My interpretation of the First Cause argument for the Existence of God attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas and the essence of which perhaps goes back to Aristotle, appears in my mind to be valid provided that we assume that every phenomenon has an explanation (whether known or unknownst to us) and that each effect must have some preceding cause. It is argued, of course, that this chain can not regress backwards infinitely far---therefore, there must be a *First Cause* (or *Prime Mover*), which is God. Can someone either explain or refer me to a source that explains in simple, crystal clear terms, why infinite regress is so *obviously* impossible?

We read on [p. 15](https://archive.org/details/a591687700mannuoft/page/n18/mode/1up) of Cardinal Henry Edward Manning's [*Lectures:*](https://dn790008.ca.archive.org/0/items/a591687700mannuoft/a591687700mannuoft.pdf) >A man whom Englishmen are fond of calling the greatest philosophical intellect that England ever produced, in one of his essays, has used these words: Quoting the book of Psalms, he says, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." It is not said, "The fool hath thought in his heart;" that is, the fool did say so in his heart, because he hoped there might be no God. He did not say it in his head, because he knew better. Based on the context of the text from which the extract was taken, it appears that the unnamed philosopher was an atheist or sorts. Cardinal Manning died in 1892. I vaguely recall having read something some time ago in which Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) quoted Psalm 14:1 to suit his purposes, but I have since not been able to locate it. Besides, it is quite unlikely, I think, that Cardinal Manning was referring to someone who was at most in his twenties when the comment was made. Also, I have not been able to determine if David Hume had ever quoted from the Psalms. (I thought he might be a candidate.) QUESTION: Does anyone know (or know likely) whom Cardinal Manning was referring to in the above extract? If so, can you also provide the source where Ps. 14:1 is used by that person? Thank you.

Rather than busting out a KJV and a JST and comparing them verse by verse I am lazily hoping that there is, somewhere, a list which has already been generated providing all of the verses from the Bible which the JST has modified or allegedly 'restored'?

Does a Christian apologist aiming to uphold the accuracy and reliability of modern Bibles require a strong understanding of textual criticism? Put differently, when making a comprehensive argument supporting the truthfulness of various claims within the Bible—such as the Genesis creation story or the historical account of Jesus's resurrection in the Gospels and Acts—would the Christian apologist need to rely on arguments from textual criticism to substantiate the claim that the content in our contemporary Bibles is indeed accurate and reliable, despite thousands of years of transcription, translation, and potential manipulation since the writing of the original manuscripts? If possible, I would appreciate answers referencing books that have been published at the intersection of Christian apologetics and textual criticism. --- *Food for thought for those who think apologetics is an irrelevant or unnecessary discipline* These are some of my previous questions on this topic. Some of the answers are quite insightful and worth the read: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/99924/61679 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100436/61679 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100928/61679

I previously posed the question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101219/61679 , an [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/101246/61679) to which contended that one doesn't need to rely on Biblical inerrancy or a specific exegetical method to assert a young Earth. Instead, it suggested that the purportedly ample scientific evidence is enough to support this conclusion. To substantiate its position, the linked answer cited the article titled [The 10 Best Evidences from Science That Confirm a Young Earth](https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/10-best-evidences-young-earth/) published on Answers in Genesis. The article opens by asserting the following: > The earth is only a few thousand years old. That’s a fact, plainly revealed in God’s Word. So we should expect to find plenty of evidence for its youth. And that’s what we find—in the earth’s geology, biology, paleontology, and even astronomy. > > Literally hundreds of dating methods could be used to attempt an estimate of the earth’s age, and the vast majority of them point to a much younger earth than the 4.5 billion years claimed by secularists. The following series of articles presents what Answers in Genesis researchers picked as the ten best scientific evidences that contradict billions of years and confirm a relatively young earth and universe. The article then proceeds to list ten lines of evidence supporting a young Earth: 1. [Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor](https://answersingenesis.org/geology/sedimentation/1-very-little-sediment-on-the-seafloor/) 2. [Bent Rock Layers](https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rock-layers/2-bent-rock-layers/) 3. [Soft Tissue in Fossils](https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/3-soft-tissue-in-fossils/) 4. [Faint Sun Paradox](https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/sun/4-faint-sun-paradox/) 5. [Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field](https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/5-rapidly-decaying-magnetic-field/) 6. [Helium in Radioactive Rocks](https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/6-helium-in-radioactive-rocks/) 7. [Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds](https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/7-carbon-14-in-fossils-coal-and-diamonds/) 8. [Short-Lived Comets](https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/comets/8-short-lived-comets/) 9. [Very Little Salt in the Sea](https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/9-very-little-salt-in-the-sea/) 10. [DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria](https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/antibiotic-resistance/10-dna-in-ancient-bacteria/) Are there published responses from Old-Earth Creationists and/or Theistic Evolutionists addressing the Young-Earth Creationist interpretation of these ten lines of evidence? I'm particularly interested in understanding why OEC and TE advocates do not find the scientific evidence presented by YEC advocates compelling. References to books or other authoritative publications are welcomed (and encouraged).

**Unique Catholic Blessings of local Churches?** Just as I asked this question concerning Catholic feasts of local Churches, I would like to know if some readers here know of any local blessings attached to a local church, diocese or region which have been approved by the Catholic Church? I am interested in more historical blessings, even if they are no longer in vogue or usage.

In the post https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/109124/pope-leo-i-and-worshiping-towards-the-east-how-can-he-say-all-this-and-still-w , the OP makes reference to Sermon 27 of Pope St. Leo the Great. It links to the New Advent (Catholic Encyclopedia). The translator of sermons from Pope Leo I on that site is Philip Schaff, a Protestant theologian. After spending a considerable amount of time trying to locate online an English translation of Pope St. Leo's sermons (or even a sub-collection of them) by a Catholic translator and editor, I have come up empty-handed. So I ask--- QUESTION: Does anyone know where I may find a freely available English online collection of sermons by Pope St. Leo the Great by a Catholic translator? Thank you.

I seem to recall reading in the Bible some years ago that there will come a time when *"sin will be out in the open."* However, I have since tried to find it to no avail. Does this prophecy occur in the Bible; or perhaps, did I find it someplace else? Does anyone know where this may have came from?

I am currently working on a project devoted to the thoughts of the Curé of Ars (St. John Vianney) on various topics. One of the topics is *scruples*. St. Alphonsus Liguori, for instance, has this to say about scruples itself: > A conscience is scrupulous when, for a frivolous reason and without rational basis, there is a frequent fear of sin even though in reality there is no sin at all. A scruple is a defective understanding of something. St. Philip Neri seemed to have a fair amount to say on the subject, including > The scrupulous should remit themselves always and in everything to the judgment of their confessor, and accustom themselves to have a contempt for their own scruples. And he offered the following advice to those pestered by scruples: > If those who are molested by scruples wish to know whether they have consented to a suggestion or not, especially in thoughts, they should see whether, during the temptation, they have always had a lively love to the virtue opposed to the vice in respect of which they were tempted, and hatred to that same vice, and this is mostly a good proof that they have not consented. and > When a scrupulous person has once made up his mind that he has not consented to a temptation, he must not reason the matter over again to see whether he has really consented or not, for the same temptations often return by making this sort of reflection. However, when I searched, for example, the various sermons and catechetical instructions of the Curé of Ars, I could find nothing along these lines. In fact, I could find nothing at all in which anything directly regarding *scruples* in the above sense is even mentioned. St. John Vianney, has, however, used the word in a slightly different sense on several occasions; when, for example, he says: > My children, you make a scruple of missing holy Mass, because you commit a great sin in missing it by your own fault ; but you have no scruple in missing an instruction. and also, > He [lukewarm Christian] has few scruples in cutting out, on the least pretext, the Asperges and the prayers before Mass. But, alas, I can find nothing regarding his having addressed *scruples* specifically as a spiritual disease. I have consulted his definitive biography by Trochu, and all I could find in there regarding scruples as a disease, is a reference that Trochu makes in regards to St. Benedict Labre en route to receiving the hospitality of the Vianney household when St. John Vianney was a little boy: > Tortured by scruples, Benoit Labre had just left the Trappist monastery of Sept-Fonds, where he had been a novice under the name of Brother Urban. He had now acquired a certainty that his vocation was to be a wayfarer for the remainder of his life, so he set out for Rome. His first halt was at Paray-le-Monial, where he paid long visits to the chapel of the Apparitions. From Paray he journeyed to Lyons, but rather than enter the city at nightfall he chose to spend the night at Dardilly. On observing a number of poor persons going to the house of Pierre Vianney, he went along with them. QUESTION: Does anyone know if the Curé of Ars had had anything to say about the disease of *scruples* directly, perhaps along the lines of the Liguori and Neri quotes provided above; and if so, what are they or where I may find them? (The sources I have used, for the most part, are in English. Perhaps there is something in the French in which the subject is directly addressed?) Thank you.

I'm interested in exploring a theological understanding of work from a Reformed perspective. Most of the literature I find tends to be sociological, especially Weberian, but I'm specifically looking for theological treatments grounded in the Reformed tradition. Ideally, I’d like recommendations that are not politically driven or overtly proselytizing, but instead focus on biblical and theological foundations for work, vocation, and labor in Reformed thought. What are some good books or authors to start with?

**What did Jesus eat in relationship to his Jewish culture and tradition?** We all know that the Jews of Jesus' days observed many dietary laws that were laid down by God. What I am interested in knowing is a little more nuanced in regards to Jewish culture and tradition at the time of Jesus. For example, both wheat and barley were grown and eaten by the ancient Jews. However is there any historical references that state when barley loaves would be consumed over loaves made with wheat? I know that many Christian traditions use hosts made with wheat in their communion services, yet the Gospels also recounted the story of two fish and five loaves made of barley loaves [(John6:9)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206%3A9&version=NIV) . Do we have any historical records as to when one particular Jew food stuffs would be traditional used over another Jewish alternative? Although I would like an answer to the question in regards to the usage of wheat over barley, I am not limiting this post to these two food stuffs. There may be a Jewish preference or tradition in eating a particular fish on Jewish feasts over everyday meals!

Is there a bilingual, Greek-English version of St. Romanus's *Akathist Hymn* ?

Joret, O.P., *Dominican Life* pp. 300 -1 claims: > The great theologian [\[Cdl. Tommaso de Vio Gaetani\] Cajetan][3] , who became Master General of our [Dominican] Order, went so far as to assert that a Friar Preacher who did not study for four hours a day could scarcely be held to escape the guilt of mortal sin. Where did Cdl. Cajetan write this? Quétif & Échard, *Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum* (vol. 2) p. 16 : > *Unde fertur dicere solitum, sodalem Prædicatorum vix se a peccato mortali excusare, qui quoto die quatuor horas studio non impenderit.* > >Hence the usual, a member of the Preaching [order] barely excuses himself from mortal sin who each day does not spend four hours studying. But they do not say where he wrote this.

What saint was martyred by his father, the king, for refusing to receive sacraments from an Arian heretic?

> No one knows the one-hundredth part of sin that clings to his soul. This quote is [frequently attributed to Calvin](https://www.google.com/search?q=No+one+knows+the+one-hundredth+part+of+sin+that+clings+to+his+soul+calvin) , but I can't find a specific citation or reference. Did Calvin actually say this, or something like it? Or has it been misattributed to him, perhaps as someone else's pithy summary of Calvin's teachings? Can anyone trace the origin of this quote or notion?

In a recently posted article on St. John Henry Newman (See: [*St. John Henry Newman's Elevation as Doctor of the Church Seen as a Gift for Our Times*](https://www.ncregister.com/news/pentin-newman-doctor-providential)) , Fr. [Ignatius] Harrison who commented on five key teachings of the Saint only briefly addresses Newman's thoughts on the importance of the laity and their role in the Church: "that the laity is not supplementary' but crucial to the very foundation of the Church, and that he wanted an informed, and well-educated laity for the Church's mission.'" QUESTION: Can anyone expand in more detail St. John Henry Newman's teaching on the importance of the laity and their role in the Catholic Church? Primary references are appreciated. Thank you.

The subject of the "calvinist" Patriarch of the Orthodox Church comes up from time to time, with the 2 sides presenting conflicting versions of events. Here is what I am certain of already. 1. Lucaris was viewed as having heretical beliefs as viewed by the rest of the Orthodox Church at that time. 2. There was a tension between the Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant faiths. 3. There were other ottomans who didn't like Lucaris. The Execution was deceptive from the start, as Lucaris was taken away as if to be banished. But later out of sight of the majority of people they strangled him with a bowstring. --- #### Question: Are there any sources or evidence that indicate one of the 4 parties mentioned were directly involved? Reason: A common assertion is that the orthodox church was attempting to remove him at "any cost", though I can't find evidence to support that.

I recently took the time to re-read the prelusive words of William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith. This quote stuck with me:

When a person refuses to come to Christ, it is never just because of lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties: at root, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of God’s Spirit on his heart. No one in the final analysis really fails to become a Christian because of lack of arguments; he fails to become a Christian because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with God.

A decade after first reading this, I remember I was struggling to understand who he intends the book to be for, and Craig's motivations. If we are not to assume that Craig is not serious or that he is lying about his sincerity, it could be that he is sincere but wrong: in the sense that he genuinely cannot make sense of atheism as an intellectual position. But then it seems to me that he is so caught up in his own religious convictions he cannot fathom the possibility someone could sincerely disagree with his position. An unfortunate position, in my view. The disagreement is also shifted from the intellectual realm of evidence to the moral realm of personal integrity, effectively *faulting the non-believer* for an emotional or spiritual deficiency. It appeals to notions of spiritual deficiency rather than engaging directly with intellectual critiques. The quote makes apologetics seem like its whole purpose is to convince those who already are convinced. I also think this type of argumentation renders the argument difficult to empirically verify or falsify. If non-belief is attributed to an internal disposition (such as a preference for "darkness" over "light"), it becomes impossible to test or refute through evidence. Thus I am curious if Craig has revised these position in recent times, if he has matured as he has gotten older. Questions: 1. Has Craig changed his view or added nuance to his stance? Does he still attribute unbelief primarily to the willful rejection of God rather than to intellectual or evidential challenges? 2. Is evidence still something that, for him, acts only insofar as a dual warrant of one’s Christian beliefs alongside the inner witness of the Spirit? 3. Has he acknowledged intellectual or evidential factors as genuine obstacles to faith? 4. What role does he currently assign to evidence and objective methods in relation to the work of the Holy Spirit?

I looked at the [*Wikipedia* page on the St. Thomas Christians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Thomas_Christians) , the oldest school of Indian Christians who follow the teachings of St. Thomas the Apostle, who had travelled to India to preach. However, I couldn’t find what their beliefs *were* from that page. Were they Trinitarian or Unitarian? Are there any academic references (books, papers) that discuss their religious beliefs on the nature of God, Jesus, etc?

This booklet was published by the Catholic Truth Society in 1938: [*The Cure of Ars by Dom Ernest Graf*](https://www.etsy.com/listing/1661856232/the-cure-of-ars-vintage-booklet-1938?show_sold_out_detail=1&ref=nla_listing_details) I recall coming across this same image in a 19th century book written in French---but I don't recall the title nor have I been able to stumble upon the book I am looking for with basic searches such as *vie le curé d'ars*. QUESTION: Can anyone tell me where I might find an older version of the same image depicted in the link? If someone can tell me the original source and illustrator---that would be great. Whenever I see this image (or one strongly related to it) in a publication, is never comes with an attribution. Thank you.