Here's a question for the community wiki. What are the top 10 Catholic academic journals in English? I can think of a few (*The Thomist*, *Nova et Vetera*, *Catholic Biblical Quarterly*), but I haven't been able to find a list anywhere. I'm looking for the top ten scholarly journals, sorted roughly by readership or some other criterion.

>Education is the food of youth, the delight of old age, the ornament of prosperity, the refuge and comfort of adversity, and the provocation to grace in the soul. Does anyone know in which of his writings, the above quote attributed to St. Augustine may be found? If not, does anyone know the *type* of education to which the above quote refers? I ask because for a thousand or so years after St. Augustine, the [*Imitation of Christ*](https://archive.org/details/TheImitationOfChristChalloner) , for example, admonishes us about devoting too much time acquiring secular knowledge at the expense of the spiritual with warnings such as these quotes from [Book 1 Chapter 3 (The Doctrine of Truth)](https://archive.org/details/TheImitationOfChristChalloner/page/n15/mode/2up) (translation by Rev. Richard Challoner, 1893): > *What availeth a great dispute about abstruse and obscure matters, for not knowing which we shall not be questioned at the Day of Judgment?* and > *Tell me where are now all those great doctors, with whom thou wast well acquainted, whilst they were living and flourished in learning? Now others fill their places, and I know not whether they ever think of them. In their lifetime they seemed to be something, and now they are not spoken of.*

Cory Asbury and Jaye Thomas's worship song [Shekinah](https://youtu.be/3zwrnHh0VrM) promotes this sort of prayer in its [lyrics](https://www.musixmatch.com/lyrics/Cory-Asbury-Jaye-Thomas/Shekinah) : > Lyrics of Shekinah by Cory Asbury, Jaye Thomas > > *verse* > We wait for You > We wait for You > We wait for You > To walk in the room > We wait for You > We wait for you > We wait for you > To walk in the room > We wait for you > We wait for you > We wait for you > To walk in the room > Here we are > Here we are > Standing in Your presence > Here we are > Standing in Your presence > **Shekinah glory come down** > **Shekinah glory come down** > Here we are > Standing in Your Presence > Here we are > Standing in Your Presence > **Shekinah Glory come down** > > *chorus* > Release the fullness of your spirit > **Shekinah glory come** > **Shekinah glory come** > Release the fullness of your spirit > **Shekinah glory come** > **Shekinah glory come** > > *verse* > You move and we want more > You speak and we want more > You move and we want more > We want the fullness > You move and we want more > You speak and we want more > You move and we want more > We want the fullness > > *chorus* > Release the fullness of Your Spirit > **Shekinah glory come** > **Shekinah glory come** > Release the fullness of Your Spirit > **Shekinah glory come** > **Shekinah glory come** > > *verse* > No I can′t get enough > Can't get enough > Said I can′t get enough of your Presence, Presence > I can't get enough of your presence, presence > I can't get enough of your presence, presence > Can′t get enough > Can′t get enough > You move and we want more > You speak and we want more > You move and we want more > We want the fullness > > *chorus* > Release the fullness of Your Spirit > **Shekinah glory come** > **Shekinah glory come** > Release the fullness of Your Spirit > **Shekinah glory come** > **Shekinah glory come** > > *verse* > We want more > We want more > We want more > We want more > We want more > We want more > More of your spirit > The Lord has given us freedom > Given us freedom > Given us joy > The Lord has given us freedom > Given us freedom > Given us joy > The Lord has given us freedom > Given us freedom > Given us joy > The Lord has given us freedom > Given us freedom > Given us joy > > *outro* > The Lord has given us freedom > Given us freedom > Given us joy > The Lord has given us freedom > Given us freedom > > Writer(s): Seth Josiah Yates, Jaye Thomas, Laura Hackett, Caleb Culver, Cory Hunter Asbury, James David Whitworth, James Robert Wells What's the biblical basis?

There's a concept that I heard used many times throughout my life in regards to idolatry. The idea is that inside each of us is a "God-shaped hole"--a place inside of our hearts that only God can fill. If we try to put anything else in there, it won't fit (meaning, it won't fill the need we have inside of our heart/soul). Where does this concept originate? Is it a biblical concept or just a fanciful rhetoric?

How do the proponents of the idea that salvation once received cannot be lost explain the following verses: Hebrews 6:4-6: > For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have > tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy > Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the > world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto > repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, > and put [him] to an open shame. and Hebrews 10:26-29: > For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of > the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain > fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall > devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy > under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose > ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of > God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was > sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of > grace? It seems to me that both places are about Christians who had once received salvation, but later lost it due to their change in mind or in faith.

Of course, we have many indications to that truth in the Old Testament, but it was only with the coming of Jesus Christ that it was spoken to humans in plain language that God has the Only-begotten Son. How is this matter explained in the Catholicism, the Eastern Orthodoxy and main-stream Protestant Christianity?

The word/term "trinity" is never used in the Bible. However, *most* Christians believe that God exists as three persons in one God-head. This question has two parts: 1. What is the Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity? 2. Are there any passages that directly show all three persons of God together - and what are they?

In Judaism you repent to get back to "normal" or back to God. Another reason is to stop the consequence of sin. So you have Thesuva (repenting) for a week before Yom kippur in order that God will bless you with a good year. Since the roots of Christianity comes from the Jews. And that the RCC see tradition and the mystical as something important just as in judaism. In the Old Testament repenting has to deal not only with your heart and emotions but also your actions, you had to pay for your mistakes not just change your mind and look forward. If not there will be a negative consequence but if one do repent God will heal the land. Almost every Church will teach that Jesus did take away the sins of the world, but He is also presented as the Lamb and did teach about repenting. So Is repenting the same as it always has been, or do we In the New Covenant repent in another way after the Cross? > Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near. (Mark 3:2) According to the RCC.

> **[Luke 18:19](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2018:19&version=NKJV)** (NKJV) > So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. My question is: is this contradictory? What does Jesus mean by this statement?

In [John 17:3](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2017:3&version=NIV) it says that Jesus called the Father the "only true God" and called himself sent by the Father. Also, in [Matthew 4:10](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%204:10;&version=NIV;) , Jesus himself says to: > ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’` What is the biblical basis for accepting Jesus as not only divine, but "god in the flesh"?

This question is addressed to those Christians who believe that those who never got a chance to hear the gospel will have a chance to accept Jesus Christ in the next life. How do you reconcile that belief with the verse in the book of Hebrews that says after we die we face judgment. *Hebrews 9:27* > And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment I need the perspectives of Post-Mortem evangelists, Thanks.

I've enjoyed reading Wesley's writings, but I'm struggling to find a decent account of Methodist systematics. Can anyone suggest anything notably Methodist in flavour or should I just pick up something by a mildly dissident Anglican?

According to Protestantism, why did God create humanity? I have been looking around this website for some Biblical verses, etc for some clues, but couldn't find any.

> For because of the wine of the anger of her fornication all the nations have fallen [victim], and the kings of the earth committed fornication with her, and the traveling merchants of the earth became rich due to the power of her shameless luxury.”—Revelation 18:3 (NWT ) I was wondering if anyone would be able to explain, in what way(s), "Babylon the Great" engaged in "Fornication"?

There is a famous quote from [sermon 23](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360323.htm) on the Feast of the Nativity by [Leo the Great](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_I) , the bolded text among the paragraph context below: > Thus in the whole and perfect nature of true man was true God born, complete in what was His own, complete in what was ours. And by ours we mean what the Creator formed in us from the beginning, and what He undertook to repair. For what the deceiver brought in, and man deceived committed, had no trace in the Saviour; nor because He partook of man's weaknesses, did He therefore share our faults. **He took the form of a slave without stain of sin, increasing the human and not diminishing the divine: for that emptying of Himself, whereby the Invisible made Himself visible, was the bending down of pity, not the failing of power.** The section context (II. The Arians could not comprehend the union of God and man) is clearly an articulation for the proper meaning of Christ's "emptying himself" (Phil 2:7) from his pre-existence, against Arianism. But **what did he mean by "increasing the human"** (part of the bolded text above)? Does it simply mean God "adding human nature" during Incarnation instead of "relinquishing divine nature" (which is unorthodox)? Or does it refer to "healing humanity" (for example: by "taking the sins of the world", [John 1:29](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201%3A29&version=CSB) , or by giving new life to us so we can "share in the divine nature", [2 Pet 1:4](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201%3A4&version=CSB)) since in the beginning of the paragraph he said something about "undertook to repair"? A good answer should try to do one or more of these: - shed light on possible translation issue from Latin to English - provide a link for a critical edition of the text - discuss how his original audience would have understood the meaning - include consideration that the language he used may not be precise if the sermon has been dated PRIOR to Chalcedon (since his papacy is from 440-461 AD) - include discussion on how the quote could have been cited in Patristic, Medieval, or post-Reformation theological text in discussing Christology. For example, if Aquinas quoted it, what's his understanding of "increasing the human"? - doctrines (maybe related to Eastern Orthodox *theosis*) that use it for support

I've seen throughout my life that the accepted symbol of prayer is both hands put together with the fingers pointing upward. I noticed that no one I can recall has ever prayed like that around me. I also noticed it's not in scripture to do that. Where did it originate, and why? ![Drawing of a pair of hands positioned palm-to-palm also known as praying hands ][1]

Pohle, *God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural* pt. 2, ch. 2, §3, art. 4, 1. claims: >It is a controverted question among theologians whether \[1\] original sin derives solely from Adam or \[2\] from both Adam and Eve as its efficient cause Which theologians held position #1, and which held position #2? Position #1 would seem to imply that Eve never had Original Sin, though she certainly committed an actual sin (of pride) by transgressing God's command. Position #2 would have to explain how Eve inherited or shared in Adam's sin. I'm not asking whether Adam or Eve is more culpable , but whether Adam alone or Adam with Eve is the cause of their children inheriting Original Sin.

St. Paul writes in 1 Cor. 12:23 : >And such as we think to be the less honourable (*ignobiliora*) members (ατιμότερα) of the body, about these we put more abundant honour: and those that are our uncomely (*inhonesta*) parts (ασχήμονα) have more abundant comeliness (*honestam*, ευσχημοσύνην). Upon which St. Thomas Aquinas commentates (as reported by Reginaldi de Piperno ): >Some members are called base in holy things, not on account of any baseness of sin, but on account of the disobedience of the genital parts, as a result of original sin. Or because they are directed to a base use, as the members which serve the emission of superfluities. To these a greater modesty is applied, when they are more carefully covered, which the members designed for nobler uses do not require. Hence he adds: Our more presentable parts do not require this, namely, external covering; hence no veil is used to cover the face. Are the genitals honorable or uncomely parts of the human body, according to Church fathers or doctors? It would seem they are one of the most honorable, because they help create new human life, and life is sacred. Genitalia would seem the most ignoble, because, as St. Thomas, they are difficultly subjected to man's will, due to Original Sin.

How can Jehovah's Witnesses, who view the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force of God, like electricity, explain the following Bible passages that distinguish the Holy Spirit from the power of God? Bible and theology professor Wayne Grudem, in a polemic with those who hold that the Spirit is simply the power of God, notes: > If we consider the Holy Spirit simply as the power of God and not as a separate person, then many texts simply lose their meaning, since they mention both the Holy Spirit Himself and His power or the power of God. For example, Luke 4:14: “And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee” would then mean: “And Jesus returned in the power of the power of God into Galilee.” And Acts 10:38: “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power” would mean: God with the power of God and with power anointed Jesus of Nazareth.” > > — Systematic Theology: Introduction to Biblical Teaching. St. Petersburg: Mirth, 2004. P. 248).

Obviously, the temptation began only after Eve spoke with Satan. Prior to that, it seems Adam and Eve had no trouble avoiding the forbidden tree, even though it stood in the midst of the garden. At least, we have no record suggesting they felt any temptation. However, it was only after Eve's conversation with Satan that she saw the tree as attractive and its fruit as desirable for food. So, why didn’t the all-knowing God — who surely knew that Satan’s words would have triggered temptation — give them a commandment not to speak to him? EDIT: Ok, here we go again: I want to know the perspectives on this matter from the Catholicism, the Orthodoxy, and the main-stream Protestantism (which is believers in Christ who besides addressing God the Father, also address Jesus in their prayers).