Are there any Protestant denominations or churches that reject penal substitution?

Not all Anglicans have held to Penal Substitution Theory.  For example, the nineteenth to early 20th century Anglican bishop Charles Ellicott did not.  See his commentary on Galatians 3, for example.  The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion does not express Penal Substitutionary Atonement.  So, if you look at some of the continuing Anglican denominations you may find a church that is Protestant but does not hold to Penal Substitution Theory. Some of those continuing denominations are "Anglo-Catholic", so I'm not sure they are actually Protestant.

I am in a denomination called the Federation of Reformed Churches.  I do not hold to Penal Substitution Theory.  I've expressed this in a paper sent to my fellow Presbyters.  None of them attempted to bring any charge against me.  So, there are Reformed Presbyters who can tell the difference between theory and scriptural data and have some appreciation of the history of the doctrine of Christ as our propitiatory sacrifice.

It is interesting to note that Calvin did not write his view on penal substitution theory into either the Geneva Confession of 1536 or the later French Confession.  (There is some question as to whether Calvin wrote those documents or just influenced them.)  Calvin seems to have been more careful of such things than the Lutherans and many of the other Reformed, such as Ursinus.

There have been Reformed believers and are at least some now who do not hold to Penal Substitution Theory. Furthermore, it is not hard to find Arminian teachers who do hold to it.  So I do not think that holding to or not holding to the theory has any direct relationship to one's doctrine of free will.


Can we know the exact date of Resurrection?

It is indeed possible to calculate, within a few hours, the timings of full moons in the first century. Stochastic variations mean we cannot be more accurate.

The question asks whether we can apply the knowledge that there was a full moon on Nisan 14 to narrow down the possible years it could have been. Unfortunately this does not help. This is because Nisan like all Jewish and Islamic months only starts when the new moon is sighted. This means there is always a full moon on, or very close to, Nisan 14. We would be looking for a full moon occuring 14 days after a new moon became visible. Not a distinguishing feature.

Because the Resurrection was Sunday, and the Crucifixion believed to be Friday, this means that we are looking for a year in which the full moon was Thursday or Friday. We know there was a full moon on Thursday evening, April 6th, 30AD; and one on Friday afternoon, April 3rd, 33AD. In other years in the late twenties and early thirties the full moon was on a different weekday.

These dates are calculated according to the Roman calendar (Julian). We cannot say, with certainty, what date in the Jewish calendar, used in the first century,  was the equivalent to a Roman date. In principle these dates should have been Nissan 14. However the start of a month depended on actually seeing the crescent moon, and this depennded partly on the weather and the amount of sand in the air.

Furtermore, although the temple authorities aimed to ensure the Nisan full moon was the first full moon in Spring, there were other considerations. If there was a risk that the Nisan full moon would happen before the equinox they interposed an extra month, making Nisan later. Two other considerations were that the barley and wheat were developing. If they were not Nisan might be postponed leading to the Nisan full moon being the second full moon of Spring. This was because a barley offering was made at Passover time, and a Wheat offering at Pentecost. If the winter weather persisted later than usual Nisan might not be announced at the expected time.

We do not know the exact dates, in Roman terms, on which Passover occurred. We do know there was always a full moon on or close to Nisan 14, but that doesn't help.

The reason  AD30 and AD33 are the main candidates, rather than nearby years, is purely because the full moon was Thursday evening and Friday afternoon respectively.


For Jehovah's Witnesses, what are the ingredients to the bread and the wine?

To find a proper answer to this good question, have a look at their 12/15 2013 Watchtower magazine. The paragraphs 5-7, under the subtitle 'The Emblems' should interest you.

As a summary, the bread was made from wheat flour and water, without any leaven or seasoning, such as salt, being added. Because it was unleavened, it would not have risen.

[UPDATE] They recently edited a video on how to make the bread : How to Make Memorial Bread

For the wine, as there was no need for augmenting or fortifying the value of Jesus’ blood, the wine used is not a type fortified with brandy or spices. Plain red wine should be used, a homemade wine or a commercial wine, such as Beaujolais, Burgundy, or Chianti.


What is an overview of Christian viewpoints on whether evangelized gentiles are expected to tithe?

I fear this post might turn out to be one of those “Too Long/Didn’t Read” answers, but that’s the problem in asking for an overview.  In light of the history of tithing (below) it would be remiss to ignore events from 567 to the Protestant Reformation so here is a brief historical overview:

In the early Christian Church the custom of consecrating to religious purposes a tenth of the income was voluntary, and it was not made obligatory until the Council of Tours in 567.  The second Council of Macon, in 585, enjoined the payment of tithes under pain of excommunication; and Charlemagne, by his capitularies, formally established the practice within those portions of the ancient Roman Empire to which his legislation extended.

The introduction of tithes into England is ascribed to Offa, king of Mercia, at the close of the 8th century; and the usage passed into other divisions of Saxon England, and was finally made general by Ethelwolf. They were made obligatory in Scotland in the 9th century, and not long after in Ireland. At first the choice of the Church to whom a person paid tithes was optional; but by a decretal of Innocent III, addressed to the archbishop of Canterbury in 1200, all were directed to pay to the clergy of their respective parishes.

The Disestablishment Act of 1869 abolished tithes and created a common fund for the support of the Protestant Episcopal Church and clergy. In France tithes were abolished at the Revolution, and this example was followed by the other Continental countries. In the Canadian provinces of Quebec, tithes are still collected by virtue of the old French law, yet in force there. In the United States, tithes are exacted by the Mormon hierarchy. See Bingham, Christ. Antiq. bk. 5, ch. 5, § 1 sq.
[Copyright Statement: These files are public domain.  Bibliography Information: McClintock, John. Strong, James. Entry for 'Tithes'. Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature]  Source: https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/eng/mse/t/tithes.html

Views of churches that support tithing:
The following extract from a Catholic source refers to Genesis 14 and 28 and tithes paid by Abraham to Melchisedech and tithes paid by Jacob.  It also mentions Leviticus 27:30, Deuteronomy 14:22 and Numbers 18:21 regarding the tithes that had to be given to the sons of Levi (the priests).  There is also an interesting paragraph showing how tithes were common in the ancient world, for example the “Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, and later, the Mohammedans”.

Tithe - Generally defined as "the tenth part of the increase arising from the profits of land and stock, allotted to the clergy for their support or devoted to religious or charitable uses". A more radical definition is "the tenth part of all fruits and profits justly acquired, owed to God in recognition of his supreme dominion over man, and to be paid to the ministers of the church".

The payment of tithes was adopted from the Old Law, and early writers speak of it as a divine ordinance and an obligation of conscience. The earliest positive legislation on the subject seems to be contained in the letter of the bishops assembled at Tours in 567 and the canons of the Council of Maçon in 585. In course of time, we find the payment of tithes made obligatory by ecclesiastical enactments in all the countries of christendom. The Church looked on this payment as "of divine law, since tithes were instituted not by man but by the Lord Himself." (C. 14, X de decim. III, 30) https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14741b.htm

You have already provided links to show that tithing is compulsory within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithing_in_Mormonism
and Seventh Day Adventists: https://www.adventist.org/articles/use-of-tithe/
Those articles are self-explanatory and I do not intend to extract information on why they hold that view or present the scriptures they use in support of tithing.
Although most Protestant churches do not insist on tithing, but encourage voluntary giving, there are exceptions. For example, the United Methodist Church:

Wesley says, “Render unto God, not a tenth, not a third, not half, but all that is God’s.” For some of us, after earning and saving all we can, while caring for our family’s basic needs, there may not be much left over. For others, there may be much, indeed. Whatever that is, we say, give it all!

The United Methodist Church, in its Book of Discipline, emphasizes tithing as a “minimum goal of giving” and encourages local churches to find creative ways to become “tithing congregations with an attitude of generosity.”  The church asks all those being ordained to “teach and model generous Christian giving with a focus on tithing as God’s standard of giving.”  Source:  https://www.umc.org/en/content/ask-the-umc-what-does-the-united-methodist-church-teach-about-tithing

As for Baptists, I found an old question on Christianity Stack that gives a brief overview:

Baptists encourage tithing, but do not require it. More frequently, they equate "stewardship" with obedience, and their definition of stewardship includes cheerful and sacrificial giving, which "goes beyond the tithe" to also include acts of service.  Not Tithing Is Stealing? (Baptist perspective)

I can vouch for the fact that Baptist churches in England and in Scotland do not view tithing as compulsory although they (rightly) point out that members of the church should contribute towards the upkeep of the church, which includes paying the minister an annual stipend.
Scriptures that are used by churches that do not support tithing:  This is based on the Christian understanding that the Mosaic Law (which included regulations on all the various tithes expected from the Israelites) has been fulfilled in Christ Jesus and Christians are no longer under that Law:

Colossians 2:14: [God] having cancelled the written code with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

2 Corinthians 9:7: Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, For God loves a cheerful giver.

Is this a controversial topic or does there appear to be consensus among the majority of denominations?
Tithing was not made obligatory until the Council of Tours in 567 and my understanding is that it is compulsory within the Catholic Church.  By the time we get to the 19th century, most Protestant churches adopted a much more relaxed approach to financial giving (I think handing over one-tenth of your crops disappeared hundreds of years ago).  Since our eternal salvation does not depend upon adhering to a legalistic approach to tithing, I think it would be safe to say that most Protestants do not find the subject controversial.  Those who want to give a percentage of their income every month can do so, but nobody insists it has to be a minimum of 10%.  People give what they can.


What does it mean that Christ experience death for me?

I think I understand your question, but not fully. Here is my answer based on my understanding.  You asked: "Because of Christ's death, what does death mean for me?"
Christ felt everything we have gone through (joy, pain, sorrow, etc), and suffered for it in the Garden.
Alma 7:11-12 Book of Mormon

11 And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people. 12 And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities.

He died on the cross for us and decended below all things so he could feel our pain, so he would know how to succor us:
Doctrine and Covenants 19:15-19

15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not. 16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; 17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; 18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—  19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.

So what does His death mean for us? It means that we can repent and become clean again as Isaiah promised
Isaiah 1:18

18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Now as pertaining to what happens to your spirit once you die, the best scriptural account I have read is from The Book of Mormon in Alma 40

11 Now, concerning the state of the soul between death and the resurrection—Behold, it has been made known unto me by an angel, that the spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body, yea, the spirits of all men, whether they be good or evil, are taken home to that God who gave them life.
12 And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of those who are righteous are received into a state of happiness, which is called paradise, a state of rest, a state of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care, and sorrow.
13 And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of the wicked, yea, who are evil—for behold, they have no part nor portion of the Spirit of the Lord; for behold, they chose evil works rather than good; therefore the spirit of the devil did enter into them, and take possession of their house—and these shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity, being led captive by the will of the devil.
14 Now this is the state of the souls of the wicked, yea, in darkness, and a state of awful, fearful looking for the fiery indignation of the wrath of God upon them; thus they remain in this state, as well as the righteous in paradise, until the time of their resurrection.
15 Now, there are some that have understood that this state of happiness and this state of misery of the soul, before the resurrection, was a first resurrection. Yea, I admit it may be termed a resurrection, the raising of the spirit or the soul and their consignation to happiness or misery, according to the words which have been spoken.

I hope I understood your question correctly, if not, please clarify and I will see if I can answer differently.


Were Malachi and Isaiah normally bound or grouped together?

Rick Watts, a New Testament Professor at Regent College, wrote this article in response to a reader's question raising the same issue.  It turns out the discrepancy was already noted as far back as in the 4th century A.D. by St. Jerome, the famous Latin Vulgate translator!

It looks like the earliest manuscripts left "in Isaiah" intact while later manuscripts made the adjustment, thinking that Mark made a mistake, as St. Jerome observed "O Apostle Peter, your son Mark, not in the flesh but in the Spirit, has made a mistake."  So those later manuscripts inappropriately tampered with the text and changed it to "in the prophets".  It looks like KJV used a later manuscript while modern translations like NASB and ESV used an earlier manuscript.

Dr. Watts wrote that there was a pattern in the Gospel of Mark, when bringing together separate texts to form a composite citation that "mutually inform and interpret one another" (in this case Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1).  Mark, following common 1st century practice, would cite only the most important author that provides the "primary interpretative horizon", which in this case is Isaiah.


Reasons (my rantings) we can't talk to God -

Result of our sin.

  Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

We all inherit the sin of Adam. Adam could talk directly to God but as we fell from grace we lost access to divine grace. But one day we would talk to Him directly.

As a test.

If one could see God face to face, Adolf Hitler would be singing glory hallelujah with tambourines and drums. No one would commit a crime in front of the police. Absence of God from the scene serves to separate the wheat from the chaff.

For our own good.

Those who could be in the presence of God and behaved as we did would drop dead in a second. As Christians we are supposed to go through this life building character and learning to resist sin so that we could be in the presence of Holiness.

God doesn't like hollywood style dramatic dialogues.

And neither does Satan. In real life you will never see Satan appear as Pazuzu. He comes in much more subtle forms. Its the whole concept of free will. Both Holy Spirit and Satan will only suggest things to you. You have to act upon them of your own free will. If Satan or God appeared before you and commanded you to do something there's very less of free will left. This is why God appeared to Ezekiel in all His glory but not to Israel.

  Ezekiel 1:4 "I looked, and I saw a windstorm coming out of the north
  —an immense cloud with flashing lightning and surrounded by brilliant
  light. The center of the fire looked like glowing metal."

If he had appeared to Israel in that form they would've repented in ashes. But then as He says elsewhere

  2 Opinions 3:1 "Thou shalt repent if thou art sorrowful in thine
  heart, not because I am the master of special effects."

Speaking to God won't produce faith.

Adam spoke to God, that didn't keep him from sinning. So did Cain, Solomon and most importantly - Satan.
The disciples had the same doubt as you do -

  Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, "But, Lord, why do you intend to
  show yourself to us and not to the world?" Jesus replied, "If anyone
  loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we
  will come to him and make our home with him.

If we do not love or obey Him nothing will produce faith -

  Luke 16:31 " ... they will not be convinced even if someone rises from
  the dead."

Perhaps the same reason why the president won't talk to me.

Let's not be proud and forget our own positions in relation to God. It amazes me how I usually assign more respect to my earthly masters than to God himself.

  Ecclesiastes 5:2 "God is in heaven and you are on earth, so let your
  words be few."

Perhaps He's afraid that once he engages me I just won't stop chattering. (True story)


Do people have the ability to truly love God, without God guiding them into loving him?

Here is how I would explain the viewpoint behind the comments you quote in your question. I do hold a belief about the nature of people that says that since the fall they are inherently bad, totally corrupt. This doesn't mean they were created that way, just that the corruption that we inherit from the first Adam is so complete that we can do nothing truly good or right on our own volition. This is commonly known as the doctrine of Total Depravity. You might check the entry on Theopedia, and articles such as this or this for an overview of how this doctrine is derived from Scripture.

Rather than defend that doctrine here, I simply want to point out that your question hinges on it. You ask:

  So ultimately only a divine intervention can make a person love God?

To answer this, one possible way of defining what it looks like for a human to love God would be this way:

  John 14:15
  “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

Yet if we apply this simple test to humanity and ask, "Do they keep his commandments?" we are left with the bleak conclusion that there are indeed none who keep God's commandments as God intended.

  Romans 3:12
  All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.

Of course that isn't the end of the story. Again your question posed whether only a divine intervention can make a person love God. Christianity's answer to that is yes, and that divine intervention has taken place. That divine intervention is very poetically prophesied about in Ezekiel.

  Ezekiel 11:19-20
  And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in my statutes and keep my rules and obey them. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God.

This is grace. Unmerited favor: a divine intervention to transform undeserving fallen humans  into creatures capable of loving that which they once hated.

There are of course Christian traditions that do not hold this view. Perhaps most notably, Catholicism has a different take on the issue. While they agree that man in his fallen state is incapable of doing any works that could affect his salvation apart from the Grace of Jesus, they disagree on how total the fallen state is concluding that the heart of men is not really dead to God, only wounded. While they understand salvation to be affected by God, they think man is capable of acting as an initiator in this process. Likewise several Protestant traditions hold that man in his fallen state is still capable of making some good choices.

In doing so, Reformed Theology would argue, they replace some aspect of grace with some aspect of works. If men can and do in their natural state "choose" to love God and that makes them eligible for salvation, salvation ceases to be purely a grace bestowed by God and his sovereign will in the matter becomes eclipsed by ours to whatever measure men are thought to be capable of deserving anything.


Did the Council of Trent define rules for encasing Relics?

Council of Trent and rubrics

A word search of the English version of the Proceedings of the Council of Trent did not, when the term relic shows up, address that detail.  There may have been other supplemental guidance offered under various papal bulls or decrees, but in the Council of Trent's issued declarations that detail is not found.

The prose declarations made on pages 233-237 address the veneration of saints and various prohibitions in unverified new relics, or unseemly depictions of saints, but not a rubric on how a relic is to be packaged.  The Council did rule that relics required review and authentication by the episcopal authority in order to be permitted for public veneration.

While another council may have included such rubrics on reliquaries, the Council of Trent appears not to have done so.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on reliquaries:

  Lastly it will be sufficient to point out that relics have at all
  times been kept in simple caskets or boxes, varying indefinitely in
  size, material, and ornamentation. In more modern times these are
  invariably secured by a seal, and the contents indicated in a formal
  episcopal act of authentication, without which it is not Lawful to
  expose the relics for public veneration. The silver box containing the
  head of St. Agnes, recently brought to light in the treasury of the
  Sancta Sanctorum, still preserved the seal of some cardinal deacon
  affixed to it apparently at the end of the thirteenth century.

Of the various documents available regarding relics and reliquaries, the consistent requirement is that any relic (to be a relic as opposed to something else) must be accompanied by an episcopal documentation of authenticity.  While that isn't a matter of "packaging" or handling, it looks like a hard requirement.

  SACRED RELICS
  The Collectio Rerum Liturgicarum of Rev. Joseph Wuest, C.SS.R., Latin - 1889
  Matters Liturgical by Rev. Thomas Mullaney, C.SS.R., English translation - 1925

  Authenticity of Relics. Only those relics can be honored with a public cult in churches, even though exempt, which are certified as
  genuine in an authentic document of a Cardinal, a local Ordinary, or
  an ecclesiastic to whom the faculty of authenticating relics has been
  granted by  apostolic indult (c. 1283, 1).

  b) Without a special mandate a Vicar General cannot authenticate a
  relic, even if there is merely question of authenticating a relic
  taken from a relic already duly authenticated, or of issuing a new
  certificate of authenticity, or of placing a seal upon an
  authenticated relic (c. 1283, 2; CODE COMM.: JULY 17, 1933).

  c) Local Ordinaries shall prudently withdraw from public veneration
  any relic which they know is certainly not authentic (c. 1284).

  d) If the documents of their authenticity have been lost as a result
  of civil disturbance or some other mishap, sacred relics shall not be
  exposed for public veneration without the express approval of the
  local Ordinary; this approval cannot be given by the Vicar General
  without a special mandate (c. 1285, 1).

  e) What is stated above (d), does not apply to ancient relics. These
  shall be venerated in the same way as heretofore, unless for reasons
  that are certain it is evident that the relics are false or
  supposititious (c. 1285,2).

About Lockets

You will find on pages 18 and 19 of this document a description of "The Authentic" and some of the details of authentication to include the affixing of seals and the use of crossed threads.

  Underneath the back cover of the relic locket there is a seal of red
  wax.  The relic secured in place in the locket by threads that cross
  over it.  The threads are inserted through the walls of the locket on
  the opposing sides and it is sealed shut with a wax seal bearing the
  insignia of issuing religious authority and there order's initials.
  This seal and its locking procedure (threads and seal) should never be
  broken or cut.  It protects the integrity and validity of the
  authentication.

Source/caveat: Public Veneration and Exhibit Manual; 2000; Thomas J Serafin; (ICHRusa).  That makes this a contemporary source.


What belief system would combine both elements from Calvinism and Arminianism?

There are a few that attempt to do so. Both Calvinists and Arminians would say that any such attempt is internally inconsistent.

I don't know of any "universally acknowledged system" of theology that does so, except perhaps for Amyraldism, which denies limited atonement but affirms the other four points of Calvinism. (Any Protestant denying a point of Calvinism is necessarily affirming the corresponding point in Arminianism, and vice versa.) In non-confessional churches you'll find Calvinists and Arminians freely intermingling and you'll find one-, two-, three-, or four-point Calvinists. There is great diversity in Christendom on these things, but as I said, I don't think you'll find any system of theology seamlessly incorporating one element of Calvinism with one element of Arminianism.


The Bible is made up of many different "books", or documents, compiled into a single volume. The traditional Protestant Bible has 66 books.  The Catholic Bible uses 73.  Some other Christian groups also use a few other religious texts, that are usually referenced in the same way.

Each book is divided into chapters (apart from the very short ones, where there is only one chapter) and each chapter is divided into verses.

So Revelation 21:5 (NIV) refers to the book of Revelation, the 21st chapter, the 5th verse, in the NIV (New International Version) translation.

You will most commonly (at least in the U.S.) see verses referenced as:

[Book] [chapter]:[verse] for a single verse
[Book] [chapter]:[verse]-[verse] for multiple verses
[Book] [chapter] for an entire chapter
[Book] [chapter]:[verse]-[chapter]:[verse] for a selection spanning multiple chapters

A small number of books in the Bible have only a single chapter, so then the convention is:

[Book] [verse] for a single verse
[Book] [verse]-[verse] for multiple verses

Often, the name or abbreviation of the translation used will follow, often in parenthesis. This is most customary when quoting the verse that is referenced.

A few other less commonly used notations are:

[Book] [chapter]:[verse],[verse] to reference multiple, non-consecutive verses
[Book] [chapter]:[verse][a,b,c..] to reference the first (a), second (b), etc, sentence of the verse. This addition can be imprecise, as the original greek and hebrew lack punction, so sentence breaks must be inferred by translators, with varying results.
[Book] [chapter]:[verse]ff to indicate "this verse, and following"

Also note that you will occasionally see, in place of a colon (:), a period (.) or the lowercase letter v.  As in:

Revelation 21.5
Revelation 21v5


The Power of Satan over Believers and Unbelievers

When we consider where this 'permission' comes from we can answer points 1. & 2.  First, every molecule in the universe, in a sense needs permission to do anything, because God is infinite in power. An infinite God can not allow anything to be done, without his permission. Therefore, for the Devil to exist, he needs, in a sense, God's permission. However the permission you are referring to is an abstraction from that more general permission and pertains to God's particular sovereignty, in rare specific cases. Here we are really dealing with God's sovereign control over the universe and we can have a window into it by this verse:

  And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. (NIV Romans 8:28-30)

(I have posted some details about this verse here, which supports this post, if you are interested in more details.)

This takes care of (1.) because for the elect God has planned out his blessing from eternity, so there can be no point where the Devil is not 'bound in chains' (Mark 3:27, Rev 20) in terms of the limits of his cruelty which he can unleash upon the elect.

With regard to (2.) I would say that the Devil is also clearly under the chains of God to limit his ability to inflict cruelty, otherwise, the whole world would due dead, or worshipping him, or some other great evil which we could not imagine. However this is a different case because he already has permission to rule their minds as he is the prince of darkness and ruler of the world.

The problem with all of this is our understanding of 'permission'.  In general the Devil does not seem to need permission to carry on his work, but as he runs into brick walls of protection by God, he is bound. He is sort of free to cause havoc, without every second running to God for permission.

  Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.(NIV 1 Peter 5:8)

However, in very narrow cases, such as Job and Peter, the Bible moves into a special circumstance when God seems to remove part of his protection for mysterious purposes that align with the Devil's wishes. These mysterious cases are called a kind of'permission' with Job and Peter. usually the Bible does not indicate that the Devil is asking God anything, but Job and Peter are on God's and the Devils radar specifically, so there cases have special attention in the bible. In fact God is the one who brings up Job! But these specific cases are still examples that not only work out higher blessing in those two person's lives (Romans 8:28-30) but draw out principles for us all who read them.

It is not really in line with scripture to think of the Devil as asking special permissions all the time, and God sometimes granting them and sometimes not. Rather God has generally granted the Devil to go about as he pleases under strict limits, and sometimes let's him go a little further when it suits God perfect will in working our his mysterious purposes in peoples lives and manifesting his glory to men. Both Christians and non Christians are i this open field of spiritutual warfare. Since this is the landscape God also wants us to enter into the conflict because it is not all going on without the effect of our own choices and decisions. We are to wrestles and pray because it makes a difference to the level of 'protection' we have obtained. This protection is primarily from sin.  Therefore we are to 'wrestle' that means constant, tiring close contact, unlike boxing, or shooting.(Ephesians 6:12)


What is the basis for the Roman Catholic teaching regarding the Sin of Presumption?

This question actually touches on two topics.

Firstly, and most directly, it's asking for some elaboration on the Church's teaching about the vice of presumption. From the Catholic Encyclopedia,

  Presumption is here considered as a vice opposed to the theological
  virtue of hope. It may also be regarded as a product of pride. It may
  be defined as the condition of a soul which, because of a badly
  regulated reliance on God's mercy and power, hopes for salvation
  without doing anything to deserve it, or for pardon of his sins
  without repenting of them.

Reading onward, several examples or types of presumption are presented. Ultimately, the "sin of presumption" is the presumption that God will forgive all sins, regardless of the sinner's disposition towards those sins, or with minimal effort in repenting. Or, in some particularly twisted cases, one might presume all of their own sins will be forgiven, somewhat regardless of their effort and sincerity in repenting.

So, while I can't offer an official list of biblical references to support this teaching, I think, when clarified as such, it becomes more obvious where the biblical basises and echos of this teaching are. I think this is most obvious in cases where Christ forgives someone:

  Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they?
  Has no one condemned you?” She replied, “No one, sir.” Then Jesus
  said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, [and] from now on do not sin any
  more.” (John 8:10-11)

Christ forgives the woman's sins and then commands her to sin no more. Forgiveness comes with a demand for repentance. Presumably, we can reject that forgiveness by neglecting to repent.

From a more theological basis, the Kingdom of God entails operating within the confines of God's will. In fact, the delight of God's Kingdom is precisely in God's will. Therefore, if we're not actively seeking to refine ourselves into alignment with God, it's not God's Kingdom we're really after. It's our own personal kingdom -- hell, in a word. And if hell is what we're actively working towards, forgiveness is moot; we're not asking for forgiveness.

So, I think the Catholic Church is trying to make it clear, by this teaching, that lip-service and half-hearted efforts are an indication that the sinner isn't really interested in God or God's Kingdom. It's an indication that the sinner is self-interested and self-loving to the point of believing forgiveness is only a formality or a form they need to fill out so they can enter the gate, allowing the rest of God's Kingdom to bask in their own personal awesomeness. And in such a state, while God may still be perfectly willing to accept this charming soul into His kingdom, that charming soul has no sincere interest in being there.

Secondly, you've noted a sense of uncertainty about one's own salvation. And while I don't know that I could easily locate sources for this, it is a general attitude of the Church that each individuals salvation is uncertain. In general, we claim a great deal of ignorance as to who and how many are saved. Is Hitler in hell, for instance? We have no idea. Some individuals within the Church are pretty certain he is; others are hopeful he isn't -- that no one is.

This concept can then be extended into the sin of presumption. In addition to the requirement that we acknowledging that all salvation is an unwarranted gift, it's also a mystery. The Church may believe itself to hold the "keys" to the Kingdom of Heaven. But, by no means can it force anyone through the gate. And we, as individuals, must acknowledge regularly that we get lost, mis-informed, etc.

It's seems it's precisely at the moment we attain satisfaction with our triumphs against sin that we're in the greatest danger of damnation. So, we do well to proceed with some uncertainty.


Who changed the Sabbath to Sunday according to the Seventh Day Adventists?

Seventh day adventist would argue that the sabbath has not been changed to Sunday.

However what you are referring to is when in history did the change creep into doctrine. The information you have is correct, first Constantine made the decree for the festivals on Sunday. This made it easier for christians to simply follow along without fear of persecution.

The pope did eventually make Sunday a day of rest at some point in the future. (I don't have the date) but many christians already were gathering on that day.


Do Cessationists believe that the Holy Spirit still speaks specific messages or instructions to Christians today?

This is from an article in Tabletalk magazine, which is produced by Ligonier Ministries.  It is written by Robert Rothwell and supposses to be the voice of Reformed Christianity on the topic of cessationism.  There is much in the article describing the purpose of audible contact from the HS to the individual and why those purposes are expired.

We cessationists do not believe that the Spirit is unable to speak through prophets today, but only that He has chosen not to. We cessationists believe that the Spirit can and often does heal people in unexpected ways when we pray for them. We believe that the Holy Spirit speaks to us through the sound exposition of His Word. We believe that He opens and closes doors for us and even arranges providential “coincidences” in our lives. In fact, I contend that traditional Reformed cessationism has a higher view of the Spirit’s power and freedom than traditional continuationism. This is because we confess that the Spirit must bring dead souls to life in order for us to believe; that He must do so without our asking, for in our spiritually dead state outside of Christ we will not ask for new life; and that He does so for only those whom He freely chooses and at the moment of His own choosing.

It appears as though, for the cessationist, communication of the Spirit to the individual believer is limited to "sound exposition of the Word" rather than a voice which tells us to "go here" or "do this".
*Note: I do not hold this position by doctrine nor by experience.


Is there a word for describing the existence of a unique or controversial interpretation of Christianity within a denomination?

A standard term for this is the noun distinctive.  It is used to identify the beliefs or practices that separate one denomination or tradition from another, as opposed to those beliefs that they have in common.

For example, here are several examples of how this is used:

"Lutheran Theological Distinctives"
"Passing on the PCA distinctives to the next generation"
"Although the vast majority of Christian doctrines and beliefs are things that we hold in common, there are some 'Methodist distinctives,' and it is important for us to understand them." (source)
"[The] argument elevates aspects such as Anglican 'distinctives' in worship and liturgy, sacred time and space, decency or orderliness and sources of religious authority, at the expense of [...] more primary themes." (source)


Why did the KJV translators translate יהוה on the extremely rare occasion as IEHOVAH rather than LORD?

The reason is that "Jehovah" (or any transliteration) does belong there, and in these specific cases, the replacement would sound strikingly incorrect.

Exo 6:3: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, but the Name of God Almighty, but by my name LORD was I not knowen to them

If both occurences were to be understood as "title", "authority", then the phrase would sound very incorrect. Thus, the correct interpretation is to treat "the name" as title, but "my name" as God's personal name:

And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, but the Name of God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not knowen to them

Psa. 83:18: That men may knowe, that thou, whose name is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth

sounds much more reasonable than

That men may knowe, that thou, whose name is Lord, art the most high over all the earth

Isa. 12:2:, Isa. 26:4:

for the Lord Jehovah is my strength.

Well, you just can't say "Lord Lord" here, and it's very hard to hide the fact that the original text uses a personal name here. Different translations used phrases like "Lord, the Lord himself"[NIV], "Lord God" or "GOD the LORD"
Now: The original says "יָהּ יְהוָה"("Yah Yehwah"), so the most correct translation could be along the lines of "Jah, Jehovah" - showing Isaiah's very deep relation to his God, Jehovah:

Look! God is my salvation. I shall trust and be in no dread; for Jah Jehovah is my strength and [my] might, and he came to be the salvation of me. -- Is.12:2 [New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures]

Now, the correct question is: why did the translators have such a rule in the first place? Why not translate יְהוָה as Jehovah or Jahveh?
Judaism 101 says:

Jews do not casually write any Name of God. This practice does not come from the commandment not to take the Lord's Name in vain, as many suppose. In Jewish thought, that commandment refers solely to oath-taking, and is a prohibition against swearing by God's Name falsely or frivolously (the word normally translated as "in vain" literally means "for falsehood").
Judaism does not prohibit writing the Name of God per se; it prohibits only erasing or defacing a Name of God. However, observant Jews avoid writing any Name of God casually because of the risk that the written Name might later be defaced, obliterated or destroyed accidentally or by one who does not know better.
The commandment not to erase or deface the name of God comes from Deut. 12:3. In that passage, the people are commanded that when they take over the promised land, they should destroy all things related to the idolatrous religions of that region, and should utterly destroy the names of the local deities. Immediately afterwards, we are commanded not to do the same to our God. From this, the rabbis inferred that we are commanded not to destroy any holy thing, and not to erase or deface a Name of God.

...

The Mishnah confirms that there was no prohibition against pronouncing The Name in ancient times. In fact, the Mishnah recommends using God's Name as a routine greeting to a fellow Jew. Berakhot 9:5. However, by the time of the Talmud, it was the custom to use substitute Names for God. Some rabbis asserted that a person who pronounces YHVH according to its letters (instead of using a substitute) has no place in the World to Come, and should be put to death. Instead of pronouncing the four-letter Name, we usually substitute the Name "Adonai," or simply say "Ha-Shem" (lit. The Name).
...

(link, emphasis added)
Related: Should the Name Jehovah Appear in the New Testament?


Why does the Eastern Orthodox church forbid blind men from becoming priests?

I asked on the OCA website (Orthodox Church In America)

I was happy to receive an answer within a few minutes.

Below is the response

  The complete lack of sight would be an impediment to ordination as one who serves as a priest, both liturgically and practically, must be able to see what he is doing, and especially be in a position to read from Scripture publicly as well as the prayers in the service books.  Some forms of blindness -- the type where people can see poorly but with corrective lenses can, even though perhaps considered legally blind in some places -- might not be an impediment, but such matters are evaluated individually by ordaining bishops.


The main Christian dominations that have churches facing East are the Anglican Church, Roman Catholic and Orthodox. However this tradition was not totally universal in its' usage because of the fact that some churches were the result of pre-existing buildings being converted into churches, or because of some other local reason, such as the direction of streets and so on.

  Five years before he became Benedict XVI, Joseph Ratzinger wrote that, notwithstanding various liturgical innovations, “one thing has remained clear for the whole of Christendom: praying towards the east is a tradition that goes back to the beginning.” As he wrote in The Spirit of the Liturgy:

  The common turning toward the east was not a “celebration toward the wall;” it did not mean that the priest “had his back to the people.” . . . For just as the congregation in the synagogue looked together toward Jerusalem, so in the Christian liturgy the congregation looked together “toward the Lord.” . . . They did not close themselves into a circle; they did not gaze at one another; but as the pilgrim People of God they set off for the Oriens, for the Christ who comes to meet us. - Facing East

Let us not forget what the Gospels have to say about Christ's second coming:

  For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. - Matthew 24: 27

Cathedral oriented to the East

  The first Christians faced east when praying, for which various explanations have been offered. In a tradition well established by the time of Christ, Jews in the diaspora would pray facing Jerusalem, which in most of the Roman Empire would have been to the East. Another explanation is that Christ's Second Coming would be on the clouds coming from the East: "For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." (Matthew 24:27). Due to this eastward posture of prayer, Tertullian (c. 160 — c. 220) says that some non-Christians thought they worshipped the sun. Origen (c. 185 — 253) says: "The fact that [...] of all the quarters of the heavens, the east is the only direction we turn to when we pour out prayer, the reasons for this, I think, are not easily discovered by anyone." Later on, various Fathers of the Church advanced mystical reasons for the custom.

  At first, the orientation of the building in which Christians met was unimportant, but after the legalization of the religion in the fourth century, customs developed in this regard. These differed in East and West.

  The Apostolic Constitutions, a work of eastern Christianity written between 375 and 380 AD, gave it as a rule that churches should have the sanctuary (with apse and sacristies) at the east end, to enable Christians to pray eastward in church as in private or in small groups. In the middle of the sanctuary was the altar, behind which was the bishop's throne, flanked by the seats of the presbyters, while the laity were on the opposite side. However, even in the East there were churches (for example, in Tyre) that had the entrance at the east end and the sanctuary at the west end. During the readings all looked towards the readers, the bishop and presbyters looking westward, the people eastward. The Apostolic Constitutions, like the other documents that speak of the custom of praying towards the east, do not indicate on which side of the altar the bishop stood for "the sacrifice".

  The importance attached to orientation of churches declined after the 15th century. In his instructions on the building and arrangement of churches, Charles Borromeo, archbishop of Milan from 1560 to 1584, expressed a preference for having the apse point exactly east, but accepted that, where that is impractical, a church could be built even on a north-south axis, preferably with the façade at the southern end. He stated that the altar can also be at the west end, where "in accordance with the rite of the Church it is customary for Mass to be celebrated at the main altar by a priest facing the people". - Orientation of churches

The Catholic Encyclopedia explains the Orientation of Churches as thus:

  According to Tertullian (155-240) the Christians of his time were, by some who concerned themselves with their form of worship, believed to votaries of the sun. This supposition, he adds, doubtless arose from the Christian practice of turning to the east when praying (Apol., c. xvi). Speaking of churches the same writer tells us that the homes "of our dove", as he terms them, are always in "high and open places, facing the light" (Adv. Val., c. iii), and the Apostolic Constitutions (third to fifth century) prescribe that church edifices should be erected with their "heads" towards the East (Const. Apost., II, 7).

  The practice of praying while turned towards the rising sun is older than Christianity, but the Christians in adopting it were influenced by reasons peculiar to themselves. The principal of these reasons, according to St. Gregory of Nyssa, was that the Orient contained man's original home, the earthly paradise. St. Thomas Aquinas, speaking for the Middle Ages, adds to this reason several others, as for example, that Our Lord lived His earthly life in the East, and that from the East He shall come to judge mankind (II-II, Q. lxxxiv, a. 3). Thus from the earliest period the custom of locating the apse and altar in the eastern extremity of the church was the rule. Yet the great Roman Basilicas of the Lateran, St. Peter's, St. Paul's (originally), St. Lorenzo's, as well as the Basilica of the Resurrection in Jerusalem and the basilicas of Tyre and Antioch, reversed this rule by placing the apse in the western extremity. The reasons for this mode of orientation can only be conjectured. Some writers explain it by the fact that in the fourth century the celebrant at Mass faced the people, and, therefore in a church with a western apse, looked towards the East when officiating at the altar. Others conjecture that the peculiar orientation of the basilicas mentioned, erected by Constantine the Great or under his influence, may have been a reminiscence of the former predilection of this emperor for sun-worship. In the Orient the eastern apse was the rule, and thence it made its way to the West through the reconstructed Basilica of St. Paul's, the Basilica of S. Pietro in Vincoli, and the celebrated basilica of Ravenna. From the eighth century the propriety of the eastern apse was universally admitted, though, of course strict adherence to this architectural canon, owing to the direction of city streets, was not always possible.

As a side note: This question reminds me of the hymn (Christmas carol), People look East by Eleanor Farjeon (1881-1965).


Is it more important that a worship service be contemplative or instructive, and how do we know?

I think the real question is what God wants out of worship.  In Amos 5:21-24, God clearly tells the Israelites that He hated their worship.  This was worship He had commanded that they were doing.  I think that the real issue here is doing what God wants in worship.

I believe that iDevices can be a help.  I am a very old fashioned and conservative (Reformed) Christian and I use my iPad as my Bible in worship.  However I use it basically the same way that I would use my Bible, to read along with the pastor as he is going through passages.  When the minister preaches it is a holy event.  Hebrews 10:14 states, "How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?"  The Greek does not say 'whom they have not heard about?' as some translations have it, but as the NKJV translates correctly, 'whom they have not heard?'  And Christ being heard here is directly related to the preaching of the Word by a preacher.  So when I am listening to a sermon I am listening for the Words of Christ.  I do not believe that every word a preacher says are Christ's words to His people (He would then be inconsistent) but that the Words of Christ do come through His ministers to His people.

So if I am sitting in church fiddling with my iPad and looking up some minor point (out of pride) to bust the ministers chops after the service, or if I am distracted by my device then I think that I have totally missed the point of why we are there.  We are in Church to give glory, worship and praise to our God, and to hear His very words from the minister.  I think this is the real issue.

So if you can use an iDevice in worship to give greater glory to God then do so, if it is a distraction or point of pride, leave it at home.


Are there any Christian groups that follow Matthew 23:9?

Aside from the Jews for Jesus, I think all Christians take this the way Jesus meant it whether they know it or not.

I won't copy and paste my answer from What is the Roman Catholic view on Matthew 23:9?, but the gist of it is, the Pharisees took pride in calling Abraham their Father, and the pride is what Jesus is doing away with.

Not that the Gospels should necessarily be intertwined in such a manner, but if you read:

  John 8:48-58 (NIV)
   48  The Jews answered him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?”
     49  “I am not possessed by a demon,” said Jesus, “but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. 50  I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51  Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.”
   52  At this they exclaimed, “Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that whoever obeys your word will never taste death. 53  Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?”
   54  Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55  Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word. 56  Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”
   57  “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
     58  “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

Jesus calls Abraham 'your father' because the Jews about Him called Abraham 'our father'.

Throughout the Gospels, Jesus stresses that God is Our Father and that's what's really important.


Why did God create the Heavens and the Earth?

God created the heavens and the earth as an expression of His glory.

  The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
  And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. (Psalms 19:1 NASB)

and

  The heavens declare His righteousness,
  And all the peoples have seen His glory. (Psalms 97:6 NASB)

I think John Piper explains it nicely in Desiring God, which is available for free online.  Basically, he argues that God's ultimate purpose and joy is in the display of His glory:

  God would be unrighteous (just as we would) if He valued
  anything more than what is supremely valuable. But He Himself is supremely valuable. If He did not take infinite delight in the worth of His own glory, He
  would be unrighteous. For it is right to take delight in a person in proportion to
  the excellence of that person’s glory. (Desiring God, p42-43)

And to that purpose, creation is the expression of His glory:

  In creation, God “went public” with the glory that reverberates joyfully between
  the Father and the Son. There is something about the fullness of God’s joy that
  inclines it to overflow. There is an expansive quality to His joy. It wants to share
  itself. The impulse to create the world was not from weakness, as though God
  were lacking in some perfection that creation could supply. “It is no argument of
  the emptiness or deficiency of a fountain, that it is inclined to overflow.”

  God loves to behold His glory reflected in His works. So the eternal happiness of the triune God spilled over in the work of creation and redemption. And
  since this original happiness was God’s delight in His own glory, therefore the
  happiness that He has in all His works of creation and redemption is nothing
  other than a delight in His own glory. This is why God has done all things, from
  creation to consummation, for the preservation and display of His glory. All His
  works are simply the spillover of His infinite exuberance for His own excellence. (Desiring God, p44)

Aside Note:

To some, this concept might seem to put God in a light in which he seems vain, or like he is "just showing off" (as @MasonWheeler mentioned). I don't believe it does.

Although "showing off" is essentially correct, that phrase carries a negative connotation.  I think that connotation comes from the fact that "showing off" is usually used to describe humans that scramble to draw attention to, and highlight their own perceived glory.  The difference between these people and God is that:

As humans, these people do not actually deserve the attention
These people attempt to detract glory from God, who deserves it
Their intentions are entirely self serving, and seek attention that benefits only themselves

On the other hand:

God very much deserves our attention
God cannot detract glory from Himself
It is in our infinite best interest to perceive and experience God's glory.  That is why we are constantly commanded to praise God, give glory to God, etc.


Catholicism: Does a second marriage become valid when the previous spouse dies

Canon lawyer Cathy Caridi has actually discussed this very question on her blog, Canon Law Made Easy.

To briefly summarize her excellent article, canon law, following Catholic theology, does not recognize divorce as the end of a marriage, and so not recognize the validity of a marriage while either potential spouse is currently married. It follows that Ann and Chris are not, in the eyes of the Church, married at all. And of course it follows from that that there's no second marriage to become valid.

What Ann and Chris need to do to "regularize their situation" (that is, to ensure that they are living within the rules of the Church, but more importantly that they are living their lives rightly before God) is, firstly, to talk to their parish priest. It is likely that he will want to discuss the whole situation with them, and understand how they came to this point and what they understand of the Church's understanding of marriage. They will need to go to Confession and confess their sins, including the sin of adultery (which they committed by living together while Ann and Bob were still married, that is, while Bob was living) as well as fornication (which they committed by living together without marriage after Bob's death).

Then what? They certainly have an existing relationship, which they presumably believed was a real marriage. What they have to do now is to get that "putative marriage" (as it's technically called) validated. This can happen through the processes of radical sanation or convalidation (the likely next step in this case). How this is done is well explained in Andrew Leach's answer here as well as in other answers about validation of a marriage throughout this site.


When talking about the Trinity, what does "persons" mean?

The classic definition of "Person" is that given by Boethius in De persona et duabus naturis: an individual substance of a rational nature).

St. Thomas Aquinas explained the preceding definition in terms that practically constitute a new definition: a substance, complete, subsisting per se, existing apart from others (Summa Theologica, III, Q. xvi, a. 12, ad 2um).

Regarding the persons of the Blessed Trinity, for the constitution of a person it is required that a reality be subsistent and absolutely distinct. The three Divine realities are relations, each identified with the Divine Essence. A finite relation has reality only in so far as it is an accident; it has the reality of inherence. The Divine relations, however, are in the nature not by inherence but by identity. The reality they have, therefore, is not that of an accident, but that of a subsistence. They are one with ipsum esse subsistens (Subsistent Act of Existing Itself).

A much, much more detailed discussion of this topic -- with citations that could give you a few years more reading -- can be found in the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on "Person."


According to Catholicism, when a person dies, is that person's spirit/soul limited as to where it can be present?

What St. Thomas Aquinas discusses in his question "Whether an angel is in a place?" (Summa Theologica I q. 52 a. 1) can also be applied to human souls, which are immaterial, like angels:

It is befitting an angel to be in a place; yet an angel and a body are said to be in a place in quite a different sense. A body is said to be in a place in such a way that it is applied to such place according to the contact of dimensive quantity; but there is no such quantity in the angels, for theirs is a virtual one. Consequently an angel is said to be in a corporeal place by application of the angelic power in any manner whatever to any place.
Accordingly there is no need for saying that an angel can be deemed commensurate with a place, or that he occupies a space in the continuous; for this is proper to a located body which is endowed with dimensive quantity. In similar fashion it is not necessary on this account for the angel to be contained by a place; because an incorporeal substance virtually contains the thing with which it comes into contact, and is not contained by it: for the soul is in the body as containing it, not as contained by it. In the same way an angel is said to be in a place which is corporeal, not as the thing contained, but as somehow containing it.


Is there any historical evidence that would indicate where exactly the ark of the covenant is now located?

There are several historical hints to the location of the Ark.  Many of them are contradictory.  The problem isn't so much finding historical evidence that points to possible current locations of the Ark, it's that we have no way of determining which, if any, are valid, true, and reliable.

For example, ChristianAnswers.Net gives several possible locations.  The Church of Ethiopia claims to have it.  This is backed up by the writings of Abu Salih the Armenian in the late 1100s.  WND.com has a page indicating it might be beneath the temple Mount, and claims "compelling evidence" points to the theory.

However, the introductory statement to the article at WND.com pretty much backs up what my original paragraph claims.

  WASHINGTON

  It would almost inarguably be the greatest archaeological
  find in history.

  Movies have been made about it.

  Voluminous books have explored its whereabouts.

Those voluminous books are filled with historical and archaeological hints to the whereabouts.  But, to this day, if anyone truly knows where it is, they sure aren't offering proof.  Until the actual Ark is revealed, I doubt the world at large will know where it is, regardless of how many hints exist.  The volume of hints actually helps to ensure that it remains safe, hidden, as it lays all sorts of false trails for those searching for it.


Are there any tenets of Gnosticism that are still present in the church today?

Gnosticism was a movement that sprung up as an attempt to fill a major knowledge vacuum in the Scriptural record.  The Gospels record that even the Apostles, Jesus's highest and most trusted disciples, were spiritually weak and deemed by the Lord as unready for the true doctrines of the Kingdom.

For example, witness Peter, who boasted of his fearlessness and readiness to follow the Lord to any tribulation, only hours before being reduced to fearful lying to disassociate himself from Christ when the actual tribulation came.  The "fearless" apostle, the one who Jesus had named the Rock, was reduced to cowering before a serving girl, one of the lowest social positions in Jewish society!

But all that changed once they began their ministry.  Acts describes Peter as a preacher of true fearlessness, ready to face prison and beatings and all manner of tribulations for the Lord's sake.  And as for what happened to change him and the Apostles, we are left with a void.  The Scriptural record glosses over the events that occurred after the resurrection.

We are told that the resurrected Christ talked with two disciples on the way to Emmaus,

  And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in
  all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

but only the first few sentences of this wondrous sermon are preserved for our knowledge.  Likewise, Luke records that "also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God." (Acts 1:3) but the record is silent on the contents of this teaching.  Any understanding of Gnosticism has to take this into account, for it is the root of Gnosticism.  Dr. Hugh Nibley wrote:

  All the 40-day teaching is described as very secret, delivered to a
  closed cult group. There is no desire to intrigue and mystify,
  however, as with the Gnostics, but rather the clearly stated policy
  that knowledge should be given always but only to those who ask for
  it, with the corollary that the higher and holier a teaching the
  more carefully it should be guarded. As "the last and highest
  revelation," the teaching of the 40 days was top secret, and has not
  come down to us. Since Irenaeus, churchmen have strenuously denied
  that there ever was a secret teaching or that anything really
  important has ever been lost. To profess otherwise would be
  perilously close to an admission of bankruptcy; yet Christian scholars
  do concede that the Apostles had information that we do not have,
  allow the existence of an unwritten Apostolic tradition in the
  church, and grant that there was a policy of secrecy in the early
  church—though insisting that it began with the catechetical schools.
  The catechists, however, appeal to a much earlier tradition of
  secrecy, and when the Fathers attempt to reproduce the unwritten
  tradition which they claim for the church they have nothing to offer
  but the commonplaces of the schools. Plainly things have been lost.

  After the alarming gap in the record following the fall of Jerusalem,
  the curtain rises on a second-century church seething with conflict
  and split into factions hotly debating the reality of the
  Resurrection. The Gnostic exploited both the ignorance and the
  knowledge of the time—the knowledge that the answers to the great
  questions of existence were known and treasured by "the Elders" of
  another day, and the ignorance of just what that knowledge was. The
  oldest definition of the Gnosis specifies that it was the knowledge
  imparted secretly by the Lord to the Apostles after the Resurrection.
  The Gnostics claimed to have that very knowledge, and their
  tremendous initial success shows how hungry the Christian world was
  for it—the "main church," in fact, had to invent a counter-Gnosis of
  its own to meet the threat and ended up with a compromise that has
  left a Gnostic stamp on Christian thinking ever since. The Gnostics
  did not invent the 40-day situation, as has been claimed, for they
  were the last people in the world to imagine a return of the Savior in
  the flesh, and any tinkering would have been readily exposed in a
  quarreling and hyper-critical society; but they did exploit it because
  it was there and they had to: at a time when everything else was being
  questioned, it is one of the few things that is never challenged.

With this knowledge unavailable to the church in general, but its existence unquestioned, false teachers sprung up to fill the void, bringing a new doctrine inspired heavily by Greek philosophy.  The idea was that physical matter was somehow corrupt and evil, and that God's plan involved freeing Mankind from the bonds of the flesh.

If you're looking for Gnostic influence in modern Christianity, you need look no further than this basic concept.  A lot of the more "out there" Gnostic teachings have been stamped out, but shades of the core ideas can be found even today in the common understanding of God as a being of pure spirit, without any physical form. The Christ of the Bible, and of the early Christian church, was a resurrected being who went out of his way to prove and demonstrate that he had a fully real body of flesh and bones!


What is the position of Catholic theology on human rights in transhumanism?

Whether Artificial Beings should be given Rights

Objection 1 A cloned human being, would be a copy of a human being and therefore have all the faculties of that previous human being.  Whether it be the same soul or a new soul is impossible to tell.  But it must be an immortal soul since an immortal soul is innate to mankind.  An artificial being could potentially be as lifelike and organic as a cloned being ad therefore imbued with an immortal soul; one would never know.

Objection 2 Members of the animal kingdom are given rights (according to their rarity) and privileges (according to their usefulness). Even the Bible command people not mess up birds nests (Dt 22:4, 6) or make your animals work on the Sabbath (Ex 23:12).  God affords these rights and privileges to animals and he gives us dominion over them.

  Then God said: Let us make human beings in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the tame animals, all the wild animals, and all the creatures that crawl on the earth.

  Genesis 1:26 - NABRE

Therefore we could give whatever rights and privileges we want to our creations.

Objection 3 If a machine was said to be "self-aware" then that machine would be said to have an interior life.  An interior life is the thing that separates man from all other creatures.  E.F. Schumacher in Guide for the Perplexed says that the difference between man's order of being and the animals is that self-awareness that thinks about others thinking.  All it would take would be a group of robots starting a book club to make us all believe they have souls.

On the contrary, machines, no matter how carefully designed, can never have an immortal soul.

I answer that their primacy in the order of creation is below that of man (and beast). Therefore it is not fitting for them to be granted the rights in the same domain as man.  Where this Natural Law is contradicted by Human Law, the human law is unjust.  Therefore granting rights equivalent to humans to creatures without immortal souls is gravely immoral.

Reply to Objection 1  It is wrong to put God to the test (lk 4:12).  There is no guarantee that any artificial effort on man's behalf will force God's hand in crafting an immortal soul for man's creation.  Whether or not God gives the clones individual an immortal soul is up to God and not to man. see Judie Brown's response to a question on IVF.  But we can guarantee that God will not re-order creation around creations because "The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it;" (Ps 24:1).

Reply to Objection 2  Man is to be a good steward of creation because it is creation - not because he created it.

  In our time, the Church does not simply state that other creatures are completely subordinated to the good of human beings, as if they have no worth in themselves and can be treated as we wish. The German bishops have taught that, where other creatures are concerned, “we can speak of the priority of being over that of being useful”.

  Pope Francis - Laudatio Si - p. 69

We do not just give these rights and privileges to animals because we can use them, we give them because they exist, generally speaking, independent of our labors. Machines, however, do not exist independent of our labors and therefore we are justified in giving them the most burdensome tasks as well as making them work on Sundays (unless we don't want them to).

Reply to Objection 3  Artificial Intelligence will always be Intelligence as judged by mankind to be of some value.   There might always be faster or slower rates of computation.  So, in a world where we granted rights to a self-aware robot we could either.

Let self-aware robots determine what to do with obsolete self-aware robots
Deprecate self-aware robots ourselves (decommission them or send them to another galaxy)

In the first case, these machines would be judged in their own order (not that of mankind) and would be afforded rights in that domain (not that of mankind). Even the Angels hold to their own orders (Cherubim, Seraphim, etc...) and their souls, while immortal, are not for mankind to grant rights to.

In the second case we would be the higher power and, out of compassion to the works of man (out of a sense of beauty, one would hope), give rights and privileges necessary to lower orders of creation (not that of mankind) because:

  A higher power can do many things that an inferior power cannot do to those which are subject to them.

  Summa Theologica p.1 q.96 a.1 reply to objection 4


Can someone look into a mirror and not liking what he or she sees be capable of loving his neighbour?

In order to love God and neighbour, we must first truly love ourself. This is not an option, but rather a necessity. If one hates oneself, how can on love God who he does not see or have true charity towards another person.

We can still love ourselves, while momentarily disliking ourselves due to our personal shortcomings or sins.

  “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” Jesus replies: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets” (Matt 22:35-40).

St. Thomas Aquinas affirms that in order to love God we must first love ourselves.

  That the love of God and love of neighbor are profoundly connected is widely acknowledged and often preached. After all, did not the Apostle John declare that anyone who says that he loves God but hates his brother is a liar (1 John 4:20)? But where does the love of self come into this? Save for the word of Jesus, we might be tempted to leave it out altogether. We hardly need to be encouraged to greater personal aggrandizement. Yet here is our Lord exhorting us to love others in the same way that we love ourselves. That would seem to imply that the former rests upon the latter. Can that be right? Fr Herbert McCabe thinks that it is, and he appeals to no less an authority than St. Thomas Aquinas.

  When we examine Jesus’ words closely, we find two commandments but three objects of love—God, neighbor, self. It is the third, McCabe claims, that is the key to the others. Self is where we start from:

    I don’t mean that it is more important to love ourselves than to love God. I just mean that loving yourself is the way you love God. I mean that loving yourself is, in a way, more important than loving your neighbour because, without loving yourself, it is quite impossible to love your neighbour. Aquinas says, we should first love God, then ourselves, then our neighbour, then our bodily life (Summa Theologiae 2a2ae, 25, 12). (“Self-Love,” God, Christ and Us , p. 69)

  McCabe suggests that to understand what it means to love God we should reflect on what it means to love ourselves—and to not love ourselves. We fail to love ourselves, asserts the Dominican theologian, when we base our lives on the false belief that we lack intrinsic dignity and worth:

    The root of all sin is fear, a fear which is a disbelief in oneself, the fear that really, in oneself, one does not matter, does not really exist—the fear that if one really looked into the centre of oneself, there would be nothing there: the fear not just that one is playing a false part, wearing a disguise, but that one is nothing but the disguise. It is this fear that gives rise to the desperate attempt to put something there, to make something of ourselves, or the desperate fight to prevent others making nothing of us by taking away the masks. And so we make ourselves somebody through power over others and through possessions, which are a sort of power. Or we sink into some distracting pleasure so that we can forget the emptiness. And, of course, we hate those who threaten our self-flattering images. And all this is rooted in fear, because we cannot believe in ourselves, because we cannot believe that we matter just because we are ourselves. It is rooted in the fact that we cannot love ourselves. (p. 70) - To Love God We Must First Love Ourselves


What connection does the Jesus movement and the pentecostal/charismatic movement have, if any?

Background:

Firstly, the advent of Pentecostalism significntly preceded both the Charismatic Renewal and the rise of the Jesus Movement - the former arose out of the Holiness movements of the late 19th century and really kicked into gear with the Asuza street and Welsh revivals of the early 20th century, while the latter two, although heavily influenced by the former, were '60s children' (Charismatic renewal starting in early 60s, Jesus movement taking off in the late 60s).

The wikipedia article on the Jesus movement is both a little confused, and a little confusing, this is most likely because that description is true of the movement itself - it was diverse and quite spontaneous in it's rapid and widespread growth from multiple 'ignition points' and what influenced it and what came from it is an extremely tangled network. You can get a good sense of the times from reading Keith Green's autobiography "No Compromise"; brief histories here and here; or the following Charisma magazine article from Larry Tomczak here*; and I personally had my interest piqued in those times by hearing first hand accounts from Winkie Pratney who was a leader in the movement and familiar with many of the key players.

Seminal moments and locations were the opening of 'the Living room' - an evangelical street mission in San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury district (1967); Arthur Blessit's street ministry on Sunset Strip (West Hollywood) (1968); Jack Spark's campus ministry at UC Berkeley; and Linda Meissner's ministry to youth in Seattle.

Contrary to what the Wikipedia article implies, the Calvary Chapel was not a 'product' of the movement, but existed before (founded 1965), and was a key player in fostering the movement on the West Coast of the U.S.A. (starting from 1969). Although the movement was national and ultimately international in its reach, the West Coast of the U.S.A. was probably the 'ground zero' of impact, and the Calvary Chapel movement was both considerably benefited and challenged by the rapid influx of new believers that came as a result of the separate yet relationally linked Jesus movement. What it does get right however, and this is most pertinent to your question, is the strong pentecostal/charismatic 'flavor' of the movement.  It's possible there were pockets of the movement that didn't pursue and experience the sign gifts of the Holy Spirit (for instance, arguably the 1970 Asbury Revival in Wilmore, Kentucky, although links to the wider Jesus Movement are obscure), but they were few and far between.  Chuck Smith (pastor of Calvary Chapel) started out as a pastor for the International Church of the Foursquare (Pentecostal) and under his direction, the Calvary Chapel movement, while backing away from Pentecostalism as a defining characteristic, remained (and continues to be) strongly Charismatic (Evangelical) in character. One of the key leaders in the Jesus Movement was 'power-evangelist' Lonnie Frisbee - a disciple of Chuck Smith and a highly influential and controversial figure in the Jesus Movement. There is no doubt that controversies surrounding Frisbee and others like him in the movement (bearing an uncanny resemblence to the early Corinthian believers as they came out of a sub-culture that more closely resembled that of early Corinth than the 'square' culture of mainstream America) likely resulted in the movements gradual dissipation from the early to mid '70s through to the mid '80s.  As well as the Calvary Chapel movement, The Vineyard movement, Maranatha Campus Ministries, Contemporary Christian music and many other ministries were impacted by the legacy of the Jesus Movement - a large (if not overwhelming) majority of them being Pentecostal or Charismatic in nature.

To provide a generalised summary answer to the first aspect of your question:

  What connection does the Jesus movement and the Pentecostal/charismatic movement have, if any?

To a significant degree, the Jesus movement arose from earlier Pentecostal influences (e.g. Blessit, Meissner, Smith were all from Pentecostal backgrounds), Concurrent with (or slightly after) the wider Charismatic renewal (It is legitimate to see the Jesus Movement embedded within the context of the Charismatic Renewal). It's effects contributed to the origin, diversity and vitality of many Pentecostal, but particularly (non-denominational or new denominational) Charismatic churches and ministries.

In regard to the last aspect of your question:

  Have people in the Jesus movement influenced the Pentecostal/charismatic movement in any way, like joining some Pentecostal/charismatic church after the Jesus movement ended?

Yes, absolutely - Dr. Michael Brown (later associated with the Brownsville revival) is a notable example of exactly this, and he is by no means alone - various influential leaders and people associated with the movement that went on to have impact through subsequent ministries can be found here.

Further resources: here and God's Forever Family: The Jesus People Movement in America, Larry Eskridge - excellently reviewed here.

*The Jesus Movement is a not uncommon theme in Charisma magazine articles


According to Catholicism what does it mean for every relationship in heaven to be perfect and fulfilling?

This is a huge topic, and I think, hinges on one of the central concepts of Christianity. I'll try my best to give an appropriate answer, but I probably won't be able to answer it fully.

I believe it's a mix of all three. The writer C.S. Lewis, although Anglican, wrote a fairly short fiction novel called The Great Divorce which exemplifies what many Christians (Catholic or otherwise) believe about the nature of relationship in Heaven. The main point goes something like this:

  "Heaven is reality itself. All that is fully real is Heavenly. For all that can be shaken will be shaken and only the unshakeable remains. - C.S. Lewis, the Great Divorce

Essentially, our earthly relationships are filled with corruptions of God's perfect love, manifesting themselves, for example, as lust, insecurity, fear, etc. Our need for relationship will never be satisfied on Earth because sin distorts our desires, but our earthly desires are a shadow of a deeper desire that can only be fulfilled in perfect union with God. 1 Corinthians 13 of perfect love. Verses 9-10 and 12 are also good examples of this "shadow of a deeper desire" concept.

Jesus will bring us into this perfect relationship. This idea is a central theme in Scripture in the form of the "Jesus will marry his Church" metaphor (see e.g. Romans 7, 2 Corinthians 11:2-4 , Ephesians 5:29-33, Revelations 19:7).

The Catholic church (and pretty much all "orthodox" denominations) believes that in Heaven - since we will have been sanctified - we will be able to experience real love, real joy, and real relationships without the corruption of sin.

I highly recommend you read The Great Divorce if you haven't already.

Another way of looking at "fulfilling" or "satisfying" is in the fact that we can never have enough food or drink. We will always become hungry and thirsty again. Jesus addresses this fact to the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4:10-14, offering her "living water" that will satisfy her thirst forever, and to his disciples in John 6:35. Applying this to relationships is easier if you believe that humans have a constant desire for intimacy, love, affection, and acceptance, and if you understand that under the catholic view, that desire can't be fully satisfied by any human.


They are not "Western European" names per se, instead these names are common in Western Europe, America, etc. specifically because they spread along with Christianity.

Names are transliterated because of a desire to keep these words as close to the original as possible, but there are differences between languages, such as how words are used and what letters and sounds are available. The nature of these changes is fairly consistent for words outside of the Bible writings which are transliterated.

The exact nature of these transliterations are a better discussion for a linguist group, but I will give some simple examples to help explain how we use the literal words from the translations.

Take Mark, for instance. The original word is "Μάρκος" in Greek. That's actually what they called him. That's the actual letters they wrote in the original manuscripts.  At least, that's a digital representation of the Greek phenoms which were written down by people who knew him. The originals were probably all upper case with no spaces or punctuation. All of these letters have a a very consistent transliteration into Roman characters (which is what English uses), and even the letters look a lot like the original Greek letters. In that sense, you could spell it in roman characters as "Markos". But in Greek, the last to letters, the "ος" are part of the word that marks it's place in the sentence. In this instance, it's in the singular nomitive case. You might also see it as "Μάρκον", "Μάρκου", and so fourth, depending on where it is in each sentence. In English, we don't have any need for that ending because we determine part of speech by location in the sentence. So, we simply drop that changeable part, and that leaves us with "Mark". It's literally the English way to write the word that appears in the manuscripts. The same is true for many other names.

Some transliterations aren't as obvious. Of most interest is "Jesus". In Greek, that is "Ἰησοῦς". To a casual observer, it's hard to see the connection here. However, to a Greek student, it is obvious. The "σ" and "ς" are both the same letter, and is the only Greek letter which changes grapheme by location. It relates to the roman "s". The "η" is a little hard to transliterate into roman letters. That transliterates as "e", though it technically has more of a vowel sound like "hey", which is different than epsilon, also transliterated as "e". The "Ἰ" is an "iy" like sound, explicitly without aspiration. So, you might think it should be transliterated as "I". However, the Greek had no "J" character or sound, and the "Ἰ" was as close as they could come for words that had "J" like sound. So, if the Greek Jews were trying to write something like "John" or "Joshua", they would have had to use "Ἰ" instead. It is very common when transliterating Greek words, especially those which may have been based on Hebrew words, to transliterate "Ἰ" to "J". That leaves the "οῦς". Once again, in the Greek, the ending can change based on part of speech, but this form is a bit different. The "οῦ" is a dipthong which doesn't quite have a good one to one relationship with roman letters. Even though you could probably get away with "ou", it has been very common to tranliterate "οῦ" as "u" in English. That leaves us with "Jesus".

As for "Yeshua", that comes from a transliteration of the Hewbrew. As to which is preferred there, between the Greek or the Hebrew, that can be a very different matter. But neither is arbitrary. That may be a good question for another time.

Sometimes, the name can be transliterated differently into roman characters but different languages. One example is "Πέτρος". A close transliteration of the characters might be "Petros", and it's basically the Greek word for a stone. The "ος", as stated before could be dropped for English. And English likes "er" better for the "r". Spanish, on the other hand, doesn't like the "t" in favor of a "d". In English, it becomes "Peter", and in Spanish it becomes "Pedro". Both are very popular names in their respective languages in regions where Christianity has spread.

We do see "Saul" and "Barnabas" in the Bible. And when that's what is used in the Greek text, that's what's used in at least the KJV and probably most other formal equivalent translations. One exception to this rule may be "Calvary" and "Easter", which in the KJV may be dynamic equivalent variants rather than simple transliteration. However, to my knowledge, all of the names of people were simply transliterated. The Bible authors themselves, under inspiration of God, chose which names they wanted to use. The translators just copied that. If you are asking why Peter is sometimes called Simon and sometimes Cephas, etc. by the original authors, that's a good question, but a different question. The reasons would likely be different for each person and each instance. Each author (Paul, Luke, etc.) may have different reasons, such as target audience, or they are quoting a person speaking, or even to emphasize a new name, etc.

The names you mentioned were common Greek names, not Anglo-Saxon names. These names became popular because they were in the Bible and as the Bible spread, particularly throughout Western Europe and the Americas, people named their children after the famous names in the Bible. Some names were more famous, like Mark, and Peter, and John. Some names just didn't get mentioned as much and weren't as famous, like Dorcus or Barnabas. Sometimes, people still do pick out the lesser common names. But the more popular the person or name is in the Bible, generally the more likely that people will use that name.

The same thing is true of Hebrew names, too, like Daniel, Jonathan, David, etc., which break down into Hebrew words. Those Hebrew words, just like the Greek words, spread into English and other languages because of the spread of the Bible.


What does "scripture" mean in NT writing?

The word for "scripture" in the Greek text is (ἡ) γραφή, often occurring in the plural, (τῆς) γραφῆς, which literally means "writing(s)." The word occurs approximately 50 times in the New Testament (depending on the manuscript used it is 50 or 51) and it seems pretty clear to me from a word search that this almost exclusively refers to the Old Testament writings when used by New Testament authors.

The exception is 2 Peter 3:16, which says:

  And regard the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as also our
  dear brother Paul wrote to you, according to the wisdom given to him,
  speaking of these things in all his letters [(ἐπιστολαῖς, epistles)].
  Some things in these letters are hard to understand, things the ignorant
  and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they also do to the rest
  of the scriptures [(γραφὰς, writings)] (2 Peter 3:15-16, NET).

This verse clearly refers to Paul's writings as "scriptures." Everywhere else it refers to the Old Testament (or to specific passages from the Old Testament).

Even by the earliest dating standard for 2 Peter, all of Paul's epistles that are included in the New Testament would have been written by the time this statement was made with the possible exceptions of 2 Timothy (possibly written the same year as 2 Peter, although most likely before as 2 Peter was probably not written until at least 65 and 2 Timothy was almost certainly written in 64) and Hebrews (whose author is disputed anyways). 2 Peter is also considered to be antilegomena, although it has been widely accepted by the Church throughout history.

It is thus my opinion that St. Paul was not referring to New Testament writings when he said that all scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16), but rather to Old Testament writings.


There are numerous stories of strongly religious Christians converting to atheism or various non-Christian religions.

There are also a whole slew of Bible quotes about losing faith listed here.  Here's one in particular from 1 Thessalonians 3:5-6 (ESV):

  5For this reason, when I could bear it no longer, I sent to learn about your faith, for fear that somehow the tempter had tempted you and our labor would be in vain. 6But now that Timothy has come to us from you, and has brought us the good news of your faith and love and reported that you always remember us kindly and long to see us, as we long to see you—

I'd say it's very possible to lose faith.

Edit: though people are not mostly given credit for making others fall from faith, there are a few passages in the link above.  For example, 2 Timothy 2:16-18 (ESV):

  16But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, 17and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some.


Has the Catholic Church ever declared any group that identified itself Christian as not Christian?

I know for a fact that the Catholic Church does not recognize those who do not baptize in the proper form and matter as Christians. Thus the Catholic Church does not recognize the validity of groups such as Mormons or Jehovahs Witness (although I don't think the Jehovah's witness consider themselves Christian to begin with)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

  The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter. Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. With the Orthodox churches, this communion is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist. (CCC 838)

There is also this from Catholic Answers ("What is the relationship between the Church and baptized Protestants?"):

  Validly baptized Protestants are regarded as true Christian brothers and sisters who are in imperfect relationship with the Church. The nature of the imperfections is as varied as Protestantism itself. The idea at work here is that the faith is an incarnational thing, not just a "spiritual" (disembodied) thing—just like Jesus himself. Thus, it is possible to be out of union with the Church "bodily" (structurally, sacramentally, liturgically), yet still have a spiritual unity with the Church. Likewise, it is possible to be "bodily" united to the Church yet cease to be in communion with her spiritually (as an apostate Catholic is if he keeps going to Communion yet rejects the creed or continues unrepentant in grave sin). The latter form of disunity with Church is more serious than the former.


If Jesus was resurrected as a man how can Paul say his apostleship was not through a man but it was through Jesus at Galatians 1:1?

St. Paul is saying that Jesus is not "man" in the sense he here refers to: "a mere man." Rather, Jesus, "who, being in the form of God, deemed not equality with God robbery, but humbled himself, taking the form of a servant: being made in the likeness of men, and in habit also found as man." (Phil. 2:6-7)

From (apo) means "apostle sent from" and by (dia) means "made an apostle by the authority of."

  John 20:27-28 (DRB) Then he saith to Thomas: Put in thy finger hither, and see my hands; and bring hither thy hand, and put it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing. Thomas answered, and said to him: My Lord, and my God.


What are the most prominent christologies in all of Christendom?

Approximately 97% of Christians belong to Trinitarian denominations, so it's a reasonable view that there are no other prominent Christologies at all. However let's ignore that argument, and consider the most prominent ones after excluding Trinitarianism.

Most of them are associated with specific denominations. For example the Latter-Day Saints and the Jehovah's Witnesses have their own distinctive Christologies, and both have around 15 million adherents. Oneness Pentecostals account for another 15 million or so. After that the numbers drop sharply, with Unitarians and Christadelpians probably having fewer than a million adherents each.


How do Protestants interpret Matthew 16:13–20?

It is worth pointing out that even if you take the stance that the verse is saying that Peter had some kind of special status, there is nothing that indicates that that authority is continued in his line.  Every other place I can think of where a lineage related authority is granted, it is pretty clearly laid out by God in scripture.  (For example the establishment of the Levitical priests.)  In this passage, there is no such establishment of authority through lineage.