Did St. Augustine think sexual pleasure and concupiscence are identical? If not, why do some people seem to think this? Concupiscence is simply a disorder in which the body rebels against the rational soul; this is something completely different from pleasure.

Pope Leo XIII's encyclical _Rerum Novarum_ asserts that there is a right to private property. But is this an [absolute right](https://dictionary.justia.com/absolute-right) or only a limited or qualified right based on circumstances under the natural law?

How do scholars differentiate between a Covenantal and Dispensational view of Biblical understanding? Covenant people criticize Dispensationalists for cutting up the Bible narrative into distinct parts, for saying God deals with his people in different ways in different times. They prefer to use the word "Covenant" instead of Dispensation, but isn't this the same thing using a different word? Covenantal people divide the Bible into different covenants, explaining how God deals with his people in different ways in different times. What would help me make up my mind concerning this dilemma?

This is perhaps a bit hard to express precisely, but hopefully you know what I mean when I say that in your head, you can think of certain concepts or ideas in quite a bit of detail without phrasing them in terms of actual words, inside your head. For example, if I’ve just woken up, I might think inside my head that I want to brush my teeth and take a shower, without actually thinking inside my head the sentence “I want to brush my teeth and take a shower”. The concept of wanting to go brush teeth and take a shower can almost be expressed in a single “feeling” before being put into words, even inside someone’s head. Suppose that someone is trying to pray to God, but that person is also quite bad with phrasing things. They want to pray to God and ask X, but they struggle to actually phrase what X is, either out loud, or even inside their head. They know for sure what X is as a “feeling”, in the same sense someone can coherently “feel” the desire “I want to brush my teeth and take a shower” without actually putting it into words. Can they pray for X by just asking something like, “God, please help me with this thing, Amen.”? I assume that they can, since as God is omnipotent, He knows what the person’s desire is. I know that this site is for Christians in general and perhaps views differ on this (I don’t know if they do) so if this is a “Catholics think A, Protestants think B” kind of thing, then that would be great to know. Apologies if this could be clearer - you may have guessed that I’m such a person who is bad with words.

Is committing adultery the same thing as having a concubine? Is having a concubine a form of adultery?

Jesus said 'the words that I speak unto you - they are spirit and they are life'. Paul also made it clear that if one receives the exact word of the true gospel (rather than, for example, the legal admixture which he opposed in Galatia) then Christ, himself, will be 'formed within'. >My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you, [Galatians 4:19 KJV]. This being 'formed within' is the real presence of Christ himself, in Spirit, consequent upon real repentance and a saving faith. The Strict and Particular Baptist movement of the early and middle 1800s, led first by William Huntington and then by William Gadsby, John Warburton and J.C.Philpot, stood strongly for real experience of conviction of sin, repentance of an evangelical kind (not mere legal remorse) and a real closing with Christ himself in felt union. Thereafter came a weakened expectation and a reliance on a 'decision' which fell short of real regeneration. The general term 'easy believism' has been, loosely, used to describe this. I am looking for any gatherings (or even a whole denomination, if there be such) which follow in the footsteps of the Strict and Particular Baptists in this regard, both in doctrine and in practice and in fellowship. My own experience, in the south west of England, is that the denomination called 'Gospel Standard Strict Baptist' is far from its origins in the previous two centuries, though they do, in word, adhere to certain doctrine and practice that is reminiscent of their beginnings. My question is addressed to Reformed and Trinitarian, Baptist Protestantism. But I would not discount Presbyterianism. What is easy believism ?

Would it be an invalid confession if the penitent brings a written list of sins for the priest to read, instead of speaking himself? (This is assuming there are no extenuating circumstances like the person being unable to speak)

I was in a debate with someone recently who claimed that "God does not require governments to follow Christian behaviour", even if those governments are composed of Christians, are elected by Christians, and explicitly call themselves Christian. The claim is that this means it's OK for Christians to vote for a government that violates Christian behaviour on a regular basis. I'm interested in arguments *against* this position, and in order not to make this question an argument let's restrict ourselves to reasons that governments *should* (in general) follow Christian teaching. I'm aware that there will be some things that governments are permitted to do that a private individual shouldn't, like enforce the law or go to war, but I'm not talking about those. I'm interested in countering the idea that governments may do anything they like, no matter how much it contradicts Christian teaching. Answers from a Protestant viewpoint preferred, especially Evangelical Protestant.

In Genesis 4, we read the following account of Cain and Abel: > So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the Lord of the fruit of the ground. Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And **the Lord had regard for Abel and for his offering; but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard.** So Cain became very angry and his countenance fell. Genesis 4:3-5 The story continues that Cain continued in anger and ended up murdering Abel. So, Cain's offering was not accepted by God, while Abel's offering was. Why was this so? What was it about Cain's offering that made it unacceptable, what was it about Abel's offering that made it acceptable?

> Ge 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely **die**. (KJV) The penalty for sin is death. > Ge 3/19 In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. **For dust you are and to dust you will return**.” Death means going back to the dust of the ground. Ao, Will Adam and Eve be resurrected to **eternal life ** and why do you answer that way? This question is for mainstream evangelicals. ----- > John 17:3 And this is **life eternal**, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. (KJV)

Drawing a parallel to the test given to Christians by God, could it be that access to the tree of life was going to be granted to Adam and Eve if they passed that test. |Adam and Eve | Christians | | -------- | -------------- | | Test was to resist eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil |Test is to have faith in the Son of God | | A serpent tricked them to eat from that tree | An ancient serpent makes war on all Christians who keep the commandments of God | |There was a tree in that garden called the tree of life, though access was blocked after they sinned|Jesus grants access to a tree of life which is in the paradise of God| Since the devil acted independently to cause the fall of Adam and Eve then it can be conluded that God was against this scheme by the devil which raises the question, was the tree of life there as a rewad if Adam and Eve stood by what God commanded them? *Genesis 3:22* >And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

The devil deceived Eve into eating what was forbidden. She then persuaded Adam to do likewise. After eating, they gained knowledge of good and evil. It is my view that God's true intentions, his omnibenevolence, is presented in the Ten Commandments and the Bible. Basically they are a moral guide to overcome the sin we all inherited from Adam and Eve. But what was Eve's situation before the bite? Did she have knowledge of good and evil? Was she pure still and acting as God meant her to act? Why is gaining knowledge of good and evil in the devil's advantage? Because she had no knowledge of the bad yet? She knew the good neither. Wasn't it a great gift then, the devil gave her with the apple? What gain had the devil to give her knowledge of the good? If Eve had no knowledge of good, how she could act good? By divine instinct? What was in it for the evil devil Satan, disguised as a luring snake? Was this, as the fallen angle, his way to take revenge on God? By letting people know what is bad? At the same time he gave knowledge of the good. Wasn't it better to give Eve knowledge of the bad only?

I think everyone knows that the name Jesus is Greek, but why don’t Jehovah’s Witnesses use his Hebrew name, which is closer to *Joshua* than to *Jesus*?

### Background Protestants who believe that the sin of Adam/Eve caused a fall in creation appear to believe some variation of the following : > The fall of man was caused by Adam’s sin. Sin is any human behavior, word, or thought that is contrary to the perfection of God. Because of Adam’s sin, God placed a curse upon the world, the people, the animals, the plants, and the very ground (Genesis 3:14–19). The idea of sin "entering the world" via Adam and Eve is also found in the NT: > Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned - Romans 5:12 ### Question If the sin of Adam and Eve caused the Fall of Creation and sin to enter the world, one could imagine had they not sinned the eternal fate of all humanity would hover on a knifes edge until someone else sinned. Do Christians believe there was something unique about Adam and Eve and their sin where they (and only they) could cause the fall?

I'm currently fascinated by extraordinary cases of NDEs reported by individuals who have been declared blind from birth. I recently watched a 33-minute video (available [here](https://youtu.be/5qX0zBUYLFs)) featuring an interview with one of such blind-from-birth NDEers (title of the video: *Vicki Noratuk Blind Person NDE*). This case is quite impressive, because the lady in question experienced two NDEs in which she saw very vivid details of her surroundings as she left her body, with what appeared to be perfect 20/20 vision in spite of her congenital blindness, in addition to the evidently mystical aspects of her story, which includes being transported at extraordinary high speed to a paradise in heaven, meeting deceased loved ones and even Jesus himself. In fact, this case is put forward as a strong piece of evidence by a [journal article](https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799333/m2/1/high_res_d/vol16-no2-101.pdf) titled *Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences in the Blind: A Study of Apparent Eyeless Vision*, Kenneth Ring, Ph.D. Sharon Cooper, M.A. University of Connecticut. Journal of Near-Death Studies, 16(2) Winter 1997. 1997 Human Sciences Press, Inc. These cases are fascinating to me because they are harder to "explain away" skeptically by appealing to naturalistic hypotheses, such as (1) *the Dream Hypothesis*, (2) *Retrospective Reconstruction*, (3) *Blindsight*, and (4) *Skin-based Vision* (which the aforementioned article mentions explicitly and eliminates one by one). Having said all this, I would like to know if these sorts of reports are supported by or at least theoretically consistent with the Bible. Do NDEs find support in Sacred Scripture?

I know that some key fighters for Irish independence were Anglican, and that Ireland has had an ambivalent relationship with Catholicism in modern times. That said, has there been any serious effort by Irish Catholic bishops to reclaim Church of Ireland properties like Christ Church Cathedral or St. Patrick's Cathedral?

During a conclave, the participants (cardinals) come from all over the world. Is there a *lingua franca* which they are all expected to master at least at a conversational level? (I am guessing that this would be Italian, or English, or (probably not) Latin). Or are they expected to somehow manage between themselves, though overlapping language capacities? (A speaks Italian, B speaks Italian and French, C speaks French - so after some gymnastics A, B and C can be more or less synchronized). I do not believe they have translation services for confidentiality reasons.

In providing this answer with respect to recognizing the Trinity in the Old Testament, I noticed that Jesus is called the Father which could be confusing when trying to understand the Trinity. **In what sense is Jesus the Father but certainly not the Father?** >For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, **Everlasting Father**, Prince of Peace. (NIV Isaiah 9:6) **Please do not answer unless your answers uphold the doctrine of the Trinity**. I do not want the debate about the trinity to confuse the question. The answer must assume the Trinity is true, that is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equal yet different persons that share the same single divine nature and therefore are called the One and true God.

I am looking for a recording of the "Habemus Papam" proclamation for Pope Leo XIV. I found this video from CNN , but it has added audio in English. Where can I find a recording of this proclamation in Latin only?

How does Catholicism respond to this? From what I understand in some responses, a Catholic may accept this text as referring to either the particular or general judgment, but I don’t understand how 1 Corinthians 3, if referring to the general judgment, could support the doctrine of purgatory. It seems to go against the dogma. Defense: 1 Corinthians 3:15 The passage that Catholics generally use—based on their own distortion—is the one that supposedly speaks of a purifying fire. They quote the following passage: >“If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.” (1 Corinthians 3:15 – Ave-Maria Version) To understand the nature of this “fire,” it is crucial to examine the context of the passage. In the Catholic version, the broader passage reads: >“If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.” (1 Corinthians 3:12–15) It is clear that Paul is not referring to an ordinary day, but to the Day of Judgment before the Tribunal of Christ. The challenge for defenders of the Catholic doctrine lies in the fact that, according to Scripture, this Day of Judgment takes place at Christ’s second coming—which has not yet occurred—and by then, there would no longer be any “purgatory” available for purification. That intermediate state would have given way to the eternal state. This is why Paul declares: >“In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge...” (2 Timothy 4:1) Paul refers to that “Day” for himself before dying, in the hope of being rewarded at the Tribunal of Christ at His coming: >“Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.” (2 Timothy 4:8) We see that this Day of Judgment is intrinsically linked to Jesus’s return, when His Kingdom will be fully revealed. On that Day—according to Catholic teaching—there would no longer be a purgatory for postmortem purification. Therefore, the text cannot be referring to purgatory. Even the Jerusalem Bible (a Catholic Bible) has a footnote that nearly admits this verse does not speak about purgatory: >“1 Corinthians 3:15: That is, like someone escaping through flames. Such a person is saved barely. Purgatory is not directly considered here, though this text, along with others, was used by the Church to explain the doctrine.” Newer versions of the Jerusalem Bible now give a shorter note: >“1 Corinthians 3:15: That is, like someone escaping through flames. Such a person is saved barely.” It almost seems like they are omitting the earlier note that stated explicitly that purgatory is not considered in the text. To address this difficulty, Catholic theologians developed the doctrine of the “two judgments”—a concept absent from the Eastern Church. According to this Roman Catholic perspective, there are two judgments: the particular judgment, which occurs immediately after death and begins the intermediate state; and the general judgment, which takes place at Christ’s second coming, ending that intermediate state. Therefore, under this view, each person goes through two judgments: the individual and the general. They argue that 1 Corinthians 3:15 refers to the individual judgment after death, not the general judgment at Christ’s second coming. However, this explanation introduces significant theological problems. First, the context of 1 Corinthians 3:15 seems to point to the general judgment rather than a personal one. Verse 13 says: >“...the Day will bring it to light; it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work.” There are two aspects supporting the idea of the general judgment at Christ’s second coming. First, the Day will “bring to light” the sins hidden during life. Jesus said that “nothing is hidden except to be made manifest, nor is anything secret except to come to light” (Mark 4:22). Historically, this has been interpreted as referring to the general judgment, when all will be gathered and the sins of each person exposed—nothing hidden will remain hidden. Moreover, verse 13 says the fire will test the work of “each one,” not of one person individually. The text implies a general assembly, where many are judged, not a private encounter with God after death.