Evangelicals stem from fundamentalists, but have diverged since the 1950s. Theologically, they hold much in common, but primarily differ in their approach to dealing with society at large. It should be noted that neither is a "denomination" but rather a reforming trend that is cross-denominational, but bound by common purpose to reform the church, stripping it of historical (and liberalizing) accretions of practice, and returning it to the same position as "the first church," centering on its devotion to Jesus Christ.

Fundamentalists sprung up during the "back to the fundamentals" movement of the early 1900s. The seminal Work was a series of essays called The Fundamentals, highlighting such luminaries as R.A. Torrey, B.B. Warfield, and E.Y. Mullins. A brief look at the titles of the essays will highlight the issues important to these reformers.

This movement was deeply affected by the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925, and largely disengaged from society shortly thereafter. While trying to reform the church, fundamentalists eventually came to the conclusion that they must be separate from the wider culture. Evangelists like Billy Sunday preached a Gospel of being removed from the society and rejecting all its ways. This included a rejection of politics as well as an eschewment of what the culture at large did.

By the 1950s, some in the fundamentalist movement like Carl Henry - the editor of Christian Century and founder of Christianity Today, came to believe that fundamentalists must engage the culture. In 1942, he founded the National Association of Evangelicals, and the point was to be "in the world, but not of it."

With Roe v. Wade, Evangelicals began to become more involved in politics, and helped bring about the rise of the "Religious Right." In the 1980s, fundamentalist Jerry Falwell introduced an innovation to fundamentalism when he sought to bring fundamentalists also back into the political arena, albeit in a more confrontational, "culture war" sort of way.

Theology Unplugged has two podcasts (7/9/06 and 7/8/06) that do a great job of tracing the history and divergence of the two - but basically boils down to approach rather than belief. John Michael Patton (Dallas Theological Seminary) says "Evangelicals are nice fundamentalists," by which he means, they engage rather than separate from the culture.


Is God really Merciful according to the Bible?

It is really more like "Thou shalt not murder" rather than just kill.
According to a correct formulation of divine command theory, which is grounded in God's nature as the ultimate source of good, what God commands people to do is always good. It may or may not be obvious to us why, but typically makes sense upon 1) further study or 2) looking back at the big picture.
The big picture is that in the Old Testament, Israelite military victory and conquest ultimately 1) brings glory to God and 2) brings people to salvation. This is because as God's chosen people, God continuously command them ways in which they would be set apart, hence many of the rules in Old Testament, even wearing strands of different types of clothing (Deut. 22:11). That way the nations may know that Israel is unique because they serve Yahweh. God's desire is that all nations would know Him, not just Israel (Isaiah 42:6, 49:6), so anything that makes the nations realize that Yahweh is the true God would be a good thing, such as God demonstrating His power to the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings 18. Unstoppable military victories many times helped nations realize that Israel's God is the real God. It is a demonstration of God's power.
This action of God (the "bloodbath") is just. It is people getting what they deserve. We all deserve the same thing that they received. I would say that not every action of God is merciful because I think it is not possible for any single action of God to be both merciful and just. However, this "bloodbath" is most certainly just. In fact, if God was not merciful and was only just, we all would be dead and already in hell forever (Romans 3:23, Romans 6:23, James 2:10). That is what justice is. People getting what they deserve. We all deserve death because we have so often violated the moral law of a holy God. The fact that you are still breathing is a sign of God's mercy.
God doesn't enjoy killing people (Ezekiel 18:23, 32). He truly desires that people will repent and be saved (Ezekiel 18:21). He often gives them ample opportunity for this, though they are rarely take it.
The pattern in the Old Testament is Rebel-Repent-Redeem. Over and over again. God is slow to anger (Exodus 34:6, Psalm 103:8), and he is indeed very merciful (2 Samuel 24:14, 2 Corinthians 1:3). He, many times, waits generations to carry out judgment on a people (including Israel) even though they are filled with sin and wickedness. He also relents when people repent (Jonah and Ninevah). He wouldn't destroy peoples if there were good people in them (recall Sodom and Gomorrah?).

I think the reason so many people have questions like this is people forgetting

1) what it means for God to be just

2) what it means for God to be holy

3) the big picture of how God set Israel apart with his laws and how it lead to other nations realizing that Yahweh was the One True God.

We can trust that what God does is good because He is essentially good (Luke 18:19, Psalm 34:8, 100:5, 106:1, 107:1, 119:68, etc.). It is one of His essential attributes, which means that there is no possible world in which God exists but is not good. So, wow, do we have a good God!


What is the biblical basis for the belief by Seventh-day Adventists that evangelized Gentiles should keep the Sabbath?

Traditionally, Seventh-day Adventists hold that the Ten Commandments (including the fourth commandment concerning the sabbath) are part of the moral law of God, not abrogated by the teachings of Jesus Christ, which apply equally to Christians.
Following are excerpts from the Seventh-day Adventist Church regarding Sabbath:

The gracious Creator, after the six days of Creation, rested on the seventh day and instituted the Sabbath for all people as a memorial of Creation. The fourth commandment of God’s unchangeable law requires the observance of this seventh-day Sabbath as the day of rest, worship, and ministry in harmony with the teaching and practice of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a day of delightful communion with God and one another. It is a symbol of our redemption in Christ, a sign of our sanctification, a token of our allegiance, and a foretaste of our eternal future in God’s kingdom. The Sabbath is God’s perpetual sign of His eternal covenant between Him and His people. Joyful observance of this holy time from evening to evening, sunset to sunset, is a celebration of God’s creative and redemptive acts. (Gen. 2:1-3; Exod. 20:8-11; 31:13-17; Lev. 23:32; Deut. 5:12-15; Isa. 56:5, 6; 58:13, 14; Ezek. 20:12, 20; Matt. 12:1-12; Mark 1:32; Luke 4:16; Heb. 4:1-11.)

Adventists believe that the formal giving of the Law to Israel does not indicate that Israel alone is morally responsible before God for the things represented in the law:

The great principles of God’s law are embodied in the Ten Commandments
and exemplified in the life of Christ. They express God’s love, will,
and purposes concerning human conduct and relationships and are
binding upon all people in every age.

The basis of Adventist belief that the 4th commandment applies to all people in every age is that the Sabbath is first described in the creation account wherein God Himself rested.  This Sabbath memorial of what God has done in creation is embodied in the Law and exemplified in Christ and, by extension, the Church (Christ's body, Christ's bride, God's people):

the Lord made “the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” and rested on the seventh day. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of the work He performed and completed during six literal days

It appears that, rather than making a distinction between the universal moral law and the Ten Commandments given to Israel through Moses, SDA holds them to be one and the same.  The following excerpts are taken from the doctrine section of an SDA apologetic s website.

Seventh-day Adventists are in full accord ... that the moral
law is eternal in its very nature and has not been abrogated. We
believe that these eternal moral principles are unchanged and
unchangeable. We further believe that these basic principles are found
in the Decalogue—Ten Commandments, or the moral law.

Some think of the Sabbath as an institution related only to the Hebrews. Those who press this point claim that the Deuteronomy version of the Decalogue emphasizes that the Sabbath was given exclusively to the Hebrews, because they had been delivered from slavery.
The silence of the latter part of Genesis regarding the Sabbath is
understandable when one remembers that acquaintance of the patriarchs
with God's commandments was taken for granted. The author of the
historical record in Genesis did not deem it necessary to mention it
in his sweeping survey of the centuries. But Abraham kept the
commandments of God (Gen. 26:5)—the Hebrew word here used for
"commandments" being the same as that used for the Decalogue in
Deuteronomy 5:10, 29. Kalisch mentions this as the law written in the
heart of man, and the Pulpit Commentary states that the word means
"that which is graven on tables." Abraham acknowledged and obeyed the
moral law of God. If so, would that not include the Sabbath? The
Companion Bible (Gen. 26:5) says Abraham had a charge, to be observed;
commandments, to be obeyed; statutes (decrees), to be acknowledged;
and laws "instruction," the Torah), to be followed.
And during their wilderness experience, God tested His ancient people
as to whether they would walk in the way of His commandments (Ex.
16:4). The test came on the subject of the Sabbath. And comparison of
Exodus 16:1 with Exodus 19:1 shows that this occurred several weeks
before the promulgation of the Decalogue. They must, therefore, have
known not only of God's law but also of specific commandments embraced
therein, as evidenced by this reference to the Sabbath.


Christ is true God and true Man... from when?

Since he is God since all times, did he become true human in the incarnation or he was already man before it?
No, He did not always have a human nature.
As St. John writes in the Gospel:

John 1:1,14 (DRB)
...the Word was God. ... And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.

St. Paul writes to the church at Philippi concerning the humility of the Son of God in becoming flesh for our salvation:

Philippians 2:5-8
For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross.

The Hypostatic Union
The Hypostatic Union is the doctrine that the two natures of Christ (the eternal divine, and the temporal human nature) are united in only one Person: the divine Word or Son of God.
This is why we can say "the First and the Last," and "the Lord of Glory," (1 Corinthians 2:8) that is, God, "died:"

Revelation 1:17-18
And when I had seen him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying: Fear not. I am the First and the Last, and [am] alive, [though] was dead, and behold I am [alive] for ever and ever, and have the keys of death and of hell.

And it's why Jesus can say, though not true of His human nature, but His divine only:

John 8:58 (cf. Exodus 3:14)
... Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was [made], I am.

That is, simply put, anything belonging to either nature belongs to the one divine Person: the Word or Son of God. Anything predicated of either nature is predicated of the Son of God. Or, anything the Person does in either nature, He does as the Divine Person: there is no human person in Jesus Christ, only one Divine Person with two natures.
Therefore, the answer to your question

Wouldn't He have to have been human since all time, since He lives in eternity?

is no, since the natures are distinct, and are not confused nor admixed.  Only the human nature of Christ died, properly speaking. Only the Divine nature of Christ created all things. But Christ (i.e. a Person) indeed did both in truth.

A Pertinent Example
A very simple doctrine which gets to the heart of the issue is the doctrine that Mary, Jesus' mother, is the mother of God (it is, fundamentally, a Christological doctrine).
In the fourth century, a heretic named Nestorius made a divison, rather than a simple distinction, between the two natures of Christ, so as to assert that we may not properly call Mary, his mother, the mother of God, but only Christ.
(emphasis mine)
The heresy is summarized by the Ecumenical Second Council of Constantinople's condemnation of it in A.D. 533 (Sentence Against the Three Chapters of Nestorius):

The holy synod of Ephesus… has pronounced sentence against the heresy
of Nestorius… and all those who might later ... adopt the same
opinions as he held ... They express these falsehoods against the true
dogmas of the Church, offering worship to two Sons, trying to divide
that which cannot be divided, and introducing to both heaven and earth
the offense of the worship of man. But the sacred band of heavenly
spirits worship along with us only one Lord Jesus Christ.

Even earlier than this, and directly addressing a specific heretical product of his false Christology (that Mary was only the mother of a human nature, and not of the divine Person of God the Word), the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) issues the following anathema (Session I, Canon 1):

If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that
therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God [Θεοτόκος],
inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [as it is written,
"The Word was made flesh"] let him be anathema.

(emphasis mine)
What this goes to prove is that clearly Jesus was born, but this particular heretic asserted that He was not personally God who was born (the fallacious argumenting being that God was never born; yet in that He had this human nature in addition to the divine, He was born). Whereas, as the condemnation notes, Mary's Son is Immanuel (God with us), and the eternal Word of God made flesh. In this sense, she most definitely is the mother of God.


Why keep baptismal fonts full in the Roman Catholic Church?

They're not kept full all year long,  there is a  blessing concerning Holy Water that takes place solely during the Triduum. But that is not the water kept in the font.

There is a fairly erroneous Catholic tradition that some priests take part in where they dump all the Holy Water before Lent starts then fill them back up when Easter comes around.

What we do get fresh before Easter are the three Holy Oils and the Easter candle for the year. But a priest could bless water, salt or whatever whenever he wants to.  It could be said that Easter Blessed water is better, but it's probably just as good.

http://www.fisheaters.com/water.html


What's the difference between the Apostle's claims and the claims of others who started religious movements?

I found the subtitle over at Snopes.com to be interesting:

Claims about "breatharians," people purportedly living on light alone, do not offer proof that they survive this way.

Now, let's compare that to one of my favorite verses from the Old Testament (emphasis mine):

Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it. (Malachi 3:10)

People are willing to die for many reasons. Some good, some bad. One hopes that in most cases, they are willing to give their lives for something noble, useful, and true.

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:13)

What are the Breatharians dying for? I honestly don't know. The only benefit I can see to the practice of Breatharianism is saving a few dollars on food. Theoretically (I assume), if the practice were at all correct, subsistence on the energy of the universe wouldn't cause you to loose weight (at least not below a healthy weight, right?). In short, there's no purpose or value to the belief and no proof that it's valid.
Christianity, on the other hand, offers a way to prove its worth. And if that Old Testament verse wasn't good enough, let me leave you with something from the New Testament.

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)

So, care to know more about Paul the Apostle's faith, belief, and the Savior he served and eventually died for? You can prove all things by sitting down with us and asking some questions. What you'll discover is the world is full of confused people who will do almost anything to save or earn a dollar — but the faith you're looking for is free.

Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. (Isa 55:1)

Huh.  Maybe what the Breatharians did was confuse a real life with a metaphor.


What does the Catholic Church teach about the significance of reference to Jacob's Well at John 4:12?

What does the Catholic Church teach about the significance of reference to Jacob's Well in John 4:12?

The Catholic Church does not place any particular significance to the reference of Jacob’s well in the Gospel of St. John. In fact we do not know for sure where the actual well existed.

  Jacob’s well is only mentioned in John’s Gospel, so biblical information about it is quite limited. However, tradition and archaeology provide more detail about the well’s original owner and its location.

  In chapter 4 of his Gospel, John recorded the story of Jesus talking with the Samaritan woman. Samaria was located in the northern half of the formerly united Israel, and Jesus was passing through it on His way from Judea to Galilee. Outside the town of Sychar, “Jacob’s well was there, and Jesus, tired as he was from the journey, sat down by the well” (John 4:6). He asked a woman to give Him something to drink from what she drew (John 4:7), and she wondered why a Jewish man would speak to a Samaritan woman—Jesus was breaking a cultural taboo because of both race and gender (John 4:9). Jesus then offered her “living water” (John 4:10). This confused her, and she responded, “Where can you get this living water? Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and herds?” (John 4:11-12). Apparently, the history of the well was common knowledge.

  The traditional site of Jacob’s well cannot be located by finding Sychar, as that city is no longer in existence. However, the site thought to be the biblical Shechem, called Tel Balata by archaeologists, is near a well. This is important because the Bible says Jacob bought land from Shechem and lived at that place for a long time (Genesis 33:19). He would have required a well, and it is perfectly reasonable that he dug one. Also, the well at Tel Balata is indeed of ancient origin. These biblical and geographical facts point to the site as a good match for what the Samaritan woman called “Jacob’s well.”

  Today, the well is inside the Church of St. Photina (the name traditionally given to the Samaritan woman by the Orthodox Church—the name is Svetlana in Russian). The church was originally built in A.D. 380. Through the years, the church was destroyed a number of times by natural and military forces. The current building is administrated by the Greek Orthodox Church, which obtained the site in 1893. The church and the well can be visited today in the West Bank.

  The significance of Jacob’s well is that it provided an opportunity for Jesus to present Himself as the life-giving Messiah to a Samaritan woman and, later, to her whole village. The woman had asked, “Are you greater than our father Jacob?” The answer is a resounding “yes.” Jacob may have provided his children with physical water in an arid land, but Jesus provides His children with “living water” in a spiritual wasteland. The life Jesus gives satisfies all our needs and springs up to eternal life (John 4:14). - What is the significance of Jacob’s well?

Mouth of Jacob’s Well

The only minor significance with the Church could perhaps be of some pius Catholic traditions or customs that exist in a few countries, such as the following:

  In Oaxaca, Oaxaca, Mexico, a celebration of the Samaritan woman takes place on the fourth Friday of Lent. The custom of the day involves churches, schools, and businesses giving away fruit drinks to passers-by. (1) - Samaritan woman at the well


We must distinguish between the two limbos:

Limbo of hell or of the Patriarchs (limbus inferni seu patrum)This is also known as Abraham's bosom. This limbo no longer exists (cf. "Reply to Objection 3" of this) because Christ has already descended into hell and brought those souls detained there to heaven during His Ascension.
Limbo for children (limbus puerorum)This is different than the limbo of the Fathers, which "is placed higher than the limbo of children." (cf. "I answer that…" of this). It is where the souls of unbaptized children are. It is a place of perpetual, natural happiness where souls are not actively punished by fire because they have not committed any personal sins; however, it is still hell, which, by definition, is the place where one is deprived of the Beatific Vision.

As St. Thomas Aquinas writes ("I answer that…" of this):

  The limbo of the Fathers and the limbo of children, without any doubt, differ as to the quality of punishment or reward. For children have no hope of the blessed life, as the Fathers in limbo had, in whom, moreover, shone forth the light of faith and grace. But as regards their situation, there is reason to believe that the place of both is the same; except that the limbo of the Fathers is placed higher than the limbo of children, just as we have stated in reference to limbo and hell (Article [5]).

Now, hell is eternal. The limbus puerorum is in hell. Therefore, the limbus puerorum is eternal.

Pope Pius VI condemned "as a Pelagian fable" the fact that the false Synod of Pistoia "introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation.

The full quote of Pope Pius VI's “Auctorem fidei,” Aug. 28, 1794, is reproduced in Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum. Ed. 34. 1965, §2626

  The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as it, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk,—false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.

Where do these souls end up, then? They can't be in heaven or purgatory because they are not baptized, and they can't be punished with the fires of hell because they committed no personal sin; nor can they be somewhere between heaven and hell. Thus, they must be in hell (because they are deprived of the Beatific Vision, and hell is the place of being deprived of seeing God), but they are not punished by the fires of hell. This is the limbus puerorum.


Questions about this icon of Saint Sophia

Here is another icon of St. Sophia and her three daughters St. Faith, St. Hope and St. Charity:

Martyr Sophia and her three daughters at Rome

  The Holy Martyrs Saint Sophia and her Daughters Faith, Hope and Love were born in Italy. Their mother was a pious Christian widow who named her daughters for the three Christian virtues. Faith was twelve, Hope was ten, and Love was nine. Saint Sophia raised them in the love of the Lord Jesus Christ. Saint Sophia and her daughters did not hide their faith in Christ, but openly confessed it before everyone.

There are a wide variety of icons of St. Sophia with her three saintly daughters as your link points out.

In the icon I placed above St. Faith is in the middle because she is the eldest and thus the senior child. St. Hope is standing to the right of St. Faith and St. Charity is standing to the left of St. Faith. This is in fact the traditional way of placing individuals according to seniority.

An Abbot has his prior seated at his right side in the refectory and the subprior is seated at his left side. It's tradition.

Even the Supreme Court of the United States follows this tradition:

  Seniority and seating

  For the most part, the day-to-day activities of the justices are governed by rules of protocol based upon the seniority of justices. The Chief Justice always ranks first in the order of precedence—regardless of the length of his or her service. The associate justices are then ranked by the length of their service. The chief justice sits in the center on the bench, or at the head of the table during conferences. The other justices are seated in order of seniority. The senior-most associate justice sits immediately to the chief justice's right; the second most senior sits immediately to his left. The seats alternate right to left in order of seniority, with the most junior justice occupying the last seat.

  During Court sessions, justices sit according to seniority, with the chief justice in the center and associate justices on alternating sides, with the most senior associate justice on the chief justice's immediate right, and the most junior associate justice seated on the left farthest away from the chief justice. Therefore, the current court sits as follows from left to right, from the perspective of those facing the Court: Gorsuch, Sotomayor, Breyer, Thomas (most senior associate justice), Roberts (chief justice), Ginsburg, Alito, Kagan, and Kavanaugh (most junior associate justice). Likewise, when the members of the Court gather for official group photographs, justices are arranged in order of seniority, with the five most senior members seated in the front row in the same order as they would sit during Court sessions, and the four most junior justices standing behind them, again in the same order as they would sit during Court sessions.

The more ancient icons of St. Sophia and her daughters would definitely follow this order even when the daughters of St. Sophia are not named and appear to be of the same height. Modern artists may not follow this tradition way of placing saints in an icon.
But the icon you posted is of a certain antiquity and St. Sophia's daughters are from left to right: St. Hope, St. Faith and St. Charity.

St. Sophia's daughters are not wearing veils in your icon but their heads are surrounded with golden halos. In iconography the color gold represents the presence of God.


Is there a biblical basis for Pescetarianism?

There is no real biblical basis for any kind of dietary restrictions on Christians. While pre-Christian Judaism had many dietary restrictions they were essentially all lifted by the events of Acts 10.

  Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.” “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

There are references in Acts to commands to "refrain from eating of blood" but nothing else.

There is also no biblical basis against Christians choosing to impose dietary restrictions on themsselves.  The best biblical example here is the "food sacrificed to idols" passage in 1 Corinthians 8.

  Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

In essence if somebody's conscience requires them to refrain from eating particular foods, that is good and to be respected - though not better than the person whose conscience permits them to partake. I would apply that principle whether the 'refraining' was for moral, health, or economic reasons.

There is nothing in the Bible that would condemn someone just because they voluntarily adopt a restricted diet. It might be a different matter if there were bad side-effects of that choice, for example if they adopted a very expensive diet and thus put themselves into unsustainable debt; or forced someone else to go to unreasonable trouble to accommodate their dietary choices.


The problem is not existential but definitional. God exists and is a certain way. We can define "person" to exclude God's Trinitarian nature as a logical possibility, or we can define "person" to include both human persons and the three Divine persons. The Church has chosen to base the definition of person on God and humanity, not on humanity alone. It recognizes multiple aspects of personality as already understood by human philosophers in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, where they are shown in Scripture to be distinct persons.
At the same time, there is a unity among the persons of the Trinity that no group of human persons has between them. Our unity as individuals does not extend to incorporate other persons. God's does. That makes God very different from us, in a category by Himself.
The Bible says that when a man and women marry, they become one flesh. This unity is limited but real. Perhaps if Adam and Eve had not eaten from the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil before consummating their marriage, human marriages, families and even all of humankind would have had such unity as God always has? This insight gives us the answer.
How can God be three persons yet be one God? Because He never sinned. Sin brings division. Division cannot occur unless there was a preexisting unity.
Unity is the original state of being. Our separation from one another not just in personhood but in love, communion and fellowship, that is what needs explanation.


In LDS Doctrine, is the Resurrection a Priesthood Ordinance?

Brigham Young spoke of it as a Priesthood ordinance:

  It is supposed by this people that we have all the ordinances in our possession for life and salvation, and exaltation, and that we are administering in these ordinances. This is not the case. We are in possession of all the ordinances that can be administered in the flesh; but there are other ordinances and administrations that must be administered beyond this world. I know you would ask what they are. I will mention one.

  We have not, neither can we receive here, the ordinance and the keys of the resurrection. They will be given to those who have passed off this stage of action and have received their bodies again, as many have already done and many more will. They will be ordained, by those who hold the keys of the resurrection, to go forth and resurrect the Saints, just as we receive the ordinance of baptism, then the keys of authority to baptize others for the remission of their sins. This is one of the ordinances we can not receive here, and there are many more.

  -- Journal of Discourses, 15:137-38

While Latter-Day Saints do not hold the Journal of Discourses to be authoritative scripture, this is the word of a prophet on the matter, and President Spencer W. Kimball considered this talk authoritative enough to quote and comment upon in General Conference.


Are there any accounts of "words of knowledge" taking place outside of Pentecostal and Charismatic denominations?

Are there any accounts of “words of knowledge” taking place outside of Pentecostal and Charismatic denominations?
The short answer is yes.

In Christianity, the word of knowledge is a spiritual gift listed in 1 Corinthians 12:8. It has been associated with the ability to teach the faith, but also with forms of revelation similar to prophecy. It is closely related to another spiritual gift, the word of wisdom.
Among Pentecostal and some Charismatic Christians, the word of knowledge is often defined as the ability of one person to know what God is currently doing or intends to do in the life of another person. It can also be defined as knowing the secrets of another person's heart. Through this revelation, it is believed that God encourages the faith of the believer to receive the healing or comfort that God offers. For example, in a public gathering, a person who claims to have the gift of knowledge may describe a medical problem (such as syphilis or trench foot) and ask anyone suffering from the described problem to identify themselves and receive an effective prayer for healing. According to this definition, the word of knowledge is a form of revelation similar to prophecy or a type of discernment.

Many Catholic saints have had this gift. We generally call it the ability to read souls. It is closely related to a special gift of intuition.

A facet of Mystical knowledge is a supernatural gift of God whereby a Saint is able to read into the heart and conscience of an individual to then be able to guide and direct the person towards a greater union with God. Over the centuries, this gift of reading into souls has often been given to Priests that they may better guide penitents in the Sacrament of Confession. Some of the Priests famous for the gift of reading souls are St Padre Pio (d. 1968), St Anthony of Padua (d. 1231), St John Bosco (d. 1888), St Philip Neri (d.1595), St Francis of Paola (d. 1507), St Joseph of Cupertino (d. 1663) and St Paul of the Cross (d. 1775) to name just a few.
There have also been many mystics who have received this gift of reading into hearts, such as St Gerard Majella (d. 1755), St Catherine of Siena (d. 1380), St Lydwine of Schiedam (d. 1433), St Hedwig (d. 1243) and in modern times the mystics Blessed Alexandrina da Costa (d. 1955) and Servant of God Marthe Robin (d. 1981), and the American mystic Marie-Rose Ferron (d. 1936) to name just a few.
Perhaps one of the greatest and most documented examples of the gift of reading into souls can be found in the extraordinary life of St. John Vianney (1786-1859), affectionately known across the world as “The Cure of Ars”. St John Vianney was a most zealous priest who spent his whole life for the conversion of sinners. Sainte Jean Marie Baptiste Vianney as he is known in France was a country priest in the small town of Ars, France. He spent literally 16-18 hours a day in the confessional, and people from all over France and abroad made pilgrimages to Ars to visit the “Holy Cure”, and to go to him in Confession. For God, who was pleased with the love and devotion of this holy priest gave him the gift of reading hearts, so as to be able to lead sinners closer to God, and St John Vianney certainly possessed this gift in a most extraordinary way.
The gift of reading hearts in the life of St John Vianney
Because of his gift of reading souls, people came from all over France to go to Confession to the holy Cure of Ars, and although he spent from 16-18 hours a day in the Confessional, there were always long lines of people waiting to seek advice and counsel from him, for he truly was a “alter Christus”, that is, another Christ. He are some true stories about his amazing gift of seeing into the heart of men. -
Mystical knowledge in the lives of the Saints –The gift of reading into hearts

Some years ago, I read “The Cure D’Ars” by Abbe Franicis Trochu in the original French and still have my favourite stories to retell.
On day, Fr. John Vianney was saying Mass and the topic of his homily was on the 6th and 9th commandments. Those present knew that his holy priest could see into the souls of those present. Be fore starting into his sermon he made a little announcement: “I will be preaching on the sins against the 6th and 9th commandments. Anyone guilty of sins on these two commandments should leave now.”
The Cure d’Ars very often would preach while walking down the aisle of the church, going to the pulpit which was situated in the middle of the church. Along the way, he would would rebuke big sinners publicly of their sins. If they denied them, he would numerate them, for all to hear.

In both Catholic and Protestant churches the pulpit may be located closer to the main congregation in the nave, either on the nave side of the crossing, or at the side of the nave some way down. This is especially the case in large churches, to ensure the preacher can be heard by all the congregation. - Location of pulpit


Modern musical instruments in Catholic church service

Pope Pius X issued a motu proprio in 1903, Tra le Sollecitudini:

15. Although the music proper to the Church is purely vocal music, music with the accompaniment of the organ is also permitted. In some special cases, within due limits and with proper safeguards, other instruments may be allowed, but never without the special permission of the Ordinary, according to prescriptions of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum.
19. The employment of the piano is forbidden in church, as is also that of noisy or frivolous instruments such as drums, cymbals, bells and the like.
20. It is strictly forbidden to have bands play in church, and only in special cases with the consent of the Ordinary will it be permissible to admit wind instruments, limited in number, judiciously used, and proportioned to the size of the place provided the composition and accompaniment be written in grave and suitable style, and conform in all respects to that proper to the organ.

This formed the basis for De musica sacra et sacra liturgia issued by the Sacred Congregation of Rites in 1958:

68. Other instruments besides the organ, especially the smaller bowed instruments, may be used during the liturgical functions, particularly on days of greater solemnity. These may be used together with the organ or without it, for instrumental numbers of for accompanying the singing. However, the following rules ... are to strictly observed:
a) the instruments are truly suitable for sacred use;
b) they are to be played with such seriousness, and religious devotion that every suggestion of raucous secular music is avoided, and the devotion of the faithful is fostered;
c) the director, organist, and other instrumentalists should be well trained in instrumental techniques, and the laws of sacred music.
70. Musical instruments which by common acception, and use are suitable only for secular music must be entirely excluded from all liturgical functions, and private devotions.

The use of bands and particularly drums may suggest "raucous secular music", so they are to be avoided.
Musicam Sacram was promulgated by the Second Vatican Council in 1967.

63. In permitting and using musical instruments, the culture and traditions of individual peoples must be taken into account. However, those instruments which are, by common opinion and use, suitable for secular music only, are to be altogether prohibited from every liturgical celebration and from popular devotions.[De music sacra etc n.70 [above]]

This Vatican II Constitution allows a little more leeway by permitting appeal to local culture and tradition and whether a particular instrument is suitable only for secular music. This decision would be made by the local bishop or Bishops' Conference. However, the earlier documents indicate the direction that decision should go.
Despite the 1903 rules, the use of the piano and acoustic guitar is not uncommon in the UK.


A mission trip should always include missionary activity.  The activity itself is widely varied and does not require international travel: it can include volunteer work, evangelism, teaching, or a number of other things.  The words "mission trip" speak to the purpose of the trip, not the activity of the trip.  The mission of a mission trip is to, either directly or indirectly, lead people toward God.
Oftentimes, these trips are exciting.  A person's motive for going on a mission trip, as with all things, is complex.  One of my pastor friends calls secondary motives, which everyone has to some degree, a "shadow mission".  For example, say there is a mission trip planned to build a house in Mexico with Casas Por Cristo.  The mission is to build a house for a poor family in the name of Jesus Christ, with the hope that the family receiving the house and people in that area would be positively affected by Christianity.  Casas Por Cristo works with local pastors to evangelize to the area; the people on the mission trip simply provide the labor (and money) to build the house itself.  A shadow mission for someone attending the trip may be to experience international travel, or spend time with a cute girl also on the trip, or to appear spiritual, or to have fun.
I only mention the idea of a "shadow mission" to explain why you may get the impression that it is "just a fun excursion or camping trip."  When that pastor would take college students on mission trips, he would urge them to evaluate their own shadow missions and to be aware that the true mission is leading people toward God.
Mission trips are generally short-term events.  Most trips are two weeks long or less, though trips can certainly be longer, up to a year or so.  Anything that is a year or longer is usually categorized as long-term missions, performed by a missionary.
Here are examples of mission trips:

Spending a week in Mexico building a house
Repairing a church building in Honduras
Working in a Russian orphanage
Smuggling Bibles into China or other closed countries
Helping clean up after Hurricane Sandy
Spending a week in San Francisco handing out gospel tracts and talking to people about God
Traveling 2 hours to a youth camp to repair/build cabins

Here are examples of things that are not mission trips.

Going to a Christian concert
Attending a Christian summer camp
Going camping with the Youth Group at your church
Driving to Disney World with a church group to ride rollercoasters
Watching a Christian movie at a theater with other Christians

That said, it is common in a one or two-week mission trip to include a fun day on the way home (which may be going to Disney World, seeing a concert, going to the beach, etc.).


What is the textual evidence from the Bible that the resurrection for believers happens in stages (a Dispensationalist View)?

I wrote this like a timeline of events to identify all the places where believers are taken from the earth, with some special care to pinpoint who populates the millennium. I am depicting the events as literal events and not mere symbolic "apocalyptic imagery."

Christ rose from the dead as "the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep" (1 Cor. 15:20). He is literally the first to rise from the dead and go to heaven.

At Christ's ascension, "He led captivity captive" (Eph. 4:8). Tradition uses this verse to teach that the part of hell where Abraham stayed (Luke 16:19-31) was emptied and those rose up to heaven.

There is a subset of Christians who believe there will be a rapture prior to the coming of Christ, either of the entire church, or only those in the church who are ready (Luke 21:36 is used for this latter group, as well as Matt. 25:1-13). Since they are saved from wrath through Him (Rom. 5:9), and the final years are a period of God's wrath, they will be taken before the tribulation period noted in Revelation, so the teaching goes. So we put a full or partial rapture here.

Some time during the final years before Christ comes, "two witnesses" will be raptured (Rev. 11:1-14).

At His coming, two more groups ascend in 1-2 succession: "the dead in Christ shall rise first" (1 Thes. 4:16). "Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds" (1 Thes. 4:17). "Alive and remain" probably refers to those who have escaped the wars and famine, and the beheading by the antichrist figure in Rev. 6:9-11 and Rev. 13:16-17. This verse is used to support the partial-rapture viewpoint and takes place in Rev. 7:9-17, immediately after Christ comes and His wrath starts in Rev. 6:12-17. This verse is also used in support for the full rapture viewpoint and according to them takes place in Rev. 4:1-2.

After Christ comes, He separates the "nations" which remain after the tribulation period of God's wrath, and one group of nations, the "sheep," are allowed into the kingdom (Matt. 25:31-46) because they demonstrated care for God's people during the reign of the antichrist figure. This is not a resurrection; they seem to be those who populate the millennium along with those of the raptured/resurrected of the previous stage. The resurrected and worthy saints will reign over these nations (Matt. 25:14-30). Also reigning are those who were martyred (Rev. 20:4-6). The other nations who were indifferent to the plight of God's people, the "goats," go into "everlasting punishment."

After the millennium, the Great White Throne is set and the dead are raised for judgment (Rev. 20:11-15). "And anyone not found written in the book of Life was cat into the Lake of Fire" (Rev. 20:15). This is worded such that there could be those whose names are in the Book, such as people who became believers among the "sheep" who lived and died during the millennium.

For the sake of completeness, I will include the stages in 1 Cor. 15:24-28, "when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all."


Why do we use the Hebrew name for Daniel, but Persian names for his companions?

Since your question is rather general, I'm going to offer a suggestion - a pretty plausible one, but a suggestion. It's probably because they are central to one famous story in the book of Daniel - the fiery furnace - and in that story (which is written in Aramaic) they are given their "Persian" names. After that story, they don't appear in the book at all. In other words, we think "Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego" immediately in connection to the story of the fiery furnace, and in that story, they have those Persian names.

Daniel, on the other hand, is mentioned  65 times in the book with his Hebrew name, and ten times as Belteshazzar.


What evidence is there that the thief on the cross was not baptized?

There is no biblical evidence to support any suggestion that the repentant criminal on the cross had ever been baptised, or not.  The Bible doesn’t say.  However, the fact that he knew about Jesus coming into his Kingdom may suggest he was thinking of the resurrection at the end of the time, when Jesus would be raised up and vindicated by God.  The Pharisees believed in a future resurrection, although the Sadducees did not (Matthew 22:23).

It is significant that Jesus used the word translated “paradise” which was used in Jewish literature for the Garden of Eden and also as a reference to heaven, the place of eternal bliss for God’s people.   The New International Version Study Bible says this by way of explanation:

  In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) the word designated a garden (Genesis 2:8-10) or forest (Nehemiah 2:8), but in the New Testament (used only here and in 2 Corinthians 12:4; Revelation 2:7) it refers to the place of bliss and rest between death and resurrection (cf. Luke 16:22; 2 Corinthians 12:2).

If the repentant criminal next to Jesus was a circumcised and practising Jew, then he may have practised Jewish ceremonial cleansing by water.  As to whether he had ever been baptised by full water immersion by someone like John the Baptist, we shall never know.  Neither does Scripture say if he had heard the gospel message.  All we know is that this criminal acknowledged he was a sinner and deserved his punishment, but that Jesus did not.  When he asked Jesus to remember him when he came into his Kingdom, it was a request for mercy and a declaration of faith in the Kingdom to come.  Jesus, knowing the innermost thoughts and motivations of people, knew that this man was sincere and that is why he promised that he would enter into paradise.

Christian baptism (by full water immersion) in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is first recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, after the death of Jesus.  Jesus did not issue this instruction till after his resurrection (Matthew 28:19).  It is therefore impossible that the repentant criminal experienced such a baptism.  And the Holy Spirit did not come till after Jesus’ resurrection, at Pentecost (Acts 1:5).   The New Living Translation Study Bible makes this comment on Jesus’ post-resurrection instruction to make disciples:

  A disciple is one who repents of sin, trusts in Jesus for salvation and obeys his teachings.

There is no evidence that the repentant thief had heard the gospel message and obeyed Jesus’ teachings.  But his words to Jesus indicate repentance and trust in Jesus for salvation.  That was sufficient.


In Catholic understanding when there is more than one Pope, who decides which Pope is real and by what criteria?

In the case of a disputed election, the decision is largely based on which pope is elected first, although this is not always the case. Eulalius was elected pope in 418, one day before Boniface I. However, through overconfidence, Eulalius flouted an imperial order and the emperor then recognised Boniface as the rightful pope, leaving Eulalius as antipope. So, in this case it was the emperor who made the decision.

Ursicinus (or Ursinus) and Pope Damasus I were elected simultaneously in 366. Ursicinus ruled in Rome for several months in 366–367 but was afterwards declared an antipope. As described by Adrian Hastings, in A World History of Christianity, page 42, Damasus succeeded by hiring a gang of thugs that stormed the Julian Basilica, carrying out a three day massacre of supporters of Ursinus in order to have himself elected pope. Damasus was since regarded as the true pope, reigning from 366 to 384.

Boniface Franco had murdered the reigning pope, Benedict VI, and was elected as Boniface VII in 974, so at this stage he was presumably a legitimate pope. However, when Emperor Otto II invaded Rome, Boniface fled to Constantinople, and Otto arranged the election of Benedict VII. When Otto died in 984, Boniface returned to Rome and imprisoned Pope John XIV, who had succeeded Benedict VII. Boniface was re-established as pope, but died in suspicious circumstances. Boniface VII was not yet considered an antipope when Benedict Gaetani took the style of Pope Boniface VIII in 1294, thus tacitly recognising the legality of Boniface VII. However, Boniface VII is now regarded by the Church as an antipope, and there is no Pope Boniface VII in the list of popes.

Change can also result in former antipopes becoming recognised as popes. Leo VIII, was for many years considered an antipope but is now listed on the Catholic Encyclopedia as a true pope.

The Western Schism began following the election of Urban VI in 1378. As a candidate who was not yet a cardinal, it was thought that he would be a compliant pope who would allow the cardinals the freedom to which they had become accustomed, but sudden power turned him into a violent egomaniac.  The cardinals soon called on him to abdicate and elected Clement as his replacement.  The following year, Clement fled to Avignon with a group of loyal cardinals, and the two popes excommunicated each other. Finally, there were three claimants to the papacy, John XXIII, Gregory XII and Benedict XIII. A council set up to resolve the issue secured the resignations of John and Gregory, and excommunicated Benedict when he refused to step down. John W. O’Malley, S.J. says, in A History of the Popes, page 150, that the Catholic church has never made a formal pronouncement on the claimants, but especially in the past hundred years the Holy See has in the lists of popes it regularly publishes always sided with the Roman over the Avignonese line.


Why is God on Sarah's side when she asked Abraham to cast out Hagar and Ishmael?

Plenty of Blame to Go Around

In the drama which unfolds in Genesis 21, there is certainly plenty of blame to go around. If you tend to root for the underdogs, who in this case are Hagar and Ishmael, your heart goes out to them. Abraham had every right to be upset with his wife Sarah for her obvious harshness and indifference toward Hagar ("that slave woman," as Sarah referred to her) and her son Ishmael, whom Sarah had caught either mocking her son Isaac or playing with him as if he were on equal footing with the child of promise, which he was not (Genesis 17:19, NET footnote 17).

Abraham (and Sarah, for that matter) was certainly reaping what he had sown. He had inadvisably listened to his wife in the matter of having a son by Hagar, Sarah's  Egyptian maid/slave, and the conflict which ensued was both unnecessary and obviously preventable. As the young people say nowadays, however, "it is what it is."

Sarah was equally to blame for her insistence that Abraham have a son by Hagar (not that Abraham needed that much persuading to have sex with an attractive woman who was probably much, much younger than Sarah!). Had both she and Abraham listened--really listened--to the promise God had made to them in Genesis 17:19 and 18:10, they would not have been in the pickle in which they found themselves in Genesis 21.

Ya' Reaps What Ya' Sows

In the matter of reaping and sowing (see Galatians 6:7-8), there is bound to be unpleasant fallout. God was not, as you suggest, "on Sarah's side" in the matter of Hagar and Ishmael. In a sense, Sarah was behaving quite naturally, since she was guarding zealously the rights and privileges accruing to her son by virtue of his status as the heir apparent. You can rest assured that Abraham expressed his outrage to his wife Sarah for being so heartless and unfair.

God calmed Abraham down, however, and assured him that Hagar and his beloved firstborn had a bright future ahead of them (Genesis 21:13). Moreover, God came to their rescue when Hagar, despairing of her life, cried in God's hearing, and he repeated to her the promise he had made to Abraham that Hagar's son would become a great nation one day (v.18).

And Now, From God's Perspective . . .

Notice I italicized the word his in my last paragraph. I did so because while Ishmael was Abraham's firstborn, God did not consider him Abraham's firstborn! In fact, in Genesis 22, here is what God said to Abraham:

  "'Abraham . . . take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains which I will tell you'" (excerpted from vv.1-2, with my emphasis).

From God's perspective (which should have been Abraham's perspective too), Isaac was Abraham's only son. After all, God had promised Abraham and Sarah a son in their old age. Sarah and Abraham, however, had wavered in faith by taking matters into their own hands in an attempt to "help God." God, of course, needed no helping hand in doing what to them had seemed impossible (see Genesis 18:14).

Appearances Can Be . . . Deceiving

In conclusion, while God may appear to have sided with Sarah, in reality he did not. He graciously gave the child of Sarah's handmaid a bright future by first saving him from a certain death in the wilderness, and then by allowing Ishmael to grow into a skilled hunter who eventually married "one of his own" (an Egyptian) and become a father many times over.

As Sir Walter Scott said (Marmion, 1808), "What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive." In the affair of Abraham, Sarah, Hagar and Ishmael, there may not have been an intent to deceive, but there was certainly an attempt to perform an "end run" around God. We reap what we sow, and our tangled web is of our own making!
Regardless, God still has the last word!


What contemporary criticism was given to Belloc's claim that the Protestant Reformation was the work of a few oligarchs?

What a fascinating question -

Was the Protestant Reformation a bottom-up or top-down reformation?

It would seem the only reasonable answer is - Yes! (i.e. both)

The progress of the Reformation in Scotland showed all the hallmarks of the former - cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_knox :

  John Knox (c. 1514 – 24 November 1572) was a Scottish clergyman, writer and a leader of the Protestant Reformation...

While it's genesis in England showed distinct signs of the latter - cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_viii#Reformation :

  Henry is generally credited with initiating the English Reformation – the process of transforming England from a Catholic country to a Protestant one...

Of course, the crux of the matter is - what was the situation in Continental Europe and in particular, what were the circumstances surrounding Martin Luther and the very beginning of the Reformation?  Was Protestantism really birthed out of the objections a Theology professor had to the 'Indulgance Industry', or were there dark forces at work behind the scenes - worldly potentates plotting to appropriate ecclesiastical booty for their own aggrandizement - pulling Luther's strings?  Well according to most accounts (at least the ones that don't have a specific axe to grind), the evidence points very much to the former (cf The Economist's article How Luther went viral).  While the nascent Reformation did catch the eye of at least some Princes relatively early on, it wasn't until some years later that this translated into official breaks with recognized Church (and in the case of the member states of the Holy Roman Empire, temporal) authority which admittedly bore some prospect of enrichment at the expense of the church, but also the high likelihood of war with states loyal to Rome - it was no light undertaking, and it least in the case of the German states, was far more likely to be the result of conviction than opportunism. (cf. source 1,source 2 & source 3)

Is there more evidence that there was actually something in Reformed
Christianity that appealed to the peasant?

Absolutely: The Reformation all started with preaching against (purchaseable) indulgances - which amounted to enabling the rich to buy their way out of purgatory. Of course to the extant that a peasant was aware of the practice, he was aware of an injustice - perceiving the church favoring the rich;  In contrast the doctrine of salvation by grace alone through faith alone - the free gift of God through Christ - would have been the very breath of heaven on his soul.  Although Luther himself criticized what he saw as the excesses of the Peasant's rights movement that lead to the German Peasant's war, and there were many factors that precipitated that conflict, adoption of Protestant doctrines (especially those that pertain to choosing revealed truth ahead of obedience to earthly authority) were a definite part of the mix.

Summary: Although there was a measure of top-down influence on the development of the Reformation (especially in England), the dominant characteristic was actually bottom-up and Belloc's thesis is not well supported by a comprehensive overview of the genesis of Protestantism.


According to Catholicism, did the Temptation(s) of Jesus take place on the same day?

The Church has not made any pronouncements in one way or another. Many believe that the Temptations of Christ in the Desert were during the course of his fasting in the wilderness.

However, St. Thomas Aquinas makes allusion that the Temptations of Christ were probably on the same day (last day of Christ's 40 day fast).

  It was becoming that Christ should wish to fast before His temptation. First, in order to give us an example. For since we are all in urgent need of strengthening ourselves against temptation, as stated above (Article 1), by fasting before being tempted, He teaches us the need of fasting in order to equip ourselves against temptation. Hence the Apostle (2 Corinthians 6:5-7) reckons "fastings" together with the "armor of justice."

  Secondly, in order to show that the devil assails with temptations even those who fast, as likewise those who are given to other good works. And so Christ's temptation took place after His fast, as also after His baptism. Hence since rather Chrysostom says (Hom. xiii super Matth.): "To instruct thee how great a good is fasting, and how it is a most powerful shield against the devil; and that after baptism thou shouldst give thyself up, not to luxury, but to fasting; for this cause Christ fasted, not as needing it Himself, but as teaching us."

  Thirdly, because after the fast, hunger followed, which made the devil dare to approach Him, as already stated (Article 1, Reply to Objection 1). Now, when "Our Lord was hungry," says Hilary (Super Matth. iii), "it was not because He was overcome by want of food, but because He abandoned His manhood to its nature. For the devil was to be conquered, not by God, but by the flesh." Wherefore Chrysostom too says: "He proceeded no farther than Moses and Elias, lest His assumption of our flesh might seem incredible." - Question 41. Christ's temptation (The Time)

Further reading can be done in this post: St. Thomas Aquinas On Christ’s Temptation

Thus it is possible that Jesus' Temptation took place on the last day of his 40 day fast. For do we not see that immediately after the Temptation of Christ, He was consoled by the good angels. The temptation must have been on the last day of the temptation:

  Then the Devil left Him, and behold, angels came and began to minister to Him. (Matthew 4:11)

Ministered to by angels

  At this, Satan departs and Jesus is tended by angels. While both Mark and Matthew mention the angels, Luke does not, and Matthew seems once again here to be making parallels with Elijah, who was fed by ravens. The word ministered or served is often interpreted as the angels feeding Jesus, and traditionally artists have depicted the scene as Jesus being presented with a feast, a detailed description of it even appearing in Paradise Regained. This ending to the temptation narrative may be a common literary device of using a feast scene to emphasize a happy ending, or it may be proof that Jesus never lost his faith in God during the temptations. - Ministered to by angels (Wikipedia)

A traditional Catholic understanding is that the Temptation of Christ was a literal and physical event.

As a Side note:

  The Mount of Temptation is said to be the hill in the Judean Desert where Jesus was tempted by the devil (Matthew 4:8). The exact location is unknown and impossible to determine. It is generally identified with Mount Quarantania, Arabic name: Jabal al-Qarantal, a mountain approximately 366 metres (1,201 ft) high, towering from the northwest over the town of Jericho in the West Bank. According to the public domain Catholic Encyclopedia (1907-1914), Quarantania is "a limestone peak on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho".

The Mount of Temptation 1910


Biblical basis for baptism as a prerequisite for salvation

I second the answer of @mason-wheeler that Acts 2:37-38 represents the basic Christian assumption that repentance and baptism, and indeed the entire Christian life that is "the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and breaking of bread, and prayers," is critical to salvation, and pursuit of salvation outside this life is perilous. Furthermore, resisting a known means of salvation is foolishness and approaching the mindset of the damned. If you are asking whether baptism is required of you, then the answer is almost certainly an emphatic yes, unless you are severely ill or have some other similarly extenuating circumstance such that no one will consent to baptize you.

If, however, we ask whether baptism is required of our neighbors for their salvation, then we must examine our hearts, for then we are prying into their business.

If, instead, this is a more abstract question, then the answer is that God saves Whom He will save, and we know that He is just. This categorically does not mean that if you die outside of this life, specifically outside of traditional baptism, then you are not favored by God, or that then you are eternally consigned to hell. For Abraham was surely among those raised by Christ in His resurrection, and he was not baptized. Noah was not even circumcised. And surely Christ would not leave his "very good" creations Adam and Eve to languish in the grave!

It is instructive to consider the case of the thief on Christ's right hand. For even if this thief were not baptized by water and the Spirit, he certainly was baptized with the baptism with which Christ was baptized (Mark 10:38). Many seemingly unbaptized and uncircumcised-of-heart will certainly enter the kingdom of heaven ahead of many of us who are baptized and sell this birthright for bodily pleasure or, worse, spiritual delusion. There are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last. (Luke 13:30). (By the way, the thief too is considered a saint of the Orthodox Church, and is celebrated in hymnody as the first man to come back to paradise. The last thing he stole was salvation!)

It is not baptism that saves, but God Who saves. In His wisdom, God has appointed baptism, and anointing with oil, and communion, and marriage, and countless other wonderful mysteries to be effective tools in His inscrutable working-out of our salvation.


Are Naaman's actions considered an exception to God's laws?

Let's take a look at exactly what we are taking into consideration here:
all Scriptures are quoted from the King James translation.
Exo 20:3 through 5

Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

This commandment says 'gods before me.' There are two important points here:

the word is gods and the little g indicates a false god.

The second important point is the word before.

Considering these words and their importance how does that compare to what Naaman said, and verse 18 cannot be considered without considering verse 17:

2nd Kings 5:17  And Naaman said, Shall there not then, I pray thee, be given to thy servant two mules' burden of earth? for thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice unto other gods, but unto the LORD.

Naaman, wanted to have a place where he could feel like he was worshiping in Israel therefore he wanted some soil from Israel to build a worship place dedicated to the Jehovah, and stated that from then on he would worship him alone

2nd Kings 5:18  In this thing the LORD pardon thy servant, that when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon: when I bow down myself in the house of Rimmon, the LORD pardon thy servant in this thing.

Here Naaman is saying that he will only be bowing in the house of Rimmon because his master (who might be infirmed) was leaning on his arm and it was his duty to aid his master in his worship.
It is noteworthy that Naaman brought this up to Elisha, and shows that he wanted to know if God would consider it sinful. And would not God have had Elisha warn Naaman not to if he was asking out of such concern.


Could there be any possible action proving Yahweh to be cruel?

Mercy is when judgment is withheld from those who deserve it.  God is merciful in that He oftentimes does withhold judgment and punishment from those who deserve it.

However, God is not merciful in every situation.  If that were the case, He no one would ever suffer any penalty for anything they ever did.  Hitler and Stalin would be completely without judgment.  This is not the case.

There is a distinction between God being Love and God being loving.  God is love in that love is an attribute of God.  Loving describes His actions.  God is merciful (adjective), but God is not mercy.

Regarding the death of Christians, history is full of Christians who have died young and who have been killed for their faith.  Yet, in the truest sense, God was merciful to them--not in preventing all harm and death from them, but in forgiving them for their sins against God.  Death is the fate of all men, but death is not the end.  Mercy has to do with our sins being forgiven--not in us being freed from all suffering.


What is the difference between the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches?

The differences are almost too great to list in an answer like this! The real problem in answering your question is that it isn't just a list of "things Roman Catholics believe" and "things Greek Orthodox believe". (NB that "Greek" Orthodox probably isn't accurate here: it's more accurate to talk in terms of "Eastern" Orthodox.) The problems are much more fundamental and enormous than that, and ultimately amount to entirely different methods of theology, theological reasoning, ecclesiological assumptions, thinkings about authority, worship, etc. A major factor is the simple fact that the Western Church (which became the Roman Catholic Church) spoke and wrote in Latin, whereas the Eastern Church used Greek. Translation (particularly of theology) is hard.

But here are some headlines:

Authority The Roman Catholic Church believes in the infallible teaching authority of the Church. This most famously means the doctrine of papal infallibility, though the concept of the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium (teaching office of the church) is also stated. This is a concept foreign to the Eastern Orthodox, who see the authority of the Church as stemming from the Holy Tradition, seen most fully in the Ecumenical Councils. But the Orthodox would be careful not to pin the question of "infallibility" down: it's not a concept that really works in Eastern thought.

Papacy For the Roman Catholic Church, the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, has universal jurisdiction over all the Church. This is not true in Eastern Orthodoxy. They recognise the Bishop of Rome as being primus inter pares, first among equals, but as essentially equal to the other major patriarchs (Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem).

The filioque clause The famous cause of the Great Schism of 1054. This was a modification to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. The question was whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, or from the Father and the Son. (filioque means "and from the Son".) For the Catholics, it is important that the phrase is used; for the Orthodox, it is breaking with tradition and perverting the doctrine of the Trinity. This problem is closely related to the above problems.

Church unity What is necessary for the Church to be one? For Roman Catholics, it means participation in the organisation headed by the Pope. For the Orthodox, it means membership in one of the Orthodox churches, which are fully in communion with one another.

These are all "dividing" issues, which contribute to the continuing division between the Orthodox and the Catholics. There are other differences as well, which aren't divisive in the same way:

Liturgy The Roman Catholic Mass is very different to the Orthodox Divine Liturgy.
Married clergy In the Roman Catholic Church, priests may not be married (except in some narrow circumstances, and in some Eastern Catholic Churches). For the Eastern Orthodox, married men may become priests, but not bishops.
Bread and the Eucharist Roman Catholics typically use unleavened bread (wafers) whereas the Orthodox use leavened bread. This is due to a very old dispute about the precise date of Easter, and whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal.

And, moreover, culturally there are very different attitudes. A summary would be that Catholics tend to systematise things (e.g. the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas) whereas the Orthodox tend to prefer a more discursive, poetic, less precise way of doing theology.


Aside from St. Vincent Ferrer, are there any other saints said to have had the "gift of tongues"?

The following Aside from St. Vincent Ferrer, are there any other saints said to have had the “gift of tongues”?
Of coarse there are.
Here are a few that may fit the bill:
St. Anthony of Padua

St. Anthony and the Gift of Tongues
The book “The Little Flowers of St Francis” was written by Brother Ugolino about 100 years after the life of St Francis of Assisi and St Anthony of Padua, the details of which are based on original documents of the Franciscan Order. In Chapter 39 of this book we read:
"St Anthony of Padua, one of the chosen disciples and companions of St Francis, whom the latter called his Vicar, was preaching one day before the Pope and the Cardinals in Consistory, there were therefore present at that moment men of different countries- Greeks and Latins, French and Germans, Slavs and English and men of many other different languages and dialects.
"And being inflamed by the Holy Spirit and inspired with apostolic eloquence, he preached and explained the word of God so effectively, devoutly, subtly, clearly and understandably that all who were assembled at that Consistory, although they spoke different languages, clearly and distinctly heard and understood everyone of his words as if he had spoken in each of their languages. Therefore they were all astounded and filled with devotion, for it seemed to them that the former miracle of the Apostles at the time of Pentecost had been renewed, when by the power of the Holy Spirit they spoke in different languages.
"And in amazement, just like in the Acts of the Apostles they said to one another: "Is he not a Spaniard?' How then are we all hearing him in the language of the country where we were born-we Greeks and Latins, French and Germans, Slavs and English, Lombards and foreigners?"
It was not only at this consistory that St. Anthony's gift of tongues was utilized. It is written that while preaching in Italy he spoke in perfect Italian, and while in France he preached in French, although he had never studied these languages. Also remarkable is the fact that "the simple-minded and the most ignorant listeners were capable of fully comprehending all he said; and his voice, though gentle and sweet, was distinctly heard at a very extraordinary distance from the speaker."

St. Paul of the Cross (1694-1775)

The gift of Tongues in the preaching of St Paul of the Cross
The grace of being heard at great distances was also documented on at least three occasions in the life of St. Paul of the Cross (1694-1775), the holy founder of the Passionist Order. Because of his extraordinary reputation for holiness, people would come from great distances to hear the man of God preach his missions, and to witness the remarkable miracles and cures that often accompanied his preaching. Therfore the crowds that gathered during his missions were often immense. On at least three documented occasions, his voice could be heard by all those present, even amdst the usual noises of such a great crowd, extending even those who were literally several miles away. This extraordinary grace took place in the three locations of La Tolfa, at Civitacastellana, and on the Isle of Elba, where he was heard a full five miles away.
Also, as stated above with the Apostles and also St Anthony, it was also documented on several occasions that his Italian language was understood by members of different foreign nationalities and languages who had come to listen to him.

St. Dominic (1170-1221)

The gift of speaking in Tongues in the life of St Dominic
And then there is also another holy Founder, St. Dominic (1170-1221), the founder of the Dominican Order and the great promoter of the Holy Rosary, who was given the gift of tongues when he was one day on a journey to Paris with his companion, Bertrand of Garrega, and a number of other friends and disciples.
While on the road they visited the sanctuary of Rocamadour, where they spent the night praying before a miraculous image of Our Lady. The next day, as they journeyed along, they sang litanies and recited psalms and the divine office, which attracted the attention of two German pilgrims, who began to follow them. When they came to the next village the two German pilgrims, being greatly attracted by the devotion of the little band, made motions to them indicating that they should sit down and dine with them. It was somewhat of an awkward situation since the Germans could not understand the Dominicans, nor could the Dominicans understand the Germans. This continued for four days, with the Germans sharing their food with the Dominicans.
On the fifth day St. Dominic addressed Bertrand in this manner: "Brother Bertrand, it grieves me to reap the temporal things of these pilgrims without sowing for them spiritual things: let us kneel down and ask God to grant us the understanding of their language, that we may speak to them of Christ." Accordingly, they knelt down and prayed. When they rose up, they were able to converse with the Germans in their own language and did so without difficulty for the rest of the journey.
As they drew near Paris, the Germans, now filled with spiritual consolations, departed from them. The earthly food which the Germans had provided had been exchanged by Dominic for spiritual food which nourished their spirits and was beneficial to their eternal salvation. St. Dominic, for his part, charged Bertrand to keep silent about the matter and to keep it secret until his death, "lest the people should take us for Saints who are but sinners.'"

St. Pachomius the Great

Among many miracles wrought by him, the author of his life assures us, that though he had never learned the Greek or Latin tongues, he sometimes miraculously spoke them; he cured the sick and persons possessed by devils with blessed oil. - St. Pachomius, Abbot (292-348)

The German Stigmatic Therese Neumann of Germany (1898-1962) was gifted with gift of understanding foreign and ancient languages.

The extraordinary gift of understanding* foreign languages, especially ancient Biblical languages has been given to numerous Saints, especially the Mystics. Most notably in recent times this gift was given to a remarkable 20th century mystic and stigmatic named Therese Neumann of Germany (1898-1962).
During the ecstasies of the Passion in which Therese not only saw, but physically participated in in a mystical way, she heard the four languages which were in common use during the time of Christ: Latin, Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic; the Aramaic was spoken in a dialect mixed with Greek words. Therese recognized and repeated them after she returned to normal life. The fact that this humble country girl could master such languages is a miracle in itself. Therese had a seventh grade education and did not speak or understand any other language but German; to her personal friends she spoke in the dialect of the Oberpfalz, the particular region of Bavaria in which Konnersreuth is located.
Many eminent scholars of Oriental languages and of the Old Testament visited Therese in order to check the authenticity of Therese's knowledge of languages. Nevertheless, it was indeed difficult to find scholars who were qualified to interview Therese. It is not an exaggeration to say that in many instances she knew more about these ancient languages and many other details than the scholars did!
Some of the noted men who helped extensively in the verifi¬cation and clarification of the 2,OOO-year-old practices were: Rev. Prof. Dr. Wutz (a priest), professor of Oriental languages and the Old Testament at Catholic College, Eichstatt, Bavaria; Prof. Bauer, of Halle, a non-Catholic expert in Oriental lan¬guages; and Prof. Wessely, of Vienna, a non-Christian, who was also a scholar of these languages. All of the results of their investigations were made public. - Gift of understanding foreign and ancient languages


Does Luke chapter 16 verses 9 through 13 warn us that there is no middle ground between serving God and serving mammon?

Yes, there is no middle ground. The language here is that of worship; the idea is that mammon is an alternative god to God. The stress here from Jesus, and throughout the New Testament (1 Timothy 6:3-10 comes to mind), is that mammon, or money, is to be used to serve the Trinity, rather than to be served as god itself.

This is the antithesis to what has been called the prosperity gospel, where the Trinity is used to serve mammon instead of the other way around.


Do Orthodox believe the eternal fire is related to the uncreated light?

According to the Orthodox saints, the “fire” that will consume sinners at the coming of God's kingdom is the same “fire” that'll shine with splendor in the saints. It is the “fire” of God’s love; the “fire” of God Himself who is Love.

“For our God is a consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:29) who “dwells in unapproachable light.” (I Timothy 6:16).

For those who love God and who love all creation in Him, the “consuming fire” of God will be radiant bliss and unspeakable delight. For those who do not love God, and who do not love at all, this same consuming fire will be the cause of their “weeping” and their “gnashing of teeth.”

According to Orthodoxy, God does not punish man by some material fire or physical torment. God simply reveals Himself in the risen Lord Jesus in such a glorious way that no man can fail to behold His glory. It is the presence of God’s splendid glory and love that is the scourge of those who reject its radiant power and light.

NOTES

http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/spirituality/the-kingdom-of-heaven/heaven-and-hell

https://orthocath.wordpress.com/2010/09/16/hell-and-gods-love-an-orthodox-view/

http://stgeorgegoc.org/pastors-corner/fr-ricks-sermons/the-fire-of-god


What does 'do not be overrighteous' mean in Ecclesiastes?

While interpreting and exegeting Ecclesiastes we need to keep in mind a couple of things. First, the preacher's observations and comments, for the most part, concern things "under the sun." True believers know, however, there is a meaning to life which transcends just the things under the sun, as good as those things might be. (One such good thing, as the preacher observes, is the enjoyment of one's work under the sun.)
Second, statements such as "be not over-righteous or over-wise" have a primary application to living life among the "heathen," shall we say. In modern parlance, we might say,

No one likes a goody-two-shoes.

No one likes a wisenheimer/smart_ _ s/wiseguy.

Who do you thing you are, acting all high and mighty?

So, why the "holier than thou" attitude?

To get along with people in the world (since we ourselves are IN the world but not OF the world, and the world's system/kingdom), we need to be wise as serpents but harmless as doves, as Jesus said.
In our praying, giving, and fasting, we need to be invisible--except to our heavenly Father!
To be overly righteous or wise is to risk destroying one's life unnecessarily. According to the Bible, Christians need to "fit in" as any good ambassador does, but not to go completely "native." Again, they are in the world but not of the world.
There's a fine balance there. Daniel, of the book bearing his name, achieved that balance. He was educated by heathens, but he took his faith in God more seriously. When the time came for him to choose either to bow down before the king's likeness or to maintain his integrity before God, he chose the latter.
In conclusion, Christians need God's righteousness and wisdom, but they needn't wear it on their sleeves. To do so is to risk destroying their testimony before a watching world.


A Catholics Answer

Isaiah's prophetic warning was for Judah and Jerusalem. Isaiah 2:1 It was fulfilled with the Babylonian captivity. It was again fulfilled when the Romans toppled Jerusalem. Isaiah's warning is for all God's children, even today. Do not allow your gluttonous desire for things of this world kill your desire to worship and serve the LORD your God, by doing His will among you.

There is no mention what so ever in Isaiah Chapter 2 of an earthly reign of God.

Pre-melenialism Rapture Theology is a man made tradition and a false doctrine.


What is the point Jesus is trying to make by comparing Pharisees with several objects?

The point is that outward appearances of righteousness do not fool God.  The Pharisees, who were sticklers for the Law, their traditions and rituals for purification, added to the Word of God by imposing additional rules and regulations.  This resulted in placing a heavy burden on the people.  Jesus condemned their teachings as being merely human rules (Mark 7:7).
On the outside, the Pharisees presented themselves as pious, holy and pleasing to God.  The illustration of a whitewashed tomb shows how the external appearance may have been pleasing to the eye but the reality was disgusting to a holy and righteous God.
At first glance, the appearance of the Pharisees projected an image of spiritual holiness and cleanliness, but a closer look exposed their sinful, proud and self-righteous attitudes.  Hence the similarity with a cup and plate that might be externally clean and pleasing to the eye, but held disgusting and unclean contents.

In the Gospels, the Pharisees are often presented as hypocritical and proud opponents of Jesus. The Lord stated it bluntly: “They do not practice what they preach” (Matthew 23:3). As a general rule, the Pharisees were self-righteousness and smug in their delusion that they were pleasing to God because they kept the Law—or parts of it, at least. As Jesus pointed out to them, however scrupulous they were in following the finer points of ritualism, they failed to measure up to God’s standard of holiness: “You have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness” (verse 23).
The apostle Paul was trained as a Pharisee, and his credentials in that group were sterling (Acts 26:5). Paul called himself “a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless” (Philippians 3:5–6). But Paul found that his performance of the Law could not produce true righteousness. After he placed his trust in Christ’s finished work on the cross, he desired to “be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith” (verse 9). No one, not even the strictest Pharisee, is justified by keeping the Law (Galatians 3:11).  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Pharisees.html

God looks for mercy, not sacrifice, and is pleased by a contrite heart, opposing a proud heart.  God knows what’s going on in the inside, our motives and secret thoughts.  Jesus could see the Pharisees for what they really were, outwardly religious but spiritually dead on the inside.


Fr. Pedro de Corpa and his Companions are currently not Saints, but Servants of God. There is currently a procedure for canonization started, which is now in the second phase.
An August 20, 2014 article in Our Sunday Visitor (J.J. Ziegler, Georgia martyrs died defending Church teaching, in OSV Newsweekly) gave the following information:

The path to the canonization of a martyr is different from that of other saints. First, a bishop begins the investigation of the life of the murdered person to find out whether his or her death is a true martyrdom — that is, whether he or she voluntarily accepted death inflicted out of hatred for the Christian faith. At this stage, the sainthood candidate is known as a Servant of God.
If the bishop approves, then the Congregation for the Causes of Saints continues the process in Rome. If the Congregation concurs that the death is a true martyrdom, then the pope may accept its decision and issue a decree on the martyrdom of the Servant of God. At that point, the martyr may be beatified and given the title “Blessed,” with public liturgical veneration limited to certain areas, such as a diocese, a nation or a religious community. No miracle is required for the beatification of a martyr.
If there are reports of a miracle granted through the intercession of the Blessed, then the Congregation may conduct an additional investigation. If the Congregation determines that the healing is a true miracle, then the pope may accept its decision and issue a decree on the miracle of the Blessed. At that point, the martyr may be canonized and given the title “Saint,” with public liturgical veneration extended to the entire Church.
The sainthood cause of the five slain friars — the Servants of God Pedro de Corpa and his companions (Blas de Rodríguez, Miguel de Añon, Antonio de Badajoz and Francisco de Beráscola) — is now in the second stage. In 2007, Bishop J. Kevin Boland, then bishop of Savannah, Georgia, concluded the cause’s diocesan phase, and the cause is currently under consideration in Rome.

Since the proceedings remain sealed until the investigation is concluded, I presume that there won't be official hagiographies yet until that point, besides stories written up by local investigators/historians/faithful.
At the present moment Father Giovangiuseppe Califano, OFM, the Postulator of the Cause, is overseeing the redaction of the final historical document which will be presented to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints next year.


Why does God command us to have children?

The verses you quote give one very obvious reason: to fill the earth, take control of it, and rule it.

This might be slightly more understandable by analogy to adopted children of a good king. The king desires his children to not just like him in title (accomplished simply by the adoption) but like him in character and action (rightly using authority develops right character and right character motivates a caring that demands that authority be exercised and exercised rightly).

(Part of this rule would seem to be to command the obedience of "lower creatures" with respect to their being fruitful. [God's command to the sea and sky creatures in Genesis 1:22 to "increase" is implicit to other creatures.] This would seem to imply that human reproduction which prevents such obedience by destroying habitats would be contrary to the command.)

One aspect of being made in the image of God is that human's are meant to be like images of a King scattered about the kingdom to declare the authority of the King. Images that more faithfully reflect the original more clearly make that declaration. (Declarations of autonomy--e.g., my labeling myself [as a statue] "King Paul"--would be perhaps the most outrageous violation of that purpose.)

Parenting is also one of the ways that God helps humans understand his character (being like a husband and like a father to his creation but also to understand the Father's love to his adopted children that he would give his begotten Son for them), develop a like character, and display his character (in miniature and like a statue or picture). Even the act of procreation itself mimics (as a child imitating the parent) God's act of creation. It also seems that parenting wears very abrasively against self-will and self-sufficiency and more strongly forces prioritization of the use of time and other resources.

Biological reproduction is also a reasonably effective form of evangelism, of growing the kingdom.

With respect to Satan as the prince of this world, the Christian is comforted that Jesus has overcome the world (John 16:33b--"In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.", NIV). To reject children out of fear of Satan would be to reject this comfort.

With respect to the waiting for the return, the Christian is called to be active and fruitful in this time. Burying one's talent to be guaranteed not to suffer loss seems to be viewed rather harshly in the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30).

With respect to fighting our carnal nature, Biblical Christianity is not like that form of Gnosticism that taught that the spirit is good and the matter is evil. In fact, the Bible teaches that the Christ ascended into heaven with a physical body (which ate food presumably with fleshly pleasure). While sexuality is a major area of human corruption, it is part of the created order that God originally declared "good". By properly exercising sexuality, a couple declares God's redeeming power over this prominent area of fallenness. (For Roman Catholics, who reject the separation of the unitive and reproductive aspects of sexuality, the connection of reproduction with proper exercise of sexuality may be more explicit; but I suspect even most Protestants would not entirely separate sexuality from reproduction, at least recognizing that there is a creaturely desire to procreate that is linked with sexuality and that the full function of sexuality involves reproduction.)


Does everything - everything in our heart and every external event- happen according to God's plan? (Catholic)

Everything is subject to God's providence, but that does not imply God necessitates everything to happen the way it does.
St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica I q. 22 a. 4 article "Whether providence imposes any necessity on things foreseen?," answers:

Divine providence imposes necessity upon some things; not upon all, as some formerly believed. For to providence it belongs to order things towards an end. Now after the divine goodness, which is an extrinsic end to all things, the principal good in things themselves is the perfection of the universe; which would not be, were not all grades of being found in things. Whence it pertains to divine providence to produce every grade of being. And thus it has prepared for some things necessary causes, so that they happen of necessity; for others contingent causes, that they may happen by contingency, according to the nature of their proximate causes.

Thus, God's knowing Judas would betray Him in no way necessitated him to betray Him. Judas's acts of his freewill are contingent causes, not necessary ones.
cf. also Thomist theologian Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.'s ProvidenceBut perhaps your question is more: "Does God will/want everything to occur as it actually does?" St. Thomas Aquinas answers this in his Summa Theologica I q. 19 a. 6 question "Whether the will of God is always fulfilled?":

The will of God must needs always be fulfilled. In proof of which we must consider that since an effect is conformed to the agent according to its form, the rule is the same with agent causes as with formal causes. The rule in forms is this: that although a thing may fall short of any particular form, it cannot fall short of the universal form. For though a thing may fail to be, for example, a man or a living being, yet it cannot fail to be a being. Hence the same must happen in agent causes. Something may fall outside the order of any particular agent cause, but not outside the order of the universal cause; under which all particular causes are included: and if any particular cause fails of its effect, this is because of the hindrance of some other particular cause, which is included in the order of the universal cause. Therefore an effect cannot possibly escape the order of the universal cause. Even in corporeal things this is clearly seen. For it may happen that a star is hindered from producing its effects; yet whatever effect does result, in corporeal things, from this hindrance of a corporeal cause, must be referred through intermediate causes to the universal influence of the first heaven*. Since, then, the will of God is the universal cause of all things, it is impossible that the divine will should not produce its effect. Hence that which seems to depart from the divine will in one order, returns into it in another order; as does the sinner, who by sin falls away from the divine will as much as lies in him, yet falls back into the order of that will, when by its justice he is punished.
*primi caeli or the primum mobile, the first thing God moves

Also, in ibid. ad 2, he states that "everything, in so far as it is good, is willed by God."


In Calvin's sermon on Christmas Day (I believe it fell on a Friday) in 1551, he says the following:

In truth, as you have often been admonished, it is good to set aside one day out of the year in which we are reminded of all the good that has occurred because of Christ’s birth in the world, and in which we hear the story of his birth retold, which will be done Sunday.
Once we have understood that, we will no longer find it strange that Noel is not being observed today, but that on Sunday we will celebrate the Lord’s Supper and recite the story of the nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ.

It appears that Calvin was opposed to celebrating the Lord's Supper and elevating the day on Christmas Day, but was not opposed to celebrating Christ's birth on a Lord's Day. Liturgically, it seems that the story of the nativity was recited specially on the Lord's Day closest to Christmas Day. His letters suggest that he was ambivalent towards having Christmas Day as a festival day.