Is there only one God (or אֱלֹהִים, or θεός) by nature?

I think the general understanding among Christians is that God, properly understood, is unique in both nature and office when considering His full nature and full office. That is, there's no other being that is is His own essence (nature) or is the creator of all things (office). (Summa, Part 1, Question 3)

However, your question, as stated, seems to be more of a linguistic question. The words we use to refer to God are ultimately finite and flexible. Even if we had a word for a moment in time that specifically referred to the single being who is His own essence and is the creator of all things, that word would dissipate in its pure meaning very rapidly. Furthermore, words with strict meanings are often used in other contexts hyperbolically or illustratively.

Let's pretend our word for the single being who is His own essence and is the creator of all things is Pift. Thusly, it's proper for me to say,

  There is only one Pift. And Pift alone is worth our praise and
  worship.

But, I can also, in the very next sentence say,

  Cast your other Pifts aside. They're worthless!

Or even,

  That man is a Pift.

The first statement uses Pift in the proper literal form. In fact, the first sentence is tautological; it just paraphrases part of our literal definition. The other two statements abuse the strict, literal denotation of the word, but they each have a proper connotation. They're not necessarily misuses of the word, nor do they necessarily change the meaning of the first statement or the word itself.

In the second statement, something other than Pift is revered as Pift; and to highlight the reverence inappropriately given to these things, they're called Pift -- or perhaps the reverencers simply know them as Pift(s), and I'm using the term to avoid confusion (possibly counterproductive). In either case, there exist (or possible doesn't exist) some perceived things that is given honor and worship on par with Pift. Hence, they are the "Pifts" of our lives.

In the third statement, Pift is clearly just a hyperbole. There exists a man whom we think is awesome for some reason -- perhaps he can run 100 miles without stopping to pee or something equally amazing. To highlight how abnormal or amazing this is, we might call him a Pift. The hyperbole is obvious to an average person, and no harm is done to our word or our first statement.

However, the case with God-terminology in the Bible is often of a somewhat different nature, I think. Take a peek at What are the different names of God in the Bible and what do they mean?. You'll see a slew of "names" like Abba, Alpha, Omega, Good Shepherd, Creator, King, Judge, etc.

These are all words with other meanings, and fulfillable by numerous other things, used to refer explicitly to God in their context. They don't necessarily come with an explanation like, when I say judge here, what I really mean is God. Rather, they're [usually] used and understood by context. Take judge as an example.

Suppose you get a letter in the mail from your local court system that contains this:

  You will appear in court on Friday, February 8th. A jury of your peers
  will determine your guilt or innocence. If guilty, the judge will
  determine your sentence.

The judge in this context is a person, a particular one of many who have the qualifications and can fill the role.

Now, suppose you get a letter from a concerned (and probably tactless) Christian friend:

  You will die. Your sins will be weighed against your good deeds. And
  the Judge will determine your sentence.

We're talking about a very specific being here. The phrase, The judge will determine your sentence, is the same. And the denotation is similar, if not identical. But, the connotations and understood meanings are chasms apart.

The interpretive lens for the titles of God in the Bible fall in this spectrum -- from words that may be intended to mean the only one possible God to words elevated to illustrate particular offices or attributes of God. In neither case do I think there's any real ambiguity in the educated Christian mind. And in general, these sorts of ambiguities tend to arise only when we focus too closely on somethings (literal meaning of a word, in this case) and ignore the context.


Was there a reason Jesus came at the time he did?

The short answer is "yes" – there is nothing accidental about how the key events in the Bible timeline unfold. This is evident in Acts 41 for example:

27for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. ESV

I'm going to recast your question as "Explain how the timing of the incarnation fits with God's overall plan revealed as revealed in scripture"

Before answering I'm going to refute, or at least demote, some of the common answers to this question:

"The Pax Romana and great road system allowed the Gospel to spread"
The gospel spread predominently by sea, and sea travel wasn't new. The Gospel was competing with any number of other religions and ideologies and its successful spread as outlined in Acts is explained only by the miracles2 that accompanied the evangelists. The power of Rome was important however, as I will explain later.

"The common Greek language allowed the Gospel to spread"
Language was no barrier to the Holy Spirit3. In any event lingua francas have developed around the world throughout human history, Greek being just the current example in the 1st century.

God's overall plan, and how the timing of the incarnation fits in:

What went wrong in the garden?
Adam and Eve disobey God, yes, but more importantly they distrust God:

17And to Adam he said,
“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; ESV

God's purpose in Bible history is not just to display his glorious forgiveness for this crime of failing to believe Him (which logically, He could have done straight away). It is also to prove that He is, in the final reckoning, right, and the lies are indeed false4. Everything that follows can be seen in this overarching context.

The purpose of the curse
The curse includes pain, sweat, conflict and especially death5. This is for a reason, and it is not just punishment: God will do all it takes to bring mankind back, never to doubt Him again. It has to be a long and difficult road, because every opportunity to blame God or to try and remake the world in our own image has to be exhausted before we will know forever and beyond doubt that He is 'the God of truth'.

Fix the outside (1), the flood
Left to their own devices, the wickedness of man increases6. God intervenes again and again – but each time a different lesson is learned. With the flood, God shows that the problem of wickedness cannot be addressed by washing it all away and starting again, because it is not a problem of society, culture or history. The problem is much deeper, in the heart7. As Noah steps onto the land that has been washed clean, he brings sin with him8.

Fix the outside (2), the law
The law brings another lesson: rules, however good and perfect, don't provoke an unrighteous man to righteousness. You simply cannot reach the human heart from the outside9.
The history of Israel after the giving of the law is a litany of its failure to make the nation righteous, from the cesspool of Judges until the circle is complete and they return to exile. Only after the return from exile is there a spark of hope: the open idolatry of the past is banished and a religion that purports to worship God begins10, but this too is a lie that must be exposed.

Twin Peaks: The Pharisees and Rome
Rome is like Egypt and Babylon before it: a symbol of the heights of human power and authority. That this empire should be conquered by the Gospel, and more importantly the manner of this conquest, is highly significant. God has demonstrated his power to humble the most powerful human rulers before, by smashing them with raw force11, or driving them to eat grass 'like an ox', but it is Rome's heart that is broken, not her right arm.
By contrast, the Pharisaic religion represent the pinnicle of human evil, in that it is the biggest lie. From the outside everything looks good, but nothing has changed within: worship is from the mouth not the heart12. Jesus' arrival is coincident with this peak of self-righteousness and he never holds back from denouncing it: he takes every opportunity to attack their hypocrisy13. What is inside the 'whitewashed tombs' must be revealed, and sure enough, the spitting hatred for God that lurks beneath the surface comes boiling out14 as these respectable religious folk conspire with their hated oppressors to kill the one who tells the truth in order to silence him.

So, Jesus came as just the right time: the events past were all that was needed to reveal the futility of every sort of lie and rebellion. The peak of both religious and idolatrous lie-worship had arrived and the life, death and resurrection of Jesus both exposed the lies, and laid open the way back to God for those who now choose truth.

1 See also Isaiah 46 and many other places in scripture.
2 For example, see how the great excitement of the crowds in Lystra in Acts 14 was a response to an extrodinary miricle. Paul elsewhere calls signs and wonders and mighty works evidence of apostleship.
3 See Acts 2:5-13.
4 The new man in the new creation will thus never fall again: he knows that God is to be trusted in a way that Adam could not: from the past. There is no form of rebellion that has not been tried already, and shown to be nothing but false promises and foolish vanity.
5 See Genesis 2:17, 3:3 and 3:19; the repetition imbues emphasis.
6 See Genesis 6:12
7 This is Peter's understanding of the flood: Baptism corresponds to the washing of the flood, but not at the level of removing dirt from the outside (i.e. the body) but acting on the inside where the conscience operates.
8 See Genesis 9:20-27
9 See Galatians 3:21
10 See 'let us make a covenant with our God' in Ezra:10. Ezra is unaware of the bitter irony of Israel re-committing itself to God and promising anew to keep His law. This verse is often read in a positive light but to do so is to completely miss the big picture of the Bible narrative; the seeds of the biggest and worst lie are being sown.
11 See Exodus 9:16
12 Isaiah forsaw this (Isaiah 29) and it was fulfilled in Jesus time (Mark 7:6): not a coincidence!
13 The list of examples is long. Jesus spoke of no other group like this: Gentiles, tax collectors and prostitutes were treated with gentleness. Though their sin was not condoned, they were not beyone the help of the 'physician'.
14 See the show-trial of Matthew 26:67-68.


What is the origin of the moral-civil-ceremonial distinction of the Old Testament law?

You can look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church for more information about equating the moral law with the Ten Commandments.

Here you can read a nice summary of this section. But, to break it up into some parts to help explain, you may want to look at the definition of a moral law:

1950 The moral law is the work of divine Wisdom. Its biblical meaning
can be defined as fatherly instruction, God's pedagogy. It prescribes
for man the ways, the rules of conduct that lead to the promised
beatitude; it proscribes the ways of evil which turn him away from
God and his love. It is at once firm in its precepts and, in its
promises, worthy of love.
1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them
interrelated: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural
law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of
the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws.
1953 The moral law finds its fullness and its unity in Christ. Jesus
Christ is in person the way of perfection. He is the end of the law,
for only he teaches and bestows the justice of God: "For Christ is
the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified."

So, the first stage of revealed law is the Ten Commandments, but these were perfected by the New Law (the grace of the Holy Spirit), so we can see by the CCC that moral law is more than just the Ten Commandments, but, also covers the New Law.

Now, as much as I am a huge fan of Aquinas, I tend to think that there can be problems with his divisions, but they can also be useful for explanation, but the problems should also be understood.

This article does a good job of explaining problems with dividing them.

We should not decide which is critical to obey and which can be ignored, safely.  I like this quote from the link above:

  If God says it, it is immoral to disobey. Morality is not a standard independent of God. God decides what is right and what is wrong.

Here is a likely reason for the three-part division, taken from this historical background:

  Why were the dogmatical terms of Moral, Civil and Ceremonial developed
  if there is no division in the Bible and the Jews never considered the
  Law as threefold? The division probably was developed because there
  are 3 natural parts to the Mosaic Law. It also makes for easier
  teaching when we study the Old Testament Law in a threefold sense. The
  Law of Moses is massive in scope.

So, you are correct that it appears to have started with Aquinas, as far as I can tell, but there does seem to be a natural split of the Law into two parts, a moral and ceremonial, as well.


According to Catholicism, is Jesus' resurrected body in a certain location now that it has ascended?

He ascended body and soul into heaven.
Catechism of the Council of Trent (eBook) on Article 6 of the Creed, "He ascended into heaven…":

First Part of this Article: "He Ascended into Heaven"
With regard, then, to the exposition of this sixth Article, which has
reference principally to this divine mystery, we shall begin with its
first part, and point out its force and meaning.
"Into Heaven"
This, then, the faithful must believe without hesitation, that Jesus
Christ, having fully accomplished the work of Redemption, ascended as
man, body and soul, into heaven; for as God He never forsook heaven,
filling as He does all places with His Divinity.
"He Ascended"
The pastor is also to teach that He ascended by His own power, not
being taken up by the power of another, as was Elias, who was carried
to heaven in a fiery chariot; or, as the Prophet Habacuc, or Philip,
the deacon, who were borne through the air by the divine power, and
traversed great distances.
Neither did He ascend into heaven solely by the exercise of His
supreme power as God, but also by virtue of the power which He
possessed as man. Although human power alone was insufficient to
accomplish this, yet the virtue with which the blessed soul of Christ
was endowed was capable of moving the body as it pleased, and His
body, now glorified, readily obeyed the behest of the soul that moved
it. Hence, we believe that Christ ascended into heaven as God and man
by His own power.


How do we argue when someone posits a non-causal universe

Do you mean that this person rejects the idea of causality itself? i.e. that he believes that things happen with no cause? Or that he rejects the idea that there must be a First Cause?

If he rejects causality, he is rejecting science as well as Christianity. You could, perhaps, propose experiments to show that the universe is predictable. Like, I hold a rock at arms length and let it go. Every time I perform this experiment it falls to the ground: it never hovers motionless in midair or flies off at an angle. Etc.

If he postulates an infinitely old universe as an alternative to a First Cause, I'd point out the Second Law of Thermodynamics: entropy. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but it tends to become more evenly distributed over time. After some amount of time, all the energy in the universe will become completely evenly distributed. As doing useful work requires energy differentials, at this point the universe would be dead. Physicists refer to this as "heat death". We can debate how long this will take, but it is a finite amount of time, so if the universe was infinitely old, it would have reached this state.

Some people try to get around this by postulating speculative theories, but none of these have any foundation in science: they are pure philosophical speculation. As far as the evidence goes, entropy is a well-established theory.


Can People Who Aren't Saved, Heal in Jesus’ Name?

Your ‘backstory’ explains several things that will help in offering an answer. Immediately, there appears to be a need for you to learn from Jesus’ own words on this subject, and then to subject everything everyone else tells you to that.  There are two particular statements of Jesus that could form a good basis for you to compare all else with.
First, his response to the disciples being upset at some doing miracles, though they were not identified with their group.  This is in Mark 9:38-41:

‘Teacher,’ said John, ‘we saw a man driving out demons in your name
and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.’ ‘Do not stop
him,’ Jesus said. ‘No-one who does a miracle in my name can in the
next moment say anything bad about me…’

Second, his warning to professed Christians on the day of judgement, as to the importance they attached to how they did miracles in his name. This is in Matthew 7:21-23:

‘Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord” will enter the kingdom of
heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Many will say to me on that day, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in
your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many
miracles?” Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from
me, you evildoers.’

Once you have studied those two passages of scripture and become clear as to what Jesus says about casting out demons in his name back then, and what he says about the day of judgment when false prophets and false miracle-workers are exposed and condemned despite them doing things in Jesus’ name, you might be helped to have a biblical basis for asking questions. Perhaps you might see a need to ask a fresh question on the matter concerning you right now.


There's only one God, his name is Yahweh, His son Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit. One God in three persons. In one instance in John 14:9 Jesus says to one of the desciples, who asked of him to show them The Father: "If you see me, you've seen my Father" - meaning, they are one. Obviously, Jesus is The Son of God, but also one with The Father. A triune God if you will.


Is prayer effectively second-guessing God?

I think the following explanation of prayer is very helpful:

  Prayer

  Prayer is the act by which the will of the Father and the will of the child are brought into correspondence with each other. The object of prayer is not to change the will of God, but to secure for ourselves and for others blessings that God is already willing to grant, but that are made conditional on our asking for them. Blessings require some work or effort on our part before we can obtain them. Prayer is a form of work, and is an appointed means for obtaining the highest of all blessings.

So we don't pray to change God's will, we pray to learn about it.

  Matthew 7:7 (KJV)

  7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

But yes, trying to change God's will is disrespectful. You're essentially saying that you are wiser than God.

  Romans 11:34 (KJV)

  34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?


Why does Judaism celebrate Sabbath on Saturday and most Christians celebrate Sabbath on Sunday?

To be clear, most Christians do not celebrate "The Sabbath" on Sunday. Strictly speaking, Christians do not celebrate the Sabbath at all* (although many Christians still refer to their "day of rest" as their "sabbath day", even though this has no direct relationship to the Jewish Sabbath.)  Christians traditionally celebrate on Sundays because this is the day Christ was raised from the grave.

I have not yet found a specific, authoritative reference for the fact that Christians worship on Sunday because that is when Christ was raised, but some references include here and here

*Apparently some Christian groups do call Sunday "the Sabbath" (with a capital S), but I believe this is a minority view out of ignorance of the significance of words, and is rarely considered dogma.


Why did the authors of the London Baptist Confession of 1689 callout the pope as being the antichrist?

An important note. This topic is surely filled with material that is horribly offensive. In the text below, I am trying to describe various beliefs which I do not  personally hold, and to which my denomination (regrettably, only since 1986) no longer subscribes.

One Antichrist or many?

The cited passage from 1 John does indeed talk about many antichrists; it also mentions a unique "the antichrist" who is to come. Several other Biblical passages have been interpreted in support of the existence of a single figure; see for example St Jerome's commentary on Daniel. Augustine (City of God 20.19) similarly says:

  As therefore there went out from the Church many heretics, whom John calls many antichrists, at that time prior to the end, and which John calls the last time, so in the end they shall go out who do not belong to Christ, but to that last Antichrist, and then he shall be revealed.

Robert Lerner (a historian of medieval heresies and millenarian movements) writes:

  Yet, since the author of 1 John drew a distinction in this very passage between the "many antichrists" who existed "even now" and a great Antichrist who "shall come", patristic authorities and medieval theologians concluded that the "many antichrists" were any members of the diabolically inspired human society of evil, all of whom helped to prepare the way for the true Antichrist's coming, but none of whom were to be confused with the Antichrist himself. 1

So, before the Reformation, there was a long tradition of belief in a single future great enemy, whose coming would be anticipated by many lesser antichrists. In the passage you quote, "man of sin" and "son of perdition" are taken from 2 Thessalonians 2:3, which is another prophetic warning about someone usurping the position of Christ - typically identified with the same unique Antichrist.

Popes and the Papacy

Reformation and earlier opponents of the papacy commonly associated the current Pope, the institution, or both, with capital-A Antichrist. There are a few mutually-supporting reasons, though in some cases this is mere name-calling. One view is influenced by the prophetic idea of Antichrist: he is believed to be a future occupant of the See of Peter, and the Popes until then (keeping his seat warm) could be identified with him since they were all thought to be working towards the same diabolical goal. Less eschatologically, the Popes were seen as representative of an ongoing system of oppression; they could each be called Antichrist since they were its leaders.

Some examples (from 1 and 2 Thessalonians through the centuries, Anthony C Thiselton, Wiley 2010):

Joachim of Fiore "is the first to associate [Antichrist] with a triumphal pope."
John Wycliffe (of the Lollards) "was still more emphatic about identifying the Antichrist with the pope or the papacy, or even with institutional church wealth and power"
John Huss "sees the Antichrist as the Pope himself as an individual man"
Martin Luther "insisted that the Antichrist was the Papacy". See his Against the Execrable Bull of Antichrist, the reply to Leo X's bull of censure Exsurge Domine, in which he lashes out at those responsible for the letter, in pure invective. But his condemnation was less for the individual than for what he represented:

  "Luther held that every Pope was Antichrist even though personally exemplary, because Antichrist is collective: an institution, the papacy, a system which corrupts the truth of Christ. That was why Luther could repeatedly address Leo X in terms of personal respect only a week or so after blasting him as Antichrist." 2
  John Calvin also takes the institutional view, but with the Pope as representative of the corrupted universal church, therefore occupying "the seat of Antichrist" 3. Since the 1689 Baptist confession you cite is coming from the Calvinist tradition, this may be the most relevant line of interpretation. The key passage from the Institutes is 4.7.25:

  To some we seem slanderous and petulant, when we call the Roman Pontiff Antichrist. But those who think so perceive not that they are bringing a charge of intemperance against Paul, after whom we speak, nay, in whose very words we speak. But lest any one object that Paul's words have a different meaning, and are wrested by us against the Roman Pontiff, I will briefly show that they can only be understood of the Papacy. Paul says that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God (2 Thess. 2:4). In another passage, the Spirit, portraying him in the person of Antiochus, says that his reign would be with great swelling words of vanity (Dan. 7:25). Hence we infer that his tyranny is more over souls than bodies, a tyranny set up in opposition to the spiritual kingdom of Christ. Then his nature is such, that he abolishes not the name either of Christ or the Church, but rather uses the name of Christ as a pretext, and lurks under the name of Church as under a mask. But though all the heresies and schisms which have existed from the beginning belong to the kingdom of Antichrist, yet when Paul foretells that defection will come, he by the description intimates that that seat of abomination will be erected, when a kind of universal defection comes upon the Church, though many members of the Church scattered up and down should continue in the true unity of the faith. But when he adds, that in his own time, the mystery of iniquity, which was afterwards to be openly manifested, had begun to work in secret, we thereby understand that this calamity was neither to be introduced by one man, nor to terminate in one man (see Calv. in 2 Thess. 2:3; Dan. 7:9). Moreover, when the mark by which he distinguishes Antichrist is, that he would rob God of his honour and take it to himself, he gives the leading feature which we ought to follow in searching out Antichrist; especially when pride of this description proceeds to the open devastation of the Church. Seeing then it is certain that the Roman Pontiff has impudently transferred to himself the most peculiar properties of God and Christ, there cannot be a doubt that he is the leader and standard-bearer of an impious and abominable kingdom. 3

Jacobus Arminius, citing 2 Thessalonians 2, similarly wrote (Disputation 21: On the Roman Pontiff):

  The name of "The Antichrist" belongs to [the Pope] pre-eminently [...] for he is both a rival to Christ, and his adversary, when he boasts of himself as the spouse, the head, and the foundation of the church, endowed with plenitude of power; and yet he professes himself to be the vicegerent of Christ, and to perform his functions on earth, for the sake of his own private advantage, but to the manifest injury of the church of Christ.

1. Antichrists and Antichrist in Joachim of Fiore, Robert E. Lerner. Speculum 60:3, 1985.
2. Here I stand: A life of Martin Luther, Roland H. Bainton. Hendrickson Publishers 2009.
3. Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin. Translated by Henry Beveridge.


At what point is a person considered to be married to someone else?

The following is my understanding of a consistent Reformed understanding of Christian marriage, though it likely applies to others outside of the Reformed camp.

A marriage is a public, legally binding civil covenant recognized by God that binds together a male and female couple into a family that is consummated by sexual relations. It was created by God to be a model of his ultimate relationship between Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5).

This means that there will be some leeway in the precise marriage traditions and ceremony from culture to culture, though there are clearly biblical constraints on marriage and universal moral requirements of marriages that transcend culture. The Bible recognizes marriages between non-Christians as real marriages as a kind of common grace institution. It also recognizes that there are immoral marriages and non-ideal marriages that are possible.

This is why contemporary gay marriage debates should not be argued on the grounds that marriage is a religious institution. Though Christians might have a religious basis for scrupulously avoiding theft, the public, civil recognition of property ownership is not, therefore, a merely religious institution.

For a parallel, consider ordinary contracts and covenants in the Bible. We see all kinds of traditions at play for how people would ratify them: cutting animals (Genesis 15), exchanging sandals (Ruth 4), grabbing the thigh (Genesis 24:9), and so on. Yet they are all doing essentially the same thing but with different symbolism, occasions, and tradition.

Similarly, marriages can be culturally nuanced and yet bindingly so. In a culture where it was normal to deal with a woman's father and then immediately consummate your marriage without ceremony, this was a legitimate and proper way to begin a marriage (Isaac, Jacob, etc.) whereas it wouldn't be in a context where marriages are not ratified this way. For example, for Christian marriages in America, the marriage is traditionally considered "ratified" when the officiating minister declares the couple husband and wife after the exchange of vows. If this couple privately met a week earlier and rationalized having premarital sex on the grounds that they were getting married anyway and biblical couples were "married in the eyes of God" this way, they would be fornicating because in the "eyes of God" they should have officiated their marriage in the way that public covenants are normally ratified.

We could imagine a culture where business contracts were officiated by exchanging sandals. If you helped yourself to your side of the deal without following this sandal ritual this would be stealing in the eyes of God, not because sandals are necessary to prevent stealing but because contractual commitments matter to God.

This understanding should reconcile all of the Biblical examples of marriage while also addressing contemporary traditions. Marriage covenants needed to be "official," however the society generally officiates such matters.

For the issue @davidlol raised in a comment:

  John 4 18 in which Jesus told the Samaritan lady at Jacob's well that
  she had had five husbands but the man she now had was not her husband
  may be relevant here, although I don't know how. What did Jesus mean
  that he wasn't her husband?

This is now easily answered. She was living with a man for whom she had not followed the appropriate culturally recognized method for officiating a marriage.


Are Wednesday church services scriptural?

A church service is a gathering of believers who have an intent of glorifying God with the Word, prayer, worship, and breaking of bread, or a smaller version with just one or two of these aspects. That is allowable any day of the week. For the believer, every day is an opportunity to glorify God, with the gathering of the saints and without.

Is it scriptural? Romans 14:5 tells us, "One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind."

I thank God that our church here in Costa Mesa has Bible studies every day of the week, so we may go as often as we need the refreshing breezes from off His holy hill.


Those studying and commenting on Tobit have long been intrigued and puzzled by the presence of Tobit's "canine companion". This answer is based on Carey Moore's work, Tobit: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 40; Doubleday, 1996). He signals the measure of bemusement this creature brings as he begins his comment on the 11:4 occurrence (p. 261):

  That elusive dog again!

He offers most of his discussion about this canine character at 6:2 (pp. 197-8). Condensing and simplifying, with a few notes of my own, the main options canvassed by scholars are these:

An old scribal mistake, which turned ha-leb ("the heart") into keleb ("dog") -- but this is an old suggestion which has not been taken up.
An "echo" of the "Tale of Ahiqar", counselling careful speech, since "the tail of a dog gives him bread, but his mouth gets him blows". This seems like a fairly dim and distant allusion (if it is one) to me (although there is an "Ahiqar" character in the story, cf. 1:21-22; 2:10; 11:18; 14:10).
There are several suggestions which cluster around the role of the dog in Persian/Zoroastrian culture and ritual; cf. Mary Boyce, A History of Zoroastrianism: 1. The Early Period (Brill, 1996), pp. 302-3 ("It is possible to find rational and historical grounds for the Zoroastrian regard for the dog."); and F. Kotwal and J.K. Choksy, "To Praise the Souls of the Deceased and the Immortal Spirits of the Righteous Ones", in M. Stausberg (ed), Zoroastrian Rituals in Context (Brill, 2004), p. 399. But while this might add an element of verisimilitude to the story, there is no ritual role for this particular dog.
Moore's own view is that Tobit draws on an older "secular" folk tale, and "the safest conclusion is that the dog, which is the only gratuitous piece of description in the story, was originally part of the secular folktale used by the narrator" (p. 198). At the 11:4 context, Moore concedes that the dog might have played a more integral role in that "original" tale, and that what remains is fairly vestigial.

Important to note for OP's form of the question, though, is that the dog has no particular relationship with the archangel Raphael, but appears to be part of the Tobit household (or perhaps a friendly "neighbourhood" dog): the two explicit mentions of the dog marking the beginning (6:2) and end (11:4) of the journey.


According to Reformed Theology, how does omniscience relate to election?

First, it would be helpful to just define the term for the sake of clarity.  Omniscience means "all-knowing" and this is derived from "omni" which is a prefix taken from Latin meaning "all", and "scientia", from Latin for "knowledge."

According to many (perhaps most) Reformed theologians, God has foreknowledge of everything NOT because he somehow looks into the future and "sees" what man will do and acts in response; but He Himself has foreknowledge because He has decreed that certain things will come to pass: he does not decree (act in a certain way) because he foreknows, but He foreknows (knows prior to all human action) because he decrees.  He knew from the foundation of the world that the elect would be saved and the reprobate would be damned because He decreed that these things would come to pass.

Even though there has been some criticism about a supposed reconciliation between the two, it usually tends to lean toward Arminianism, and so Reformed thinkers have rightly refused any such efforts.  One Reformed thinker that holds this view (or some slight variation of it) would be Loraine Boettner:

  Foreordination in general cannot rest on foreknowledge; for only that
  which is certain can be foreknown, and only that which is
  predetermined can be certain.  The Almighty and all-sovereign ruler
  does not govern Himself on the basis of a foreknowledge of things
  which might haply come to pass.  Through the scriptures the divine
  foreknowledge is ever thought of as dependent on the divine purpose,
  and God foreknows only because He has pre-determined.  His
  foreknowledge is but a transcript of His will as to what shall come to
  pass in the future, and the course which the world takes under His
  providential control is but the execution of His all-embracing plan.  The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, 99.

Taking the controversial passage in Romans (8:29) that "those whom He foreknew, He predestined..." Calvinists interpret foreknew to be relational, that this indicated a special relationship between God and his elect:

  Calvinists contend that the passage teaches that God set His heart upon (i.e., foreknew) certain individual; these He predestined or marked out to be saved.  Notice that the text does not say that God knew something about particular individuals (that they would do this or that), but that God knew the individuals themselves: those whom He knew He predestined to be made like Christ.  The word "foreknew" as used here is thus understood to be equivalent to "foreloved"--those who were the objects of God's love He marked out for salvation. The Five Points of Calvinism, Steel, Quinn, Thomas. 158

Arminians take it on face value, meaning that even though God is active in influencing them to repentance, that it is a reference to God's knowledge of their future actions, and does not necessarily have any relation to God's action (or lack thereof) in bringing this about.  Prominent Arminian theologian says,

  ...all true Arminians believe in predestination, but not in Calvinist foreordination.  That is, they believe that God foreknows every person's ultimate and final decision regarding Jesus Christ, and on that basis God predestines people to salvation or damnation.  But Arminians do not believe God predetermines or preselects people for either heaven or hell apart from their free acts of accepting or resisting the grace of God. Arminian Theology, 180.

More could be said, but any further discussion would revolve around specific definitions of omniscience, debates about free-will, debates about future contingents, and attempted reconciliations of divine sovereignty and human freedom and the origin of sin/evil, of which last debate, Calvinists have generally fallen into two camps: the first, that we have no idea how the first sin (whether by Lucifer or Adam) came about.  R.C. Sproul held this view:

  We sin because we are sinners.  We were born with a sin nature.  But Adam and Eve were not created fallen.  They had no sin nature.  They were good creatures with a free will.  Yet they chose to sin.  Why?  I don't know.  Nor have I found anyone yet who does know.  In spite of this excruciating problem we must still affirm that God is not the author of sin.  Chosen by God, 31.

Second is that God did it but this in no way compromises His holiness since there is no standard to which God is subject.  Gordon Clark, a famous presuppositional Calvinist apologist held this view:

  God's causing a man to sin is not sin. There is no law, superior to God, which forbids him to decree sinful acts. Sin presupposes a law, for sin is lawlessness...the laws that God imposes on men do not apply to the divine nature.  Reason, Religion, and Revelation, 240.

In response to the 3 follow up questions about meaning:

God's omniscience is not retrained to temporal thinking: these aren't necessarily technical terms, but conservative Christian thinkers believe that God's knowledge is not limited by free actions (unless, like certain Calvinists, you don't believe in free actions or define freedom compatibilistically), and God's knowledge is not in any way imposed upon by the passage of time.  God does not learn anything new or come to believe something that He once believed false, or vice-versa.

God knows everything in the present: this is generally to say that God does not reflect upon any given event as past or future, but is aware of it as a present reality.  This is mostly to say that, again, God's omniscience is not restricted by the passage of time.  This also is a subject of much debate.

God's choices happen in the eternal-present: this is a rather crude metaphor for God's actions and their performance not being defined by our tensed descriptions of time.  To say "eternal-present" is like saying "every moment is now" which is a contradiction, which is why God is often described as transcending time, and so His actions are thus "outside" time.


According to Catholic teaching, where does the disorder stem from?

As far as I know, the Catholic Church hasn't made any statement about the origins of homosexuality.

The best way to understand this perspective of homosexuality as a "disorder" is as a mental or emotional disorder.

To be clear, the Catholic Church hasn't actually called it that, but that is similar to how it has been described, both in your quoted material and elsewhere.

There are a lot of disorders: anorexia, OCD, schizophrenia, alchoholism, pornography addiction, bipolar disorder, etc. Identifying a single "source" would be complex and difficult. Genetics, environment, and individual choices all contribute. But regardless of the origin, these are all out of place, and we should see help from therapists, family, friends, and Christ to overcome them.

As for intrinsic, Merriam-Webster defines it as "belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing". Thus, intrinsically disordered means inherently incorrect. Homosexuality is not conditionally or occasionally appropriate; it is incorrect in and of itself.

Your quote also says that homosexual tendencies are objectively disordered, which means it is wrong even from an impartial viewpoint. Put those together, and Catholicism sees homosexuality as fundamentally and clearly out of place.


How does someone accidentally make an oath? Leviticus 5:4

If you want to know what the passage "literally meant," we should start with a literal translation. After all "unaware of it" is a paraphrase. This is literal:

  Leviticus 5:4 KJV Or if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these.

In what way can his oath be "hid from him"?  The most obvious meaning to me is he forgot about the oath. So he violates it.  Then when he remembers about the oath, he is guilty. In other words, the idea is he is unaware of the oath when he breaks it, not when he makes it.

After all, the OT has nothing against oaths, only against breaking them, as Jesus points out in the Sermon on the Mount:

  Matthew 5:33-34 NKJV Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.  But I say to you, do not swear at all:...

So he can only be guilty according to the OT after breaking the oath, meaning that it must be that it was "hid from him" when he broke it, not when he made it.

Of course, swearing to do something that violates the Law would also make him guilty, either after violating the oath or keeping the oath and thus breaking the commandment in question. So the explanation of the passage could possibly also be that there is an elipsis, i.e. words that are left out that the author figured the reader would know were implied.  In which case it could be understood somewhat like this:

  Or if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him [that what he is swearing is contrary to the Law]; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these.

The JPS (Jewish Publication Society) gives this translation:

  Or when a person utters an oath to bad or good purpose--whatever a man may utter in an oath--and, though he has known it, the fact has escaped him, but later he realizes his guilt in any of these matters--

I think that's far superior in clarity to the majority of the modern translations I've looked at.


Does this passage imply salvation cannot be lost?

I would argue that the passage has no direct implication that Salvation cannot be lost.

The verse simply says "No one can snatch them from the hand of God". It could have different meanings such as

No one can take them away by force
No one can steal them
No one is strong enough to fight with the hand of God
No one can throw them down to Hell once they are in Heaven

It seems to indicate that there are no outside forces strong enough to fight against God.

It also seems to imply indirectly that anyone can walk away from the hand of God with their own freewill. Anyone can choose to believe in Jesus and later choose to deny Him again.

  For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through
  the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again
  entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for
  them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to
  have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back
  from the holy commandment delivered to them. What the true proverb
  says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the
  sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.” (2 Peter
  2:20-22, ESV)


Catholic Exegesis: The Cleansing of the Temple

One of the comments:

"This is too long. Please try to make it more concise."

Is this passage a "call to action" for Catholics?

Not especially, we are sinners and Jesus was not.

Should Catholics be on alert for those who may hijack and corrupt the Church for unsavory purposes?

Yes, see Acts IV.

And should Catholics feel compelled or obligated to eradicate such individuals from the Church?

Yes, within reason.  See Matthew 18.

Why?  Well...

==================================================================

While this an open question, my advice would be to follow a passage latter on in John 8:7 that is more clearly directed toward us (as sinners):

  ... “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a
  stone at her.”

As sinners in a fallen world, we must be exceedingly careful when interacting with others for the purposes of pointing out their sin.

From Matthew 7:3, also a quote from Jesus:

  Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

Remember, Jesus was living a perfect life, which we, most likely, are all failing to do (Matthew 19:21):

  ...If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to
  the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.

While everyone is in a different position, I find it fairly unlikely that any of us are without sin.

==================================================================

Now, let's not use that as an excuse to be complacent.  There is something we can do, and that is show love (John 15:12):

  My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.

Unfortunately I have to get back to work now, but I'll try to flesh this out a bit later.  The point is, there is a call to action for all people (Catholics included), but it is first and foremost to love.

==================================================================

Before I got to flesh out my answer I got some further questions I'd like to address in the main body.  I'll use the Church to refer to the specific Church and the church to refer to any or all churches that are right with God.

  Should Catholics be on alert for those who may hijack and corrupt the Church for unsavory purposes?

The great thing about this question is that it applies to more than just Catholics and more than just the Church.  However, as direct descendant of the earlier church and almost unarguably the most theologically sound denomination, Catholics certainly serve as a powerful example.

The answer is, of course, yes!

However, this is somewhat difficult to get at directly, as I believe the most compelling arguments in favor of vigilance within the church are derived from the broader moral context of our faith.  However, there are a few Biblical examples, the foremost being Ananias and Sapphira (Acts IV):

During the Acts of the Apostles, many believers liquidated assets to fund the ministry.  The early church, of course, rejoiced in this sacrifice of worldly possession.  However, one couple sold a field but kept some of the money for themselves.

Now this sounds like a fairly straight forward instance of corruption and unsavory purposes to me.  First, this couple claimed to do what they were doing for the church, then they claimed some of what should have been the church's funds for themselves.  Definately not okay.  However, the important part of the story for this discussion isn't that what they did wasn't okay, but rather what happened afterwards.

As soon as the couple brought the partial sum of money to the Apostles, Peter accused them of deceit before God and church, and while the consequences (sudden death) certainly came from God, Peter's vigilance plays a key role in the story.

From this tale, I interpret, such as I am able, that the burden of vigilance is upon everyone (including Catholics) to watch for corruption everywhere (including the Church).  But also, I learn that imposition of consequences, such as they are, are within the sole purvey of God's role within the church, and not of any other sinners.

  Vengence is [the Lord's]...

as per Deuteronomy 32:35, Romans 12:19, and Hebrews 10:30.  Three times, that might be important.

  And should Catholics feel compelled or obligated to eradicate such individuals from the Church?

This is perhaps a more difficult question, because my own, as well as many other's, natural instinct is to cast anyone from the church that may not reach some arbitrary degree of morality.  I do not, however, believe that this is a Biblical position.  After all:

  ... all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

Romans 3:23 (emphasis added)

  There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and
  destroy. But you--who are you to judge your neighbor?

James 4:12

  For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died
  for all, and therefore all died.

2 Corinthians 5:14

All of this is a lot of Biblical text to say we aren't perfect, God is, only God gets to decide who's perfect and who isn't, salvation is for all people, and if it somehow isn't for someone, that is God's decision and not ours.  We probably are all familiar with this concept.

So why would we not apply this to the church?

There certainly are crimes that can be held as grounds for removal from the church, such as apostasy, as in 2 John, where individuals renouncing the resurrection are excluded from the homes of believers.

However, in any case involving disputes within the church, there is an established procedure to follow (Matthew 18:15-17):

  If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just
  between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.
  But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that
  ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three
  witnesses.‘ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and
  if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a
  pagan or a tax collector.

And just so we're all clear on how we treat tax collectors (from the story of Zacchaeus in Luke 19):

  Jesus said to [the tax collector], “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham.

Now, of course, Zacchaeus did take actions toward his salvation, but let us just rememer that:

  ...the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.

So...

In cases of clear and unrepentant apostasy in the opinion of the entire church, there is a Biblical mandate for expulsion on the condition that repentance may immediately be met with a welcoming return.  In all other cases, follow the established procedure for addressing sin but prioritize above all else love (1 Corinthians 13:13).

  And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of
  these is love.


What is the meaning of the stained glass above the altar at Votivkirche in Wien with the Portuguese Quinas on it?

The Portuguese Quinas or Coat of arms of Portugal (1481-present)  can be seen in the Votive Church in Austria known as Votivkirche. It can be be seen in Vienna, Austria.

This is a votive church and as such was constructed in order to fulfill a vow or in gratitude for some grace(s) obtained or thanksgiving of some sort.

  The Votivkirche (Votive Church) is a neo-Gothic church located on the Ringstraße in Vienna, Austria. Following the attempted assassination of Emperor Franz Joseph in 1853, the Emperor's brother Archduke Ferdinand Maximilian inaugurated a campaign to create a church to thank God for saving the Emperor's life. Funds for construction were solicited from throughout the Empire. The church was dedicated in 1879 on the silver anniversary of Emperor Franz Joseph and his wife Empress Elisabeth.

  The origin of the Votivkirche derives from a failed assassination attempt on Emperor Franz Joseph by Hungarian nationalist János Libényi on 18 February 1853. During that time, when the Emperor was in residence at the Hofburg Palace, he took regular walks around the old fortifications for exercise in the afternoons. During one such stroll, while walking along one of the outer bastions with one of his officers, Count Maximilian Karl Lamoral O'Donnell von Tyrconnell, the twenty-one-year-old tailor's apprentice attacked the twenty-three-year-old Emperor from behind, stabbing him in the collar with a long knife. The blow was deflected by the heavy golden covering embroidered on the Emperor's stiff collar. Although his life was spared, the attack left him bleeding from a deep wound.

  A civilian passer-by, Dr. Joseph Ettenreich, came to the Emperor's assistance, and Count O'Donnell struck Libényi down with his sabre, holding him until the police guards arrived to take him into custody. As he was being led away, the failed assassin yelled in Magyar, "Long live Kossuth!" Franz Joseph insisted that his assailant not be mistreated. After Libényi's execution at Spinnerin am Kreuz in Favoriten for attempted regicide, the Emperor characteristically granted a small pension to the assassin's mother.

  Dr. Ettenreich, who quickly overwhelmed the attacker, was later elevated to nobility by Franz Joseph for his bravery, and became Joseph von Ettenreich. Count O'Donnell, who up until then was a count in the German nobility by virtue of his great-grandfather, was afterwards made a Count of the Habsburg Empire and received the Commander's Cross of the Royal Order of Leopold. His customary O'Donnell arms were augmented by the initials and shield of the ducal House of Austria and also the double-headed eagle of the Empire. These arms are emblazoned on the portico of No. 2 Mirabel Platz in Salzburg, where O'Donnell later built his residence.

  After the unsuccessful assassination attempt, the Emperor's brother, Maximilian — later Emperor of Mexico — called upon communities throughout the Austria-Hungary Empire for donations to a new church on the site of the attack. The church was to be a votive offering for the rescue of Franz Joseph and "a monument of patriotism and of devotion of the people to the Imperial House." - Votivkirche, Vienna

I do not believe there is a real story as to why the Portuguese Quinas is placed in one of the stained glass windows of this church.

The Portuguese nation simply made a substantial donation to the construction of the edifice and because of this act the Emperor permitted that the
Portuguese Quinas could be displayed in this church as an Ex-Voto.

I know this sounds too simple of an explication, but it a very traditional way of thanking donors. I have seen many plaques in churches displaying the names very important donors for their generosity, even at the bottom and within of some stained glass windows. The Portuguese Quinas is simply another way for the Austrian Emperor to thank the Portuguese nation.

Ut in omnibus glorificetur Deus.

  Votive Church

  The neo-Gothic church is located on Vienna's Ringstrasse and was consecrated in 1879, on the Silver Jubilee of Emperor Franz Joseph and Empress Elisabeth. A failed assassination attempt on the Emperor was the inspiration for its construction. To finance the church, the Emperor’s brother, Archduke Ferdinand Maximilian, appealed for donations “in gratitude for the sparing of His Majesty”. The Votive Church, also called “Ringstrasse cathedral”, is one of the most significant buildings of the European Historicism period. It contains a museum displaying the “Antwerp Altar”. This church is of particular interest for visitors of Vienna, since the service is held in different languages each Sunday at 11:15 am. - 7 most impressive Churches in Vienna


The conventional Protestant answer is to say that you must take this verse in the larger context of the Bible, which includes statements assuring us that our salvation cannot be lost. For example, John 10:28-29, "And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand." And many similar verses.

Then look at, for example, Romans 6:6-7, "knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin."

Most Protestants therefore conclude that when you are saved, you are freed from your "sin nature". While you will still fail and fall, you will not engage in patterns of habitual sin. If you do, you are probably not really saved. That, they say, is what this verse is saying: That if you engage in habitual sin, you are probably not really saved and will not inherit the kingdom.

I'd hasten to add that we are also warned against judging the state of others' salvation. It is not my job to determine whether or not you are saved, that's between you and God.

Note I am speaking specifically from an evangelical Protestant perspective. I think a Catholic would give a very different answer.


Is there a difference between Scripture and inspired writings?

The New Testament is just as much 'scripture' as the Old Testament, and in some sense we believe the Old Testament is scripture because the New Testament records our Lord's full attestation of its authority as such. Inspired works are nothing in comparison. Even my post could be inspired by God as Christians often have inspired thoughts.
I think when people try to trace the overall idea of how scripture came to be believed as 'scripture' we forget the basic idea. God sent Prophets and, later on, Apostles to be his messengers, to deliver his word. Apostles were even greater 'messengers' of the oracles of God than Prophets. A greater covenant was under their instruction as infallible guides to the church. In the Old Testament, prophets, once established as credible, were not to be trusted blindly. Only but by testing the truthfulness of their words and prophecies as they continued to make them, would they be received.  If they declared something as 'the word of the Lord' which was not true, they were to be stoned. (Deuteronomy 13:1-5)
There was great seriousness in someone saying 'Thus saith the Lord' or speaking as though they were bringing the 'very words of God' (and rightly so). Any misrepresentation was deadly.  So we must start with this understanding that there was an idea of a Prophet, who was a messenger.  He would speak in an authoritative manner as though his words were God's (because they were) and God gave such a person unusual certainty and assurance with these words, removing all doubt. Not that every word they spoke (like 'pass the butter please') was God's word, but every word they delivered to the church as a guide and message was of God.
At the highest level:

The scriptures alone have the authority to declare themselves to be so. No church council can determine what is scripture, they can only admit after careful investigation what is self evidently declared within the scriptures themselves. These are tested and confessed to having the authoritative and infallible revelation of God's mind with no contrary evidence to maintain reasonable dispute.

No matter what we canonize, the scripture will insert itself into our view and demand our obedience as it truly is the word of the Lord. God will not leave us without all that is necessary for life and salvation. I have read portions of letters claiming to own a right into the Protestant Bible, but have never sensed the pure authority of God in them.  In fact it really puzzles me how many people fail to see the poor attitudes and doctrinal imperfections in so many 'inspired' books that are proposed as additions to our canon.
Now for those books that the church has received (I am speaking from a Protestant view and canon) a few things had to occur for the church to receive them as scripture. First, somebody claimed to be a Prophet or an Apostle, and their words were recorded by themselves or by others. Second, these words were sent out with an air of extreme importance and ultimate infallible authority. There are not many candidates meeting the first two criteria. Third, fake ones were tossed.  They did not have the divine purity, power and truth in them as attested by the conscience of the church and which could be proven to others by contradicting something in scriptures already received.  The three progressions occurred for all books in our Bible, and no other writings, however 'inspired', are included due to their obvious imperfections or lack of claim to be prophetic or apostolic in origin.
The notion that the Old Testament is the only scripture is absolutely inconsistent with the notion of an Apostle. It is like saying Prophets are great and God would have us collect their words and call them scripture, but those messengers even greater than Apostles, no, even the words of the Lord Jesus Christ himself, they are just 'inspired'? Nothing could be more ludicrous and in opposition to the concept of an Apostle.  All scripture is equally scripture but if we had to rank different books, the New Testament would be more so simply from the height of the authority of the messengers and the level of brilliance and progression of the revelation.
On a more technical nature, one can trace the assumption of the New Testament being 'obvious scripture' and expect a direct argument never to be made.  There was no direct argument in the Old Testament to receive the words of a prophet as scripture canonized in a little book called the Bible. It was common sense that the words of a prophet came from God and also common sense that the words of an Apostle was from God. This is spiritual common sense which requires no proof. It is like asking for proof that there is a God. He just is and his word says so.
For example in Acts we see the gospel is just assumed to be God's word, not just inspiration. The gospel as preached by the Apostles was always considered 'the word of the Lord', when written this became scripture by default. All one has to do is search the phrase and many passages in Acts appear:

The next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord.
(Acts 13:44, NIV)

The word of the Lord is scripture as provided by Prophets or Apostles, or the Lord himself.  Paul considered the message he delivered in his letters as 'the word of the Lord' also. (1 Thessalonians 4:15, Galatians 1:11). In fact everything he said was assumed to be the Lord's word so that if on a rare occasion he offered his own opinion, he clarified as much.  (1 Corinthians 7:12).
Some New Testament books were not yet written by the time 1 Timothy was written, so that they were not referred to as the 'scriptures' in a final sense, as the Old Testament version was. (The Old Testament canon was not collected and 'canonized' as such but these were known to be complete by the Apostles as the New Testament was being written and still incomplete. Therefore they were not referred to as a set). However, even already in Timothy the 'Spirit expressly saying' is agreed by most commentators to be referring not to just the Hebrew scriptures but prophecies made by Jesus and others more recently in New Testament letters. (1 Timothy 4:1)
A fairly standard verse that people use on the technical side is 2 Peter 3:15-16:

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

Clearly Peter 'assumes the writings of Paul are scripture' otherwise he would be guilty of gross miscommunication on a very important matter. Some think Peter is arguing directly that Paul's writings are scripture. I am in the camp of thinking he just assumes it as obvious due to his Apostleship and assumes the reader to understand it obvious as well.
Note: I take for granted that it is understood that an Apostle is greater than a Prophet.  If one needed support for this argument I would present 1 Corinthians 12:28, the fact that the Lord himself called the twelve Apostles, the fact that the writings of the Apostolic age contain greater revelations than those of the Prophets and that the gospel is so much superior that every believer is considered greater than the greatest prophet, John the Baptist.  His greatness only occurs from his nearness in time to the Messiah. (Matthew 11:11)
Inspired works are nothing in comparison to scripture as only scripture can test the truthfulness of their claimed inspiration. Scripture is the word of God the church has received from Prophets or Apostles. The 'greatest of these', if such a word can be used to compare scripture with scripture due to the weight of the revelation contained in them, is the New Testament.


is the intention to add fish to the diet or to remove all other meats
  from the diet?

The answer is "Neither". The intention is to remind you of your need for, and dependence on God.

Abstaining from meat is a specific example of the teaching on Abstinence.  The Catholic Encyclopedia explains the purpose of abstinence in general as follows:

  Inasmuch as abstinence signifies abstaining from food, the Bible
  narrative points to the first instance wherein such a course of
  conduct was imposed by law (Genesis 2:16-17). The obvious purpose of
  this mandate was to lead the moral head of the human race to recognize
  the necessary dependence of creature upon Creator. The hour which
  witnessed the transgression of this law marked an increase in the debt
  which the creature owed the Creator. Adam's disobedience rendered all
  men criminal, and liable to the necessity of appeasing God's justice.
  To meet this new exigency nature dictated the necessity of penance;
  positive legislation determined the ways and means whereby this
  natural obligation would best be concreted. The chief results of this
  determination are positive statutes concerning fasting and abstinence.
  Laws relating to fasting are principally intended to define what
  pertains to the quantity of food allowed on days of fasting, while
  those regulating abstinence, what refers to the quality of viands. In
  some instances both obligations coincide; thus, the Fridays of Lent
  are days of fasting and abstinence. In other instances the law of
  abstinence alone binds the faithful; thus ordinary Fridays are simply
  days of abstinence. The purpose of this article is to trace the
  history of ecclesiastical legislation regarding the law of abstinence,
  as well as to examine the motives which underlie this legislation.

Short version:  Abstinence is a form of penance, the purpose of which is to remind us of our dependence on our Creator, God.

If your focus is "why meat, specifically", that is answered, as @Andrewleach pointed out, at svidgen's answer this question:

Short version, meat was exceptional, and the idea was to abstain from something that we enjoy the most.

I'm not going to steal his quotes or answer, but if that's the angle your most concerned with, vote that answer up.


Must a Christian disagree with Bernard Williams and say the concept of truth does have a history?

God has revealed himself. Progressively.
With each revelation, more can be known and understood.
The philosophical thesis you quote (and this may make the question off-topic on this site) falls down completely when one considers that God can only be known (by humans on earth) through the revelation that God gives of himself.
Until he gives it, at a point of time, that truth is not known and cannot be known.
Otherwise He who is truth cannot be known at all.
Therefore, truth does have a history.
That is to say, the body of truth, as made known by God in his word (and documented in holy writings) is a progressive revelation and has a history of such documentation.
By fully studying that documented revelation, you would then  realise that the statement :

... before the life of Christ, men and women could not achieve salvation through Christ . . .

. . . . is incorrect according to the progressive revelation of Deity recorded in holy scripture.
(You could ask more about that in a further, dedicated, question.)


Do God and Satan Celebrate Earthly Triumphs?

As the word 'celebrate' implies satisfaction or joy, I don't think we can properly say the Devil 'celebrates' in any thing that he falsely perceives as accomplishing his hate. As the Devil in enraged by cruel ambitions, he can find no real satisfaction or joy. Rather all his efforts would be understood better as an energetic and powerful 'writhing in agony.' As the scriptures do not unveil the secret and loathsome works of darkness, any further speculation on how the Devil feels or perceives things falsely would be out of place. We only know he is suffering death.

God on the other hand can be said to rejoice in all his works, taking pleasure in all the good he accomplishes. It is the nature of good to take pleasure in Good and to the degree of that goodness achieved the more God, in a sense, 'celebrates it.' God's rejoicing is not only in Himself but even a believer's joy could be said to be God's joy in the heart of man. The kingdom of God includes joy because by entering it we have communion with God's celebration of all he does and all he is:

  For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. (NIV Romans 14:17)

This joy, when eminent with respect to a wonderful work where God takes special joy, is often accompanied by illustration in the celebration of angels:

  I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety- nine righteous persons who do not need to repent. (NIV Luke 15:7-8)


What verses are commonly cited to support that unity, despite differences, is preferable to dividing the Church?

Verses regarding unity of doctrine are not as common as the less specific verses regarding unity as a body.  Two verses that I have most commonly heard referenced regarding avoiding doctrinal division are:

  But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. - Titus 3:9 ESV

And

  Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. - 2 Timothy 2:23 ESV

But it could be argued that both reference all controversy, and are not limited to church leadership.

One the other hand, Paul addresses this very issue of church doctrinal unity in his first letter to the church in Corinth, and I rarely if ever hear this referenced in that context:

  10 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
  11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers.
  12 What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ."
  13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
  14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
  15 so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name.
  16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)
  17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. - 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 ESV

A few others that may also be useful in this regard:

  17 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.
  18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. - Romans 16:17-18 ESV

And

  24 But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it,
  25 that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.
  26 If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. - 1 Corinthians 12:24-26 ESV

And

  17 But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.
  18 They said to you, "In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions."
  19 It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit. - Jude 1:17-19

I have edited again to include a verse that I almost literally stumbled upon recently (printed on a floor plaque outside a church):

  1 So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy,
  2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. - Philippians 2:1-2 ESV


Where did Augustine say "It is certain that few are saved"?

The reference is probably to Augustine's Sermon 61, on Luke 13:21–24 – in which Jesus compares the kingdom of God to leaven in bread, and references the narrow gate.  Augustine says:

“The three measures of meal” of which the Lord spake, is the human race. Recollect the deluge; three only remained, from whom the rest were to be re-peopled. Noe had three sons, by them was repaired the human race. That holy “woman who hid the leaven,” is Wisdom. Lo, the whole world crieth out in the Church of God, “I know that the Lord is great.” Yet doubtless there are but few who are saved.
Ye remember a question which was lately set before us out of the Gospel, “Lord,” it was said, “are there few that be saved?” What said the Lord to this? He did not say, “Not few, but many are they who are saved.” He did not say this. But what said He, when He had heard, “Are there few that be saved? Strive to enter by the strait gate.” When thou hearest then, “Are there few that be saved?” the Lord confirmed what He heard.

So Augustine understands the Lord's words in Luke 13:24 as answering the question in the affirmative – yes, there are few that will be saved.  So Augustine's certainty – "doubtless there are few who are saved" – is based on his interpretation of the words of Jesus in this passage.


Could there be a "Newer" Testament? If so, how would it become canonical?

This is the position of the Mormons and the Ba'hai, but not of Nicene Christianity.

The problem is that there is no authority to "open the canon."  The traditional marks of christianity (See What are the biblical arguments that the Bible canon is closed? and https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/11442/1039 ) are apostolic authorship and historical consensus.  As all the apostles are, in fact dead, there is no means for using this mark.

Beyond that, it is taken as an article of faith by most Christians that God never changes.  By opening up the canon, too many cans of worms get open.

This is not to say the prophetic word doesn't continue to be uttered, but they exist within the realm of revelation which is assumed to be complete at this time.

Finally, there is one more point to consider - the church is long since past the place where it can definitively speak with one voice on something as large as a whole new addition to Scripture.  I would point you to the last paragraph on this question about canonization in which I wrote this:

  Even today, there are certain Christian authors who are considered "more important" than others. If you asked me to pontificate about who is canonical, for example, I'd want to throw in C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesteron, Augustine, and a couple of others. David Barton, Joel Osteen, Tim Lahaye, not so much. And, I would clearly reject, say, (and I only speak for myself) anything by Joseph Smith or the Watchtower society. Why do I say that? Because my canon speaks to what is important to me. Many Evangelicals would probably agree with me, and do, as can be shown by what other Evangelicals tell others "should be read." The point is not what I've picked, but rather that the same process was in place 2000 - 1600 years ago.

As a Christian, if you read anything other than the Bible, you are picking your canon. Whether or not others agree with you is up to them.  I recommend The Great Divorce a lot.  As such, I'm making my own canon.  Indeed, many people would probably agree with me on it - but not the whole church.  And that is the problem you'd have to contend with if you wanted to reopen a "Newer" Testament.


Sin and Animal Suffering before the fall?

According to the first three chapters of Genesis, it appears that there was no killing in the Garden. Later, when Isaiah prophesied about "the Lion lying down with the lamb," it is an echo of that state of nature which is so unlike the one today. From a Biblical point of view then, I would have to disagree with your premise.


Jeremiah 23:6 - “The LORD Our Righteousness” or “The LORD shall call him “Our Righteousness””?

The matter is understood and completed!
Here is a link to a picture from the Dead Sea Scrolls, containing the end of Jeremiah 33:16, where it says יהוה צד (It’s not completed) without the separating line! https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-360205
Praise God for revealing his truth! Amen!


According to the LDS, do Michael and Gabriel have resurrected bodies?

I would say it is not safe to assume they are not, but I think we only know for sure of John the Baptist, Peter and James as having resurrected bodies, for the reason that they layed their hands on Joseph Smith's and Oliver Cowdery's heads to transfer the priesthood (see D&C 13).

A scripture that seems to indicate most, if not all, ancient prophets and many others are also resurrected is

D&C 138:50-53

  50 For the dead had looked upon the long absence of their spirits from
  their bodies as a bondage.

  51 These the Lord taught, and gave them power to come forth, after
  his resurrection from the dead, to enter into his Father’s kingdom,
  there to be crowned with immortality and eternal life,

  52 And continue thenceforth their labor as had been promised by the
  Lord, and be partakers of all blessings which were held in reserve for
  them that love him.

Just for reference, the bible also speaks of resurrection of saints together with Jesus,

Matthew 27:52-53

  52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which
  slept arose,

  53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into
  the holy city, and appeared unto many.


Does the Bible say for sure that Daniel was a eunuch?

While the Bible does not say it, it can certainly be implied. It would be strange for him to not be. Unfortunately, since the Bible is silent about it, then that is about as close as we can get to it. But, I say definitely yes, he was a eunuch.


What is the history of Irish Catholic resentment toward Protestantism?

The history of religious conflict in Ireland is far too complex to tear down in a single answer, but this should provide some clues for further reading. For background what you need to read up on is not actually anything specific to Christianity so much as the overall political history of Ireland. For example Wikipedia says the following in its introduction to the topic:

  The Crown did not attempt to assert full control of the island until
  after Henry VIII's repudiation of papal authority over the Church in
  England and subsequent rebellion of the Earl of Kildare in Ireland
  threatened English hegemony there. Henry proclaimed himself King of
  Ireland and also tried to introduce the English Reformation, which
  failed in Ireland. Attempts to either conquer or assimilate the Irish
  lordships into the Kingdom of Ireland provided the initial impetus for
  a series of Irish military campaigns between 1534 and 1603. This
  period was marked by a Crown policy of plantation, involving the
  arrival of thousands of English and Scottish Protestant settlers, and
  the consequent displacement of the pre-plantation Catholic
  landholders. As the military and political defeat of Gaelic Ireland
  became more pronounced in the early seventeenth century, sectarian
  conflict became a recurrent theme in Irish history.

  The 1613 overthrow of the Catholic majority in the Irish Parliament
  was realised principally through the creation of numerous new boroughs
  which were dominated by the new settlers. By the end of the
  seventeenth century, recusant Roman Catholics, as adherents to the old
  religion were now termed, representing some 85% of Ireland's
  population, were then banned from the Irish Parliament. Protestant
  domination of Ireland was confirmed after two periods of war between
  Catholics and Protestants in 1641-52 and 1689-91. Political power
  thereafter rested entirely in the hands of a Protestant Ascendancy
  minority, while Catholics and members of dissenting Protestant
  denominations suffered severe political and economic privations at the
  hands of the Penal Laws.

The context in which religion is mentioned in that article should give you a pretty good clue but let me spell it out. Ireland was torn apart for centuries by an ongoing struggle for domination by various monarchies or other political powers. (e.g. War of the Roses, Hundred Years' War, and others). The various parties involved in the struggle each brought with them their own religious affiliation, and the one-to-one pairing with political positions and religious traditions meant each successive party's struggle for power became strongly associate with that party's religious affiliation. In fact those identities were often conflated.

Does this animosity persist today? Yes, but not universally. Many many Irish individuals from both religious camps have individually worked out their issues. Many many churches and larger groups have waded in to turn the tide on the animosity. Yet still pockets of animosity persist.

The best summary of the problem I know of is found in a ballad called There Were Roses written by Tommy Sands. If you've never heard it, it's worth a listen. There are a thousand covers to suit most musical tastes, but the lyrics are a poignant summary of the problem.

  […]

  Now Isaac he was Protestant and Sean was Catholic born
  But it never made a difference, for the friendship it was strong
  And sometimes in the evening when we heard the sound of drums
  We said it won't divide us, we always will be one

  […]

  Now fear it filled the countryside there was fear in every home
  When late at night a car came prowling round the Ryan Road
  A Catholic would be killed tonight to even up the score
  Oh Christ it's young McDonald they've taken from the door

  Isaac was my friend! he cried, he begged them with his tears
  But centuries of hatred have ears that do not hear
  An eye for an eye, it was all that filled their minds
  And another eye for another eye till everyone is blind

  […]


Are there any Catholic Audiobook sharing websites like Librivox?

Yes, CatholicAudioBooks is one such site.


Are there any Christian denominations that do not believe in Exorcisms?

I am personally unaware of any denominations that would specifically deny as part of their creed demon possessions or exorcisms.  However there are many denominations that by ignoring this area of practical theology do about the same.  Many of the "liberal" denominations tend to deny the spiritual nature of things and think of things more in terms of mental issues than spiritual bondage, this attitude would also constitute a practical denial of exorcisms.


What do Jehovah's Witnesses say about Matthew 16:28?

This question was asked and answered  in an older Watchtower magazine. The take away is that those apostles who lived to see Jesus  coming in his kingdom were the apostles Peter,James and John  who witnessed the transfiguration.

  About a week after saying what he did at Matthew 16:28, Jesus took “some of” the apostles (Peter, James and John) up on a lofty mountain, likely Mount Hermon. There he was transfigured to appear in a vision with Moses and Elijah. And God said: “This is my Son, the one that has been chosen. Listen to him.” —Luke 9:28-35; Matt. 17:1-5; Mark 9:2-6.
  The transfiguration was a vision of Jesus in Kingdom power and heavenly glory, as Peter later confirmed. Referring to the transfiguration, Peter explained that they had thus “become eyewitnesses of his magnificence.” He added that in the transfiguration Jesus had “received from God the Father honor and glory.” (2 Pet. 1:16-18) So, it appears that when Jesus said that before they died some of the apostles would see him in his kingdom, he was referring to the transfiguration scene that some of them witnessed shortly afterward.

Additional discussion of this event is found here.


In Catholicism, is skipping weekly Mass a mortal sin?

Yes, willfully skipping mass is a grave (mortal) sin.  The key word here is willfully - being physically unable to attend, sick, or having other (legitimate) obligations is a valid excuse for not attending.  From the Catechism:

  The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor. Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin. (#2181)

The reason is because not attending mass is considered a violation of the third commandment - "keep holy the Sabbath" - and thus a serious offense against God's will.


Where does the idea that you cannot conceive of light until you see it come from?

C S Lewis, apparently in Mere Christianity, does mention the concept of not knowing the concept of dark or light:

  My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too - for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

[I don't have a copy, and Google Books doesn't help with an authoritative source, probably because Lewis's writings are still in copyright.]


Did Pope Francis say that the Gospel is radical?

I can't see anything quite like this in the context of Amoris Laetitia, but the pope has used the words together a few times. According to the English-language version of the Vatican Radio website, he preached a homily from his residence in Santa Marta on 23 September 2014 in which he spoke about "the Gospel's call to radical simplicity in life and action". Similarly, in a homily preached for the 6th Asian Youth Day in Korea on 16 August 2014 (PDF), he spoke about "the radical demands of the Gospel". I can't find much else using precisely those words in documents published by the Pope, and nothing about interviews in which he used those words (though that is a more difficult search, especially with off-the-cuff remarks).

Francis was not the first to use "radical" in speaking about the Gospel, though; Pope St John Paul II mentioned the "radicalism of the Gospel" in his 1992 apostolic exhortation Pastores Dabo Vobis, and Pope Benedict XVI spoke of the "radical call of the Gospel" in an address to the bishops of Bangladesh during their ad limina visit in 2008.


Why is the first question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism so different from the Westminster Confession opening statement?

To discover why the first question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism appears to be different to the first section of the Confession (‘Of The Holy Scriptures’), I read comments written by those subscribing to that Confession. Here are some quotes:

  Thomas Watson, 17th century divine, on glory and enjoyment re. Q38 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism (‘What benefits do believers receive from Christ at the resurrection?’) “At the resurrection, believers being raised up in glory, shall be openly acknowledged and acquitted in the day of judgment, and made perfectly blessed in the full enjoyment of God to all eternity.” A Body of Divinity Contained in Sermons upon the Westminster Assembly’s Catechism, p 305 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, repr., 1965)

This shows the sense in which glory and enjoyment is understood – there can be no divine glory and permanent enjoyment for man outside of Christ and God. There can only be failed and temporary attempts if God is not made the object of the believer’s life as shown by this Church of Scotland minister’s explanation as to how the will of God is biblically unfolded:

  “The hallmark of coming to know the will of God is objectivity. Jean Piaget, the Swiss thinker and psychologist has suggested that the fundamental difference between childhood and truly adult thought is that while the child is dominated by an egocentric attitude to life and influenced by his own wishes and inner needs rather than the objective reality beyond him, the adult lives his life in the light of that world and brings his perception into line with it. It is surely obvious that there is a spiritual parallel… the basic need is for Christians to learn …to live their lives out of God as their centre rather than self as their centre; to escape from a self-dominated view of Christian living, and to see that their chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him… When we are concerned to glorify God, guidance will cease to be a problem and appear increasingly as a joy and a privilege.” Sinclair Ferguson, Add to Your Faith, p 69 (Glasgow, Pickering & Inglis 1980)

This shows that the first question in question here does not promote man at the outset, but gets man to consider God as the One who should be his goal, his object, his reason to live, for it is God’s glory that will give ultimate and everlasting satisfaction and joy. On the matter of how man can know what his will and purpose ought to be, the next quote shows that God reveals this through the gospel message (contained in scripture):

  “In order for man to be the image and likeness of God two things were essential. His being must be like God’s, and his will or purpose must also be like God’s… However, the purpose of man is a matter of choice. As God is free to do as he will, so man (being created in the divine image) is free to do as he will. But even in his freedom of will man cannot escape the absolute control of God because the being of man (he is only an image) is wholly dependent upon God. In setting his will against the will of God revealed by the Word of God, man can only violate, but can never destroy, his dependent relationship to God. Man’s determination to be independent of God is doomed to frustration, and he is clearly and constantly reminded of this through natural revelation… so the remedy for man’s present need comes by way of word revelation. Only the gospel can supplement natural revelation in such a way as to (a) disclose the means of removing God’s enmity and (b) make man once more a willing subject of the will of God.” G.I. Williamson, pp 2-3 The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1964)

The obvious reason for the first question in the Shorter Catechism is now seen to be to direct man at the outset to his need of God, to focus on and live for God’s glory and then he will enjoy God forever. This leads beautifully into the opening part of the Confession about the holy Scriptures.

Finally, to clinch it, consider the opening words to students in this Workbook on the Shorter Catechism:

  “Your study of the Shorter Catechism is planned to take two years. A bird’s-eye view of its organization may help you to understand the lessons that follow. The catechism is divided into two main sections. Questions 1-38 teach what man is to believe concerning God. Questions 39-107 explain what duty God requires of man. The first three questions form an introduction to the entire catechism. Question 1 tells us the chief purpose of man’s creation: to glorify God. Question 2 states that the Scriptures are the only rule for faith and duty, and question 3 tells us the two main topics treated in the Bible.” Dorothy Partington Anderson, Bible Doctrine, 1. Of God and Man (The Banner of Truth Trust, 1954 The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Inc, USA)

Note how the first three questions are an INTRODUCTION to the whole catechism? They lay the foundation for all that is to come, and the foundation laid is about God, not man, and about God’s provision of the scriptures to inform and direct man in the way he should go. So, the first question in the Shorter Catechism is not different to the Confession’s opening points – it introduces it to help students understand what the Confession is about, and all to God’s glory, from start to finish.


According to Catholicism, does Matthew 16:18 justify that the Catholic Church is the one true church?

The section "Of the Institution of the Apostolic Primacy in blessed Peter" of the First Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ (Pastor Æternus) quotes Matthew 16:18 and related verses:

  We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord. For it was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said: 'Thou shalt be called Cephas,' [St. John 1:42] that the Lord after the confession made by him, saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' [St. Matthew 16:16] addressed these solemn words: 'Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.'[St. Matthew 16:17-19] And it was upon Simon alone that Jesus after his resurrection bestowed the jurisdiction of chief pastor and ruler over all his fold in the words: 'Feed my lambs; feed my sheep.' [St. John 21:15-17] At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever understood by the Catholic Church are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in his Church, deny that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her minister.

St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, the greatest Doctor of ecclesiology, wrote a De Romano Pontifice or On the Roman Pontiff (part of his De Controversiis or On the Controversies series) in which he shows—in more detail, against the errors and heresies of Calvin, Luther, et al.—how the above scriptural verses support the papacy.

source: this answer to the question "What is the origin of the Catholic Pope in the Bible?"