What is the theological justification for the British monarch worshipping in the Church of Scotland, rather than the Scottish Episcopal Church?

There's no inherent incompatibility. Both denominations believe in forms of apostolic succession (though not the kind asserted by the Catholic Church.) Wikipedia explains:

The Anglican Communion "has never officially endorsed any one particular theory of the origin of the historic episcopate, its exact relation to the apostolate, and the sense in which it should be thought of as God given, and in fact tolerates a wide variety of views on these points". Its claim to apostolic succession is rooted in the Church of England's evolution as part of the Western Church. Apostolic succession is viewed not so much as conveyed mechanically through an unbroken chain of the laying-on of hands, but as expressing continuity with the unbroken chain of commitment, beliefs and mission starting with the first apostles; and as hence emphasising the enduring yet evolving nature of the Church.
Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici (English translation: The Divine Right of Church Government), which was promulgated by Presbyterian clergy in 1646, holds that historic ministerial succession is necessary for legitimate ministerial authority. It states that ministerial succession is conferred by elders through the laying on of hands, in accordance with 1 Timothy 4:14. The Westminster Assembly held that "There is one general church visible" and that "every minister of the word is to be ordained by imposition of hands, and prayer, with fasting, by those preaching presbyters to whom it doth belong".

From the Presbyterian perspective, all Presbyterian elders are actually bishops. Pressies have the most bishops! The biggest difference between Anglicanism and Presbyterianism is that wherever Anglicans have one leader, Presbyterians will have a plurality. This happens at basically all structural levels.
The formal definition of the Presbyterian church structure that we know today was developed by the Westminster Assembly of 1643-1653. The Assembly was called by the English Parliament and was intended to bridge the divisions between puritans, the Church of Scotland (who already had a form of Presbyterianism), and the more traditional Church of England episcopalians. James VI & I had said that he wanted to push episcopalian government on the Church of Scotland, which they, naturally, were not happy with. This conflict actually devolved into a couple of small wars (and arguably resulted in the English Civil Wars and the execution of Charles.) Against the wishes of Charles, the English Parliament called the assembly, and the majority of the assembly were Church of England clergy, though a few Scots were also sent. In return for a military alliance, the Scottish Parliament had required the English Parliament to bring its church government in line with the Scottish Presbyterian model. The majority of the people selected for the Assembly did support Presbyterian governance, and that's the conclusion they reached.
But Cromwell won the civil war before the Assembly could finish its work. His parliament established religious tolerance, and the Westminster Standards were not formally adopted in English. Individual parishes could adopt Presbyterianism, and 64 out of London's 108 did. But when the monarchy was restored the Assembly was repudiated, and laws were passed that returned the Church of England to a strict episcopalian structure. As a result, as many as 2500 ministers left the Church of England.
I think the theological justification is that the Church of England has never seen itself as the only legitimate church. It has always recognised its sister church in Scotland, even before the Westminster Assembly when the initial form of Presbyterian polity was in place. The Church of England has its own theological arguments for episcopalian polity, but it can't deny that Presbyterianism has strong Biblical and theological backing, and that it has a long history in England and could have become the official position of the Church of England had some battles turned out differently. For the British monarch to worship in different denominations is natural given that the English and Scottish crowns are separate. It would also be appropriate for the monarch to worship in other unestablished Protestant denominations in recognition of the centuries old (and hard won) principle of religious nonconformity.


In the NPP, if Paul's "works of the law" are only circumcision and diet, how is Galatians 3:10 interpreted?

It's interesting that this perspective is known as the the 'New Perspective on Paul', for the idea that works goes hand in hand with faith has been central to the Catholic and Orthodox Church which preceded the Reformed Church and its claim of sola fide. If you were to go to a Catholic or Orthodox Christian in the 12th century and claim that St. Paul thought that faith meant the eradication of good works in the process of salvation, you might have very well been burned at the stake for heresy.

As to Galations 3:10, it is important for us to not 'cherry-pick' verses (even John 3:16) out of their context in order to support a position. It should thus be noted that Paul's inclusion of the verse from Leviticus might be used in a way that is contrary to what the writers of Leviticus were referring to. It should also be noted that the term 'law' is itself requiring contextual analysis in order to derive its actual meaning as intended by Paul (it does not 'instinctively' mean anything). With that said, we should now look at the surrounding context of Galatians to consider what Paul even means when he refers to the 'curse of the law'.

Galations 3:15-18

  Brothers and sisters, I give an example from daily life: once a person's will has been ratified, no one adds to it or annuls it. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring: it does not say. 'And to offsprings', as of many; but it says, 'And to your offspring', that is, to one person, who is Christ. My point is this: the law, which came four hundred years later, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance comes from the law, it no longer comes from the promise; but God granted it to Abraham through the promise.

The surrounding context in reference to the 'curse of the law' is rather clearly in a 'covenant language'. Even following this passage Paul continues to write how baptism is in essence the 'new circumcision'. N.T Wright would say Paul's speaking about 'badges of covenant membership'. The universal essence of 'doing good' and its relation to salvation for humanity, in other words, is not necessarily being spoken about by Paul. Rather, when Paul speaks of the 'law' he is more precisely speaking about the way the Jewish customs relate to an understanding of God's covenant. 'Law' in other words is referring to the things of temporary power and purpose (such as circumcision, observance of certain days, etc). Paul himself later asserts this understanding of the 'law' as a temporary power in saying that it 'was added because of transgressions, until the offspring would come to whom the promise had been made'. Good deeds in no way are a 'temporary' matter, and for Paul to believe such would be to contradict clear statements by Jesus and other apostles all throughout the rest of the New Testament, who vouch for the understanding that 'wisdom is justified by her deeds' and that a 'tree is known by its fruit'. Stating that good deeds are temporary in a justifying nature would even diminish the very good deed Christ did on the cross.

It should also be said that NPP does not support the idea that good deeds alone can attain salvation. Good deeds are supplementary to faith. The one cannot exist without the other, for they justify each other. The language regarding each one thus does not exclude the language regarding the other, for the language of both is typically one in the same.

The NPP isn't really all that 'new'. It's been around in traditional Christian language since the beginning as an assumption that might very have been taken advantage of by its proponents. But the Reformed thought that has stressed sola fide has produced some good by forcing those who support the idea that good deeds must accompany faith to look back into the bible with a new set of eyes. What the bible says is still a resounding 'no' to sola fide.


What is the Catholic Church's stance on baptism after death?

From the PoV of the Roman Catholic church, baptism is a sacrament for the living.  (For that matter, so are all 7 Sacraments).  Once the body dies one is subject to judgment, which in the case of individuals is particular judgment.  Put simply, we have our whole life to come to Jesus, to open ourselves to salvation, and to accept God's sanctifying Grace.  To be baptized is to be reborn in Christ and to wash away the stain of sin.

  CCC 1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives access to the other sacraments.  Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."
  CCC 1214 ... to baptize (Greek baptizein) means to "plunge" or "immerse"; the "plunge" into the water symbolizes the catechumen's burial into Christ's death, from which he rises up by resurrection with him, as "a new creature."
  CCC 1215 This sacrament is also called "the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit," for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God."

To baptize after the body has died and the soul has moved on to judgment would be a case of "closing the barn door after the horse left."

  I. THE PARTICULAR JUDGMENT
  CCC 1021 Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ.  The New Testament speaks of judgment primarily in its aspect of the final encounter with Christ in his second coming, but also repeatedly affirms that each will be rewarded immediately after death in accordance with his works and faith. The parable of the poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the
  soul--a destiny which can be different for some and for others.
  1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a  purification or immediately, -- or immediate and everlasting damnation.

  At the evening of life, we shall be judged on our love. (~St. John of
  the Cross, Dichos 64.)

Put another way, if you don't have a relationship with Christ while living, there is no basis for a favorable judgment. (I suppose that hope is always an option, part of why the Catholics pray for the dead ... but that's getting off topic).   In Matthew (7:21 – 23) Jesus teaches that some will come to judgment and be told "Depart from me, I never knew you."  If we don't have a relationship with Him before death, this passage points to us being out of luck at judgment.  The foundation of that relationship is the gateway sacrament: Baptism.

Caveat: the above isn't the only way to parse Matthew 7's larger point, but I've heard this referred to on multiple occasions among Catholics, both lay and clergy, when emphasizing how important it is to have a relationship with Christ.

For a better understanding of Catholic views on Baptism, articles 1213-1228 in the Catechism are helpful.


Actually, more Christian Churches have altars than not. They are the focal point for worship in Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran, and Orthodox congregations. In the Old Testament Hebrew worship, from which a number of essential elements of Christian worship derive, the Altar was a place of offering, and in the Hebrew tradition, this meant places for animal sacrifice--sin offerings, thank offerings, and other sacrifices as detailed in Mosaic Law. For those Christian churches which retain altars, they are still the focal point of offerings, not animal sacrifice, but rather offering of our selves and those things with which God has entrusted us. Nearly all Christians have dispensed with animal sacrifice, seeing instead the crucifixion as the perfect sacrifice, made once for all, and all time.

It is true that most Protestant traditions other than Anglican and Lutheran have replaced the altar with the communion table. The reason for this is that generally, those traditions, while still seeing the crucifixion as the one perfect offering, see the Last Supper, and the words of institution, as a sufficient remembrance of the perfect sacrifice.


Did Jesus perform a single miracle before his fast and temptation?

None of the four Gospels record Jesus performing a miracle prior to his temptation in the wilderness.  Matthew, Mark, and Luke all record Jesus' baptism and immediately follow it with his temptation in the wilderness.  John does not mention the temptation: after Jesus's baptism, he begins calling his disciples and then performs "the first of his signs" – the replacing of water with wine (John 2:1–12).

On its face, this may seem conclusive, but we must remember that (1) the gospels are not exhaustive accounts of all the things Jesus did (see John 21:25) and (2) the gospels do not necessarily record all the events of the narrative in strict chronological order.  Here, it's particularly relevant to compare Luke 4:1–5:11 with John 1:35–2:12.  Luke records several miracles taking place before the first disciples are called, while John puts the first miracle after Peter and others have joined him.

Despite these caveats, it still seems quite unlikely that the miracle of the wine or any other miracle took place before the temptation of Jesus.  Thus, while a dogmatic statement appears risky, concluding that Jesus performed no miracles before his temptation stands to reason.


What was the definition of the spiritual gift of the word of Knowledge in early pentecostalism?

Since asking the question I have now read three books by influential pentecostal pioneers on the issue, and they do not agree on the definition of the gift of the word of knowledge.

In the book on Spiritual Gifts, a collection of sermons by Smith Wigglesworth (1859-1947), who received the baptism of the Spirit in 1907[1], the gift is described as a quickening that gives understanding of the Scriptures[2]:

  It is as we feed o the Word and medidate on the message it contains that the
  Spirit of God can vitalize what we have received and bring forth through us
  the word of knowledge... As all the Scriptures were inspired by God
  (2 Tim 3:16) as they came forth from the beginning, and though the same
  Spirit they should come forth from us vitalized...

It is unclear if SW think that the essence of the gift is the act of illumination per se, or if it also must include a speaking forth of the knowledge received to others. The passage in the book is very short and neither exegetically or systematically complete.

A view more in line with the current understanding within the charismatic movement is given in the book Questions & answers on spiritual gifts by Howard Carter (1891-1971).[3] The book consist of stenographic notes from a Q and A session at Hampstead Bible College in London. Carter claims that he received his insights on the gifts during imprisonment as a conscientious objector during world war one.[4]

Carter says on page 43:

  The word of knowledge is a participation, to some infinitesimal degree, in
  the omniscience of God. If the Lord who knows all things, is pleased to
  reveal to us by His Spirit any fragment of His unlimited knowledge, then we
  can claim to have this manifestation of the Spirit, which is designated
  "the word of knowledge".

Furthermore, Carter says, that the fragment may be received by the mind as a thought, but it is not created by the human, only received (page 53). The process is completely supernatural. It is not the by-product of diligent study, nor is it in any way connected to education (page 38, 46, 49-50. (Carter does not despise diligent study, but it is unrelated to the definition of the gift.)

The scope of the knowledge includes everything that God knows, which may be worldly facts as when Jesus saw Natanael sitting under a fig tree (John 1:48) or when Ananias was told about the name of the street where Paul was praying after his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:11) (Carter:45). But what makes this a very eminent gift is that God has used it to reveal His very own nature to the authors of the Bible (Carter:43-44). Carter is, however, clear that no new insights can be given that conflicts with Scripture or appends new doctrines to it (page 23-24).

Revelation about the purpose and plans of God, and of the future are not words of knowledge, but words of wisdom (Carter:17ff).

Carter is very clear that we should not talk about the gift of knowledge or the gift of wisdom, but the gift of the word of knowledge and the word of  wisdom (page 20-21), as we are all expected to grow in wisdom and knowledge through a plethora of means.

A very different view is offered by Donald Gee in the book Concerning Spiritual Gifts[5]. The book was originally published 1947, but builds upon earlier works published 10 and 20 years earlier (page 133), and Gee says that his views on this subject "have undergone practically no change".

According to Gee, the word of knowledge is a teaching gift in the church (page 134. However, before he arrives at that conclusion, he has a few words of warning:

  The Scriptures provide for the task [of defining the gift] no material
  that is avowedly and unmistakably a manifestation of the word of knowledge...
  Assumption is not proof... We ought carefully to avoid dogmatizing on this
  subject. (page 41)

Having acknowledged the types of supernatural revelations that Carter speaks of in a way that affirms that Carters view indeed was held by many, Gee proceeds to call such revelation prophecy, neither denying its existence or its value (page 42). But when it comes to the definition of the gift, he still begs to differ.

For Gee the setting of 1 Cor 12 is of utmost importance, it is in the gathered Church that the gifts are to be used, whereas most of of Carters examples are from happenings in individual lives. In agreement with Carter, Gee claims that the gift is completely supernatural (page 44f), but it is not "spectacular" (page 45-46).

  There come times when the Spirit of revelation is so operating through a
  teacher exercising an anointed ministry that we become conscious of an
  illumination transcending all natural ability either to gain or to impart
  (knowledge). It is in such hours that the sheep hear the voice of their good
  Shepherd speaking through human lips... We know it because our hearts burn
  within us as surely as theirs did upon the Emmaus road when Christ "expounded
  unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself". By the gift
  of of the Spirit that Voice still expounds the Scriptures on the sweetest of
  all themes - himself (Gee:46-47)

In the book edition from 1947, Gee has added a whole chapter that was not part of the edition from 10 years before, where he gives a systematic argument in favor of his interpretation. However, those arguments are outside the scope of this question on StackExchange.

In summary we see that although Gee argues strongly for his view and he at least is in some agreement with an influential preacher (although he was not a "teacher") like Wigglesworth, he pleads his case as if he perceives himself to be in a minority view. At least that is how I judge his tone. Thus it seems that Carter's view was more widespread within early pentecostalism. But it did not enjoy complete dominance.

Later teachings (2nd generation pentecostalism/charismatics/neo-pentecostals) are mostly using definitions similar to carter, but they are, according to the teaching I've read and heard, very reluctant to include revelation about the nature of God, and restrict the gift to worldly knowledge.

According to the view within the pentecostal movement. I am aware that this view is not shared by all Christians, but it is a significant fact to date the involvement of SW in pentecostalism.
Wigglesworth, S. (1998). Smith Wigglesworth on spiritual gifts. New Kensignton, PA: Whitaker House. Pages 76-77
Carter, H. (1976). Questions & answers on spiritual gifts. Tulsa, OK: Harrison House.
Off topic fact: Pacifism was very common among the early pentecostals.
Gee, D. (1980). Concerning spiritual gifts. Sprinfield, Mo: Radiant Books.


How much of the text of the Gospel of John can be substantiated by early copies and quotes from early Church Fathers?

According to this data, 96.7% of the Gospel of John is quoted pre Nicea 325. It is the most complete quoted New Testament book and only less than 29 Verses are not quoted.
The document also has a section covering the Manuscripts. Manuscripts pre-dating Nicea covers 98.6% of John.
I've not verified the whole document myself (that would rightly mentioned take a lifetime career) but I find the Excel document extremely useful to find Patristic Quotes and its been very accurate.
Also, consider looking into early translations. The Peshitta is the earliest and this website has been a wonderful resource for me to find references. It seems to be the ongoing research of Dukhrana published online as they work on the various ancient manuscripts in Aramaic. I have not found anything near like this for the Old Latin.


Why didn't God send Jesus during Noah's time instead of The Flood?

It's rather ironic — the thrust of your question is "Why did God wait so long?" Andrew Lloyd Webber asks the exact opposite question — "Why come so early?"  As Judas sings in the finale:

  Every time I look at you
  I don't understand
  Why you let the things you did
  Get so out of hand
  You'd have managed better
  If you'd had it planned
  Now why'd you choose such a backward time
  And such a strange land?
  If you'd come today
  You could have reached the whole nation
  Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication

The truth, however, is that God in his timing knew exactly when to come.  As Paul says in Romans 5:6

  For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.

That phrase "at the right time" is a single Greek word, kairos — which is an opportune moment, the perfect time for a thing.  Paul says much the same thing in Galatians 4:

  3 So also, when we were underage, we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces[a] of the world. 4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.

Why was the early 30s the perfect moment? Why was the fullness of time not earlier? Only God knows. We can speculate, but the truth is, only God knows.

One thing we do know is that God did not desire multiple sacrifices. Rather, he wanted one "for all time," as Hebrews states in chapter 10:

  And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

Given how controversial literal interpretations of anything prior the written record, it is not overly surprising to me that God would wish to wait, for our benefit, to come to a time when written records would be preserved. (Heck, theologians even discounted the existence of a real King David until just recently when, surprise, written evidence found.)

Had Jesus come in antediluvian times, Jesus would have been hopelessly mythological.  (Again, even with as much historical record as does exist — Tacitus, Josephus, etc. — many still regard Jesus as myth!)

And, absent the flood that did come, it is also equally likely that, frankly, God would look like too much of a softy.  I mean, think about it — in Genesis, God is forever trying not to blow people away.  He withholds the death that Adam & Eve deserve.  He withholds the death that Cain deserves. And after the Flood at Babel, God disperses the people by the least intrusive means possible — confusing their language.

You can argue that God is not just (although I'd argue back with this question). You can argue God is too lenient.  But the truth is, God has exactly the timing that he desires.


Did Martin Luther accept or reject the existence of Purgatory?

Luther's beliefs on purgatory evolved over time.  A quick search on the Internet will find people claiming he accepted purgatory, offering quotes to prove it, and others saying he rejected it, also offering quotes to prove it.  As such, a thorough investigation into his belief during different time periods is warranted.
95 Theses
Any investigation into what Luther believed about purgatory, must start at the beginning of the Reformation - Luther's composition of 95 Theses against corruption in the Catholic Church in 1517.   Among the 95 points, more than a dozen are about purgatory, including:

Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ the same as despair, fear, and assurance of salvation. (#16)
Furthermore, it does not seem proved, either by reason or by Scripture, that souls in purgatory are outside the state of merit, that is, unable to grow in love. (#18)
As a matter of fact, the pope remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to canon law, they should have paid in this life. (#22)
They [the papacy] preach only human doctrines who say that as soon as the money clinks into the money chest, the soul flies out of purgatory. (#27)
Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed, since we have exceptions in St. Severinus and St. Paschal, as related in a legend. (#29)

Luther is disagreeing on some points about the nature of purgatory and certain is condemning claims that people can buy a quick pass through of purgatory for the dead, but he is not doubting its existence in any way.  It seems quite clear that he takes its existence for granted at that time.  Indeed, in his own Explanation of the Ninety-five Theses, he said he was unsure of the exact nature of purgatory but affirmed "I am positive there is a purgatory."
Continued belief, but not as a matter of doctrine
In Defense and Explanation on All the Articles (1521), Luther wrote:

The existence of a purgatory I have never denied. I still hold that it exists, as I have written and admitted many times, though I have found no way of proving it incontrovertibly from Scripture or reason. I find in Scripture that Christ, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Job, David, Hezekiah, and some others tasted hell in this life. This I think was purgatory... in short, I myself have come to the conclusion that there is a purgatory, but I cannot force anybody else to come to the same result.

Here, Luther is saying it is a matter of personal judgment.  He, himself, believes in purgatory, but won't hold it against anyone who comes to a different conclusion.  Likewise in Against Latomus (1521), he argues for purgatory while admitting that it cannot be proven by scripture.
In a 1522 sermon for the Festival of Epiphany, Luther said the spirits of the dead do not seek help from the living and said one is not a heretic for denying purgatory since "The Scriptures know nothing of it."
Expressed doubts
In a letter to his friend Nicholas von Amsdorf later that year, Luther wrote that he was unsure what happened after death but felt that "with few exceptions all sleep without possessing any capacity of feeling," waiting to the resurrected at a later date. He further said that the existence of purgatory was uncertain and that he wasn't convinced that all those not in heaven or hell were in purgatory.
The 1522 version of Luther's Personal Prayer Book contain the petition "Have mercy upon all poor souls in purgatory," but the petition was removed in the 1524 edition.
Rejects the idea
In Confession Concerning Christ's Supper (1528), explicitly stated for the first time that purgatory was a false teaching.  However, he did say there was no real harm in praying for the dead since scripture didn't speak against it.  He said those who wished to do so could say "Dear God, if this soul is in a condition possible for mercy, be thou gracious to it."
Two years later, in "Exhortation to All Clergy Assembled at Augsburg" Luther condemned the doctrine of purgatory and wrote that falsely claiming the ability to free souls from purgatory had brought great shame but "lots of money" for the church.  Also in 1530, he wrote Revocation of Purgatory, a tract denouncing the doctrine of purgatory.
From 1535-1545, Luther wrote and lectured extensively on Genesis.  These lectures were compiled and published shortly after his death in 1546.  In this work, he found several occasions to comment on the idea of purgatory.  For example, on chapter 4 he writes:

had we held Baptism and the holy Supper of our Lord in that esteem in which we ought to have held them, we should never have become monks. Nothing concerning purgatory, nothing concerning the sacrifice of the mass, nothing about those other like iniquities, would ever have been taught and handed down to us in the Church. But after the light of the Word had been put out by the wicked Popes, it was easy enough to thrust upon men all these abominations.

Thus calling the teaching of purgatory an "iniquity" taught by "wicked Popes".
Summary
When Luther wrote his 95 Theses in 1517, he firmly believed in purgatory.  By 1521, he wrote that belief in purgatory was a matter of personal choice, but said that he personally continued to believe in purgatory.  Beginning in 1522, he began to express doubts in the doctrine and removed a prayer for souls in purgatory from his prayer book in 1524.  In 1528, Luther explicitly rejected the idea of purgatory for the first time, a position he apparently held until his death.

Note: All information is available in primary sources, which can be found in the collected works of Luther, Luther's Works published in 55 volumes by Concodia from 1958-1973


Are the requirements for attaining godhood in LDS teaching the same or different for every world?

The plan was put forth by Elohim and when it was understood that a Redeemer was needed to effect the plan it was then that his Beloved and First born Son responded, "Here am I, send me"...

There never was an option.

"Come, Know the Lord Jesus"  McConkie, General Conference, April 1977


Is it appropriate to leave a Catholic rosary in place on a cemetary headstone?

I don't believe that there is any formal Catholic doctrine on the use of rosary beads (technically "a rosary" refers to the prayer, or rather sequence of prayers, not to the physical beads themselves). While the Catechism of the Catholic Church mentions the rosary (always referring to the prayers), it contains no description of how the beads ought to be treated. At most, it simply says in paragraph 1676:

  Pastoral discernment is needed to sustain and support popular piety [including such devotions as saying the rosary or using the rosary beads for a pious purpose] and, if necessary, to purify and correct the religious sense which underlies these devotions so that the faithful may advance in knowledge of the mystery of Christ.

If the beads are blessed, as they often are, then of course they ought to be treated with reverence.


What is the origin of the account of Lucifer found in Milton's Paradise Lost?

A partial answer may be found in Isaiah 14:12-15.

  How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn!
  You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!
  You said in your heart, “I will ascend to the heavens;
  I will raise my throne above the stars of God;
  I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.
  I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.”
  But you are brought down to the realm of the dead, to the depths of the pit. (NIV)

Some interpret the fallen one as Lucifer, since in this passage he rebelled against God and attempted to set himself above God. He was cast down and thrown into the realm of the dead.


What's the name of this setting for the Angelus?

It may not have a name. The melodies of the tune are rather standard chant formulae used in Anglo Catholic circles, but not necessarily specifically for the Angelus, so it may not be a formal, named hymn tune, or if it is a named tune, it may be in very limited distribution. You might try to contact the organist of the congregtion mentioned in the comments on the video, if all else fails.


What is the baptist view on "gambling" in scenarios like "Jeopardy!"?

I know that personal opinion matters don't typically count, but as a Baptist that's had a conversation with other Baptists on this exact subject...

I have yet to run into one that has a problem with Jeopardy or other game shows for the following reasons...

It's not gambling because it doesn't rely on luck but rather knowledge and skill. It' more like winning a spelling bee or geography bee. The prize is a reward for your God-Given intelligence, and your hard work in studying.
It's also not gambling because you don't have people losing their own money so that the winner can prosper at others' expense.  The game show is making money for the network.  It's mutually beneficial, not one person greedily profiting at another person's expense

This addresses the "If they get it wrong, they lose the $400. If they respond correctly, they gain the $400. During the game, some squares will allow the player to wager on their response to the as-yet-unshown clue." in the questionn.

Also, it's not gambling because there's no wager or bet.  There's just rewards for right answers.  In a "wager" you can lose money that was already yours. In this show, none of your own money is at risk, you can only increase or decrease your winnings.  You have no risk of leaving with less than you came in with.

In general, gambling is considered sinful by Baptists because it involves a direct relationship between gain for some party at the harmful expense of another. It's an expression of greed and covetousness.

This article addresses what gambling is and isn't from a Baptist perspective, and the ills associated with it.  Game shows at worst can fall into the "money for nothing" category, making it roughly an equivalent sin to playing guitar on the MTV.

Excerpt from the article:

  Definitions – What Is Gambling

  It would be helpful to develop a working definition of what we mean by
  "gambling". We should also point out that there are varying kinds of
  gambling, e.g. the local bingo hall and the hard-core, back room poker
  game. Some are referred to as “innocent” and others as “criminal”.
  Here are some definitions:

  Gambling can be defined as “risking money in an attempt to multiply the money on something that is against the odds.”
  Webster's Dictionary: "to play games of chance for money or other stake."
  A Popular definition: “Getting something for nothing”. This can be expanded to, "Getting something for nothing without rendering service
  or exchange of goods, and is essentially stealing and a form of
  robbery".
  It is to “assume irresponsible risk in hope of unearned gain at the expense of less fortunate players.”

  I have found this definition particularly helpful:

  “Gambling is an agreement between two or more people, with the conscious risk of loss and hope of gain, whereby the transfer of
  something of value is made dependent on an uncertain event  in such a
  way that one party will gain and another lose.”

Using that last, game shows don't fit the bill.


What is the source and context of this St. Bernard of Clairvaux quote?

I have searched the writings of Bernard of Clairvaux, and was unable to find that exact quote. It's possible that your quote was a paraphrase of the original.

I do know that the closing sentence of "On the Love of God" is "Those who love God are one Spirit with Him." This seems to be close to the meaning, if not the actual words.

Often in history we don't know everything with absolute certainty, and the best we have is an incomplete picture based on what we know.


Was "love your enemies" ever included among the evangelical counsels?

Calvin is right, in a sense: certain types of vengeance are allowed by the Roman Catholic Church, and have been since at least the time of St. Thomas Acquinas. The current Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

  Anger is a desire for revenge. "To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit," but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution "to correct vices and maintain justice."95 If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. The Lord says, "Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment."96

Which references the Summa:

  It is unlawful to desire vengeance considered as evil to the man who is to be punished, but it is praiseworthy to desire vengeance as a corrective of vice and for the good of justice; and to this the sensitive appetite can tend, in so far as it is moved thereto by the reason: and when revenge is taken in accordance with the order of judgment, it is God's work, since he who has power to punish "is God's minister," as stated in Romans 13:4.

It's not that "love your enemies" in the broad sense is an evangelical counsel, but that vengeance done to correct a wrong is a Good Thing, whereas vengeance out of anger is absolutely wrong. As I understand it, when Calvin refers to the scholastics (I've seen it translated as the dismissive "schoolmen") in the Institutes, he's referring to people like St. Thomas (and others, like Duns Scotus).

But it's also important to take the Augsburg Confession in context: the part you quote from it is an expansion of the premise of the article, which starts a little bit before:

  Furthermore, the precepts of God and the true service of God are obscured when men hear that only monks are in a state of perfection.

The charge isn't so much that love your neighbors is an evangelical counsel, but that only monks can ever do right by God, so regular men don't even bother because it's pointless. The issue of "love your enemies" is just one thing mentioned that normal men don't even bother to do because they believe only the perfect monks can do it.

This charge was refuted in 1530 by the Confutatio Pontificia, which stated:

  Moreover, the malicious charge that is still further added, that those in religious orders claim to be in a state of perfection, has never been heard of by them; for those in these orders claim not for themselves a state of perfection, but only a state in which to acquire perfection - because their regulations are instruments of perfection, and not perfection itself.


What are Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs on how those who died before Jesus, or before JWs existed, will gain salvation?

TL;DR - Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe they are the only people who will be saved. Jesus' ransom sacrifice was designed to retroactively cancel out the sin which has been inherited by everyone from Adam. (1 Corinthians 15:20-22; Hebrews 2:9) Sincere ones who have died without an opportunity to exercise faith in Christ will receive an opportunity when they are resurrected during Christ's Millennial Reign. (John 5:28-29; Acts 24:15)

First off, you may want to read the article: What Is Salvation?

Just as we are able to put faith in Jesus' sacrifice even though we didn't personally see it, Jehovah's people had been putting faith in the Messiah long before Jesus brought about the prophecy's fulfillment. (John 8:56) When Adam and Eve first sinned, God immediately spoke of a Messianic prophecy by which humankind would eventually be restored to a sinless state.

  And I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your offspring and her offspring. He will crush your head, and you will strike him in the heel.” —Genesis 3:15

Throughout history, faithful men and women have been putting their trust in this promise as God continued to expound on how it would be fulfilled by the Messiah. Hebrews chapter 11 lists many faithful ones from the Old Testament who found God's favor and received salvation.

  13 In faith all of these died, although they did not receive the fulfillment of the promises; but they saw them from a distance and welcomed them and publicly declared that they were strangers and temporary residents in the land. 14 For those who speak in such a way make it evident that they are earnestly seeking a place of their own. 15 And yet, if they had kept remembering the place from which they had departed, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But now they are reaching out for a better place, that is, one belonging to heaven. Therefore, God is not ashamed of them, to be called on as their God, for he has prepared a city for them. —Hebrews 11:13-16

However, all of these faithful ones from before Jesus' day have the earthly hope, just as most Jehovah's Witnesses have today. The heavenly hope has been reserved for 144,000 which have been chosen by Christ ever since his death. Those with the heavenly hope will assist Christ in ruling the righteous ones on Earth.

  39And yet all of these, although they received a favorable witness because of their faith, did not obtain the fulfillment of the promise, 40 because God had foreseen something better for us, so that they might not be made perfect apart from us. —Hebrews 11:39-40

This is the only distinction between those who died before Jesus' death and those who died after: the ones who died after are able to be members of the 144,000.


Why is the day before Ash Wednesday sometimes called Pancake Tuesday?

As I stated in an answer to a related question, historically it has been the case that during Lent, and perhaps during some other times, required abstinence from meat has included not only abstinence from meat products but also abstinence from any animal products, including dairy, fat, and eggs.

Thus, it has historically been the case that between Ash Wednesday and Easter Sunday, Catholics (which in medieval times included most of Europe) could not eat any of these substances during Lent. Since food preservation, especially of these types of substances, was largely ineffective, there had to be a way to consume them before Lent so that they did not spoil. Pancake Tuesday (which may have had its origin in non-Christian European observations) was an effective way to do just that, since pancakes require butter, eggs, and sometimes milk to make.


Is Christianity the sum of the actions and beliefs of its adherents or a set of actions and beliefs defined by the Bible?

This question is very subjective as it appears you are trying to separate what Christianity is from what its adherents do, and that is very tricky.

Jesus had a vision of God's message that he understood very well.  Then he gave the pieces of the mosaic to his apostles, and taught some parts to his disciples.

They then tried to recreate the picture that Jesus understood.

So, they passed those pieces on to use in the form of writings, but many of these came from disciples of those Jesus taught.

So, we now have thousands of different groups each claiming to have reconstructed the picture, but each one is very different, as some will have put different ones in the center, and most will have some pieces left out of the image as unneeded.

So, when you ask what is Christianity, both can be seen as Christianity, there are the teachings, but how those are applied in the real-world shows whether the teachings are reasonable to follow, and so likely to be true.  If you teach a belief that no one can follow at all, then it is probably not a true teaching, but just a theory on how to live life.

So, in the US, we have Christian groups that teach hatred, and teach that treating those not of their particular faith as being less important, unless they can be converted.

This would seem to fly in the face of Jesus' teachings of loving enemies more than ourselves (not something Jesus stated directly, but can be inferred), and being willing to die for those that persecute us.  But, these followers can seem to be happy with making this unreasonable loving part less important, or redefining it.

But, to an outsider, this is Christianity.  To those on the inside they may state it isn't, but if anyone group claims to be Christian then the entire teachings of Christ are judged by the actions of the claimants.

This is why Fulton Sheen stated that people don't hate Roman Catholicism, they hate what they think Roman Catholicism is.  People see something and may misinterpret, and so they hate this religion because of what they see, and what they may misunderstand, but to those within the Church they will see it differently and so not understand why people will judge the religion so harshly.  I am not trying to defend the RCC, but to use it as an example, btw.


What is the origin of the tradition that Mary lived in Turkey after John took her there?

There seems to be only two historical possibilities as to where Mary ended the pilgrim journey on earth: Jerusalem or Ephesus?

Historically, there are proponents to both sides of this question as can be seen in this article on the Tomb of the Blessed Virgin Mary. These two theories do not seem to take into account the solicitude that St. John would have had in keeping Mary safe! We know that Christians were being persecuted at Jerusalem from the very foundation of the Church, so Ephesus is a real possibility.

From New World Encyclopedia:

  "Catholic and Orthodox tradition say that John, together with the the Virgin Mary, moved to Ephesus, where both eventually died. According to Tertullian, John was banished (presumably to Patmos) after being plunged into boiling oil in Rome and miraculously suffering nothing from it. Some believe his tomb is located at Selçuk, a small town in the vicinity of Ephesus.

  In his Dialogue with Trypho (Chapter 81) Justin Martyr refers to "John, one of the Apostles of Christ" as an eye-witness of Jesus' ministry who had lived "with us" at Ephesus. Irenæus declares that he wrote his Gospel at Ephesus (Adv. haer., III, i, 1), and that he had lived there until the reign of Trajan. Eusebius and Jerome related that John was the teacher of the Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis in Syria. When John was old he is believed to have trained the future Saint Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, in today's Turkey. Polycarp is thought to have carried John's message and apostolic authority to a new generation, until he himself became a martyr for the faith."

The visions of Catherine Emmerich seem to be a confirmation of the Ephesian tradition, rather than its' source.


What happens to Hell after Revelation 21:1?

Approaching it from this angle:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. So hell is not part of the original creation.

We also know that [Now] war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, 8 but they were defeated and there was no longer any place for them in heaven.

It is after this that the eternal fire [was] prepared for the devil and his angels, which is hell.

Hell was not part of God's original plan for his creation.

From Jesus' words and from the Book of Revelation, the lake of fire has been prepared but Satan has not yet been cast into it as yet. It appears that he is held in a prison and whenever he is allowed to roam about, he carries his fire with him, as the New Advent article says.

It is the teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." [Cf. DS 76; 409; 411; 801; 858; 1002; 1351; 1575; Paul VI, CPG § 12.] [cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1035]

The renewal is of heaven and earth not hell. Heaven has been rid of the dragon [devil] and his angels and God's will is done there [cf. The Our Father]. But is appears that even it is still not as God intended it to be - heaven [is] missing [some] angel[s]. The state of the earth is plain to us: sin, death, devils roaming around, the nations conspire, and the peoples plot in vain[.] The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers [fallen angels] take counsel together, against the Lord and his anointed, [cf. Ps 2] etc.

Hell is also the outer darkness [cf. Mt 25:30]. Think of one coming to their house and finding it infested with vermin and thoroughly gathering up all the vermin, ridding the house of them for ever, and say, destroying the vermin by burning them, so that they never ever again return.

Heaven and earth are then renewed and they and their inhabitants proceed as God intended for all eternity, free from the fear of their happiness ever being alloyed again even by a tiny bit.

Please see also Why will the sea be no more? Revelation 21:1 [closed]

Overcoming the difficulty as to why evil is not part of ALL:

In the beginning [there] ... was God. cf. Jn 1:1.

God is Love, Goodness, Truth, Thrice Holy, Beauty, etc. cf. The Nature and Attributes of God and what Scripture says of God.

And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day. cf. Gn 1:31.

Therefore before creation there is Goodness, Beauty, Love, Holiness, Light, etc., this is what IS. At the conclusion of the sixth day, God says of his creation that it is very good.

Evil enters creation with free creatures, freely doing their will vs. God's, i.e. disobeying God: the angels first, then man.

Rather than see evil as something, evil, in a large sense, may be described as the sum of the opposition, which experience shows to exist in the universe. cf. Evil | New Advent.

So evil is opposite, the absence of the Good (=God), and very good of creation at the beginning.

In the end God renews  creation to the original very good, and then some.

To advance the time,  Catholics' prayer to the Holy Spirit has send forth your Spirit and they shall be created. And you shall renew the face of the earth.

From a philosophical perceptive, it is wrong to consider evil as something, evil is [a] nothing, the absence of good/the Good; therefore does not belong to the ALL that is renewed. In fact, the renewal cannot be accomplished unless evil is forever banished.

A human example: when a person is restored to health, only he is restored and not the sickness (= absence of health). The sickness is banished from him, for him to be restored to health.

  “Either the day must come when joy prevails and all the makers of
  misery are no longer able to infect it, or else, for ever and ever,
  the makers of misery can destroy in others the happiness they reject
  for themselves.”  ― C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce


How do opponents of Penal Substitution explain God's declaration that He "will not leave the guilty unpunished"?

The following answer shall be largely influenced by my Roman Catholic faith, so be aware of such a fact while reading. With that said, here we gooooooooo!!!

Penal Substitution And Its Failures

The problem with the penal substitution theory is that it confuses many points that need distinction in order to understand the nature of Christ's sacrifice. For example, under the penal substitution theory there is a reduced consideration of the theological specifications between original sin, committed by our first parents, and actual sin, committed by the individual. The supporters of penal substitution theory simply hold that Christ died for all of our sins, and bore the punishment due to each and every sin. Another point of distinction that is necessary to make that penal substitution theory seems to overlook is the difference between satisfactory punishment and penal punishment. Satisfactory punishment is voluntary and not necessary for the individual undergoing it to undergo it. It thus earns penitential merit for the individual, a merit that by its nature has the opportunity to be shared (hence the Catholic understanding of a Treasury of Merit). An example of what satisfactory atonement theory proponents would hold to be satisfactory punishment is the punishment that Christ went through on the cross and in His death. Penal punishment is not voluntary, for it is accorded by God to souls for a sin that was specifically committed. It thus has no merit opportunity, for it is solely serving to bring about God's justice. It is penal insofar as it is necessary for the sinful soul to undergo the punishment. An example of penal punishment is the fall of man following original sin. Another example is eternal damnation accorded to actual sin that is mortal. These distinctions being stated, it might be easier to understand satisfactory atonement theory more clearly, and to specifically understand its proponents when they state that Christ could not undergo penal punishment.

The major problem with proposing that Christ underwent every single punishment for every single sin is rather obvious; if such were the case Christ would be suffering eternally in hell right now, for the punishment of actual sin is eternal damnation. Penal substitution theory also holds, as you might have guessed, a penal consideration of the nature of Christ's sacrifice. In other words, under penal substitution Christ 'became' a sinner and 'became' the guilty in the eyes of God the Father. An obvious objection to this idea is in the fact that if Christ were to be considered a sinner in the Highest Courts, God would be divided against Himself. Christ could not justly be condemned, for as you said yourself in Proverbs 17:15, God detests condemning the innocent. Also, Christ suffering such punishment would achieve no merits anyway, since as we have discussed penal punishment brings about no merit opportunity. So the matter of Christ's sacrifice thus is not in Christ the innocent being condemned by the Father, which suggests a division within God Himself and no merit opportunity, but in Christ the Perfector of the human race offering some value to humanity that every human, bound by original sin, could not offer. Satisfactory atonement theory proponents suggest that what Christ offered is a satisfactory, or voluntary, penance for original sin. Original sin is understood to be the prison by which all mankind was (is) held, for it was (is) an inescapable inclination to commit actual sin, which condemns men to hell. While we could pay penance for actual sin, it was meaningless without the penance of the more primary matter of original sin. So satisfactory atonement theory holds that Christ offered perfect penance (which included suffering, since penance is a punishment by nature) for original sin. Since this perfect penance was satisfactory, it produced merits that could be shared by those who share a love with and for He who obtained them. Christ suffering a satisfactory punishment for original sin, which implies He remained perfect before the eyes of the Father and that He did not as such suffer every conceivable punishment for every sin, in no way takes away from the glory or power of Christ's Passion. It simply upholds the consistency of God and the coherency of sin and punishment.

I think I have addressed the verse of Proverbs that you used in pointing out that it actually supports satisfactory atonement theory more than penal punishment theory. Now on to the other two verses.

Nahum 1:3

  The Lord is slow to anger but great in power; the Lord will not leave the guilty unpunished. His way is the whirlwind and the storm, and clouds are the dust of his feet.

To suggest that this verse supports an entire theological theory is perhaps incorporating a bit of question begging. But to answer to the objection, I might note that the verse in no way specifies what it means by 'punishment', and my guess is that it doesn't mean 'punishment' in the way that is going to add up to a feasible defense for penal substitution theory. The problem with this line of argumentation is firstly in its assumption regarding those who don't hold to penal substitution theory. Most would not reject the notion that all men are punished for their sins. But we must accept the notion that not all men are punished in the way they could be, or to the full extent that they could be. But for the sake of argument let's assume that this verse is speaking of the full extent of punishment being unavoidable. The second assumption read into it by penal substitution theory supporters is what is meant by 'guilty'. The 'guilty' could very well mean those who are opposing God's will, in which case the matter becomes difficult to address how this correlates to Christ. For Christ would certainly not be opposed to God's will. More so Christians would not be considered 'guilty' because they have faith in Christ, even though they were opposed to God's will at certain points. Obviously Christians do not suffer the 'full extent of God's wrath' so long as they are faithful and justified in their deeds. So we can see with close analysis that this verse truly doesn't get past being relativistic, especially if you try to bend it to a certain position. The better biblical approach is to not pull verses out of context but rather read them as they are.

Exodus 23:7

  Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty.

Again, this verse seems to resonate the verse in Proverbs that you posted. As I noted in Proverbs briefly, this verse seems to be not supporting penal substitution, for it notes that God detest condemning the innocent while sparing the guilty. How much more so is it improbable that God would detest Himself, who is the Highest Good and Innocence? The notion that He would suffer a penal punishment as though He were a sinner, at His own bidding mind you, has rather obvious problems, one such example being proven in the verses you posted. To post verses that presuppose satisfactory atonement theory I might add the following:

Leviticus 17:11

  For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life

Genesis 4:4

  ...and Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering...

Genesis 22:2

  He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you."

Proverbs 21:3

  To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice.

All of these verses support the idea that a sacrifice is firstly focused on the notion of offering something to God, albeit amending a debt, that is meant to cleanse us. I might also note that Cain and Abel offering a sacrifice is interesting because it only further interlinks the closeness of sacrifice (penance, punishment, etc) with original sin. It was only after the fall, and probably for the fall, that these sacrifices came to be, carried out for the old notion that we as a race owe something to God. But God does not 'require' sacrifices in a legal sense. This fact is seen in the last Proverbs verse. The nature of these sacrifices are an embodiment of the perfection that is owed to God but that is not achievable through fallen man. Thus is it that we see God being more pleased with more meaningful sacrifices; these sacrifices were predecessors to the true and perfect Sacrifice of Christ, who offered full penance in His perfection for original sin.


Had Jesus already read the end of the book?

If you believe that the Gospels are true, as most Christians do, then the answer is absolutely yes.  Jesus clearly knew not only about his death, but also about his resurrection and glorification.  This can be shown with several different passages, but even just this one passage sums it up rather clearly:

Luke 9:21-26 (NASB)

  But He warned them and instructed them not to tell this to anyone, saying, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed and be raised up on the third day.” And He was saying to them all, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it. For what is a man profited if he gains the whole world, and loses or forfeits himself? For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory, and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.

I suspect, however, that you have a misconceived presumption.  You seem to be assuming that the physical pain and shame of the crucifixion was the sum total of the suffering that Jesus had to endure.  Most Christians would tell you that the physical crucifixion was only a small part of the actual suffering.  The larger suffering was spiritual in nature.  Jesus became sin.  He did so to provide propitiation for our sins.

The spiritual aspect of the Christ's suffering was, of course prophesied years before Jesus was born:

Isaiah 53:11-12 (NASB)

  As a result of the anguish of His soul,He will see it and be satisfied;By His knowledge the Righteous One,My Servant, will justify the many,As He will bear their iniquities.Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great,And He will divide the booty with the strong;Because He poured out Himself to death,And was numbered with the transgressors;Yet He Himself bore the sin of many,And interceded for the transgressors.

The great distress that Jesus felt because of his knowledge of his coming suffering was most evident when he prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane.  You can read about that event in Matthew 26:36-46, Mark 14:32-42, and Luke 22:39-46.


How many Christian missionaries are sent by the "global South"?

The best data on this topic that I'm aware of comes from the Atlas of Global Christianity, which describes how Christian missions has changed between 1910 and 2010 (unfortunately, if it does include tradition-level data, I don't have access to it).  An overview report summarizes its findings:

  The growth in missionary sending from the Global South is apparent in these pages but lags behind the demographics of church membership.1

By continent, we see both the raw number of missionaries sent, as well as the number per million church members, in both 1910 and 2010:1

                          1910             |             2010
                   #Sent       #/mil.      |       #Sent      #/mil.
Africa               350          30       |      20,700         44
Asia                 300          12       |      47,100        135
Europe            39,950          99       |     132,800        237
Latin America        400           5       |      58,400        107
North America     20,400         223       |     135,000        596
Oceania              600         106       |       6,000        255
Total             62,000         101       |     400,000        184

Thus, we can clearly see that Asia, Latin America, and Africa have all jumped dramatically over the last 100 years in the raw number of sent missionaries.  Asia and Latin America in particular now send much higher numbers of missionaries compared to their number of church members.

That said, the global South still lags in the latter metric, compared to the global North: North America still sends, by far, the most missionaries per church member. Still, we see evidence of a diminishing gap in that nine of the top 20 countries sending Christian missionaries are in the global South.  Brazil (2), South Korea (5), and India (9) are in the top 10, and South Africa, the Philippines, Mexico, China, Colombia, and Nigeria in the next group of 10.2

The report concludes:

  Over the past 100 years, as global Christianity has been shifting gradually to the South, the number of foreign missionaries sent from the South has been increasing. In 1910 the vast majority of missionaries were sent from Europe and Northern America to Asia, Africa, and Latin America. In 2010 the sending of foreign missionaries is more even across continents, although Europe and Northern America still have much higher per-capita sending rates than most countries of the Global South.1

References:

"Christianity 2010: A View from the New Atlas of Global Christianity." International Bulletin of Missionary Research, Vol. 34, No. 1.
Atlas of Global Christianity, cited in Christianity in its Global Context, page 76.


How broad and inclusive is the definition of service in exhortations to serve one another?

According to the interpretations I'm most familiar with (mainly fundamentalist/Evangelical Churches, such as Baptist and non-denominational "Bible churches") the answer is "It's all-inclusive".  it includes anything and everything we can do to help others, demonstrate love, and see to their needs.  Financially, spiritually, emotionally, every possible way.

This stems from basic Biblical principles and application of passages such as the following:

  Colossians 3:22-24 (KJV)

  22 Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh;
  not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart,
  fearing God: 23 And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord,
  and not unto men; 24 Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the
  reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.

The interpretation being that we are to serve others at all times because doing so is also service to the Lord.  We honor God in all acts of service.

Also taking in mind that service is an expression of love:

  Mark 12:30-31 (KJV)

  30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with
  all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this
  is the first commandment. 31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou
  shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment
  greater than these.

  Matthew 5:46-48 (KJV)

  43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour,
  and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless
  them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them
  which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the
  children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to
  rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on
  the unjust. 46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye?
  do not even the publicans the same? 47 And if ye salute your brethren
  only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48Be
  ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is
  perfect.

If service is an expression of love, and we are to love our enemies as much as our neighbors, it follows that we are to serve without reservation, even those that we find despicable.

Long story short, there is no Biblical reason to expect that there is a limit to how we are to serve.  We should follow Christ's example, and put others before ourselves, as the ultimate expression of Agape love.

More on the subject from the same perspective can be found at Christia.Net

Excerpt:

  Christ is the best example of demonstrating Christian servanthood the
  way it is meant to be in God's eyes. Being a true servant is seeing
  people as opportunity for a relationship rather than just as needy
  people we walk by every day. Being able to see them with Christ's eyes
  will show them His presence within the depths of our hearts. Serving
  others is one of the most effective ways to lead them to the Lord.
  Many forget or ignore this command of the Christian life, but it is
  best to show others Christ through actions rather than words. "Let
  nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind
  let each esteem other better than themselves. Look not every man on
  his own things, but every man also on the things of others. Let this
  mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who...made himself of
  no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant" (Philippians
  2:3-5,7).


If God is a Trinity, are Father and Son manifestations of Divinity without being spirits?

Both God the Father and the Holy Spirit are spirits.

For example, catholic.com states,

  ... verses, such as John 4:24, where Jesus teaches us: "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." This means God has no body, because a spirit is, by nature, an incorporeal being.

  The Church Fathers, of course, agreed, and loudly declared the fact that God is an unchangeable, immaterial spirit who has an entirely simple ("incomposite") nature

  It is true that Jesus, who is God, assumed an earthly body when he was born of the Blessed Virgin, and that this body, now glorified, continues to exist. But since the Lord only took on human flesh in these "last days," and since God has always existed, without beginning or end, we must still conclude that having a body is not part of God’s unchangeable nature: he exists in eternity as pure spirit, even though he chose for the Son to also take on a human nature in addition to his bodiless, timeless, divine nature.

Source: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/god-has-no-body

God the Son existed as a spirit before his incarnation as Jesus of Nazareth.

And, to be exact, none of the persons of the Trinity are "manifestations of God"; each person of the Trinity is God.


Why does Paul call Peter "Cephas" in his writings?

Peter means "stone" in Greek, while Cephas is "stone" in Aramaic.

That verse is confusing in the NIV; the KJV is clearer:

  John 1:42 (KJV)
  42And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

Christ was speaking in Aramaic, and would have called Simon "Cephas." John wrote his gospel in Greek, so he included the note for his readers that "Cephas" meant "a stone."


Those who baptize infants are bound by Canon Law to raise those children Catholic. A Catholic parent must

  Can. 1125 1/…do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church.

Thus, unless the Catholic parents utterly fail in their duty, it is nearly impossible for a child to be baptized Catholic and not realize once the child reaches the age of reason.

Secretly baptizing foster children, for example, is prohibited by the Church for the reason that it cannot be assured that the child will be brought up in the Catholic religion.

  Can.  868 §1. For an infant to be baptized licitly [i.e., lawfully]…2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.

Thus, to answer your questions:

  a Catholic baptism alone makes a person a Catholic

This isn't quite correct. Catholic baptism + raising the infant Catholic makes the infant Catholic. If the infant is baptized Catholic but not raised Catholic, how is this any different from if the infant were baptized outside the Catholic Church? Anyone, inside or outside the Church, who can apply water and say the baptismal formula can validly baptize.

Catholic teaching is not that baptism alone makes one a member of the Church. As Pope Pius XII's encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi said,

  Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.

Baptism and profession of the Catholic Faith are both required to be members of the Church. Since infants lack the use of reason, the Catholic environment in which the infant is brought up substitutes for the inability of the infant to profess the Faith. After the infant grows up and attains the age of reason, he can formally make this act of faith in the sacrament of Confirmation.


When Jesus gave Peter his name (rock) what is the significance that he then said upon a ‘different’ kind of rock he would build his church?

Ok, so the reality is that there is the appearance of a Discrepancy of sorts in the bible, Peter being called "Pétros", and The church being built on "pétra."

As a Catholic heres how we interpret this scripture.

  the Aramaic word kēpā'  meaning rock and transliterated into Greek as Kēphas is the name by which peter is called in the Pauline letters (1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:4; Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14) except in Gal 2:7-8 ('Peter'). It is translated as Petros ("Peter") in Jn 1:42. The presumed original Aramaic of jesus' statement would have been in English, "You are the Rock (kēpā') and upon this rock (kēpā') I will build my church." The Greek text probably means the same, for the difference in gender between the masculine noun petros, the disciples new name, and the feminine noun petra (rock)  may be dew to the unsuitability of using a feminine noun as the proper name of a male.Although the two words were generally used with the same meaning, "rock" ...

Thats found in the note on Mt 6:18 (NAB) in my bible

So another words Jesus used the same word to refer to peter and 'the rock,' which is why Catholics believe that Jesus "built the church" on Peter, and the other popes. Of course, Faith is a gift given by God, and if it wasn't for that faith, Peter, and the rest of the Papacy, and their flock could have never started the church that we know today. So it does make sense, in a way, to say that Peter is a 'little rock' and upon the 'Big rock', the faith Of the head of the body of Christ, (which is given to peter) Jesus builds his church.


How do Reformed Churches justify applying the 4th commandment to the Lord's Day?

This a tricky yet very interesting question and I would vote +2 if I could.

Basically from what I understand, although not perceived as a strict law, in the same way that the Sabbath was instituted under the law of Moses, the argument was this:

A day of rest was made by God for man before Adam sinned (before the Mosaic Law) by calling the 7th day holy in creation.
That day was a pledge of the eternal rest promised to man, if he were to obtain righteousness and also a pattern to follow for his own benefit to rest and enjoy his own labours once a week.
The Mosaic institution and law further stressed the need to rest, or enter into God's rest, but now as a law of condemnation only spoke to the lack of rest and the real need to enter into a new rest by the Messiah, where God would rest in a new creation and men could enter into a real eternal rest by the works of Christ.
When the law ended by the death of Christ, a new day of rest had to be instituted because a day of rest was still needed.
To use the same day of rest after Christ would be misleading on two accounts; First, as the Law of Moses (ceremonial, moral/punitive, judicial - entire law) was removed in the death of Christ, the day must change to make it clear just as the curtains of the temple were torn to make it clear. Second, as Christ 'rested from his works' on the first day (Sunday) by his resurrection, having finished making a new creation, it was logically the day to chose by the Apostles.
Technically the day was not replacing the Sabbath as strict 'command under the Law' but replacing the original day of rest under the order of nature before the law, so was in harmony to grace. This may explain why although followed naturally we find no strict rules in the New Testament reading it.
In some sense although society needs a 'day' to organise itself under this rest, the new day is not necessarily so strictly 'legal' as we must remember it's purpose is for the benefit of man and a literal pledge of his eternal rest in Christ.

The best and most elaborate lengthly and reasonable explanation that I have seen made from a reformist view is by John Owen in "EXERCITATIONS CONCERNING THE NAME, ORIGINAL, NATURE, USE, AND CONTINUANCE OF A DAY OF SACRED REST: WHEREIN THE ORIGINAL OF THE SABBATH FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD, THE MORALITY OF THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT, WITH THE CHANGE
OF THE SEVENTH DAY, ARE INQUIRED INTO; TOGETHER WITH AN ASSERTION OF THE DIVINE INSTITUTION OF THE LORD’S DAY, AND PRACTICAL DIRECTIONS FOR ITS DUE OBSERVATION BY JOHN OWEN:" (haha those old long titles hey?)

This quote is where Sunday is pinpointed as the day to fulfil the moral natural intent of the 4th command according to a traditional reformed view:

  First, on this day he rested from his works, in and by his resurrection; for then had he laid the foundation of the new heavens and new earth, and finished the works of the new creation, “when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy.” On this day he rested from his works, and was refreshed, as God did and was from his. For although he “worketh hitherto,” in the communication of his Spirit and graces, as the Father continued to do in his works of providence, after the finishing of the works of the old creation, though these works belonged thereunto, yet he ceased absolutely from that kind of work whereby he laid the foundation of the new creation. Henceforth he dieth no more. And on this day was he refreshed in the view of his work; for he saw that it was exceeding good. Now, as God’s rest, and his being refreshed in his work, on the seventh day of old, was a sufficient indication of the precise day of rest which he would have observed under the administration of that original law and covenant, so the rest of our Lord Jesus Christ, and his being refreshed in and from his works, on the first day, is a sufficient indication of the precise day of rest to be observed under the dispensation of the new covenant, now confirmed and established.
  And the church of Christ could not pass one week under the new testament, or in a gospel state of worship, without this indication; for the Judaical Sabbath, as sure as it was so, and as sure as it was annexed unto the Mosaical administration of the covenant, was so far abolished as not really to oblige the disciples of Christ in conscience unto the observation of it, whatever any of them might for a season apprehend. And if a new day was not now determined, there was no day or season appointed for the observance of a holy rest unto the Lord, nor any pledge given us of our entering into the rest of Christ. And those who say that it is required that some time be set apart unto the ends of a sabbatical rest, but that there is no divine indication of that time, when nor what it is or shall be, if we consider what are the ends of such a rest, as before declared, must allow us to expect firmer proofs of their uncouth assertion than any as yet we have met withal.
  Accordingly, this indication of the gospel day of rest and worship was embraced by the apostles, who were to be as the chief cornerstones, the foundation of the Christian church; for immediately hereon they assembled themselves on that day, and were confirmed in their obedience by the grace of our Lord, in meeting with them thereon, John 20:19, 26. And it seems that on this day only he appeared unto them when they were assembled together, although occasionally he showed himself to sundry of them at other seasons. Hence he left Thomas under his doubts a whole week before he gave him his gracious conviction, that he might do it in the assembly of his disciples on the first day of the week; from which time forward this day was never without its solemn assemblies, as shall further be cleared afterwards. (Owen, J. (1862). An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews. (W. H. Goold, Ed.) (Vol. 19, pp. 409–410). Edinburgh: T&T Clark.)


Christian description of "self-love" (from Matthew 22)

Before getting into the details of what I've been taught on the subject, for those that don't know, we should first establish the three types of love in common Christian teaching.  They are based on the Greek words used that are commonly translated as love.

phileo - properly, to show warm affection in intimate friendship, characterized by tender, heartfelt consideration and kinship.
eros - romantic love
agape - properly, love which centers in moral preference. So too in secular ancient Greek, 26 (agápē) focuses on preference; likewise the verb form (25 /agapáō) in antiquity meant "to prefer"

Agape love is considered the purest form of love. To prefer another is to put their needs ahead of your own, and to esteem them higher than others.  It is the type of love that we are to have for others, but it's the rarest.  It's the type of love that motivates us to willingly lose our lives for those that we love.  A parent sacrificing their life so save a child, for example, or Christ's love for us.

The word that's translated as "love" here is the agape love.

Given that, the principle is that we are to put our neighbors first - to prefer them the way we normally prefer ourselves.

You mentioned in the question that there is little self-love these days.  That depends entirely on how you define love.  Of the three forms, eros and phileos deal with how we feel.  Agape deals with how we behave toward another.  Agape love is a choice and an action, while the other two are simply feelings, which can change.  Generally speaking, agape love is unconditional, and the other two are conditional.  We feel them because being with someone makes us feel good.  When we no longer feel those feelings, we say we fall out of love.

It's this understanding of love that prompts the phrase "Love is a choice, not a feeling".

When you think about it, for the most of us, barring those that are filled with enough self-loathing to resort to self-mutilation or suicide, most of us put our own needs first most of the time, even if we don't particularly feel good about ourselves.

We eat, rather than starve. We fight to survive in life-threatening situations.  We value our own opinions over other people's opinions.  We'd rather have our own way, even if we let others have theirs.  In general, whether we do so outwardly we think more about our own needs than we do about the needs of others.  In short, we are selfish.  It's human nature.

And we these things because because we value ourselves.  Whether we like to admit it or not, we prefer ourselves over others most of the time.  Just like we prefer ourselves over God.  "I don't feel like going to Church.  I have too much to do to waste time in prayer", etc.

This verse speaks to that and says "Don't be like that.  Instead of saying I'd love to help you move, but I have to (Fill in the blank) Instead of thinking of what you want to do, think of your neighbor's needs and prefer (agape love) them.  Help them at your own sacrifice."

Perhaps put more simply:

The one who says "I'd love to help you but I need to XXXXXXXX" is preferring himself.  Putting his own needs above the one who needs help.

The one who says "Can I help you" when they have something else they'd rather be doing, even (or especially) if what they'd rather be doing is a true need is preferring (agape loving) their neighbor as he would love himself.

It's actually just another form of the golden rule.  Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

A shorter version can be found in Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

  The love of our neighbor springs from the love of God as its source; is
  found in the love of God as its principle, pattern, and end; and the
  love of God is found in the love of our neighbor, as its effect,
  representation, and infallible mark. This love of our neighbor is a
  love of equity, charity, succor, and benevolence. We owe to our
  neighbor what we have a right to expect from him - "Do unto all men as
  ye would they should do unto you," is a positive command of our
  blessed Savior. By this rule, therefore, we should speak, think, and
  write, concerning every soul of man: - put the best construction upon
  all the words and actions of our neighbor that they can possibly bear.
  By this rule we are taught to bear with, love, and forgive him; to
  rejoice in his felicity, mourn in his adversity, desire and delight in
  his prosperity, and promote it to the utmost of our power: instruct
  his ignorance, help him in his weakness, and risk even our life for
  his sake, and for the public good. In a word, we must do every thing
  in our power, through all the possible varieties of circumstances, for
  our neighbors, which we would wish them to do for us, were our
  situations reversed.

  This is the religion of Jesus! How happy would Society be, were these
  two plain, rational precepts properly observed! Love Me, and love thy
  Fellows! Be unutterably happy in me, and be in perfect peace,
  unanimity, and love, among yourselves. Great fountain and dispenser of
  love! fill thy creation with this sacred principle, for his sake who
  died for the salvation of mankind!


How does this fit in with "we are incapable of following the law"?

The key difference is that the Torah is speaking to the letter of the law, Paul is speaking to what Jesus says of it.
As Jesus says in Matthew 5:

17“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

He goes on to give an example:

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder,a and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brotherb will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,c’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

In the case of the Torah, the requirement is simply to do the sacrifices and not go after idols.  It is completely a works based thing.
Paul could, for example, in Acts 23 say:

Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said, “My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day.”

but also say, as he does in Romans 7:

14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.c For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

That tension works itself out in the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit.
For Jesus, it is a whole life shift - one that involves regeneration of the mind.  To actually put to death the sinful nature is impossible on one's own. To live out the perfection of the law is, as Jesus sets the bar, beyond man's ability.
Just checking off the boxes, as Moses commanded, is a much lower bar indeed.
That said, I'm not sure that in my own power, I would have even met that one.


What determines the denominational "value" of a given Bible translation?

Below is a list of some widely used translations that were funded by particular denominations. This list does not imply that they were originally (or currently) intended to be utilized only by their parent denomination (with the exception of the New World Translation).

Catholic

Douai-Rheims

Confraternity Bible

Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition

Jerusalem Bible

New Jerusalem Bible

New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

New American Bible

Anglican – King James Version (KJV)

Christian Reformed Church – New International Version (NIV)

Lutheran – God’s Word Bible

Southern Baptist – Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

Jehovah’s Witnesses – New World Translation (NWT)

ROMAN CATHOLICISM

The New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE) is the only English text currently approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) for use in the United States.  It is the text found in all  current Lectionaries in the U.S. The Holy See accepted some use of inclusive language,  where the speaker/author intended a mixed audience (e.g. "brothers and sisters", instead of the older "brethren"), but rejected it in references to God or Christ, and man, where the word has anthropological and theological significance (e.g. Psalm 1:1, with reference to Adam and Christ). Since these Lectionaries have been fully promulgated, the permission to use the Jerusalem Bible and the RSV-Catholic at Mass has been withdrawn.

USCCB states:

  Since May 19, 2002, the revised Lectionary, based on the New American
  Bible is the only English-language Lectionary that may be used at Mass
  in the dioceses of the United States, except for the current
  Lectionary for Masses with Children which remains in use.

  The 1970 edition of the New American Bible is used in the Scripture
  readings and canticles of the Liturgy of the Hours (except the
  Benedictus, Magnificat, and Nunc dimittis.)

It should be noted that the USCCB approves of other translations for personal devotion and study.

See APPROVED TRANSLATIONS

PROTESTANTISM

Considering the fact that there are over 40,000 different Protestant denominations and sects currently in existence, it is practically impossible to narrow down the answer to your question with specific accuracy. We can, perhaps, pin things down into 4 main reasons.

Tradition – This especially applies to the King James Version.  The KJV was the only English translation accepted by Protestants for almost 400 years.  Virtually the entire North East United States was founded by settlers carrying the KJV under their arms. Children were educated and sermons were preached almost exclusively from the KJV for the first 200 years of settlement in New England. The tradition of using the KJV translation trickled down through the various branches of Protestantism from generation to generation as denominationalism exponentially flourished.  Most conservative Protestant Christians today tend to be raised with a more “traditional” disposition and are taught from a young age that the KJV is the only orthodox translation.  “If it’s good enough for Grandfather, then it’s good enough for me.”
Understandability – The main reason why newer translations (i. e. NIV, NKJV, HCSB) came into existence was to replace Early Modern English with today’s English, replacing “thou at saved” with “you are saved.” The King James Version was produced in the Elizabethan period of Early Modern English, and so it uses forms of the verbs and pronouns that were characteristic of that period. The newer translations make it easier to read and understand, especially for younger generations. This can easily be demonstrated by having a 13 year old read a chapter of Leviticus in front of a congregation using a KJV Bible.
Inclusiveness – Translations that employ inclusive language use language that avoids the use of certain expressions or words that might be considered to exclude particular groups of people, especially gender-specific words, such as "man,""mankind," and masculine pronouns, the use of which might be considered to exclude women.
Private interpretation – There is one overarching characteristic of all translations that determines whether or not it is to be utilized or shunned. It is the fact that no translation contains any passages to be translated that remotely resembles any sort of commanding directive as to which translation should be utilized or shunned. The Bible doesn't explicitly dictate how it should be translated. Although certain denominations strongly suggest the use of a particular translation, it is not left to the denominational leadership to decide. The Bible is the final authority within Protestantism. Therefore, in a world of private interpretation, it is ultimately the subjective opinion of the individual that decides which translation should be used.


How does the Catholic doctrine of free will reconcile with peccability?

The Council of Trent, the most important Council of the Church when speaking of the true nature of justification (i.e. because it was in response to the Protestant heresy which principally denied it), taught the following infallibly:

If any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,  — except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds with regard to the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema.
(Canon 24, Session 6, Decree on Justification)

So quite clearly it is not possible to avoid all venial sin, except by a special or unique grace and privilege of God which, as it is implied here, was only given to the immaculately conceived mother of God, the new Eve.


How does one know if God is calling him to be a priest?

The question of whether you are called to be a priest, or really any other specific calling, is not one you make on your own. If you feel you might be called to such a thing you should follow a number of steps. Since we don't  give personal spiritual advice, this will be generic advice.

First, pray about it. Ask God to show you whether he is really calling you or not. Pray lots, and keep praying during all the remaining stages.

Second, talk to someone about this. Someone who both knows you and knows something about the position you believe you are being called to. Not necessarily someone in that position, but who is not ignorant about it. Alternatively proceed straight to the next step.

Third, talk to your church leader, presumably your own priest. They will obviously know something about the position you think you are called to and a bit about you. They will pray with you and for you, and will give advice and their discernment of the situation. They also know the process, and if they agree that you may be called they will set the next steps in motion.

If after this these people, and you, agree that you might be called to a position then the next stage will be some sort of official discernment process. Part of this process is for the church to decide, with you, whether you are in fact called to a specific role. The details of the process will vary from church to church so there is no point in me describing it.

Note that this assumes you are in a church with a formalized clergy, which the word 'priest' would seem to imply. If your church is more congregation-based any official process will be very different. But praying about it yourself, and then praying with others, is almost always the best first step.