Dates of Epiphany and Baptism celebrations shifting in Ireland and England

Canon 1246 of the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church states:

  Sunday, on which by apostolic tradition the paschal mystery is celebrated, must be observed in the universal Church as the primordial holy day of obligation. The following days must also be observed: the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Epiphany, the Ascension, the Body and Blood of Christ, Holy Mary the Mother of God, her Immaculate Conception, her Assumption, Saint Joseph, Saint Peter and Saint Paul the Apostles, and All Saints.

  With the prior approval of the Apostolic See, however, the conference of bishops can suppress some of the holy days of obligation or transfer them to a Sunday.

(emphases added)

The dates on which various feasts of the Church are held are primarily contained in the Calendarium Romanum, the Roman Calendar, which was last updated by Pope Paul VI in 1969. I can only find a copy in the original Latin; it reads in the section about the Epiphany and Baptism of the Lord:

  In Epiphania Domini, die 6 ianuarii, nihil innovatur. Attamen ubi haec sollemnitas non est de praecepto servanda, transfertur ad dominicam post octavam Nativitatis (id est, a die 2 ad diem 8 ianuarii occurrente).

  Dominica post diem 6 ianuarii, festum Baptismatis Domini celebratur. Quando vero hoc festum occurrit una cum sollemnitate Epiphaniae ad hanc dominicam translata, illis in locis omittitur.

That is,

  Nothing is changed regarding the Epiphany of the Lord, on the 6th day of January. However, where this solemnity will not be observed according to tradition [i.e. on the 6th], it is moved to the Sunday after the Octave of the Nativity (that is, to the Sunday occurring from the 2nd to the 8th day of January.

  On the Sunday after the 6th day of January, the feast of the Baptism of the Lord is celebrated. When, however, this feast occurs together with the solemnity of the Epiphany moved to this Sunday, in those places it is left out.

It appears that a later ruling decided to move the Baptism of the Lord to the Monday following the celebration of the Epiphany in such a case, rather than to leave it out; but I can't find documentation of this.

Thus, the current rule is this:

The governing episcopal conference of a territory, with the approval of the Holy See, will decide whether they wish all parishes within that territory to celebrate the Epiphany on the 6th of January (the traditional date), or on the Sunday following the 1st of January. These are the only two possibilities, and all parishes within the conference must adhere to the one chosen by the bishops.
If the conference decides to celebrate the Epiphany on the 6th, then the Baptism of the Lord is celebrated on the following Sunday (the 7th to 13th).
If on the other hand they choose to celebrate it on the Sunday after 1 January, then:

If in a given year this Sunday falls on or before the 6th, the Baptism of the Lord is celebrated on the following Sunday.
But if the Sunday on which the Epiphany is celebrated falls on the 7th or 8th, the Baptism of the Lord is celebrated the next day, Monday the 8th or 9th.

It appears this is what is happening in your example. Ireland and Northern Ireland are the territory of the Irish Catholic Bishops' Conference, They appear to have elected to celebrate the Epiphany on the traditional date, 6 January, and the Baptism of the Lord on the following Sunday, 8 January. England and Wales are territorially part of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, which seems to have chosen to celebrate the Epiphany on the Sunday folowing 1 January. This year, that is 8 January, and thus the Baptism of the Lord will be celebrated there on Monday 9 January.

It appears from a brief search of the Anglican Communion website that the Epiphany may be celebrated in Anglican churches on either of the days allowed by the Catholic Church. But it's not clear who has the authority to decide when individual parishes celebrate it, or what the practice is in the Church of England in particular.


Origin of the Reformed "Marks of the True Church"

Calvin dedicates an entire Book of his Institutes (Book IV) to the Church, and Chapters 1-2 are about the "true church" in which he mentions the marks of a true church.

From 4.1.9:

  Wherever we see the word of God sincerely preached and heard, wherever
  we see the sacraments administered according to the institution of
  Christ, there we cannot have any doubt that the church of God has some
  existence, since his promise cannot fail,

    "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matthew 18:20)

So here he lays out the first two points you mention - preaching and sacraments, but while he talks about discipline at length in 4.12 & 4.13, he doesn't include it in his "marks" in 4.1 and 4.2.

Since Calvin's Institutes were published in 1536, before the letter he mentioned, I suspect he had only recently begun to develop the marks in his mind. By the time he wrote the letter in 1539, he'd added the third mark.

However, I dug a little deeper and while browsing The Apostolic Fathers , a collection of letters and sermons by early church fathers, I found a document entitled The Didache, or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.  This is likely a composite document, pieced together by early church fathers, and the author is unknown, but it dates somewhere from A.D 50 to 300, so it's well before Calvin (and Augustine, assuming he had anything to say about it)

In Didache are three "marks" (though not declared as distinguishing points; they are given as instructions) of a church (emphasis mine):

  On the Lord's own day gather together and break bread and give
  thanks, having first confessed your sins so that your sacrifice may
  be pure. But let no one who has a quarrel with a companion join you
  until they have been reconciled, so that your sacrifice may not be
  defiled. For this is the sacrifice concerning which the Lord said, "In
  every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great king,
  says the Lord, and my name is marvelous among the nations" (Mal. 1:11,
  14)

  Therefore appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the
  Lord, men who are humble and not avaricious and true and approved, for
  they too carry out for you the ministry of the prophets and
  teachers. You must not, therefore, despise them, for they are your
  honored men, along with the prophets and teachers.

  Furthermore, correct one another, not in anger but in peace, as
  you find in the Gospel; and if anyone wrongs his neighbor, let no one
  speak to him, nor let him hear a word from you, until he repents

The first paragraph, given the stipulation to repent sins before the sacrifice, seems to be talking about the Lord's Supper: sacraments.

The second paragraph speaks of establishing teachers: preaching the word.

The third paragraph gives instructions for how to treat a non-repentant sinner: discipline

Though it doesn't label them marks in so many words, I think this is the closest (and earliest) you'll find to the idea of the three distinguishing factors. I'm fairly certain, however, that Calvin was the one who called them "marks" first.

Ultimately, I think the general idea stems from Acts 2:42

  And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship,
  to the breaking of bread and the prayers.


Does the priest ask for reasons to prevent a marriage during a Catholic wedding?

I can't speak for the Deutscher Sprachraum directly, but in one of the English books I have there is...

  Therefore if anyone can show any just cause why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else forever hereafter hold his peace.

Yes, that's almost exactly the wording in the Church of England's Book of Common Prayer. It's prescribed for use in the Personal Ordinariates, but that order of service can only be used by Ordinariate priests.

However, in the 1969 rite, this wording does not appear, nor does it appear in the 2016 English translation of the 1991 rite which is currently in use. Consequently I reason that it does not appear in the 1991 normative Latin rite — which I haven't been able to find online — and it would not normally be used in other translations (including German). It did not appear in the 1962 rite.


Which Episcopal Conferences set alternatives for abstinence on Fridays?

For starters the Episcopal Conferences of both Canada  and the United States  allow it.

For Canada:

  In Canada

  In accordance with the prescriptions of canon 1253, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops decrees that the days of fast and abstinence in Canada are:

  Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

  Fridays are days of abstinence, but Catholics can substitute special acts of charity or piety on this day"

For the United States:

  On the Fridays outside of Lent the U.S. and Canadian bishops conference, in accordance with Canon 1253, obtained the permission of the Holy See for Catholics in the US to substitute a penitential, or even a charitable, practice of their own choosing.  Since this was not stated as binding under pain of sin, not to do so on a single occasion would not in itself be sinful.  However, since penance is a divine command, the general refusal to do penance is certainly gravely sinful.  For most people the easiest way to consistently fulfil this command is the traditional one, to abstain from meat on all Fridays of the year which are not liturgical solemnities.  When solemnities, such as the Annunciation, Assumption, All Saints etc. fall on a Friday, we neither abstain or fast.

For France , the Eldest Daughter of the Church follow similar rules as Canada:

  Une semaine après la décision de l’épiscopat canadien de laisser la liberté à ses fidèles de pratiquer la pénitence de leur choix – abrogeant ainsi notamment les règlements sur l’abstinence du vendredi –, l’épiscopat français annonçait le 22 octobre 1966 une décision qui allait dans le même sens. À compter du 1er janvier 1967, les fidèles français seraient autorisés à consommer de la viande les vendredis, en dehors du temps de Carême.

French translation by myself:

  A week after the Canadian episcopate’s decision to let the faithful have the freedom to do the practice of penance to themselves - thus abrogating the the rule of abstinence for Fridays -, the French episcopate announced on October 22, 1966 the decision to go in the same sense. As of January 1, 1967 the French faithful will authorized to eat meat on Fridays outside of Lent.

Most National Episcopal Conferences have obtained permission now to follow this type of abstinence alternatives.

The bishops of Great Britain  and Wales  have recent altered the alternative as follows:

  England and Wales

  Abstinence every Friday of the year.

  The Bishops have decided to re-establish the practice that this [penance] should be fulfilled by abstaining from meat. Those who cannot or choose not to eat meat as part of their normal diet should abstain from some other food of which they regularly partake. This is to come into effect from Friday 16 September 2011[...]

  Many may wish to go beyond this simple act of common witness and mark each Friday with a time of prayer and further self-sacrifice. In all these ways we unite our sacrifices to the sacrifice of Christ, who gave up his very life for our salvation.

For Spain:

  Spain

  Abstinence of meat on Fridays of Lent. Other Fridays this may be substituted for certain works of penance.

  El Miércoles de Ceniza, comienzo de la Cuaresma, y el Viernes Santo, memoria de la Pasión y Muerte de nuestro Señor Jesucristo, son días de ayuno y abstinencia. Los otros viernes de Cuaresma son también días de abstinencia, que consiste en no tomar carne, según antigua práctica del pueblo cristiano. [...]
  En los restantes viernes del año, la abstinencia puede ser sustituida, según la libre voluntad de los fieles, por cualquiera de las siguientes prácticas recomendadas por la Iglesia: lectura de la Sagrada Escritura, limosna (en la cuantía que cada uno estime en conciencia), otras obras de caridad (visita de enfermos o atribulados), obras de piedad (participación en la santa misa, rezo del rosario, etc.) y mortificaciones corporales.


Are there any Christian denominations that believe in sex and marriage in the afterlife?

The LDS Church teaches that while not all marriages are eternal (see Luke 20:34-35), but that a marriage which is sealed is, and will continue in heaven. Additionally parents that are sealed to their children will still play a parental role in the afterlife.

As for what marriage will be like in the next life, we do not know, but some sources suggest that those in the celestial kingdom will be able to keep having children forever (if this process is the same or different is similarly up to speculation).


Why do we have to make the Sign of the Cross physically?

The reason a Catholic does physical acts of devotion, and not simply mental ones, is because he is composed of a body and a soul. Bodily acts affect one's soul.

St. Thomas Aquinas writes in Summa Theologica II-II q. 84 a. 2 co.:

  As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv, 12*), since we are composed of a twofold nature, intellectual and sensible, we offer God a twofold adoration; namely, a spiritual adoration, consisting in the internal devotion of the mind; and a bodily adoration, which consists in an exterior humbling of the body. And since in all acts of latria* that which is without is referred to that which is within as being of greater import, it follows that exterior adoration is offered on account of interior adoration, in other words we exhibit signs of humility in our bodies in order to incite our affections to submit to God, since it is connatural to us to proceed from the sensible to the intelligible.

*"Concerning Worship towards the East" (ad orientem)**worship due to God alone


Did Karl Barth confess an orthodox doctrine of the Trinity?

Yes. In fact, one of Barth's lasting contributions was a recovery of the doctrine of the Trinity as central for theology, in reaction to German liberalism's denial or, at best, sidelining of the topic (Schleiermacher's The Christian Faith is a prime example of this—in an 800 page systematic theology, the Trinity only merits 14 pages tagged on at the end). Barth's Church Dogmatics begins with the Trinity and its entire structure is based around it.

Some have accused Barth of modalism because he used the term "modes of being" or "ways of being" (Seinsweise) to describe the different members of the Godhead, instead of the traditional "persons." This accusation is based on a misunderstanding, though an understandable one. Barth's refusal to use the term "person" is due to the isolated individualistic connotation that term has taken on in recent times—a connotation that he doesn't think was contained in "hypostasis" as used in the creeds. In Volume IV of Church Dogmatics he differentiates between these "ways of being" more thoroughly, making it clear that he is not, in fact, a modalist.

I'll quote here from CD I/1, §9.2 (page 360 in the Hendrickson edition):

  What we have here are God's specific, different, and always very distinctive modes of being. This means that God's modes of being are not to be exchanged or confounded. In all three modes of being God is the one God both in Himself and in relation to the world and man. But this one God is God three times in different ways, so different that it is only in this threefold difference that He is God, so different that this difference, this being in these three modes of being, is absolutely essential to Him, so different, then, that this difference is irremovable. Nor can there be any possibility that one of the modes of being might just as well be the other, e.g., that the Father might just as well be the Son or the Son the Spirit, nor that two of them or all three might coalesce and dissolve into one. In this case the modes of being would not the essential to the divine being. Because the threeness is grounded in the one essence of the revealed God; because in denying the threeness in the unity of God we should be referring at once to another God than the God revealed in Holy Scripture—for this very reason this threeness must be regarded as irremovable and the distinctiveness of the three modes of being must be regarded as ineffaceable.

The modalist heresy held that God was only one (monarchianism), but that He revealed himself in three different ways. We might say that modalists hold that God is one "way of being" but three "ways of acting"; Barth, on the other hand, makes a clear distinction between the three "ways of being." Earlier on this same page, in fact, he argues explicitly against the idea that the Triune nature of God consists only in three different types of revelation.

The full argument in I/1 §9.2 is worth reading if you have the time and inclination.


How do Leslie Weatherhead's views on the will of God compare to contemporary Baptist thought?

Weatherhead pointed out that the New Testament never refers to Jesus as God and neither did Jesus refer to himself in this way. Jesus called himself the Son of Man and the Word. To say that Jesus was the "only begotten son" of God would be an impossibility, as such information is not presently available

The King James Bible stated in John 10:25-30 *even to the end of the chapter, and I quote:

"25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

30 I and my Father are one".*

"They being one indicates that Christ is God incarnate in the flesh"

Any and all teachers then or now, are only as good as the translation they use, if it is the Syrian text he does well . . . if it is the the Alexandrian (Egyptian text) it is . . . well you get the idea.


What is the biblical basis used by Reformed theologians to argue that all those dying in infancy are saved?

See John Piper's article: What happens to infants who die?

All infants are sinners (Romans 5:12-21)

"At least" Some infants are saved: John the Baptist (Luke 1:15), David (Psalm 22:9-10).

Those not capable of perceiving good and evil are not guilty of sinful acts (John 9:41, Romans 1:20).

God is good (Psalm 119:68). Trust that he will do what is just and merciful.

Quoting Piper:

  It should also be emphasized that the salvation of all who die in
  infancy is not inconsistent with unconditional election (the view that
  God chooses whom to save of His own will, apart from anything in the
  individual). As Spurgeon pointed out, it is not that God chooses
  someone to salvation because they are going to die in infancy. Rather,
  He has ordained that only those who have been chosen for salvation
  will be allowed to die in infancy. God's justice in condemnation will
  be most clearly seen by allowing those who will not be saved to
  demonstrate their inherent sinfulness through willful, knowing
  transgression.


Why do Catholics teach that Catholics go to hell if they die in a state of mortal sin, but teach some Protestants may go to Purgatory/Heaven?

The following, represents the Roman Catholic Church, not the context of a document taken out of time condemning active heretics, those who rebelled as Satan did, but those who fell victim to that rebellion.

The affirmation "outside the Church there is no salvation" is explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (§846-848) as follows:How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his Body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.

Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.

This situation, although possible, is not nor should it be even remotely considered likely Only possible.

Much of this answer was borrowed from Catholic Answers at Catholic.com.


Why is the word "Ark" used for Noah's boat and the Ark of the Covenant?

We need to be careful thinking that our English (or other language) translations always reflect God's Words perfectly.  The word 'Ark' when referring to Noah's ark or the ark of bullrushes that Moses was placed into is the hebrew word 'teebah'.  The word used for the Ark of the Covenant is 'arown'.  I believe that there are similarities between the two as noted in other answers, but the words given are distinct in the Hebrew.


And to Adam he said, "...cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; (Genesis 3:17) - Men are primarily responsible for working the earth for food.

  ...until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. (Ephesians 4:13, 14)

Men are not confused by every new religion or philosophy that comes around, but know Jesus are united with others who know him.

  Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her... (Ephesians 5:25)

If a man is married, he should sacrifice his selfishness in the way he loves his wife.

  I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. (1 Corinthians 7:32)

If a man is un-married, his commitment should be to pleasing the Lord.

  Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. (Ephesians 6:4)

If a man has children, he is primarily responsible for instructing them in God's ways and correcting them when they go astray.


The view of Norman Geisler, who was a Thomistic scholar, is that free will and election are not innately contradictory. Geisler wrote the book "Chosen but Free". He explains that while God's choosing and man's free will seem to be contradictory, philosophically they can't be shown to be so.

A key verse for Geisler is 1 Peter 1:1-2 where God's choice is "according to" His foreknowledge. Calvinism claims that God chooses independent of His foreknowledge. Arminianism usually says that God chooses based on His foreknowledge of our faith. But Geisler based on Aquinas simply posits that God's choice doesn't contradict free will.


You are close: 'El Shama is what you are looking for.  Shama means "to hear" (Strong's) and is found in Psalm 17:6, as you mention.  Furthermore, the name Ishmael is derived from these two words:

  And the angel of the Lord said to her, “Behold, you are pregnant and shall bear a son.
  You shall call his name Ishmael, because the Lord has listened to your affliction. (Genesis 16:11 (ESV))

The ESV note specifically says, "Ishmael means God hears," and so does Strong's Concordance.

There's also the name "Elishama," meaning "God has heard," which belongs to several Israelites listed in the genealogies of the OT (e.g., Numbers 1:10 and 1 Chronicles 2:41).

The "Shammah" rendering you saw may be due to the pronunciation; Strong's gives the phonetic spelling of Shama as "shaw-mah."


How did Elijah know he was going to be taken up to heaven?

Scripture does not say. The closest thing we get is this:

  and Jehu the son of Nimshi you shall anoint king over Israel; and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah you shall anoint as prophet in your place. —1 Kings 19:16 NASB

God tells Elijah to anoint Elisha in his place, implying that it would not be long before Elijah was finished with his time as God's prophet. I found this commentary that mentions Elijah knew beforehand, but I could not find a Scriptural reference.


Quite frankly Yes. Some people are created to go to hell. However you are looking at this the wrong way.

Everyone is going to hell without the intervention of a benevolent God (This is known as Total Depravity). Thankfully God has chosen some people to be his children (Unconditional Election). The number of these people is limited. Christ's death was sufficient for everyone however it is only efficient for the Elect (Limited Atonement). God draws us to himself and we do not come to him under our own power (Irresistible Grace). Finally once we are his nothing we do or anyone else does can take us from him (Perseverance of the Saints).

Now that my statement of faith has been laid out let me give the scriptural proof for each element:

Total Depravity: Mark 7:21-23 (NIV)

  For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile a person.

Unconditional Election: Romans 9:11 (NIV)

  Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand:

Limited Atonement: John 10:11 (NIV)

  “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

Irresistible Grace: Phillipians 2:12-13 (NIV)

  Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.

Perseverance of the Saints John 10:27-28

  My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.

These are just some of many verses that support this particular position (these are the Reformed counter points to the 5 points of Aremenianism and tend to the points of differentiation between them) There are plenty more here.

All of this to basically say the following

There are some people who are chosen and some who aren't
We don't know the difference just from looking at someone so it really shouldn't effect  how we live our lives.
Its only by grace that any of us are elected


Jesus Christ purchased us with his blood - parties involved

This seems to be a misunderstanding of terms on your part.

Remember first that our English translations often miss nuances in translation.  Words carry different meanings.  These phrases are generally understood to mean that Jesus paid the price for our sins.  That can certainly connote the idea of a purchase in the normal sense, as in "I paid for my groceries".  However, it's generally understood in the same sense as a criminal paying the price for his crimes, as in going to jail, being executed, etc.

Unless I'm mistaken (and I'd be interested to see references that say otherwise) there isn't any major group in Christianity that actually views these as speaking as a transaction with a buyer and a seller.

Rather, it's an expression of the fact that there is a price attached to sin.  It's a price we sinners can never pay, and since we can't, Christ paid it for us.


Is there a Christian equivalent to the Wiccan 'fluffy bunnies'?

For Catholics, there's the concept of "Sunday Catholics" - people who go to Mass on Sundays but don't do anything else, who don't really think about their religion outside of Mass.

I'm sure I've heard another simple term for this, but Sunday Catholics was the only one I could find right now.  Meanwhile, the Wikipedia article "Lapsed Catholic" reminded me of a more specialized term I've heard once or twice: "CEO" referring to someone who attends on C hristmas and E aster O nly.


When God said he should go with the men this was the second embassy of men from Balak to request Balaam's help.  On the first occasion we see Balaam thinking he was a 'god dealer' trying to manipulate God and Balak, hoping to make the God of Israel give up on the Israelites and entice Him into league with Balak and at the same time get money from Balak for this service. Balaam sees God's working with him as recognition of his 'magic powers' and he is therefore acting as a mediator between God and Balak with the end goal of removing God from His allegiance with Israel.  We must remember that in paganism the gods are often motivated by the same kinds of sinful desires that we have and are not omnipotent but influenceable.

Now we see with the first embassy that God gave Balaam a message but Balaam only passed on parts of it, hoping to bring both parties together.

  But God said to Balaam, “Do not go with them. You must not put a curse on those people, because they are blessed.” The next morning Balaam got up and said to Balak’s officials, “Go back to your own country, for the Lord has refused to let me go with you.” (Numbers 22:12-13, NIV)

We see Balaam purposefully left out most of God's message and had no plans of 'saying what the Lord had told him'.  One can't properly imagine the type of perverse mind Balaam had. Balaam's version of God's message implied an ungrounded arbitrariness on the part of God and confirmed Balak to hope for better results under more favorable circumstances. Possibly when God was not so moody, God would reconsider?

It was under these circumstances that a second embassy from Balak came again to ask Balaam 'to curse this people'. Refusing in the first embassy to yield himself willingly to God, he would now be made the unwilling instrument of exalting God. And thus God gave him leave to do that on which he had set his heart. However because of his blinded self-satisfaction, in which the next morning he accompanied the ambassadors of Balak, 'God’s anger was kindled because he went'.

In other words the idea is God gave Balaam over to his lusts in such a way that God would manipulate him, while he thought he was manipulating God.  Yet due to the insane contradiction of reality as he should be going in obedience but his actual going was in deluded belief that he was controlling the situation, God lets him know that he was 'dumber than an ass', before sending him fully on his way. 'Yes I send you, but realize you are a dumb ass who knows not what you are doing when you go'.

Balaam's actions were as dumb as Simon Magus when he offered the apostles money to give him the power of imparting the Holy Ghost. Therefore Balaam goes down in history renown for his greed:

  They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Bezer, who loved the wages of wickedness. (2 Peter 2:15, NIV)


Do Protestants believe it is easier for New Testament believers to fulfill the moral law than it was before Christ?

Welcome to the group. I'm new here myself.
Do those verses show  that the Christian is more able to fulfill God's commands than the old testament believer was? No, they do not, but maybe not in the way you might initially think.
Jer 31:33 and Ezek 36:26 are both in the OT, and indicate that they are the only way to fulfill God's commands. Your question assumes that the moral law could be fulfilled in the OT in a different way than in the NT. That's not the case at all.
Paul goes into some detail on this point.

knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. Galatians 2:16

Note here that no flesh shall be justified by the works of the law. There is no distinction between OT and NT, Jew or Gentile. In short, it is impossible to be justified by anything other than faith in Christ.

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” Galatians 3:10

If one chooses the path of the works of the law, the only way to avoid a curse is to keep them all, all the time. But faith in Christ is the only viable option because nobody, OT or NT, Jew or Gentile, has kept the law perfectly. Paul spends a big chunk of Romans explaining this.

For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law Romans 2:12
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Romans 3:23

Whether without the law or in the law, we are judged and destined to perish because all of us have sinned and fall short.

What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Romans 4:1-3
For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. Romans 4:13

Here Paul points out that the promise was given to Abraham through faith, not the law. Right at the source of the chosen people, the path to righteousness has been faith.

Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law? For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God. Romans 2:26-29

So here we find Paul's encapsulation of what true conversion is, for both Jew and Gentile. To be truly one of God's chosen people, a true Jew so to speak, one must be a Jew inwardly. Circumcision of the flesh has no moral worth in itself because circumcision of the heart is and has always been what truly counts. So also, outward compliance with the law, in whatever imperfect form it may take (see Isaiah 64:6), has no moral worth in itself because inward compliance with the law is and has always been what truly counts.
A believer in the OT could fulfill God's law in exactly the same way as a Christian does, by participating in the New Covenant promise of that law being written in the heart and mind. So the answer to your question is, No.
Now you might wonder how someone during OT times could be part of the New Covenant. But that's for another time.


Is the English translation of "Book of Mormon" ever revised or updated, and if so, on what basis given that the golden plates have disappeared?

No, the Book of Mormon has never been revised into a more modern English dialect.

There have been various updates to the printing of the Book of Mormon over time to correct errors in the typesetting of earlier editions.  The first edition was set and printed in haste, from a manuscript handwritten by Oliver Cowdery under Joseph Smith's dictation.  Cowdery didn't have the clearest of handwriting, leading to the first edition containing thousands of typos, some of them truly bizarre such as rendering "robber" as "nobler", others more understandable, like changing "formation" to "foundation".

Also, the original printing came in 1829, before English spelling had become standardized.  (Noah Webster published his first American English dictionary in 1828, and at the time it was only one of many available, each using wildly varying spellings for many common words.)  Because of these various factors, there have been several times in which new printings of the Book of Mormon have been updated for correctness.  However, the basic narrative, the doctrines taught therein, and the Biblical feel of the language used, have always remained consistent with the original English translation.

Source: Understanding Textual Changes in the Book of Mormon


How voluntary is original sin in Adam's descendants?

Yes, St. Thomas discusses this question in De Malo q. 4 a. 1 "Whether Any Sin Is Contracted by Way of Origin (ex origine)?" (Latin) arg./ad 1:

It is said in Ecclesiasticus (15, 18) “Before man is life and death, good and evil, that which he shall choose shall be given him,” from which it can be understood that sin, which is the spiritual death of the soul, depends upon the will. But nothing that man contracts by way of his origin depends upon his will. Therefore man contracts no sin by way of origin.

Reply to 1. The sin that is contracted by way of origin is called voluntary by reason of its principle, namely, the will of the first parent, as we have said (in the Response).

Commenting on Romans 5:12 ("Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned."), St. Thomas addresses the "difficulty" that

defects traced to a vitiated source do not involve guilt. For they are not deserving of punishment but rather of pity, as the Philosopher says of one born blind or in any other way defective. The reason is that it is the character of guilt that it be voluntary and in the power of the one to whom the guilt is imputed. Consequently, if any defect in us arose through origin from the first parent, it does not seem to carry with it the nature of guilt but of punishment.

Therefore, it must be admitted that as actual sin is a person’s sin, because it is committed through the will of the person sinning, so original sin is the sin of the nature committed through the will of the source of human nature.

Ibid. n. 410.2 gives the analogy of how the body parts of a sinner share in the guilt of the sinner (e.g., a killer can't say: "I didn't kill; my hand did!" or "I did kill; but my hand that pulled the trigger didn't."):

Furthermore, the act of sin performed by a member, say the hand or the foot, does not carry the notion of guilt from the hand’s or foot’s will but from the whole person’s will, from which as from a source the movement of sin is passed to the several members. Similarly, from the will of Adam, who was the source of human nature, the total disorder of that nature carries the notion of guilt in all who obtain that nature precisely as susceptible to guilt. And just as an actual sin, which is a sin of the person, is drawn to the several members by an act of the person, so original sin is drawn to each man by an act of the nature, namely, generation. Accordingly, just as human nature is obtained through generation, so, too, by generation is passed on the defect it acquired from the sin of the first parent.


Why is there such an emphasis on Jesus's suffering - particularly by the Catholic Church?

On the surface, Christ's suffering may not appear necessarily unique in respect to the levels or duration of either physical or emotional pain, but it was certainly unique in respect to the nature of the sufferer and the spiritual dimension of the suffering: The completely innocent Incarnate Creator suffering at the hands of his rebellious creation; and the bearing of the burden of the sins of the whole world and consequential estrangement (albeit temporarily) from the intimate fellowship (enjoyed from eternity past) of the Heavenly Father. (cf. Philippians 2:5-8, Isaiah 53, Matthew 26:36-42 & 27:46)

edit: I believe the preceding paragraph would be largely agreeable to most Nicaean Christians. Catholics in particular are often encouraged to meditate on the suffering of Christ as it helps to develop a greater appreciation of Christ's work overall and leads the believer to turn their heart whole-heartedly to the Lord.  An example of this is the contemplation of the stations of the cross.


What is the Biblical basis that it was was the second person of the Trinity that walked in the garden of Eden?

The Bible explicitly teaches that no on has seen the Father :
Verses from the bible teach clearly that no one has seen the father -

No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him (John 1:18).
Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be
honor and glory forever and ever. Amen (1 Timothy 1:17).*

Other verses are : John 6:46, John 5:37
In addition to this, the bible teaches clearly that Jesus is the one who reveals the father -
For example John 1:18, already quoted. Colossians 1:15 says "The son is the image of the invisible God". This indicates that wherever God is seen with the naked eye in bodily form such as in the garden of Eden, the one mentioned is the second Person of the trinity, i.e Jesus.


It's sort of like you said:  Asceticism is the way to turn away from things of this world and turn toward God and become more like Him.  A good book to read that will likely help answer your question would be Early Christian Writings: The Apostolic Fathers.


What level of will-power do humans have according to Luther?

To what extent Luther thought human's have 'free will' is actually not fully disclosed in any of his writings.  In general Luther opposed all notions of free-will, as those espousing the term always implied some ability (no matter how insignificant) to perform some good work (even if qualified by a 'cooperation' with the Spirit). Luther firmly believed and taught that no man could do 'anything' good unless regenerate by the Spirit of God through faith apart from any work. So no man had free-will as humanity only had the ability to sin.
The background history to Luther's book, 'The Bondage of the Will', was in response to a criticism of his teaching which Erasmus of Rotterdam had published under the title of De libero arbitrio. Erasmus chose this subject, that is their clear difference in their views about human freedom, as a point of argument to publicly commit himself to a position opposed to Luther.  He had been pressured to make his position known and was previously reluctant to take a clear side. Now the gloves were off so to speak, and so Luther criticized Erasmus view of freedom in his book as a response. The fact that the book is a response, rather then a orderly thought out treatise of a subject Luther was proposing, is what leaves some things unclear, where not related to his opposition to Erasmus view.
Having this difficulty of determining Luther's view admitted, we may yet at least scope Luther's view under the envelop his own pen has left us.  To simplify things we can skip the whole book and start with the 'conclusions' that he presents at the end.
First, he declares there is no such thing as free-will (as suggested and understood by Erasmus and anyone supporting man's ability to do good prior to his being justified by faith):

For if we believe it to be true that God foreknows and predestines all things, that he can neither be mistaken in his foreknowledge nor hindered in his predestination, and that nothing takes place but as he wills it (as reason itself is forced to admit), then on the testimony of reason itself there cannot be any free choice in man or angel or any creature. (Luther's Works, Vol 33, Page 293).

Earlier in the book Luther explains the concept of foreknowledge as being not just a prediction of what men decide but a deterministic power, being also omnipotent and having care for what happens in his universe.  He uses cases such as Pharaoh and Judas to argue that they had limited freedom in that they could not but fulfill God's prophecies concerning their actions.

We know that the Father begets willingly, and that Judas betrayed Christ by an act of will; but we say this willing was certainly and infallibly going to occur in Judas himself if God foreknew it. Or if what I am saying is still not understood, let us have two sorts of necessity, one of force with reference to the work, the other of infallibility with reference to the time; and let anyone who listens to us understand that we are speaking of the latter, not of the former; that is to say, we are not discussing whether Judas became a traitor involuntarily or voluntarily, but whether at a time preordained by God it was bound infallibly to happen that Judas by an act of his will should betray Christ.
But see what Diatribe (Erasmus) says here: “If you look at the infallible foreknowledge of God, and his immutable will, Judas was necessarily going to turn traitor, and yet Judas could change his mind.” Do you really understand what you are saying, my dear Diatribe? Leaving aside the fact that the will can only will evil, as was proved above, how could Judas change his mind so long as the infallible foreknowledge of God remained? Could he change God’s foreknowledge and make it fallible? (Luther's Works, Vol 33, Page 192)

The point is that Luther says if God foreknew that Judas would betray Christ then it only stands to reason that Judas could not alter his destiny no matter what he did. Luther does not say it but the implication is sort of like Spielberg's 'Back to the Future' film. One small event in time might have numerous consequences upon the future, therefore God not only determines the way humanity is unfolded over time,  but anything specifically foreknown by God are fixed absolutes that can never be altered. The foreknowledge is deterministic not only spiritually but to some degree materially. For example, Judas could not have killed himself before the appointed time, otherwise the prophecy of God would fail. However Luther does not attempt at all to enter into the complexity of what God's foreknowledge and infinite power imply, he merely asserts that they exisit. Or in other words as already quoted, literally 'that nothing takes place but as he wills it'.
An important point to add, to avoid any misunderstanding is that Luther does not mean Judas had no free choice, rather that his choice to follow his desires were free, but that he had no ability to change his desire.  In other words free-choice is basically the ability to freely sin, if there is such a term as free-choice. Judas was not compelled by God to follow after his wicked desire. Only the circumstances surrounding his life were so disposed by God that his desire would be brought about, freely, into the eternal plan of God according to his eternal will.
So, without complicating things more, or changing the subject, let me become more direct in answering the original question. It is not my intention to fully explain Luther's book or his opinion overall about human freedom as that would be very difficult to do without writing another book.  Regarding to what degree men do have a kind of free choice there are very few quotations to chose from.  Possibly the best two are these that follow.
First, more or less still in his introductory remarks, Luther throws away the term free-will as something only God properly has, but allows some sense of it to be retained if that is what his readers prefer:

But if we are unwilling to let this term go altogether—though that would be the safest and most God-fearing thing to do—let us at least teach men to use it honestly, so that free choice is allowed to man only with respect to what is beneath him and not what is above him. That is to say, a man should know that with regard to his faculties and possessions he has the right to use, to do, or to leave undone, according to his own free choice, though even this is controlled by the free choice of God alone, who acts in whatever way he pleases. On the other hand in relation to God, or in matters pertaining to salvation or damnation, a man has no free choice, but is a captive, subject and slave either of the will of God or the will of Satan. (Luther's Works, Vol 33, Page 70)

His distinction about 'beneath him' and 'above him' can more or less be translated as spiritual versus natural. In other words Luther believes man has no spiritual free will. That is to say he, in the sinful state only has freedom to sin, and sin only within the circumstances that God has ordained for his life materially.  However is does allow some freedom in the natural world, while either under the dominion of sin as an unbeliever, or under the power of the Spirit as a believer. Regardless of how man's will (or desire) is created by the Devil, or God, wether an unbeliever, or not, Luther allows 'some' natural freedom within the confines of destiny.
Or to put it in simple terms, here is what Luther allows with respect to a human's ability to have free will:

We know there are things free choice does by nature, such as eating, drinking, begetting, ruling, so that Diatribe cannot laugh us out of court with her shrewdly idiotic remark that if we press the word “nothing,” it would not be possible even to sin without Christ, although Luther has admitted that free choice avails only for sinning. (Luther's Works, Vol 33, Page 240)

He really says nothing more about the existence of human freedom in the entire book as the whole things was meant to argue against Erasmus' view of free will.


Is a Roman Catholic ever permitted to take the Anglican Eucharist?

No.

Canon 844 says:

  Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone.

So Catholics may receive sacraments licitly from Catholic ministers alone.

There are exceptions. In the case of Communion

  Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

This applies where it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, and only to ministers in Churches where the sacraments are valid.  Anglican Communion is not valid, because the Anglican priesthood is not valid. Therefore this exception does not apply.

There is a little wiggle room here, in that if the Anglican Holy Communion is not a valid sacrament at all, then the question of whether it is licit or illicit to take it  (i.e. physically eat the bread and drink the wine) seems not to arise.

However, the Catechism, paragraph 1400, also deals with Catholics taking Communion in Protestant Churches and says:

  Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders." It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord's death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory


Why do Orthodox Christians baptize infants?

Because it is Tradition.  Exactly why the Tradition started, I don't know, but here is a present-day explanation for why to do it:

In the Orthodox Church when a child is baptized they are also Chrismated, which I guess is similar to a Catholic Christening.  It is for sealing them to protect against evil spirits and such.  The Baptism / Chrismation is the 2-part process of cleansing a child of anything evil and/or sinful and then sealing it to keep in the good and keep out the bad.  It's like, you wouldn't seal something off before decontaminating it, right?

So then that usually begs the question about whether a child that young can actually be "contaminated".  Well, consider this: if an evil spirit can influence or possess someone, what makes you think they could not do so to an infant?  Who can know if even by the time an infant is baptized, something bad hasn't tried to attach itself already.  And why would you not want to do all that you can to protect your child from evil?

I've heard people make the argument that a child shouldn't be baptized until they are old enough to repent and understand repentance, because in Acts 2:38 Peter says "Repent and be baptized...".  But in context, he is addressing a group of adults - who at that age should of course repent first...that does not necessarily mean that their children were not also baptized.  In fact the very next verse says the promise of the Holy Spirit is for them and their children.

Note that the Orthodox Church also practices Confession, and children don't give their first confession until a certain age.  So if you are at least that old and have not been baptized, you confess first...if you are too young you get baptized first.


Why didn’t the disciples baptize using a Trinitarian formula as commanded in the Great Commission?

In Acts (2:38, 8:12, 8:16, 10:48, and 19:5), baptism "in the name of the Lord Jesus" is mentioned. By saying "name" (singular), the Divine Essence of the Holy Trinity is signified, not the Persons individually. It is not not solely the Second Person of the Holy Trinity who effects baptism, but all the Persons working together as one.

As the Catechism of the Council of Trent §The Sacrament of Baptism, says regarding the form of the sacrament of baptism,

  Baptism is the work not of the Son alone, of whom St. John says, He it is that baptizeth (John 1:33), but of the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity together. By saying, however, in the name [singular], not in the names [plural], we distinctly declare that in the Trinity there is but one Nature and Godhead. The word name is here referred not to the Persons, but to the Divine Essence, virtue and power, which are one and the same in Three Persons.

Also, see these sections of idem:

  Essential And Non-Essential Words Of The Form

  It is, however, to be observed that of the words contained in this
  form, which we have shown to be the complete and perfect one, some are
  absolutely necessary, so that the omission of them renders the valid
  administration of the Sacrament impossible; while others on the
  contrary, are not so essential as to affect its validity.

  Of the latter kind is the word ego (I), the force of which is
  included in the word baptizo (I baptise). Nay more, the Greek
  Church, adopting a different manner of expressing the form, and being
  of opinion that it is unnecessary to make mention of the minister,
  omits the pronoun altogether. The form universally used in the Greek
  Church is: Let this servant of Christ be baptised in the name of the
  Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. It appears, however,
  from the decision and definition of the Council of Florence, that
  those who use this form administer the Sacraments validly, because the
  words sufficiently express what is essential to the validity of
  Baptism, that is, the ablution which then takes place.

  Baptism In The Name Of Christ

  If at any time the Apostles baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus
  Christ only, we can be sure they did so by the inspiration of the Holy
  Ghost, in order, in the infancy of the Church, to render their
  preaching more illustrious by the name of Jesus Christ, and to
  proclaim more effectually His divine and infinite power. If, however,
  we examine the matter more closely, we shall find that such a form
  omits nothing which the Saviour Himself commands to be observed; for
  he who mentions Jesus Christ implies the Person of the Father, by
  whom, and that of the Holy Ghost, in whom, He was anointed.

  And yet, the use of this form by the Apostles seems rather doubtful if
  we accept the opinions of Ambrose and Basil, holy Fathers eminent for
  sanctity and authority, who interpret baptism in the name of Jesus
  Christ to mean the Baptism instituted by Christ our Lord, as
  distinguished from that of John, and who say that the Apostles did not
  depart from the ordinary and usual form which comprises the distinct
  names of the Three Persons. Paul also, in his Epistle to the
  Galatians, seems to have expressed himself in a similar manner, when
  he says: As many of you as have been baptised in Christ, have put on
  Christ, meaning that they were baptised in the faith of Christ, but
  with no other form than that which the same Saviour our Lord had
  commanded to be observed.


What is the biblical basis for Christian denominations to believe in a visible appearance of Christ Jesus when he returns?

Here are a few references to Jesus return:

Heb 9:28, “Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.”
It will be glorious, visible and unmissable because of great events in the heavens and earth (Matt 24:27, 29-31, 16:27).
The Second coming will also be very loud and audible as described by the trumpet call of God (Matt 24:30, 1 Thess 4:16, 17).
Jesus will return personally and visibly just as He left (Acts 1:11).  Indeed, Rev 1:7 says that every eye will see Him.
There is nothing secret about the return of Jesus except the date, 2 Peter 3:10, 1 Thess 5:2, Matt 24:32-41, 42-51, Acts 1:7.  The actual event will be seen by all.


How does King James-only-ism apply to other languages?

One acceptable approach to KJV-Onlyists is to make a foreign translation based on the English text of the KJV.

For example, this is from Peter Ruckman:

  The only LIVING BIBLE on earth today is the AV (1611), or translations
  made from it.

And from Brian Donovan, writing in Peter Ruckman's publication:

  Any effort to translate the Bible into other languages will be right
  if it comes from the KJV, and wrong when it does not. It is that
  simple.

And Gail Riplinger:

  Because the KJV is a precise and contextual accurate translation,
  thousands of foreign language translations were subsequently made
  directly from it.

And Roy Branson:

  From the KJV the Bible had been translated into a multitude of other
  languages, thus making it the Bible God had used to reach the world.

I (happily) cannot speak for any of them, but I would suspect that KJV-Onlyists would view the translation of the KJV a necessary, though unfortunate, accommodation to non-English readers.  The translation would of course only be considered accurate insofar as it accurately translated the KJV.

That said, there are some KJV-Onlyists who do not believe it is possible to have a fully-trustworthy translation of the Bible in any other language besides English.  For example, Sam Gipp:

  QUESTION: If there is a perfect Bible in English, doesn’t there also
  have to be a perfect Bible in French, and German, and Japanese, etc?

  ANSWER: No. God has always given His word to one people in one
  language to do one job; convert the world. The supposition that there
  must be a perfect translation in every language is erroneous and
  inconsistent with God’s proven practice...

and again:

  When in Mexico I tell people that the Word of God is preserved in
  English as the KJV 1611. The best bet would be to learn English if
  they want the WHOLE pure word.. a translation of the KJV into Spanish
  would be great but would be subject to those who learned English
  returning to the English to clarify the Spanish... because the Spanish
  KJV would only be a translation of the preserved text.

See http://www.ruckmanism.org/danger for more examples.  And more from Roy Branson (if you really want to know) is at http://www.biblebelievers.com/Branson_KJV1.html


Since St. Irenaeus was not a Trinitarian was/is he damned?

By its very nature, a dogma1 makes its deniers officially heretics (ipso facto at the least) only because of its dogmatic, unequivocal nature as taught unambiguously as the faith of the Church, by unanimity of the Fathers, or a General Council, or the Pope ex cathedra.2 Before something is made a dogma, it is simply be, for lack of a better word, unofficial official doctrine—the status quo of the Christian Church, to a more or less unanimous degree.
For example, before the Trintiy was dogmatized (against the hersey of Arianism), it was licit to have differing views on the precise nature of the relationship between the Father and the Son, as no teaching in any official, universal capacity was as yet made so as to be denied obstinately (and thus make heretics of its deniers). But you couldn't deny that the Son was God in general without being clearly having excised yourself by apostasy from the faith, the heart of which is the incarnation of God—Immanuel.
Paul didn't go around teaching that Jesus was homoousios with the Father in the city of Jerusalem, because no one had to be taught this in order for them to accept the doctrine of the divine Son of God—not because it wasn't true: an Arius would have to come along in order for such to be later insisted upon as a necessity.
Dogmas don't work retroactively. You can't bind someone pre-Nicaea to a precise Nicene understanding of the Trinity as though they had this precise understanding available to them. Cf. John 15:22.
So no, Irenaeus, and any Pre-Nicene Father was not a heretic as incurring guilt or excommunication, but of course they could have held that opinion which is objectively heretical, which are different things.
But even according to the Pre-Nicene leniency described above, Irenaeus didn't reject the divinity of Christ (e.g.) anyway.
E.g.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, I
The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: . . . one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of *the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all..."

Critics of the Trinity will conflate the identification of the Father as the only true God with that the Son or Holy Spirit are therefore obviously excluded from being God (since there is only one), but this ignores that a Trinitarian a) must accept that the Father is the only true God, since Scripture states it, and more importantly to the fallaciousness of this objection 2) believe the Son and the Holy Ghost ontologically owe their origin and nature to the Father, the only true God—this is what makes them God. The Trinity is in fact a lot closer to Modalism than anything else, since the distinction of the Persons is one that is not of nature, meaning all three Persons are equally eternal and equally have proper to them the ineffable, unique, and only divine nature: the onotological order of 'Father,' 'Son,' and 'Holy Ghost' are only ones of opposition of relation, not of order of coming into being—as soon as there is a Divine Nature, it is the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. The Father is the Divine Nature. The Son is the Divine Nature. The Holy Ghost is the Divine Nature. They are ineffably distinct in this way, but not as to their Nature—to be יהוה. They are the same God, but not the same person.
This is why the Trinitarin Creed doesn't say 'We believe in one God, the Father, and one God, the Son, and one God, etc.' But "We believe in one God, the Father, Maker of all things visible and invisible. .... and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God... etc.' only later to declare the divinity that flows from this Sonship of necessity and by its very nature.
This is perhaps synonymous with the objection that 'the Son is not God, He is the Son of God.' But this is a strawman of the Trinity if used as an objection thereto. This is because the Son is only called God because He shares one and the exact same nature with the Father, not because He is the Father (is 'God' in that Unitarian sense). That is 'Son of God' and 'God' are synonymous precisely because the Son is God by virtue of His nature being that of the Father, not because 'the Father' and 'the Son' refer to the same person. They do not: the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Ghost refer to the same God. Any time when the Father is called 'the only true God' it speaks of the fact that the Son and the Holy Ghost are ontologically distinct from this their [ontological] Origin, which can as being such be spoken of as 'the only' of its kind.

1 As used as a technical term, the word dogma means a doctrine declared by the Church in such a capacity as to bind all believers to its acceptance (usually/almost without exception in contradistinction to heretical versions of the doctrine, or its denial). It doesn't mean that before it enoyed this necessity of belief it was not true, or not believed.
2 The objective infalliblity of the doctrine in such instances simply means that since Christ promised His Church will not be overcome by the gates of Hell, not overthrowing of the faith will happen—which would have happened if a doctrine was taught in these respective capacities by necessity (e.g. the Pope binding the Church to a specific understanding of Scripture/doctrine would require all to believe it, hence it must, if Christ's Church really never will fail absolutely, be true and dogmatically so).


How do young earth creationists explain the evidence for ice ages?

Young-Earth Creationists tend to agree that the Ice Age(s*) occurred after the Great Flood, but they have a variety of proposed explanations that seek to reconcile the Biblical record and artifactual evidence.

From Answer in Genesis's article When Was the Ice Age in Biblical History?:

  Editor’s note: Biblical creationists have not reached a consensus on one Ice Age model. This article represents one view. Differences between the models have no major bearing on the overall timescale of a straightforward reading of Scriptures, i.e., the Flood of Genesis 6, which occurred roughly 4300 years ago, brought on one major Ice Age that lasted a few hundred years.

The remainder of this article from Dr Andrew Snelling and Mike Matthews argues for a fairly specific timeline that compresses the entire Pleistocene epoch to the period between the dispersion from Babel and the time of Abraham (190 years). It makes this argument based on: the assumption that the Bible is inerrant; the artifactual data indicating that geographically widespread stone age tool use dates from the beginning of the Ice Age; archeological data indicating that the Ice Age had finished prior to the building of the cities (civilizations) of Abraham's day. The approach of the article is geared towards convincing Biblical Inerrantists of their particular model.

CMI's article What caused the Ice Age?, while likewise (tacitly) based on assumptions of biblical inerrancy, engages with the scientific data and theories regarding glaciation events at a somewhat deeper level. It makes the following germane points:

The science is by no means settled in this area:

  ...the Ice Age is a major challenge for secular scientists. There are over 60 ideas (theories) on the origin of the Ice Age. That is why David Alt, professor of geology at the University of Montana, stated: “Although theories abound, no one really knows what causes ice ages.”

*There was only one Ice Age:

  On land, most areas have evidence consistent with only one ice age. At the edge of the ice sheets, the glacial debris can be complicated, and it is here that they try to claim many ice ages. Yet, it is well known that the edge of an ice sheet advances, retreats, and surges rapidly forward creating complicated glacial sediments. It was admitted by five secular scientists that multiple ice ages are really an assumption. Instead of three or four ice ages in Alberta, Canada, these scientists concluded that there was only one.

Cyclical orbital peturbations are insufficient to explain the widescale glaciation during the Pleistocene era - the primary driver was the  catastrophic events surrounding the Great Flood theorised to include global scale volcanism:

  Can the Ice Age be explained within the biblical worldview?

  Secular scientists really can’t explain how an Ice Age happened, but can creation scientists? Yes, but first it needs to be placed within biblical earth history. The glacial features lie on top of sedimentary rock. This is a good indication that the Ice Age happened after the Flood. The conditions after the Flood were unique. Investigating them can help us find the answer.

  The Flood was a very catastrophic global event that included massive volcanism. So, after the Flood, numerous small volcanic particles were trapped high up in the atmosphere. These particles cooled the earth by reflecting sunlight back to space. But the volcanic particles would slowly settle out over several years. It is well accepted from the physical evidence that during the Ice Age there were many more volcanic eruptions than we have today. These would continually replenish the upper atmosphere with fine particles, probably stretching the cooling to several hundred years. So, the cooler summer requirement for the Ice Age is fulfilled.


What is meant by "Calvinistic Work Ethic"?

I regard "protestant" or "Calvinistic" as equivalent qualifiers of "work ethic".
The many exponents of christian work ethic have included Benjamin Franklin (an agnostic who viewed Christian ethics favourably) and particularly the French theologian John Calvin 1509 - 1564 who based their thought on verses such as:

1 Timothy 5:18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. (KJ)

2 Thessalonians 3:10 The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.

Calvin understood work as a means through which the believers expressed their gratitude to God for their redemption in Christ and as a service to their neighbours. Everybody was obliged to work; loafing and begging were rejected. The idea that economic success was a visible sign of God's grace played only a minor role in Calvin's thinking. It became more important in later, partly secularized forms of Calvinism and became the starting-point of Max Weber's theory about the rise of capitalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_ethic


Are there Christian groups that speak in tongues but as a policy require translation of the God-given language?

There are denominations who emphasize the use of tongues, for example, Assemblies of God.
In such kind of Churches, there are occasions where someone would prophesy while speaking in tongues and the same person or sometimes others will interpret it.
There are many prophets who always start their prophetic words with tongues first and then interpret it again. I don't know why they always utter those tongues first and then interpret it instead of directly speaking out the words in their own language. I can only guess that they receive the message first in heavenly language, which we call it tongues, and at the same time God gives them the meaning also.
I don't know if there are any denomination which has a strict policy that tongues should have interpretations. What I know is that it is interpreted whenever there is a need. What I observed is that many times, those who speak in tongues also don't know what they are uttering but when it is required, God gives them the meaning.


Does Satan still masquerade as a angel of light among Christians?

The following is a Bible based answer. This is what Jehovah's Witnesses Believe.

These words to still apply today in the sense that there are many who claim to be Christians who are not really living as Christians and are promoting beliefs that do not harmonize with true Christianity as taught in the Bible. The ones doing this are helping Satan to accomplish his will because someone looking to be a Christian could be mislead by them as to what it means to be a Christian or what the Bible teaches.

Here are some scriptures that help us to see that there are still many today like this:

  Matthew 7:22-23

  Many will say to me in that day: 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophecy in
  your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful
  works in your name?' And then I will declare to them: 'I never knew you!
  Get away from me, your workers of lawlessness!'

I am not going to get into the time period of when "that day" refers to, but clearly just because many today claim to serve "the Lord" does not automatically make it true. If they make a practice out of disregarding Christian laws and principals, then they are really workers of lawlessness.

  2 Timothy 3:1, 5

  But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal
  with will be here...having an appearance of godliness but proving
  false to its power; and from these turn away.

Many today have an appearance of godliness, even an appearance of being Christian, but show with their life that God's standards have virtually no effect or power over them.

  2 Timothy 4:3

  For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the
  wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will
  surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.

Many religious leaders today within Christendom will promote acceptance of things that flagrantly disregard Bible principals. Many will even publicly disavow large portions of the Bible as being accurate.

  Luke 13:24

  Exert yourselves vigorously to get in through the narrow door, because
  many, I tell you, will seek to get in but will not be able.

  Mathew 7:13, 14

  "Go in through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious
  the road leading off into destruction, and many are going in through
  it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into
  life, and few are finding it.

Of the billions of people who think of themselves as "Christian" would it be reasonable to think that all of them are helping others to go down the cramped road leading to life? Doesn't it seem more reasonable that some of them are encouraging people to go down the broad and spacious road that is leading off into destruction?

  Ephesians 4:5

  one Lord, one faith, one baptism;

According to this scripture, Christians are supposed to be united. Can the collection of all Christian denominations be thought of as a collective, united group if they have distinctly contradictory beliefs? Wouldn't it be more in harmony with this scripture to believe that God is organized enough to use just one religious group to teach and help people to serve him unitedly and acceptably?

  John 4:24

  God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit
  and truth."

This scripture helps us to see that in order for our worship to be acceptable to God, we must worship him in accordance with the truth. Could all religious leaders within all denominations be promoting the truth about how to worship God even though they teach contradictory ideas? Clearly that cannot be the case. Since God requires us to worship him with truth, then anyone promoting things not true is promoting worship that is not acceptable to God and is therefore a minister of Satan in the sense that they are serving his interests.

Of course there are sincere people within all religions and not all who are aiding Satan realize they are doing this. That is why we continue to preach to all that will listen. For more information, please see "How Can You Recognize True Worship?" in the brochure "Good News From God!".


How are the bread and wine explained by those who forbid images of Jesus?

All that God has made, expresses himself. The creation of luminaries in the heavens expresses something about Light. And God is Light; and in him is no darkness at all.
The creation of vegetation, the creation of animal life, expresses something about life itself. And all life is of God and from God.

I would not understand and appreciate what 'the Lion of the tribe of Judah' means, were I not aware of what a lion is, in the natural creation. Nor could I appreciate the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world, had I not walked through the field beside my home and walked among the flock.

But it would be very wrong for me to take a lamb home and worship it. Or to paint a picture of a lamb and put it above my fireplace and idolise the image as some kind of representation of Jesus. In that sense my attitude is as strict as WLC 109 and the article describes my own thinking. I abhor all representations and images and have none in my own home.

However, I think there is a very big difference between appreciating the way God has expressed himself in his own creation, and idolatrously worshipping the creature rather than the Creator.

Likewise the elements. When I partake of bread and wine, it is in response and obedience to the words of Jesus himself, This do in remembrance of me. But of Christ, himself, the apostle says :

  Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. II Corinthians 5:16 KJV.

To see only the flesh of Jesus Christ, to remember only his historic and natural manhood, is failing of the remembrance and is close to (if not actually) idolatry.
We remember He, Himself : The Son of God, come incarnate, risen and ascended. And we remember the significance of what he did in his humanity and with his humanity.

But we are given elements as an aid. We are granted a focus and an ordinance. Because we are still in the body. Because that is how our (present) humanity works.

Just as we are granted the visionary images in the Book of the Revelation, it is something we need. Spiritual things are conveyed to us in the vehicle of prophetic imagery. We need something in our mind as a vehicle to which to attach the spiritual concepts. So that we can think of them with a human brain.

We are informed of a vision of the Son of man, his eyes as a flame of fire. It is very wrong to depict that in any way. It is misguided to imagine that Jesus actually looks like that, physically. It is one flame, not two, and the concept is spiritual. The natural is for the brain to process, but the spiritual concept is for faith. Likewise the elements of bread and wine. They are visibly there, but they are there as an aid to faith, not as an aid to idolatrous worship.

I do not think anyone should be burdened or conflicted in conscience by the existence of the elements upon the table at the memorial. Nor with the act of physically participating. But we do, all and always, need to be careful of idolatry of every kind. Covetousness, itself, is a form of idolatry.

As the Apostle John tells us, in the last words of his first epistle :

  Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen. I John 5:21 KJV.

It is a constant exercise. We are enjoined to so do. And we need to be careful.
I respect the sensitivity of someone troubled by the question. But I do hope that they should be troubled no longer.


Is it a common view among Christains that Satan is the lord of this world?

According to apostle Paul in Bible, Satan is the "god" of this world 2 Cor 4:4
However the term "god of this world" means the ruler, the one who is being worshiped or obeyed. Satan got that title by deceiving the first Adam and leading him to sin against God (Genesis 3).

However like you said at the resurrection, all power was given to Jesus Matthew 28:18-20 and he gave us back his (power) name (to the church, every born again believer) and at the mention of the name of Jesus that we have received EVERY knees shall bow in heaven, on earth and under the earth Philippians 2:10. Which means, Satan is the "god" of this world and we (born again believers) are "god over Satan and the World". That is why demons flee when we cast them out using the name of Jesus.

In a nutshell, those who have accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior (Rom 10:9/John 1:12) are the "god of this world". They have authority. So, the church sign board that you saw.. It depends on what they meant by Satan being the Lord of this world.


From a "traditional", Trinitarian perspective, what is the effect of the doctrine of sin in the doctrine of creation?

I am going to break this sentence into its constituent parts.

The conditional:

  [Sin], Having lost its traditional moorings in the doctrine of creation,

Here in the conditional, the author correctly states that sin is tied to creation.  Regardless of how creation happened, it is assumed that Creation was good, but something happened to make it bad.  That Creation is "Good" is attested to on every day of Creation, in the account of Genesis 1.  That the Creation "fell" is the story of Genesis 3, and expounded by Jews and Christians alike, most notably by Paul:

  12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— ...  14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

(The last part of "Creation, Fall, ..." is Redemption, which is taken up in Romans 5, and is called "The Big Story of Scripture" by many evangelicals.

The idea is simple: It was good, it got bad.  This is what Christians mean by "Fall" and the consequence of the Fall is "Sin."

The Effect:

  the doctrine of sin, Kelsey argued, had not disappeared from sight as some suspected.

The premise being attacked by "Kelsey" is thus:

If you disprove Creation, you disprove the idea of Sin.

The idea is that if the doctrine of sin has its origins in / is tied to (ergo is "anchored" or "tied to the moorings of") creation & fall, then ... if you can get rid of the idea that there was ever a single "creation" you would also take out the idea that sin exists at the same time.

The problem, is that sin, and hence the Fall, is empirically proven each day.  (e.g. JUST WATCH THE NEWS!!!).

The premise (that denying the creation denies sin) is thus demonstrably false.

At least some people don't believe in a literal creation
Even some of those still see that there is "a fall"

Candidly, many evangelicals think that "intellectuals" want to believe there is no such thing as sin. (Indeed, I remember arguing with a professor so "enlightened" that he simply called sin "too exclusive a concept".  I remembered thinking, "What an idiot".)  Thus rooted to the story of Creation, it might have been assumed that successfully attacking the idea of creation could also disprove the existence of sin.

The Analysis

Kelsey via McDougall is saying, "It didn't work."


Distinction between Created Son and Begotten Son for Jehovah's Witnesses

Yes Jehovah’s Witnesses distinguish between Jesus’ unique one of a kind preeminent status and all other sons of God both heavenly and earthly.

  The Greek word mo·no·ge·nesʹ is defined by lexicographers as “single of its kind, only,” or “the only member of a kin or kind.” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1889, p. 417; Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, 1968, p. 1144)

Only begotten Son of God only applies to the one of a kind unique Jesus Christ the only entity created with no agency or instrumentality by Jehovah alone.
 All other created Sons of God, angelic and human, are Jehovah’s creation made through this unique,one of a kind, only begotten Son of the eternally existing Creator Jehovah.

This puts Jesus in a class by himself. That fits very well with the description (monongenes)

The created  “Sons of God” both angelic and human share a commonality, namely they came into existence through the only begotten Jesus. They thus are not one of a kind, or unique (monongenes).

Your contention that Jesus cannot be both created (ktiʹzo) and begotten (monongenes) is not accurate in our exegesis since the distinction is made between the one and only (monongenes) entity brought into existence (kti’zo) solely by the Eternally existing Creator Jehovah and the entirety of all other beings created by Jehovah through Jesus and for Jesus. Col 1:16

Now on the claim that monongenes also incorporates the idea of same substance or same nature I am not familiar with that concept. I am aware that the Greek word homoousia came onto the scene at the behest of Constantine during his efforts to unify his Christian subjects. It is not a biblical Greek term but has philosophical Greek roots.

Jehovah’s Witnesses obviously disagree with the idea that Jesus is eternal like his father. That is out of sync with a claim of same nature or substance I think. He is not Almighty God as is his Father. He is not the Creator Jehovah is.

A comprehensive collection of JW beliefs in regard to the trinity doctrine can be found in this brochure

JW take on the phrase “only-begotten” and related items can be found here.

And a similar writing on “creation” can be found here


What is the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation and how does it differ from transubstantiation and a more general protestant sacramental view?

Consubstantiation (also called impanation) says that, after consecration, bread remains and Christ becomes present within, among, or "along-side" the bread. Transubstantiation says no bread remains after consecration; the substance of bread no longer exists, having been replaced by the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.

"Consubstantiation" from Fr. Hardon's dictionary:

  The belief, contrary to Catholic doctrine, that in the Eucharist the body and blood of Christ coexist with the bread and wine after the Consecration of the Mass. John Wyclif (1324-84) and Martin Luther (1483-1546) professed consubstantiation because they denied transubstantiation.


Who changed the Fatima prayer?

I can vividly recall reading the fact that
Bishop José Alves Correia da Silva of Fatima (1920- 1957) wrote the first official Fatima Prayer in Latin. Delivered by Our Lady during the Third Apparition of Our Lady of Fatima to the three shepherd children on July 13, 1917. It is traditionally prayed after the 'Glory Be' for each decade of the Rosary. (Will add a source if I can locate one).

  O Jésu mi, ignósce nóbis, libera nos ab ígne inférni, ad caélum tráhe ómnes ánimas, praesáertim máxime indigéntes.  Amen. - Oratio Fatimae

Here is the original in English:

  O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fire of hell. Take all souls to heaven, especially those who are most in need. - On July 13, 1917, Our Lady of Fatima Showed a Vision of Hell and Taught Us How to Avoid It

Here is how the June 13 (1917) vision is explained:

  On June 13, 1917, the children slipped away for their second meeting with the Virgin Mary at the Cova da Iria. The feast of St. Anthony fell on that date, and the townspeople were celebrating at the church. To their surprise, a few people who had heard their story had already beaten the children to the spot near the holmoak. The Virgin Mary appeared once again, and told the children, I want you to come here on the thirteenth of next month. I want you to continue saying the Rosary every day. And after each one of the mysteries, my children, I want you to pray in this way: O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fire of hell. **Take all souls to heaven, especially those who are most in need**. I want you to learn to read and write, and later I will tell you what else I want of you. The Virgin Mary also revealed to Lucia that Jacinta and Francisco would be taken to heaven soon, but Lucia was to remain on Earth longer. The Virgin Mary told Lucia not to be sad, as She would always be with her. The crowd saw a flash of lightning, and some said they saw a hazy cloud near the tree, but none of them actually saw the Virgin Mary as the children did. Some were convinced that the story was true. Others, such as Father Ferreira, were not convinced. - Fatima - The Apparitions

I do not believe that any individual is actually responsible for the additional words used in the Fatima Prayer. Local devotions, customs and translations simply brought this about.

Some websites still have the original Oratio Fatimae on them, but at the same time have a little addition at the end of it, in the English translation:

  Oratio Fatimae  [The Fatima Prayer]

  Domine Iesu, dimitte nobis debita nostra, salva nos ab igne inferiori, perduc in caelum omnes animas, praesertim eas, quae misericordiae tuae maxime indigent.

  [O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of Hell, lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of Thy mercy.] - Latin Prayers

Personally, I pray the older Latin version, but I can see the merit in praying the newer version in Latin also. It does not take away from the original prayer but adds to it.

  Oh mi Jesu, dimitte nobis debita nostra, libera nos ab igne inferni, conduc in caelum omnes animas, praesertim illas quae maxime indigent misericordia tua. Amen. - Modern Oratio Fatimae

The following article may help shed some light on this subject:

  The True Fatima Prayer

  "O my Jesus, forgive us and save us from the fire of Hell, lead all poor
   souls toward Heaven, especially those who are most in need."

  In English this prayer is commonly called, "The Fatima Prayer"; in
   Portuguese, "O meu Jesus" prayer.

  The Portuguese Text is sometimes given as:

  O meu Jesus, perdoai-nos e livrai-nos do fogo do inferno. Levai as almas
   todas para o Ceu, e socorrei principalmente aquelas que mais precisarem.

  But the actual words of Our Lady, according to Sr. Lucia are:

  O meu Jesus, perdoai-nos e livrai-nos do fogo do inferno, levai as alminhas todas para o Ceu, principalmente aquelas que mais precisarem".

  Even if you have not studied Portuguese, you can examine both versions and
   find the textual differences.

  In English we commonly use the translation of the first version of the
   text, cited just above, which is:

  O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of Hell. Lead all
   souls to Heaven, especially those most in need of Thy mercy.

  The more accurate version would be the translation of Our Lady's actual
   words, as Sr. Lucia reports them:

  "O my Jesus, forgive us and save us from the fire of Hell, lead all poor
   souls toward Heaven, especially those who are most in need."

  Literally: "O my Jesus, you pardon us, you exempt us of the fire of the hell; you take little souls all for the Sky, mainly those that more to need. "

  I would point out that this English translation is not exactly correct;
  because the Portuguese does not say "souls", but "little souls", a term of
  endearment among Portuguese Catholics for the souls in Purgatory, equivalent
  to our phrase "poor souls". The context of the phrase refers to the deliverance of all souls from purgatory into heaven; and thus never signified universal salvation.

This whole question reminds me of the following questions:

Has the Catholic Church ever attempted a local substitute for the word: Amen?

How to propose a change in a prayer?


Does a legal compilation of all laws included in the New Testament exist?

When a Pharisee asked Jesus which is the greatest commandment in the Law, Jesus said this:

Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.  Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.  The second is this: Love your neighbour as yourself.  There is no commandment greater than these (Mark 12:29-31).

The first quotation is known as the Shema, named after the first word of Deuteronomy 6:4.  To the Shema Jesus joined the commandment from Leviticus 19:18 to show that love for neighbour is a natural and logical development of love for God.
As recorded in Matthew 22:40, all the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.
Jesus went a bit further with regard to the law to love your neighbour as yourself.  He said:

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who ill-treat you...  Do to others as you would have them do to you...  Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful (Luke 7:27-36).

The Ten Commandments were essentially a summary of the entire Old Testament law.  Nine of the Ten Commandments are clearly repeated in the New Testament (all except the command to observe the Sabbath day). Obviously, if we love God, we will not be worshiping false gods or bowing down before idols.  If we love our neighbours, we will not be murdering them, lying to them, committing adultery against them, or coveting what belongs to them.  The Old Testament law was never intended by God to be the universal law for all people for all of time. We are to love God and love our neighbours. If we obey those two commands faithfully, we will be upholding all that God requires of us.
The answer to your question is that there is no list of New Testament laws.
Note: This view is from a Protestant Christian.


Why do so many Christians call Paul "teacher", when Jesus said it was forbidden?

I believe the key to understanding this is to look at the broader context in which Jesus makes these statements.

Let's take a look at Jesus' entire paragraph here from Matthew 23:

  Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples,  "The scribes and
  the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so practice and observe whatever
  they tell you-but not what they do. For they preach, but do not
  practice. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on
  people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them
  with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For
  they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they
  love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues
  and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others.
  But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you
  are all brothers.  And call no man your father on earth, for you have
  one Father, who is in heaven.  Neither be called instructors, for you
  have one instructor, the Christ.  The greatest among you shall be your
  servant.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles
  himself will be exalted.

It's clear that Jesus is speaking of a particular kind of teacher.  He's not speaking of a teacher that instructs the best he can from scripture, all the time giving glory to, and pointing people to God, but he's speaking of a teacher that teaches to impress other people, so that he can be honored, have power over another, and have his ego stroked.  There's a difference.  One teacher teaches out of his desire for power and acceptance, while another simply repeats what he has heard from Jesus.

In other words, Jesus is prohibiting the disciples from being teachers in the sense that they hold power over one another and force people to do what they say, and judging people when they don't.  Instead, the disciples were to teach others humbly, always looking back to Christ as the source of what they teach, being careful not to go beyond what it is that Jesus taught, and they should do so driven by the motivation to see people love Christ, not driven by the motivation to have followers.


What evidence does the LDS church forward for the claim that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri?

In addition to the various other roles that Missouri has in LDS history and teachings (see What is the LDS meaning of the New Jerusalem?), it is believed by most to be the location of the Garden of Eden.

The LDS basis for this belief is founded largely on the teachings of Joseph Smith in the context of Doctrine & Covenants section 57 which reads that Jackson County is to be the location of Zion and the New Jerusalem. The section does not explicitly state Jackson County is the location of the Garden of Eden, however statements by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others have led to this belief. Due to the unofficial nature of the teaching, not all who follow LDS teachings accept it as absolute truth, for it can be claimed that it was merely an opinion.

To many, the idea that the Garden of Eden is located in Missouri is unbiblical as it does not seem to fit the geographical description of the locale as given in Genesis. John A Widtsoe, 20th Century LDS Apostle and scholar, addressed this issue in his book, "Evidences and Reconciliations" ("http://archive.org/details/evidencesreconci03widt"):

  Despite the apparently specific descriptions given, this clue has not led to the location of the Garden of Eden. Careful scholars have not been able to identify any of the four rivers with certainty. None of the rivers mentioned fits into the lands now known. Since the historically well known names of Euphrates, Assyria, and Ethiopia do not fit into the use of them in the Garden of Eden story, it is more than probable that they are ancient names variously applied in later times. Clearly, these rivers and countries belong to early ages of the world's history, and do not apply to present-day terminology.

Although there is no perfect match for the geography of the Garden of Eden in Missouri, it is my personal opinion that of the geographical locations in the United States, Missouri perhaps is one which would best fit the discriptions. This Map from wikipedia demonstrates the large number of rivers in and around Missouri in general. As Widtsoe mentioned about the earth in as a whole, It is very probable that this area looked much different in the Antediluvian era; variations in river flows could easily account for the geographical descrepancy.