Does the story of the Rich Young Ruler preclude Jesus from having any money of his own?

Jesus continuously said things that got to the heart of the matter. This example is no different.

In your quote from Matthew we see a young man that wants to know what good thing he must do to get eternal life. Eventually, Jesus says what you have quoted.

What the man then does and what Jesus says immediately after revels what Jesus meant.

  22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

You see he loved his wealth more than life! He was willing to forego eternal life in the Kingdom of God for money here on Earth! Jesus got to the heart of the matter for that young man; the thing that was keeping him from truly following God. He goes on to say:

  23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

This verse is highly debated, but most agree on at least this: Jesus is saying that for a man like this one, gaining eternal life will never happen as long as money is in his way; as long as love for money is in his heart.

But the most important part follows:

  25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”

  26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

You cannot save yourself! Whatever you do, you cannot satisfy God's wrath. You will still deserve death. But by God's super-abundant grace, you can be saved.

So you see the issue was not money, specifically. The issue is anything that is in your way from truly loving God and following Him wholeheartedly. It is then that His grace will save you and you will gain eternal life.1

The short answer to your exact question in light of the above:

Though Jesus likely gave to the poor regularly, he almost certainly earned and used money in the same way we do. He needed to make a living just like everyone else. Also, he was not making a description of "perfect" as much as he was showing that a perfect man has nothing between himself and God.

Though I have not given a doctrinal perspective, I think I have represented the majority of Christianity in the interpretation of these verses.

1) ADDENDUM

There are other teachings from Jesus that say the same thing but use other things as the example that comes between you and God. Jesus did say you must "hate" your entire family and yourself before you can be His follower Luke 14:26. If we follow the plain logic that your question and comments adhere to then we are stuck asking what the disciples did: If all with a family are doomed "Who then can be saved?" And Jesus then would correct us and saying "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." So you see, again, the issue is anything that comes between you and God. Whatever that thing is is actually much less important.

The scripture is filled with encouragements to remove all things that cause you to stumble and not follow God. The language in them is rough and ridiculous if you think it is literal prescriptive advice.  Here are a few:

Mark 9:43 and Matthew 18:8 - "If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out." Surely, you are not to cut off parts of your body. It is equally ridiculous to blame your eyes for engaging in fornication. However, it is not ridiculous to blame your lusts on the filthy television you watched last night, for example.
1 Corinthians 8:9 Says to even remove things from your life that can cause others to sin - "Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak." There is no ridiculous language in these verses; it is straight forward and gives a real example: eating animals that have been sacrificed to idols (though I admit that is less of a problem today).
Luke 14:26 -- “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple." If we take "hate" literally then it is in contrast with the second greatest commandment. Clearly, the message is that there must be nothing between you and God; to be a disciple of Christ you must be all in or not in at all; you must remove or change anything from your life that prevents you from following Him wholeheartedly.


What was Satan's view on the authority of Scripture?

While the oft-cited adage that "the Devil can quote scripture for his own purposes" is not, as some think, an actual Biblical quotation, support for the idea is definitely found in the Bible.  (See Matthew chapter 4, for example.)  This doesn't really demonstrate anything either way about Satan's willingness to accept the scriptures as authoritative or authentic, but simply a cynical tendency to use any rhetorical tool that he thinks will be effective.

We do know that "the devils believe [in God] and tremble", and that they acknowledge the power of his authorized servants but not his name alone (Acts 19: 13-16,) but very little is said of Satan or his servants and their relationship with the scriptures.


How can there be Five Sola's (Solae) in Reformed theology?

I can see how this would look confusing and logically incoherent, but the reason that 5 statements, each about "something alone" can co-exist is that each of them achieves something different "alone". This can make more sense to look at, by chaining three of them together, as per the first line of the summary of "Faith alone" here.

  Justification is by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone

"Grace" and "Faith" are by far the easiest two to get confused about here, but in essence each of these "alones" is accomplishing a different thing:

Grace alone: God's grace is the means by which we are justified - not exemplary behaviour
Faith alone: Faith is the means by which we access Grace - not through empty religion (but this doesn't mean that somebody more "religious" than you is guilty of "empty religion" by default)
Christ alone: Christ is the one through whom this is accomplished - not any other saviour / sacrifice

The other two are much easier to distinguish because they don't directly have anything to do with salvation.

Scripture alone: Scripture is the only ultimate authority on Christian teaching - not the church and more specifically for the reformation, not the Pope.

Interestingly though there was a lot of difference on this point between different parts of the reformation, on exactly how much "Catholic tradition" they were going to keep, and how important tradition and authority are- generally the consensus was that scripture was always the ultimate authority, rather than having a human authority on roughly the same level.

Glory to God alone: God should be our highest priority and is the only one  worthy of worship

This is a different point to the rest as it doesn't deal with salvation, or authority with regards to teaching. It is a statement about God's ultimate goodness and worthiness in a sense that is "other" to anything else.


It has nothing to do with economics or “affordability”.  Leviticus 23:2 refers to the seven Jewish festivals, literally “appointed times,” also called “holy convocations.” These were days appointed and ordained by God to be kept to the honour of His name.  The Jewish feasts are closely related to Israel’s spring and fall harvests and agricultural seasons. They were to remind the Israelites each year of God’s ongoing protection and provision.  The Feast of Unleavened Bread followed immediately after Passover and lasted one week, during which time the Israelites ate no bread with yeast in remembrance of their haste in preparing for their exodus from Egypt.

Jews were commanded under the Mosaic Law to travel to Jerusalem to celebrate Passover, Shavuot and Sukkot.  Here is a brief extract from a detailed article on Passover:

  Together with Shavuot and Sukkot, Passover was one of the Three Pilgrimage Festivals (Shalosh Regalim) during which the entire population of the kingdom of Judah made a pilgrimage to the Temple in Jerusalem. In Israel, Passover is the seven-day holiday of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, with the first and last days celebrated as legal holidays and as holy days involving holiday meals, special prayer services, and abstention from work; the intervening days are known as Chol HaMoed ("Weekdays [of] the Festival"). Every family large enough to completely consume a young lamb or wild goat was required to offer one for sacrifice at the Jewish Temple on the afternoon of the 14th day of Nisan (Numbers 9:11), and eat it that night, which was the 15th of Nisan (Exodus 12:6). If the family was too small to finish eating the entire offering in one sitting, an offering was made for a group of families. The sacrifice could not be offered with anything leavened (Exodus 23:18), and had to be roasted, without its head, feet, or inner organs being removed (Exodus 12:9) and eaten together with unleavened bread (matzo) and bitter herbs (maror). One had to be careful not to break any bones from the offering (Exodus 12:46), and none of the meat could be left over by morning (Exodus 12:10 Exodus 23:18).  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover

Apart from the fact that participating in these holy festivals was a command, we should perhaps realise they were also holidays.  Nobody could work.  Everybody got together with family and friends and had a really good time on the journey there and back.  When Jesus was 12 years old, Joseph and Mary brought Jesus along on the trip to celebrate the Feast with them.  Luke 2:41-52 describes how Joseph and Mary only discovered Jesus was not in the caravan some two days after they left Jerusalem!  Probably less to do with parental negligence than the fact that this journey was a great excuse to catch up on events and everybody was having a really good time.

These religious festivals were a cause for celebration and, regardless of the time or the cost involved, they were also holidays.  I suspect that people looked forward to these gatherings.

P.S. Going back 2,000 years we need to remember that Jewish people were probably more spiritually minded than today's materialistic society.  Their lives revolved around God, whom they believed in. Also, family played a huge part in the lives of those people.  That, of course, is an opinion, but it goes some way to explain why they would make the journey to Jerusalem to worship God.  They probably looked forward to those holy days, just like some people look forward to Christmas or Thanksgiving.


What does Matthew mean by "if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out", etc.?

Sin is not something we as Christians should fool around with. The same applies to non-Christians as well, for that matter.  Consequently, we need to get tough with sin and tough with ourselves when it comes to nipping it in the bud.

Of course, a man could avoid lusting after a woman by blinding himself in both eyes, but such an extreme measure, interestingly enough, would not cure lust! I suggest that is why Jesus talked about plucking out one eye, not two.

It's pretty clear, to me at any rate, Jesus is using hyperbole, which is a figure of speech which exaggerates deliberately for best effect. If Jesus had said,

  "If you are aware of what is causing you to sin, you need to have a little conversation with yourself in which you rebuke yourself and promise God you'll not sin again,"

His words would not have had the impact as would His words about eye-gouging. He knew that, of course, and He knew His words would cause His listeners to stop and analyze what they'd just heard, and in doing so they would've gotten the message.  In essence, Jesus was saying

  "Get tough on yourself. Make a clean break with sin and with anything that causes you to sin. What you thereby 'lose' for my kingdom's sake will be rewarded richly in the kingdom to come. If you refuse to make a clean break with sin, you may just find yourself in hell one day because of the very thing you refused to give up!"

Very sobering words, indeed, for believers and unbelievers alike. Sinful, earthly pleasures are but for a season, but at God's right hand in heaven, there are joy and pleasure forevermore (Psalm 16:11). In other words, a little pain now will yield eternal rewards. Our rejection of pain now will yield eternal regret in hell. The choice is ours to make.

Allow me to alter Jim Elliot's famous words ever so slightly:

  "He is no fool who gives [up] what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."

Jim Elliot, a missionary who sacrificed his life attempting to bring the gospel to a murderous tribe in the Amazon Rain Forest, was speared to death by the very people he came to serve (the Aucas).  He was an eye gouger.


Is a moral society more open to the gospel than an immoral one?

The Jews of Jesus's time were not particularly moral; they were particularly moralistic.  They went to great lengths to put on outward appearances of piety, which repeatedly earned them the condemnatory epithet of "hypocrites!" from the Savior.  We get a pretty good sense of what they were like from the Gospels.  For example, using legalistic tricks to get out of caring for their parents by instead being able to (very visibly) donate the money to the temple, "and many such like things":

  Mark 7:8-13

  8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

  9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

  10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

  11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

  12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

  13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Remember that by the end of Jesus's life, he'd become such an annoyance to the political rule of the various factions of Rabbis that they paid off a traitor to help apprehend him, explicitly sought for false witnesses to find a way to charge him, convicted him of blasphemy in a trial in which practically every point of procedure was illegal under Jewish law. Once he had been convicted of blasphemy, they wanted to put him to death, but only the Romans could enforce capital punishment, and as polytheists they didn't really have much of a concept of "blasphemy," so they had no compunction against hauling him before Roman authorities and changing his charge to the highest crime that Rome accepted: treason.  When he was interviewed by the Roman authority (Pilate) and found not guilty, they pressured him and even threatened to have him charged with treason by higher Roman authorities if he wouldn't play along.  (And historians suggest they'd have had a good chance of making the charges stick, so he had to give in to save his own hide.)

These were the people in charge of the "moral society" of Jews ~30 AD, making the rules and setting the example for the common people to follow.  Not a particularly good example of moral people, in my opinion.

As for standing out as an alternative to the status quo, yes, that's true, but the other side of that is that Christianity requires repentance, which involves changing one's ways.  It's one thing to say "wow, those Christians are really cool, I wish I could be like them," and another to actually sincerely try to give up all your sins, especially when it impacts your relationship with your friends and family.

  Matthew 19:29

  29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

Jesus didn't say this just to sound cool; he said it because it was a very real possibility of what might be required in order to truly live the Gospel.


How do Christians in support of gay marriage interpret anti-gay Bible verses?

I would first like to thank you for asking in a polite and constructive way! The following answer is based on my experience as a member of a congregation which is accepting of QUILTBAG people - a category which includes the minister - and their loving relationships; not everyone is in favour of same-sex marriage, but we've talked about it quite a bit. I have affection and respect for people who disagree, and I hope that we can all get along as we learn about this issue in good faith.

There are two sides to the answer. You asked about one of them, which is how to deal with the apparently anti-gay passages in Scripture. The other one, which I'll get to as well because it is closely related, is the positive case for affirming homosexual people and relationships on the same level as heterosexual ones. (The title of your question asks about marriage, and to get all the way over there one must do a bit more than just say that homosexual behaviour or activity isn't that bad.)

As far as the "clobber verses" go, the usual answer is to distinguish between what it is that homosexual people do today, and what is being condemned in those passages. Today, the idea of "same-sex marriage" is proposed to be exactly the same as opposite-sex marriage, except that the two people in the marriage are the same sex. In all other respects - love, mutual trust, shared commitment, and so on - it is meant to be identical. But this is indeed a new idea, and is not characteristic of the way that relationships between people of the same sex were construed in the ancient world. In a system where the institution of the family hinges on the dominant presence of the paterfamilias, typical male homosexual relationships ended up being socially marginal (no inheritance is going on here) and unequal (the penetrator being treated differently from the penetrated - the latter was shameful because he had degraded himself to the level of a woman). The point is that what's being condemned may be the unequal, abusive, lust-filled sort of relationship that would have come to Paul's original readers' minds when they thought about men in sexual relationships with other men.

Accompanying textual criticism has tried to understand just what Paul might have meant by his neologism arsenokoites, for example. This is the Greek word that is often translated as "homosexuals" or "sodomites" in the two NT passages you quote. It seems that there's definitely a sense of men (arsenes) going to bed/having sex (koite) but some have argued that he was upset about paedophiles, or procuring male prostitutes, or something else, in addition to the option I presented in the paragraph above. Lesbians do not seem to be treated here.

There is also a strand of interpretation that says that Paul did mean all homosexual people, but that he was wrong - and equally, that the Law of Moses did intend to condemn everyone who participated in a male homosexual act to death, but that it was wrong to do so. This differs from what I've mentioned so far because it doesn't even attempt to recover anything from Paul's words, instead only dismissing them as the product of a flawed culture. (In so doing, some obvious other problems are created.) This view is probably quite common but it is far from universal.

Now at last, the positive case is about believing that the love that exists between a couple is the same love regardless of their sex, and that their love is of divine origin. In other words,

  God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us; and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us. Acts 15:8-9 (NRSV)

Peter was speaking there about whether Gentiles could become Christians, but he is also making a general point about the testimony of the Spirit. We Gentiles can be saved because

  There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28 (NRSV)

Recall that for Paul, these three distinctions were all about social caste. There is still such a thing as male and female identity, but what has vanished is the associated power relationship and privilege that denies proper love. This goes right back to the divergent ideas about homosexuality I spoke about above. Christians who support same-sex marriage find that it fits better with passages like these than with the clobber verses. Moreover, the ideas expressed here by Peter and Paul are felt to be closer to the heart of the Gospel. While this is very far from an open-and-shut case - there's a ton of stuff to consider about natural law, reproduction, and so on - it is the central pillar of the argument.


Who tells us that the whole Bible is inspired?

The Bible does say that all the scriptures are inspired, which means "God-breathed":

  All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. (2 Timothy 3:16, NIV)

Though human writers did produce the scriptures, the ultimate source of the scriptures is God himself. When others spoke the scriptures they did so through God's breath.

In its original context this verse really refers only to the Old Testament. Peter however refers to Paul's letters as scripture, showing that the Apostles recognised that they were writing new inspired scriptures:

  And remember, our Lord’s patience gives people time to be saved. This is what our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom God gave him— speaking of these things in all of his letters. Some of his comments are hard to understand, and those who are ignorant and unstable have twisted his letters to mean something quite different, just as they do with other parts of Scripture. And this will result in their destruction. (2 Peter 3:15-16, NLT)


What is the Evangelical Christian argument against Rob Bell?

Rob Bell is identified with a Emergent Church despite not self identify as a member of the emergent movement. However, he tends to advocate many of the ideas of that group. Case in point, Love Wins, which came out last year, was hugely controversial, since it was putting forward a view on the nature of hell which is not held by many evangelical Christians. Many had accused him of being a universalist. Prior to the publication of this book, Jesus Wants to Save Christians: A Manifesto for the Church in Exile, came out, which is many would classify as an extremely liberal gospel interpretation (he uses the gospel to criticize US foreign policy for instance). These types of views are extremely controversial to many evangelical Christians many of whom tend to (justly or not) fall on the conservative side of the political spectrum.

Also he wrote a book called, Sex God: Exploring the Endless Connections Between Sexuality and Spirituality, which having read it, I can say is not nearly as scandalous as the title suggests. But, the point is, Bell meant to stir put feathers by publishing a Christian book with a title like that, and that tends to be his modus operandi.

Hope that helps.

Update, a little bit more on those that believe Bell to hold to heretical beliefs:

On February 26, 2011, John Piper tweeted "Farewell, Rob Bell" and linked to an article accusing Bell of being a universalist with his new book "Love Wins". The implication was that Bell had strayed so far from the Christian camp as it were, that he no longer considered Bell to be part of the Christian community (that's my personal take on the meaning of the tweet).

The real issue here is not whether or not Bell was enunciating universalism or not (Bell in a sermon the week after publication said "I am not a Universalist" and made the same statement to various members of the press, for what that is worth), but what does it mean to be heretic.

My take is that if you take a look at his main critics, especially Piper and Chan, they tend to fall into the Calvinist camps, that not to say they all do by any means. But I think if you look into the heart of the controversy about Bell, who is an arminian by any measure, it may have more to do with justification than anything else. For Bell, we choose God, for Reformed thinkers, God chooses us. Beyond the specific ways in which each sides is interpreting scripture, each side holds fundamentally opposing theological views.

For more info on Bell critics, see Francis Chan's Erasing Hell, Mark Galli's God Wins: Heaven, Hell, and Why the Good News Is Better than Love Wins.


"Resist not evil" (Matthew 5:39) - What does this mean? not to fight evil?

It does not mean:

do not fight temptation to sin
do not defend yourself

Look at the context in which the passage is found:

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Jesus here rejects conventional wisdom to return evil with evil, and to hate one's enemies. Instead, he says we should be humble and love (will the good of) those who do evil to us.
Try the ASV: "resist not him that is evil." In the KJV, "evil" seems to mean "evil actions directed toward you" or "evil in others."


Is there any Biblical Basis for 400 years of silence between Old and New Testament?

In Amos 8, the prophet declares (NIV trans.):

  11 “The days are coming,” declares the Sovereign Lord, “when I will
  send a famine through the land— not a famine of food or a thirst for
  water, but a famine of hearing the words of the Lord.

  12 People will stagger from sea to sea and wander from north to east,
  searching for the word of the Lord, but they will not find it.

  13 “In that day the lovely young women and strong young men will faint
  because of thirst.

  14 Those who swear by the sin of Samaria— who say, ‘As surely as your
  god lives, Dan,’ or, ‘As surely as the god of Beersheba lives’— they
  will fall, never to rise again.”

I have on several occasions heard Baptist preachers cite this passage as a prophecy fulfilled by the 400 year gap in divine revelation.


What is the biblical basis for the historicity of the Bible?

That professor hasn't read the Bible, apparently.
Eyewitness Account

Luke 1:1-4 (my translation)
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compose a narrative of the things which have taken place among us, (even as it was handed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning, and those who tended to [the matter of preserving] an account), it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely from the beginning, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you might know the verity of the things that have been told you.

Luke even uses the adjective ακριβως (accurately; closely; scrupulously). Luke claims his Gospel is an accurate history of Jesus.
Real Old Testament People
As for the Old Testament, it is confirmed by its affirmation in the New: by Jesus, and by the geneology listed by Luke.

Luke 3:23-38 (DRB)
And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years; being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Mathat, 24 Who was of Levi, who was of Melchi, who was of Janne, who was of Joseph, 25 Who was of Mathathias, who was of Amos, who was of Nahum, who was of Hesli, who was of Nagge, 26 Who was of Mahath, who was of Mathathias, who was of Semei, who was of Joseph, who was of Juda, 27 Who was of Joanna, who was of Reza, who was of Zorobabel, who was of Salathiel, who was of Neri, 28 Who was of Melchi, who was of Addi, who was of Cosan, who was of Helmadan, who was of Her, 29 Who was of Jesus, who was of Eliezer, who was of Jorim, who was of Mathat, who was of Levi, 30 Who was of Simeon, who was of Judas, who was of Joseph, who was of Jona, who was of Eliakim, 31 Who was of Melea, who was of Menna, who was of Mathatha, who was of Nathan, who was of David, 32 Who was of Jesse, who was of Obed, who was of Booz, who was of Salmon, who was of Naasson, 33 Who was of Aminadab, who was of Aram, who was of Esron, who was of Phares, who was of Judas, 34 Who was of Jacob, who was of Isaac, who was of Abraham, who was of Thare, who was of Nachor, 35 Who was of Sarug, who was of Ragau, who was of Phaleg, who was of Heber, who was of Sale, 36 Who was of Cainan, who was of Arphaxad, who was of Sem, who was of Noe, who was of Lamech, 37 Who was of Mathusale, who was of Henoch, who was of Jared, who was of Malaleel, who was of Cainan, 38 Who was of Henos, who was of Seth, who was of Adam, who was of God.

This is airtight. A genealogy back to the first man, beginning with Joseph. Ignoring the 'whose genealogy is it' question, it claims Joseph is literally a descendant of Adam, the first man created by God. Now unless Joseph is a literary device—an untenable joke—then the Old Testament descriptions of the patriarchs is literally true.
Likewise, we see in 1 Peter, for example, claims that those before the Deluge went to some spiritual prison (cf. Lk. 16:22; Heb. 11:40), where Jesus went to preach the Good News after He yielded up His spirit on the cross (Mt. 25:50).

1 Peter 3:18-20 (DRB) Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, 19 In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: 20 Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water.

Cf. 2 Pet. 1:16.
Real people at the time of Noah, when the ark was being built.
Even Unto This Day
There is a recurring phrase in Old and New Testament: "even to this day." It means that whatever happened in some former time remains true "even to this day." A New Testament example is Matthew 28:8:

Matthew 28:8 (DRB) For this cause the field was called Haceldama, that is, The field of blood, even to this day.

There is a direct causal relationship between the event described (and fixed by its context at some explicit time in history) and the naming of a thing or person or place.
Interesting Old Testament examples, however, might include Genesis 22:13-14:

Genesis 22:13-14 (DRB) Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw behind his back a ram amongst the briers sticking fast by the horns, which he took and offered for a holocaust instead of his son. 14 And he called the name of that place, The Lord seeth. Whereupon even to this day it is said: In the mountain the Lord will see.

The author of Genesis, at least, is convinced that this place is treated this way because Abraham himself named it after a real experience he had. He's not ignorant that he has placed Abraham in a certain era.
Cf. Josh. 7:25-26.
Other instances of this abound. E.g.

Genesis 35:19-20 (DRB) So Rachel died, and was buried in the highway that leadeth to Ephrata, that is Bethlehem. 20 And Jacob erected a pillar over her sepulchre: this is the pillar of Rachel's monument, to this day.

Or,

2 Samuel 6:8 (DRB) And David was grieved because the Lord had struck Oza, and the name of that place was called: The striking of Oza, to this day.

Cf. Vulg. Judith 16:31.
These are just a few pieces of evidence that the Old Testament was considered by both the author and first century Jews (themselves partially an evidence) to be the actual history of the Jews.


According to the Catholic commentators, was Mary the original candidate for mother of God?

In Catholic teaching and theology, there is what is called a vocation1, i.e. a calling. From all eternity, God has called each one of us to be what he wanted each one of us to be. This calling is unique and unrepeatable precisely because each person is unique and unrepeatable2.

1. We define personal vocation as God's call and plan for one's entire life. cf. GERMAIN GRISEZ ON PERSONAL VOCATIONS | EWTN.
2. cf. b. Unique and unrepeatable | B. OPENNESS TO TRANSCENDENCE AND UNIQUENESS OF THE PERSON in COMPENDIUM OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH.

The following sample biblical passages are offered in support:

  Matt 20:23
  (RSVCE)
  23 He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right
  hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom
  it has been prepared by my Father.”

And

  Jn 15:16
  (RSVCE)
  16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you
  should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide; so that
  whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.

And

  Is 43:1
  (RSVCE)
  43 But now thus says the Lord, he who created you, O Jacob, he who
  formed you, O Israel: “Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have
  called you by name, you are mine.

Thus Mary was God's choice to be his Mother and now is the only choice because she said yes! And we thank God and her for that.

What could God have done if Mary had said no?

With God all things are possible3. In Catholic teaching and theology there are infinite number of ways by which God could have accomplished the redemption. We thank the LORD and his Mother for having agreed to be the New Adam and Eve.

3. cf. Matt 19:26

Please see: CCC 490ff.

Postscript

What was the calling of Eve, what was her glory?

She was the first woman, the mother of all living, among her children, Mary the Mother of God, and her Son, the Son of man4.

I am sure Eve is not complaining.

4. cf. Matt 8:20.


Why was it so special that John the baptist was not called Zechariah?

I'd like to suggest it has much deeper meaning than most have considered.  Names are, indeed, very important in the Bible. When one hears the name "John" in terms of the Bible, there are 2 John's that come to mind instantly. This conection, I believe, must be intended.  It is interesting that John, the apostle, quotes many times from the Book of Zechariah...now where have I heard that name before? ;) Why does it matter?  Well, for eschatological reasons, as John the apostle was chosen to write the Book of Revelation in which he describes the events leading up to Christ's second advent. Who was it that spoke of Christ's first advent?  Yes, the other John. One more connection and I will leave you to prayerfully consider what I have shared.  John Baptist was the "Elijah forerunner" of Christ's first advent, and there is another "Elijah" forerunner expected "before the great and terrible day of YHVH"...in the Book of Rev., John states, "I John, your brother and fellow participant in THE [emphasis mine] Tribulation..."  "Word play" is common throughout the Scriptures, and it seems to me this can't be "coincidence." The John-John link was intentional to connect the "Elijah forerunner" to the Book of Revelation.  My thoughts. shalom


What was the Angelic Psalter that Our Lady told St. Dominic to preach?

The Angelic Psalter is the rosary.
See the "6th Rose" section of The Secret of the Rosary, where he contrasts "The Psalter of Jesus and Mary" / "Angelic Psalter" / "Our Lady's Psalter" (i.e., the rosary) with David's Psalter (the Psalms):

Ever since Saint Dominic established the devotion to the Holy Rosary up until the time when Blessed Alan de la Roche re-established it in 1460 it has always been called the Psalter of Jesus and Mary. This is because it has the same number of Angelic Salutations as there are psalms in the Book of the Psalms of David. Since simple and uneducated people are not able to say the Psalms of David the Rosary is held to be just as fruitful for them as David’s Psalter is for others.
But the Rosary can be considered to be even more valuable than the latter for three reasons:

Firstly, because the Angelic Psalter bears a nobler fruit, that of the Word Incarnate, whereas David’s Psalter only prophesies His coming;

Secondly, just as the real thing is more important than its prefiguration and as the body is more than its shadow, in the same way the Psalter of Our Lady is greater than David’s Psalter which did no more than prefigure it;

And thirdly, because Our Lady’s Psalter (or the Rosary made up of the Our Father and Hail Mary) is the direct work of the Most Blessed Trinity and was not made through a human instrument. …


What is the biblical basis for the belief that Satan was the serpent in the Garden of Eden?

The answer to the question regarding the first book of the Bible actually comes from the last book of the Bible:

And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.  Revelation 12:9 NASB
And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.  Revelation 20:2 NASB

It is understood by many that "the serpent of the old" ties back to Genesis 3, where the serpent deceived the woman, and through her, the entire world.
The Serpent in John 3:14 does not refer back to Genesis 3, but to Numbers 21, which gives the account of the Israelites in the wilderness. God sent a plague of "fiery serpents" to punish the people for their rebellion against Him. The cure for the fashioning of a serpent and raising it up on a pole. Anyone who looked up on the serpent, having been bitten, would be healed. Jesus makes the connection to looking upon Him with faith, as He would be raised up on the Cross. The bronze serpent is a type of Christ and really illustrates the Gospel quite well.

And Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on the standard; and it came about, that if a serpent bit any man, when he looked to the bronze serpent, he lived.  Numbers 21:9 NASB


According to trinitarians, especially Protestants, who is Wisdom in Proverbs?

There are two common interpretations among Protestants:

"Wisdom" refers to the Word of God; that is, Jesus
"Wisdom" is the personification of a divine attribute, and perhaps a type of Christ, but should not be understood to be Jesus himself

The first view was widely held by the church fathers and several centuries of Protestants.  However, in the 20th century the second view became more popular and now dominates Evangelical scholarship.
The Word of God: Jesus
The typical patristic understanding of this passage was that Wisdom refers to the Word of God: that is, the Son of God, Jesus.  As you note, this raises some questions about the meaning of one key word in verse 22, translated "created," "formed," or "possessed," and this verse was a major battleground in the Arian controversy.
Early Protestants generally followed the patristic understanding, and argue that Jesus's divinity should not be doubted on the basis of this passage.  I'll provide a sampling of arguments, but to be clear, the vast majority of early Protestant commentators (particularly prior to the 20th century) take this approach.1
Matthew Henry summarizes this position, noting the very personal characteristics of Wisdom:

That it is an intelligent and divine person that here speaks seems very plain, and that it is not meant of a mere essential property of the divine nature, for Wisdom here has personal properties and actions and that intelligent divine person can be no other than the Son of God himself.2

Defenders of this view point to New Testament passages referring to Jesus in similar ways, such as John 1:1, Hebrews 1:3, 1 Peter 1:20 and Colossians 1:15–18.
But if that's the case, how do Protestants defend against the Arians and others who say that this passage teaches that Jesus was created?  The question revolves around the meaning of the Hebrew word qanah, which elsewhere in the Old Testament can be translated "get," "acquire," "create," and "possess."  Protestants argue for the "possess" translation, and note that the "create" reading would imply that at one point God was without wisdom:

Not "created me," as the Targum and the Septuagint. [...] [T]his possession [...] denotes the Lord's having, possessing, and enjoying his word and wisdom as his own proper Son.3

Albert Barnes similarly says that there is no "ground for the thought of creation either in the meaning of the root, or in the general usage of the word."  His Notes go on to point out the logical difficulty of "create":

What is meant in this passage is that we cannot think of God as ever having been without Wisdom.4

The Personification of a Divine Attribute
The Moody Bible Commentary, citing several recent commentators,5 provides a helpful summary of the alternate position:

Lady Wisdom here is no more than a personification of the wisdom that the sage has received, a wisdom revealed by God and rooted in His very own character.  The context simply does not justify interpretations that go beyond the personification of wisdom here. [...] It is therefore best to say that Lady Wisdom shares similarities with Christ, but Christ is even greater than she.  In short, the sage's wisdom is a type of Christ.

Others understand the text similarly.6  The Reformation Study Bible, though emphasizing Christ as the wisdom of God, still considers the personification of wisdom here to be a "poetic device":

Although it is premature to see personified wisdom (especially in vv. 22–31) as a direct portrayal of a divine being, there is no doubt that the revelation of Jesus Christ as the wisdom of God shows us the significance of a wisdom that is its own absolute authority.

This view was not entirely foreign to writers of the 19th century.  Methodist Adam Clarke (1760–1832) critiques the church fathers as finding "allegorical meanings every where," though he too applies Wisdom in verse 3, "She crieth at the gates," to Christ, his apostles, and their successors.7
Summary
Each person's understanding of this passage will be influenced by the relative weights placed on the testimony of the church fathers and modern hermeneutics.  Early Protestants leaned toward the former, but the latter has gained primacy among Protestants over the last two centuries.  Either way, however, Protestants have carefully argued that the text does not challenge the divinity of Christ.

References:

Geneva Study Bible, Wesley, Coke, Poole, Scofield.  Also Catholic Haydock.
Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, III
Gill, Exposition of the Whole Bible.  Cf. James Coffman; though not a defender of this view, he writes at length on how to properly translate this word.
Barnes, Notes
Kidner (Proverbs), Longman (Proverbs), and Waltke (Book of Proverbs 1-15), among others.
ESV Study Bible, NIV Study Bible, and Keil & Delitzsch, for example.
Clarke, Commentary


Who disciplines who within the hierarchy of the Catholic Church?

For an understanding of this post, please see my answer to How do the Pope, Bishops, Priests relate to one another in the Catholic Church's hierarchy?

Disciplining Delinquent Clergy

I will consider the practice of the Western Church, governed by the Code of Canon Law, since it is the one I know best. Since the Eastern Churches are governed instead by the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, there may be some slight differences (for example, the patriarch or major archbishop would have some oversight over his dioceses), but the procedures are essentially the same.

It is the responsibility of the bishop or major superior to discipline priests who commit crimes (whether civil or ecclesiastical). The proper procedures are outlined in Book VI of the Code of Canon Law. (There is a similar situation in United States: it is generally the responsibility of state governments, not the Federal Government, to prosecute criminals.)

However, in the case of very serious crimes, the so-called graviora delicta, the matter must be referred to the Holy See. It should, however, be kept in mind that not every civil crime is also an ecclesiastical crime, and the Church considers delicts to be “graviora” when they are likely to cause serious harm to the faithful.

Examples of graviora delicta include desecration of the Eucharist, violating the seal of Confession, and attempting to celebrate a Sacrament that is reserved to a higher rank of Holy Orders (for example, if a deacon attempts to celebrate Mass or hear a confession; or if a priest attempts an ordination; or even if a bishop ordains a bishop without a papal mandate). In the wake of the scandal regarding child abuse by priests, in 2007, the crime of pedophilia and child pornography were also added to this list. (For an excellent overview, see “Considerations on the Delicta Graviora” by Cardinal William Levada, then prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.)

It is the responsibility of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) to process these more serious cases on the pope’s behalf. Of course, the CDF can only act when it is informed of a case, and so effective disciplining requires action on the part of the local church as well. Naturally, a bishop or major superior may (and should) act to remove a particularly dangerous priest or deacon from his assignment while his case is pending with the CDF.

In practice, at least in the United States, nowadays priests are removed from ministry as soon as credible allegations of child abuse of any kind are made, and their case is referred to civil authorities. They are not technically “suspended” unless they are found guilty. If they are found innocent (both by the civil authorities and by the internal Church investigation), they are generally reinstated to ministry; if guilty, they may be suspended—that is, permanently prohibited from exercising ministry—or laicized, depending on the seriousness of the crime. (Only the Holy See can laicize a priest, however, and so in that case the diocese would have to request it.)


Great question. It's a little of both. (We'd have to define what time means for God.) But I suppose we could infer Origen believed Christ's soul - as he believed of all souls - is eternal.

According to his writings, all souls were created by God at some time prior to conception.

  Let us inquire whether God, the creator and founder of all things,
  created certain of them holy and happy, so that they could admit no
  element at all of an opposite kind, and certain others so that they
  were made capable both of virtue and vice; or whether we are to
  suppose that He created some so as to be altogether incapable of
  virtue, and others again altogether incapable of wickedness, but with
  the power of abiding only in a state of happiness, and others again
  such as to be capable of either condition. (De Principiis)

And that Christ has one.

  Therefore, when the Son of God wished to appear to men and live among
  men for the salvation of the human race, He took not only a human
  body, as some suppose, but also a soul, and one like our souls in its
  nature, but like Himself in purpose and power, and such as could
  fulfill without turning all the wishes and dispensations of the Word
  and Wisdom. (De Principiis, emphasis mine.)

And all souls are eternal.

  The soul, having a substance and life of its own, shall after its
  departure from the world, be rewarded according to its deserts, being
  destined to obtain either an inheritance of eternal life and
  blessedness, if its actions shall have procured this for it, or to be
  delivered up to eternal fire and punishments, if the guilt of its
  crimes shall have brought it down to this.  ( Ante-Nicene Fathers re: Origen, Vol. 4, 1995, p. 240)


What is Matt Redman's denominational background?

Redman started leading worship at St Andrews, Chorleywood, moving to help start up Soul Survivor alongside Mike Pilavachi and was the worship leader for the Soul Survivor Church in Watford. According to founder Mike Pilavachi, the Soul Survivor festivals (which began in 1993) grew out of worship sessions with him and the then 15-year-old Redman. Redman led worship at the early Soul Survivor festivals, returning to lead worship again in 2011.

In 2002, after a sabbatical in America recording Where Angels Fear To Tread, Redman moved to Brighton to work with Terry Virgo at the Newfrontiers church, CCK. He has been involved in their 'Newday' and 'Together on a Mission' conferences.

In 2004 Redman joined a new church plant, The Point, also in West Sussex, led by Will Kemp.

In 2008 Matt and Beth Redman, along with their three children, moved to Atlanta, Georgia, to plant a church with Louie Giglio and Chris Tomlin called Passion City Church. In August 2010 Redman and his family returned to the UK. They have since joined a church plant in Brighton at St Peter's Church, Brighton.

Sources: http://www.passioncitychurch.com/blog/?p=221
http://mattredman.sparrowrecords.com/biography/


Why is there so little written on the greatness of the happiness in Heaven?

I would think so little is written on the happiness of heaven due to the fact that once you get there you don't come back to explain the 'Happiness". Christ spoke on Heaven, and to be in His presence...going to be awesome!!

If as Christians we are not in a constant state of communication with our Lord, then we will lose our connection to "Joy". We should be striving to be like Christ and in that we should find Happiness. The very fact that we have "hope" in Him is Happiness. Our flesh does not always support this, and as we mature, we should begin to understand that the Spirit of Christ in us is what pushes us forward until we enter heaven either through death or by His return and our exchange of flesh and blood to our new body.

1 Corinthians 15
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”[g]

55 “O Death, where is your sting?[h]
O Hades, where is your victory?”[i]
56 The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.

Hope this helped somewhat. (copied from Biblegateway.com)


I would say that baptism is still highly "necessary", since Jesus Himself, in his final directions to His disciples, told them to:

  Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit

(emphasis added)

and the parallel:

  Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

If Jesus told His disciples, and by extension us, to "baptize", I think it's still "necessary".


What denominations of Christianity forbid meat from strangled animals?

Seventh Day Adventists go one step further. Since the late 1860s the Adventist Church has advocated a vegetarian diet.  In 1938 the SDA Church compiled Ellen White's writings on health into a book entitled 'Counsels on Diets and Foods'.  Here are two quotes on the subject of eating meat:

"When the message comes to those who have not heard the truth for this time, they see that a great reformation must take place in their diet. They see that they must put away flesh food, because it creates an appetite for liquor, and fills the system with disease. By meat eating, the physical, mental, and moral powers are weakened. Man is built up from that which he eats. Animal passions bear sway as the result of meat eating, tobacco using, and liquor drinking." (p. 268-269)
"As a general thing, the Lord did not provide His people with flesh meat in the desert, because He knew that the use of this diet would create disease and insubordination." (p. 375)

No reference is made to Genesis 9:3-4 where God gives Noah permission to eat meat, but with this proviso:

"Everything that lives and moves will be food for you.  Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it."

There may be other Christian denominations that prohibit the eating of meat from strangled animals, but it would take a great deal of time and effort to track them down.
As for Jehovah's Witnesses, while they are asked not to eat meat that has been strangled, they are not under any obligation to make enquiries from the butcher to ensure the animal's blood has been drained (that it was not strangled).  I believe this is left as a matter of conscience and is not a hard and fast rule.
Edit - Additional information on Christian denominations (other than Jehovah's Witnesses) who uphold the prohibition on eating the meat of strangled animals:
The Armenian Apostolic Church observe rituals similar to Jewish kosher slaughter (second paragraph): https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Christian+dietary+laws
The Iglesia Ni Cristo (Church of Christ) forbids the eating of meat from strangled animals:  https://iglesianicristoreadme.blogspot.com/2009/08/eating-animals-blood.html#.WxY1B0gvy00
Apparently, the Catholic Church can allow the eating of meat from strangled animals: http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-church-can-allow-eating-strangled.html


Was this (allegedly gay) marriage in a Catholic Church valid?

Indeed. It's not possible for anyone but a man and woman of age to marry themselves (the sacrament of marriage is actually contracted by the couple, technically speaking, the priest being only a witness). Anything else is not the sacrament of marriage but something else: therefore they not only were not married, but could not have been married. One does not need an annulment to prove this, only proof that both parties are female, or both parties are male.
@K-HB found a canon in the Code of Canon Law which contains a definition of marriage:

Code of Canon Law
Can. 1055 §1 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their whole life, and which of its own very nature is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children, has, between the baptised, been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.
...

It goes on to define what matrimonial consent is, too:

Can. 1057 §1 A marriage is brought into being by the lawfully manifested consent of persons who are legally capable. This consent cannot be supplied by any human power.
§2 Matrimonial consent is an act of will by which a man and a woman by an irrevocable covenant mutually give and accept one another for the purpose of establishing a marriage.

And for something from the catechetical realm, here is a portion from Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma on Matrimony (Book IV, Section VII, 1):

Christian marriage is that Sacrament in which two marriageable people of different sexes associate in an undivided life-communion by mutual agreement for the generation and education of offspring, and in which they receive grace for the fulfillment of the special duties of their state.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent (or, the Roman Catechism) gives a definition of marriage:

The conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life

In his famous Encyclical on Matrimony, Arcanum (a highly recommended read), Pope Leo XIII wrote (Arcanum, 5):

... And this union of man and woman, that it might answer more fittingly to the infinitely wise counsels of God, even from the beginning manifested chiefly two most excellent properties - deeply sealed, as it were, and signed upon it-namely, unity and perpetuity. From the Gospel we see clearly that this doctrine was declared and openly confirmed by the divine authority of Jesus Christ. He bore witness to the Jews and to His Apostles that marriage, from its institution, should exist between two only, that is, between one man and one woman; that of two they are made, so to say, one flesh; and that the marriage bond is by the will of God so closely and strongly made fast that no man may dissolve it or render it asunder. "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined together, let no man put asunder."

Many more sources could be adduced, but to put it more simply: the Church knows of no sacrament intended for or concerning the union of two of the same sex.


Have any Christian thinkers expressed the idea that the Trinity can be proven independently from Scripture?

Anselm of Canterbury attempts to do exactly this in his Monologion, an 11th century work that attempts to logically deduce God's existence and attributes without the use of Scripture.
Overview in Proslogion
Anselm's later and better-known work, Proslogion, provides a helpful summary: after establishing the existence of God through the ontological argument (§2–3) and that God cannot be divided (§18), Anselm introduces a Father/Son relationship between God and a new entity, God's Word.  This Word shares God's attributes, like truth, and thus is not distinct from God.  A third entity, God's Love, is named the Holy Spirit, and this Love is "one and common" to God and God's Son, and equal to both.  Summarizing, he writes:

Thus, whatever each is singly, that the whole Trinity is altogether, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; since each singly is not other than the supremely simple unity and the supremely unified simplicity which can be neither multiplied nor differentiated. (§23)

Details in Monologion
The Son
The Monologion provides more extensive reasoning for the same basic argument as the Proslogion.  The existence and characteristics of the supreme nature are argued first, and then in chapter 29, Anselm turns to the "verbalization" of the supreme nature, "through which all things were created." He argues that the verbalization is same as the supreme nature, and that its verbalization is consubstantial with it, so that there is only one spirit, not two.
Because of the principle of simplicity, established in chapter 17, the verbalization, or Word, is one, and not many (§30).  The supreme spirit creates everything through this Word, and "whatever the supreme spirit does, its Word does too, and likewise." (§37).  The supreme spirit begets the Word, and the Word "derives from the supreme spirit" (§39), like a Father/Son relationship (§42). Nonetheless, "there are not two, but only one Creator and first principle." (§37)  But this raises the question, then: of what, exactly, are there "two"?
Anselm answers that this plurality is "ineffable," incapable of being expressed in words.  They are not like "two similar men," nor are they "two equal spirits," nor even "two equal whatevers (where 'whatever' would signify either their essence or their relation to creation)."  Finally, he concludes:

What these two things—the supreme spirit and its Word—are, is inexpressible, although they are distinguished from each other in thought by what is proper to each. (§38)

The Holy Spirit
Following Augustine (De Trinitate, IX–4), Anselm turns to a psychological analogy to describe these two entities, and associates consciousness with the Father, and understanding with the Son (§48).  But one thing is missing: just as the supreme spirit is conscious of itself, and understands itself, it must also love itself.  This love, proceeding from both the self-consciousness (Father) and the self-understanding (Son), is as great as both of them (§50–52).
Love, then, is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son (§57).  Unlike the Word, which naturally "offers the image of its parent," Love provides no "striking likeness," so we can only say that it proceeds from Father and Son (§55).  Thus, the Father is unbegotten and begets the Son; the Son is begotten; and the Spirit is neither begotten nor unbegotten (§56).
These three are equal, sharing the one supreme essence, and their "mutual embrace" and "indwelling [...] demonstrates that none of them is greater than, or can exist without, the others." (§59)  Nonetheless, Anselm writes, "none of them needs the others in order to be conscious, understand and love."  Otherwise, each individual would not truly be "supreme essence and wisdom." (§60)
After a few rebuttals to objections, Anselm begins his conclusion of this portion of the argument by writing:

This seems to me to be a sublime mystery, which stretches well beyond the horizon of human understanding. [...] When investigating the inexplicable, if it is possible to arrive at an account which is certainly correct, I think one must be content with that even if it is impossible to see how it may be so. (§64)

Summary
In Anselm's preface to Monologion, he writes that he was asked by his fellow monks to make an argument not resting "on the basis of the authority of Scripture," but to use the "constraints of reason" to prove his claims.  He admits the difficulty of the task, and his own limitations, but the fact that he wrote the book the way he did indicates that he thought it profitable to argue in this manner.
Furthermore, he believes he expresses orthodox doctrine: he says he has "been unable to find anything which is inconsistent with the writings of the Catholic Fathers, and in particular with those of the Blessed Augustine."  This is a fair assessment: as mentioned, his analogy of Consciousness, Understanding, and Love originally comes from Augustine, and he is careful to emphasize both the unity and the plurality of the Trinity, thus avoiding the heresies of Sabellianism, tritheism, and Arianism.

Quotations here come from the 2008 edition of Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works in the Oxford World's Classics series.
Public domain editions of Proslogion and Monologion are widely available, but are not based on modern critical editions of Anselm's works, and thus may not closely match the quotes provided here.


How do Evangelicals understand "holy children" in 1 Cor 7:14, with respect to the salvation of children dying in infancy?

How do Evangelicals understand “holy children” in 1 Corinthians 7:14, with respect to children dying in infancy?
This is a passage where Evangelicals differ, and where Reformed Evangelicals differ amongst themselves.  I use the term “Reformed” in the sense of someone who believes in the Doctrines of Grace which most of the Reformers believed but which today is most closely linked with John Calvin.  There are Reformed Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists.
Calvin himself taught the Presbyterian form of Church Government.  He also taught that the Covenant of Grace included that the children and babies of believers should be baptised.  He took this idea from the circumcision of the people of the Covenant in the OT.
Baptists reject this part of Calvin’s beliefs and only baptise people on their own profession of faith.  Baptists would hold that Calvin imported too much of the Old Testament Covenant with the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob into the New Covenant for all nations.  (Baptists would take issue with some of the things Calvin wrote in “The Institutes of the Christian Religion”, Book 2 and chapters 10 and 11, covering the similarities and differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament.)
I am only going to answer this from the Evangelical Reformed Baptist point of view.
The first thing to note of the verse is the context.  It might be difficult to convincingly hit the nail on the head as it were as to the primary purpose of Paul in the chapter.  (Is it about submitting to God’s providence?)  The immediate context is about how a Christian should treat his/her marriage to an unbeliever:  if the unbeliever is happy to remain married then do not seek a divorce.
One thing is certain: the context has absolutely nothing to do with infant salvation.  There are those who try to extract something about the doctrine of infant salvation with respect to the children of a believing parent from the verse, but it is actually a sign that they are rather clutching at straws to look here for evidence for this belief.   Indeed they clutch at straws when they claim to have found evidence from anywhere in the New Testament, or even anywhere in the whole Bible for this belief.  Brethren, sorry to be so blunt, but that is the way a Baptist sees it!
I believe strongly in the doctrine of infant salvation, but not for the children of believers only, but for all babies and infants everywhere.  As for the age of discretion for each one, we leave this with our gracious God.
The sermon by C. H. Spurgeon, “Infant Salvation”, is online here https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/infant-salvation/#flipbook/

For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. (1 Cor 7:14, ESV)

If this verse is primarily concerned with keeping the peace and submitting to the providence of God what is this verse possibly saying?   Dr Peter Masters, a leading defender of the Reformed Baptist position in the UK and to some extent worldwide through his church’s magazine “The Sword and Trowel” has proposed a translation of the verse:
“For the unbelieving husband is set apart for the wife, and the unbelieving wife is set apart for the husband.  Otherwise your children would be illegitimate, but as it is, they are legitimate.”
The idea here is that the husband is not made holy, sanctified in any religious sense, but that God has “set them apart” to be the husband/wife of the believer.  “Sanctified” has the idea of “setting apart” for holy use: God has set the unbelieving spouse apart for the believer, and because God thus legitimises the marriage therefore the children are legitimate also.
A believing parent has no Biblical warrant for believing there is any stigma attached to the children because one of their parents is an unbeliever.
Essentially believers are not to try to divorce their unbelieving spouses purely on the grounds they are unbelievers.
Let there be peace in, and submission to, the providence of God.


How would a Christian explain the contradiction of loving but calling homosexuality a sin?

No contradiction at all.  We are, indeed, commanded to love our neighbors.  We are also told that homosexuality is a sin.  How is there any contradiction in that?

Loving our neighbors does not require us to approve of everything they do.  Lying, stealing, adultery, profanity and greed are also defined as sins in the Bible.  If loving our neighbor demands we approve of everything they do, then we would need to approve of all of these.

We could go farther and include more heinous sins as well.

It is important to note that a biblical understanding of sin is that all sin is to our destruction and loss.  Loving someone would then require us to dislike anything that threatens to harm them, whether it be greed, pride, adultery, homosexuality or anything.

We don't allow our children to play in the streets because we love them and don't want them to be harmed.  It would only be if we hated someone that we would want them to experience harm.


Is an action morally good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?

There is no moral standard apart from the person of God.

God is not Himself subjected to some outside standard of reference, He is the standard that we reference. Since we also know that He is good, we can be certain that nothing He commands will ever bee morally despicable. @Joel Coehoorn nailed in in a comment. Yes, actions are morally good because God commands them and what God commands is morally good because it was Him that commanded it.

If something comes up that bothers our consciences we have several possibilities to consider.

Our own moral compases may be corrupt.
We are too limited in our experience to judge Him.
We mis-heard Him or were deceived; the thing that bothers us wasn't a command from God at all.


Praise and Worship, what is the difference?

I expect this question will be soon closed as primarily opinion based, but let's sneak in an answer.

Merriam-Webster defines "praise" as:

  1) to express a favorable judgment of

  2) to glorify (a god or saint) especially by the attribution of
  perfections

I like to think of praise in terms of a word I like to think is related: raise

  1) to cause or help to rise to a standing position

Because it makes perfect sense to me what Paul wrote to the Corinthians (1 Cor 4:5)

  Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both
  will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make
  manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have
  praise of God.

When we praise God, we lift up His importance in our lives.  It's no suprise that He will do the same for us.

Praise is often a spoken thing.  For example, praise is often given in song.  Hebrews 2:12

  Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the
  church will I sing praise unto thee.

Paul and Silas both sang and praised (Acts 16:25) leading us to believe praise occurs in prayer.  It's disappointing that the only verse that easily makes this connection is from LDS Scripture.  From D&C 136:28 we read:

  If thou art merry, praise the Lord with singing, with music, with
  dancing, and with a prayer of praise and thanksgiving.

See also Psalm 72:15.

The two definitions of worship that are relevant to us are:

  2) reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also :  an
  act of expressing such reverence

  3) a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual

Worship is a much more complex word.  It involves more than simply speaking.  Also, where praise is the act of lifting another up, worship is the act of lowering oneself in humility before another.  (Rev 19:4):

  And the four and twenty elders and the four beasts fell down and
  worshipped God....

Worship always involves praise, though praise doesn't always involve worship.  Matthew 14:13.

  Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a
  truth thou art the Son of God.

Not surprisingly, we can be the recipients of this kind of worship (fundamentally, praise) in regard to other people.  Luke 14:10.

  But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that
  when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up
  higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit
  at meat with thee.

Worship describes the act of helping others understand, follow, and worship.  This is reflected in a chastisement given by the Lord (Matt 15:9):

  But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the
  commandments of men.

And it describes service to the being we worship.  Matthew 4:10.

  Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written,
  Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Therefore, praise is something we (usually) say to raise another above ourselves and worship is something we (usually) do to humble (lower) ourselves before another.

An example: from our point of view, if two of us are standing on a stair, one praising the other would encourage the other to stand on the next higher stair.  One worshipping another would willingly and selflessly step down one stair so the other would be a step higher.


Why is the perpetual virginity of Mary important in Eastern Orthodoxy?

Among other things, the Ever-Virginity of the Theotokos is understood to be the fulfillment of a prophesy by Ezekiel (44:2)1:

  This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in
  by it, therefore it shall be shut.

This meaning is ascribed to the verse by a number of Church Fathers, included Methodius of Olympus2 (d.311), Cyril of Alexandria3 (378-444), Jerome4 (347-420).  The Ever-Virginity of Mary was a pervasive doctrine of the first millennium Church, as witnessed by John of Damascus (676-749) in his summary of the Faith, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith:

  The ever-virgin One thus remains even after the birth still virgin,
  having never at any time up till death consorted with a man. For
  although it is written, And knew her not till she had brought forth
  her first-born Son [Matthew 1:25], yet note that he who is
  first-begotten is first-born even if he is only-begotten. For the word
  “first-born” means that he was born first, but does not at all suggest
  the birth of others. And the word “till” signifies the limit of the
  appointed time but does not exclude the time thereafter. For the Lord
  says, And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world
  [Matthew 18:20], not meaning thereby that He will be separated from us
  after the completion of the age. The divine apostle, indeed, says,
  And so shall we ever be with the Lord [1 Thessalonians 4:17], meaning after the general resurrection.5

John continues with an explanation which underlines why it is unacceptable within Orthodox doctrine to accept that the Virgin did not remain so after the Nativity: "For could it be possible that she, who had borne God and from experience of the subsequent events had come to know the miracle, should receive the embrace of a man. God forbid!"

The above explains, I think, why the ever-virginity of Mary is an important belief, but it perhaps does not explain why the accolade of "Ever-Virgin" is frequently included in the prayers of the Church.

Although it is certainly possible to look upon the texts of Orthodox Services as nothing more than scripts for the choir, they actually serve a much deeper meaning.  Each Orthodox Service can be seen as a theological lesson.  Metropolitan Hilarion Alfayev states:

  The theological authority of liturgical texts is, in my opinion, even
  higher than that of the works of the Fathers of the Church, for not
  everything in the works of the latter is of equal theological value
  and not everything has been accepted by the fullness of the Church.
  Liturgical texts, on the other hand, have been accepted by the whole
  Church as a “rule of faith” (kanon pisteos), for they have been read
  and sung everywhere in Orthodox churches over many centuries.
  Throughout this time, any erroneous ideas foreign to Orthodoxy that
  might have crept in either through misunderstanding or oversight were
  eliminated by Church Tradition itself, leaving only pure and
  authoritative doctrine clothed by the poetic forms of the Church’s
  hymns.6

Arguably, Jesus having had blue eyes - which receives no mention whatsoever in Scripture or the writings of the Fathers - does not merit the sort of theological lesson of sorts as does the Ever-Virginity of the Theotokos.  You will find similar theologically-laced accolades for other things throughout the service books.  God is repeatedly referred to with the prefix "all merciful" or sometimes with the suffix "the lover of mankind".  The Apostles are called "praiseworthy" or "wise".  Sometimes the Theotokos is referred to as "all-pure".  All these things are little reminders of Orthodox doctrine that are heard throughout the service.

1  Elder Cleopa of Romania, The Truth of Our Faith
, p.87
2  Oration concerning Simeon and Anna
3  Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke, Sermon I
4  Letter XLVIII, 21; also Against Pelagius II
5 Book IV, Chapter XIV
6 Orthodox Worship as a School of Theology


There are no such problem to show the violence in icons in orthodoxy. There are many icons of martyrs, which shows their suffers on. Like behading or quartering. The sample the that kind of icons are: Icon of Daniel the Prophet and the three children:

and St.Sebastian of Mediolan:


How was the word preached in NT era churches?

It was apparently one person doing the speaking for at least until the churches were well established.

All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation, unless otherwise noted.

  Matthew 28:18 through 20  And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

This would have necessitated that those do all of the talking since they would be the ones with the knowledge.

Paul was the founder of many Churches in the Gentile world, and from the following Scriptures we see that he did the talking.

  Acts 20:7  And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

The church at Jerusalem on the other hand was born out of the synagogues, and may have followed those old traditions:

  Luke 4:16 through 19  And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. 17  And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, 18  The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19  To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

It appears that it was common for others in the synagogue to read scripture and then comment on them.

So the answer to your question may be both, judging from what we can derive from Scriptures.


What is the biblical argument against baptism by sprinkling/pouring?

The argument from scripture centres firstly around the meaning of the original word which we translate as baptize in english:

Strong's Concordance
baptizó: to dip, sink
Original Word: βαπτίζω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: baptizó
Phonetic Spelling: (bap-tid'-zo)
Short Definition: I dip, submerge, baptize
Definition: lit: I dip, submerge, but specifically of ceremonial dipping; I baptize.
HELPS Word-studies
907 baptízō – properly, "submerge" (Souter); hence, baptize, to immerse (literally, "dip under"). 907 (baptízō) implies submersion ("immersion"), in contrast to 472 /antéxomai ("sprinkle"). - Biblehub.com (emphasis added)

It was the same word used to describe the dyeing process used at the time - cloth would be steeped (fully immersed) in dye.
Secondarily regarding what it signifies and what is therefore the most appropriate analogy:

3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. - Romans 6:3-4 NIV (emphasis added)

Baptism signifies our being buried with Christ - we have died to sin and our old life - and are raised to life new life in Him. Full immersion expresses this in a way that sprinkling does not.
Finally, there is no explicit biblical example of anyone being 'baptized' (using a wider  - ie. non-biblical - definition of the word) by sprinkling. You have to make up your mind whether to read implicit permission for sprinkling by synthesizing other scriptural doctrines, or reject it as a tradition from men.


What is meant by "love covers over a multitude of sins"?

Love certainly does not mean ignoring sins or not noticing them at all. It is unloving for us to notice a fellow Christian living in sin and not help them. And when they sin against us, we are not to act like nothing happened in all cases, but we are to confront them Biblically when appropriate.

R.C. Sproul Jr. wrote an excellent article on the subject here. In summary, he said:

  When we are wronged our calling is to practice a careful moral calculus. Is this offense one I should let go of? Is it among the multitude that love covers? Or is this offense grievous enough that love means confronting in grace my brother? Sadly what we usually do is think we are practicing the former while actually holding grudges and putting miracle-grow on roots of bitterness. Peace in the church calls us to under-accuse, over-repent and over-forgive. Let us not be afraid to call sin sin, but let us not be slow to forgive it and to look past it.

There are cases where we are to overlook. If they were inconsiderate and bothered us, in many cases it is better to simply overlook and move on. But if the sin is greater, then we should confront them using the model presented in Matthew 18:15-19. In all cases, we should have an attitude of forgiveness towards them, willing to forgive the wrong when they ask for forgiveness.

In relationship to God's love towards man (and you could probably ask a second question on this part), we are to love because God first loved us. He paid the price for our sins on the cross, and forgave us our sins:

  For as high as the heavens are above the earth, So great is His lovingkindness toward those who fear Him. As far as the east is from the west, So far has He removed our transgressions from us. (Psalm 103:11-12)

God's justice demands there must be a payment for our sins. But because Christ died on the cross for them, God forgives us if we truly repent. Sometimes, God confronts us with our sins using some earthly method. But God always forgives, and we should too.


In Luke 18:8, does the Geek word translated “quickly” mean “suddenly” in this instance?

The word is τάχος Strong 5034 which Thayer (see the link for Strong) renders as 'quickness' or 'speed'.
So in the construction used in verse 8, ἐν τάχει, Thayer tells us that the meaning is quickly or shortly (as in Acts 12:7; Acts 22:18; Romans 16:20) or it may mean speedily or soon (as in Luke 18:8; 1 Timothy 3:14 ; Revelation 1:1; Revelation 22:6).
Thus the execution of judgment is speedy, when the time comes to execute that judgment.  However the verse is not stating that there will not be a delay, ere the time of execution will occur.
It is only stating the rapidity of executed judgment, when the time for judgment to be appropriate arrives.
We know, from many other scriptures (such as the entire book of Job, or the forty years that Moses spent in  Midian, or the hundreds of years during which God waited before flooding the whole earth) that there may well be reasons, in God's purposes, for time to pass, until it is the right time for a reconciliation to occur.
But once that period of time has elapsed, the judgment falls swiftly, as exampled in the days of the Flood during Noah's lifetime, or as exampled in the judgment upon Sodom and the cities of the plain in the days of Abraham and Lot.


What's the Eastern Orthodox view on Roman Catholic notion of sanctifying grace?

The Eastern Orthodox understanding of grace is radically different from that of Roman Catholicism.

Firstly, Roman Catholic theology maintains that grace is something that is created.  The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

  [Grace] is not a substance that exists by itself, or apart from the
  soul; therefore it is a physical accident inhering in the soul (1911
  ed., vol. 6, p. 705)

It furthmore states:

  Sanctifying grace may be philosophically termed a 'permanent,
  supernatural quality of the soul' (ibid.)

In contrast, Orthodox theology maintains:

  Grace is the Uncreated Energy of God Himself, which at the time of
  man’s creation was intimately connected with his soul. Man
  participated in the Divine life through the Divine Energy, and this
  participation was proper to the original nature of man.

  Hieromonk Damascene, note in Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (3rd ed.), by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky,
   p. 166.

Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky further explains the difference in understanding in his book, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church:

  That which western theology calls by the name of the supernatural
  signifies for the East the uncreated — the divine energies ineffably
  distinct from the essence of God. The difference consists in the fact
  that the western conception of grace implies the idea of causality,
  grace being represented as an effect of the divine Cause, exactly as
  in the act of creation; while for eastern theology there is a natural
  procession, the energies, shining forth eternally from the divine
  essence. It is in creation alone that God acts as cause, in producing
  a new subject called to participate in the divine fullness; preserving
  it, saving it, granting grace to it, and guiding it towards its final
  goal. In the energies He is, He exists, He eternally manifests
  Himself.

  Kindle Locations 1532-1541

This difference in understandings of grace leads to radically different understandings of the nature of sin and salvation in both traditions. As monk Damascene further comments:

  In Roman Catholic teaching original sin consists only in the privation
  of sanctifying grace (also called “original justice”), while the
  nature of man remained the same after the fall as it had been before
  the fall. In this view, the nature of man has not become corrupted;
  rather, the privation of grace in itself constitutes “a stain, a moral
  deformity” (Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 11, p. 314). According to
  Orthodox theology, on the other hand, man’s nature was corrupted at
  the fall, and this corruption caused man to lose the indwelling of
  Grace and deprived him of participation in God. As Vladimir Lossky
  notes, “The deprivation of Grace is not the cause, but rather the
  consequence of the decadence of our nature” (Mystical Theology, p.
  132).

Salvation, in the Orthodox understanding, is a healing of man ("heal" and "save" are the same word in Greek), and involves cooperation of man with God to participate in His grace.  It is not so much a restitution, as a restoration.  Sin is seen not as an act or series of acts that offend God, but rather as a state of being separated from God.  It is interesting to note that the verb form of the Greek word for sin - hamartia - is used in ancient Greek to describe what happens when a warrior misses their target ("misses the mark").  In his commentary on Romans, the late Archbishop Dmitry Royster (a Baptist convert to Orthodoxy) wrote:

  What does "being saved" mean?  From what sins do men need to be saved?
  [Matthew 1:21].  Since sin in the Greek original is hamartia,
  literally "failure" or "missing the mark", we have to conclude that
  man's sin consists fundamentally in his missing the very point of his
  existence (although for some Christians, salvation has been reduced to
  nothing more than escaping the punishment of hell).

  St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans: A Pastoral Commentary, p. 33


According to Catholicism, does God actively cause suffering in Hell?

Souls who die in mortal sin are actively punished, but others (e.g., those in the limbo for children, who died with original sin and no actual sin) are only passively punished (because deprived from the Beatific Vision).

St. Augustine writes (Enchir. xciii):

  The punishment of children who die in none but original sin is most lenient.


What was the dominant theory of atonement shown in the Apostolic Fathers's writings?

I think the clearest statement to explicitly deal with atonement would be this one from the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians:

  Through charity did the Lord join us unto himself; whilst, for the love that he bore towards us, our Lord Jesus Christ gave his own blood for us, by the will of God: his flesh for our flesh, his soul for our souls. [1 Clement, XLIX]

This notion is suggestive of a (not necessarily penal) substitutionary atonement ("join us unto himself", "his for ours"). I have not found anything else which addressed the issue with that kind of clarity, but there is a general tendency to consider Christ's death with reference to its efficacy in bringing life, forgiving sins, etc. Consider the Epistle of Barnabas, chapter VII:

  Understand then, my beloved children, that the good God hath before manifested all things unto us, that we might know to whom we ought always to give thanks and praise. If, therefore, the Son of God, who is the Lord of all, and shall come to judge both the quick and the dead, has suffered, that by his stripes we might live, let us believe that the Son of God could not have suffered but for us. But, being crucified, they gave him vinegar and gall to drink. Hear therefore, how the priests of the temple did foreshow this also: the Lord, by his command which was written, declared, that whosoever did not fast the appointed fast he should die the death: because he also was himself one day to offer up his body for our sins; so that the type of what was done in Isaac might be fulfilled, who was offered upon the altar.

He goes on to further consider a way Jesus could be typologically foreshadowed in the temple sacrificial system, and concludes:

  Wherefore you here again see a type of Jesus who was to suffer for us.

This focus on the the fact that the death of Christ is "for us" is perhaps very vaguely suggestive of a substitutionary atonement, but I wouldn't read too much into it, since after all, a Ransom or Victor theory is compatible with this kind of language, insofar as the benefits of Christ's death can indeed be considered to be "for" the Christian. For completeness though, we have the following:

  ... the root of the faith, which was preached from ancient times, remains firm in you to this day, and brings forth fruit to our Lord Jesus Christ, who suffered himself to be brought even to the death for our sins. [Polycarp, I]

  They abstain from the eucharist, and from the public offices, because they confess not the eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of his goodness, raised from the dead. [Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, VII]

  Let us, therefore, without ceasing, hold steadfastly to him who is our hope, and the earnest of our righteousness, even Jesus Christ, "who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree; who did no sin, neither was guile found in his
  mouth," but suffered all for us, that we might live through him. [Polycarp, VIII; quoting 1 Peter 2:24]

  For whereas you are subject to your Bishop as to Jesus Christ, you appear to me to live not after the manner of Men, but according to Jesus Christ; who died for us, that for believing in his Death, you might escape Death. [Ignatius to the Trallians, II]

  He was also truly crucified by Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, being nailed for us in the flesh, by the fruits of which we are saved, even by the most blessed passion, that he might set up a token for all ages, through his resurrection, to all his holy and faithful servants, whether they be Jews or Gentiles, in one body of his church. Now all these things he suffered for us, that we might be saved. [Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, I-II]

  Let us look stedfastly to the blood of Christ, and see how precious his blood is in the sight of God; which, being shed for our salvation, has obtained the grace of repentance for all the world. [1 Clement, VII]

  Wherefore I exhort all of you that you obey the word of righteousness, and exercise all patience, which you have seen set forth before your eyes, not only in the blessed Ignatius, and Zozimus, and Rufus, but in others among yourselves, and in Paul himself, and the rest of the apostles. Being confident of this, that all these have not run in vain, but in faith and righteousness, and are gone to the place that was due to them from the Lord, with whom also they suffered; for they loved not this present world, but him who died, and was raised again by God for us. [Polycarp, IX]

  All the ends of the world, and the kingdoms of it, will profit me nothing: I would rather die for Jesus Christ, than rule to the utmost ends of the earth. Him I seek who died for us; Him I desire who rose again for us. [Ignatius to the Romans, VI]

  Let us reverence our Lord Jesus Christ, whose blood was given for us; let us honour those who are set over us; let us respect the aged that are amongst us; and let us instruct the younger men in the discipline and fear of the Lord. [1 Clement, XXI]

On the other hand, there is this from the Epistle to Diognetus. Depending on when you date that document, it may or may not be before Iraneus. In it, there is a reference to Christ's Ransom:

  He hated us not, neither rejected us, nor bore us malice, but was long-suffering and patient, and in pity for us took upon Himself our sins, and Himself parted with His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy for the lawless, the guileless for the evil, the just for the unjust, the incorruptible for the corruptible, the immortal for the mortal. For what else but His righteousness would have covered our sins? In whom was it possible for us lawless and ungodly men to have been justified, save only in the Son of God? O the sweet exchange, O the inscrutable creation, O the unexpected benefits; that the iniquity of many should be concealed in One Righteous Man, and the righteousness of One should justify many that are iniquitous! [Diognetus V]

Although the language of "ransom" is used, there is not a more developed notion of the ransom being paid to Satan characteristic of Origen's formulation, which is what we usually mean by "ransom theory". Instead, this is basically just in line with Matthew and Mark's notion of a ransom (Mark 10:45, Matthew 20:28), and there is considerable overlap between this idea and a subsitutionary atonement (the ransom-exchange being itself a kind of substitution.)

Conclusion

Unless I've missed something, there doesn't seem to be a focus of aspects of atonement that are not at least partially substitutionary. A discussion of Christ's victory or triumph seems to be absent.

Do bear in mind that Christus Victor atonement which Aulen advocates is rather distinct from ransom theory. The former emphasizes the conquering of death, and hence Christians' freedom. The latter has in view a kind of payment (usually to Satan), to retrieve Christians from Evil.

Also, note that subtitutionary atonement theories need not be penal. It doesn't seem like there's a notion of a penal substitution anywhere in these passages (that is, the idea that the cross served to appease the wrath of God on Christians' sin).


The Christian answer to this is simple and ancient. God is eternal and has always existed. He does not have a creator. He is the 'first cause', or 'uncaused cause'. Speculation about how that came to be (bearing in mind that 'came to be' is a phrase implying time and causation, which may not be appropriate) are just speculation on the part of individual Christians.

It should be said that a small minority of sects, notabley the Latter-Day Saints, don't agree with the above statement.