerics from anything "unbecoming to their state." But alas, if this is true, such is by no means explicit.

Christians see Jesus as the only Son of God who incarnated as a human being to redeem mankind from sin in fulfilment of the prophesies made in the Old Testament. The Qur'an refers to Jesus as one of the greatest prophets and accepts his Virgin Birth and Second Coming. Jews on the other hand, question the divinity of Jesus and consider his as the 'prophet of disaster'. They do not accept that Jesus fulfilled numerous prophecies of the OT. Although Christianity from its side treats Judaism as its source (Jesus himself having been a Jew in human form), and reveres the forefathers such as Abraham and David, it is doubtful if the Jews reciprocate the respect and the regard Christianity pays to Judaism. Of course, the political alignment has its own course in so far as Christian, Jewish and Muslim believers are concerned. One is however inclined to believe that in so far as religious belief is concerned, followers of Islam have more affinity to Christianity than the Jews have. **My question therefore is**: Has any comparative study been made on the perception of Christianity held by Judaism *vis-a-vis* that held by Islam?

Is Jesus last exclamation on the cross: “Father into your hands I commit my spirit” a prototype for Christians to copy, or paraphrase, when they face imminent death? What is a Protestant answer on this question, gleaned from Luke 23:46?

Numerous Bibles have a "The Words of Christ in Red Letter" feature. Understandably, there is some debate concerning which verses and words should be in red (but this question is not about that.) This question is: What is a good resource on systematic theology that _only_ looks at the verses in red -- i.e., instead of being based on the entire Bible, is based only upon the words that Christ says?

I have been trying to search this on the web and it seems I keep getting conflicting information. Apparently, modern scholars believe the Gospel of Luke was written in the second century AD. If this is true then why do we include it in our Bibles? Why do people read it if it was written much later? And then, I read some info about it being written in the 60s AD. I tried to search this on StackExchange but no luck. Could you help me out?