There seems to be a logical sequence in the Nicene Creed of 325: 1. The Son is “begotten from the Father, only-begotten,” 2. Therefore, He is “from the substance of the Father,” 3. Therefore, He is “of one substance with the Father” 4. Therefore, He is “true God from true God.” But the revised creed of 381 omits the phrase “from the substance of the Father.” That seems to break the link between "begotten" in (1) and homoousios in (3). Any idea why and what the implications are?

> KJV 2Th 2:1  Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord > Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,  2Th 2:2  That > ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor > by word, nor by letter as from us, as **that the day of Christ is at > hand**.  2Th 2:3  Let no man deceive you by any means: for **that day > shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man > of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;  2Th 2:4  Who opposeth and > exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; > so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that > he is God.**  2Th 2:5  Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, > I told you these things?  2Th 2:6  And now ye know what withholdeth > that he might be revealed in his time.  2Th 2:7  For **the mystery of > iniquity doth already work**: only he who now letteth will let, until > he be taken out of the way.  2Th 2:8  And **then shall that Wicked be > revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, > and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:**  2Th 2:9  Even > him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and > signs and lying wonders,  2Th 2:10  And with all deceivableness of > unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the > love of the truth, that they might be saved.

The term christomonism has sometimes been leveled against Karl Barth , John MacArthur , and Dietrich Bonhoeffer . But there doesn't seem to be a canonical definition; most mentions of the term are followed immediately by an attempt by the author to explain it. What is "christomonism" and how is it meant as a criticism?

According to the concept of the Trinity, where does this logic fail? === 1. There is One True God, YHWH 2. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is YHWH. 3. Jesus declares the 1 God to be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 4. Jesus declares the 1 God to be his Father. 5. Therefore the Father is the One True God YHWH. 6. Jesus cannot be the One True God YHWH. ***YHWH says He is rational and able to be understood.*** Jer 9 > 23 Thus says **YHWH**: “Let not the wise glory in his wisdom, Let not the mighty glory in his might, Nor let the rich glory in his riches; 24 But let him who glories glory in this, That he ***understands and knows Me***, That I am **YHWH**, exercising lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth. For in these I delight,” says **YHWH**. __________ *Jesus answered him, “The **first** of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, YHWH our Elohim, **YHWH is 1**. And you shall love YHWH your Elohim with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment."* Luke 4:18 (Jesus reads from a **scroll** in the synagogue.) >"The Spirit of the **YHWH** is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised," Psalm 84:2 >My soul longs, yes, even faints For the courts of **YHWH**; My heart and my flesh cry out for ***the living God***. Matthew 16:16 >Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the ***Son of the living God***.” Acts 3:13 >**The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob**, the God of our fathers, glorified **His Servant Jesus**, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go. Matthew 22 >43 He said to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying: > >44 **‘YHWH said to my Lord**, > >“Sit at My right hand, > >Till I make Your enemies Your footstool” ’? Mark 12:25-27(Jesus speaking to the pharisees, quoting scripture) >**‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’**? 27 He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living. You are therefore greatly mistaken.” John 17:3 (Jesus speaking to his God and Father) > And this is eternal life, that they may know **You, the only true God**, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. John 20:17 > Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, **‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’** ”

I am baptised **Maronite Catholic**, and my partner is **Chaldean Catholic**. My partner has never been a part of his Chaldean Church, never attended his church and has no involvement in his community. This has been the case since his father died when he was 3 years old in Iraq. Since that time, he fled Iraq with his mother and siblings as refugees and came to Melbourne, Australia. Despite there being Chaldean Churches in Melbourne, his mother would him and his siblings to local (Roman Catholic) churches to pray. Unfortunately, my partner's mother also passed away when he was 15 years old. From that time, he did not attend church at all and started losing his faith. On the other hand, I am baptised Maronite Catholic and have grown up attended my local Maronite church. Our Maronite priest is very close with my family and we have a strong relationship and bond with our church. Since my partner and I started dating, he has become heavily involved in the Maronite church and has redeveloped his faith. He considers our Maronite priest to be a strong figure in his life and often reaches out to him for guidance and support. We are getting married and we both wish to be married in the Maronite church by our Maronite priest. Given my partner was baptised as Chaldean, he is required to obtain 'Permission' from the Chaldean church to marry 'outside' of the Chaldean parish. The Chaldean church is refusing to provide this permission. According to Msgr. Paul MINGANA from St. Thomas Chaldean Cathedral NSW, from July 2019 Archbishop Amel Nona promulgated a law which stated that *no permission will be given to any Chaldean male from that date onwards, to get married in different rite, other than Chaldean Rite*. How is this possible? Is there a way around this? My partner is willing to be baptised as a Maronite if he needs to, but we have been advised that it is not possible to be baptised as a Catholic if you are already a Catholic. He has no involvement or connection with the Chaldean church. Can he change from the Chaldean rite to Maronite? Can he leave the Chaldean church? What are his options? Our wedding is only nine weeks away and this is becoming very urgent and causing us both a great deal of anxiety and stress. Thank you and God bless.

Is there anywhere in the bible that says Job and Jobab is the same person?

In 1927, the publisher P.J. Kenedy & Sons published the book "*Things Catholics are Asked About*" which has 37 chapters. Given the 1927 publishing date, I strongly suspect that the book is now in the public domain but I have not been able to find an archived PDF copy from a website in the Internet. About 10 years ago I found a website which has an online digital edition with a 1999 copyright by Michael A. Gallagher. The web page had 37 chapter buttons, whereupon clicking on one of them caused the entire chapter to appear. But I have no longer been able to find that site. It seems that I can obtain a used printed copy of the book [here](https://www.marys-usedbooks.com/product/25263/THINGS-CATHOLICS-ARE-ASKED-ABOUT) but I prefer a digital version, if it exists. QUESTION: Does anyone know where I may obtain a digital copy of "*Things Catholics are Asked About*" by Fr. Martin J. Scott, S.J., originally published in 1927 by P. J. Kenedy & Sons?

I've been meeting with a Jehovah's Witness lately for some study. I've asked questions similar to this and not received a clear/official answer - just an opinion. I've searched Google and only found the opinions and experiences of Witnesses who secretly use AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) or ex-Witnesses sharing their ideas. From those stories I think I have an idea of what the answer is, but I'm wondering what the official stance is (and why) if one exists.

Is an individual bishop in communion with the Church and Supreme Pontiff prevented from teaching/approving heresy via formal acts under the doctrines of Infallibility or Indefectibility?

I was thinking about [the amendments to the Catholic Church's teaching on the death penalty](Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes): > Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption. and it seems like this is a much less universal teaching. It works where "more effective systems of detention have been developed". My wife's cousin and her husband were missionaries in Malawi, a fairly Christianized African country unencumbered with the prison industrial complex of modern nations, where they witnessed an mob execution over a presumed goat theft. Now, that doesn't seem like justice, and isn't the standard to compare a western system of retributive or restorative justice against, but it does make me wonder if social teachings like the recent change to the death penalty (which prior to it had been understood to only accept the death penalty where society couldn't otherwise protect itself from the reckless mayhem of the criminal) and the ones Pope Francis issued in Laudato Si concerning fake news and internet trolls are really only applicable to a subset of Catholics or are they really universal principles? Does the Catholic Church ever specifically say that some principles apply to people in certain situations (i.e. stable Western Democracies) or are all the teachings meant to be universal?

Dr. Dan McClellan in a recent video says > "[T]he doctrine of creation ex nihilo is not found anywhere in the > Bible. The academic consensus is that it is a creation of 2nd century > Christianity that arose within debates between Christians and Gnostics > and other Greco-Roman thinkers. In addition, Genesis 1:1 is not best > translated as "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the > earth," but as a temporal clause: "When God began to create the > heavens and the earth," and then verse 2 describes the circumstances > that obtained at that time." Well, is he right? What is the Biblical basis for the doctrine of 'creation ex nihilo' (creation out of nothing)?

I became aware of a homily by St. John Chrysostom entitled "On the Cemetery's Name and the Cross" from [a blog post](https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/05/st-john-chrysostoms-homily-on-cemetery.html) by John Sanidopoulos. In the post, Sanidopoulos indicates that this sermon "has yet to be translated into the English language...." He further states that >The actual title of the sermon could be something like, "Why A Cemetery Is Named Thus." This homily is traditionally read during the services for the Tuesday of St. Thomas because it was originally delivered on this day. Sanidopoulos is a Greek Orthodox Christian, and so is referring to this liturgical tradition in the above quote. The [a blog post](https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/05/st-john-chrysostoms-homily-on-cemetery.html) goes on to cite some excerpts from the homily, translated into English (presumably by Sanidopoulos). I received assistance from a Logos Library Specialist back in 2020 to find out if the work was available in Logos Bible Software, and she informed me that it is not (thanks again, Katy Smith!). She was able to find it translated into Russian in: "Sermon on the Cemetery and the Cross," *Works of our Holy Father John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, in Russian Translation*, Vol. II, Book I, p. 431. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg theological Academy, 1896. At that time, the book was available on eBay for purchase, but was cost-prohibitive for me and [the link](https://www.ebay.com/i/223558593081?chn=ps&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-117182-37290-0&mkcid=2&itemid=223558593081&targetid=916015721030&device=c&mktype=pla&googleloc=9033356&poi=&campaignid=9343998885&mkgroupid=103102746908&rlsatarget=pla-916015721030&abcId=1139336&merchantid=6296724&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIvqiznaSv6gIVVh6tBh14OAeqEAYYASABEgK_wPD_BwE) is now dead (and was not archived on archive.org). I am looking for this sermon, ideally in Greek, but translated into any language is fine.

I am looking for the quotes of early Church Fathers describing the ability of the law. **Did they believe the law was never meant & able to justify or give life?** In other words, it did not justify anyone before the coming of the promise (Christ). I am sure about the views of Augustine and Jerome that they didn't believe the law could ever give life, but I need some more quotes. I didn't see that view being shown clearly from John Chrysostom's Homily on Galatians 3:21. It would be great if you can share the views of early fathers with unambiguous quotes, and if possible, do share the Greek text as well. I suspect Jerome and Augustine along with Marcion might have been the first known leaders who taught that the law was never able to justify, rather than its temporal end due to the coming of Christ. Christ being the end of the law-righteousness. (Rom 10:4). John Chrysostom quote from the Homilies of Chrysostom: > [\[Commentary - Galatians 3:21\]][1] Ver. 21. "For if there had been a law given which could make alive verily righteousness would have been of the Law." > >His meaning is as follows; If we had our hope of life in the Law, and our salvation depended on it, the objection might be valid. But if it save you, by means of Faith, though it brings you under the curse, you suffer nothing from it, gain no harm, in that Faith comes and sets all right. Had the promise been by the Law, you had reasonably feared lest, separating from the Law, you should separate from righteousness, but if it was given in order to shut up all, that is, to convince all and expose their individual sins, far from excluding you from the promises, it now aids you in obtaining them. This is shown by the words,

In chapter 24.1 of his authoritative book on the fourth century Arian Controversy - The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God - Bishop RPC Hanson discusses how the various parties in that controversy used the Bible to defend their positions. He concludes with an overview of the approach to Scripture of these parties. Tradition --------- Concerning tradition, Hanson notes: > “There is some truth in [the] assertion” that “Arians clung blindly > and woodenly to **Scripture** whereas the pro-Nicenes were ready to accept > Scripture within the context of **tradition** and a broad philosophical > outlook” (RH, 827). This comment reveals something about Hanson’s own hermeneutical preferences. As a bishop in the Church of Ireland, he condones reading Scripture “within the context of tradition.” But, to cling to Scripture as the only basis for doctrine, he rejects as a blind and wooden approach to Scripture. If we then remove Hanson’s own hermeneutical preferences from the comment above, we see that the Arians clung to Scripture while the pro-Nicenes were ready to accept Scripture within the context of tradition. Hanson explains why the pro-Nicenes appealed to tradition: > “The pro-Nicenes were always a little apprehensive of entering the > ground of Scripture in encounter with the Ariansm ‘because … their > language tended to support the archaising theology of the Arian'. The > pro-Nicenes were in consequence much readier to appeal to tradition.” > (RH, 847) He also explains what "tradition" means in this context: > "The pro-Nicenes did indeed appeal to 'the tradition of the Fathers', > very often meaning the creed N [the Nicene Creed]” (RH, 828) The pro-Nicene were unable to appeal to ‘tradition’ earlier than the Nicene Creed because the controversy was essentially about the words ousia, homoousios, and hypostasis in the Nicene Creed and, as Hanson states, these were “**new** terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy” (846) and, therefore, not supported by earlier ‘tradition’. Sola Scriptura -------------- While the pro-Nicenes appealed to ‘tradition’, the Arians insisted on Scripture as the only norm of faith. For example: > “The pro-Nicenes often remark on the invariable demand of the Arians > for Scriptural proof, and how they accuse the champions of Nicaea of > introducing the non-Scriptural term homoousios into the creed!” (RH, > 827) > > “'We do not call the Holy Spirit God' says an Arian writer, 'because > the Bible does not say so, but subservient to God the Father and > obedient in all things to the commands of the Son as the Son is to the > Father.” (RH, 830) > > Maximinius - a famous later ‘Arian’, “is more explicit: 'the divine > Scripture does not fare badly in our teaching so that it has to > receive improvement from us.” (RH, 831) But the pro-Nicenes also at least attempted to find their theology in the Bible: > “The pro-Nicene writers are equally insistent upon the unique > position of Scripture as a norm of faith.” (RH, 827) > > “A number of passages from pro-Nicene writers can be produced which > make them seem as devout observers of the text of the Bible as any > Arian. … Earnest but futile attempts are made to prove that the Bible > really does use the word ousia or substantia.” (RH, 829) > > “The pro-Nicenes are at their worst, their most grotesque, when they > try to show that the **new terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy** of > the day were really to be found in Scripture. The Greek speakers > cannot pretend that ousia appears in either Septuagint or New > Testament, but they rack the Bible to find examples of hypostasis, and > when they find it do their best to make the context appear relevant.” > (846) Hanson concludes: > “The best that can be said for this kind of juggling is that it showed > the almost desperate desire of the theologians to base their doctrine > on Scripture.” (847) > > The pro-Nicenes attempted “to read their doctrine into the Bible by > hook or by crook” (848). So, both sides in the Controversy accepted the principle of sola scriptura. Hanson explains: > “In this matter they were of course only reproducing the > presuppositions of all Christians before them, of the writers of the > New Testament itself, of the tradition of Jewish rabbinic piety and > scholarship.” (849) Sola scriptura, therefore, is one of the principles which all sides of the Controversy inherited and accepted. The difference was that the pro-Nicenes were less successful in showing that their doctrine is Biblical. The Problem ----------- Hanson explains what the pro-Nicenes did wrong. He refers to both sides of the Controversy when he says: > “The impression made on a student of the period [Hanson himself] that > the expounders of the text of the Bible are incompetent and > ill-prepared to expound it.” (RH, 848) > > “It was … the presuppositions with which they approached the Biblical > text that clouded their perceptions.” (RH, 849) > > “It was … the tendency to treat the Bible … apart from … the > 'oracular' concept of the nature of the Bible.” (RH, 849) > > ”The very reverence with which they honoured the Bible as a sacred > book stood in the way of their understanding it.” (RH, 849) The Solution ------------ Hanson also offers a solution: > “The defenders of the creed of Nicaea … were themselves engaged in > forming dogma … pro-Nicenes recognized that in forming their doctrine > of God they **could not possibly confine themselves to the words of > Scripture**, because the debate was about the meaning of the Bible, and > any attempt to answer this problem in purely Scriptural terms > inevitably leaves still unanswered the question 'But what does the > Bible mean?'” (848) > > “If the long and involved dispute > resulted in leading figures like Athanasius to some extent **standing > back from the Bible** and asking what was its intention, its drift (or > skopos), instead of plunging into a discussion of its details based on > an imperfect understanding of them, this was a gain and not an > unworthy attempt to **evade [avoid, dodge] the strict meaning of > Scripture**.” (849) Partisanship ----------------- This analysis of the arguments from Scripture during the fourth century Arian Controversy may surprise many readers. Hanson begins chapter 24 by saying that, thus far in the book, he had refused to take sides. He is hesitant to take sides because “the subject of the Arian controversy has suffered from a great deal too much partisanship [bias] at the hands of those who have written about it” (page 824). Hanson states that the “conventional account of the Controversy ... is … a complete travesty.” He concludes: “The diatribes of Gwatkin and of Harnack can today be completely ignored” (page 95). This is confirmed by the 2001 book by Archbishop Rowan Williams (Arius, Heresy & Tradition). It shows, due to new information about the fourth-century Arian Controversy that has become readily available during the 20th century, that the latest books on this subject paint a very different picture of that Controversy. The Question ------------ Following the principles mentioned above, I propose that Christian doctrines may be categorized as follows: > (1) Doctrines that explain the Bible using the Bible’s own words; > > (2) Doctrines that use non-Biblical words to describe things stated by > the Bible; > > (3) Doctrines that say things that are not in the Bible but that do > not necessarily contradict the Bible; and > > (4) Doctrines that contradict the Bible. I would assume that scholars would be able to significantly improve on my proposed categories, but if we accept these four, my question is twofold: > (a) Which of these categories of doctrines would be allowed by the > Protestant principle of sola scriptura? > > (b) Given the analysis above of the role of Scripture on the > development of the Trinity doctrine, to which category should we > allocate the Nicene Creed? And, consequently, would the Nicene Creed be acceptable within the > principle of sola Scriptura? See here for a copy of chapter v24.1 of Hanson's book.

In its discussion of marriage, the *Catechism of the Catholic Church* (*CCC*) states, "The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element"(*CCC* __1626__) that seals the covenant of matrimony. "If this freedom is lacking, the marriage is invalid." (*CCC* __1628__) The *CCC* goes on to say, "For this reason (or for other reasons that render the marriage null and void), the Church ... can declare a nullity of marriage, i.e., that the marriage never existed." (*CCC* __1629__) In consideration of this, it lends to question what the nature of the sexual relations were if the marriage never existed. However, that's an aside; it's the children of such a union I'm asking about. Presumptively, these are children baptized in the Church with godparents. __Is there a term for children born from what was thought to be a valid Catholic marriage whose parents then go through legal divorce and the Church delclares the marriage null__? Please no derogatory answers, but if there's something "you've heard somewhere," feel free to add as a comment with some context.

1 Corinthians 11:3 is > But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, and > the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. It seems we have **3 distinct beings** in the first part of the sentence. Christ, a given man, a given woman. Yet St. Paul here says that God is **also** the head of Christ, just as Christ is the head of a given man. How do Trinitarian theologians typically understand what St. Paul is saying here? What does 'God' mean? How is 'God' the head of Christ, if Christ is God?

> The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either > through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse > audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have > transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or > deletions as they please (Origen, Commentary on Matthew 15.14 as quoted in Bruce M. Metzger, "Explicit References in the Works of Origen to Variant Readings in New Testament manuscripts," in Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of Robert Pierce Casey, ed. J Neville Birdsall and Robert W. Thomson (Freiburg: Herder, 1968), 78—79; reference from Erhman, 223._ According to Bruce Metzger this indicated that all the manuscripts at Orgien's time were corrupt > Origen suggests that perhaps all of the manuscripts existing in his > day may have become corrupt.... (Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New > Testament. Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (second > edition 1979; first edition 1964), 152; citing Metzger, “Explicit > references in the works of Origen to Variant Readings in New Testament > Manuscripts,” in Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of Robert > Pierce Casey, ed. J.N. Birdsall (1963): 78–95.)

Jesus said, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). It would be a ridiculous thing for a mere human being to say this. This statement, therefore, seems to argue against a ‘mere man’ interpretation of Jesus. But who was speaking? The Arians of the fourth century believed that “the incarnate Word took to himself a body **without a soul or mind**” (RH, 110). In other words, they believe that it was “the incarnate Word” who said, “My Father is greater than I.” Consequently, the Arians believed that “the Gentiles and the peoples crucified the God of the four comers of the earth, and crucified him because he tolerated it” (RH, 109). [They did refer to the Son as “God.” They believed: > “The Son is 'God of everything that was made later than he … by the > providence of his God and Father, but the Father is God for the Son, > whose origin he is, as he is of all'.” (RH, 108)] So, their position is clear: > “The Arians dislike dividing Christ's words and acts into those > relevant to his human nature and those to his divine nature. It was > the God in Christ who died; he was that sort of vulnerable God.” (RH, > 103) My question is, in the Trinity doctrine, who said, “My Father is greater than I?” I am not asking which person of the Trinity said those words; I am asking which nature of Christ was speaking (or both?). RH = Bishop RPC Hanson - The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381 (1981)

How does Jesus's view of pacifism ("do not resist an evil person", "turn the other cheek", "I want mercy, not sacrifices", and "do not repay evil with evil") line up with the country's court systems and justice in general? 1. Why if someone kills my child and then I kill him, it is a sinful "revenge", but if brought to court and imprisoned it is not a sin? Isn't sentencing someone to lifetime prison for example "repaying with evil", too? What if the prisoner really repents and changes his life, but they never let him out and let him die there? 2. Why if I kill someone evil to stop him because he is a serial killer? Am I sinning because I am "resisting"? 3. What should I do if someone attacks me or my family and threatens their lives? Should I turn the other cheek? 4. Why is it a sin to stop (kill) someone who is well known evil person (e.g. drug dealer, killer, or rapist), but he is paying the court system and he never gets caught and sentenced? Why are we supposed to tolerate that? Because "it is not our job"? Did God appoint "jobs" only to certain people to seek justice and protect their neighbors? We are the image of God, we are supposed to dominate the planet and keep everything in place. In many occasions, evil can be stopped only with the death of the evil persons doing it. How is that supposed to work if we are also supposed to be like "sheep sent amongst wolves"?

It is generally accepted that Abraham lived 175 years . However, the dates when he lived are rather fuzzy and hotly debated. When was he alive and what reasons would you give for your conclusion? What methods have gone into determining the dates in which Abraham (and perhaps other early biblical figures) lived and died?