In Christian dogma, can Satan and the fallen angels (his demons) get married and have progeny?

According to Catholic theology: no.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says the following about angels, both good and evil angels,in a general manner:

  The Angels

  The existence of angels - a truth of faith

  328 The existence of the spiritual, non-corporeal beings that Sacred Scripture usually calls "angels" is a truth of faith. The witness of Scripture is as clear as the unanimity of Tradition.

  Who are they?

  329 St. Augustine says: "'Angel' is the name of their office, not of their nature. If you seek the name of their nature, it is 'spirit'; if you seek the name of their office, it is 'angel': from what they are, 'spirit', from what they do, 'angel.'"188 With their whole beings the angels are servants and messengers of God. Because they "always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven" they are the "mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word".189

  330 **As purely spiritual creatures angels have intelligence and will: they are personal and immortal creatures, surpassing in perfection all visible creatures, as the splendor of their glory bears witness.**190

Only God can create life! God created them as angels before their fall. As spiritual beings they can not marry or have progeny either amongst themselves or with man. Only God created the angels in a state of angelic goodness. Just because some fell due to their angelic sin does not change anything

According to Catholic theology, the Devil and all the other evil demons are pure Spirits and as such can not alter their spiritual substance in order to become a physical or corporal being.

First of all, let us see how the Church defines a few terms.

  Demon

  Originally a spirit between the gods and men. In the New Testament a demon is the same as an evil spirit, which may be translated as "devil." It consequently means a malevolent, invisible being, which the pre-Christian word "demon" did not imply.

  Devil

  A fallen angel or evil spirit, especially the chief of the rebellious angels, Lucifer or Satan (Matthew 25). Adorned at his creation with sanctifying grace, he sinned by pride and along with many other angelic beings was denied the beatific vision. His abode is hell and he does not enjoy the benefits of Christ's redemption. Yet the devil remains a rational spirit, confirmed in evil, who is allowed by God to exercise some influence on living and inanimate creatures.

  Man

  Latin homo, a human being, as distinct from vir, a male person. The term homo has no perfect English equivalent, but it is part of the Church's official vocabulary and occurs in every major document of the Catholic Church. A living substance, composed of a material body that dies and a spiritual soul that is immortal. Creature made by God to his image and likeness, to praise, reverence, and serve him in this life and thereby attain the eternal possession of God in the life to come. In philosophical terms, "man" is a rational animal, and collectively is the human species or the human race.

Now Satan and all the other devils or demons are spiritual being composed of spiritual matter. They are pure spirit! Man is composed of a body and an immortal souls. Thus man in the fullest sense is both physical and spiritual in his essence; the demons are not!

According to the Church the evil spirits can not change their substance. They are spiritual beings and spiritual beings they shall remain.

Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas explains it:

  Some assert that the angels are composed of matter and form; which opinion Avicebron endeavored to establish in his book of the Fount of Life. For he supposes that whatever things are distinguished by the intellect are really distinct. Now as regards incorporeal substance, the intellect apprehends that which distinguishes it from corporeal substance, and that which it has in common with it. Hence he concludes that what distinguishes incorporeal from corporeal substance is a kind of form to it, and whatever is subject to this distinguishing form, as it were something common, is its matter. Therefore, he asserts the universal matter of spiritual and corporeal things is the same; so that it must be understood that the form of incorporeal substance is impressed in the matter of spiritual things, in the same way as the form of quantity is impressed in the matter of corporeal things.

  But one glance is enough to show that there cannot be one matter of spiritual and of corporeal things. For it is not possible that a spiritual and a corporeal form should be received into the same part of matter, otherwise one and the same thing would be corporeal and spiritual. Hence it would follow that one part of matter receives the corporeal form, and another receives the spiritual form. Matter, however, is not divisible into parts except as regarded under quantity; and without quantity substance is indivisible, as Aristotle says (Phys. i, text 15). Therefore it would follow that the matter of spiritual things is subject to quantity; which cannot be. Therefore it is impossible that corporeal and spiritual things should have the same matter.

  It is, further, impossible for an intellectual substance to have any kind of matter. For the operation belonging to anything is according to the mode of its substance. Now to understand is an altogether immaterial operation, as appears from its object, whence any act receives its species and nature. For a thing is understood according to its degree of immateriality; because forms that exist in matter are individual forms which the intellect cannot apprehend as such. Hence it must be that every intellectual substance is altogether immaterial.

  But things distinguished by the intellect are not necessarily distinguished in reality; because the intellect does not apprehend things according to their mode, but according to its own mode. Hence material things which are below our intellect exist in our intellect in a simpler mode than they exist in themselves. Angelic substances, on the other hand, are above our intellect; and hence our intellect cannot attain to apprehend them, as they are in themselves, but by its own mode, according as it apprehends composite things; and in this way also it apprehends God (Article 3).

Let us also look into who the Nephilim of the Scripture may truly be:

  The Nephilim (Hebrew: נְפִילִים) were the offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" before the Deluge, according to Genesis 6:1-4.

  A similar or identical biblical Hebrew term, read as "Nephilim" by some scholars, or as the word "fallen" by others, appears in Ezekiel 32:27.1

  When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. Then the Lord said, "My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown. — Genesis 6:1–4, New Revised Standard Version

  The word is loosely translated as giants in some Bibles and left untranslated in others. The "sons of God" have been interpreted as fallen angels in some traditional Jewish explanations.

  According to Numbers 13:33, they later inhabited Canaan at the time of the Israelite conquest of Canaan.

  The Lord said to Moses, "Send men to spy out the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the Israelites" ... So they went up and spied out the land ... And they told him: "... Yet the people who live in the land are strong, and the towns are fortified and very large; and besides, we saw the descendants of Anak there." ... So they brought to the Israelites an unfavorable report of the land that they had spied out, saying, "The land that we have gone through as spies is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people that we saw in it are of great size. There we saw the Nephilim (the Anakites come from the Nephilim); and to ourselves we seemed like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them." — Numbers 13:1–2; 21; 27–28; 32–33. New Revised Standard Version.

And now let us look at what the Sons of God may mean:

  Sons of the God (Hebrew: בני האלהים) literally: "sons of the Gods") is a phrase used in the Hebrew Bible and apocrypha. The phrase is also used in Kabbalah where bene elohim are part of different Jewish angelic hierarchies.

  Hebrew Bible

  Genesis 6

  And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. — Genesis 6:1–4, KJV

  The first mention of "sons of God" in the Hebrew Bible occurs at Genesis 6:1–4. In terms of literary-historical origin, this phrase is typically associated with the Jahwist tradition.4

  This passage has had two interpretations in Judaism:

  Offspring of Seth: The first references to the offspring of Seth rebelling from God and mingling with the daughters of Cain are found in Christian and rabbinic literature from the second century CE onwards e.g. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, Augustine of Hippo, Julius Africanus, and the Letters attributed to St. Clement. It is also the view expressed in the modern canonical Amharic Ethiopian Orthodox Bible. In Judaism "Sons of God" usually refers to the righteous, i.e. the children of Seth.
  Angels: All of the earliest sources interpret the "sons of God" as angels. From the third century BCE onwards, references are found in the Enochic literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls the (Genesis Apocryphon, the Damascus Document, 4Q180), Jubilees, the Testament of Reuben, 2 Baruch, Josephus, and the book of Jude (compare with 2 Peter 2). This is also the meaning of the only two identical occurrences of bene ha elohim in the Hebrew Bible (Job 1:6 and 2:1), and of the most closely related expressions (refer to the list above). In the Septuagint, the interpretive reading "angels" is found in Codex Alexandrinus, one of four main witnesses to the Greek text.

  Rabbinic Judaism traditionally adheres to the first interpretation, with some exceptions, and modern Jewish translations may translate bnei elohim as "sons of rulers" rather than "sons of God". Regardless, the second interpretation (sons of angels or other divine beings) is nonexistent in modern Judaism. This is reflected by the rejection of Enoch and other Apocrypha supporting the second interpretation from the Hebrew Bible Canon.

Using Scripture to interpret Scripture is a very common practice in our day and as such the New Testament in the person of St. Luke shows us that the Sons of God were the descendants of Adam.

According to Scripture “sons of God” means “persons who are begotten independently of any creature’s decision”. All angels can appropriately be called “sons of God”, but not all characters called “sons of God” in the Bible can appropriately be considered angels. The “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1-4 are undoubtedly human, and it is fitting to consider that they were created directly by God through transformation of human-like animals into persons.

  Who was the son of Enos, who was the son of Seth, who was the son of Adam, who was the son of God. - Luke 3:38


Did Martin Luther teach penal substitution?

If I may crudely summarize, Gustaf Aulén's argument in Chapter 6 of Christus Victor is:

Martin Luther clearly valued the Christus Victor theme
The Christus Victor and substitutionary models of atonement are fundamentally contradictory
Therefore, any references to "satisfaction" or Christ bearing God's wrath on behalf of humanity must be understood in light of the Christus Victor paradigm.

No one disagrees with #1 – the idea that Christ is victorious over sin and death is not controversial and thus it's not surprising that not only the reformers but also modern-day Protestants recognize this theme as an important aspect of Christ's work.

Aulén gets in trouble with many critics, however, when he argues for #2 and #3.  They argue that the Christus Victor theme is not inherently at odds with substitutionary atonement, and therefore that Luther's language regarding satisfaction can be taken at face value.

Aulén on "satisfaction" in Luther

Luther's appreciation for the scriptural theme of Christ's victory over sin and death is obvious, so Aulén easily makes that portion of his case.  He must, however, deal with the places where Luther uses words like merit and satisfaction:

  Luther uses both these terms, Merit and Satisfaction, in direct relation to Christ's conflict and His victory over the 'tyrants.' (118)

Christ's merit, he says, is for Luther simply a way of talking about God's grace, and satisfaction similarly is meant to emphasize the "strength of the Divine Love, which could go in under the punishment that impended upon men."  With this understanding, Aulén feels that he can sufficiently explain Luther's use of language associated with substitutionary atonement, as in the following quote from Luther:

  We firmly believe that Christ, the Son of God, stood for us and took all our sins upon His neck, and is the eternal satisfaction for our sins, and made atonement for us to God the Father; he that believes this has a place also in this sacrament (Holy Communion), and neither the devil, hell, nor sin can harm him.  Wherefore?  Because God is his defence and his helper, and if I thus have believed, therefore I know surely that God fights for me, in spite of the devil, death, hell, and sin, which would harm me; this is the great inestimable treasure which is given to us in Christ. (119)

Thus, he says, Luther's view of the sacrifice of Christ is best expressed as follows:

  It is God's act of victory, when Christ goes in under the Divine wrath, and bears the burden of the punishment which on account of that wrath impends upon men.  Thus the Love of God breaks through the Wrath; in the vicarious act of redemption the Wrath is overcome by the Love. (115)

Aulén's critics

Aulén's analysis is, not surprisingly, widely challenged.  Critics argue that Aulén fails to recognize the compatibility of a Christus Victor theme with penal substitution, and point to numerous instances of Luther using the language of the latter.  On the first point, we have Timothy George in The Glory of the Atonement, 275:

  Many scholars have criticized Aulén for drawing too sharp a dichotomy between the idea of penal substitution and the motif of victory over the evil powers.  We need not accuse Luther of being inconsistent for having seen the truth—that is to say, the biblical basis—for both views of the atonement.  Indeed, this may well be Luther's major contribution to atonement theology: just as he brought together the ideas of satisfaction and punishment in the doctrine of penal substitution, so too he saw that the cross of Christ was at once the scene of Satan's definitive defeat and the objective basis of justification by faith alone.

And in support of Luther's acceptance of penal substitution, proponents point to a variety of passages, especially several in his Commentary on Galatians (Luther's Works, ed. Pelikan, v. 26):

  [Jesus] has and bears all the sins of all men in his body—not in the sense that he has committed them but in the sense that he took these sins, committed by us, upon his own body, in order to make satisfaction for them with his own blood. (LW, 26:277, quoted in Defending Substitution)

  [The Father] sent his Son into the world, heaped all the sins of all men upon him, and said to him: "Be Peter, the denier; Paul, the persecutor, blasphemer and assaulter; David, the adulterer; the sinner who ate the apple in Paradise; the thief on the cross.  In short, be the person of all men, the one who has committed the sins of all men.  And see to it that you pay and make satisfaction for them."  Now the Law comes and says: "I find him a sinner, who takes upon himself the sins of all men.  I do not see any other sins than those in him.  Therefore let him die on the Cross." (LW, 26:280, quoted in Defending Substitution)

  If the sins of the entire world are on that one man, Jesus Christ, then they are not on the world.  But if they are not on him, then they are still on the world.  Again, if Christ himself is made guilty of all the sins that we have all committed, then we are absolved from all sins [...].  But if he is innocent and does not carry our sins, then we carry them and shall die and be damned in them. (LW, 26:280, quoted in Defending Substitution)

  For you do not yet have Christ even though you know that He is God and man. You truly have Him only when you believe that this altogether pure and innocent Person has been granted to you by the Father as your High Priest and Redeemer, yes, as your slave. Putting off His innocence and holiness and putting on your sinful person, He bore your sin, death, and curse; He became a sacrifice and a curse for you, in order thus to set you free from the curse of the Law. (LW, 26:288; quoted in "Penal Substitution in Church History")

  But because an eternal, unchangeable sentence of condemnation has passed upon sin – for God cannot and will not regard sin with favor, but his wrath abides upon it eternally and irrevocably – redemption was not possible without a ransom of such precious worth as to atone for sin, to assume the guilt, pay the price of wrath and thus abolish sin.  This no creature was able to do. There was no remedy except for God's only Son to step into our distress and himself become man, to take upon himself the load of awful and eternal wrath and make his own body and blood a sacrifice for the sin. And so he did, out of his immeasurably great mercy and love towards us, giving himself up and bearing the sentence of unending wrath and death. ("24th Sunday after Trinity"; also quoted in Gregory Allison's Historical Theology)

Summary

The interaction with Gustaf Aulén's Christus Victor continues to this day, lending him credibility despite the criticism.  Some have followed in his tracks, like Phillip S. Watson in Let God be God.  Others have concluded that the traditional understanding should be retained, as expressed by Wolfhart Pannenberg, who said that Luther saw "with full clarity that Jesus' death in its geneuine sense is to be understood as vicarious penal suffering."  (Jesus: God and Man, 279)

Thus the answer to this question is perhaps not as simple as we might like.  Neither demonstrating that Luther completely rejected penal substitution, nor showing that he strongly preferred it over all other models, are easily accomplished.  Perhaps he did not express penal substitution as systematically as John Calvin or Charles Hodge (though that could be said about many of his teachings).  Perhaps his writings bear out a preference for Christus Victor over other models.  But, to me at least, Aulén's fails to convincingly prove the incompatibility of the two models in Luther's mind and thus his complete dismissmal of penal substitution in Luther seems excessive.


According to Catholicism, is it sinful to drink alcohol in order to get drunk?

St. Thomas Aquinas explains (Summa Theologica II-II q. 150 a. 1 c.):

  Drunkenness may be understood in two ways.

  it may signify the defect itself of a man resulting from his drinking much wine, the consequence being that he loses the use of
  reason. In this sense drunkenness denotes not a sin, but a penal
  defect resulting from a fault.
  drunkenness may denote the act by which a man incurs this defect. This act may cause drunkenness in two ways.

  through the wine being too strong, without the drinker being cognizant of this: and in this way too, drunkenness may occur without
  sin, especially if it is not through his negligence, and thus we
  believe that Noah was made drunk as related in Gn. 9.
  In another way drunkenness may result from inordinate concupiscence and use of wine: in this way it is accounted a sin, and
  is comprised under gluttony as a species under its genus. For gluttony
  is divided into "surfeiting [Douay:,'rioting'] and drunkenness," which
  are forbidden by the Apostle (Rm. 13:13).

There's also Ga 5:19-21 (taken from this answer):

  Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, Idolatry, witchcrafts (φαρμακία), enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects, Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.


Catholic Church's History Reflects The life of Christ?

So, the short answer is that the Church suffers as a participation in the redemptive suffering of Christ. As the Church is Christ's body, that means that she must suffer as he suffered. So if he meant that the Church suffers as Christ the answer is "yes, and many agree".

This provides us with some useful information, including the JPII quote:

  For, whoever suffers in union with Christ— just as the Apostle Paul bears his “tribulations” in union with Christ— not only receives from Christ that strength already referred to but also “completes” by his suffering “what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions”

That combined with the fact that the sufferings of an individual are the sufferings of the corpus (If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it), we see confirmation of the summary above.

As to how the Church's sufferings will manifest over time, Revelation points out that the sufferings are not complete. However, a striking difference is that there is no point where the Church on earth can or will die. If the gates of hell cannot prevail, then there will most certainly never be a time when the Church is not present on the Earth until this Earth is no more.


How do theistic evolutionists view the Fall of Man?

My view is 1) in a way, 2) no, 3) read on!

Consider two snapshots in time.

No humans around yet, just plants, animals and so forth. Lacking free will, they have no
moral responsibility, and the concept of "sin" makes no sense.
Humans exist. We have free will, moral responsibility, and conflicting tendencies: we are born to trouble (as sure as sparks fly upward, Job 5:7), but we are also loved by God and are drawn to him, since we are formed in his image.

The creationist viewpoint is that between 1 and 2 came the events of Genesis 1:26 through 3:24, as literally described. Evolutionarily, what took place is that humans evolved from our animal ancestors, gaining self-awareness and the ability to make moral choices. Unfortunately for us, that means that we can choose poorly. I read the story of Eden as a narrative exposition of this basic problem of the human condition.

So for your question 1, I think of the Fall as historical in that between step 1 and step 2, we fell; but not strictly as described in the Genesis story.

Our tendency to be tempted (Genesis 3:1), the resulting disobedience to God's will (3:3) and the desire to take his place (3:6) have resulted in our shame (3:7), alienation from God (3:10, "I was afraid"), from his creation (3:17-19), and from one another (3:12, Adam blames Eve). We had to wait for the promised seed, Christ, to defeat sin (3:15). By following him, we can regain the eternal paradise that had been denied (3:22-24).

These facts do not depend on there being a specific couple, Adam and Eve. Now, it's possible to counter this by pointing to passages like 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, which in the NIV reads

  For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

How can we view Christ as the new Adam, if there was never an old Adam? Actually, the literal interpretation has a problem in that Genesis 3 doesn't pin all the blame on Adam: Eve was tempted first, and they both ate the fruit. So I think that Paul has to be speaking figuratively in any case, using Adam as the stand-in for all of humanity. In the same way, there is Romans 5:12-21, saying that after the first sin of the first man, we are all sinners, but now we can all be redeemed through Christ. This redemption doesn't come about through physical descent, so I don't see a reason to say that we sin only because we are descended from a sinner. To me, it makes more sense to believe that Paul was speaking in a midrashic way about Adam, and that sinfulness is inherent to our (present) human nature, than to impose a literalist view on the text.

But whether or not the Genesis account is taken literally, from step 2 onwards, we are in the same spiritual and moral position. As Don Marquis put it in archy hears from mars,

  [earth] is in charge of a
  two legged animal called
  man who is genuinely
  puzzled as to whether
  his grandfather was a god
  or a monkey
  i should think said mars
  that what he is himself
  would make more difference
  than what his grandfather was
  not to this animal i replied
  he is the great alibi ike of
  the cosmos when he raises hell
  just because he feels like
  raising hell
  he wants somebody to blame it on


How do Protestants counteract the Witnesses stance on Blood Transfusions?

The Jehovah’s Witness publication ‘What Does the Bible Really Teach?’ discusses the issue of blood transfusions in Chapter 13.  Paragraph 11 reads:

We show respect for blood by not eating it...  Jehovah’s view was clear: His servants could eat animal meat but not the blood. They were to pour the blood on the ground—in effect, returning the creature’s life to God.

They quote Leviticus 17:13-14 to support this. It’s a pity they don’t quote verse 15 as well then they would see the context:

“Anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening then he will be clean. But if he does not wash his clothes and bathe himself he will held responsible.”

Why is this verse even there? Because in times of distress, for example in war, it might become necessary to eat an animal that had not been slaughtered the kosher-way. Why? To save lives! Although it was against the law to eat un-clean animals at times it was necessary.  Paragraphs 12 to 15 in Chapter 13 of the ‘Bible Teach’ book continues:

So we must ‘keep abstaining from blood.’ In God’s eyes, our doing that is as important as our avoiding idolatry and sexual immorality. Does the command to abstain from blood include blood transfusions? Yes. To illustrate: Suppose a doctor were to tell you to abstain from alcoholic beverages. Would that simply mean that you should not drink alcohol but that you could have it injected into your veins? Of course not! Likewise, abstaining from blood means not taking it into our bodies at all. So the command to abstain from blood means that we would not allow anyone to transfuse blood into our veins.
14 What if a Christian is badly injured or is in need of major surgery? Suppose doctors say that he must have a blood transfusion or he will die. Of course, the Christian would not want to die. In an effort to preserve God’s precious gift of life, he would accept other kinds of treatment that do not involve the misuse of blood. Hence, he would seek such medical attention if that is available and would accept a variety of alternatives to blood.
15 Would a Christian break God’s law just to stay alive a little longer in this system of things? Jesus said: “Whoever wants to save his soul [or, life] will lose it; but whoever loses his soul for my sake will find it.” (Matthew 16:25) We do not want to die. But if we tried to save our present life by breaking God’s law, we would be in danger of losing everlasting life. We are wise, then, to put our trust in the rightness of God’s law, with full confidence that if we die from any cause, our Life-Giver will remember us in the resurrection and restore to us the precious gift of life.

They use Acts 15 to support their claim that true Christians should not have a blood transfusion – is that right? No. The issue in Acts 15 is that the Jews and Gentiles had been saved through the grace of Jesus. The Jews however where trying to get the Gentiles to uphold the Mosaic Law. When the Gentiles refused to, this caused a problem. James is trying sort it out by asking the Gentiles to abstain from these things so as to not upset their Jewish brothers. We see in other chapters in Acts and Romans that our salvation has nothing to with circumcision or food, or blood, but for the sake of the Jewish brothers of the time they were to abstain from these things in order not to stumble them. Of course this has nothing to do with blood transfusions in spite what the Watchtower teaches in the 'Bible Teach' book.
Paragraph 18 declares that true Christians are not under the Mosaic Law and it is only by means of faith in the merit of Jesus’ shed blood that we can gain salvation.  Amen to that.  So why do the preceding paragraphs in chapter 13 claim that true Christians gain everlasting life through upholding the laws of the Watchtower, which include refusing to have a blood transfusion?
Jesus said: “I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life” (John 5:24).  No need to obey man-made laws.  No need to twist Scripture in an attempt to uphold man-made laws.  Jesus said nothing about refusing to accept a blood transfusion.  That is how this Protestant Christian counteracts the Jehovah’s Witness stance on blood transfusions.


Transition from a natural to a sacramental marriage

A valid natural marriage becomes sacramental as soon as both parties are baptised. There is no need to do anything else after being baptised, either as a Catholic or in a denomination that observes the Catholic form of baptism (water and the trinitarian formula). If the baptism is not valid the marriage remains natural. The parties are the ministers of the Sacrament and exchange of consent is the essential element.

  1621 In the Latin Rite the celebration of marriage between two Catholic faithful normally takes place during Holy Mass, because of the connection of all the sacraments with the Paschal mystery of Christ. In the Eucharist the memorial of the New Covenant is realized, the New Covenant in which Christ has united himself for ever to the Church, his beloved bride for whom he gave himself up. It is therefore fitting that the spouses should seal their consent to give themselves to each other through the offering of their own lives by uniting it to the offering of Christ for his Church made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice, and by receiving the Eucharist so that, communicating in the same Body and the same Blood of Christ, they may form but "one body" in Christ.

  1622 "In as much as it is a sacramental action of sanctification, the liturgical celebration of marriage . . . must be, per se, valid, worthy, and fruitful." It is therefore appropriate for the bride and groom to prepare themselves for the celebration of their marriage by receiving the sacrament of penance.

  1623 According to Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ's grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church. In the tradition of the Eastern Churches, the priests (bishops or presbyters) are witnesses to the mutual consent given by the spouses, but for the validity of the sacrament their blessing is also necessary.

  1624 The various liturgies abound in prayers of blessing and epiclesis asking God's grace and blessing on the new couple, especially the bride. In the epiclesis of this sacrament the spouses receive the Holy Spirit as the communion of love of Christ and the Church. The Holy Spirit is the seal of their covenant, the ever available source of their love and the strength to renew their fidelity.

  III. MATRIMONIAL CONSENT

  1625 The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; "to be free" means:

  not being under constraint;
  not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law.

  1626 The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element that "makes the marriage." If consent is lacking there is no marriage.

  1627 The consent consists in a "human act by which the partners mutually give themselves to each other": "I take you to be my wife" - "I take you to be my husband." This consent that binds the spouses to each other finds its fulfillment in the two "becoming one flesh."

CCC on Marriage

  Can.  1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.

  §2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.

Jimmy Akin

While Catholics are required to follow the required form of marriage non Catholic's are not

  A defect of form case can only come into play if one of the parties to the marriage is a Catholic (who has not left the Church by a formal act).  In a case involving a defect of canonical form due to a wedding taking place “outside” the Catholic Church, the Tribunal must be able to establish certain facts including the following: that the Catholic party was bound by canonical form; that the Catholic party had not left the Church by a formal act prior to or at the time of the wedding; and that the marriage was never subsequently convalidated or otherwise rendered valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

Defect of form


Is there any historical evedence of more apostles being called that were not mentioned in the Bible?

An apostle is, per the Greek ἀποστέλλω  (apostollow) - that is, sent out.  It is a job, not necessarily a title.  Jesus, in the Great Commission of Matthew 28, literally apostolt (ie commissioned and sent out) all of his followers by telling them:

  Go ye therefore into all the world...

While Matthew 28:16 says there were only 11 people there (all his disciples), Acts 1 then goes to add Matthias, becaue the 11 disciples themselves thought a 12th should be added to their number, in order to match the 12 tribes.  Later, some have questioned if God had intended to add Paul as the 12th to their number.  Regardless of who was in attendance, however, many, many Christians - indeed just about all with a strong missionary bent - now take Jesus' words as being a "Great Commission" that applies to all his followers, not just the 11 in attendance.

As to the fact that many are called to be apostles, we have Paul's word on the matter:

  Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. (1 Cor 12:27-28)

As such, the answer to your question is a simple Yes - because it is a gift given to all.

The difference, I suspect comes with whether or not there are more big-A "Apostles," by which you mean, did God confer some magical fairy dust and make them special.  The answer to that question is far more nuanced. Protestants will say we are all Saints. Catholics will say that some are more Sainted than others.  But we'll all say, if given a list, that the "12 Apostles" are drawn from Jesus' named disciples, minus Judas.  This is an artifact of history, in the same way that Abraham Lincoln may be a great President, but he's not a Founding Father.  Likewise, I'd argue John Champe is a founding  father, but you've probably never heard of him.

Paul calls himself an apostle many times but is not included in the list of the 12.  One would suspect he would have also called Barnabas an Apostle - but his name does not appear amongst the 12.  The list of 12 comes from the tradition of the disciples being sent out, but the job is more widely dispersed than that.

The list is thus fixed by tradition, and because it is a fixed tradition, is finite and known.  But as to the gift of apostleship - yes, there are many, many more.  And it is the role of the church for those who have been "sent out" to actually act on it.


What Protestant/Evangelical tradition is represented in the Casting Crowns song "What the World Needs"?

I neither know nor do I care as to which denomination of Evangelical Protestantism these young people belong to.  The partial quote you gave does not represent Protestant Christianity, and is merely a reflection of their own, personal views.  However, I wholeheartedly agree with the first part of the song:

  “What this world needs is not another one-hit wonder with an axe to grind, another two-bit politician peddling lies, another three-ring circus society
  What this world needs is not another sign-waving super- that thinks he's better than you, another ear-pleasing candy man afraid of the truth, another prophet in an Armani suite
  What this world needs is a savior who will rescue, a spirit who will lead, a father who will love them in their time of need ; A savior who will rescue, a spirit who will lead, a father who will love, that's what this world needs (Chorus)
  What this world needs is for us to care more about the inside than the outside. Have we become so blind that we can't see? God's gotta change your heart before he changes a shirt
  What this world needs is for us to stop hiding behind our relevance, blending in so well that people can't see the difference, and it's the difference that sets the world free”

The two lines I disagree with are these: “we can't strap ourselves to the gospel 'cause we're slowing it down; Jesus is going to save the world but maybe the best thing we can do is just get out of the way.”  That’s a load of trite rubbish, and a distortion of the need to evangelise the gospel to all.

Please do not think for one moment that these sentiments are representative of Protestants – evangelical or not!   Personally, I much prefer the good old-fashioned hymns, especially those written by Charles Wesley.  They actually contain biblical truth (as perceived by Protestants, anyway).  Can’t be doing with all this happy-clappy, stand up and wave your hands in the air stuff accompanied to music so loud you can’t even hear yourself think.  I don’t consider that to be worship.  But then, what do I know, given I was born shortly after the end of the Second World War?  Bah, humbug!

Source: Casting Crowns-What This World Needs (2007) – Genre: Christian/Gospel - Songwriters: Hector Alonzo Cervantes / John Mark Hall – Album: The Altar and the Door - https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Casting+Crowns+song+What+the+world+needs&oq=Casting+Crowns+song+What+the+world+needs&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60.8209j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


How did Catholic Church adapt after the Black Plague in Europe if at all any adaptation occurred?

The Church played a significant role during the Middle Ages because religion was an important aspect of daily life for European Christians. When the Black Death struck Europe in 1347, the Church struggled to cope with the plague’s damaging consequences and its reputation suffered as a result. The Black Death contributed to the decline in the confidence and faith of the Christian laity towards the institution of the Church and its leadership.

Bishop Ralph Shrewsbury of Bath and Wells delivered a renowned decree in 1349 on the matter of Christians dying without the sacrament of penance. He explained the cause of this when he stated that “priests cannot be found to take on the cares of these places, neither out of devotional zeal nor for payment, or to visit the sick and administer the Church sacraments to them, perhaps because they are infected or have a fear of being infected. The Bishop ordered the clergy of his diocese to publicize the fact that a sick
or dying individual should make a confession to a layperson if a priest was not available.

From the 1350s, on papal orders, new stress was put on indulgences, or grants of time off from purgatory bestowed by the church, which drew on what it termed a ‘treasury of merits’ or good deeds accumulated from Christ, the patristic fathers, and saints. Indulgences were not given freely, but usually in anticipation of a gift of money; always mindful of turning a profit, church leaders began to sell them in increasing numbers to a richer public.  These instances were significant in that they pointed to the practices that incited the radical change that transformed the Church in the sixteenth century, and the Reformation.

Another change initiated by the Black Plague was the rise of charities and private chapels, because of the Church's dimished reputation. This charity system of private worship played a large role in late medieval religion and represented a considerable blow to monopoly over church services held by the traditional Christian hierarchy. Records from testators show that before 1348, only 5% of them gave money to hospitals, but this number increased to 40% between 1350 and 1360.

Another movement that gained popularity after the Black Death was the increase in pilgrimages undertaken by Christians. Between 1349 and 1360, the number of pilgrimages taken to Rome and other shrines increased dramatically. The increase in pilgrimages was a significant movement that further detracted from the reputation of the clergy because it was another way for the laity to find their path to salvation without their assistance.

In 1351, a group of parish clergymen presented a signed petition to Pope Clement VI in anger due to the emergence of mendicant orders. They were upset because the mendicants were providing the laity with religious services, and they believed that the right to give those services belonged only to them. The Pope defended these friars and “accused the clergy of wasting their wealth ‘on pimps and swindlers and neglecting the ways of God.’ The fact that the Pope himself was voicing the same complaints held by the laity speaks to the damaged reputation of the Church at this time.

Another consequence that resulted from the Church’s failure to fulfill all the
spiritual needs of the laity was the emergence of mysticism and lay piety. Mystics held
the belief that God lived through every person and that individuals could strengthen their
relationship with God through austerity and commitment.

The Black Death also saw the rise of the flagellant movement, groups of men and women who publicly flogged their bodies while they traveled to and from European cities, preaching their version of Christianity without the permission of the Church. These bands posed a great threat to the authority of the Church and exposed its weakened hold over the Christian laity.

Another disturbing movement that emerged in the wake of the plague was the widespread violence directed against the Jewish population. The Church officially opposed this slaughter, but did nothing to not stop the maddened public from taking action. Jews had long held a tense relationship with their Christian neighbors, and when the plague arrived, European Christians violently attacked the Jews in the belief that Jews had spread the plague.


Not understanding the meaning of the song Resurrecting by Elevation Worship

The lyrics are about the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Our God is alive

Our God, Jesus, is not dead, even though he was killed, but is alive because he rose from the dead.

The tomb with soldiers watched in vain

After bring crucified, the body of Jesus was placed in a tomb and soldiers were placed on guard at it. However Jesus did arise, and the soldiers were unable to prevent it.

was borrowed for three days.

Jesus was laid in a tomb, but after three days rose again. The tomb was not needed after that - it was only borrowed, not kept permanently.

His body there would not remain
our God has robbed the grave

God, like a grave robber, has taken the body out of the grave - not by stealing it, but because he has the power to do so. Moreover he does the same for all of us, in that he will resurrect us all in due time - 'cheating' the enemy of the punishment that we deserve for our sins, which is death - the ultimate 'robbing' of the ultimate grave.
It is possible to get into trouble by taking that last line as too literal and exact a theological statement. God is not being deceitful or dishonest in 'robbing' the grave. It's a song lyric, not a doctrinal statement.


Creation order of events: Was there unanimous consent among the Church Fathers?

cf. The Church Fathers list on the New Advent.

From Creation and Genesis | Catholic Answers it states:

  The following quotations from the Fathers show how widely divergent
  early Christian views were.

Yet there is no evidence from the quotations that they disagreed on the order of events as described in Genesis actually occurred in the order Genesis describes them.

From Concerning the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis | The Replies of the Pontifical Biblical Commission On questions of Sacred Scripture | Translated by E. F. Sutcliffe, S.J., it appears that the Church has affirmed the historicity of the First Three Chapters of Genesis and therefore it is not permitted to a good son [or daughter] of the Church to disagree that order of events as described in Genesis actually occurred in the order Genesis describes them.

What the Pontifical Biblical Commission said as regards the six days

  VIII : In the designation and distinction of the six days mentioned in
  the first chapter of Genesis may the word Yom (day) be taken either in
  the literal sense for the natural day or in an applied sense for a
  certain space of time, and may this question be the subject of free
  discussion among exegetes?
  Answer: In the affirmative.

The Catholics Answers link above and the OP both state Church Fathers held divergent views and Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37).


Is the Roman Catholic church condemning Protestants?

The language of the Council of Trent you quoted is clear and answers your question: "If anyone denies…" etc. Thus, that proposition clearly applies to anyone, Catholic or Protestant, Jew, pagan, etc.

One must profess the Catholic Faith to be a member of the Catholic Church. "Anathema sit" ("let him be anathema") simply professes the heretic's non-membership in the Catholic Church.


Is it a valid Christian concept to attribute subjectively attactive physical characteristics, as blessings from God?

Yes, it is completely valid to attribute any blessing to God from a variety of Christian perspectives. In short, all things are ordained by God.

As for the "less attractive" person, God has most likely blessed her with other attributes.

And if not, a perfectly Christian answer to why some are blessed with certain things and other are not is the one God gave to Job... "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?". In other words, who are we to question God?  Rather, according to most Christian teachings, we should thank God for what we have, realize that all blessings come from Him,  and not complain about what we didn't get.


Is there a difference between Liberal, Progressive, and Emergent Christianity?

"Liberal" Christians generally follow some of the traditional practices and morals of Christianity, but generally reject the notion of the inerrancy of Scripture.  As a result, their beliefs can be very diverse.  Their emphasis on doctrine is sometimes light, but sometimes very academic.

"Emergent" Christians have adopted a "postmodern" mindset, seeking to synthesize what others regard as contradictory views.  Generally, they believe that God is bringing all people and indeed the universe to himself, and that people need to join that effort however they can. The emergent/emerging church is in some ways a reaction against the lack of the supernatural in Liberal theology, and in some ways a reaction against the alleged reliance on human logic in conservative evangelicalism.

"Progressive" Christians may also be "liberal" or "emergent", and they seek to overcome what they think are bad or sub-optimal traditions or practices.

The liberal Christian's main concern is to live for God by participating in a moral church community, without an urgent need to understand the somewhat flawed but good Bible.  The emergent Christian's main goal is to live for God by joining God's kingdom wherever they can find it, aside from the supposed futile task of exegeting the Bible.

There are many variations and differences within these, and many of those who would identify as part of one of these might reject my broad strokes above.  Nevertheless, they are useful distinctions, and I think the most important difference is in how they regard the Bible.

If you have further questions about a specific area, practice, or belief, I could give my thoughts.


What paths exist in the Catholic Church for a certain theological position to become recognized as dogma?

It seems you're asking how a material (definable) dogma becomes a formal (defined) dogma.

material (definable) dogma: a truth revealed by God that the Church has not yet proposed one has to believe under pain of mortal sin against faith and excommunicationanalogous to a legislator's "bill"

formal (defined) dogma: "A truth proposed by the Church as revealed by God"*analogous to a legislator's "law"

*On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them by Father Sixtus Cartechini S.J. (Rome, 1951)(source)
Steps a pope takes to define a dogma
1. Determine if the proposition is true and definable
Before defining dogma, a pope first needs to establish that the truth he intends to define can be defined.
Certain things are not definable at all, because they are not true or known to be true (e.g., "black = white" or "the world will end at 12:34 PM GMT on January 24, 2025"*) or because they do not pertain to the faith or morals (e.g., "2+2=4" couldn't be defined as a dogma).
*Knowing this would be contrary to Revelation, which says the time and hour is only known to the Father in heaven.
Example
To determine the definability of the dogma of the Assumption, Pope Pius XII consulted all the world's bishops, as he relates in Munificentissimus Deus:

And, since we were dealing with a matter of such great moment and of such importance, we considered it opportune to ask all our venerable brethren in the episcopate directly and authoritatively that each of them should make known to us his mind in a formal statement. Hence, on May 1, 1946, we gave them our letter "Deiparae Virginis Mariae," a letter in which these words are contained: "Do you, venerable brethren, in your outstanding wisdom and prudence, judge that the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin can be proposed and defined as a dogma of faith? Do you, with your clergy and people, desire it?"

(source)
Although a pope has the authority to define a dogma without asking for counsel regarding its definability, it would be rash not to seek counsel.(source)
2. Define it.
Once it is established that the proposition is a definable truth (material dogma), the material dogma can become a formal dogma if the pope

speaks for the whole Church,
invokes all his authority,
intends to definitively define the dogma, and
speaks regarding the faith and/or morals.

(source)
Example
The declaration/pronouncement/definition of the dogma of the Assumption (Munificentissimus Deus):

[…] by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.


How do you defend the first clause of the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

It frankly doesn't matter how well you defend the Kalam argument with a modern illogical atheist. I should qualify. I have met the occasional reasonable atheist and I like discussions with them very much indeed although I've never persuaded one of them nor have they moved me from my position. But if you're having a discussion with the typical thoughtless modern atheist, you'd be far better off to spend your time with God. I mean that.

So, caveat given... The Kalam argument runs like this (in its usual form)

Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore the universe has a cause.

The thing atheists like to do is to push this back farther and farther into the mists of time until it seems to disappear. 'The universe has a cause, and the cause is a quantum universe generator. The quantum universe generator was randomly generated by a quantum universe generator generator, and so on.

This is the problem with this argument. An infinite regress of EVENTS is impossible. Why? Well, first because it's ludicrous. There would be too many events, too many things. The universe or the universe of universes or all the things on the other side of that black hole (where it is a white hole) would be infinite in number to the power of infinity. And the same for every black hole. It's impossible.

God on the other hand is simple (not made up of parts), unchanging, infinite and eternal. God, in other words, is the ONE who CAN be eternal, steady state, unchanging. Nothing else can qualify in that role.

Second, the universe cannot be eternal (nor can any of the possible ACTIVE factors that may have generated the universe). Our universe clearly had a beginning. Many Christians feel that the Big Bang is an enemy. It is not. It means that our universe began to exist. Anyone who says otherwise is not honoring the known facts. I've heard it said that if our universe were steady state, that also would not be a problem for apologetics. Maybe that's correct, but I don't understand that argument. I DO understand THIS argument, and since our universe did have a beginning, this is the argument I need to understand:

An infinite regress of events is also impossible because at some point, you must reach the place where everything is perfectly organized at the first end, and perfectly homogeneous at the last. Beyond that point in the past, it is impossible to go. At this point, our universe is not completely organized, nor is it completely random/homogeneous.

It's like an unbound book set in a room with a fan. The book is perfectly organized from the title page to page 2,191 which perhaps says, "the end." Turn on the fan and it starts to blow those pages lying at the top of the book. Pretty soon you come into the room and the pages are scattered everywhere. Your unbound book is in a state of complete disorder, so you start to collect the pages and place them carefully, perfectly in order. Once the book is as it was, you are done. You can go back no further. You have reached the beginning.

That's the second reason you cannot have an infinite regress. Events always move from order to disorder; they never, ever go the other way. Once you get to the place of perfect order, there's nowhere else to go. You will, looking back, reach this point in any system that involves change.

God does not change. God is eternal and unchanging. In fact, God IS eternity. God IS infinity. God is simple. Every molecule of God (If God had molecules, which God does not) is God. God is not composed of parts. Things do not happen to God to change Him. God IS. God is not a being in the universe or outside of it. God IS being. God has no beginning and therefore God is not capable of having been caused.

So there is your Kalam argument. There are perhaps meaningful things that could be said against it, but by and large the modern day atheist does not know what they are, nor even what they might be. He will not even read your carefully worded reasoning because he is an ideologue. He believes what he wishes to believe. If he reads what you have to say, he will answer with a question something like, "Well what about suffering? Why is there suffering?" It's not that he wants an answer. He simply needs to change the subject because he will have absolutely no idea what you just said--because he does not know how to think that hard.

Sad, but true in most cases.


How is 1 Timothy 2:5 interpreted relative to the Mediatrix concept?

Indeed, Catholic theologians are well aware of the Bible verses concerning this teaching.

The EWTN Faith Library article on Mary, Mediatrix of All Graces has a fine explanation, under the heading "Objections", that compares the mediation of Christ with the mediation provided by Mary, in light of 1 Tim 3:5.

The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Mediator points out that Jesus' unique mediatorship is concerned with the salvation of mankind, something only He could do. Note that Mary receives no mention here, as the article focuses on salvation and the origin of all graces.

This article on the very topic of your question makes the point that Mary is called a Mediatrix because she is the conduit of the graces that originate through Jesus, first, because her "yes" to God gave us our Savior; second, because she, like all saints, and indeed all Christians, petitions her Son through prayer intentions.


What terms have been used by missionaries to Islamic countries to describe Islam?

From what I know from speaking with those who have been missionaries in Islamic countries and from reading books written by such people, it seems that the strategy is not to demonstrate that Islam is incorrect, but to simply present Jesus (the prophet Isa) to people.  Jesus is acknowledged as a prophet by Islam.

The Koran on Jesus

The Koran talks about Jesus and says quite a few good things about him.  I actually met a man who was formerly a Muslim from a very Islamic country who discovered for himself from the Koran that Moses received the Law, Mohammed received the Koran, but Jesus received the Spirit.  He reasoned that what Jesus received was greater than the Law or the Koran, and so he went in search of Jesus.  So, pointing Muslims to the verses in the Koran about Jesus is one strategy that is used.

The Koran on the Word of God

Another tactic is to read the verses in the Koran that teach how God's word cannot be changed and its commands to read the Scriptures given beforehand.  Many Muslims are taught that the Bible is corrupted, but the Koran contradicts this by saying that God's word cannot be altered.  This often leads Muslims to start reading the Bible.

Dreams

Finally, it seems that quite a few Muslims have had dreams where Jesus appears to them.  So common is this that some missionaries have simply started to ask Muslims that they meet if they have ever had a dream about Jesus.

Conclusion

So, again, the strategy with followers of Islam is pretty much the same with anyone else.  Jesus is presented as the eternal Son of God, crucified, and risen from the dead.  The point is not to criticize other teachings, but to exalt the Lord Jesus Christ.


Can I pray for the past to change certain aspects of life? (Catholic perspective)

There is nothing preventing you from praying for anything you'd like, of course; it seems that your question isn't so much "Can we do this?" as "Does it do any good—can it change the past?" And in this case, the standard Catholic answer is "No, unfortunately it can't."
Aquinas addresses the question in the Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 25, Article 4, titled "Whether God can make the past not to have been?" He considers the possibility, for example, that since God certainly had the power in the past to do or to prevent something, it seems that he should retain that power into the present:

What God could do, He can do now, since His power is not lessened. But God could have effected, before Socrates ran, that he should not run. Therefore, when he has run, God could effect that he did not run.
(Objection 2)

The difficulty Aquinas finds with this is essentially that it would make true the statement that "Socrates did run [since God had to do something about it after the fact] and Socrates did not run [since God prevented it after the fact]." But this is a contradiction:

That the past should not have been implies a contradiction. For as it implies a contradiction to say that Socrates is sitting, and is not sitting, so does it to say that he sat, and did not sit. But to say that he did sit is to say that it happened in the past. To say that he did not sit, is to say that it did not happen. Whence, that the past should not have been, does not come under the scope of divine power.

In other words, anything God could have made to not happen in the past would have to have both happened (so that God had something to prevent) and not happened (because God prevented it). Aquinas believes that contradictions like this are impossible: not because it is a limitation on God's power, but simply because logically impossible things are (by that very fact) not something we can reason logically about:

[A logically impossible event] cannot come under the divine omnipotence, not because of any defect in the power of God, but because it has not the nature of a feasible or possible thing. Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility.
(First Part, Question 25, Article 3)

Certainly if God cannot be said to be capable of changing the past, we cannot successfully pray to Him to do it.
As far as your examples, if a child has died without baptism, we certainly commend the child to God in the hope that they will be saved in a way unknown to us; but we cannot go back and get the child baptized. This is a sad thing, sadder than the death of the child perhaps; but it does not prevent God from working in the life of the mother, and this may be the best that can be hoped for.
Similarly, if a relative dies and you believe they are in Purgatory, the right and best thing to do for them is to pray for them in the present moment, as you suggest. Pray that they may soon be released from Purgatory—and incidentally, ask them to pray for you that you may not have to go through that.


What is the basis for saying that the Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the world?

Three factors enter in to answering this question.
Number 1 ). is the Catholic Church a charitable organization?

  A charitable organization is a type of non-profit organization (NPO). It differs from other types of NPOs in that it centers on philanthropic goals as well as social well-being (e.g. charitable, educational, religious, or other activities serving the public interest or common good).

According to that definition yes the Catholic Church is a charitable organization.

Number 2 ) how many people make up the Catholic Church?

  There are an estimated 1.2 billion Roman Catholics in the world, according to Vatican figures. More than 40% of the world's Catholics live in Latin America - but Africa has seen the biggest growth in Catholic congregations in recent years.

That means the charitable organization known as the Catholic Church is 1.2 billion people strong.

Number 3). Is there any other charitable organization that can claim more than 1.2 billion people as members?

No there is not.

Therefore the Catholic Church is in fact the largest charitable organization on earth.


According to Preterism has Jesus already delivered the kingdom to God?

Preterism is the view that the Biblical prophecies concerning the end times have already been fulfilled. I understand they get this conclusion from such verses as Heb 2v14 where the Devil is destroyed. Here we might say that the contract is signed but the resulting possession not fully entered into. Also, "this generation" Mat 24v34 could be the people who see these things.
When "you" [Jews] see these things [some time in the future], the generation who sees these things, will not pass away until all these things take place.
"These things" may take  place 2000+ years hence, but when they do take place they will occur with such rapidity that one generation will witness them all.


This is the old covenant which God made with Abraham and his posterity.
Genesis 15:18 NRKJV

18 In the same day יהוה made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

Genesis 17:1 through 14 NRKJV

1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, יהוה appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am El-Shaddai1 ; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.
3 And Abram fell on his face: and Elohim talked with him, saying,
4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.
5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.
6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be an Elohim unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their Elohim.
9 And Elohim said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

This is the New covenant which Jesus made with all people and not just the seed of Abraham.
Mat 26:27 through 29 NRKJV

27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Since the first covenant was only with Abraham and his seed, since Jesus death would now provide salvation for both Jew and Gentile it did not cancel the old covenant, but actually expanded the first covenant to include the Gentiles.
It is called the new covenant because it is the first covenant with the Gentiles.


Where does this Augustine quote come from?

Based on a google book search, I believe this quote comes from:

Title: Masterpieces of World Philosophy in Summary Form, Volume 1
Editor: Frank Northen Magill
Publisher: Salem Press, 1961

It appears to be available on Amazon, and I also found a very poor transcription on archive.org.

The quote in the book is:

  Expressed in another way, sin is living the lie of believing oneself to be self-created, self-sustained, self-dependent.

It's not exactly the same as the quote you find out there, but its pretty close, so what likely happened is the quote got mis-attributed to Augustine when it was actually a summary of his teaching.


Which is more important to the Roman Catholic Church today: Church unity or the actual text of scripture?

I don't believe that St Augustine was talking about unity at the cost of scripture. In those times, it was much more difficult to obtain original-language manuscripts, and much more difficult to find people who were competent enough to analyze them (as St Jerome was).

Translation necessarily involves at least some change in meaning, and both men recognized that this was just a consequence of translation. We acknowledge this ourselves today when we say "well, let's just look at what the word meant in the original language".

St Augustine seems to have been worried that, in cases where such discrepancies between translations would be subjected to close examination, a schism might result over something minor because "just looking at the original language" simply wasn't an option in those times. This was a very legitimate practical concern. St Augustine would surely have been livid at the idea of changing the meaning of any biblical text for the sake of unity.

  For my part, I would much rather that you would furnish us with a translation of the Greek version ... For if your translation begins to be more generally read in many churches, it will be a grievous thing that, in the reading of Scripture, differences must arise between the Latin Churches and the Greek Churches, especially seeing that the discrepancy is easily condemned in a Latin version by the production of the original in Greek, which is a language very widely known; whereas, if any one has been disturbed by the occurrence of something to which he was not accustomed in the translation taken from the Hebrew, and alleges that the new translation is wrong, it will be found difficult, if not impossible, to get at the Hebrew documents by which the version to which exception is taken may be defended.

The Church wants unity, it wants absolutely everyone to be a Catholic, but being true to scripture is much more important. Catholics get their Truth from the infallible Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterium. "Consensus derived for the sake of unity" is not one of those three. The Church is not going to say "well, I guess we can let that slide, some people just interpret things in radically different ways that will lead them into sin and separation from Christ, but we should just respect their views, in opposition to what we know to be infallible, and they'll be more likely to join the Church". This is actually exactly why the Catholic Church has been so adamant in its views on abortion, contraception, homosexuality, female priests, and so on.


From a Fundamentalist standpoint, what does the phrase "Inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God" mean?

As noted in the question, these are layman's terms.  However, I am providing links to more official definitions, which have been used as source material.

Definition of the term "Inspired": The doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible means that the Bible in the original documents is God-breathed, that it is a divine product, and, because it is divine, the original documents are inerrant.

"inspired" does not mean "inspired" in the common sense, as in an artist is inspired to produce a great work, or a football team is inspired to perform better than normal due to a very motivational speech. In the doctrine of Divine Inspiration, the term carries the connotation that the words are the actual words of God.
Many cite 2 Timothy 3:16 as the source for the term "inspired".  The term "God Breathed" is translated from the Greek word "Theopneustos", which conveys the idea of God directly filled the writer with the necessary knowledge - the God breathed the knowledge into the writer.
From Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, we get two possible meanings for the idea of how this worked:

That every thought and word were inspired by God, and that the writer did nothing but merely write as the Spirit dictated.
That God gave the whole matter, leaving the inspired writers to their own language; and hence the great variety of style and different modes of expression.  (This is the understanding that is most common in Baptist Churches in particular, and in most Fundamentalist Churches in my admittedly limited experience.)

There are many, many verses in Scripture, other than 2 Timothy 3:16, that claim that the Bible is the direct Word of God, not that of man.  A more full treatment, including lists of such passages can be found at gospelgateway.com:
Note that inspiration and inerrancy are intertwined, but more specifically that they apply to the original documents.  Neither quality is attributed to translations o
and/or the copies of the original documents.
This leaves open the question of whether the translations we have today, all of which are based on copies, have been accurately transmitted through history.  Fortunately, we can answer that with a resounding "Yes, we can be very confident that what we have today is a fair representation of the original manuscripts".
It does mean that the Bible is the Word of God, not that it contains the Word of God.

Definition of "Inerrant": The doctrine of inerrancy stems from  the doctrine of inspiration.  Simply put, if all Scripture is indeed of God, then it cannot be erroneous.  God, being perfect, cannot make mistakes, and He has the power to ensure the original writers wrote down exactly what He intended.  A much fuller and more detailed exposition can be found in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

Again, as with Inspiration, the doctrine of inerrancy applies only to the original autographs, not to copies and translations.
The doctrine of inerrancy does not imply hyper-literalism.  As noted above, in the second possible mechanism for Biblical Inspiration, we believe God allowed the writer's literary style to be used in the writing of Scripture.  Hyperbole (the use of exaggeration as a figure of speech.  Example, "I'm so hungry, I could eat a horse.") is allowed.
It also does not imply that our interpretation (understanding) of Scripture is necessarily without error.  Verses taken out of context, differences in understanding of meaning and original phrases, cultural differences, and misunderstanding of the meaning of certain phrases at the time the original document was written can (and have) led to many disagreements over the meaning of Scripture.

Infallible has a stronger meaning than inerrant.  Inerrant means the Bible contains no errors.  Infallibility means it cannot contain errors; that is, it would not be possible.  Again, this concept is a direct result of the doctrine of inspiration.  The Bible cannot contain errors because it is wholly the inspired word of God.

Taken together, the statements do not mean we believe that we have a perfect understanding of Scripture.  They do not mean our current Scriptures are perfect, even if we remove our imperfect comprehension and understanding from the equation.

So, what does the phrase "The Bible is the Inspired, Inerrant Word of God" mean to a Fundamentalist?

In simple terms it means God's Word was originally, accurately, and perfectly recorded by the prophets, kings, peasants, fishermen, political leaders, a tax collector, a rabbi, a cupbearer, and ministers that God used.  It was originally perfect, through God's divine power.

Combined with the evidence that we have that it was, for the most part, transmitted accurately through time, and the high degree of confidence we have in the reliability of today's manuscripts, the phrase tells us we can trust the Scripture we have.  It is therefore up to study it, understand it, and weed out erroneous teachings.  As Christians, we have a responsibility to understand correct doctrine because God has provided us with the information we need to do so.  The phrase means God's word is indeed profitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

I wanted to include this summary, from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy but it didn't quite fit in with the above answer, as it's not really "Layman's Terms".  It is clear and concise, however.

  God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through
  Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture
  is God's witness to Himself.

  Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all
  matters upon which it touches: It is to be believed, as God's
  instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God's command, in all
  that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.
  The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its
  meaning.
  Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts
  in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own
  literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace
  in individual lives.
  The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited of disregarded, or made
  relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such
  lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.


What's the evangelical take on "Tebowing" and genuflection

Outside of the Roman Catholic context, genuflection is simply kneeling or bowing to show respect. There's no right or wrong time to do this; the Bible doesn't say we must be on one knee before we take communion, nor that we must not genuflect at any other time.

In evangelical meetings, genuflection is sometimes used; sometimes as a result of an invitation to do so corporately, and sometimes spontaneously as individuals. You're likely to see the latter more frequently in more charismatic churches, where individuals are encouraged to express their worship in their own way, and to see the former more in more conservative churches, where there tends to be more direction from the front. But there's no real rule that I'm aware of in any of the main evangelical churches that says you must genuflect at some particular times. You're just as likely to see the raising of hands, or taking up of other postures, in exactly the same way.

I know little of Tebow - I prefer the kind of football where the foot and the ball actually make contact - but it would seem he is prone to kneeling occasionally, perhaps before a big kick or something; this kind of behaviour certainly isn't uncommon in sport (Jonny Wilkinson springs to mind). He might be praying, he might just be focussing his mind - we don't know for sure. We do know it's not necessary to be on one knee in order to pray, but we also know that such a motion may help to focus his mind and spirit on God (assuming he is praying) amid the noise and bustle of the football stadium.


How do non-Sabbatarians interpret passages in Acts that show that the Gentiles attended synagogues on Sabbath?

It's simple,
Paul was going to established synagogues to meet with Jews to convert them to Christianity as is essentially stated in Acts 18:4. Those attending the synagogues were Jews or Jewish proselytes (The Greeks). None of these scriptural examples are of Christian Churches regularly meeting on the Sabbath. It just turns out that synagogues are a great place to meet people familiar with the scriptures, but are not yet Christians.


The Father is the source of everything.   (1 Co 8:6a).

   1 Corinthians 8:6 English Standard Version (ESV)
  6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist

Contra your question,  He is also the one who spoke through the prophets as per Hebrews 1:1-2.

He is also the maker of all things, and that through His Son at Hebrews 1:2.

  Hebrews 1:1-2 God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners, hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds. (ASV)


There are several reasons, but one of the most interesting to me is the cost of available materials.  We take cheap paper for granted, but even in the days of Paul, the raw materials for writing would have been expensive.  In his Introduction to the New Testament, Raymond Brown calculated that the cost of a paper and ink alone would have cost Paul the equivalent of about US$3000 in today's money just to write the Book of Romans.  That would not have necessarily even covered the cost of an Amanuensis to physically do the writing.

With prices like that just for the raw materials, one can understand why John would say in John 21:25

  Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written

The truth is, he probably couldn't have afforded it!


Are there any biblical incidents of people condemned for consensual premarital sex?

1 Corinthians 7 (ASV) says:

  8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
  9 But if they have not continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Adding to what @caseyr547 answered, I understand that in verses 7 and 8 the apostle Paul clearly states that any sexual contact between two unmarried couple should be avoided. If continence is not possible, marriage is the only choice besides the circumstances.

So the context of this chapter includes pre and posmarital sex in the concept of fornication.


Does the doctrine of Sola Scriptura prohibit the use of empirical information to understand the bible?

I will answer, because (as you may have noticed from my other answers) I'm about as "Sola Scriptura" as they come.

No.

Basically, we believe that Scripture was given by God as the standard for His people to use in determining truth.

  All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. - 2 Tim 3:16-17

(See also Titus 1:9.)  Since Scripture adequately equips you to correct false doctrine, that implies it is the standard of truth.

So the point is this: If a person teaches something contrary to Scripture, they are wrong.

That is not to say that everything outside of scripture is wrong (or "not from God")... just everything contrary.  Therefore we reject any teaching which opposes what we know (based on Scripture);

  We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ  - 2 Cor 10:5

So the only safe bet is to use Scripture as the foundation of all of your doctrine.  (Additional elements include understanding the Scriptures, being led by the Spirit, recognizing the teachers God has given, etc.)

So as I said, the answer to your question is "no."  In fact, studying history is incredibly helpful in understanding Scripture.  (When preparing for sermons, I have often found the NIV Archaeological Study Bible very helpful in bridging contexts between the ancient world and our own.)

I think the big distinction between Sola Scriptura and opposing views is that if the Bible says "X" and an external source says "Y", we consider the external source rubbish, whereas others may attempt to reconcile the two, sometimes by re-translating the Bible.


Can a Catholic be denied communion for the way they want to receive Communion?

Receiving the Communion on the tongue or kneeling is never a legal reason for denying Communion.
The instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum "On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist" of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments deals with this topic [bold by me]:

In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them”.[177] Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.

Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,[178] if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.[179]

[177] Code of Canon Law, can. 843 § 1; cf. can. 915.
[178] Cf. Missale Romanum, Institutio Generalis, n. 161.
[179] Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Dubium: Notitiae 35 (1999) pp. 160-161.

This passage comes in a series of "grave matters" (n. 173). I think most Catholic will find some of these "litugical abuses" in their parish, so it does not mean the "abuse" is rare. That it is explicitly named means instead it happens (in some regions) often.
If - on the other hand - such a rule of FNE is legal, is another question and remains open.


Are there any Christians who are partially cessationist with regard to the gifts of the Spirit?

Actually the majority of Protestant Evangelicals hold this view that you describe - the view that is in the middle.
This is because the view that all the gifts have ceased is patently absurd at every level, and if this were true- then there could not be pastors.
There is no mention anywhere that there is some special exception for pastors and evangelists.
The ones in the middle react to the abuse done by some who take verses about Languages/tongues out of context and in some Pentecostal churches, there can be

10, 15, or 40 or more people, all praying in tongues at once and
with no interpretation- both explicitly violating Paul's teaching on use of tongues in the church.

Additionally the majority of Protestant denominations deny that this is the litmus test of being filled with the spirit- which some Charismatic groups teach.
These middle groups mostly teach that the gifts are alive and for believers today except for the "so-called sign or miraculous gifts", which are prophecy, (sometimes equated as "word of knowledge") tongues and healing.
This is the teaching of most Baptist, Freewill Baptists, Nazarenes, Bible Methodists, and Church of God Holiness and many  Independent.
As for scripture to support this view - there isn't any.
The Evangelical Free Church of America is a great example of the balance of scripture and the purpose of the gifts Each church is autonomous and self governed.
They teach that all the gifts are alive today and for all believers- but all for edifying (building up) the body of christ. When 99% of people speak the same language, its not practical or efficient to have someone stand up and teach in a foreign language.
If someone has a prophetic word- or Word of Knowledge- they take it to the elders.
When there There are foreign special guests, they have an interpreter, which sits beside them and interprets for them, and if it's a special guest speaker, then his sermon or testimony is interpreted for the entire body, because the majority doesn't speak Danish, or Korean, etc.
Gifts of healing are alive and in use today but you don't order which gifts you want like a Spiritual Christmas list and it's not like a "magic switch or button."
The Holy Spirit determines if and when someone is healed.
It's a very solid, biblically based and practical approach which places a lot of weight on the context - how and where is the gift being used.
These gifts are used in the context of Growth groups or Home groups.  Not in corporate worship.
Prophecy is taught as not being "spooky" or seeing the future, but rather something that is revealed by the Holy Spirit, and should always be weighed/ tested against scripture so you don't have "God told me to divorce my wife" kind of thing.


Protestant Interpretation of John 20:23 in Light of Matthew 9:8?

Jesus says,

  As the Father has sent Me, even so I send you.

so the question to start, How did the father send Jesus?

John 12:49

  For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.

john 5:19

  19 Then Jesus answered and said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner.

So Jesus was not picking for himself who to forgive, who to heal, rather he was doing that which the Father willed.

Now, jesus says that he sends the disciples in the same manner,

So we can understand that its not up to the disciples to "pick and choose" who to forgive and who to hold accountable, but rather to do the will of the father also. just like jesus said,

  who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak."

In the same way, the disciples had a message entrusted to them.

  And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

So the core of the Gospel message is the forgiveness of Sins. This is what humanity is in need of.
The bible says we are enemies of God, seperated by our Sins
Collosians 1:21-23

  21 And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled 22 in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight— 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

So this forgiveness of Sins is achieved through faith in the Gospel, the Good News of Christs death on our behalf, his paying the penalty for sin, and Rising again, defeating Death.

The ever famous Ephesians 2:8-9

  8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Peter shows us in the book of Acts that he understood that forgiveness of Sins was offered by God to those who would believe in the Gospel in repentance.

  42 And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. 43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.”

Note Pete says "Whoever believes in him WILL recieve remission of Sins.
He does not say, ask me nicely and i will give you forgiveness of sins. he affirms that God forgives sins, but he has been "commanded" to preach this message of forgiveness

See what Paul says about this
2 Corinthians 5:18-20

  All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling[b] the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

So God has made one way for the forgiveness of sins, Faith in the savior Christ, and his work on our behalf. and he has entrusted this "Ministry of reconciliation" or forgiveness of sins, to all his chosen people.

Now to address the second scripture you provided from Matthew,

  And Jesus, having seen their faith, said to the paralytic, Take courage, son; thy sins have been forgiven!

This fits extremely well with what we have said so far, Upon seeing their Faith jesus responds your sins have been forgiven.

So they put their faith in Jesus, and Their sins were forgiven.

Now on to the peoples response,

  And the crowds seeing [this] marveled, and glorified God, Who gave such authority to men.

If we know anything from studying the bible, its that the people around Jesus almost never got anything right. I think we can see it this way here. The crowd is only looking at jesus as a miracle worker. maybe a prophet or a great teacher. Their response specifically emphasizes their understanding of him as a Human, completely missing the fact he is also God, the Christ.

Paul mentions this in 2 Corinthians 5:16

  16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer.

He says, there was a time when we didnt realize Christ was more than just a man. This is where the crowd is at here in Matthew.

So that is a protestant understanding of the verses in question. Very long winded, but had to cover a lot of ground to really give you a clear answer about it. i hope this helps.


Non-Catholic and more obscure alternatives to an exorcism?

A resource that you should find helpful in your endeavour is Don Basham's Deliver us From Evil, A Pastor's reluctant encounters with the powers of darkness.

My recollection of the book is that Basham is (or was) actually a Baptist pastor, though I don't remember the variety.


Is to ignore Satan also to underestimate the potential he has to assault the Christian?

If we could ignore Satan knowing he has nothing against us, we wouldn't need to pay any attention to the scriptures that say

  Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about
  like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. 1Pe 5:8

  The night is far spent, the day is at hand. Therefore let us cast off
  the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light. Rom 13:12

  Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Jam 4:7

  above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to
  quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. Eph 6:16

All these verses suggest that Satan's threats are as real as his potential for harm. Our fight against the enemy does not end until he is cast into darkness with Death (Rev 20:14).


Do Protestants believe Jesus misquoted Psalm 8:2 in Matthew 21:16?

The issue of New Testament quotations of the Old Testament is broad and well-studied, so it's well worth reading a book like John Wenham's Christ and the Bible to get a feel for the complexities.

For example, not only is there a diverse manuscript tradition for the gospels, there are also multiple versions of the Septuagint, and there's always the possibility that even a particular reading in the Masoretic text is not faithful to the original inspired text.  And even more fundamentally, it is thought that Jesus spoke in Aramaic, so what appears in Matthew is a translation into Greek.  This just scratches the surface – there are many ways to explain the divergence between the OT text and NT quotations.

However, in this case, the most common explanation Protestants give is that "praise" is a legitimate translation of the Hebrew word found in the Masoretic text in Ps 8:2.  R. T. France is a respected Anglican NT scholar, and in New International Commentary on Matthew, 789, he writes:

  The psalm speaks of how God the creator silences his enemies by means of "strength" (so the Hebrew) which comes from the mouths of children.  "Strength" is often ascribed to God in a formula of praise (e.g., Pss 29:1; 59:16–17; 68:34–35), and when that "strength" issues from mouths it is not hard to see why LXX translated it as "praise."  The LXX version makes the relevance of the text to Jesus' situation in the temple more explicit, but the underlying sense of the Hebrew also is of vindication by what children say, and it is that sense of which Jesus' quotation here depends.

He also cites other scholars, particularly R. H. Gundry and K. Stendahl, to defend the Septuagint's choice of translating the Hebrew word 'ōz as "praise" instead of "strength":

His mention of "instruments of strength" in 2 Chr 30:21 is particularly interesting – it demonstrates the close relationship between "strength" and "praise" when this Hebrew word is used in this context.

So there's no need, then, to assume that Jesus "misquoted" the inspired text.  Instead it seems likely that he emphasized a legitimate, but not necessarily the only, meaning or sense of the word in question.