What Scriptures tell us what man having free will actually means?

tl;dnr

The scriptures tell us we do not have free will. We cannot choose Christ unless God supernaturally causes us to desire him and so causes us to choose him. Further, we cannot make even the smallest day to day decisions differently from the way we do make them, right down the to the words I'm typing. "The lot is cast into the lap but its every decision is from the LORD." (Pv 16:33)

Some thoughts:

All men make choices based on their desires (or preferences). No man has authority over his desires. Therefore no man has authority over his choices.

No man is an island. No event happens in a vacuum. All things are connected. If God is sovereign over any outcome he must be sovereign over every outcome.

All text is from the ESV unless otherwise noted.

In the New Testament

Mark

Mk 13:20-27

20 And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days.
21 And then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it.
22 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.
23 But be on guard; I have told you all things beforehand.
24 "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light,
25 and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.
26 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.
27 And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

John

Jn 1:9-13

The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.
12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Jn 6:35-44 NIV

Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.
39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.
40 For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day."
41 At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven."
42 They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?"
43 "Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered.
44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.

The Father gives the Son all those whom he saves. They all come and none are lost. None that are not given come.

Jn 6:63-65 NIV

"The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.
65 He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them."

Jn 12:37-40

37 Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him, 38 so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled

Lord, who has believed what he heard from us,
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

39 Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,

40 He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their heart,
lest they see with their eyes,
and understand with their heart, and turn,
and I would heal them.

How can they turn to God of their own free will if they cannot believe? If their eyes are blind, how will they see? If their hearts are hard, how will they desire Him?

Jn 15:16-19

"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.
17 These things I command you, so that you will love one another.
18 If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.
19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you."

Jn 17:1-12

When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you,
2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.
3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do.
5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
6 "I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word.
7 Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you.
8 For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me.
9 I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. 10 All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them.
11 And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.
12 While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

What can be said about this? Jesus says the Father has given him authority to give eternal life to those that the Father gave him out of the world.
They belonged to the Father, the Father gave them to the Son, the Son gave them eternal life and not one was lost except the son of destruction as prophesied in Scripture.
Where then is free will? Where is their power to turn to or from God of themselves? Perhaps it will be said that Jesus is here referring only to the apostles.
Will we then say that the apostles did not have free will but everyone else does?

Acts

Ac 2:22-23 NASB

Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know—
23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.

Ac 4:23-28

When they were released, they went to their friends and reported what the chief priests and the elders had said to them.
24 And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, "Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them,
25 who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit,

"'Why did the Gentiles rage,
and the peoples plot in vain?
26 The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers were gathered together,
against the Lord and against his Anointed'—

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

Ac 13:48

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

None believed that were not appointed. All that were appointed believed. Where is free will?

Romans

Rm 8:5-8

For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.
6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.
7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot.
8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

If we, born in the flesh, are hostile to God, cannot submit to God's law and cannot please God, how then can we welcome God, submit to Him and please Him by turning to Him of our own power?

Rm 8:28-30

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.
29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Rm 9:10-24

And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac,
11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—
12 she was told, "The older will serve the younger."
13 As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!
15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."
18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"
20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—
24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

Rm 10:14-21

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?
15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!"
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?"
17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
18 But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for
Their voice has gone out to all the earth,
and their words to the ends of the world.
19 But I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says,
I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation;
with a foolish nation I will make you angry.
20 Then Isaiah is so bold as to say,
I have been found by those who did not seek me;
I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me.
21 But of Israel he says, All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.

So to call on God they must believe and to believe they must have faith and to have faith they must hear.
But not all who hear understand. "Hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand."1
Those to whom he has shown himself did not ask for him and were not seeking him. "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God." 2

Matthew 13:13
Romans 3:11

Rm 11:1-8

I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel?
3 "Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life."
4 But what is God's reply to him? "I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal."
5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace.
6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened,
8 as it is written,

God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that would not see
and ears that would not hear,
down to this very day.

If the gift is given to those who choose it for themselves then it isn't by grace at all but rather by the merit of the choice. If the gift is given to those who do not choose it then it is by grace that it is given.

Rm 11:17-32

But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree,
18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you.
19 Then you will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in."
20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear.
21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.
22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.
23 And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.
24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.
25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,

The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob;
27 and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.

28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.
29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

What branch choses to be grafted in or cut out? The cultivator makes those decisions.

Rm 12:3

For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.

Faith is required to believe and God assigns it.

Galatians

Gal 1:13-17

For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it.
14 And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers.
15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace,
16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone;
17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

Paul, so far from seeking God, was bent on destroying God's ekklesia. He did not seek Him or ask for Him yet He came to him because He purposed before he was born to use him for His glory.

Ephesians

Eph 2:8-10

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Philippians

Php 2:12-13

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,
13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

In the Old Testament

Proverbs

Pv 16:1

The plans of the heart belong to man,
  but the answer of the tongue is from the Lord.

Pv 16:4

The Lord has made everything for its purpose,
  even the wicked for the day of trouble.

Pv 16:9 NKJV

A man’s heart plans his way,
  But the Lord directs his steps.

Pv 16:33

The lot is cast into the lap,
  but its every decision is from the Lord.

Pv 22:2

The rich and the poor have this in common,
  The Lord is the maker of them all.

Psalm

Ps 31:14-15

But I trust in you, O Lord;
    I say, “You are my God.”
15 My times are in your hand;

Ps 37:23-24

The steps of a man are established by the Lord,
  when he delights in his way;
24 though he fall, he shall not be cast headlong,
  for the Lord upholds his hand.

Possible Rebuttals

Jn 5:39-40

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

The KJV translation reads "40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."
When it says "ye will" or "ye will not" it is taken to imply that ye just as easily may have willed differently had ye so chosen.
But isn't that begging the question? When it says "you will not come" it does not follow that this means you might have come had you so chosen. Rather, this is merely stating what your will is.
Your will is to not come.
Spurgeon had this to say about it:

…no man by nature ever will come to Christ, for the text says, "Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."
So far from asserting that men of their own wills ever do such a thing, it boldly and flatly denies it, and says, "Ye WILL NOT come to me, that ye might have life."
Free Will–A Slave, REV C.H. Spurgeon

Rm 10:8-9

But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim);
9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

This is the best example that I know of to illustrate this issue. Here Paul says if you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart you will be saved. It goes on to say, in verse 13,
"13 For 'everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'"
Here again, the assertion that this implies free will is begging the question. This in no way indicates that a person has the freedom to will or to not will confessing and believing.
It simply says that those whose will it is to confess and believe will be saved regardless of how it came to be their will. The reason why this is such a good example is because of the larger context in which it's found.
If we simply go on to read the rest of the chapter we see that Paul is clearly saying that believing and confessing is not something men can do.

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?
15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?
17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
18 But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for
Their voice has gone out to all the earth,
  and their words to the ends of the world.
19 But I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says,
I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation;
  with a foolish nation I will make you angry.
20 Then Isaiah is so bold as to say,
I have been found by those who did not seek me;
  I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me.
21 But of Israel he says, All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.

Notice is says in verse 17 that hearing comes through the word of Christ. So it is an action of God that enables one to hear. Without this action, without the word of Christ, no one hears and understands.
Hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand."1
None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. 2

Matthew 13:13
Romans 3:11

Further Examples

I think every verse taken to imply free will involves a similar misunderstanding. The following are examples of such verses.

Is 41:18
Oh that you had paid attention to my commandments!
Then your peace would have been like a river,
and your righteousness like the waves of the sea;
Jn 7:17
If anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority.
Rev 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.
Dt 30:19-20
I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse.
Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live,
20 loving the Lord your God, obeying his voice and holding fast to him, for he is your life and length of days,
that you may dwell in the land that the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.


According to Catholicism, why did God lower Himself so much for the specks of dust like us?

Philippians 2:2-8 (DRB)
Fulfil ye my joy, that you may be of one mind, having the same charity, being of one accord, agreeing in sentiment. 3 Let nothing be done through contention, neither by vain glory: but in humility, let each esteem others better than themselves: 4 Each one not considering the things that are his own, but those that are other men's.
5 For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. 8 He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross.

Being perfect love itself, He couldn't let humanity perish eternally if there was a way to prevent it, and so He humbled Himself and took on our nature Himself, to provide us with redemption from said inevitable, just fate. Pride not being found in Him at all, He humbled Himself for the sake of love.

John 15:13 (DRB)
Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
Mark 10:45 (DRB)
For the Son of man also is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many.

He loved us so much, seeing in us what we cannot always see, namely, His image in our soul (the image made to reflect the glory of its Maker, not perish), that He wanted if necessary to lay down His life to save us—something not possible in His divine nature, for which reason He elected to become the new Adam.

1 Corithians 15:21-22 (DRB)
For by a man came death, and by a man the resurrection of the dead. And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.


Why didn't the Archangel Michael save Jesus when he was crucified?

Jesus' main purpose in coming to earth was to die on the cross in order to redeem mankind from their sins.

He attests to this in a number of places in the Bible, and other writers of scripture also say this.

Therefore to have Michael or any other archangel rescue Jesus would be to go against the wishes of God the Father - which Jesus, in his obedience, did not want.

When Jesus disciples try to defend him he tells them not to, and explicitly addresses this question (Matthew 26:52-54):

  “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”

He predicts the manner of his death here.

You can see the theological necessity of it in Romans 5: 6-11

  You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.


Are we supposed to ASK for wisdom or SEEK it--or are they the same thing?

We ask when we have the desire.

  Take delight in the LORD, and he will give you the desires of your
  heart. (Psalm 37:4, NIV)

Psalms tells us that God will give us the desires of our heart. Simply asking without any sincere desire will not be successful. Only a sincere request is granted.

And we should ask according to His will. We can't ask whatever we want. God gives only what we need and He answers according to His divine wisdom and will. And James 1:5 you posted confirms that it is the will of God to give wisdom to His children.

  This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask
  anything according to his will, he hears us. (1 John 5:14-15, NIV)

"Seeking" implies "effort": We also need to apply our own effort when we want something. One cannot simply pass examination by only praying but not studying.

Ask, seek and knock

  "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and
  the door will be opened to you.  (Matthew 7:7, NIV)

Asking, seeking and knocking are the ways to a successful prayer. First, we need to ask God - and ask according to His will. Second, we need to seek for it or give effort from our side. We seek only when we have the desire. Third, we need to have a sincere desire to keep on knocking on the doors of Heaven.

  Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary (Matthew 7:7)

  Prayer is the appointed means for obtaining what we need. Pray; pray
  often; make a business of prayer, and be serious and earnest in it.
  Ask, as a beggar asks alms. Ask, as a traveller asks the way. Seek, as
  for a thing of value that we have lost; or as the merchantman that
  seeks goodly pearls. Knock, as he that desires to enter into the house
  knocks at the door. Sin has shut and barred the door against us; by
  prayer we knock. Whatever you pray for, according to the promise,
  shall be given you...

So, if you desire to have wisdom, ask to God, seek for it, knock on the doors of Heaven and God will give you wisdom beyond measure.


How do LDS know that Brigham Young and his successors are true prophets?

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are encouraged to get a testimony of each of those prophets.

1.I don't disagree with you. However, I would think that a testimony of the current prophet, would be enough. If you know the first to be true, and today's to be true that should be enough. If you decide that one in the middle isn't a true prophet, but you have a testimony of the current one, does that mean the entire church is now wrong but led by a true prophet? No, that wouldn't make sense. Personally, I would Look at Joseph Smith Jr. and the current prophet before joining, and look at the others after joining. If you change your mind latter, you could always leave.

It boils down to a question of what do you think is the bigger sin, ignoring a prompting from the holy spirit, or following a prompting before studying it out? and I don't think I can answer that here.

EDIT So I was pointed to a Statement by a previous president, I would think this is a shortcut, gain a testimony of this and they you can not worry about the other prophets.

  “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as
  President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the
  programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that,
  the Lord would remove me out of my place” (Teachings of Presidents of
  the Church: Wilford Woodruff [2004], 199).

2.They do encourage this from what I understand. There is even a manual about this. It is an "institute" manual which I believe means it is a college level course. The introduction states:

  The purpose of the Teachings of the Living Prophets Student Manual is
  to help you strengthen your testimony of living prophets and their
  teachings. It discusses our need for living prophets, the role of the
  President of the Church, the divine order of succession in the
  Presidency, the Quorum of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the
  Twelve Apostles, and the importance of general conferences. President
  Harold B. Lee (1899–1973) taught, “It is not alone sufficient for us
  as Latter-day Saints to follow our leaders and to accept their
  counsel, but we have the greater obligation to gain for ourselves the
  unshakable testimony of the divine appointment of these men and the
  witness that what they have told us is the will of our Heavenly
  Father” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1950, 130). A witness of the
  divine appointment of the living prophets is promised to each of us as
  we study the counsel of the Brethren and resolve to sustain them
  through our obedience. This manual will assist you in your study of
  the living prophets.

They also have a manual with the teachings from each prophet and it is another institute manual. Meaning, I think, They study all of them. They also have a larger book on each prophet (I think it's all of them), Scroll to the bottom of this page for the list of links.

3.From what I understand, they just ask you to pray about it and ask God. Seems pretty simple and straight forward. I would guess, that if the holy spirit already helped you out with a testimony of the current prophet, Joseph Smith Jr. and the Book of Mormon, this wouldn't be much more to ask.

EDIT After talking to a few more members I know, I was pointed to a "seminary" manual, which I believe is used with high school students. Page 158 of this manual. I would recommend you read the entire page about succession. The part below talks about the first conference that Brigham Young held:

  “Brigham Young then spoke briefly, comforting the hearts of the
  Saints. As Brigham spoke, George Q. Cannon remembered, ‘it was the
  voice of Joseph himself,’ and ‘it seemed in the eyes of the people as
  if it were the very person of Joseph which stood before them.’ William
  C. Staines testified that Brigham Young spoke like the voice of the
  Prophet Joseph. ‘I thought it was he,’ Staines said, ‘and so did
  thousands who heard it.’ Wilford Woodruff also recalled that wonderful
  moment and wrote, ‘If I had not seen him with my own eyes, there is no
  one that could have convinced me that it was not Joseph Smith, and
  anyone can testify to this who was acquainted with these two men.’
  [Quotations in History of the Church 7:236.] This miraculous
  manifestation, seen by many, made clear to the Saints that the Lord
  had chosen Brigham Young to succeed Joseph Smith as leader of the
  Church.


Can Catholic priests disclose the fact that someone has seen him for confession?

Church law does not explicitly prohibit revealing that a given person has been to confession or not. Here are the relevant canons from the Code of Canon Law:

Can.  983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.
§2. The interpreter, if there is one, and all others who in any way have knowledge of sins from confession are also obliged to observe secrecy [though not technically the seal; i.e., they would not fall under the latae sententiae excommunication of Can. 1388].
Can.  984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded.
§2. A person who has been placed in authority cannot use in any manner for external governance the knowledge about sins which he has received in confession at any time.

Here, some observations should be made: the confessor may never break the seal of confession. To “break the seal” means to make a third party understand that a given penitent has committed a certain sin.
Hence, while revealing that someone has been to confession generally does not violate the seal, common sense says that it is best not to provide information that could inadvertently reveal a person’s sins—and revealing whether a person has been to confession or not could potentially do this.
(For example, suppose that there is someone whom a lot of people suspect has committed a grave sin—say, adultery or something like that. If I reveal that he has gone to confession, many people will likely conclude, rightly or wrongly, that this person has, in fact, committed the sin. That is the sort of thing that needs to be avoided.)
If I were asked point blank whether someone has gone to confession or not, I would simply reply the way witnesses are trained to do: “I don’t recall.”


How is the "baptism in the Holy Spirit" (promoted through CHARIS) connected with the Sacrament of Baptism?

The 3 resources below explain the Catholic understanding and the connection between "baptism in the Holy Spirit" and the Sacrament of Baptism:

Baptism In The Holy Spirit: Why Every Catholic Should Consider Receiving It: a CatholicLink website article by Deacon Brenton Cordeiro, training to be a priest for the Companions of the Cross.
Baptism in the Holy Spirit: a 2017 Crossroads Initiative website article by Raniero Cantalamessa, O.F.M. Cap., a cardinal and preacher to the Papal Household.
A New Pentecost? Catholic Theology and "Baptism in the Spirit": a 2011 Logos journal article by Dr. Ralph Martin, "expert" for the World Synod of Bishops on the New Evangelization, discussing 3 interpretations of "Baptism in the Spirit".

I structure the answer in the form of Q & A by quoting from the above resources:

Q: Is Baptism in the Holy Spirit a sacrament?
A: No, it is not a sacrament but is believed to be related to the sacraments of Christian initiation, primarily of baptism and confirmation [Martin 21].  It makes real and in a way renews Christian initiation  [Cantalamessa].

Q: Haven't baptized Catholics already received the Holy Spirit?
A: Yes.  Baptism in the Holy Spirit doesn't oppose or dilute any Catholic teaching on the sacraments. There is no dispute about the effects of receiving the sacrament of Baptism, in particular the forgiveness of sins, the conferring of divine sonship, and becoming a member of the Body of Christ and a temple of the Holy Spirit. [Cordeiro]

Q: What does it do in addition to the Sacrament of Baptism?
A: The spiritual realities mentioned above in Baptism become "unbound" through a baptism in the Holy Spirit, allowing the Holy Spirit to burst forth and flow throughout our day-to-day lives bring us to a new awareness of the reality and presence of Jesus Christ in our lives  [Cordeiro].

Q: What effects can we expect following Baptism in the Holy Spirit?
A: A new hunger & desire for the Word of God, the Sacraments, and holiness.  It fosters the desire to witness to our faith and to testify about the way the Lord is changing our lives (New Evangelization)  [Cordeiro].

Q: Once baptized in the Holy Spirit do Catholics expect receiving "speaking in tongue" gift as a sign, usual in the Pentecostal denomination?
A: No one gift is usually singled out being the necessary sign of baptism in the Spirit [Martin 22].

Q: What is the Scriptural basis for this baptism?
A: [Martin 22]:

Acts 4 : The prospect of a "renewal" of the receiving of the Spirit or a "stirring up" of a gift once given but since "gone quiet" in which the persecuted companions of Peter and John pray for and receive new power for evangelization.
2 Tim 1:6 : Paul urges Timothy to "stir into flame the gift of God that you have"

Q: Any evidence from church history?
A: [Martin 22]:

Montague and McDonnell support their thesis by a review of the available evidence from the first eight centuries of the Church, which evidence they argue shows that the sacraments of Christian initiation were often characterized by an experiential dimension and manifestations of the charismatic gifts of the Spirit.¹²

Q: Any relevant paragraphs in the Catechism?
A: CCC 1128: "From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them" [Martin 28]

Q: Any relevant paragraphs in the Summa?
A: Quote from [Martin 28]:

One of the most remarkable treatments of the relevance of the disposition of the recipients in terms of what is actually experienced, effective, or fruitful in the life of the person receiving the sacrament is actually that of Aquinas in the Summa theologiae, especially in the Tertia pars, (III, qq. 66–71). In these questions, Aquinas details very clearly the obstacles that block the fruitfulness of the sacraments, even when they are validly conferred: lack of faith, understanding, desire to live a new life, or repentance, or the omitting of the exorcisms and allowing demonic influence to block response to baptismal grace. He clearly states that on a given day a number of people may validly receive baptism or confirmation but the fruitfulness of the sacrament may vary considerably; those who want more of the Lord, he teaches, will receive more of the Lord.

Q: How is this baptism in the Holy Spirit administered?
A: It is God who chooses to act.  We can prepare through several ways, such as through a mini catechesis that includes teaching, prayer and the invitation to faith, repentance and a deeper commitment to the Lord Jesus, and a greater desire for the activation of his gift of the Spirit [Martin 28-29].

Q: Are all baptized Catholic encouraged to receive it?
A: Deacon Cordeiro encourage anyone to seek it wholeheartedly to accept the grace that baptism in the Spirit offers us.  It can recharge our spiritual batteries.


Could a Catholic Church minister distribute communion to the community while churches are closed?
The short answer is yes.
This will also depend on which diocese one is living in and even which parish one in living in within a particular diocese.
For example in my home Archdiocese of Vancouver, the archbishop has outlined rules for outdoor drive-in mass and receiving Holy Communion on Sunday’s and feast days.
If your diocese is not doing something, please pass on the hint!

Archbishop issues guidelines for receiving Communion during pandemic.
The Archdiocese of Vancouver is reminding pastors how to distribute Communion safely and help parishioners stay connected with their faith two months after government and health officials introduced an order suspending all worship services.
In a Jan. 13 letter, Archbishop J. Michael Miller outlined how to host outdoor drive-in Masses and how to distribute Communion to parishioners in the church or in their cars.
“In light of the fact that the provincial restrictions on Masses with a congregation have been extended until at least February 5, and because many of the faithful have been without Holy Communion for a lengthy period, I sincerely hope that you are able to make arrangements in your parish for the distribution of Holy Communion to your parishioners.”
All three options are used across the Archdiocese of Vancouver.
Drive-in
Father James Hughes runs drive-in Masses at St. Patrick’s Parish in Vancouver. He has installed an FM radio transmitter and invites parishioners to register for one of several drive-in Masses celebrated on the weekend. A maximum of 50 cars (a stipulation by government) can be seen pulling into the parking lot, facing the outdoor altar, and tuning their radios into the live, outdoor Mass. During Mass, priests wear masks as they bring Communion to each car in turn.

Drive-up
St. Matthew’s Parish in Surrey has opted for the drive-up option, also called “curbside Communion.” Priests celebrate Mass in front of a camera inside the church, which parishioners can watch streamed live from their homes. After Mass, they can drive to the church, line up their cars, and receive Communion through the windows.
Guidelines in these cases stipulate that communicants stay in their cars, wear face masks, sanitize their hands, and receive Communion in their hands. Then they may pull down their masks, consume the Host, and drive away. St. Ann’s in Abbotsford and St. Joseph’s in Mission have also gone this route.

Walk-up
Parishes like Precious Blood in Surrey and St. Edmund’s in North Vancouver have chosen a walk-through option. They streams Mass live online, then invite parishioners to come to the church, where they line up outside (keeping two-metre spacing between families) and are allowed to enter a few at a time to receive Communion and walk out the back door.
The government has allowed people to enter churches for private prayer, as long as there are no more than 10 people inside (and all of them have signed in, for contact tracing purposes).
Some parishes offer a hybrid of these options. Canadian Martyrs Parish in Richmond and St. Joseph’s in Langley invite parishioners to receive Communion by waiting in their cars or, if they don’t have a car, walking up to the church doors.
Priests with questions about how to distribute Communion reverently and safely are asked to contact the archbishop or Father Tien Tran, Director of Liturgy.

Most of the archdiocese’s 77 parishes have begun streaming Mass live during the pandemic.


Papal resignations and participation in subsequent conclaves

There is very little in the way of restriction on who can be pope. Canon law simply says that he must be consecrated a bishop before taking power; but it allows a non-bishop to be elected, providing that he is ordained a bishop before he takes his place ("If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately", Canon 331 section 1). But neither canon law nor Universi Dominici Gregis, the current Church document governing the election of a pope, fixes any further limits on who may or may not be elected.

In fact Universi Dominici Gregis goes further. Its paragraph 35 reads in part,

  No Cardinal elector can be excluded from active or passive voice in the election of the Supreme Pontiff, for any reason or pretext.

In this context, "active voice" refers to the right to vote for pope, and "passive voice" to the right to be voted for. No one who is an elector can be made ineligible to be elected.

Note that paragraph 35 does not strictly apply to Pope Emeritus Benedict, who is over 80 and therefore ineligible to vote for pope. UDG (as it is sometimes abbreviated) states in its prologue:

  those Cardinals who celebrate their eightieth birthday before the day when the Apostolic See becomes vacant do not take part in the election.

It follows that this particular pope emeritus could not be a cardinal elector and thus does not have this specific inclusion. Nevertheless, especially in view of the oath each Cardinal must take to vote for the one that believe to be the best man for the job, he's still not hindered or prohibited from being elected pope.


I don't know more context for the picture, but the title "Pope visits holy site of Sermon on the Mount" indicates, that the chair is not a part of Pope's usual attributes, but that it's part of the chapel on Mount of Beatitudes.

This inverted or Saint Peter's cross is not very common in catholic context, but very few Catholics would feel bad if they were on the same picture with such a cross. I have seen the same design as is in the picture in few other places, not connected with any pope. It is used mostly of aesthethic reasons, the artist usually don't care whether the cross is Greek or Peter's, but they like it to be connected with the edge of the item it's engraved to, and cross of St. Peter is ideal for this.

By the way, more than with Peter's cross, pope is associated with Papal Cross.


Faith and reason do not contradict each other any more than science and the Bible do.
Science teaches us about physical realities and the Bible about spiritual truth.  Science can't prove or disprove the existence of a soul and the Revelation doesn't hinge on its literal interpretation.  But unlike these two domains, faith and reason actually help each other out, especially on ones quest toward their final end in Jesus.

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves
St. John Paul II - Fides et Ratio

In Life of Pi, the movie at least, leaves a viewer a little off in their conception of faith and reason because you might have to abandon reason to simultaneously be Hindu, Muslim and Catholic

But, while it features a positive treatment of Catholicism and a sympathetic priest, this visually artful psychological parable -- told in flashbacks by its now-adult protagonist (Irrfan Khan) -- upholds its main character's view that he can be, simultaneously, a Hindu, a Christian and a Muslim. Not for the impressionable or the poorly catechized.
USCCB Movie Reviews

So it's not the best introduction to the way Christianity is meant to be lived, for that one should get to know the saints. Like St. Joan of Arc, St. Maximillian Kolbe, St. Thomas More or St. Thérèse of Lisieux.

we are greatly helped not only by theological investigation but also by that great heritage which is the "lived theology" of the saints. The saints offer us precious insights which enable us to understand more easily the intuition of faith, thanks to the special enlightenment which some of them have received from the Holy Spirit, or even through their personal experience of those terrible states of trial which the mystical tradition describes as the "dark night".
St. John Paul II - Novo Millennio Ineunte

Specifically with the "that is what it is like with God," that is a terrible horrible deception.  Jesus Christ is the King of the Universe not its mascot.  There's a lot of well meaning Christians and non-Christians who take Life of Pi or The Shack as representative of Christianity, but they're just the works of individuals, not sanctioned by any Church.  The truths may resonate with the Faithful and the Catechized, but there are truths in Homer and Marx too*. It's not even necessary for Catholics to take to heart and believe all that the Saints have written.
But, back to faith and reason.  It is possible to prove the existence of God through reason.  I'm not sure if all Christianity believes this to be the case, but Catholics, like Pi, ought to.
St. Thomas Aquinas sought to do this 800 years ago with his 5 proofs.  But it's not the best way to come to know God. All Christians believe that the best way to come to know God is through meditating on the Life of Christ. Reading the Gospels and trying to do what Jesus says are the greatest commandments, Love God and Love your Neighbor.
*Simpson and Groucho at least


How do Calvinists interpret Acts 7:51 in light of the doctrine of 'irresistible grace?'

R. C. Sproul in his book What is Reformed Theology? says that most of the conventional labels in the TULIP rubric are poorly named, including "Irresistible Grace". He prefers the label The Spirit's Effective Call, which matches the Westminster Confession's 10th chapter. So before I get to Acts 7 and the resistible graces, I'll quickly outline what the doctrine of Effectual Calling is. First from the Westminster Confession:

WCF 10.1: All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ: enlightening their minds, spiritually and savingly, to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good; and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
WCF 10.2: This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from any thing at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.

The 'call' or 'grace' of this doctrine is specifically that of the saving grace and call to life out of death. When God calls the elect they are spiritually dead, with hearts of stone, unable to respond in faith. God must regenerate them for them to be able to respond to him in faith. And it is effective for God does not give us a heart halfway between stone and flesh, but a living heart. Sproul writes:

The call referred to in effectual calling is not the outward call of the gospel that can be heard by anyone within range of the reaching. The call referred to here is the inward call, the call that penetrates to and pierces the heart, quickening it to spiritual life. Hearing the gospel enlightens the mind, yet it does not awaken the soul until the Holy Spirit illumines and regenerates it. The move from ear to soul is made by the Holy Spirit. (p191)

One of the best Biblical images for Effectual Calling is the resurrection of Lazarus. However much Lazarus might have responded to God in faith and obedience, Jesus Christ's calling of his dead body back to life was at the same time entirely effective and entirely external to Lazarus. Lazarus's dead body did not generate a seed of life which God then grew. His dead heart did not kickstart itself, his dead lungs did not gulp down a breath which God then sent to oxygenate the rest of his body through his veins. No, he was dead and the life came from God alone. We see the same idea in Ephesians:

Ephesians 2:1-5 (NIV): As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

This calling is called "Irresistible Grace" because the new life Christians are given is irresistible in the same way that we cannot will our hearts to stop beating, or make ourselves hold our breaths forever without breathing. Once God has made us physically alive we cannot help but live. Once God has made us spiritually alive we cannot help but spiritually live, growing closer to God, learning obedience to his will, and carrying out the good works he has prepared for us. Or consider the miracles when Jesus restored the sight of the blind: blind people cannot restore their own sight, but once it has been restored to them they cannot help but see and take in the light around them. Yes we cooperate with his will in faith, but it comes after the regeneration that made dead things into the living children of God.

So what of the resistible graces, calls, and works of the Holy Spirit? The Reformed doctrine of Irresistible Grace is strictly only about the work of the Spirit to bring life to dead people. But the Spirit has many other works, God has many other calls, and he gives us many other graces. All of these can be resisted to various extents:

There is the grace of creation and providence given to all things in this universe.
There is the work of the Spirit in our consciences convicting us of our sin and calling us away from it.
There is the call of God in the Hebrew scriptures to love him and obey his law.
There is the call of the incarnate Son of God as he lived amongst his people and preached the Kingdom of God.
There is the external call of the gospel preached by the church.

In his sermon in Acts 7 Stephen reminded the Jews of their history alongside God. Just as the patriarchs resisted the God's invitation to have faith despite so many difficult circumstances, and just as the Israelites of the Exodus resisted God's instruction during their wanderings in the wilderness, so too the Jews of Jesus's time resisted his preaching, and then the preaching of the Apostles and early church. Stephen called them to repent of their resistance and to submit to the gospel and the witness of the Holy Spirit.
And even amongst the Jews of the Sanhedrin who executed Stephen, there was (at least) one who God had chosen. But while Saul tried his hardest to resist the work of the Spirit in the preaching of the church, very soon after God would effectually call Saul to life and faith. When Christ revealed the truth of himself to Saul, Saul became incapable of denying that truth. Like a child who realises for the first time that their parents are fallible, when God reveals himself to us the reality of who God is becomes one of our facts. It was the paradigm shift of Saul's life; he had seen reality and his life was indelibly changed.
In the conversion of Saul we see what is true for all Christians: that God calls to life dead souls that cannot bring themselves to love God or have faith in him. This is true for all of us, even though most of us subjectively experience the call of God, the regeneration of the Spirit, and the growing seeds of our faith concurrently.


Luther did translate the bible to what is known as the Luther Bible from old Greek, old Hebrew and Aramaic sources - not the latin translations that were widely used with the catholic church in Germany.
Here are the two hints from the wikipedia article:

He used Erasmus' second edition (1519) of the Greek New Testament, known as the Textus Receptus.
[...] by 1534 he completed his translation of the old and new testaments from Hebrew and Greek into the vernacular [...]

Luther was more familiar with Hebrew Greek than with Greek Hebrew which is why his translations received help by others - especially Philipp Melanchthon.
Luther must have known at least German, Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.


How can 1 Corinthians 15:3 be reconciled with Calvinism and limited atonement?

I've looked in numerous systematic theologies and books on evangelism written by Calvinists, and none of them address this particular issue, even though they address many other challenging verses related to the doctrine of limited atonement.

There are probably two reasons for this:

Some Calvinists are okay with saying "Christ died for your sins" to people who are not currently saved.
Paul's summary in this passage doesn't logically require that he originally preached, without conditions, "Christ died for your sins."

Regarding the first point, here's how Wayne Grudem puts it:

  I do not think we should rush to criticize an evangelist who tells an audience of unbelievers, ‘Christ died for your sins,’ if it is made clear in the context that it is necessary to trust in Christ before one can receive the
  benefits of the gospel offer. In that sense the sentence is simply understood to mean ‘Christ died to offer you forgiveness for your sins’ or ‘Christ died to make available forgiveness for your sins.’ The important point here is that sinners realize that salvation is available for everyone and that payment of sins is available for everyone. (Systematic Theology, 601)

Of course, other Calvinists disagree with him (he spends a fair amount of space in his ST dealing with this debate).  So then how about our second point?  Is there another way to understand what Paul is saying here?

There is.  Let's look at the verse again, skipping over a few parts:

  I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand [...]. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins [...]. (ESV)

It's not actually logically necessary to draw the conclusion that you did.  Paul is clearly addressing believers here, people for whom Christ died.  When he preached to them, he could have said things that all Calvinists are fine with:

"Christ died for the sins of those who believe in him"
"Christ died for the sins of the elect"
"If you repent and believe, Christ's death cleanses you of your sins"

But now, because he is addressing only those who actually repented and believed, it's fine for him to say "Christ died for our sins."  This isn't inconsistent –
 it's simply referring to the current state of the current audience, and isn't a direct quote.

Here's a (sacreligious) example.  A coach says to two sports teams, "If you win, you get a trophy."  Then the two teams play, and one wins.  Then the coach says, "Congratulations winning team.  Here's the trophy I promised you."  It's obvious that the coach hasn't lied here.  Why not?  Because he doesn't need to repeat the condition of the promise (winning) when addressing those who met that condition (the winning team).

In the same way, Paul can simply be understood here as saying, "Believers, as promised, Christ died for our sins."   Like the coach, he doesn't need to repeat the condition of the promise (repent and believe) when addressing those who met that condition (believers).

All that to say – we can't logically exclude the possibility that Paul used conditional language (if you are elect, if you repent and believe) in his original preaching to the Corinthians.


Is there any biblical support for copyright law?

It's a very good question, and not one which is easy to answer. But we are all called to make use of our talents, which I think may vary from gifts. Information is not necessarily subject to copyright - only literary / dramatic / musical works, films, broadcasts and sound recordings - basically, works where the author/creator has expended skill and effort to create it. And surely we as Christians should support those authors and musicians who clearly have a talent and a gift for their area to continue to write/create so that the greater Church benefits?

As a Christian, personally I feel that copyright should not be abolished, though I do feel the term of protection is rather too long. I would be upset if Christians got into copyright court battles, as it is right if we want something to buy it through the correct and lawful channels, but not if we download it free from a torrent site or similar. There are of course flaws in copyright law - the exceptions, for example, should be wider and allow for non-profit institutions to do more with copyright works, but the general principle of others being remunerated for their work I think fits with the Christian faith insofar as it is not exploited.


Does Christianity recommend learning other languages or dealing with non-christians?

Most Christian denominations accept, at least in some part, the teaching of what we call The Great Commission. There are many proof verses for this, but one of the most common is this:

  Matthew 28:18 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.

Even apart from that, one of the central teachings of Christianity is that salvation is available to the Gentiles, as well as Jews. Paul, the author of the majority of the New Testament books, was very passionate about reaching the Gentiles. The book Acts of the Apostles chronicles the growth of the church after the Resurrection, and much of it deals with journeys abroad to bring the Gospel (good news) to all people.

In practice, much of Christianity has revolved around missionary journeys to far countries for the purpose of sharing the good news of salvation.

As for languages, in practice, many Christians have learned languages for the purpose of spreading the Gospel. However, there are no verses I am familiar with which specifically instruct people to learn other languages.

It may be of note that it was our God who created the language barrier at the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11). He did so because the natural man when working together only find wicked things to do.

However, our God has also given many the "gift of tongues", which allow believers to be able to speak in other languages. In the book of Acts chapter 2, God gives the believers the ability to speak so that when the people from various nations heard them, those people all heard in their own languages.

  6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. 7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? 8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

There is still a fair amount of debate among denominations on what exactly the gift of tongues is, but we know from that passage that at least God had given such a gift of languages to people.

Paul speaks highly of the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians chapter 12, but then in chapter 13, uses that as an example to say that even if he spoke very eloquently, the more valuable gift is love. Then, in chapter 14, he proceeds to explain how the gift should be used.

The point I gather from this is that God is very interested in people hearing the Gospel, and He is so interested that if people could hear no other way, he would provide the translation Himself. The main purpose is not simply to talk, but to show love, and more importantly, the good news of salvation from the death and resurrection of Christ. That is the most love we can show, and that is the motivation of so many Christians giving up their lives to not only visit other countries, but to give up their lives to live with the people to love them.

To quote Hudson Taylor, a famous missionary:

  If I had a thousand pounds China should have it—if I had a thousand lives, China should have them. No! Not China, but Christ. Can we do too much for Him? Can we do enough for such a precious Saviour?


According to the Catholicism, what exactly is the meaning of “overshadowed” by the power of the most High in Luke 1:35?

St. Thomas Aquinas quotes these Fathers in his Catena Aurea on Luke 1:35:

GREG. By the term overshadowing, both natures of the Incarnate God are signified. For shadow is formed by light and matter. But the Lord by His Divine nature is light. Because then immaterial light was to be embodied in the Virgin’s womb, it is well said to her, The power of the Highest shall overshadow you, that is, the human body in you shall receive an immaterial light of divinity. For this is said to Mary for the heavenly refreshing of her soul.
GREG. NYSS. Or he says, overshadow you, because as a shadow takes its shape from the character of those bodies which go before it, so the signs of the Son’s Deity will appear from the power of the Father. For as in us a certain life-giving power is seen in the material substance, by which man is formed; so in the Virgin, has the power of the Highest in like manner, by the life-giving Spirit, taken from the Virgin’s body a fleshly substance inherent in the body to form a new man. Hence it follows, Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of you.

Cornelius à Lapide, S.J.'s commentary on St. Luke's Gospel:

Shall overshadow thee. S. Gregory (33 Moral. c. 2) explains thus, “The Word of God in thee will assume a body, which will be as it were a shadow of Deity, for it will as a shadow veil and conceal It.” And again he says (18 Moral. 12), “The human body in thee shall receive the incorporeal light of Divinity.” Origen says also, that the Body of Christ is called a shadow, because in the Passion it was humiliated and obscured after the manner of a shadow.
S. Ambrose (on Psalm 119) understands by the shadow this present and mortal life which the Spirit gave to Christ, for this is, as it were, a shadow of the true life and of eternity.
S. Augustine (Quœst. V. et N. T. c. 15) says, The power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, i.e. shall attemper itself to thee, as a shadow adjusts itself to a body, for thy human weakness could not contain the fulness of its force and power.
But more simply, the meaning is, It will cover thee as with a veil, i.e., will secretly work a mighty operation in thee; for it will be such and so great a one that no man or angel can penetrate into or comprehend it. For, first, it will form in thee the perfect humanity of Christ; and, secondly, it will unite the same in a certain ineffable manner to the Person of the Word.
Again, to overshadow may be taken as answering to the Hebrew word ענן, to cover with a cloud, and so to rain upon, for a cloud pours forth rain, and hence by the shadow and the cloud is signified rain, which is poured forth from the cloud and renders the earth fruitful. An allusion seems to be made to Psalm 72:6, He shall come down like the rain into a fleece of wool.

The Greek verb is ἐπισκιάω.


What are the dietary restrictions for Lent in Catholicism?

I'm Catholic, but I don't know what a Maronit is.  One thing about fasting that people often forget is the reason we do it in the first place.  If you just do it because it is the rules, it will not benefit you at all.
Sundays and feast days are not actually part of Lent, so you don't have to fast.
I have not heard anything about not drinking water.
I would say if you go to the Easter vigil Mass, Lent is over when they turn the lights on.  (You would know what I mean if you have ever been to the Easter vigil Mass.)  If not, it is over on Easter Sunday.
I have never heard you can't eat meat the first and last week.  You can't eat meat of Fridays, though.  Fish is fine and I have never heard anything about not eating eggs.
Saying you will go to hell if you don't fast is just plain stupid.  Imagine if you get to heaven and God says, "You could go to heaven, except once 20 years ago, you didn't fast, so you instantly go to hell."  Even if it was a sin, just go to confession.  The only sin that is unforgivable is saying that God cannot forgive your sins.  He can, but you have a free will, so He won't forgive them if you tell Him he can't.


The LDS Church's "Old Testament Student Manual" has a good, if small, compilation of statements on this subject with some commentary.  Search for the question "How Is It That the Kingdom Set Up by God Will Consume the Other Kingdoms?" on this site.

A short answer to your question before diving in: Mormon teachings, as far as I have been able to find, do not indicate a specific event leading to the destruction of nations.  That the kingdom of God will have real political power after Christ's coming is found in Mormon teachings, though the exact process by which this political power is gained is not specified to my knowledge, though it is associated with the great growth of the kingdom of God as it rolls to fill the whole earth.

There are two relevant quotes found in the manual.  From Elder Bruce R. McConkie:

  During the millennium the kingdom of God will continue on earth, but in that day it will be both an ecclesiastical and a political kingdom. That is, the Church (which is the kingdom) will have the rule and government of the world given to it. (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 416.)

So, the "rule and government of the world" will be given to the kingdom of God.  Exactly how is not indicated, but we know that when Christ comes again He will reign as the king of kings and lord of lords over the whole earth in both a political and ecclesiastical sense (e.g., Revelation 20 which states that Christ will reign for a thousand years, or the LDS Church's Tenth Article of Faith "Christ will reign personally upon the earth").

President Brigham Young taught:

  The Lord God Almighty has set up a kingdom that will sway the sceptre of power and authority over all the kingdoms of the world, and will never be destroyed, it is the kingdom that Daniel saw and wrote of. It may be considered treason to say that the kingdom which that Prophet foretold is actually set up; that we cannot help, but we know it is so, and call upon the nations to believe our testimony. The kingdom will continue to increase, to grow, to spread and prosper more and more. Every time its enemies undertake to overthrow it, it will become more extensive and powerful; instead of its decreasing, it will continue to increase, it will spread the more, become more wonderful and conspicuous to the nations, until it fills the whole earth.” (In Journal of Discourses, 1:202–3.)

This quote describes the kingdom of God as already possessing political power, and as it grows and becomes "more wonderful and conspicuous to the nations" it will fill the whole earth, at which point one can say that its intrinsic political power has taken over all nations.

As far as whether specifically the United States of America will fall,
President Ezra Taft Benson often taught of the necessity of preserving the United States of America as a place of freedom, and in particular of preserving the United States Constitution.  The following quote, from a talk entitled "This National Shall Endure", indicates that President Benson is sure that the United States will "endure", though he does not indicate a specific timeframe for this endurance.

  May we do all in our power to strengthen and safeguard this base and increase our freedom. This nation will, I feel sure, endure. It is God-ordained for a glorious purpose. We must never forget that the gospel message we bear to the world is to go forth to the world from this nation. And that gospel message can prosper only in an atmosphere of freedom. We must maintain and strengthen our freedom in this blessed land. (Ezra Taft Benson, Brigham Young University Devotional Address, 4 December 1973)

That the LDS Church believe the Constitution is an inspired document can be found throughout President Benson's teachings, as well as the 101st section of the Doctrine and Covenants.  Church leaders (such as President Benson in the talk linked above) often acknowledge the importance of the USA and its freedoms in the establishment of the LDS church, and in this way one can think of the Constitution and the similar documents of other nations (and, more broadly, the nations themselves) as belonging to the kingdom of God in that they are associated with establishing it, even if indirectly.

These quotes unfortunately do not have the specificity to match the specificity of your questions.  However, I do have some thoughts on this subject that have been informed by my lifetime of growing up in the LDS church that, although I don't have specific references to point you to.  I've always been under the impression that after the Second Coming of Christ, those who are left will recognize Christ as their lord, savior, and king.  Some will recognize this immediately, others who are less familiar with Christ's teachings will become convinced of this over time.  At this point, the political authority that existed before Christ will become irrelevant, because everybody will recognize Christ as their ecclesiastical and political head.  In this way the kingdom of God will have broken apart all other kingdoms and filled the whole earth, though through the peaceful conversion of individuals rather than through any sort of hostile takeover or destruction.  This seems very consistent with Brigham Young's statement quoted above.

I also remember watching a video where President Benson stated that when Christ comes again, he was confident that flag of the USA would be flying in the breeze.  However, I have not been able to find that video or text since, so do not take that as fact yet.  I post it here in case someone else is aware of a reference for these words and can share it with me.


Why would a loving God prefer one nation over another?

The official position of the Catholic Church is that the Church is synonymous with the "chosen nation," and that the Church in Christ is the continuation of the righteous nation that God has set apart for himself since the beginning. Through the Catechism, the Church states that while God chose Abraham and his descendants through the promise the be his nation, he does not exclude other nations, but indeeds welcomes the people of all nations into this holy nation through faith, which is the Church. From the Cathechism, (emphasis is this author's)

  60) The people descended from Abraham would be the trustee of the promise made to the patriarchs, the chosen people, called to prepare for that day when God would gather all his children into the unity of the Church. They would be the root on to which the Gentiles would be grafted, once they came to believe.

  201) To Israel, his chosen, God revealed himself as the only One: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD; and you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might." Through the prophets, God calls Israel and all nations to turn to him, the one and only God: "Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.. . To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. 'Only in the LORD, it shall be said of me, are righteousness and strength.'"

  759) "The eternal Father, in accordance with the utterly gratuitous and mysterious design of his wisdom and goodness, created the whole universe and chose to raise up men to share in his own divine life," to which he calls all men in his Son. "The Father . . . determined to call together in a holy Church those who should believe in Christ." This "family of God" is gradually formed and takes shape during the stages of human history, in keeping with the Father's plan. In fact, "already present in figure at the beginning of the world, this Church was prepared in marvelous fashion in the history of the people of Israel and the old Advance. Established in this last age of the world and made manifest in the outpouring of the Spirit, it will be brought to glorious completion at the end of time."

  762) The remote preparation for this gathering together of the People of God begins when he calls Abraham and promises that he will become the father of a great people. Its immediate preparation begins with Israel's election as the People of God. By this election, Israel is to be the sign of the future gathering of All [sic] nations. But the prophets accuse Israel of breaking the covenant and behaving like a prostitute. They announce a new and eternal covenant. "Christ instituted this New Covenant."

In summary of these paragraphs, God chose Abraham to be the progenitor of this holy nation as it existed under the old covenant, though all people are called into it. As Christ instituted the New Covenant, all  people are similarly called to enter into this holy nation, which is and has been his Church.

As for why Abraham was chosen from among the nations, the Catechism quotes Paul in romans 4:18 to say that, just as those who are included in the holy nation in Christ are such by faith, Abraham believed, and it was because of this belief that he was chosen.

  1819) Christian hope takes up and fulfills the hope of the chosen people which has its origin and model in the hope of Abraham, who was blessed abundantly by the promises of God fulfilled in Isaac, and who was purified by the test of the sacrifice. "Hoping against hope, he believed, and thus became the father of many nations."


Was the tabernacle ceiling straight or pointed?

According to the details in Exodus 26:15-30, it seems like the overall structure of the Tabernacle of Moses was covered with a flat roof.  Whether there was an inner curtain that formed a pointed ceiling underneath the flat roof (because a ceiling is found below a roof), I could not say.

Both the NIV and ESV Study Bible diagrams show the Tabernacle Tent (which housed both the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place) with a flat roof.  The NIV and the NLT confirm that the upright frames were locked together with horizontal crossbars to form a three-sided rectangle with an open end.

  26 “Make crossbars of acacia wood to link the frames, five crossbars for the north side of the Tabernacle 27 and five for the south side. Also make five crossbars for the rear of the Tabernacle, which will face west. 28 The middle crossbar, attached halfway up the frames, will run all the way from one end of the Tabernacle to the other. 29 Overlay the frames with gold, and make gold rings to hold the crossbars. Overlay the crossbars with gold as well.  30 “Set up this Tabernacle according to the pattern you were shown on the mountain.”  (see also Exodus 25:9, 40; 27:8)

I’m going with your first image.


What part do Monks play in the Christian church?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has the following to say about consecrated life in general (i.e. professing vows to live in a more dedicated expression of faith, as with friars, monks, sisters, and nuns). Emphasis mine:

916 The state of consecrated life is thus one way of experiencing a "more intimate" consecration, rooted in Baptism and dedicated totally to God. In the consecrated life, Christ's faithful, moved by the Holy Spirit, propose to follow Christ more nearly, to give themselves to God who is loved above all and, pursuing the perfection of charity in the service of the Kingdom, to signify and proclaim in the Church the glory of the world to come.
926 Religious life derives from the mystery of the Church. It is a gift she has received from her Lord, a gift she offers as a stable way of life to the faithful called by God to profess the [evangelical] counsels. Thus, the Church can both show forth Christ and acknowledge herself to be the Savior's bride. Religious life in its various forms is called to signify the very charity of God in the language of our time.
927 All religious, whether exempt or not, take their place among the collaborators of the diocesan bishop in his pastoral duty. From the outset of the work of evangelization, the missionary "planting" and expansion of the Church require the presence of the religious life in all its forms. "History witnesses to the outstanding service rendered by religious families in the propagation of the faith and in the formation of new Churches: from the ancient monastic institutions to the medieval orders, all the way to the more recent congregations."

So the temporal goals of consecrated life are to:

Provide an example of the world to come (in terms of lifestyle, focus on God, etc)
Provide a stable way of life with which to practice the evangelical counsels of chastity, poverty, and obedience
Signify the charity of God in ways appropriate to the present time
Collaborate with their bishop to evangelize, “plant”, and expand the Church

A monk would be a type of consecrated life called an “eremitic” or “cloistered” life that does not have contact with the world and thus cannot directly evangelize or perform acts of service. The Catechism discusses that too:

The eremitic life
920 Without always professing the three evangelical counsels publicly, hermits "devote their life to the praise of God and salvation of the world through a stricter separation from the world, the silence of solitude and assiduous prayer and penance."
921 They manifest to everyone the interior aspect of the mystery of the Church, that is, personal intimacy with Christ. Hidden from the eyes of men, the life of the hermit is a silent preaching of the Lord, to whom he has surrendered his life simply because he is everything to him. Here is a particular call to find in the desert, in the thick of spiritual battle, the glory of the Crucified One.

So the purposes of eremitic life are to:

Demonstrate a personal intimacy with Christ
Be a silent preaching of the Lord


How is "binding and loosing" extrapolated to all clergy?

Christ gave St. Peter the "power of the keys" to bind or loose.

Addressing the question of "Whether priests alone have the keys?," St. Thomas Aquinas writes:

  There are two kinds of key. One reaches to heaven itself directly, by
  remitting sin and thus removing the obstacles to the entrance into
  heaven; and this is called the key of "order." Priests alone have
  this key, because they alone are ordained for the people in the things
  which appertain to God directly. The other key reaches to heaven,
  not directly but through the medium of the Church Militant. By this
  key a man goes to heaven, since, by its means, a man is shut out from
  or admitted to the fellowship of the Church Militant, by
  excommunication or absolution. This is called the key of
  "jurisdiction" in the external court, wherefore even those who are not
  priests can have this key, e.g. archdeacons, bishops elect, and others
  who can excommunicate. But it is not properly called a key of heaven,
  but a disposition thereto.

Addressing the question of "Whether holy men who are not priests have the keys?," St. Thomas explains why only those men ordained to the priesthood have the power of the keys:

  There is this difference between a principal and an instrumental
  agent, that the latter does not produce, in the effect, its own
  likeness, but the likeness of the principal agent, whereas the
  principal agent produces its own likeness. Consequently a thing
  becomes a principal agent through having a form, which it can
  reproduce in another, whereas an instrumental agent is not constituted
  thus, but through being applied by the principal agent in order to
  produce a certain effect. Since therefore in the act of the keys the
  principal agent by authority is Christ as God, and by merit is Christ
  as man, it follows that on account of the very fulness of Divine
  goodness in Him, and of the perfection of His grace, He is competent
  to exercise the act of the keys. But another man is not competent to
  exercise this act as principal agent, since neither can he give
  another man grace whereby sins are remitted, nor can he merit
  sufficiently, so that he is nothing more than an instrumental agent.
  Consequently the recipient of the effect of the keys, is likened, not
  to the one who uses the keys, but to Christ. Therefore, no matter how
  much grace a man may have, he cannot produce the effect of the keys,
  unless he be appointed to that purpose by receiving [holy] orders
  [(the priesthood)].

Thus, your question really amounts to why St. Peter and his successors, the popes, are necessary for there to be a valid priesthood.


Where did the idiom "asking Jesus into your heart" come from?

There is a famous painting called "The Light of the World," painted by William Hunt in 1853.  By his own statement, it comes from Revelation 3.20, and represents Jesus knocking at the heart of an obstaninate sinner, on a door with no handles, and which must be opened from the inside.

The image itself has been copied many times, and this is the version I always think of:

While the context of Revelation 3.20 ("Behold I stand at the Door and Knock") is not about salvation, it is often used in services as an altar call, thus identifying it with "opening your heart to Jesus." Here for example, is a church using that call exactly.


What is the difference between forgiveness and reconciliation

Reconciliation is a process which involves several distinct phases, not necessarily in this order:

Conviction
Repentance
Confession
Forgiveness
Restitution

So, in my view, forgiveness is a part of an overall process of reconciliation.

  8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.

  1 John 1:8-10

In general terms, first we experience the conviction of the Holy Spirit, which leads us to repentance.  With a repentant heart we confess our sins one to another (or to a priest or minister, if that's your persuasion).  We then receive forgiveness and instruction on how to make restitution, as appropriate to the wrong doing (if our confessor is doing his job).

With God in regards to sin, forgiveness is dependent on true repentance (and, if you are Catholic or similar, confession to a priest).

Between people, specifically as regards interpersonal relationships, it is possible to forgive but never be reconciled with the other person - if the other person does not repent, there may be no reconciliation.  It is also possible to make restitution with or without forgiveness and never be reconciled because of personal hurts.

It seems to me that until there's actual interpersonal reconciliation, and the whole process has occurred, that sin still remains for one or other party or both.  Though wounds are covered with a band-aid - they still remain unhealed, eventually to get infected and fester.

Allowance should be made for when reconciliation is not possible, such as when one party has died.


Has the Catholic Church responded to the argument that sex between a married couple can strengthen their emotional bond?

There are a number of aspects to the O.P.’s question, but it seems to center around the question, “Must the marital act be done for the sake of procreation?” or said in other words, “Must the couple have the intention to have a child whenever they perform the marital act?”
The answer to that question is basically “no,” although the marital act must never be completely dissociated from its procreative purpose. (I will explain below in what way this is so.)
As with other Church teachings that deal with morality, the doctrine on the marital act is based, not so much on Revelation (on what we could only know because God has told it to us) as on what can be known about human nature through reason.
The Church has on many occasions made the case that the procreative purpose of the marital act is one of its essential properties, one that must not be willfully set aside. As Pope Paul VI puts it in his landmark encyclical Humanae vitae,

The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.
This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act (Nos. 11-12).

It is important to observe, however, that Pope Paul VI does not affirm that every marital act must be for the sake of procreation; merely that it should (as he puts it) “retain its intrinsic relationship” to procreation.
Said in simpler words, couples are not to place deliberately an obstacle to procreation. As the encyclical puts it later on,

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after the marital exchange [i.e., the marital act], is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means (No. 17; note that the translation on the Vatican website reads “sexual intercourse;” I feel that my translation better captures the meaning of the original Latin coniugale commercium).

There is, however, no problem with engaging in the marital act as a way to bond with one’s spouse. In fact, the marital act is perfectly licit when the couple is infertile, either in the normal course of the woman’s ovulation cycle, or because of some kind of medical problem:

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births […], the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile […]. [Such couples] use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another (No. 20).

Similarly,

The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, “noble and worthy.” It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. (No. 11; the quotation is from Vatican II’s Gaudium et spes, no. 49).

Hence, for example, couples that are infertile for medical reasons may freely engage in the marital act.
It should be noted from the above passage that the Church views the marital act in a very positive light. It is absolutely not, for instance, an “evil” that must be tolerated in order for there to be more children.
In summary: the Church simply argues that it is immoral to place an obstacle deliberately in the way of procreation, when one engages in the marital act. Thus frustrating and essential property of the marital act is what the Church calls contraception.
(It should be noted that it can be licit to delay having children, or even to suspend child-rearing altogether; however, the only licit way to do that is to abstain from the marital act when the woman is fertile. With advances in modern gynecology, this option has become increasingly feasible and accurate; there is, for instance, the Billings method and the Creighton Model.)
Clearly, then, engaging in the marital act for reasons other than procreation—so long as procreation is not deliberately defeated, and in general, the spouses treat each other with love and respect—is not a problem at all.
Hence, the Church is entirely in favor of husband and wife engaging in the marital in order to bond with one another. That idea comes from none other than St. Paul:

Do not deprive one another [i.e., of the marital act], except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control (1 Cor. 7:5).


Lunar Sabbaths are an idea some groups - mostly Messianic Jewish branches - hold to that claim the Sabbath does not happen every 7 days, but on a cycle based upon the New Moon. There is an article that deals with them at http://csda-adventistchurch.to/lunar.html


What is the difference between classical and revised dispensationalism?

This is from my limited understanding of dispensationalists after debates with them.
Majority of them are of the traditional branch, which is a slightly developed version of the classical.

It seems that Classical beliefs eternal separation between New covenant Church and Israelite Saints even in heaven. Two brides or two wives of God. The saved groups have separated compartments even in heaven eternally. The teachings of Christ and epistle to Hebrew do not apply to us new covenant Christians or Church. The Church is a new mystery entity founded by Paul, and mainly his and other apostles' teachings apply to us.

Traditionalists only add slight harmony and reduce eternal separation among dispensations; but still there are two brides of God; Israeli Christians have a confused identity not exactly same as the NC Church. Wacky end times charts and clocks are rejected. There may be vague line of distinction between classical and traditionalists. Christ's teachings or commands in the gospels still remain broadly irrelevant to the Church.

Progressive differs a lot from the above that most of them do not consider this to be a part or branch of dispensationalism. This acts mainly as Historic premillennialism (HP). What distinguish this as a branch of dispensationalism is the literal millennial reign; otherwise it could be hardly identified under dispensationalism. Jesus rules as Davidic throne immediately after ascension formally but not physically in an "already but not yet" sense. The Church is not a new invention created by Paul but by Jesus; and the OT believers comprises in the Church itself. There is great harmony of covenants and dispensations.
Distinct structures within a unified Kingdom and salvation program of God. The reason Israel and the church are distinct is because they are structurally distinct and the kingdom program is bigger than either of them. Israel is a nation and race. The church is the body of Christ, representing him as he is present in heaven. When the consummation comes with the kingdom completed, Jesus will be present on earth and Israel will again be a part of the kingdom program blessing in the consummated kingdom which arrives in stages- provision now, consummation to come matching the two comings of Messiah.

Behold, your house will be abandoned ... you will not see me until  you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'" (Matt 23:38-39; Luke 13:35).

See Romans 16:25-27, Eph 2:11-22 for how the program is unified, plus too many OT texts are used of current realities to see separate programs. Even promised NC elements, forgiveness and the Spirit are in the mix as the benefits are present now in line with promises made with OT hope (Luke 3:15-17; 24:49- Father's promise; Acts 1:4-8).


What does the Nicene Creed mean when it says that the Father and the Son are of the same substance?

The term the Nicene Creed uses for substance is homooúsios. This term was intentionally chosen to separate the Creed from various forms of Arianism that denied the divinity of Jesus. The Nicene Creed is arguing that Jesus is fully divine just like the Father. The common forms of nontrinitarianism at the time commonly denied the divinity of Christ by arguing that he was similar to the Father in attributes, similar in substance to the Father, or different in both attributes and substance. The Nicene Creed explicitly states the 'one in substance' to both affirm the divinity of Christ as well as affirm the truine Godhead. When communicating it in contemporary English, homooúsios is sometimes translated as 'of the same being.'

It is the foundational conception of the Trinity of all major forms of Christianity still in existence: Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant. So no, it is not a distinctly Catholic belief. The substance in question is the 'divine being' of the Godhead: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each is of the same substance in that they are all fully divine, inseparable yet distinct. It is through this concept of substance that Christians describe the Trinity as 'one God in three persons.' The three persons of the Trinity all share the same divine 'substance' in the sense that they constitute one God -- but they are each distinct from each other in their persons.


What is the New Testament argument against Gnosticism?

In 1 Timothy 6:20, Paul specifically exhorts Timothy

  Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,”

In doing so, Paul is specifically calling on Timothy not to engage those who claim a special "Gnosis" that somehow elevates them. As such, Paul is not going to take on that heresy himself, but he does still provide the basis for rejecting it.

1 Timothy makes claims that stand in opposition to the docetic beliefs of the Gnostics.

1 Timothy 3:16 makes clear that

  He was manifested in the flesh

and goes on to say in 1 Timothy 4

  Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, 3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer

Gnostics believee that matter itself was evil (and as such could not believe that God would deign to become matter), and as such made anything fleshy out to be bad. Eventually, since everything tangible was bad, they started suggesting that it didn't matter what the flesh did, only the spirit, and so they became libertines, orgiastic, and the like. Paul undercuts the argument he by rejecting the premise.

As Bruce Alderman points out, John may have been reacting to the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas (really just a collection of sayings mores than a narrative as we expect Gospels to be)

It has been debated whether or not Gnosticism predates Christiainity or if in turn Gnosticism grew out of Christianity. In any event, however, the fact that Paul was only mentioning it in his later books (argued by some scholars to actually be written by Pauls followers after his death) shows that much of the NT was already in place before it became a real threat to the church.

John, by contrast, is typically considered to be one of the last books, so a back handed reference fits in perfectly with that assertion.

Later, in 2 John (and here I'll claim same authorship) he writes

  For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Not a rebuttal, but at least you know where he stands.