What is the biblical basis for concluding that 'all moral works' done without grace are sinful?

Note that in the Edwards quote you gave:

So long as men are in their natural state, they not only have no good thing, but it is impossible they should have, or do any good thing. (Jonathan Edwards [1758], Original Sin ( Vol. 3) , Ed. Clyde A. Holbrook, P280)

You left off the end of the sentence: as appears by Romans 8:8, which says:

Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.

If you look here, you see that a number of commentators agree that this verse is saying that:

Unregenerate man cannot please God because they lack faith and they don't have the inherent ability to please Him.

So in this instance, Edwards is clearly saying that men in their natural state have no innate ability to do any good thing (i.e. pleasing God). Note that Edwards does not say that men in sin have no ability to appear outwardly to be good, indeed in another work, he says the opposite (commentary sourced here)

By true religion consisting in great part in the affections, Edwards means that though religion must have good deeds attending the affections, "there can be no true religion without the affections". Therefore, if a person has an unaffected will, he can do all the external showings of religion while remaining dead in his sins.

However, your question was asking the Biblical basis behind the idea that works without grace are not good, not what Edwards was saying in that passage. Essentially, this question is about the concept of Total Depravity. John Piper, I think, summarized this best in a article on Total Depravity. Piper writes:

There is no doubt that man could perform more evil acts toward his fellow man than he does. But if he is restrained from performing more evil acts by motives that are not owing to his glad submission to God, then even his "virtue" is evil in the sight of God.

Piper gives four ways man's depravity is total:

Our rebellion against God is total.
In his total rebellion everything man does is sin.
Man's inability to submit to God and do good is total.
Our rebellion is totally deserving of eternal punishment.

You are interested in point #2, and here is what he says on that point:

In Romans 14:23 Paul says, "Whatever is not from faith is sin." Therefore, if all men are in total rebellion, everything they do is the product of rebellion and cannot be an honor to God, but only part of their sinful rebellion. If a king teaches his subjects how to fight well and then those subjects rebel against their king and use the very skill he taught them to resist him, then even those skills become evil.
Thus man does many things which he can only do because he is created in the image of God and which in the service of God could be praised. But in the service of man's self-justifying rebellion, these very things are sinful.
In Romans 7:18 Paul says, "I know that no good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh." This is a radical confession of the truth that in our rebellion nothing we think or feel is good. It is all part of our rebellion. The fact that Paul qualifies his depravity with the words, "that is, in my flesh," shows that he is willing to affirm the good of anything that the Spirit of God produces in him (Romans 15:18). "Flesh" refers to man in his natural state apart from the work of God's Spirit. So what Paul is saying in Romans 7:18 is that apart from the work of God's Spirit all we think and feel and do is not good.
NOTE: We recognize that the word "good" has a broad range of meanings. We will have to use it in a restricted sense to refer to many actions of fallen people which in relation are in fact not good.
For example we will have to say that it is good that most unbelievers do not kill and that some unbelievers perform acts of benevolence. What we mean when we call such actions good is that they more or less conform to the external pattern of life that God has commanded in Scripture.
However, such outward conformity to the revealed will of God is not righteousness in relation to God. It is not done out of reliance on him or for his glory. He is not trusted for the resources, though he gives them all. Nor is his honor exalted, even though that's his will in all things (1 Corinthians 10:31). Therefore even these "good" acts are part of our rebellion and are not "good" in the sense that really counts in the end -- in relation to God.

Thus, everything the unregenerate do apart from God is not good because the indwelling desires of the heart are against God, and are done still in rebellion to him.


What does Paul's "we will judge the world and the angels" mean?

The book of Revelation refers to the final judgment (Rev. 20:11-13; NASB quoted):

  Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds.

At this point all are judged; that both men and angels are subject to this judgment is suggested by the Revelator saying that both earth and heaven try to flee from the presence of Him who is on the throne to judge.   (As to why angels would be judged -- recall that there are both the unfallen angels that serve God, and also the fallen angels that serve the devil; see, e.g. Rev. 12:7 where Michael and his angels battle the dragon and his angels.)

As regards who does the judging, certainly that belongs to Him who is on the throne, but a few verses earlier (Rev. 20:4) we also see others will as well:

  Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

I admit that the text isn't very clear on who the 'they' are that sit on the thrones here. Given, however, that the only other people mentioned in the chapter at this point are the angel who locks Satan in the abyss, and Satan himself, the implication appears to be that the martyrs and faithful mentioned immediately afterwards, reigning with Christ, are the ones sitting on the thrones and given the power of judgment.

The beliefs of individual denominations about the further nature of the final judgment vary widely; the Wikipedia article describes several.  But in general this idea of the final judgment appears to be what Paul has in mind.


In Catholicism, is an object a third-class relic if touched by a saint when they were alive?
The short answer is: No.
First of all let us see what relics are in the Catholic Church.

Classification and prohibitions in the Catholic Church
In Catholic theology, sacred relics must not be worshipped, because only God is worshipped and adored. Instead, the veneration given to them was "dulia". Saint Jerome declared, "We do not worship, we do not adore, for fear that we should bow down to the creature rather than to the Creator, but we venerate the relics of the martyrs in order the better to adore Him whose martyrs they are."
The Catholic church divides relics into three classes:

First-Class Relics: items directly associated with the events of Christ's life (manger, cross, etc.) or the physical remains of a saint (a bone, a hair, skull, a limb, etc.). Traditionally, a martyr's relics are often more prized than the relics of other saints. Parts of the saint that were significant to that saint's life are more prized relics. For instance, King St. Stephen of Hungary's right forearm is especially important because of his status as a ruler. A famous theologian's head may be his most important relic. (The head of St. Thomas Aquinas was removed by the monks at the Cistercian abbey at Fossanova where he died.) If a saint did a lot of traveling, then the bones of his feet may be prized. Catholic teaching prohibits relics to be divided up into small, unrecognizable parts if they are to be used in liturgy (i.e., as in an altar; see the rubrics listed in Rite of Dedication of a Church and an Altar).

Second-Class Relics: items that the saint owned or frequently used, for example, a crucifix, rosary, book, etc. Again, an item more important in the saint's life is thus a more important relic. Sometimes a second-class relic is a part of an item that the saint wore (a shirt, a glove, etc.) and is known as ex indumentis ("from the clothing").

Third-Class Relics: any object that is touched to a first- or second-class relic.[38] Most third-class relics are small pieces of cloth, though in the first millennium oil was popular; the Monza ampullae contained oil collected from lamps burning before the major sites of Christ's life, and some reliquaries had holes for oil to be poured in and out again. Many people call the cloth touched to the bones of saints "ex brandea". But ex brandea strictly refers to pieces of clothing that were touched to the body or tombs of the apostles. It is a term that is used only for such; it is not a synonym for a third-class relic. - Relic (Wikipedia)

A third-class relic must be touched to either a first or second-class relics.
Just as some holy individuals may, with divine assistance, operate may miracles during their earthly lifes; these miracles are not to be counted as miracle used in the process of beatification or canonization. So too an object touched by someone to be canonized in the future is not a relic. A miracle for beatification or canonization must have occurred after the death of a particular Venerable or Servant of God.

The canonization of confessors or martyrs may be taken up as soon as two miracles are reported to have been worked at their intercession, after the pontifical permission of public veneration as described above. At this stage it is only required that the two miracles worked after the permission awarding a public cultus be discussed in three meetings of the congregation. The discussion proceeds in the ordinary way; if the miracles be confirmed another meeting (super tuto) is held. The pope then issues a Bull of Canonization in which he not only permits, but commands, the public cultus, or veneration, of the saint. - Beatification and Canonization

Although something touched by a future saint is not a relic, it still may carry with it a sense of notoriety. The objects were not truly touched by a canonized saint and as such are not relics. One is not canonized while still living! It is not uncommon to see plaques (especially in Europe) stating things like the following (some are now museums or placed in museums): St. "X" stayed here or laid here. There is some genuine notoriety with objects of this type, but they are not third-class relics.

While in France, I can recall reading a plaque on a house in a small country village that simply stated "Here St. Jeanne d'Arc stayed". Nothing in the house was a relic, but it was so cool to visit a house that St. Jeanne d'Arc had stayed the night on her way to Orleans. I am sure some of the things in the house must have been touched by the Maid of Lorraine.

Third Class relics must be touched to either a first-class relic or second-class relics. It is that simple.


How to reconcile the Didache's instruction with Apostolic succession?

Henry Chadwick writes about this in his book The Early Church (Penguin, 1993), on page 50.

First he explains that the role of the "bishop" (episkopos) evolved to be a primus among the elders (presbyters) in the late apostolic or early post-apostolic era. But it would take a while until the bishop received a more formal recognition as a separate tier of leadership. The writings of Ignatios of Antioch thus do not describe a common practice at his time, but something he recommends, and that gradually became accepted as a way to guarantee unity. The pressure from gnostic movements was the primary influencing factor.

The episkopos thus remained a presbyter as well. The first thing that differentiated bishops from other elders, was the power to ordain. He would be the primary layer on of hands, when a new presbyter was ordained, though others might join in.

But when a new episkopos was ordained, all of the other presbyters would lay hands on him, though "some variations in custom appears".

  At Alexandria we are told they did so, until the third century and
  there is no mention of visiting bishops; but in Rome by the time of
  Hippolytos (early 3d century presbyter) only the bishops who came from other
  churches laid hands on the one consecrated, the chief consecrator being chosen
  by the bishops themselves... The actual choice of the candidate rested with
  the whole congregation... Election by the people likewise played a large part
  in the ordination of presbyters and deacons.

This of course is a secondary source, but from my reading of other books on Church History, the explanation is non-controversial.


What's the Evangelical take on the Natural Moral Law?

One of the founding ideas of Protestantism was "sola scriptura", meaning that we view the Bible as the only ultimate authority. That doesn't mean that we refuse to read any other books. The existence of thousands of Baptist bookstores should be adequate proof that that's not true. What it means is that we do not view any book other than the Bible as having any authority beyond the weight of the writer can convince us of by the force of his arguments.

Frankly, I suspect most rank-and-file Protestants don't know who Aquinas, Augustine, etc are. (Well, does the average Catholic know who they are?) Among the more intellectual Protestants, of course we read and quote and discuss Greek and Scholastic philosophers and the Church Fathers. We just read them with the attitude that we will agree with some things they say and disagree with others. We don't need "redacted" versions -- we're grown-ups, we can handle the fact that we may not agree with everything we read. :-)


In the following Scriptures, Jesus speaks of the separation of persons of the Trinity:
John 5:30 through 32 KJV

30  I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
31  If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
32  There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.

John 17:21  KJV

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

There are a total of 15 places where Jesus spoke of the separation of the Father and the Son, and in the following Scripture Jesus is promising to send an entirely different Deity than those two:
John 14:16  KJV

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

and in the following Scripture he identifies that Deity as the Holy Spirit:
John 14:26  KJV

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

This event prophesied by Jesus took place at Pentecost:
Acts 2:1 through 4    KJV

1  And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2  And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3  And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4  And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.


Why does Jesus' Resurrection mean hope for an individual and in what context?

The hope we have in Jesus's resurrection is that He died for our sins, and He rose from the grave.  We can go to Heaven because of this.  Without Jesus, we would remain condemned in our sins.  Romans explains in detail:

[Rom 6:9-23 NKJV] ... knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him.  For [the death] that He died, He died to sin once for all; but [the life] that He lives, He lives to God.  Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.  Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts.  And do not present your members [as] instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members [as] instruments of righteousness to God.  For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.  What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin [leading] to death, or of obedience [leading] to righteousness?  But God be thanked that [though] you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered.  And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.  I speak in human [terms] because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members [as] slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness [leading] to [more] lawlessness, so now present your members [as] slaves [of] righteousness for holiness.  For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.  What fruit did you have then in the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things [is] death.  But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life.  For the wages of sin [is] death, but the gift of God [is] eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The following passages explain further on salvation.

[Rom 5:8 NKJV] But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
[Rom 10:9-13 NKJV] ... that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.  For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.  For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame." For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.  For "whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved."
[Jhn 3:16-18 NKJV]  "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.  "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.  "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
[Eph 2:8-9 NKJV] For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; [it is] the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.


In Italy, it is tradition to be named after your grandparents. Firstborn children are named after their paternal grandparents and second-born children are named after their maternal grandparents. This is more of a cultural tradition than a religious tradition, and may be common in multiple European countries.


Luke 21:32 and the coming of the kingdom

All Christians are still waiting for the Second Coming of Christ, where Jesus would come in glory as a King and a Judge in contrast with the "First Coming" about 2000 years ago, where He came in humility (baby in a manger) as God Incarnate (fully human being born of a woman) and as the Lamb of God / Suffering Servant (sacrifice for our sin as He was slaughtered on our behalf on the cross).

There is a concise answer to what "this generation will not pass away until all these things take place" refer to at gotquestions.org website, which describes 2 interpretations:

Future Generation: "this generation" means a future generation shortly before the end times events.
Double Fulfillment: some events (like the destruction of the temple in AD 70) has happened while other events connected to the end times events haven't.


No, you've confused the issue because you aren't familiar with the vocabulary involved.

The "new heaven and new earth" referenced here IS the "heaven" of generic terminology. Pop-culture Christianity likes to think of this as some separate place where everybody is floating on clouds, but this imagery is not the picture painted by Scripture. The language of Scripture is much more tangible, but also more complicated and we don't fully understand yet how all the pieces actually fit together. There are several major views on that cover the mechanical details and timeline heaven, but none of them really matter for the point of your question.

What Revelation is describing here is "heaven". Even though it sometimes uses the terminology "earth", it is a "new earth" and should be understood in the context of a complete salvation of creation itself, whether a new space or a complete reforging of the existing creation.

The way this fits into different eschatologies and views of heaven differs a little, but it is generally accepted that the existing "heavens and earth" does not refer to some ethereal other place and this universe but rather is a single unit referring to our physical universe. This includes space (heavens) and the planet we live on. When referring to "a new heavens and a new earth" this is an all new creation of everything including some sort of physical place.


Does Dietrich Bonhoeffer fit the requirements to be declared an official martyr?

It is dogma that non-Catholics cannot be martyrs:

  …no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.—Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, decree Cantate Domino

(Martyrs, saints, all those in heaven are saved.)


Bishops in themselves are not infallible.  However, they do participate in some way in the infallibility of the Catholic Church.

Catholic Bishops participate in the ordinary and universal episcopal magisterium of the Catholic Church.  This is a fuzzy set of teachings that are infallible, and come from the authority of the Church to teach The Faith.  What exactly are these teachings?  They are the teachings on faith and morals that all the Bishops of the world, including the Pope, universally hold as definitive and true.  Essentially these are all the true doctrines that all Bishops believe and know to be true, but which haven't been declared to be infallible by a Church Council or the Pope because no one has challenged them in any serious way.

To answer your question somewhat: any Catholic lay person can challenge any Bishop in matters of theology and morals.  But most Catholic people will not pay much attention to the challenger because, for the most part, Catholic Bishops are faithful to their calling of teaching the Faith.  Thus, there is a presumption that the Bishop as opposed to the challenger is correct, and the challenger would be mostly ignored.  In principle, if the challenger happens to be right (and the Bishop wrong), and if the dispute/debate were to gain the attention of the faithful in general and of the majority of Bishops (as well as the Pope), and if the Bishops were to start debating the issue in earnest, some agreeing with the challenger, some with the original Bishop, and if the issue raised and/or the debate surrounding it were causing serious disruptions to the life of Faith, then the Pope (or a Church Council) might be needed to clarify the question.  In principle, then, the challenger might actually succeed against the Bishop: not because he is a better debater, but because he was right --- and the fact that his position attracted successful support among the Bishops is the proof of this.

However, for the most part Bishops know the Faith they are teaching.  And for the most part Catholic theologians who disagree with a particular Bishop are actually disagreeing with the majority (if not the unanimity) of Catholic Bishops.  Therefore their dissent goes nowhere.


What is the doctrinal significance of repetition between the Gospels?

Deuteronomy 19:15(NIV)

  One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or
  offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the
  testimony of two or three witnesses.

The above verse is a biblical basis to understand a reason for the different gospels. Also the three first gospels were written with different audience in mind:

Matthew wrote with Jews in mind, in Hebraic with Eusebius, Origen and scholar Jerome to testify this.

Mark wrote with non-Jews in mind. For example Latin terms are used, contains explanations that would not have been necessary for Jewish readers and also explain Semitic terms.

Luke wrote it for Theophilus (Luke 1:1-3)

John provide more information for events that the other Evangelizers don't say something.


Exodus 20, "And God spoke all these words:"

Background
The "Law" began by God peaking directly to everyone who was present at Mt Sinai:

1 And God spoke all these words, saying...18 Now when all the people saw the thunder and the flashes of lightning and the sound of the trumpet and the mountain smoking, the people were afraid[d] and trembled, and they stood far off 19 and said to Moses, “You speak to us, and we will listen; but do not let God speak to us, lest we die.” 20 Moses said to the people, “Do not fear, for God has come to test you, that the fear of him may be before you, that you may not sin.” 21 The people stood far off, while Moses drew near to the thick darkness where God was. (Exodus 20) [ESV]
d. Samaritan, Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate; Masoretic Text the people saw

At the request of the people, the "Law" from God was given by two methods:

The Ten Commandments spoken by God to everyone (and written by God)
All other laws spoken by God to Moses who wrote them down and told them to the people

The second method was not done "all at once" but over a period of time. At intervals we are told Moses told the people what God had said and that he wrote it down. For example:

Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD and all the rules. And all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words that the Lord has spoken we will do.” And Moses wrote down all the words of the LORD. (Exodus 24:3-4)

In the giving of the Ten Commandments, there is one, the command to observe the Sabbath, in which a reason for the command is given:

8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. (Exodus 20)

Since it is God who is speaking, the question is why wasn't the explanation for the Sabbath given in the first person as was the first command:

“I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. “You shall have no other gods before me. (20:2-3)
For in six days the LORD [I] made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD [I] blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

The Nature of God
The answer is found in the nature of God:

And God spoke all these words, saying...(20:1)
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

"God" is the Hebrew אֱלהִים which linguistically is plural:

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image... (Genesis 1:26)

First, if the Sabbath command had been given in the first person, one would expect it would be the first person plural, as in the making of man. However, that would seriously undermine the monotheistic message of a singular God:

For in six days we made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore we blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Second, while God is plural and the discussion to make man was given in the plural (let us make...), the actual work of creation was done through Jesus:

All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:3)

Therefore, when "God" is speaking at Mt Sinai, the reason the explanation for the Sabbath is given as "the LORD" is to preserve the monotheistic nature of the triune God while stating the actual work was done by Jesus:

For in six days the LORD (Jesus) made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD (Jesus) blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.


Luke 16:19-31—Is the rich man in Hell or Purgatory?

It's highly unlikely that the rich man is in Purgatory, as opposed to Hell, for at least a few reasons, as I see it:

1) This seems to be a parable about real persons, but related in parabolic form (characters in parables do not usually have names). So that seemingly mutually contradictory aspects therein are simply Jesus including all He needs to teach about the in the one simple story (i.e. Hebrews 9:27).

2) Jesus famously taught that it is extremely hard for anyone who clings to their riches or possessions to enter heaven (Lk 18:24-25). So that using a rich man as an example of someone who 'got off with it'1 would seem undesirable here.

3) "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not [believe]2 even if someone rises from the dead" describes an unforgiven sin—one of not believing unto salvation. This does not constitute a mere venial sin, but a damnable, that is, mortal one (cf. Matthew 18:17b).

4) The use of "father" and "son" doesn't necessarily mean amicability, especially because it's a parable, but also as neither does "friend" in Jesus' usage elsewhere.3

5) "between us and you there is a great chasm fixed" and "saw Abraham far away" would seem to put this place of torment out reach of any hope—"in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment" seems to be the didactic focus of the parable, and so here Jesus eases out of the parable a little here towards the end and into the conclusion or point He wants to get across (as I find He does with others). In this case, the point He is getting across is the inability to change yours or others' situation once you die.

Footnotes

1 Purgatory isn't 'getting off with it' but as far as this rich man being in Purgatory instead of Hell, it would give the same, counterproductive impression here.

2 πείθω—to be persuaded or conviniced; by implication: believe (root of the word for 'faith' πίστις)

3 e.g. in Matthew 20:13; 22:12; 26:50 Jesus terms reprobates 'friend.'


What was first, sola scriptura or sola fide?

This is a complex topic, for at least two reasons: 1) there was a wide diversity of thought in the pre-Reformation and Reformation periods, and 2) today's definitions of sola scriptura and sola fide vary and the particulars can be difficult to trace within the pre-Reformation and Reformation periods, and any attempts to do so are naturally susceptible to bias.

For example, on one hand, one could argue that Alexei Osipov is simply incorrect – that the extreme version of sola scriptura that he is describing did not appear until the Radical Reformation (~1520s) and that Luther's doctrine of sola fide (~1515) predates that by several years. But many (mostly non-Protestants) would counter that the professor's description of sola scriptura substantially matches that of Protestantism generally, not just the Anabaptists of the Radical Reformation.  And of course, we're ignoring that many Protestants argue that both these doctrines can be found in the writings of the early church.

With those caveats, I'd argue that while Osipov's treatment is imprecise, his general point can be defended in two ways:

Many Pre-Reformation thinkers, like John Wycliffe (1320–1384) and John Huss (1372–1415), placed higher emphasis on the authority of Scripture than was expressed at the Council of Trent by the Roman Catholic church.  These Pre-Reformation thinkers, however, did not clearly articulate "faith alone."
Logically, sola scriptura comes before sola fide, because the doctrine of sola fide as argued by Luther and other Reformers was defended on the basis of the Bible against the tradition and authority of the Church.

Pre-Reformation

At the Council of Trent, the Roman Catholic Church held that both scripture and tradition were authoritative:

  Both saving truth, and moral discipline [...] are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves (Session 4)

In contrast to this, many pre-Reformation thinkers placed a higher priority on Scripture.  Two notable names along these lines are John Wycliffe and John Huss, who both died over a century before Luther released his 95 theses.  These men opposed what they saw as abuse and excess in the Catholic church, and attacked a variety of the church's doctrines, including the papacy, transubstantiation, and indulgences, and often did so on the basis of the Bible.  John Wycliffe "recognised as an authority, apart from reason, only the Holy Scriptures, not tradition." (Lechler, 267)

However, these men did not lay out a doctrine of justification like that of sola fide.  Thus, if the views of Wycliffe on Scripture suffice as an example of sola scriptura as understood today, then it preceded the sola fide of Luther.

Sola scriptura logically antecedent to sola fide

Alistar McGrath writes:

  Every strand of the Reformation movement regarded Scripture as the quarry from which its ideas and practices were hewn (Thought, 91)

That is, in the Reformation, everything ultimately comes back to the authority of the Bible, including justification by faith alone.  We see this, famously, in Luther's 1521 statement at the Diet of Worms:

  Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience.

When challenged, Luther naturally fell back to the ultimate basis for his beliefs, which he argued was the Bible – he didn't argue for sola scriptura on the basis of sola fide, but instead held that the things he believed were true because he found them in the Word of God.  Though this doesn't prove that sola scriptura chronologically preceded sola fide in the mind of any particular reformer, we can still say that the logical connection indicates that sola fide needed sola scriptura in order to stand and survive.

The origins of sola scriptura and sola fide

One of the difficulties mentioned above associated with this question is defining sola scriptura.  Alistar McGrath identifies three views that can feasibly carry this name:

Scripture and tradition are "coinherent or coterminous," that is, that Scripture alone is materially sufficient, and tradition acts as a reliable guide that defines the limits of acceptable interpretation

McGrath associates this view with Wycliffe, Huss, and the theologians of the schola Augustiniana moderna, that is, scholastics associated with Gregory of Rimini.

Scripture alone serves as the basis for faith and practice

This is the view expressed by Ulrich Zwingli at Zurich, resulting in the mandate that only Scripture could be used as the basis of public preaching (Origins, 45; see Wikipedia).

Tradition has no relevance in the interpretation of the Bible; "every individual or community is free to interpret the Bible without reference to the Christian past."  (Thought, 100)

This is the view of the Radical Reformers (Anabaptists), originating in the 1520s.

The sola scriptura of the Reformers is often defined along the lines of #2 above.  But is #2 more like #1 or #3?  In his quote, Alexei Osipov closely associates #2 and #3.  But Alistar McGrath argues that #1 and #2 are more closely linked, arguing that the Reformation view was not an innovation in light of the diversity existing in late medieval catholicism (Origins, 145).  He also argues against a close connection between #2 and #3:

  It is totally wrong to suggest that the magisterial reformers elevated private judgment above the corporate judgment of the church or that they degenerated into some form of individualism. No leading mainstream reformer was prepared to abandon the concept of a traditional interpretation of Scripture in favor of the radical alternative. (Thought, 102)

The origin of the doctrine of sola fide, on the other hand, is usually seen to be more straight forward.  McGrath sees its roots in the schola Augustiniana moderna, but it first appears clearly in the thought of Martin Luther around 1515, in his "tower experience." (Thought, 120–21)  Thus Osipov's claim that sola fide appeared as the result of Protestant divisions is incorrect at least in the sense of its origin; it preexisted the division between the Reformers and the Radical Reformers.

Summary

Alexei Osipov lumps together the sola scriptura of the Reformers and that of the Radical Reformers in his discussion, which, depending on one's views on the Reformation, may or may not be agreeable.  But noticing this reveals the difficulty inherent in identifying the origin of sola scriptura and thus its connection with the Reformer's sola fide.  Still, it seems safe to agree with Osipov's general point, that the doctrine of sola scriptura precedes that of sola fide, both chronologically and logically, in the context of the Reformation.

References

Lechler, Gotthard Victor, John Wycliffe and His English Precursors
McGrath, Alister, Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation
McGrath, Alister, Reformation Thought


A couple of stories about shooting arrows from the desert fathers, perhaps one of these jogs your memory:
Abba Anthony, desert father (source):

A hunter in the desert saw Abba Anthony enjoying himself with the brethren and he was shocked. Wanting to show him that it was necessary sometimes to meet the needs
of the brethren, the old man said to him, 'Put an arrow in
your bow and shoot it.' So he did. The old man then said,
'Shoot another,' and he did so. Then the old man said, 'Shoot
yet again and the hunter replied 'If I bend my bow so much I
will break it.' Then the old man said to him, 'It is the same
with the work of God. If we stretch the brethren beyond
measure they will soon break. Sometimes it is necessary to
come down to meet their needs.' When he heard these words
“the hunter was pierced by compunction and, greatly edified
by the old man, he went away. As for the brethren, they
went home strengthened.

Dorotheos (source much less reliable-looking, additional source):

A man who gives way to his passions is like a man who is shot at by an enemy, catches the arrow in his hands, and then plunges it into his own heart. A man who is resisting his passions is like a man who is shot at by an enemy, and although the arrow hits him, it does not seriously wound him because he is wearing a breastplate. But the man who is uprooting his passions is like a man who is shot at by an enemy, but who strikes the arrow and shatters it or turns it back into his enemy's heart.


When is "Thanks Be to God" said in the mass?

Since you only mention the mass and not a denomination, I'll assume you mean in the Catholic Church. However, the same will apply for most liturgical traditions

After each of the first (often Old Testament) and second ( New Testament)  lessons, the reader will say

  The word of the Lord

to which the people respond

  Thanks be to God.

The Gospel reading is announced by

  A reading from the holy Gospel according to N.

The people respond

  Glory to you, Lord.

After the Gospel reading, the reader says

  The Gospel of the Lord.

The people respond

  Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ

At the end of the mass, the people are dismissed with (or something similar)

  Go forth, the Mass is ended

And again the people respond

  Thanks be to God


Jesus read Isaiah 61 in a synagogue:

  Luke 4:16-22 (ESV)
  16  And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. 17  And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,   ...
  20  And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. 21  And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” 22  And all spoke well of him and marveled at the gracious words that were coming from his mouth. And they said, “Is not this Joseph's son?”

Jesus wrote on the ground:

  John 8:6-8 (ESV)
  6  This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7  And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8  And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground.

In addition to the direct implications of these, we have less direct but still strong evidence in events such as his delivery of the Sermon on the Mount. (Matthew 5-7). Also, if you are a Christian, you believe he co-authored the entire Bible (Hebrews 1:1-2).


Why is the Ichthys symbol almost always facing left?

No theological or symbolic reason seems to available as an answer. But I suspect that it may have to do something with the simple direction of which people are accustomed to write.

  When text is added to the symbol, for example 'Jesus' or 'ΙΧΘΥΣ', aesthetically it looks better to have the first letter of in the mouth of the fish rather than its tail. (The opposite direction is true for right-to-left writing, such as Arabic or Hebrew.) - Which way should the Christian fish symbol face?.

Other possibilities do exist, but the reason stated above seems most logical and was in fact my first thought on this matter.


According to Catholicism, can an imprimatur be revoked?

According to Catholicism, can an imprimatur by revoked?

The short answer is yes.

Historically, it has happened on several occasions. The reasons also vary.

It usually happens when Rome has received several complaints about a certain printed works (on paper or in modern times digital works).

First of all, what is an imprimatur?

  Imprimatur

  Definition

  The Latin term for "let it be printed," which signifies the approval by a bishop of a religious work for publication. Authors are at liberty to obtain the imprimatur either from the bishop where they reside, or where the book is to be published, or where it is printed. Generally the imprimatur, along with the bishop's name and date of approval, is to be shown in the publication. According to a decree of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1975), "the Pastors of the Church have the duty and the right to be vigilant lest the faith and morals of the faithful be harmed by writings; and consequently even to demand that the publication of writings concerning the faith and morals should be submitted to the Church's approval, and also to condemn books and writings that attack faith or morals." (Etym. Latin imprimere, to impress, stamp imprint.)

An imprimatur is not a nihil obstat.

  Nihil Obstat

  Definition

  Approved by the diocesan censor to publish a manuscript dealing with faith or morals. The date of the approval and the name of the person approving (censor deputatus, delegated censor) are normally printed in the front of the book along with a bishop's imprimatur.

In 1996, the Holy See order the revoke of an imprimatur from the Psalms translated by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy. Rome takes things serious at times. Translations must meet with Rome’s standards.

  On August 6, Bishop Anthony M. Pilla of Cleveland, the president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, issued a decree withdrawing the US bishops’ imprimatur from the Psalms translated by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy.

  Bishop Pilla was acting on instructions conveyed in April 1996 by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The imprimatur is an official recognition that a work is suitable for publication.

  In his letter to bishops accompanying the decree, Bishop Pilla stressed that "the revocation of the imprimatur should in no way be perceived as a revocation of the judgment of the censors’ opinions concerning the fidelity or accuracy of the text", nor as a reflection on "the judgment of our bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee for the Review of Scripture Translations that recommended the granting of the imprimatur.” [Bishop Pilla’s letter and decree were published in Origins, Sept. 3 , Vol. 28:12, pp. 215.]

  Bishop Pilla said the decision to remove the imprimatur was due to "changing circumstances” according to which "the conference’s decision to grant the imprimatur is no longer considered appropriate or opportune.” He did not explain the two-year delay in acting on the Vatican’s instruction.

  The ICEL Psalter was published in 1995 by Liturgy Training Publications of the Archdiocese of Chicago, with the imprimatur of Baltimore Cardinal William Keeler, president of the NCCB.

  The imprimatur was granted after the text was approved by the bishops’ Committee for the Review of Scripture Translations. Members were Bishop Richard Sklba auxiliary of Milwaukee, chairman; Bishop Emil Wcela auxiliary of Rockville Centre; and Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie. (Bishop Trautman was then chairman of the Liturgy Committee.) - Holy See’s 1996 Order to Revoke Imprimatur Revealed in August

Wikipedia states that in 1980 three imprimaturs were revoked.

  If further examination shows that a work is not free of doctrinal or moral error, the imprimatur granted for its publication can be withdrawn. This happened three times in the 1980s, when the Holy See judged that complaints made to it about religion textbooks for schools were well founded and ordered the bishop to revoke his approval. Imprimatur (Wikipedia)

The following may be of some interest also:

Instruments of Social Communication and Books in Particular (Canon Law  822 - 832)
Vatican orders bishop to remove imprimatur.
The Catholic Church in World Politics
Eric O. Hanson · 2014 · Political Science
... Philip S. Keane's Sexual Morality without its imprimatur after Archbishop Hunthausen had been ordered to rescind it.


How much time elapsed between Jesus's betrayal by Judas and His crucifixion?

This may be difficult to ascertain with any great degree of certainty, but we may be able to get close.

The Time of Betrayal

If, by the "moment of betrayal", you are referring to the Judas' kiss, then there are a few things we know.  We know the disciples were having a hard time staying awake even during the first time Jesus went away to pray, and Jesus went away to pray two more times.  Jesus seems to indicate that he had been praying an entire hour when he returned the first time, so it is at least possible that he went away three times, each for roughly an hour of praying.

  And taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, he began to be sorrowful and troubled. Then he said to them, "My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch with me." And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will." And he came to the disciples and found them sleeping. And he said to Peter, "So, could you not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, "My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done." And again he came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were heavy. So, leaving them again, he went away and prayed for the third time, saying the same words again. Then he came to the disciples and said to them, "Sleep and take your rest later on. See, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand." (Matthew 26:37-46)

So, what time would Jesus have first gone off to pray.  They had already eaten the Passover meal, so this was after that.  However, this is before both daylight savings time and the invention of the incandescent light bulb, so people probably went to bed earlier, rather than staying up in the dark. They probably arose earlier in the morning as well.  Being that is was during Passover, which is typically in March or April.  Sunset would be around 6:00 p.m. (without daylight savings time).  Sundown is typically when the Sabbath began.

If we assume they began eating at sundown and ate for two hours (this was a very significant Jewish festival), then took an hour to get to the garden, then assume three hours for Jesus to pray, we are already at midnight for the kiss of betrayal.  That may be the best we can do.

The Time of Crucifixion

The crucifixion probably began around 9:00 a.m.  There is some confusions about this, but this has to do with the different ways in which the Romans and Jews kept time.  Darkness came over the land around noon to about 3:00 p.m., at which time Jesus committed His spirit into the hands of the Father.

Conclusion

So, if the betrayal occurred around midnight and the crucifixion began around 9:00 a.m., then that would be around nine hours and a total of 15 hours until the time of death.

Part of me likes the idea of symmetry, and it is perfectly reasonable to think that the betrayal was later in the evening.  Thus, it could have been 6 hours from the betrayal to the inception of the crucifixion and another 6 hours to the death of Christ.  That's the best I can offer, though.


There is no way to know for certain, and given that God knows your prayers before you pray them, if you will, before the foundation of the world, the direct path of your prayer is somewhat immaterial.

Those who dwell in him, indeed, must also have this knowledge as well; but in a more limited fashion since they are not God.

For the second part, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit fully indwell one another, thus aside from the aspect of incarnation, it is impossible to make such a distinction.


Do the angels in Ezekiel 1:10 represent the 4 aspects of creation according to evangelicals?

Ezekiel’s Vision is essentially divided into three main parts, according to this Bible study from a Baptist source:

  Ezekiel’s Vision of the Lords Glory (1:10-28)
  The Prophet’s Commission and the Hardships He Would Encounter (2:1-10).
  The Prophet’s Message (3:1-27).

And the intention of the vision can be viewed as the following, according to Matthew Henry:

  To possess the prophet's mind with very great, and high, and honourable thoughts of that God by whom he was commissioned and for
  whom he was employed
  To strike a terror upon the sinners who remained in Zion, and those who had already come to Babylon, who were secure, and bade defiance to
  the threatenings of Jerusalem's ruin, as we have found in Jeremiah's
  prophecy, and shall find in this, many did.
  To speak comfort to those that feared God, and trembled at his word, and humbled themselves under his mighty hand.

So the question remains, "what 4 aspects of creation do these faces represent?" Matthew Henry says:

Lion: Strength and Boldness
Ox: Diligence and Patience
Man: understanding of a man and much more
Eagle: Quickness as well as an uplifting of angels over men


The Middle Ages as a Model for the Orderly Society?

A major book would be "The Reformers and their Stepchildren" by Leonard Verduin.  The "Reformers" would be Luther, Zwingli, Melanchthon, Calvin, etc.  The "Stepchildren" would be the anabaptists, baptists and all who are today non-conformists, such as Pentecostals, Free church, essentially all who neither have nor seek any special privilege from "the State", they do not desire a "state religion" either for themselves or other religious groups.  [I have to  say the book upset me, because I had rather thought the Reformers rediscovered the idea of "the freedom of religion", and we owe our religious freedoms and freedom of speech, etc, to them... how wrong I was!]
The argument of the book is that the Reformers carried on in precisely the same steps where the Roman Catholic Church they had just condemned had been walking: rather than condemn Christian sacralism outright, they merely swapped Roman Catholic sacralism with Protestant sacralism.  This led to the persecution and deaths of Christian believers at the hands of the Reformers and their followers.
In terms of religion, the most successfully Christian country in the world today in terms of adherents of one sort of Christian denomination or another would be the USA where the constitution specifically forbids any favouritism to any one religious organisation.
The Roman Catholic Church has never repudiated the idea of a Church-State union, with the RC Church having the support of the State, enabling the oppression of those who will not conform.  Despite this, many Roman Catholics would agree that the RC Church is more healthy in the USA than in most other countries in the world.
The "Medieval" order, medievalism, can also be called "Christian sacralism".  Verduin also calls it "Constantinianism" derived from the name of the Roman Emperor who is commonly associated with effecting the change in the status of Christianity from an illegal cult worthy of persecution to the state religion of the Roman Empire. This new arrangement between the Emperor and the church leaders of those times thankfully brought an end to the persecution of Christians for the most part, but it immediately introduced the persecution of those who insisted on continuing in the worship of the old Roman gods. (It also started the persecution of those Christians who were not happy with the new arrangement, such as the Donatist Christians of North Africa.)
These are the some of the problems with sacralism: it leads to the persecution of those who won't conform - as Franklin Littell writes in the foreword to Verduin's book "to compel men by law to support and participate in religious exercises in which they have no faith is unworthy of Christians who put their trust in the Sword of the Spirit".
It leads to the loss of free speech and the loss of the freedom of religious expression.
It leads to the moral corruption of the religious organisations approved by the State, because these denominations in process of time gain a power, prestige, security and wealth which is attractive to ungodly men, drawing them in and causing them to seek advancement within the denomination.
In addition, when a person is considered to be a member of "The Church" simply because they are a citizen of the State a difficulty of church discipline arises: there is no longer any means of removing them from the Church except to remove them from the State: in such a situation the only way to discipline is to put them to death.  But it must be obvious that if the holiness commanded in the New Testament is to be taken seriously there would be rather a lot of people that would need to be put to death!
In consequence a Christian sacralist society loses the ability to take seriously the Bible's standards on holiness.
(By the way, it could be argued that the modern western society does in fact have a form of medievalism: most western States, to greater and lesser extents, do in fact promote a religious point of view which could be viewed as an attempt to create a "unified" society, and these states in the process use many of the legal instruments of the state to promote the unifying ideology.  It is just unfortunate for theists that the new unifying religious point of view is Atheism.  For instance, over the last fifty or so years in the USA, where the State is prohibited by the First Amendment from promoting any particular religious point of view or denomination, the Supreme Court, an instrument of the State, has rigorously promoted Atheism in schools, colleges, and society at large.. the consequence of a hugely perverse interpretation of the First Amendment.)
New Testament arguments against the idea of a Christian sacralist society
In the Old Testament the Israelite nation under Moses was a sacralist society: to be an Israelite was to be required to follow Jehovah, and failure could lead to death, even for picking up a few sticks on the Sabbath day (Numbers  15:32-36).  When Elijah sought repentance he did not go round preaching seeking the repentance of one Israelite here and one Israelite there.. he sought the repentance of the whole nation, because the whole nation was "the church", and the leader of the nation was the leader of "the church": before there could be any real improvement in "the church" the leader, King Ahab, needed to either repent or to die.  Of course, the OT Israelite sacralist state, like all sacralist states, could only enforce an outward, superficial, and largely hypocritical obedience.
But from the New Testament it ought to be clear that "Christian sacralism" is a contradiction in terms: the two concepts are at loggerheads against each other:
First, the term "ecclesia" means "called out", i.e. called out from the society of which the believer in Christ is otherwise a member.  It means "called out" to be visibly different from those who have not bowed the knee to Christ; it means called out to be holy, to be set apart for Christ.  It is this calling out that identifies Christ's kingdom as "the Kingdom of God".  It is not a kingdom that relies on any earthly power or privilege; it does not rely on the use of compulsion or the power of the sword; it is a kingdom which relies on the power of the Spirit; the members of this kingdom began to be part of it by their own choice and continue to be part of it by their own free choice. This kingdom does not seek to impose itself by any force; and so our Lord said to Pontius Pilate "My kingdom is not of this world, else would my servants fight" (John 18:36); and to Peter "put away your sword" (Matthew 26:52); the ways of the Old Testament prophets before the coming of the kingdom of God are not appropriate in the era of the kingdom of God (compare 2 Kings 1:10-12 with Luke 9:54-56).
The New Testament form of church discipline is not possible in a sacralist society.  "If he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a tax-collector" (Matthew 18:17b in 18:15-17).  If the whole of society is to be considered as belonging to the church then there isn't any place for the unrepentant to be removed to.  Another passage, on the same lines, which clearly neither recognises nor can be practiced in a sacralist society is 1 Corinthians 5:9-13:

I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.  For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”  (1 Corinthians 5:9-13 NKJV)

In Christian sacralism there is no inside and outside.
The ideas of this "Patrick Deneen", who I have never heard of, remind me of the "Reconstructionist"/"Dominion Theology"/"Theonomy" movement which has its origin I believe in some who hold to (Protestant) postmillenialism such as Drs Greg Bahnsen, Rousas Rushdoony and Gary North.  (Francis Schaeffer, it is said, was deeply influenced by the movement.)  These hold that Christians should be seeking to reconstruct society on Old Testament lines, with everyone subject to the laws and punishments of Moses........................ouch.
Books arguing against Greg Bahnsen, et al would be:-
"World Dominion - the High Ambition of Reconstructionism" by Dr Peter Masters;
"Dominion Theology, Blessing or Curse?" by H. Wayne House and Thomas Ice;
"Theonomy: a Reformed Critique", edited by William Barker & W. Robert Godfrey.
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacralism
Friends, it seems to me that Christian sacralism has always been promoted with a view to the avoidance of persecution for Christ's sake. As such it will always be appealing till the world's end.  But the scriptures say that "all who will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution" (2 Timothy 3:12).  Persecution, then, goes with the territory of true faith in Christ.  If anyone wants to avoid this persecution at all costs then there is no compulsion.. they can deny the Lord and leave him.
Christian sacralism gets promoted on the pretext of seeking a political unity or stability within society.  This is a horribly insulting misuse of Christ and the Gospel.  Christ's work and Gospel are designed for much greater things: to bring individual sinners into a right relationship with God and the saving of an eternal soul. It was never the aim of the Gospel to bring harmony to society.  Our Lord said "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword." (Matthew 10:34)  It does not mean his followers will literally carry a sword, but the Gospel stirs up antagonism and opposition from sinners, not peace.
Where Christian sacralism is practiced evangelism is compromised. For who is there to evangelise except those who "The Church" says are Christian already?
Where those in political power seek its practice they also seek as a consequence to deny true Christians the ability and right to be visibly set apart from the rest of society.  The Church of those who have truly repented and believed in Christ, and who condemn sin, will always sooner or later be thrown into a fiery furnace and a den of lions by a hostile world that calls itself "The Church".
In the sphere of politics the western world, the "free world", holds that individuals should as far as possible be able to choose who rules them by means of free democratic elections.
Further, in the sphere of commerce and business, the western economic theories of "Free Market economics" hold that individuals should be free to choose who to buy from and who to sell to without coercion; and these theories of capitalism lead to the recognition that competition between businesses provides more choice for consumers leading to a struggle to produce better products and lower prices.  It is a commonplace understanding that monopolies should not be allowed to develop whereby consumers have no choice about who to buy a specific product from; so in the UK for instance there exists the Competition and Markets Authority which needs to give legal approval when two large companies want to merge.. the CMA will investigate to see if the proposed merger will be detrimental to consumers with the resulting merged company being so dominant in the market that consumers have little choice but must buy its products nomatter what the price.  Such regulations not only provide more choice to consumers, they also in the long term produce companies which are more competitive and more useful to society at large.
The same aim of providing free choice to individuals should exist in the sphere of religion, religious organisations and religious ideas.  The role of the State should not be to promote any one religious viewpoint, even the irreligious viewpoint: rather the main aim of the State should be to legally prevent organisations from using either coercion or deception either in the recruitment or in the keeping of adherents.


What has the LDS Church (Mormons) historically taught about the Curse of Cain and dark skin?

Here is more context for some verses from the Book of Mormon, the first quote shows the curse, and the effect of it, so they became dark-skinned and lazy.  The problem is that this can then be extended to shape prejudices against anyone because of their skin color, but, the last two quotes shows that discrimination based on color is wrong, and all from the Book of Mormon.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon/2_Nephi#5:21

  21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of
  their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become
  like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that
  they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come
  upon them. 22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto
  thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities. 23 And cursed shall be the seed of
  him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And
  the Lord spake it, and it was done. 24 And because of their cursing which was upon them they
  did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for
  beasts of prey.

When you come back to God and do what is expected then this curse is lifted:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon/3_Nephi#2:15

  12 Therefore, all the Lamanites who had become converted unto the Lord
  did unite with their brethren, the Nephites, and were compelled, for
  the safety of their lives and their women and their children, to take
  up arms against those Gadianton robbers, yea, and also to maintain
  their rights, and the privileges of their church and of their worship,
  and their freedom and their liberty. 13 And it came to pass that
  before this thirteenth year had passed away the Nephites were
  threatened with utter destruction because of this war, which had
  become exceedingly sore. 14 And it came to pass that those Lamanites
  who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites; 15
  And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like
  unto the Nephites; 16 And their young men and their daughters became
  exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were
  called Nephites. And thus ended the thirteenth year.

Another section showing that others may get the curse due to their wickedness:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon/Alma#3:18

  14 Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he
  said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a
  mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and
  thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of
  their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them. 15
  And again: I will set a mark upon him that mingleth his seed with thy
  brethren, that they may be cursed also. 16 And again: I will set a
  mark upon him that fighteth against thee and thy seed. 17 And again, I
  say he that departeth from thee shall no more be called thy seed; and
  I will bless thee, and whomsoever shall be called thy seed, henceforth
  and forever; and these were the promises of the Lord unto Nephi and to
  his seed. 18 Now the Amlicites knew not that they were fulfilling the
  words of God when they began to mark themselves in their foreheads;
  nevertheless they had come out in open rebellion against God;
  therefore it was expedient that the curse should fall upon them. 19
  Now I would that ye should see that they brought upon themselves the
  curse; and even so doth every man that is cursed bring upon himself
  his own condemnation.

When you try to be consistent with the BoM then cherry-picking to justify prejudices is going to happen, as God isn't going to discriminate based on skin color for example.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon/2_Nephi#26:33

  33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that
  which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it
  be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come
  unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come
  unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he
  remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and
  Gentile.

And here the believers are commanded not to hold these against others since the believers should reflect on the filthiness of their own souls. This is similar to "Him who has no sin cast the first stone", IMO.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon/Jacob#3:8

  7 Behold, their husbands love their wives, and their wives love their
  husbands; and their husbands and their wives love their children; and
  their unbelief and their hatred towards you is because of the iniquity
  of their fathers; wherefore, how much better are you than they, in the
  sight of your great Creator? 8 O my brethren, I fear that unless ye
  shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours,
  when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God. 9
  Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God,
  that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their
  skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their
  filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember
  that their filthiness came because of their fathers.

So, it is easy to see how people could pick some verses and make some decisions that enforce their own biases, but that is due to ignoring other verses, so the blame is not on the BoM but on those that did the cherry-picking.


In Jeremiah 12:7, who is the "Beloved of my Heart"?

Contra your assertion that "This Scripture portion is one of Jeremiah's confessions to the Lord", most conservative commentators interpret a switch in voice starting from verse 5 (The NIV even inserts a section heading to that effect) - the prophet is recording the words of the Lord:

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers -

  ...The speaker is clearly Jehovah...

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges -

  ...Jehovah’s heritage has turned as a savage beast against Him. Therefore He has given her over to be the prey of neighbouring nations...

The Pulpit commentary -

  ...Jehovah, not the prophet, is evidently the speaker...

In harmony with this perspective, the Beloved is generally identified as God's chosen people, the children of Israel, but which (particularly in immediate context), could be more specifically focused as the remnant of them extant at the time, ie Judah:

Matthew Henry -

  ...God's people had been the dearly-beloved of his soul, precious in his sight, but they acted so, that he gave them up to their enemies...

Matthew Poole -

  ...God by his house here understandeth the temple, which God is said here to have forsaken with respect to his gracious manifestations in it to the people that came thither to worship him. By his heritage he means the whole body of the Israelites..."I have given the dearly beloved of my soul into the hands of her enemies"; that is, he had given that nation which was once his dearly beloved into the hands or power of their enemies...

The Pulpit commentary -

  ..."I have forsaken mine house." The "house" is here not the temple, but the people of Israel, as the parallel clause shows...


Is there any theological reason for not drinking the communion wine?

There is, as far as I know, no theological reason for not partaking of the wine. However there are a number of practical ones, more than just 'ick':

If you are sick and do not wish to infect others, and communion is by common cup. This can normally be avoided by intinction, but if intinction is not practiced then some people will avoid the wine.
If you are an alcoholic, or are sworn to total abstinence, and alcoholic wine is being served


What is the biblical basis for humans becoming angels after they die?

This answer is from the perspective of the theology of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772), and of the various denominations that accept his theology, commonly called "New Church" or "Swedenborgian" denominations.

Swedenborg taught that there are no angels pre-created as a separate race, nor did any such pre-created angels fall from heaven to become Satan and his angels. Instead, he taught that all angels and demons were once human beings who lived in the material world, and that Satan or the Devil is a collective term for hell.

As explained more fully in my answer here, Swedenborg is the primary source of the modern-day belief that people become angels after death. Swedenborg himself, though, saw this idea as firmly based on the Bible's depiction of angels.

This answer draws heavily on the article, What the Bible Says: Where Angels Come From, which is also written from the perspective of Swedenborg's theology.

The Bible says nothing about angels being created

Genesis 1 describes the creation of "the heavens and the earth," and everything in them. And yet, in the Creation story there is no mention of God creating angels. It seems unlikely that God would leave such an important created being out of the Creation story.

The creation of angels is not mentioned anywhere else in the Bible, either.

The passage about "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 is often cited as evidence for pre-existing angels. However, this prophecy was not interpreted as being about a fallen angel until centuries after it was written. In the original Hebrew, the word that is translated "Lucifer" in older and more traditional translations actually refers to the morning star (i.e., Venus), using it as a metaphor for the king of Babylon.

Though there are non-Biblical texts describing angels as a separate race of beings, the Bible itself never says that they are a separate race, nor does it make any clear statements about where they come from. The idea that angels are a separate race is based more on tradition and church doctrine than on the Bible.

And as covered in the remaining points, there are many indications in the Bible that angels are indeed humans who have gone on to heaven.

The Bible often refers to angels as "men"

The Bible commonly uses the word "man"—Hebrew אִישׁ ('iysh), "man"; Greek ἀνήρ (anēr) "man" or νεανίσκος (neaniskos), "young man"—to refer to angels.

Here are some examples:

  While I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen
  before in a vision, came to me in swift flight at the time of the
  evening sacrifice. (Daniel 9:21)

Here Gabriel, who is seen by Christians as an angel based on Luke 1:19, 26, is called a "man."

The two angels (see Genesis 19:1, 15) who visited Lot in Genesis 19:1–29  are called "men" in Genesis 18:2, 16, 22; 19:10, 12, 16, and in several other verses in Genesis 18 & 19.

When an angel appeared to Manoah and his wife (Samson's parents) in Judges 13, they identified him as a "man of God," and both they and the narrator also refer to him as a "man"—although he is also clearly identified as an angel. Manoah even calls the angel "a man" when he talks to him (see Judges 13:11), and the angel does not correct him. This suggests that the angel had no problem thinking of himself as a human being like Manoah.

In Zechariah's vision of the horsemen in Zechariah 1:7–17, the lead horseman, who was "standing among the myrtle trees" is referred to both as a "man" and as an "angel."

The angel(s) at Jesus' empty tomb is(are) referred to as an angel in Matthew 28:2–7 and as two angels in John 20:11–13, but as a man in Mark 16:5–7 and two men in Luke 24:4–8.

In short, the Bible uses "angel" and "man" almost interchangeably when speaking about angels. If angels were a separate race, the Bible would not refer to them as men, or people. That would be like calling a horse a sheep, or a pig a donkey.

The fact that there is no separate word for "angel" in the Bible (see below), and that angels are commonly referred to as "men," strongly suggests that angels are humans.

Angels look like people

As seen in the passages quoted and referred to just above, when people on earth encounter angels, they commonly think that they are meeting a human being rather than an angel. The writer of the letter to the Hebrews even says:

  Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that
  some have entertained angels without knowing it. (Hebrews 13:2)

Although angels are sometimes described in the Bible as having shining faces and clothes, this is not unique to angels. Moses' face also shone after he had spoken with God (see Exodus 34:29–34). And in the final verse of the Parable of the Weeds among the Wheat in Matthew 13:24–30; 36–43, Jesus says:

  Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their
  Father. (Matthew 13:43)

So Jesus himself says that people who are righteous will shine in God's kingdom—just like the angels.

"Angel" means "messenger," not a separate race of beings

In both the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New Testament, the word for "angel" simply means "messenger." It does not refer to a separate race of beings. The Hebrew word is מַלְאָךְ (mal'ak), "messenger"; the Greek word is ἄγγελος (aggelos), "messenger."

Although angels are sometimes described as great, holy, powerful, and so on, the same descriptions are also used for people. For example, both angels and people are called:

"holy ones": Daniel 4:13, 17; Daniel 8:13–14 (angels); Psalm 30:4; Psalm 16:3 (people—and many other places traditionally translated "saints")
"sons of God": Job 1:6; 2:1 (angels); John 1:12; Romans 8:14; 1 John 3:1–2 (people)
"gods": Psalm 8:5 (the word used here is elohim, "God"), quoted as "angels" in Hebrews 2:7 (angels); Psalm 82:6–7; John 10:34–35 (people)

In fact, human beings are also called "messengers" many times in the Bible, using the very same words, both in Hebrew and in Greek, that are used of angel messengers. For just a few examples, see Genesis 32:3; Deuteronomy 2:26; Joshua 6:17; Matthew 11:10; Luke 7:24; James 2:25.

In short, "angels" or "messengers" in the Bible can be either human beings on earth or angelic beings in heaven. Both of them are described using the same words.

Angels themselves reject the idea that they are superior beings

Not once, but twice in the book of Revelation John fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who was speaking to him. Both times the angel stopped him, making himself equal to human beings under God:

  At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, "Don't
  do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers and
  sisters who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For it is the
  Spirit of prophecy who bears testimony to Jesus." (Revelation 19:10)

  I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had
  heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel
  who had been showing them to me. But he said to me, "Don't do that! I
  am a fellow servant with you and with your fellow prophets and with
  all who keep the words of this scroll. Worship God!" (Revelation
  22:8–9)

Jesus says that we become like angels after death

In the incident of the question from the Sadducees about the Resurrection, recorded in the three Synoptic Gospels, Jesus says we will be "like" or "equal to" the angels. See Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:35–36. And the saved are described as having powers similar to those that angels might wield. See, for example, Mark 16:17,18; 11:23; Luke 10:17,19; John 14:12.

Yes, it could be objected that just because people can be just like angels, that doesn't necessarily mean that they can become and be angels. But if it looks like an angel, walks like an angel, and quacks like an angel . . . .

Conclusion

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that angels are a separately created race of beings.

Everywhere in the Bible, angels are described as being human, as having characteristics and powers similar to those possessed by great human beings, and as engaging tasks similar to those that human beings engage in.

Further, both angels and Jesus himself make humans—especially humans who have died and been resurrected—equal to and in every way like angels.

The main difference between humans and angels is that humans live on earth while angels live in heaven. Other than that, it's difficult if not impossible to find any real differences between them. And since it is commonly believed by many, if not most, Christians that we will live in heaven after death, that would leave no differences at all between angels and humans.

Why would God create two different races of beings that look the same, speak the same, think the same, and act the same as each other?

Based on all of this, it is quite reasonable to conclude based on the Bible's stories about angels that they are indeed human beings who have gone on to the spiritual world and become angels. After all, Jesus himself said to one of the thieves on the cross:

  Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise. (Luke 23:43)

Once again, this answer is given from the perspective of the theology of Emanuel Swedenborg, and of the New Church or Swedenborgian denominations that accept his doctrines.

These church denominations all hold the view that there are no angels created separately, but that all angels were once people who lived in physical world, and after death went on to become angels in heaven.


Where did the Petrine title of "First Among Equals" originate?

I assume that your question is not about the exact usage or origin of the phrase First Among Equals rather the primacy of the bishop of Rome. i.e., The office of the bishop of Rome is considered preeminent.

The Orthodox Churches did not begin to assert this title after the Schism nor did the Catholic Church reject it after it. Both the churches always agreed that the bishop of Rome is first among the Pentarchy (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem). The problem was on whether this primacy is just a honorary title or does it have functions/privileges attached to it (which is in and of itself a completely different question).

There has been many instances before the Schism which shows that the papal supremacy was an accepted fact.

"For it is with this Roman church, by reason of its more powerful preeminence that every other church, that is to say all the faithful everywhere, ought to agree, inasmuch as in this church the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those who come from everywhere."  St. Irenaeus ("Against All Heresies," c. 180 A.D.)
The first bishop to claim primacy in writing was Pope Stephen I (254-257)
Where Peter is, There is the Church - St. Ambrose, Archbishop of Milan ("Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David" c. 389 A.D.)
"'But,' you [Jovinian] will say, 'it was on Peter that the Church was founded' [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division."  St. Jerome ("Against Jovinian," c. 393 A.D.)
"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church."   St. Augustine of Hippo ("Sermon 295," c. 411 A.D.)
Edicts of the Emperor Theodosius II and of Valentinian III proclaimed the Roman bishop as "Rector of the whole Church". The Emperor Justinian, who was living in the East in Constantinople, in the 6th century published a similar decree.
First Council of Constantinople decreed: "The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Rome.

They might have used different words, but neither the Catholic church nor the orthodox church has ever refused the primacy of the Bishop of Rome till today. They always considered him to be First Among Equals. It is whether this primacy has extra function is what is been questioned after the east-west schism.


Does Pope Francis' rewording on the subject of capital punishment in the Catechism trump those of Pope John Paul II's encyclical Evangelium vitae?

Pope Francis' revision of the Catechism does not contradict John Paul II's thinking on this issue, especially as seen in the encyclical Evangelium Vitae.  Francis' revision is just finishing the work that John Paul II began regarding capital punishment.  Therefore Francis has not 'trumped' Evangelium Vitae.

Pope John Paul II

First, let's have another look at section 56 while emphasizing a different side of the story with bold text:

  On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in
  civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or
  even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in
  the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human
  dignity and thus, in the end, with God's plan for man and society.
  [...]

  It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and
  extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon,
  and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in
  cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be
  possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of
  steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such
  cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

  In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the
  Catholic Church remains valid: "If bloodless means are sufficient to
  defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order
  and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such
  means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of
  the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human
  person".[48]

  -Evangelium Vitae, 56

John Paul II's thought on this issue moved the Church in the direction of abolition by way of human dignity, and this is exactly what we see in section 56.

Safeguarding the Death Penalty?

The key question which concerns us is this: Did John Paul II intend to safeguard the death penalty in Evangelium Vitae?  Of course everyone knows that he wanted to severely limit the practical application of capital punishement, but did he also want to safeguard the possibility of the practice?  Only if he intended to safeguard it would there be a tension between John Paul II's teaching and Francis' teaching.

There are two reasons why I don't see evidence of this. First, his reasons given for limiting capital punishment reflect an understanding which sees the death penalty as justified only "when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society" (EV 56).  Thus he saw capital punishment as a necessary evil that ought to be dispensed with as soon as possible.  Nowhere in Evangelium Vitae do we find the claim that capital punishment cannot be abolished.  On the contrary, we read that the cases where capital punishment can be legitimately applied "are very rare, if not practically non-existent," and that "If bloodless means are sufficient," then they must be used.

The second reason is weaker.  It is that his teaching on capital punishment caused wariness among conservative theologians who affirmed the Church's long practice of allowing capital punishment, such as Avery Cardinal Dulles.  Such theologians were relieved when then-Prefect of the CDF, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote a letter to Cardinal McCarrick.  The third section of that letter informs us that Catholics may disagree with the Holy Father on the matter of capital punishment.  The conservative theologians were worried about an abolition of the death penalty, and their fears were not assuaged by the writings of John Paul II.

Pope Francis

Pope Francis' revision to the Catechism makes use of arguments which are very similar to Evangelium Vitae (e.g. a focus on safeguarding society, emphasizing modern prison systems capable of carrying out life sentences, and a very similar theory of punishment).  Like John Paul II, he relies heavily on the idea of human dignity, even using it as the centerpiece of his conclusion, "the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person" (This quote is included in the draft for the Catechism revision and originally comes from this address).

John Paul II said, "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means..." (EV 56).

Francis has essentially said: Bloodless means are sufficient, therefore the death penalty is inadmissible.  John Paul II wrote the conditional; Francis affirmed the antecedent.  We all know what follows.  "Trumping" only comes into play when there are opposing views.  It doesn't apply here.

(It should be noted that while I personally disagree with Francis' revision, I obviously do not believe that it is inherently contrary to John Paul II's teaching on this subject.)


What is the biblical basis against polygamy in the New Covenant?

God's Standard Should Be Our Standard
The biblical standard regarding marriage, from Genesis to Revelation is

One groom, one bride, what e'er betide.

Or in slightly less old fashioned verbiage:

One husband, one wife, for life.

God never sanctioned polygyny in the Tanakh, nor did Jesus sanction it in the New Covenant. God's design from the beginning was stated in Genesis 2:24-25 and reiterated by Jesus in Matthew 19:3-12 and Mark 10:2-12. I teased the following statements from Genesis, Matthew, and Mark:

Marriage between one woman and one man was instituted by God.

The man and woman who marry are fully equal in the eyes of God, but they are different in significant ways. There are obvious similarities and differences, but the differences, in particular, complement each other.

Marriage involves two families, but it is the basis of a third family in its own right. In other words, there is a leaving and a cleaving and a conceiving (though not always).

God joins together two people, one man and one woman, and the two--not three or four or more--become one flesh.

Jesus sanctioned divorce when adultery violates the oneness of the marital relationship, but by the same token Jesus did not command divorce when either husband and/or wife commits adultery. In other words, he held out for the possibility of confession, forgiveness, and restoration of the relationship. Serial monogamy is not the biblical ideal, though Jesus obviously sanctioned (but did not command) remarriage after the death of one's spouse.

Jesus' emphasis on Moses in his discussion with the Pharisees who came to Jesus to test him with their question is significant. According to Jesus, "Moses permitted divorce" because of the hardness of the Israelis' hearts, neither because God had made provision for it in his original plan nor because it was legislated in the Mosaic law.

Is There Any Wiggle Room?
No.

The levirate spoken of in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 (levirate comes from the Latin word for brother-in-law) may seem like an exception to the "one husband, one wife, for life" rule, but it is not. As Constable noted in his explanation of this passage in the NET Bible "Notes":

"The Israelites were to practice levirate marriage only in cases where the brothers had lived together (v. 5) and the remaining brother was not already married. Living together meant living in the same area, not necessarily residing under the same roof.[286] When another kinsman voluntarily assumed the responsibility of the surviving brother, that brother was apparently under no obligation to marry his sister-in-law (cf. Ruth 4). [my emphasis]
"There were several reasons for this provision. These reasons were the importance of descendants in God’s purposes for Israel, the welfare of the widow, and the demonstration of love for one’s brother (cf. Gen. 38).[287]"

Paul's insistence that a church elder or church deacon must be "the husband of but one
wife," or as some folks interpret it, "a one-woman man," cannot be an argument from silence that it's OK for men who do not aspire to be leaders in the local church to have multiple wives. Furthermore, the decision of the polygynous man either to keep or separate from a second or third, or more wives, would be up to the husband, his wives, and the leadership of the local church, with each case judged and ruled upon based on its merits on a case by case basis (see 1 Timothy 2:1 ff.).

A Legitimate Inference Based on Every Example of Polygyny in the Bible
I feel confident in presenting this challenge to any reader of my answer to cite a Scripture passage (not the LDS Scripture, however, as I am not a Mormon) or give me an instance in the Bible in which polygyny was not characterized by familial infighting, deceit, jealousy, strife, violence, resentment, long-standing feuds, favoritism, hurt feelings, spiritual backsliding, or any one of a host of other negative aspects and consequences. There is simply not one instance.
What can we legitimately infer from the overwhelming evidence of negative consequences based on the instances of polygyny in the Bible? The only reasonable answer, at least in my opinion, is that God does not approve of it, and to flaunt God's standards regarding marriage is to court disaster. You can count on it!