In Reformed theology, are Christians still "totally depraved"?

Tullian Tchvidijian's vocabulary, if not his theology, is definitely not in line with the typical understanding of total depravity.  We'll begin by explaining that, and then comparing Tchvidjian's teaching.
Total Depravity
Robert Reymond's definition of total depravity is typical:

Both because of original sin and their own acts of sin, all mankind, excepting Christ, in their natural state are thoroughly corrupt and completely evil, though they are restrained from living out their corruptness in its fullness by the instrumentatlities of God's common grace.  Accordingly they are completely incapable of saving themselves.

The phrase "in their natural state" is worth noting here, as are the references to two related concepts: radical or total corruption and complete inability.  R. C. Sproul includes both in his treatment of total depravity as well:

To be totally depraved is to suffer from corruption that pervades the whole person. (118)
The moral inability of fallen man is the core concept of the doctrine of total depravity (128)

Sproul also points to the Westminster Confession of Faith, which makes the same points about the condition of fallen man in 9.3:

Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

Tchividjian
With this understanding of total depravity, we can look at Tchvidjian's views.  He is clearly correct that the phrase means more than one thing; it does indeed include both total corruption and complete inability.  And he accepts, naturally, that the complete inability aspect does not apply to Christians, as they have been made alive in Christ.
So what about the other aspect?  Do Calvinists believe that Christians are still totally corrupt, that is, corrupt in their whole person?  This part is a bit trickier.  Tchvidjian writes:

Even after God saves us, there is no part of us that becomes sin free–we remain sinful and imperfect in all of our capacities, in the "totality" of our being.

Charles Hodge, in distinguishing three types of "good works," agrees: "not even the works of the holiest of God’s people are good" when we consider the phrase to mean that both the action itself, as well as the motives of the actor, are completely in line with the law.  However, he continues:

The works of the children of God, therefore, although stained by sin, are truly and properly good, because, (1.) They are, as to their nature or the thing done, commanded by God. (2.) Because, as to the motive, they are the fruits, not merely of right moral feeling, but of religious feeling, i.e., of love to God; and (3.) Because they are performed with the purpose of complying with his will, of honouring Christ and of promoting the interests of his kingdom.

So in one sense, Reformed theologians agree with Tchvidijian – sin does continue to taint everything that Christians do.  But it's inaccurate to say that sin taints everything that Christians do in the same way that it affects everything that non-Christians do.  Hodge makes a clear distinction between the "civil goodness" of the unregenerate – the "good" works done as a result of fear of punishment or social pressure – and the "good works" of the Christian, which are performed out of a love for God and a desire to honor him.  Tchividjian fails to make this distinction, and in doing so fails to accurately portray the teaching of total depravity.
Summary
Tchividjian's divergence from traditional Reformed theology appears to be more a matter of vocabulary and lack of clarity than actual theological disagreement.  The two points of discrepancy are:

He uses a label that means two distinct things as if it may mean only one thing.  The doctrine of total depravity includes both total corruption and complete inability, but though Tchividjian admits that complete inability does not pertain to Christians, he still applies the total depravity label to them.  From a traditional perspective, at best he can say that only half of total depravity applies to Christians.
He misuses the label of total corruption.  As a doctrinal label, total corruption denotes a heart that does nothing out of love for God, but with such a definition it cannot be applied to Christians.  Instead, Tchividjian confounds this with the idea that all actions of Christians are stained by sin, which Reformed theologians agree with, but call by a different name, such as remaining sin.

References

Hodge, ST, III, 18.4
Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, Appendix E
Sproul, What is Reformed Theology? Chapter 6


Does the Catholic Church verify whether candidates to the priesthood are really men?

The 1983 Code says:

  Can.  1024 A baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly.

The 1917 Code elaborates:

  Canon 968 §1. Only a baptized male validly received sacred ordination; for liceity, however, he should be outstanding in the qualities according to the norm of the sacred canons, in the judgment of the proper Ordinary, and not detained by any irregularity or other impediment.

Thus, it is up to the Ordinary (e.g., bishop) to make the judgment of whether the ordinand is male, etc.


What do we know about the Council of Nicaea's ban of celebrating the Lord's Supper on the day before Passover?

We know there was a conflict in the very early church about the 3-day observance of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection.  Some wanted to observe the 14th (Passover), which came to be called the Last Supper.  Others wanted to observe the resurrection, which came to be determined about Sunday sunrise.  The Council of Nicea met to discuss the issue, among other issues.  They decided that overlapping observances was to be avoided.  Constantine was the guarantee.  Here is his letter to the churches.

When the question relative to the sacred festival of Easter arose, it was universally thought that it would be convenient that all should keep the feast on one day; for what could be more beautiful and more desirable, than to see this festival, through which we receive the hope of immortality, celebrated by all with one accord, and in the same manner?  It was declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the holiest of all festivals, to follow the custom [the calculation] of the Jews, who had soiled their hands with the most fearful of crimes, and whose minds were blinded.  In rejecting their custom,113 we may transmit to our descendants the legitimate mode of celebrating Easter, which we have observed from the time of the Saviour’s Passion to the present day [according to the day of the week].
https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.vii.x.html

So again, their goal was to observe a resurrection feast for all the churches on the same day.  At the same time, the goal was to avoid said feast on the same day as Passover or Unleavened Bread.  The difference would be to observe the feast on a day of the week (Sunday), rather than on a date as determined from Scripture (the 14th Passover).  The decision was made therefore to observe Easter on the first Sunday following the first full moon (the full moon was typically the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread) after the Spring Equinox.


Were any prophets sent to the Canaanites before Jewish immigration?

Yes* - Abraham was a prophet (cf. Genesis 20:7) and was sent to dwell in Canaan as a "sojourner"; ie, to be present as a witness to the living God among the people there (cf. Hebrews 11:8-16). His son Isaac and grandson Jacob were inheritors of "the same promise" and likewise fulfilled this role.
*Assuming by "Jewish immigration" you mean the conquest of Canaan under Joshua.


What do charismatic Christians actually mean by the phrase "tonight is an open heaven"?

It's a term used to describe  the revelation of something the Holy Spirit showed them in a dream or a word of knowledge.


No,Jehovah’s Witnesses do not consider themselves a Protestant religion.
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition, defines Protestant as

a member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth.”

It is certainly true that Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the universal authority of the pope and fully support the primacy of the Bible but they  differ from Protestant religions in many significant ways. In fact, The Encyclopedia of Religion refers to Jehovah’s Witnesses as being “distinctive.”
There is this brief explanation of 3 basic differences between Protestants and Jehovah’s witnesses on our official website JW.Org

First, although Protestant faiths reject certain features of Catholic worship, Reformation leaders retained certain Catholic dogmas, such as belief in the Trinity, hellfire, and the immortality of the human soul. Jehovah’s Witnesses, however, believe that those doctrines not only contradict the Bible but also promote a distorted view of God. —See pages 4-7 of this magazine.
Second, the religion that Jehovah’s Witnesses advocate is, not one of negative protest, but one of positive instruction. They take seriously the Bible’s counsel: “A servant of the Lord is not to engage in quarrels, but has to be kind to everyone, a good teacher, and patient. He has to be gentle when he corrects people who dispute what he says.” (2 Timothy 2:24, 25, The Jerusalem Bible) Jehovah’s Witnesses do point out contradictions between what the Bible says and what many religious groups teach. Yet, their goal in doing so is not to reform other religious organizations. Rather, their goal is to help sincere individuals to gain accurate knowledge of God and of his Word, the Bible. (Colossians 1:9, 10) When people of other persuasions insistently disagree with them, Jehovah’s Witnesses avoid engaging in fruitless debates. —2 Timothy 2:23.
Third, unlike the Protestant movement, which has splintered into of denominations, Jehovah’s Witnesses have maintained a united global brotherhood. When it comes to Bible doctrine, Jehovah’s Witnesses in over 230 countries follow the apostle Paul’s counsel to “speak in agreement.” There are no divisions among them. Instead, they are genuinely “united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.” (1 Corinthians 1:10) They strive within their own ranks “to observe the oneness of the spirit in the uniting bond of peace.” —Ephesians 4:3.


How do Young Earth Creationists account for radiometrical dates of more than 7000 years?

The literal answer is that YECs "account" for no such thing. They reject the accuracy of such dates, based on an alternate interpretation of the available evidence. However, that isn't very satisfying, so let's address the question you really want to ask, which is "how do YECs account for such supposed ages?".
The short version is that there is no such thing as "radiometric dating".
Rather, there is the ability to measure relative concentrations of various radioactive isotopes. I'm not going to attempt a detailed explanation (you could try here to start), but the short version is that, based on several (sometimes unprovable, sometimes falsified) assumptions, Uniformitarian Evolutionists (UEs) claim to be able to establish the age of certain artifacts (rocks, fossils, seeds, etc.) based on ratios of certain radioactive isotopes and their byproducts.
It should also be noted that these methods often employ various self-reinforcing feedback loops based on UE assumptions (chief of which is that God does not exist). To wit, various techniques such as position of an artifact within geological strata and alternate dating methods of colocated artifacts are used to help "dial in" the dating methodology.
The critical point here, however, is that these techniques have expected results. The methods may be adjusted in order to arrive at the "correct" results, and data that does not fit UE expectations may be discarded entirely (often written off as "contamination"). Simply the way in which these dating methods have been developed ought to be sufficient to place them into question.
Another problem is consistency. Different methods used on the same artifact can give wildly different results. In fact, there is evidence of systemic discrepancies; I'll come back to this point shortly. Other issues are known and sometimes even acknowledged by UEs.
However, to really understand why YECs reject UE "dating", we need to look at the main three assumptions on which those methods rest:

The relative proportions of radioisotopes are fixed at the time the artifact "comes into existence" (when a rock is formed in its current state, when an animal dies and begins the process of fossilization).

UEs themselves acknowledge that this assumption is problematic. YECs further point out that e.g. ¹⁴C concentrations may have been dramatically different prior to the Flood.

The relative proportions of radioisotopes are known at the time the artifact "comes into existence".

Not only does this rely on various assumptions, it has been, in at least some instances, demonstrably falsified. Lava rocks whose formation has been observed by living humans have, for example, been "dated" as "millions of years old". Also, again, effects of the Flood offer an alternate explanation for many observations.

The rate of radioactive decay has remained constant.

While this assumption does seem reasonable, and is even an explanation that a YEC would prefer (the YEC philosophy is to prefer non-miraculous explanations unless no other explanation seems reasonable), it is unprovable until and unless someone creates a working time machine. In fact, even non-YEC sources have shown evidence that the rate of decay is not constant and are experimenting with altering it, while some (YEC) experiments have already demonstrated that greatly accelerated decay is within the reach of not only God, but of Man. Moreover, there is evidence that the rate of decay was dramatically altered by God on at least one occasion in the past. Such evidence includes the previously mentioned systemic inconsistencies in radiometric "dating".
Really, the upshot of all this is that you should read the R.A.T.E. report, volumes I and II. These express a number of very specific problems with radiometric dating as accepted by UEs, at least some of which, TTBOMK have not been refuted plausibly. The upshot is that YECs possess a cohesive interpretation (admittedly based on Christian dogma) of the available evidence which ought to be weighed against — not simply ignored or rejected out of hand — the interpretation favored by UEs (based on athiestic dogma which UEs will often vociferously deny).
Finally, one would be remiss to not also consider that other evidence, not related to radiometric dating, can also be interpreted as indicative of an Earth that is thousands, not millions or billions, of years old. I wouldn't know where to start here, but see the links from my original version of the answer.
Now, obviously, not everyone accepts the YEC interpretation. However, the main point here isn't to argue which is right or wrong, but to answer the question of how YECs can "account for" certain evidences which are interpreted by UEs as indicating certain ages of various artifacts. Hopefully this answer can help you on a path to understanding that.

Old answer, for posterity:
As noted in a comment, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, as your assumption seems to be faulty. However, the critical point seems to be "Christians who reject plants existing >7,000 years ago".
Well... the only such Christians I know are Young Earth Creationists, who reject anything (other than God, of course) existing more than 7,000 years ago.
Naturally, this also means they reject the claimed age of, well, anything as being more than 7,000 years. So I think the answer to your question is that they don't reconcile anything, but rather reject the validity of any dating that gives an answer of more than 7,000 years.
Here are a couple places you can start if you want to learn more about why YECs reject Uniformitarian dating:

https://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth
https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/


What reasons do Christians have to believe there is one God?

A common argument for theism is the Cosmological argument - that there must have been a first cause for the universe. Christians believe that everything that exists is the result of God, who is uncreated and self-existent.

If the universe has a single cause then it follows its existence is the result of a single self-existent being. Could there somehow be multiple self-existent beings? Well yes, but to be a single cause for the universe those beings must be in such a great unity. This could be argued to be the case for the Christian view of God, the Trinity, who is three persons in one being.

In many (perhaps most) polytheistic religions most of the gods were actually created from the original creator god. In my mind those gods don't deserve to be called gods - call them spirits instead.


How do the Catholic and Orthodox views of original sin differ?

Catholics (i.e., Western or Latin -- I belong to this group) believe that original sin entails actually inheriting the burden of Adam's Sin, which is mortal sin keeping us from entering heaven without a method of acquiring sanctifying grace, such as baptism. Original sin also threw all of nature into discord, and is the source of man's concupiscence. The Easter Orthodox, Eastern Catholics, and Oriental Orthodox, by contrast, do not believe that man inherits the burden of Adam's sin, but they believe that it is the source of the fallen nature of man, and concupiscence.

More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin


Are there Old Testament references to the length of Jesus earthly ministry?

Yes the duration of Christ’s ministry was prophesied under the Old Testament to be 3.5 years

  25 “Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, g the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.”  (Daniel 9:25–27, NIV).

This question is related to this post: Does the Old Testament foretell the time in history in which the Messiah would come (the first time)?

There are many possible interpretations according to the seventy weeks of Daniel followed by one half of a week where Messiah would be ‘cut off. I prefer the view that each day of the weeks are 1 year and the basic idea is this:

The period is 490 years ending 3½ years after Christ’s death. The 490 years begin with the decree by Artaxerxes I. (Ezra 7) The appearance of Messiah at the end of the 483 years is when Christ is baptized. This is where his ministry begins at which point ½ a week later (3.5 years) he is ‘cut off’ through his crucifixion. Therefore Christ put an end to sacrifice and offering as the inner curtain of the temple as torn top-to-bottom.  Through the Holy Spirit for another 3½ years after His crucifixion Christ offers salvation principally to the Jews but having generally rejected him thereby sealing the cause of the future destruction of Jerusalem [abomination of desolation], which occurred several years later. This final destruction of Jerusalem as a result is also a final ending of the sacrifices and offering but the true end was in Christ's death, the second part of it is more penal and judiciary against those who rejected him.

There are many variants and debates about the exact years, some even think the 3.5 years is the last of the ½ week. However in either case it does seem that Jesus came around the time he should have and his ministry lasted for around the 3.5 years that it should have. Regardless of the view you take it is compelling and believable.


Did Jesus's rational soul or His spirit descend into hell?

Article 5 of the Catechism of the Council of Trent says:

  We are not to imagine that His power and virtue only, and not also His soul, descended into hell; but we are firmly to believe that His soul itself, really and substantially, descended thither, according to this conclusive testimony of David: Thou wilt not leave my soul [animam] in hell. (Ps. 15:10).

The "Spirit" of Matthew 3:16 ("…the Spirit of God descending as a dove…") is the Holy Ghost, the 3rd Person of the Holy Trinity. Christ's human soul, which is a creature, is not the Holy Ghost, Who is uncreated.

Also, His divinity remained united to His human body and to His human soul. Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas's question "Whether the whole Christ was in hell?" (Summa Theologica III q. 52 a. 3).


I believe the only possible answer to this question, that all Christians can agree with is:

  For you*, Christ cannot possibly return any sooner than right now.

All anyone can know is that Christ has not yet come, but that he will come in the future.  That may be in five seconds, or in 50,000 years. Biblical prophecies are not specific enough that it is possible to come to any consensus as to what specific historical events they might refer to.

The fact that people have been making specific predictions of the second coming for centuries should be the first clue that not everyone will agree there are still specific events that "must" occur before the second coming.

* Some believe that Christ's second coming is referring to a person's individual judgment at the time of death. In that view, the second coming has already occurred for everyone who has died, and is still in the future for everyone else.


Calvinism and Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit

Jesus makes it quite clear that blasphemy is a matter of speech. 'He that speaketh ...' is how Jesus, himself, defines the unforgivable sin of which he warns.

And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. [Matthew 12:32 KJV]

The word Jesus uses, reported by Matthew 12:32, Mark 3:28-39 and Luke 12:10 is βλασφημία which Thayer (see Strong 988) lists as 'slander' 'injurious speech' and 'impious and reproachful speech' is, invariably, a matter of the spoken word.
It seems to me that Calvin, himself, has caused a difficulty when he defines the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit thus  :

I say therefore that he sins against the Holy Spirit who, while so constrained by the power of divine truth that he cannot plead ignorance, yet deliberately resists, and that merely for the sake of resisting. For Christ, in explanation of what he had said, immediately adds, ‘Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him,’ (Mt. 12:3

Perchristum Wordpress

Calvin, in this place, defines the unforgivable sin as 'resisting' but does not make it clear that the sin is blasphemy, which is a matter of speaking. 'Resisting' could mean an internal matter, deep within the spirit of a man. And in the spiritual experience, there can be confusion within, ignorance and doubt.
But to 'speak against' is what is in view, according to the three apostolic reports of Jesus' definition.
If every resistance to the Holy Spirit is unforgivable then who shall be saved ?
Was not Saul of Tarsus found breathing out threatenings and slaughter against that which he knew of Christ ? And did not he 'kick against the stings' ?
Yet it is so, that Paul tells us he did it ignorantly and in unbelief. Not wilfully, in the full appreciation of what he was doing. We read of his turmoil and deep, spiritual experience in Romans 7.
But regarding the context and the content of Jesus' words on the subject, it seems abundantly plain that it is the verbal attributing of the visible effects of the power of the Holy Spirit to the 'Devil' (Diabolos, properly). This would not be forgiven, in this life or the next, if one publicly states that what is visibly and palpably holy, and of God . . .  is of the Devil : to have that deliberately in the mind and heart, and then to publicly make a verbal accusation against the evident work of the Holy Spirit, claiming it is of the 'devil' is to be cut off, forever, from him who brings the things of God and of Christ and shows them to us.
And, true, such do (also) resist, within themselves, personally, as well as communally :

Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. [Acts 7:51 KJV]

Many people I have read of and heard of, and known, have been greatly troubled that they have committed the unforgivable sin. And whilst it is a good thing to consider carefully what one says when one opens one's mouth regarding the things of God, yet it can cause great harm if these matters are misunderstood.


Why don't many churches obey Paul's command that women must be silent in church?

I have heard two explanations for this. I tend to think the second one is much more sound in the context given but I will offer them both for reference.

First of all, the passage in question is 1 Corinthians 14:34.

The first explanation I've heard is that at the time, most women were poorly educated and had a difficult time participating in the discussions at the church and were holding the men back from delving into the teachings because of the amount of background that constantly had to be given and unrelated questions that had to be fielded. Paul was trying to encourage getting as much teaching out to the men as possible leaving the men to help communicate and teach all the needed background to their wives. I suppose there is some legitimacy to the idea. I've certainly been involved in meetings where some subset of the audience wasn't fully with the program and having to stop for off topic questions all the times really puts a damper on things. My historical knowledge is not good enough to know if this was an issue in the early church but I don't think this is what was going on in the passage.

The second explanation takes into account some other aspects of Scripture including the larger context of the passage at hand.

The immediate context is about orderly worship, but the larger scope of the passage in chapter 14 is talking about prophecy in the church. When someone in the church had a teaching or message to give to the church it was a word of prophecy. Any time some such message was given it had to be tested and evaluated against Scripture to make sure that it was valid. When it was validated it would be considered authoritative and in a sense binding to those who heard it.

The Bible explains in several places are marriages are to work in loving submission to each-other, but with the husband having the responsibility of headship. While a husband may consult his wife and reach a decision together, ultimately he has the burden of being responsible for the final choices made (see Why is Adam considered the original sinner?).

In the context of this church, this means that men have the responsibility of evaluating, approving and delivering teaching to the whole body. Since women do not bear the burden of responsibility in such matters, they are asked not to be the ones voicing concerns or pronouncing judgement when such matters came up.

One must also note that Paul did not restrict women from praying or even prophesying themselves. (See 3 chapters earlier in 1 Corinthians 11:5 and Acts 2:17) This is purely an issue of headship and authority, which the Law also spoke to rather than an edict against speaking in a church building and participating in other ways.

Unmarried women are still expected to have some sort of structure around them. This would primarily be the father who is responsible for daughters until they are given over to a husband, but a brother or other family relation could play a similar role.


Will the Earth last forever? (Catholic perspective)

The Church certainly believes the Earth will be burned up; otherwise the Messianic hope which Christ has promised us cannot pass. Yet it will endure for ever, because the burning up of the Earth in the day of the Lord is not a destruction but a renewal; and all imperfect things will pass away and God's vision for His Creation will be made manifest.
From the Catechism:

671 Though already present in his Church, Christ's reign is nevertheless yet to be fulfilled "with power and great glory" by the King's return to earth.Lk 21:27; cf. Mt 25:31 This reign is still under attack by the evil powers, even though they have been defeated definitively by Christ's Passover.Cf. II Th 2:7 Until everything is subject to him, "until there be realized new heavens and a new earth in which justice dwells, the pilgrim Church, in her sacraments and institutions, which belong to this present age, carries the mark of this world which will pass, and she herself takes her place among the creatures which groan and travail yet and await the revelation of the sons of God."Lumen Gentium 48 #3; cf. II Pt 3:13; Rom 8:19-22; I Cor 15:28 That is why Christians pray, above all in the Eucharist, to hasten Christ's return by saying to him:Cf. I Cor 11:26; II Pt 3:11–12 Maranatha! "Our Lord, come!"I Cor 16:22; Rev 22:17,20
672 Before his Ascension Christ affirmed that the hour had not yet come for the glorious establishment of the messianic kingdom awaited by IsraelCf. Acts 1:6–7 which, according to the prophets, was to bring all men the definitive order of justice, love and peace.Cf. Is 11:1–9 According to the Lord, the present time is the time of the Spirit and of witness, but also a time still marked by "distress" and the trial of evil which does not spare the ChurchCf. Acts 1:8; I Cor 7:26; Eph 5:16; I Pt 4:17 and ushers in the struggles of the last days. It is a time of waiting and watching.Cf. Mt 25:1,13; Mk 13:33–37; I Jn 2:18, 4:3; I Tim 4:1
676 The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgement. the Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism,Cf. Dentzingen-Schönmetzer 3839 especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism.Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, condemning the "false mysticism" of this "counterfeit of the redemption of the lowly"; cf. Gaudium et Spes 20–21.
677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection.Cf. Rev 19:1–9. The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God's victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven.Cf. Rev 13:8; 20:7–10; 21:2–4 God's triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgement after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.Cf. Rev 20:12, II Pt 3:12–13

Therefore, the Church believes that this world will be renewed, but that which is imperfect must pass away then (cf. I Cor 13:10). The Earth will endure forever, beyond its final purification in the Coming of the Lord.


Why is the pace of the “oration” in the Traditional Latin Mass so brisk?
I have noticed this very thing countless times and have actually stopped mentioning it to my wife.
It is not that the priests in question are not contemplating the words they recite or chant. Many priests who celebrate the Extraordinary Form were formed in seminaries of the Ordinary Form and that in itself is a difficult transition if not properly trained in how to say the Mass of Pope St. Pius V.
Celebrating the Divine Mysteries is an art that requires practice and patience. There are priests out there that have this down to such a point that it is almost like a second nature.
It comes down to the fact, that they are not instructed how to do so otherwise. I have been involved in the TLM my whole life long and have seen this phenomenon quite frequently.
When it comes down to chanting Gregorian Chant there are several schools of interpretation on how to sing the chant. When in the seminary, years ago, we were taught that lectures, Gospels and prayers could never be read or chanted too slow. It simply does not hold true anymore. The goes for priests of both the Ordinary Form of the Mass and the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.
The best a examples of Gregorian Chant being sung come from the monastic communities of Argentan (nuns) and Fontgombault (monks). The monks of Fontgombault believe that the nuns of Argentanare the masters of this sacred chant. Their postulants and novice practice chant for three hours a day. No wonder they can perform the sacred ceremonies as being part of their very being.
The monks of Fontgombault have the chants of the Feast of the Assumption on YouTube (Assumption 15th of August]2 and one notices how reposed the chant is. It is executed in such a manner that it uplifts the soul towards the Divine and things of Heaven. The monks of Fontgombault follow the older Solesmes Method.
Whether sung or recited this ultimately is a problem of training or lack thereof. Priests must prepare to celebrate the Mass properly and that should mean going over the the texts and practicing them in private. Parish priests often are left on their own in order to celebrate the Mass the best to interpret how such things are to be done.
I remember a young priest of the Ordinary Form, who once bragged that he was able to celebrate a Mass in 25 minutes and that included a hymn at the being and other one at the end. His bishop stepped in and correct the hot rod priest and insisted that Mass be more reverently celebrated.
I am not suggesting that the reason some of priests fall into this is because they're trying to manage the overall duration of the Mass, but for some it may be. I know personally of a few priests that do, but that is a small minority of priests.
Perceptions can be deceiving. If in doubt one can always charitably mention this to a priest, but in personal experience this will not have the desired outcome.
I do not believe that traditional priests would do this, but a little more personal practice of religious ceremonies would be beneficial.
Padre Pio habitually took 1.5 to 3 hours to celebrate his Mass according to the Extraordinary Form. I do not think anyone complained about it. The more reverence the Mass is prayed, the more the faithful will be there.

Padre Pio’s masses were also extraordinarily popular. The people would line up near the church door by 4:00 in the morning, or even earlier. Once the Mass commenced, it lasted anywhere from 1.5 to 3 hours. Pio constantly emphasized the importance of Mass: “It is easier for the earth to exist without the sun, than without the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass”.  - Padre Pio


In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, what is an Elder's Quorum meeting supposed to be?

Actually, due to the recent changes in how teaching and learning in the church is viewed generally in the church (to paraphrase, learning should happen at home, with church meetings supporting that learning), it has become more clear I think.

The point is this: It is expected that you get informed (by the Elder's quorum presidency) what conference talk is going to be talked about. You study it at home. Then you discuss what you learned/thought/felt at church with others so people can benefit from each other. There is a teacher that leads the discussion and is responsible that sane doctrine is taught.

If that is not what you experience, that is because we are all still learning how "home-centered, church-supported" should look like.

What it should NOT look like, but still often does because teachers aren't experienced or confident, or learners aren't prepared:

Trying to cover every point made in the talk. That often leads to unstructured lessons, and not too much discussion.
completely unstructured discussions - there is always someone that can and/or will derail a discussion if the teacher is not able to at least exert some control over the discussion. For example, the inevitable discussion about some diet when the subject is Word of Wisdom.

In addition, an Elder's Quorum meeting is an opportunity to talk about things that concern the priesthood holders. Maybe someone needs help with something that the Elder's Quorum can help with. While it doesn't exist anymore, in 2018 (I think?) the first sunday of the month was dedicated to counsel with each other. In our ward, we used this explicitely to find actively find out if any member of the Quorum could need some help with something. I think it was very successfull. But if there is such a need, the Elder's Quorum meeting can now still serve to address it.

From the handbook 2 (2020-01-28):

  Elders quorum meetings are held on the second and fourth Sundays of
  each month. They last 50 minutes. The purposes of these meetings are
  to conduct business, learn priesthood duties, strengthen individuals
  and families, study the gospel of Jesus Christ, counsel together, and
  organize to meet local needs. Leaders prayerfully plan the meetings to
  accomplish these purposes.

  [..]

  Quorum meetings begin with a brief welcome, a reminder of the Come,
  Follow Me—For Individuals and Families home study materials for that
  day and the following week, and any quorum business. The remainder of
  the meeting is used for gospel instruction and discussion.

  Lessons in quorum meetings focus on messages from the most recent
  general conference. Teaching suggestions are found in the May and
  November issues of the Ensign and Liahona, on ChurchofJesusChrist.org,
  and in the Gospel Library app.


No explicit reason for Abram's victory is given, but the surrounding context can give some clues:

  Genesis 14:8-11 ESV Then the king of Sodom, the king of Gomorrah, the king of Admah, the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar) went out, and they joined battle in the Valley of Siddim with Chedorlaomer king of Elam, Tidal king of Goiim, Amraphel king of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar, four kings against five. Now the Valley of Siddim was full of bitumen pits, and as the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, some fell into them, and the rest fled to the hill country. So the enemy took all the possessions of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their provisions, and went their way. They also took Lot, the son of Abram's brother, who was dwelling in Sodom, and his possessions, and went their way.

Key facts:

Chedorlaomer's army had just finished doing battle (albeit victoriously) before kidnapping Lot. There may have been casualties, fatigue, POWs, issues with the treacherous lands, and whatever else.
The size of the Chedorlaomer's army (and his friends) isn't given.
They had just sacked a city and Abram executed a surprise attack at night. This can tip the scale.

With no further details about this we can surmise that this may have simply been a great victory against the odds. It might not have needed any miraculous intervention from God to happen--though I'm sure He helped:

  Proverbs 21:31 ESV The horse is made ready for the day of battle, but the victory belongs to the Lord.


What does the phrase " saved as by fire" in 1 Corinthians 3:15 mean?

A Catholic Sacred Scripture Interpretation

bruisedreed's answer has the gist of it.

  1 Cor 3:11-15
  (RSVCE)
  11 For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid,
  which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any one builds on the foundation with
  gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble— 13 each man’s work
  will become manifest; for the Day[a] will disclose it,
  because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what
  sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work which any man has built
  on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s
  work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be
  saved, but only as through fire.

  a. 3.13 the Day: i.e., the day of the Lord: God’s searching
  judgment.

The Navarre Bible New Testament Compact Edition has, in part, the following note on vv. 4-23:

The root of all apostolic work is God who gives growth (v.7). Man is God's instrument - servant, minister (v.5), or fellow-worker (v.9) - in that task, which can only be carried through if Jesus Christ is its foundation (v.11). Paul develops these ideas with the help of two similes - God's field (vv.6-9) and his building (vv.9-17). If Christ is the foundation, then Christians must not only be linked to Jesus Christ: they must, as it were, be glued to him [...]. He is the foundation and we are the building; he is the trunk of the vine and we are the branches; he is the husband and we are the wife; he is the shepherd and we are the flock (St. John Chrysostom, Hom. on 1 Cor 8:4). Extending the building metaphor, Paul appeals to ministers to act responsibly, reminding them that a Day of Judgment will come, the day of the LORD (vv.10-17).

Paul uses two biblical quotations (Job 5:13; Ps 94:11; cf. vv.19-20) to show that an unspiritual approach is doomed to failure; whereas a person who has Christ has all things [.]

Catholic Holy Tradition Perspective

From scripture, 'fire' is the means by which God tests and purifies his elect [cf.Hello's answer] and also the means he executes his searching judgment (see above). From Catholic Tradition, in this passage, the person has passed on, and that person is gold but impure, therefore they undergo purification by fire before admittance to the Beatific Vision. It is a cleansing fire.

We know the worst for a person and their achievements is when they gain the whole world and forfeit their life. The works in the OP's question that get burned up, are those that did not profit one as regards eternal life.

cf. This answer to According to Catholicism, in what cases is Purgatory necessary?

Please see:

  CCC
  1031
  The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the
  elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the
  damned.1 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on
  Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The
  tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture,
  speaks of a cleansing fire:2

  As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final
  Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever
  utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in
  this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that
  certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in
  the age to come.3

  1. cf. Council of Florence (1439):DS 1304; Council of Trent
  (1563):DS 1820; (1547):1580; see also Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus
  (1336):DS 1000.
  2. cf. 1 Cor 3:15; 1 Pet 1:7.
  3. St. Gregory the Great, Dial. 4,39:PL 77,396; cf. Mt
  12:31.

cf. Wis 3:5-7 (RSVCE) 5 Having been disciplined a little, they will receive great good, because God tested them and found them worthy of himself; 6 like gold in the furnace he tried them, and like a sacrificial burnt offering he accepted them. 7 In the time of their visitation they will shine forth, and will run like sparks through the stubble.


It is clear that the verse cited, Acts 16:31, is a promise. The question is, to whom does the promise apply? Taken in context, it is a promise to a particular individual in a specific instance. This verse is lifted from the narrative of Paul and Silas in jail in Phillipi, to which they had been delivered by the owners of a slave girl from whom they had driven an unclean spirit. In the narrative, there was an earthquake during which the doors of the jail came open, and the jailer was about to kill himself, believing that the prisoners had escaped. But Paul told the jailer that the prisoners were all accounted for, and in response to the jailer's question, "what must I do to be saved", Paul responds as quoted. The jailer took Paul to his house, and the jailer and his whole household were baptized.

So yes, the statement of Paul is a promise, and contains, in my view, a bit of prophecy about immediately following events. The jailer believed, and the whole household was baptized. However, it is less clear that this a generalized promise to all mankind, that upon believing, the whole household of the believer will be saved. Were this true, it would put Paul against the prophet Micah, and Jesus, who taught about  intra-familial discord between sons and fathers, daughters and mothers, daughters-in-law and mothers-in-law, etc. (cf. Micah 7:6, Matthew 10:21, Matthew 12:34ff, and Luke 12:52-53).


From where does the doctrine that there is no time in heaven originate?

It depends what you mean by time. From our faith, as revealed in Scripture, we know that our experience of the heavenly state is to be without end, and without decay or corruption. However, it does not necessarily follow that there will be no perceptible succession of events. In general, orthodox theology has assumed that we will not assume God's own unique attributes - we will not become omnipotent, for example - and so we will not end up  "outside time" in the fullest sense, as this is directly and innately part of the God-nature. (I suspect that some of this insistence is in opposition to gnostic/Neoplatonist ideas.) I'm not aware of any sect that holds dogmatically that we will become atemporal, though perhaps some people believe it, or leave it open as an option.
In theology, much of the speculation has historically been guided by the philosophy of Aristotle. In On the heavens 1.9 he writes (my annotations in square brackets):

It is therefore evident that there is also no place or void or time outside the heaven [= beyond the boundary of the universe]. For in every place body can be present; and void is said to be that in which the presence of body, though not actual, is possible; and time is the number of movement. But in the absence of natural body there is no movement, and outside the heaven, as we have shown, body neither exists nor can come to exist. It is clear then that there is neither place, nor void, nor time, outside the heaven. Hence whatever is there [= the Prime Mover], is of such a nature as not to occupy any place, nor does time age it; nor is there any change in any of the things which lie beyond the outermost motion; they continue through their entire duration unalterable and unmodified, living the best and most self-sufficient of lives. 1

This passage indicates that time as such is particular to our world; whatever is outside the world is beyond time. Similarly, Physics 4.12 speaks of a category of eternal things which are not contained in time, measurable by time, or affected by the passage of time.
From a Christian perspective, it is natural to say that God himself ought to be covered by this concept (and while this articulation of the idea is from Greek philosophy, it's not totally un-Biblical). Can other things - heaven, angels, human souls - be considered atemporal as well? If we try to jam Aristotle and the Bible together, we might well think that souls in heaven are outside of time, because they're no longer in the world.
But in general, theologians have been reluctant to say this. Truly being outside of time is reserved for God alone, as an essential part of his nature. Other things may, through the grace of God, be made perpetual or incorruptible or immutable.
Scholastics, who were the first to tackle the topic systematically, came up with various elaborate categories; the most important here is the aevum or aeviternal, which is the kind of relationship to time that the angels have. They are creatures of time insofar as they experience a succession of events, but they do not decay, or age, or change in any essential way. Moreover, God's knowledge of the future was held to be direct, because in a sense he's already there, whereas angels may only make inferences about the future (see Aquinas, Summa Theologica 1.57.3). They are everlasting but not atemporal.
In some writers, the aevum is distinguished from the true eternal in that aeviternal things could be destroyed by God, whereas he himself is immutably immutable. Some sources also note that when the heavens and earth have passed away, there would no longer be an objective way of measuring time, and so the duration of events would be up to our perception alone. This points to a certain "timelessness" of experience, even though there is still a succession of cause and effect.
An influential patristic text is in Augustine's Confessions 11.9,

For, doubtless, that heaven of heavens, which Thou in the Beginning created, is some intellectual creature, which, although in no wise co-eternal unto You, the Trinity, is yet a partaker of Your eternity, and by reason of the sweetness of that most happy contemplation of Yourself, does greatly restrain its own mutability, and without any failure, from the time in which it was created, in clinging unto You, surpasses all the rolling change of times.
nimirum enim caelum caeli, quod in principio fecisti, creatura est aliqua intellectualis, quamquam nequaquam tibi, trinitati, coaeterna, particeps tamen aeternitatis tuae, valde mutabilitatem suam prae dulcedine felicissimae contemplationis tuae cohibet, et sine ullo lapsu, ex quo facta est, inhaerendo tibi, excedit omnem volubilem vicissitudinem temporum.

and another is Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy 5 Pr. 6,

We may say that God indeed is eternal, but the world truly is perpetual.
deum quidem aeternum, mundum vero dicamus esse perpetuum

The exact definition and nature of the aevum was disputed, but the standard account is that of Albertus Magnus in his Summa de Creaturis; the first part, De quattuor coaequaevis, covers the different sorts of time, but the whole text is really one piece. His pupil Thomas Aquinas also mentions the aevum in Summa Theologica 1.10.5-6. For more than you ever wanted to know: The medieval concept of time, ed. Pasquale Porro, BRILL 2001.
1. Translation by  J. L. Stocks, 1922.


Who are the people depicted in Dionisius' famous icon of Christ's descent into hell?

Great question!
First off, although I'm not familiar with this particular icon, Eastern Orthodox icon have a strong continuity of style (sorry, Wikipedia source). This icon is the same as many others depicting the same event, perhaps most famously that at Chora Church. So, while my sources do not address this icon in particular, rest assured that the interpretation is the same.
Anyways:

Who are the people above the barrier which Christ has broken? Are they newly-liberated souls, or were they - in the logic of the painting - saved before Christ's descent? Whose wrists is Christ clasping, and why?

[Christ] grasps the “first man” Adam with his right hand, and “first woman” Eve with his left, pulling them out of their sarcophagus-like prisons.[...]  Various other Old Testament figures are seen to right and left, including [...] Kings David and Solomon and John the Forerunner (Baptist).

Source for quotation above. In the Dionisius icon, David and Solomon are on the left and John the Baptist is on the right. I believe at the top of the group on the right you can also see the the three holy youths who were thrown into the fire in Daniel. (Note what they're wearing on their heads, similar to the linked source, and that they're beardless.)

Who are the figures in the bluish haze which surrounds Christ?

The "bluish haze" is called a mandorla.

The blue shape around Christ is called the Mandorla (which is Italian for almond, which describes its shape).  The Mandorla is the uncreated, eternal light of Christ.

Source for quotation above.

Within the mandorla surrounding Christ, there are numerous angels, each one bearing the name of a virtue.

Source for quotation above.

Who are the greyish winged figures below the barrier?

These angels are shown throwing spears down into hades at demons named after corresponding vices, causing much chaos and anguish among them.

Source for quotation above, same as previous.

Who is the figure at the very bottom of the icon? Why are the two angels grabbing him?

And in the depths of the pit, a skeletal being is sometimes shown, lying prostrate and bound up. This is Hades personified—Death and/or Satan, who has been destroyed and defeated by Christ, illustrating the truth of Hebrews 2:14, that “through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil.”

(Source for quotation, same as cited for the three holy youths.)

Who are the white-clad figures in the bottom corners of the icon?

Yet despite their defeat, the passions are no less terrifying, as shown by the souls in hell – in the bottom corners of the icon – who fearfully look across the chasm toward Jesus. Their hands are held up in prayer and supplication and indeed this is the only way to overcome the passions and be resurrected with Christ.

Source, same as some of the previous ones.


How does sola fide doctrine reconcile with how much David talks about his own righteousness?

Protestant leaders like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Charles Spurgeon address these particular verses in their respective commentaries on the Psalms.  All three emphasize a difference between David's righteousness before men and his righteousness before God, and that the source of the latter is God's grace alone.

Regarding Psalm 7:8, Calvin answers that David is speaking of a comparison between himself and his enemies, not a comparison between himself and God's standard:

  The subject here treated of is not how he could answer if God should demand from him an account of his whole life; but, comparing himself with his enemies, he maintains and not without cause, that, in respect of them, he was righteous. (Commentary on Psalms, v1)

In this he follows Luther, who writes regarding the same verse:

  We have before shown [...] that a man's righteousness is that whereby he is unblamable before men and in his own conscience, though that righteousness sufficeth not before God.  But the righteousness of God is the grace and mercy of God which justify us even before God.  Hence David most carefully adds "my righteousness", that he might distinguish it. (Luther on the Psalms, p 393)

Spurgeon sees David's language in Psalm 18:20 similarly, writing:

  Before God the man after God's own heart was a humble sinner, but before his slanderers he could with unblushing face speak of the "cleanness of his hands" and the righteousness of his life. (Treasury of David)

Regarding Psalm 18:20, Calvin notes that it seems that David contradicts himself, as he previously "declared that all the blessings which he possessed were to be traced to the good pleasure of God." Calvin reconciles these statements by saying that God freely showed favor to David, and that subsequently David is blessed by obeying and fulfilling his calling:

  Both these things were necessary; first, that God should previously show his favor freely towards David, in choosing him to be king; and next, that David, on the other hand, should, with an obedient spirit, and a pure conscience, receive the kingdom which God thus freely gave him; and farther, that whatever the wicked might attempt, with the view of overthrowing or shaking his faith, he should nevertheless continue to adhere to the direct course of his calling. (Commentary on Psalms, v1)

To those who think that David sounds boastful here, Calvin writes that this is intended for our instruction:

  We ought not, however, to think that David, for the sake of obtaining praise among men, has here purposely indulged in the language of vain boasting; we ought rather to view the Holy Spirit as intending by the mouth of David to teach us the profitable doctrine, that the aid of God will never fail us, provided we follow our calling, keep ourselves within the limits which it prescribes, and undertake nothing without the command or warrant of God. (Commentary on Psalms, v1)

Spurgeon similarly remarks that David is right to praise God for rewarding him:

  A godly man can see that in divine providence uprightness and truth are in the long run sure to bring their own reward; may he not, when he sees that reward bestowed in his own case, praise the Lord for it? (Treasury of David)

Finally, Calvin makes his belief clear that only God's grace enables us to live rightly, and thus any blessing he gives us as a result of our righteousness finds its ultimate source in his grace:

  At the same time, let this truth be deeply fixed in our minds, that we can only begin an upright course of life when God of his good pleasure adopts us into his family, and in effectually calling, anticipates us by his grace, without which neither we nor any creature would give him an opportunity of bestowing this blessing upon us. (Commentary on Psalms, v1)


Is Tim Keller's view of idolatry Biblical?

It is not for us to Judge either preacher, that is reserved for Jesus:

John 5:22 and 23  For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

That having been said; We can take a look at Scripture to see what they have to say regarding this.

Matthew 22:37 through 40  Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38  This is the first and great commandment. 39  And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40  On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

What Jesus appears to be pointing out here is that if you do not do these two things, then it will be almost impossible to keep the rest of the Law.
So Let's see what other Scriptures may help in understanding this; although many questions that arise in life are not directly addressed in Scriptures we are given clues as to how to handle them.

Matthew 5:21 and 22  Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22  But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Matthew 5:27 and 28  Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28  But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

From these two Scriptures Jesus is teaching us two things:

It is our precepts that determine our compliance with the Commandments, and not our actions, as is expressed in the fact that although we may not actually kill someone, it is the desire to do so that is not in compliance. After all how can you love your neighbor as yourself if stay mad at him, and especially if it is only you who have perceived wrong doing by him.

If we desire to do wrong it is tantamount to having done it. Even though we may contemplate stealing someone else's wealth for our own use, we have in effect not only put our greed above the other person's welfare; but we have denied God's promise to supply all of our needs as Jesus explained in his sermon on the Mount.

Mat 5:3 through 11  Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4  Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. 5  Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. 6  Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. 7  Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. 8  Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. 9  Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. 10  Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11  Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

Jesus is here saying that God will provide all of our heart's desires as long as those desires are in keeping with serving him. And:

Matthew 6:8  Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

If there is one common concept in these Scriptures it is that God knows and considers our intents and our innermost desires. And that it is those upon which compliance with the Commandments is judged. And because Jesus has been tempted in every way in which we can be tempted which would have to include disobedience of every one of the Commandments, he alone is qualified to judge.
So let's take a look at  Chapter 14 of Romans and see if we can more discern what Paul is conveying.
Let's take a look at this excerpt from John Gill's commentary of the whole Bible.

for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. This is a general rule, or axiom, which is not only applicable to the present case, but to any other, whether of a natural, civil, moral, or evangelic kind: "whatsoever does not spring from faith", as the Arabic version renders it, cannot be excused of sin; whatever is not agreeable to the word and doctrine of faith, ought not to be done; whatever is done without faith, or not in the exercise of it, is culpable, for without faith nothing can be pleasing to God; and whatever is contrary to the persuasion of a man's own mind, is so far criminal, as it is a violation of his conscience; whatever men do, especially in a religious way, they ought to make faith of it, or to be fully persuaded of it in their own minds, or they act amiss:

It appears from this commentary that our purpose for anything we do should be based in our desire to please God, which is an integral part of Worship so it is up to you to decide whether or not mental disobedience of the command to have no other gods before me; is or is not is included. For my part I am inclined to believe it is based on the Scriptures I have quoted.
Hope this helps.


What is the significance of Eve being created as a "helper fit for [Adam]?"

The following is taken from a wonderful book called Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith by Marvin R. Wilson. It explains that an understanding of early Jewish culture helps to understand how they understood scripture. With this understanding, some scripture takes on a different meaning than we would expect today. Just as some phrases we understand to mean certain things during our time, like “I can dig it,” “That’s groovy,” “That’s fly,” etc. may not be recognized, or translated, to have the same meaning they had in the ‘70s, 2,000 years from now.

“Genesis 2:18, 20 state that the woman is created to be ezer kenegdo. Rabbi David Freedman has pointed out that the word ezer, often translated “helper,” actually means “power” (or “strength”), as demonstrated by its use elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, he takes kenegdo, an expression rendered “suitable for him” (NIV), as meaning one “equal to him,” a rendering based on later Mishnaic Hebrew. Thus, when God says he will make a “helper suitable for him (i.e., the man),” he likely means that woman is a power equal to a man; she is his match; she corresponds to him in every way. Indeed, “woman was not intended to be merely man’s helper. She was to be instead his partner.” Man and woman are symbolically matched to one another in a mutually dependent relationship — hence the expression “one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).”

I am not sure what you mean by significance of Eve being created “as a helper…” However, with an understanding of the original Hebrew text, the role of “helper” is significantly deeper than it seems on the surface. It appears, using the Hebrew text, that Eve was created to lift Adam up during times of weakness, or need, bringing him strength (or power), as an equal partner rather than taking the role of a servant as many interpret this passage today.

If “by the inner being of a woman” you are asking about her receiving the “breath of life”, or the ability to receive the Holy Spirit, I would have to respond that if she were not able to have full understanding, or receive these, then God would not have bothered to throw her out of the garden with Adam. She would have been treated like any other animal in creation. (You know, hit her with a rolled up newspaper, or something.)

I do accept literal interpretation (correct interpretation). I believe Eve was made a “power (or strength) equal to him” (ezer kenegdo).


Why did God kill Uzzah ? - 2 Samuel 6:6-7

The implication of Numbers 4:15 is that God forbids non-priests from touching holy things like the Ark of the Covenant.  Apparently, God killed Uzzah because he, not being a priest, touched a holy thing contrary to God's commandment.


When did lay people first get a vote in the general conferences of the United Methodist Church?

The first predecessor denomination to The United Methodist Church to allow laity to vote was  The Methodist Protestant Church, which did so when it was organized in 1830. In fact, the reason for the split from The Methodist Episcopal Church was over the issue of voting rights for the laity. Quoting from the Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church 2016,

  In 1830, about 5,000 preachers and laypeople left the denomination because it
  would not grant representation to the laity or permit the election
  of presiding elders (district superintendents). This new body was
  called The Methodist Protestant Church, which in 1939 united
  with The Methodist Episcopal Church and The Methodist Episcopal
  Church, South, to become The Methodist Church. [1]

Laity were granted voting rights by 1939 with the union of The Methodist Episcopal Church, The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and The Methodist Protestant Church to form The Methodist Church. From the beginning of The United Methodist Church in 1968, when The Methodist Church united with the Evangelical United Brethren, laity have had voting rights in the General Conference and the Annual Conferences.

There is apparently conflicting information in various editions of the Book of Discipline. Until the 2016 revision of the Book of Discipline, it is noted that The Methodist Episcopal Church did not grant voting rights to laity until the unification of 1939. The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, The Evangelical Association, and the Church of the United Brethren in Christ are noted as having granted voting rights to laity not later than 1932.

Referring to the period between the American Civil War and World War I, the 2016 Book of Discipline contains the following passage:

  Two other issues that caused substantial debate in the
  churches during this period were lay representation and the role
  of women. Methodist Protestants had granted the laity representation
  from the time they organized in 1830. The clergy in The
  Methodist Episcopal Church, The Methodist Episcopal Church,
  South, The Evangelical Association, and the Church of the United
  Brethren in Christ were much slower in permitting laity an official
  voice. It was not until 1932 that the last of these churches allowed
  lay representation.[2]

The earlier 2012 Book of Discipline indicates that The Methodist Episcopal Church granted voting rights to laity with the unification in 1939.

  Two critical issues that caused substantial debate in the
  churches during this period were lay representation and the
  role of women. First, should laity be given .a voice in the General
  Conference and the annual conference? The Methodist Protestants
  had granted the laity representation from the time they
  organized in 1830. The clergy in The Methodist Episcopal Church,
  The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, The Evangelical Association,
  and the Church of the United Brethren in Christ were much
  slower in permitting the laity an official voice in their affairs. All
  finally granted lay people voting privileges in their General and
  annual conferences with the exception of The Methodist Episcopal
  Church, which did not grant this right in annual conference
  decisions before the 1939 union.[3]

There remain some restrictions on voting by laypersons. With the exception of lay members of specific committees, "lay members may not vote on matters of ordination, character, and conference relations of clergy." [4] This restriction has been in effect since the unification of 1939.

References:

The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church 2016, p. 15-16.
Book of Discipline, 2016, p. 19.
The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church 2012, p. 18.
Book of Discipline, 2016, Paragraph 33, p. 36.


If Genesis is not to be taken literally by the Roman Catholics, what is the basis of the original sin?

Catholicism teaches that we were in a perpetual state of grace and "did something" that opposed God's commands, which took us out of that state of grace.

The rest is just footnotes.

For Catholics, we subscribe to the notion that much of the early Old Testament is not a literal "this happened, then that happened" scenario. Genesis is a prime example of where we believe the specifics of the creation stories and the "Fall" are irrelevant to the Theology that is being expressed within.

So, that being said, we really don't concern ourselves with the specifics, other than to say we strongly doubt there was a literal tree, a literal apple, etc. The Theology being expressed within, however, is a different matter. That Theology suggests that there was a time immediately following our creation when Humanity lived in an idyllic state and were close to God (in the "I can see God face-to-face" kind of close). Faith was not a requirement, because we could see and interact with God. In other words, belief was not in question.

Flash forward to some point after creation. We voluntarily chose evil over good. The specifics of what we chose and how we chose it don't really matter (to Catholics). The "take away" is that we did something that God asked us not to do. This "something" was so fundamental and so "essence-changing" that it was simply impossible for us to live in that idyllic state of being any longer. We suddenly found ourselves in a less-than-idyllic state.

For Catholics, that is the essence of Original Sin.

References

Catholic Encyclopedia - Original sin; specifically read the section Nature of Original Sin

Official Catechism of Catholic Church - How to Read the Account of the Fall


Is a indulgence valid if granted the night before?

Can an indulgence be granted more than once a day?
It all depends if it is a plenary indulgence or a partial indulgence. Only a plenary indulgence may be obtained once a day. Partial indulgences may be obtained as often as one desires, as long as all the conditions are met.

An indulgence that can remove all the temporal punishment due to forgiven sin. No one but God knows for certain when a plenary indulgences is actually gained, because only he knows whether a person's dispositions are adequate. One norm for such dispositions is that "all attachment to sin, even venial sin, be absent." If these dispositions are in any way less than complete, the indulgence will only be partial. The same provision applies to the three external conditions necessary to gain a plenary indulgence: sacramental confession, Eucharistic Communion, and prayer for the intentions of the Pope. If these conditions are not satisfied, an otherwise plenary indulgence becomes only partial. These conditions may be satisfied several days before or after the performance of the prescribed work, though preferably Communion should be received and the prayers offered for the Pope on the same day as the indulgenced work. A plenary indulgence can be gained only once a day. - Catholic Culture

As to your question about receiving an indulgence on Saturday evening and then another plenary indulgence the next morning. "Does that mean he can not be granted indulgence the following morning?" A plenary indulgence may be obtained only once a day, that is to say from midnight to midnight of the same day (January 1st).
We have some parishes within our archdiocese that make it possible to obtain a plenary indulgence by reciting the Te Deum just before midnight on December 31 and then another one just after midnight on January 1 for the recitation of the Veni Creator. The anticipated Mass on Saturday has no bearing on receiving an additional plenary indulgence the following morning.

A partial indulgence is granted to the faithful, who devoutly recite the hymn Come, Holy Spirit, Creator blest.
A plenary indulgenceis granted, if the hymn is recited publicly on the 1st of January and on the feast of Pentecost.
A partial indulgence is granted to the faithful, who recite the Te Deum in thanksgiving.
A plenary indulgence is granted, if the hymn is recited publicly on the last day of the year.

The official Vatican list of plenary indulgences can be read here, however it is in Latin.
The only day one is able to receive an additional plenary indulgence on the same day is on one's deathbed (In articulo mortis).


Is this a mistake in The Book of Mormon?

That phrase does appear to be an "imperfection" (as it is called) which existed in the original text. And in fact, it was quite difficult to take back words that were already written—so difficult, perhaps, that they decided to re-state the entire idea correctly.

According to LDS Church history, The Book of Mormon has unique origins as a volume of scripture. Like the Bible, its words were inspired by God. Unlike the Bible, its words were translated/copied only once, directly from the original document, which, in the case of The Book of Mormon, was a codex of golden plates. Instead of being written on papyrus or a typical form of "paper," these plates were metal, and so it was difficult to engrave writings on them.

So why write on metal plates? Because it was a commandment, and because the properties of metal ensure longevity.

Even though it was difficult to engrave writings on them...

  1 Now behold, it came to pass that I, Jacob, having ministered much unto my people in word, (and I cannot write but a little of my words, because of the difficulty of engraving our words upon plates) and we know that the things which we write upon plates must remain;

... it was important to them that the plates were metal and could be preserved for generations:

  4 For it were not possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children, and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present time.

Moroni was the last steward of The Book of Mormon. His father Mormon abridged most of the text. Moroni explains their difficulty in Mormon 9:

  30 Behold, I speak unto you as though I spake from the dead; for I
  know that ye shall have my words.

  31 Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father,
  because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him;
  but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you
  our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have
  been.

  32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our
  knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed
  Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner
  of speech.

  33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have
  written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if
  we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no
  imperfection in our record.

  34 But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also
  that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none
  other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means
  for the interpretation thereof.

... and in the previous chapter:

  12 And whoso receiveth this record, and shall not condemn it because
  of the imperfections which are in it, the same shall know of greater
  things than these. Behold, I am Moroni; and were it possible, I would
  make all things known unto you. ...

  17 And if there be faults they be the faults of a man. But behold, we
  know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things; therefore, he that
  condemneth, let him be aware lest he shall be in danger of hell fire.

...and on the title page:

  And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore,
  condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the
  judgment-seat of Christ.

Basically, the authors knew they had faults, and it was easier to re-state the idea correctly than it was to hammer out the engraving to overwrite it. It also seems, from all the passages about their weakness in writing (I haven't shown all of them here) that it was necessary for there to be some minor flaws in the text. (Discovering the purpose for that is left as an exercise for the reader.)

I don't know of similar passages in the Bible, for whatever reason (if anyone can find some, I'd be interested to see). The Book of Mormon actually indicates that the first several books of the Bible were written on metal/brass plates which Lehi took with them across the sea, but the earliest Biblical manuscripts we have aren't engraved on metal (that I know, at least), so it may not have been difficult to overwrite and change the text.


Sometimes we just have to hold our hands up and admit "it's tricky"!
"Great is the mystery of godliness (or "Great is the mystery of our religion of godliness" ?) - God was manifest in the flesh".
God came as close to tasting death as it is possible.
Jesus Christ was and is both man and God.. it isn't always helpful to separate Him into two natures... He was and is one person.. and as one person he was and is the Son of God.  And as one person he died for our sins.  And as a person, he was loved by the Father.  The Father did not only love his divine nature but not his human nature, or say "You are the Son of God merely because you have the divine nature."  From the moment the Son of God became incarnate adding a human nature He became the Son of God in his entire person.
When anyone is experiencing the physical pain of dying the only reason they feel the pain is because their body is united to their spirit.  As soon as the spirit leaves the body the pain of dying ceases.
Is it not, then, the body that gives the pain and the spirit which receives the pain?
Perhaps such a thought is not correct, but we cannot just assume that Jesus in his divine nature did not taste the pain of death, even though he, in his divine nature, did not actually die.
We experience the pain of death even though at death we, that is our spirits, are still alive.
Is there then any really significant difference between our Lord dying and the death of a believer whose spirit goes to glory upon death, awaiting the resurrection of the body... excepting, of course, that he died not for his own sins but for ours that we might live, and that he experienced all that punishment the scale of which we cannot begin to fathom for all the sins of all his people?


Catholic's view on artificial self-enhancement

As far as I know, the Church has no official policy on "self-enhancement". Medicine, even psychoactive medicine, in areas other than fertility and euthanasia is largely a secular issue. If your fictional drug appeared miraculous (read: unexplainable by science), then that might be a different matter. The power to perform miracles is, in Catholic doctrine, granted by God, and the Church might declare that such a drug is heretical or magical, and therefore sinful to use.


1. Christianity as a religion

The central point of the whole Christian faith is the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

  1 Corinthians 15:19-20 (ESV)
   19If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.
  20But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

This happened ~30 AD, that is 33 years after Jesus's birth, the exact year of which isn't certain.

But the central point is not the same as the beginning. Hebrews 11 tells us that the patriarchs of the Old Testament era were already waiting for Christ, living in the hope of the promise.

  Hebrews 11:24-26 (ESV)
   24By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, 25 choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. 26 He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward.

The Old Testament era was building up for the coming of Christ (John 1:1-18, Romans 5). When Adam and Eve originally rebelled against God, the plan to save humankind began. What we call Christianity is really that plan. Adam, the first man, already is a symbol of Christ:

  Romans 5:14-15 (ESV) [emphasis mine]
   14Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
  15But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.

It makes sense to say that Christianity began at the Resurrection, ~30 AD, but it makes even more sense that Christianity began at the Fall of man.

2. Christianity as a name

The first mention of Christians was of the group of believers in Antioch:

  Acts 11:25-26 (ESV)
   25So Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.

This was obviously after Jesus's resurrection, but also during the reign of king Herod Agrippa (Acts 12:1 mentions this). From Herod Agrippa's period of reign we know this was probably between 41-44 AD.


What are the theological implications of "pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death"?

The point of this passage is that the petitioner is asking for Mary, Theotokos, to pray to her Son, Jesus Christ, to assist them at that time, and at their death. It is hoped that her prayer and support will assist with the life of the petitioner, and assist them with grace to meet the Lord with final perseverance and strength.

While the process of death itself can be easy, sometimes what leads up to it can be horrifying, violent, brutal, painful, or otherwise tortuous. It is the hope of believers that at this time of trial, we will not fall away from Our Lord, but remain faithful to him. It is as if we are asking Mary to help us so that if we are faced with trials or pain or even torture, we will not forsake or speak against God.

Even Pope Francis has said something to this effect: "If anything should happen to me, I have told the Lord, I ask you only to give me the grace that it doesn't hurt because I am not courageous when confronted with pain. I'm very timid."

Given the history of Christianity, and when considering the number of individuals who have been persecuted, tortured, and murdered for their faith in Christ, it makes sense that one of our key shared prayers would ask this for ourselves and all our brothers and sisters in Christ through Mary.


Why are the men of Genesis so old? Were the dating systems just different? Are all of these old ages supposed to have symbolic meaning?

This is a great question.  The Bible never provides a direct rationale for the seemingly long ages recorded in the Old Testament.  It just states them as a matter of fact with no apology for them.

As we look more closely at the ages, though, we find some very interesting things.  The ages fall quite dramatically at a very definite point in biblical history and decline quite rapidly to ranges that fit our current experience.  This fall actually corresponds to the flood of Noah recorded in Genesis 6-8.

On a side note, it seems that Methuselah, Noah's grandfather, died in the year of the flood, while his father died some time before the flood.  As Noah's was the righteous line, Methuselah is not thought to have died in the flood, but shortly before the flood.  The name Methuselah actually means "his death shall bring judgment".

There is biblical evidence that this catastrophic event significantly changed the earth's climate in many ways.  Indeed, we are told that prior to the flood, there was no rain, but that a mist arose and watered the earth instead.

  Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.  Genesis 2:5-6 NASB

The flood may have been the first instance of rain at all on the earth.  So, if this is accurate, then the pre-flood climate may have been much much healthier than it was afterward.  Plants would have grown much more quickly and been much more fruitful as well, and this would have been able to provide a plentiful food supply for larger animals.

If that is so, then that would explain many things that we find today:

Wooly mammoths frozen with fresh grass still in their mouths
tropical plants buried beneath many layers of ice in arctic regions
skeletons of mankind that are enormous (giants mentioned in Genesis)
Cave drawings and other depictions of dinosaurs, all created by mankind.

After the flood, as I mentioned before, we find lifespans plummeting to ranges within what we would expect today.

Prior to the flood, the wickedness of man had apparently risen to such a high degree that the only way God saw to remedy the situation was to basically start over with just one family.

  Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 The Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.  Genesis 6:5-8

Some have suggested that God shortened the lifespans to prevent people from having time to descend to that level of depravity again, and this certainly is consistent with the biblical record.

Conclusion

So, the ages along with other information suggest a pre-flood climate that was extremely healthy and quite different from that post-flood climate.  The ages drop significantly after the flood to levels similar to that of today.


What does Paul grieving over the Corinthians imply?

In a sense, the issue is contextual.

Repentance is not just for non-Christ followers; it is for everyone, Christians included. To repent is to do an about-face. You're going in one direction--the wrong direction, the carnal direction, as were some of the Corinthian believers--and you repent, make a 180-degree turn, and then go in the right direction.

Let's say you're on a hike in some remote wilderness in the middle of nowhere. You ask a fellow hiker, "Where are the historic ruins of Kookamonga?" He tells you to go straight north about six miles, so you take off in the direction in which he pointed.

A couple miles later you are not so sure you're going in the right direction. There were so many barriers preventing you from going straight north that you're actually now going south! Suddenly you remember there's a compass at the very bottom of your backpack, which you haven't used for years, so you take out your compass, get your bearings, and then go due north. You just repented.

Some (most?) of the Corinthian believers were in need of repenting. God was grieved; so was Paul. He had labored hard among the Corinthian believers for many months, yet despite his labors and faithful teaching of the word of God, the believers were guilty of not just "impurity, sexual sin and debauchery" but also other sins:

disunity and divisiveness caused by a party spirit, such that splinter groups had formed around each group's favorite spiritual leader (1 Corinthians 1:12; cf. 3?4). Paul said in this regard,

  What I mean is that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” Is Christ divided? Paul wasn’t crucified for you, was he? Or were you in fact baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Corinthians 1:12-13; cf. 3:4).

taking fellow believers to court (1 Corinthians 6:1-7)
incest (1 Corinthians 5:1)
getting drunk at the celebration of the Lord's supper (1 Corinthians 11:20-21)

All this to say: Some of the Corinthians may have been living carnal, fleshly lives, but in Paul's letter to them he still addressed the believers as follows:

  From Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Sosthenes, our brother, to the church of God that is in Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, and called to be saints, with all those in every place who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours. Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ! I always thank my God for you because of the grace of God that was given to you in Christ Jesus (I Corinthians 1:1-4 NASB, my emphasis).

Far from being Christians falling away from the faith, some of the Corinthians were not living up to the high moral and ethical standards to which they had been called in Christ. They were not part of the solution in immoral Corinth but were part of the problem. Instead of being salt and light, they were acting like pagans and participating in the works of darkness.

No wonder Paul feared that God would humble him in their midst. Talk about "cognitive dissonance"! Paul knew that he had not only given the Corinthians sound, Spirit-filled teaching, but he also been provided them with a godly example as to how Christians should live (see 1 Corinthians 4:16; 11:1; cf. Philippians 4:9; 3:17; 2 Thessalonians 3:7-9).

Now he's hearing about all the carnality in evidence within the Corinthian church; he begins to wonder if he is somehow to blame; and he fears the Lord will humble him for perhaps thinking too highly of his teaching and his example. Perhaps he's even contemplating "leaving the ministry," as we might phrase it today.

Paul's grief, then, is very real. At the same time, however, he realizes that the solution to the spiritual problems plaguing the church at Corinth requires thorough repentance, even if that means kicking some believers out of the fellowship of the saints until they come to their senses (see 1 Corinthians 5:9-13; cf. 1 Timothy 1:20). Yes, excommunication is a valid form of church discipline, but the goal must always be the restoration of the sinner to the Lord and then to the local body of believers. Here is what Gil Rugh has to say in this regard:

  . . . often . . . when a person is cut off from all association with believers . . .  the seriousness of the sin is recognized. The person may have nowhere to turn except back to God. If the person repents, the Church is to welcome the believer back immediately. Second Corinthians 2 says that the correct response is to immediately welcome the return of the believer. Thoughts of punishment and suffering are not appropriate. Remember, the goal is to restore, not to punish. As soon as the sin is acknowledged and left behind, the person is to be restored. That was the case in 2 Corinthians 2. "Sufficient for such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority" (2 Cor. 2:6). Second Corinthians 2:7 continues the instruction, "So that on the contrary you should rather forgive and comfort him, lest somehow such a one be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow." There is no probation. After repenting from the sin, the believer is to be welcomed back. This is a manifestation of Christian love. "Wherefore I urge you to reaffirm your love for him. For to this end also I wrote that I might put you to the test, whether you are obedient in all things" (2 Cor. 2:8, 9). Paul continued, "But whom you forgive anything, I forgive also; for indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, I did it for your sakes in the presence of Christ, in order that no advantage be taken of us by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his schemes" (2 Cor. 2:10, 11). [my emphasis]

In conclusion, Christian discipline within any local body of believers is not optional but necessary. Without it, the testimony and reputation of the church are in danger of being compromised and besmirched. In Revelation, the apostle John was instructed by Jesus to write to the angel of the church in Ephesus the following warning:

  Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and will remove your lampstand out of its place—unless you repent (2:5 NASB).

Tragically a church can go down the tubes if loving discipline and genuine repentance are not in evidence.


What differences are there between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox understanding of the sacrament of marriage?

I've never heard or read anything about marriage similar to what you quote (i.e. that marriages contracted on earth remain in place in heaven).  I've looked through the Longer Catechism of Philaret, Elder Cleopas' Truth of Our Faith (Vol. 2), and Protopresbyter Michael Pomazanski's Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (3rd ed.) and haven't encountered such a teaching.  You can read the Service of Marriage online here - I don't think you will find any suggestion of what you are saying.

Within the Eastern Orthodox Church a marriage can be dissolved "chiefly when it has been defiled by adultery, or when it has been destroyed by conditions of life (for example, long absence of one spouse, without word."1.  Generally only a second marriage is permitted, although a third may be "tolerated only as a lesser evil to avoid a greater evil", as  taught by St. Basil the Great2 (also a Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church):

  We look on third marriages as disgraceful to the Church, but do not
  absolutely condemn them, as being better than a vague
  fornication.3

1 Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, p.307.
2 Ibid.
3 Canon L, Second Canonical Epistle