The Kalam Cosmological Argument comprises of the following three premises: 1. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore the universe has a cause. If we assume this argument is valid, all it proves is that **the Universe had a supernatural first cause**. With that in mind, can the omnipresence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, and the divine being of God be proved using the cosmological argument?

What is the Old Testament verse that says that money gives one stability and security? I remember reading something along these lines in, I think, the Wisdom literature .

One of the motivations behind the *doctrine of divine simplicity* (DDS) is that if God was composed of parts, God would depend upon those parts to exist and hence there would be something more fundamental than the godhead to account for what God is. In order for God to be most absolute, God must be completely simple, lacking any and all composition. Some philosophers have suggested that God himself could be the cause of his own complexity, and hence God's aseity would not be threatened. Classical theistic philosophers in response argue that the idea that God giving rise to his own complexity is incoherent and would require for God to be prior to himself, which is absurd. In response to the classical theistic objection, philosophers have suggested that God could be the *grounds* of his own complexity rather than the cause. Philosopher Matthew Baddorf writes: > [I]t is far from obvious that the only kind of thing that could > satisfactorily explain compresence is an outside sufficient cause. ... > **[The neo-classical theistic] God’s tropes are dependent upon God**. This > suggests another explanation for their compresence: they are > compresent because they are each grounded in God. **This is not a causal > explanation, but it is plausible to think that it is an explanation > nonetheless**. ... This conclusion can also be supported by more general > argument. **It is plausible that tropes are individuated by their > bearers and so cannot exist without them. Or, similarly, it is > plausible to think that tropes cannot exist without their bearers > since they are merely ways their bearers are.** (Baddorf, “Divine Simplicity”, 408–409) Rather than God depending upon his parts, his parts depend on him. > For all x, if x is a proper part of God or x is a property of God, > then x depends on God for its existence. (Fowler, “Simplicity”, 122) Is this position coherent? Further reading on this issue would be appreciated. Thanks!

This question is based on four texts dealing with this matter. ***John 3:3*** where Jesus said to Nicodemus, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he **cannot see** the kingdom of God." ***John 6:40*** where Jesus promised that "every one which **seeth the Son**, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last day." ***John 20:29*** where Jesus said to Thomas, "Thomas, because thou **hast seen me**, thou hast believed; blessed are they that **have not seen**, and yet have believed." ***1 Peter 1:8***, speaking about believing Jesus, "Whom having **not seen**, ye love; in whom though now **ye see him not**, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory." All from the A.V. and bold emphases mine. What kind of 'seeing' is this? It's clearly not seeing material things (like a literal kingdom on earth, or a person visible to our eyes.) Though people at first did literally see Jesus and believed in him, he spoke of those ***not seeing him, yet being begotten again***' with a heavenly inheritance (1 Peter 1:3-4). Only those who believe what Jesus said about being 'born again' as an adult (as he said to Nicodemus) are being asked, which effectively rules out many Christians who believe babies or little children are 'born again' when baptized as such. In other words, answers are not sought from those who equate membership in a religious organization with being born again and/or seeing the kingdom of God. **So, what kind of 'seeing' is this, and how is 'seeing Jesus' key to this?**

What are the best books, writings and great works by traditional scholars and priests in Christianity dealing with the topic of humility? I want very traditional and age old works. For example, *The Imitation of Christ* focuses on the interior life of the individual Christian, encouraging them to follow the example of Christ in their daily lives. What would you suggest?

I came across the "Novena of Abandonment" prayer, first via a friend, then saw it on many blogs online etc, for example here: [Jesus, You take over and the Rosary of Abandonment](http://www.dolindo.org/english/JESUS%20YOU%20TAKE%20OVER%20.pdf) . It reads like a very soothing and reassuring prayer, directly quoting Jesus' words. What I am trying to establish is, what is the provenance of this prayer? Mostly I find it on blogs, not any kind of authoritative websites. The prayer is ascribed to Fr. Dolindo Ruotolo, but I cannot find any information on _how_ it came to be. The prayer is not quoting the scriptures, and rather reads like direct quotations from a private revelation - is there any authoritative source that describes this? The link above quotes an Imprimatur, but I couldn't check it online. Does anyone know of any more authoritative confirmation of provenance for this prayer? My fundamental reason for asking is, since it appears to be direct quotations of Jesus, I don't want to, so to speak, be putting words in His mouth. The prayer makes strong assertions of Jesus' will, and it doesn't feel right to pray with such assertions without having confidence that it really comes from Jesus. For example, "There is no better novena than this".

Christians often debate over if there is biblical support for the true, physical presence of Christ in communion, but is there positive biblical evidence for the other side?

There is a story that relates to St. Thomas Aquinas and the question of "What must I do to go to Heaven" that I thought was somewhat famous, but I can't seem to locate it. As I recall, the Mother Superior of a particular Order of nuns approached St. Thomas Aquinas and posed the aforementioned question. She also had with her a very fancy book with blank vellum pages made by the nuns in which St. Thomas was to record all the rules that they must follow in order top be assured of Heaven. St. Thomas agreed. However, when the book was returned to the nuns with all the necessary directives for them to follow in order to get to Heaven, it contained but the words, "Will it!" **Can anyone tell me where I may find this story?** I would like to reference it.

In today's daily readings, Psalms 25:3 states "Calling to you, none shall ever be put to shame, but shame is theirs who groundlessly break faith." What does it mean to "break faith", and are there grounds on which it is okay to break it, or have I completely missed the meaning of this passage?

According to Instruction VIII of St. Alphonsus Liguori's *Dignity and Duties of the Priest*: > In conformity with the words of the Apostle: *No man being a soldier to God entangleth himself with secular business, that he may please Him to Whom he hath engaged himself. (2 Tim. ii. 4.)* The holy Church prohibits, with so much rigor, and under pain of censure, ecclesiastics to engage in traffic. >The priest is consecrated to God; he therefore should attend to no other business than the advancement of God's glory. The Lord does not accept empty victims from which the marrow has been extracted. *I will offer up to Thee,* said David, *holocausts full of marrow. (Ps. lxv. 15.)* The sacrifices, the Masses, Offices, and works that a priest dissipated by the cares of traffic offers to God are, says St. Peter Damian, empty; for he has taken away the marrow, that is, attention and devotion, and presents only the skin or external appearance. I am assuming that the word "traffic" implies operating some kind of a business, but I don't know for sure. Does anyone know what exactly is meant by the word *traffic* here; and what kinds of traffic did the Catholic Church forbid priests from engaging in? Also, where may such declaration(s) be found? Was it declared in a papal encyclical or by a Council, or both?

I would like to hear the Christian perspective on a [question](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/99684/does-intelligent-design-fulfill-the-necessary-criteria-to-be-recognized-as-a-sci) I asked on Philosophy SE. Intelligent Design (ID) proposes that certain features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. While proponents argue that ID should be recognized as a scientific theory, critics often assert that it lacks scientific legitimacy. **Do Christian supporters of Intelligent Design believe that it meets the essential requirements to be considered a scientific theory, as per their perspective? If not, do they view this lack of scientific rigor as an issue? How do Christian proponents of Intelligent Design address criticisms that argue it is not a scientific theory?** To address this question, I would like you to keep in mind some essential characteristics and criteria that a scientific theory must fulfill in order to be regarded as one. This would include but is not limited to: 1. *Falsifiability*: Does Intelligent Design make testable predictions that, if proven false, would contradict its central claims? 2. *Empirical evidence*: What empirical evidence supports or refutes the claims made by Intelligent Design? 3. *Methodology*: Does Intelligent Design follow established scientific methodologies, such as proposing hypotheses, conducting experiments, and engaging in peer review? 4. *Consilience*: Does Intelligent Design integrate with other scientific fields and theories, fostering a cohesive and interconnected body of knowledge? 5. *Naturalistic explanations*: How does Intelligent Design address the requirement of offering naturalistic explanations, which is commonly expected within scientific inquiry? (See [methodological naturalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Methodological_naturalism).) 6. *Consensus within the scientific community*: What is the general opinion among experts in relevant scientific disciplines regarding the recognition of Intelligent Design as a scientific theory?

Around AD 485, the patriarch of Constantinople, [Acacius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acacius_of_Constantinople) , was excommunicated by [Pope Felix III](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Felix_III) , in a dispute over both theology and authority. This excommunication, however, seems unique in that it was said to be "perpetual," as the *Catholic Encyclopedia* explains: > Acacius was branded by Pope Felix as one who had sinned against the Holy Ghost and apostolic authority (*Habe ergo cum his . . . portionem S. Spiritus judicio et apostolica auctoritate damnatus*); and he was declared to be perpetually excommunicate — *nunquamque anathematis vinculis exuendus*. ([source](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01082a.htm)) Wikipedia further indicates that Acacius was "irrevocably excommunicated," though I'm not sure if that's an accurate characterization, particularly in light of the [*Catholic Encyclopedia*'s article on excommunication](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm) , which does not seem to address the concept of a "perpetual" excommunication. After reviewing that article, I can conceive of a few ways that the perpetual excommunication of Acacius could be understood: 1. That this excommunication was simply a "reserved" excommunication, one that could only be absolved by the Pope, and the "perpetual" was an indication of the Pope's confidence that absolution would not be sought or given. 2. That this excommunication was of a special category not described in the *CE*, and that it truly was irrevocable, without any possibility of absolution. - If so, does this special category continue to exist today? 3. That Wikipedia and I misunderstand the term "perpetual" in this context and thus this isn't actually any different from many other excommunications (perhaps the adjective simply means "perpetual until absolution") **How does Catholicism today understand this excommunication of Acacius by Pope Felix?** Was it truly "irrevocable," and if so, can such excommunications be pronounced today?

I grew up in a credobaptist tradition. Studying both Scripture and church history for myself without the blinders of tradition, I have come to accept paedobaptism, as I have come to a different understanding of what baptism is altogether. However, try as I might, I have been unable to find any sources that seem to be giving sprinkling an honest look (from either credo or paedobaptist perspectives). As far as I can tell, credobaptists seem to simply lump it in with infant baptism (and therefore reject it as part of that), or as Catholic tradition (that pours over into later traditions, and therefore reject it as part of that), while paedobaptists seem to argue that you can't safely immerse an infant, and so sprinkling has to be acceptable. Both arguments seem circular to me. **Can someone help me out with sources, either in Scripture or early Church tradition, linking sprinkling with Christian baptism?** Sprinkling/splashing was very much a part of Jewish tradition and law, but is it clear somewhere, or just assumed, that sprinkling according to Jewish custom was equivalent to baptism by immersion?

I am always confused regarding the role of the laws of the old testament in Christianity (in common with the main movements). Did Jesus cancel the entire old testament or just part of it? Or maybe he didn't cancel and just said it isn't obligated? For example, I believe the majority of Christians eat pig or shrimp and don't keep the laws of the purity of animals or birds that are allowed to be eaten in the bible, nor avoiding fire lighting on Saturdays, not celebrate the holidays mentioned in the bible and so on in many other laws of the bible. On the other hand, it seems that regarding homosexuality, many Christians don't support it. (I'm not sure if it is because of the religion or it's just a matter of being conservative.) Can I conclude that the laws of the new testament were (at least) partially replaced by the New Testament? If I can, so how can I know based on what some of the laws were chosen to be still relevant and what some of the laws weren't? I'm really confused to understand it. Kindly be patient with me, I am open-minded to learning about it.

Does the Catholic Church have specific teaching on Intellectual Property rights (I’d appreciate specifics and coverage of copyright, patent, and trademark), and is this teaching binding on the faithful?

I am not asking if Roman Catholics find a biblical basis for burning an heretic; that question has been asked here . This question has to do with infallible statements by a Pope regarding how the faithful **must** think about the burning of heretics. In the Papal Encyclical Exsurge Domine (1520) given by Pope Leo X we find, among other things, the following: > With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. **By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication….** One of the theses listed within the encyclical (which I understand to have been given ex cathedra and therefore to be infallible ) which is under condemnation is the thesis that "the burning of heretics is against the Holy Spirit": > 33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit. Here is a link to a scholarly paper describing how *Exsurge Domina* meets all five of the criteria for papal infallibility. This paper also describes how the development of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, dogmatically defined in 1868, was always intended to incorporate the "thousands and thousands" of infallible definitions already issued by the Roman see over the history of the Church: > In other words, (Bishop) Gasser was able to assert “in passing”--that is, as something which did not need arguing and would be taken for granted by his audience-- that there had already been “thousands and thousands” of infallible definitions issued by the Roman see! Even if he did not intend to be taken quite literally and meant only to make the point that “a great many” such definitions were “Ex-Cathedra,” it is obvious that he was not only referring to solemn definitions of revealed truth, such as Pius IX’s definition of the Immaculate Conception a few years previously. There have in fact been only a few such definitions. So Gasser obviously meant to include the many Papal definitions of secondary truths, including censures less than heresy, as genuine “Ex-Cathedra,” infallible definitions. According to Pope Leo X it is infallibly declared that "We restrain in all the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication that all the faithful of both sexes must regard as condemned, reprobated, and rejected the idea that the burning of an heretic is against the will of the Holy Spirit". If the burning of heretics is not against the will of the Holy Spirit then God must either favor the action or be indifferent towards it. There is nothing within this encyclical indicating which of these two options is correct but it is clear that one cannot be both a faithful Catholic **and** believe that burning heretics is against the will of God. Also in this encyclical, there is a command to gather and publicly burn any and all works containing or promulgating any of these theses: > Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther, we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected. **We forbid each and every one of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend them.** They will incur these penalties if they presume to uphold them in any way, personally or through another or others, directly or indirectly, tacitly or explicitly, publicly or occultly, either in their own homes or in other public or private places. **Indeed immediately after the publication of this letter these works, wherever they may be, shall be sought out carefully by the ordinaries and others [ecclesiastics and regulars], and under each and every one of the above penalties shall be burned publicly and solemnly in the presence of the clerics and people.** So it appears that every Roman Catholic is specifically commanded not to believe "that heretics should be burned is against the will of the Spirit" and disobedience incurs automatic major excommunication. Are Roman Catholics in general taught, and do they understand, that they are infallibly commanded, under penalty of automatic major excommunication, to believe that; 1) God favors (or is at least indifferent to) the burning of heretics and, 2) that Roman Catholic Bishops and regular clergy should be regularly collecting and publicly burning anything promulgating Martin Luther's ideas ... or has something occurred which has rendered this injunction fallible?

This question is for Protestant Trinitarians and addresses the divide among the various denominations of Protestantism, particularly Presbyterianism, Congregationalism and Anglicanism, who baptise infants rather than adults. I was, myself, 'baptised' as an infant, but late in infancy as my father was a Church of Scotland clergyman in the remote Highlands of Scotland and was not permitted to baptise his own child, so the matter was delayed and I remember it vividly at the age of five. But after conversion at the age of sixteen I volunteered to be baptised in a Baptist assembly (and my father graciously attended). Among all the arguments to and fro about circumcision and 'sanctification' it is still not clear to me if those who baptise infants actually claim that the child is 'born again' in the various senses in which that term is used in the New Testament, that is to say : born from above (*anothen*); born anew (*anagennao*) ; born again (*paligenesis*) ; born of God ; and born of water and Spirit. What exactly do paedobaptists believe is happening (in New Testament terms) during the ritual of placing water on a baby? And if they regard it so (that this is genuine 'new birth') then can such infants not be recovered if they (initially) reject the gospel in childhood since that would be regarded (in New Testament terms) as being a castaway, having been 'born again' only to reject Christ?

What's the position of catholic Christianity regards homosexuality? Does the new testament agree with the old testament approach to homosexuality? The new testament approach appears in Lev (18,22-23 ): It condemns it and even it seems it is equal to sexual relations with animals: > “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; > That is detestable. “‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and > defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal > to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion. Later on in the same book: “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Proponents of Believer's Baptism argue that Baptism requires an existing faith on the part of the person being baptized, and for this reason a) reject the practice of infant baptism and b) teach that baptism is not (directly) a Means of Grace (n.b. [this answer](/a/80050/53502)). Proponents of Infant Baptism (well, Catholics at least, and I think some others), OTOH, believe that Baptism *is* a Means of Grace, and that it is *through baptism* that a believer comes to faith and repentance. They believe that God is absolutely capable of working faith and repentance in infants. Since proponents of BB apparently *don't* believe this, do they believe that an infant cannot have faith or repentance? If so, do they believe that infants are condemned to Hell? If not, in what manner do they believe infants can be Saved? (Or do they believe infants don't *need* to be saved? I know there is disagreement on that question...)

I have read the entire Westminster Confession of faith before; and I agree with pretty much everything except for the infant baptism section: > 4. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are > to be baptized. The scripture proofs they provide are as follows: Mark 16:15-16, Acts 8:37-38, Genesis 17:7,9- Galatians 3:9,14 - Colossians 2:11-12, Acts 2:38-39, Romans 4:11-12, 1 Corinthians 7:14, Matthew 28:19, Mark 10:13-16. **Q: According to reformed theology, is the Westminster confession of faith faithful to scripture for their assertion of infant baptism? Why or why not?**