In the book HOLY ABANDONMENT by Rt. Rev. Dom Vitalis Lehodey, O.C.R. we read: ""The signified will comprises a fourfold object: the commandments of God and of His Church, the evangelical counsels, Divine inspirations, our particular rules and constitutions." and "With regard to the counsels, He certainly would like us to observe them also, yet He rather desires this than wills it absolutely. Hence we do not forfeit His friendship by failing in courage to undertake the practice of the counsels, provided we do not treat them with contempt. We are not even permitted to take upon us the observance of them all, but of such of them only as are conformable to our state of life, some of the counsels being opposed to others. . . . " https://www.catholictradition.org/Classics/abandonment2.htm The evangelical counsels are poverty, chastity and obedience. A Carmelite website has the following text: "They are called the ‘evangelical’ counsels because we find them lived and therefore recommended (counselled) by Jesus in the four accounts of the Gospel (‘evangelium’ in Latin). Jesus Christ was poor in spirit, chaste in heart, and obedient in love to the will of his Father." https://carmelite.org/spirituality/evangelical-counsels/ That text seems to say that chastity and obiendience is not something that is required for a good life. For some unchastity and disobedience are ok. Rt. Rev. Dom Vitalis Lehodey, O.C.R. says: "With regard to the counsels, He certainly would like us to observe them also, yet He rather desires this than wills it absolutely." He also seems to say the exact thing. The Catechism (CCC 2349) states "People should cultivate [chastity] in the way that is suited to their state of life." This text seems to say that chastity is for everyone and even required for a good life. Rt. Rev. Dom Vitalis Lehodey, O.C.R. says: "We are not even permitted to take upon us the observance of them all, but of such of them only as are conformable to our state of life, some of the counsels being opposed to others. . . . " He seems to say that the evangelical counsels can be opposed to each other. What is he actually saying? Does he use "counsels" to refer to something else than the evangelical counsels? Why do some Catholic writers say, or seem to say, that chastity and obedience are not for required for a good life?

According to the Catholics, Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. Which denominations also teach that those who have not heard the Gospel and are ignorant of Christ can be saved if they seek the truth and obey God?

Since all evil acts come down to disobedience against god, are all evil acts equivalent? Is no sin worse than any other sin? If one sin is worse than another sin does that imply that one act can be more disobedient than another act? Is sin and/or disobedience absolute or does it have a degree?

My question stems from considering the content found in https://www.facebook.com/MiraclesTruth/photos/a.268944276778281/1277844892554876/?type=3 regarding an unnamed bishop and the correction given to him by the hand of Pope St. Pius X--- > As Pope, St. Pius X had to correct and reprimand several bishops and priests who had fallen into heresy or were flirting dangerously close to that edge. Some of the French prelates who supported the Sillon (a precursor to modern Liberation Theology) were particularly problematic. >One bishop who had been reprimanded continued to act against the Catholic Faith. Pope Pius X called him to Rome. When the bishop entered he made the customary genuflection before the Pope and waited to be acknowledged so he could rise. Pope Pius X remained busy at his desk ignoring the bishop for three quarters of an hour. This was a small penance which the saintly pontiff was imposing. >At last, Pope Pius raised his eyes and looked the bishop directly in the eyes, holding his gaze steady and stern. Without a word he rose and walked over to the kneeling figure. Then he greeted him: "Good morning, your Excellency." Before the Bishop could arise, Pope Pius X swiftly removed the zucchetto from the Bishop’s head and placed it on the edge of his desk. He then dismissed him, >"Have a good day, Father." >And that was the end of the meeting. No more words had to be spoken. QUESTION: Can a Catholic bishop be deprived of his ecclesiastical rank as bishop without being defrocked? If so, does (anyone know with certainty) if the manner in which the bishop's *zuchetto* was taken by the pope suggest that the former was no longer a bishop? Thank you.

Regarding Catholic Saints who were members of the laity---I would like to know if there are any who disobeyed their parents in order not to commit sin. (I exclude superiors here, for one could name perhaps all or most of the martyrs.) Regarding Catholic Saints who were religious---were there any who disobeyed either their immediate superiors or parents in order to avoid sin? (I know, for instance, that St. Thomas Aquinas' family was against him joining the Dominican order and hired a prostitute in order to tempt him---but I don't know if either parent was involved.)

I have read at various times in the past regarding the devil's ability to pretend even humility, but his utter inability to feign *obedience.* Recently, I have tried to find some quotes from Catholic Saints regarding this, but the closest thing I have been able to come up with is the following excerpt from St. Faustina's Diary (939): > A soul that will not fully submit its inspirations to the strict control of the Church; that is, to the director, clearly shows by this that a bad spirit is guiding it. The director should be extremely prudent in such cases and test the soul's obedience. Satan can even clothe himself in a cloak of humility, but he does not know how to wear the cloak of obedience and thus his evil designs will be disclosed. The above quote relates to spiritual direction and the obedience due thereof. QUESTION: What quote(s) are there from other Saints regarding the weapon of obedience to overcome the devil---and Satan's utter loss to defend against it?

My understanding of history is that: - During the times of the early Roman Empire the stance of the persecuted Christians was that they recognize the authority of the State and the Emperor and obey them, with the only exception of when the State orders them to sin (ie renounce their faith and worship false gods). God's authority is above the authority of the State, however, whenever the authority of the State does not clash with the authority of God then the State must be obeyed. For this reason when the State was condemning early Christians to death for their religious obstinacy then early Christians thought they now had the duty to obey the order of the State, which was to let the executioners kill them; as doing so was not a sin (as opposed to themselves killing others or renouncing faith) early Christians were not even attempting to escape or to rebel, but were obediently letting the State kill them. (This is sometimes brought even in contemporary times by preachers who advocate the doctrine that all people must unconditionally obey secular powers at all times with the only exception of when the secular power orders them to sin.) - However, in Medieval times, the Pope had the authority to free subjects of a king from the duty to obey him by excommunicating him. Excommunication, as far as I understand, is a formal declaration that someone is outside of the Church. Thus, it would seem to me, in Medieval times the Church did not teach that all must always obey the State, however vicious that State might be; to the contrary, Christians had to obey kings only as long as the Pope recognized these Kings were in full communion with the Church. This seems contradictory to me. Am I failing to understand something? Or did the teachings of the Church on that matter indeed change in between of Ancient and Medieval times?

We read a text in Scripture like: > “Therefore submit to God. **Resist the devil and he will flee from you**.” > ‭‭James‬ ‭4:7‬ **Q**: **What does it mean that a Christian submits to God, resists the devil, but the devil doesn’t leave?**

Having attended a number of churches, at least one of which claimed to be 'non-denominational,' I have been subjected to listening to this teaching, which I have seen used to try to convince people that they should completely ignore all their feelings, whether they be feelings of physical or emotional pain or of joy, and simply adhere to the teachings of the Bible regardless. At worst, this means someone feeling terrible pain and sickness being told they have been healed by the stripes of Yeshua and just to thank Him for that without changing anything else in their lives. One scripture I've heard quoted to support such a reading is: > For we walk by faith, not by sight. (2 Cor 5.7) I'm just wondering if anyone knows of any others and furthermore, if anyone knows of any examples of the reasoning from the scriptures used by people who claim to believe the Bible and read it in this way.

If universal reconciliation is true- so that everybody will *eventually* come to know God because of his son Yeshua, and therefore nobody will have their flesh burned forever and ever- why should we obey God?

["Free Grace" theology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Grace_theology) is a strand of Evangelical soteriology that holds that sanctification does not necessarily follow the conversion and justification of a person – that is, those saying that they believe in Jesus do not need to become obedient disciples of him in order to be saved. This view is certainly controversial, and rejected by many prominent Evangelicals, both Arminians and Calvinists (cf. [Lordship salvation controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lordship_salvation_controversy)) . One difficulty with the view, it seems to me, is associated with the salvation of Judas Iscariot. The Bible refers to Judas Iscariot as a "disciple" of Jesus ([John 12:4](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+12:4&version=ESV)) , but at the same time it seems to indicate that he was not saved ([Matthew 26:24](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+26%3A24&version=ESV) , [John 6:70](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+6%3A70&version=ESV)) . **According to Free Grace theologians, is Judas Iscariot an example of a "carnal Christian," someone who "believes in Jesus" but doesn't obey him, and ultimately goes to heaven?** Or do they explain Judas in some other way, such as that he was saved and then lost his salvation, or that he was never saved? Here I'm focusing on modern Free Grace theologians, like L. S. Chafer, Charles Ryrie, Zane Hodges, and Bob Wilkins. If they take different approaches to this question, I'd like an overview of their views. Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/9152/21576

Although it is a theoretical question, it is still very interesting for me. Is there a system of beliefs or at least a name for people who believe in the existence of God and that events described in the Bible did take place, but refuse to obey God and his commandments?

So Augustine, Aquinas and King agree that we, as Christians and free people are not required to follow human laws that do not comply with the natural moral law >. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all." > > Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. That's well and good for the evil that men do, but what about the pointless things that men do. Both in terms of the laws of government like those [dictating the use of butter substitutes in the dairy state](http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/wisconsin) and those edicts in our every day lives and offices such as, "all men on yhe second floor must poop in the basement even though there's a bathroom close by"? Does the natural law, which has a lot to say about man's inherent dignity, override ones moral duties to follow laws and command which are, not wicked or unjust, but just either below ones dignity to follow, not a matter of gracious obedience or self-perfection, or just plain dumb?

I hope this question is unique here, but I assure you I have searched and have not yet seen it. (This question is close, but not quite the same.) Adam and Eve were given two commandments: 1) Multiply and replenish the earth, and 2) not eat of the forbidden fruit. From what I understand, some Christian denominations believe the commandments to be paradoxical; one cannot be kept without breaking the other. Within the scope of those Christian denominations which view the two commandments as both impossible to keep while in the Garden of Eden: Why couldn't they keep both of these commandments, for surely they would have if they could?

I don't believe government laws should be honoured. In the bible, especially the NT, it makes clear that this world is ruled by Satan. Governments carry out capital punishment and support most of the things that are anti-Christ. In addition, Christ told us that kingdom of God is not of this world. **But I have seen people say that faithful Christians should obey and respect government laws. What is the reasoning for that?**

I can't get the wording exactly right on this question, and it's gonna take some explaining. Nephi says this about the Lord's commandment to get the brass plates, >"for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them." (1 Nephi 3:7) Later, when trying to keep the commandment to get the brass plates, he and his brothers failed twice, but he said, >"As the Lord liveth, and as we live, we will not go down unto our father in the wilderness until we have accomplished the thing which the Lord hath commanded us. Wherefore, let us be faithful in keeping the commandments of the Lord;" (1 Nephi 3:15-16) Later he says, >"And it came to pass that thus far I and my father had kept the commandments wherewith the Lord had commanded us." (1 Nephi 5:20) His last words in the Book of Mormon are, >"For what I seal on earth, shall be brought against you at the judgment bar; for thus hath the Lord commanded me, and I must obey. Amen." It seems clear to me that every commandment can be obeyed. But it's very hard, especially to obey constantly. I'd like to know why was he able to do it? I believe at the root of that is the question: Why did he believe he could do it rather than believing he would eventually fail? The obvious answer is that it isn't his own strength, but the grace of God that makes this possible, but what makes the enabling power of the Atonement available constantly rather than "every so often"? I'm not sure how to believe that obeying the commandments is really truly all the time possible, and I think I'm misunderstanding the doctrine of grace.

Clearly not all governments are based on Christian principles. Should Christians be bound to obey the civil laws of their respective countries (states, cities, whatever) even if they disagree with the basis for the laws? Please answer in general about how Christians fit into civil law and worldly authority structures, but feel free to use specific examples if they help to clarify. For example, do we have to pay fines, obey speed limits or submit to curfews?

In the Bible God gives many commands, but he doesn't seem to have to keep all of them himself. For example in the Ten Commandments God instructs his people not to murder (Exodus 20:13). But God frequently executes people himself, such as when he killed Korah and his 250 followers in Numbers 16. Why doesn't God have to keep his own commandment not to kill? To disobey any of God's commandments is sinful. So how can God ignore them? Does the Bible explain why?

Firstly I believe that prayer can change God's mind. Like when Moses asked God to not smite the Israelites. But **when** can our prayers change the will/mind of god? I believe we have to pray that God's will be done, regardless of whether His will lines up with what we pray for. But like in Moses' case, he prayed *against* the will of God. Is this because God made His will known to Moses, that he could pray for God to change his mind? Can we only pray for God to change his will when he shows us what it is, and the rest of the time we have to pray for it to happen? (Obviously we will sometimes unintentionally pray against God's will, if we do not know what it is, but that's not what I'm talking about).

The story of Abraham is talking about a man, who is punished by God to victimize his son, to prove his faith ([Gen 22:1–19](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%2022:1%E2%80%9319&version=NIV)) . Abraham decides to follow his God by killing his own son. But at the last moment, God says 'Stop', and accepts an animal as sacrifice. Blind obedience seems to be the main value, taught by this story. Do, what the authorities tell you! However, this is totally against our modern ethics: Killing a person, just to prove something, is considered evil. Now the victimization did not actually take place in the story, but Abraham is praised for doint, what he was told. So does blindly following God justify everything? You could say that this is just a Jewish story, from the Old Testament, but the story is repeated later, whith different roles: God is victimizing his own son, Jesus, to prove his faith in man. For the parallels, see: [Mark 1:11](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%201:11&version=NIV) , [Romans 8:23](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:23&version=NIV) , and [John 3:16](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:16&version=NIV) . But how can the sacrificing of a human be considered a moral behavior? I was taught that instrumenting a person, using somebody like a thing, exploiting somebody is the root of all evil. Do moral laws that apply to humans not apply to God (even though he created man after his own image)? Did he create moral laws for humans that he does not uphold? The main question is, as stated in the headline: Is it moral to sacrifice your son in order to grant favor with God?