How do Protestants interpret Ezekiel 18:20-32?

This passage is about repentance.
Though a soul start ever so badly, he will be fully forgiven immediately upon his repentance; and though a soul start ever so well, he will be rejected if he apostates; and each individual soul is answerable to God directly.
The principle sentence in the question is:

This seems to teach that sin directly corresponds to condemnation, and righteous living directly corresponds to life. However, this would seem to be at odds with the Protestant doctrine of simul justus et peccator (at once a sinner and just[ified]).

The passage is teaching what Protestants believe: in the instant/second/moment someone repents they are fully justified/declared righteous by God.
True repentance is the immediate consequence of true faith: or put another way "faith" and "repentance" are two sides of the same coin.  So, even though the one repenting is a sinner, he immediately becomes fully justified upon his repentance which arises because he believes in the goodness of God, and His offer of full forgiveness upon repentance.  For example, the dying thief being crucified next to Jesus was fully and immediately forgiven upon his faith and repentance (Luke 23:39-43).
We are not justified because of the life that proceeds from our faith, we are justified the second we believe, the second we repent.  However, the evidence that someone has truly believed and truly repented is shown outwardly in the life that follows afterward.  But this life didn't earn forgiveness, it was the repentance and faith which gained them forgiveness as a free gift.  It is because we know that we are fully forgiven that we want to live uprightly and godly for such a loving merciful God.
The godly life that follows is far from perfect, and it does not contribute to our justification.  Justification is a legal term, meaning "to declare innocent".  In scripture it means not just to declare innocent (which is a neutral position, you don't deserve to be punished) but to declare fully righteous (which is a positively good state, to be as righteous as God). In justification the sinner is declared to be as righteous as God, deserving eternal life in Heaven.  Because the sinner trusts in Jesus everything that belongs to Jesus now is declared to belong to the sinner, (just like in a marriage).  As Martin Luther came to realize we are declared righteous when we believe in Jesus for "the just shall live by faith" (Romans 1:17); meaning, even though I see so much in me that is bad, I believe I am fully forgiven because Christ has paid the full price for all my sins: this faith leads to peace, joy, repentance, and a righteous life, (but not a perfectly sinless life).
I used to walk amongst charismatics but now am reformed baptist and sing a much more reverent style of worship in the congregation: but one charismatic song by Michael Ray sticks in the mindbecause it sums up so much with the right amount of joy for a true believer:
I Get So Excited, Lord,
Every Time I Realise
I’m Forgiven, I’m Forgiven.
Jesus, Lord, You’ve Done It All,
You’ve Paid The Price:
I’m Forgiven, I’m Forgiven.
(Look up the tune too on youtube.)

The joy of the LORD is your strength (Nehemiah 8:10).

It is the joy of being forgiven, because all our sins have been hurled into the depths of the sea (Micah 7:19), all our sins are sent away as far as the east is from the west (Psalm 103:12) upon our faith and repentance (Acts 16:31).  This joy is the spring board for godly living.
For a person to be forgiven they must repent.  If they repent they will be forgiven.  The repentance doesn't earn their forgiveness.. the forgiveness upon repentance is still God's free grace and free pardon.  What earns our pardon is Christ's merit alone.  The repentance that is being spoken of is the repentance of one who trusts that Jesus paid the full price for all their sin, and who believes that God merely asks for repentance... God doesn't ask that all that is done wrong be repaid for by us... we cannot pay it, nor restore all that was ruined, we have nothing to pay (though what we can fix/restore/repay we should).  All He asks is that we turn back to Him asking for forgiveness in Jesus's name, for His sake, and because He died to take all our punishment.
What is not being spoken of here is a perfect repentance or a turning back to perfection... our repentance will always be an imperfect repentance... it cannot earn grace.  Even after this repentance we will still need to pray "Give us today our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive...".  There will still be trespasses needing to be forgiven.
This repentance happens when we realize how fallen, lost, and sinful we are, and cry out to God for his mercy because we know there is nothing else we can do.
A full repentance happens when we come to believe that God is truly merciful and loving.  "How could I have treated such a loving God and heavenly Father so badly as I have done up to now?"  Then we are truly sorry after we know we have been forgiven:

"They shall look upon him whom they have pierced and shall mourn as an only son, and shall be in bitterness for him as one that is in bitterness for [the death of] his firstborn."  (Zechariah 12:10).

What motivates this repentance is (belief in) the love of God:

We love because he first loved us. (1 John 4:19)

We repent because we believe in his amazing love for us.
"The soul that sins shall die" is a repeat of the warning given to Adam "in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die" (Genesis 2:17).
The sentiment of this passage is repeated in the New Testament:

The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 6:23).

The Covenant of Works never offered forgiveness upon our repentance: it simply promises death (i.e. eternal punishment) for sin.  When a person repents they already deserve eternal hell because of sin, and nothing they do can change what they deserve.
A promise of forgiveness upon repentance can only be a gracious act of God falling within the terms of the Covenant of Grace.  The only way such a repentance can happen is when a person trusts in the mercy of God as it is offered through the Gospel, upon the merits of the blood if Jesus Christ.  Though that is not mentioned in the passage, what is stressed in the passage is the goodness of God in forgiving a sinner merely upon his repentance... other passages already written, such as Isaiah 53, give the reason why God can show such grace, what is the ground of such mercy without destroying God's justice.
Suppose I said to a grown man and a little child "If you come round to my house and knock on the door I will give you a million pounds." The grown man scoffs and  says he is not such a fool as to be taken in by that, so he doesn't knock on my door, unbelief stops him being blessed; but the little child believes me and comes round and knocks on my door.  And I give the little child a million pounds.  The child didn't earn a million pounds by coming round, it was a gift: but he still had to believe me and then come.
And so it is with the two things needed for salvation/forgiveness, faith and repentance: we have to believe what God says and then do what He says which is repent/turn back to him from our sinful ways.  But such believing and repenting don't earn our forgiveness, they cannot... salvation is always a free gift of the grace of God. And all we have to do for it is believe and repent: so little to do for so much blessing!


Do Calvinists believe that it is possible to be saved without believing the doctrine of predestination?

Without any question any person who never believes in predestination can still be considered a saved and regenerate predestined Christian by a Calvinist.  All that is required to be considered 'predestined' in the eyes of men, is that a person believes in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins.  Anyone who truly 'confesses Christ' in this sense will be saved, regardless of how clear, or confused they may be on the surrounding doctrines of their salvation.

  If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile —the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (NIV Romans 10:9-13)

Knowing how Calvinists leaders have thought through history, I can assure you if someone added a requirement like 'faith in the doctrine of predestination' to be needed in addition to 'faith in Christ' they would have denounced it. It is a 'person' who died for our sin that we must put our faith in, not a textbook statement phrased by church leaders.


If there were no punishment for sin would salvation be necessary?

At one time, the belief in universal salvation was the defining characteristic of a Christian denomination known as the "Universalists" or the "Christian Universalists."

That denomination, however, merged with the Unitarians, and is no longer considered a Christian denomination by people inside or outside that church.  There remain some Christian Universalists, but not with sufficient numbers or organization to be considered a mainstream Christian denomination.


What evidence exists for post-Biblical miracles?

I see miracles all the time. there's a secret though: "Without faith it is impossible to please God, for those who come to God must believe that HE is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." - Hebrews 11:6. Allot of people seem to think that faith is just believing God exists, and aren't quit sure that He will actually reward them for seeking Him, they think things like He'll only reward you if it's His will at the time. But having faith is defined as believing God will reward you for seeking Him.

Some of the miracles I have personally seen:

Cancer healed. (prayed for a few people who were given an expiration date, they went back to the doctor and were cancer free)
Irreparable nerve damage healed (instantly). There was a woman staying with my parents who had been shot in the leg. The bullet just missed one of her arteries, but it did do nerve damage. her specialist doctor said she would never have use of that leg again. When I came home to visit she started saying how she just can't take it any more. Me and her friend prayed, God instantly healed the nerve damage, she took of the brace and put down the crutches and started walking around praising God and dancing. My mom took her back to her doctor, while they were walking back to the office the woman ask the doctor if he noticed anything. He looked stunned for a moment and said, your off your crutches? that's not possible, he took her back an examined her and said, well I'm not sure what I can do for you, you're completely better.
Missing knuckle bone replaced and repaired. I was out in the park with a group that feeds and ministers to the homeless. One guy started talking to me, and mentioned that his knuckle had been smashed when he was a child, and showed me that it was gone. I asked him if he wanted it to be healed. He looked at me puzzled and said 'There's nothing to heal, my knuckle is missing, there's nothing there!' I told him, well originally before God created the world there was nothing, and then God spoke everything into existence. He thought about and said well I guess your right. I prayed for him, he felt something, and then a few weeks later I see him again. He comes running up to me all excited and pointing to his brand new knuckle. I later found out he had several other problems, like a bad leg, a plate in is head, and severe dyslexia so that he could only read a page a in a day. Other people ministered to him, all those problems where solved. He got off the street, stopped using his 'medical marijuana' and started leading a bible study at the mission(when before he couldn't read more than a page of text all day).
Missing breastbone grown back. A lady came up for prayer after a church service and explained that due to either a birth defect or childhood illness (I don't recall which) she did not have a breastbone, and that her ribs where stitched together with wire that needed to be checked and changed every few years. I prayed for her, next day she came back and reported the bone was there.
Met someone raised from the dead after being dead  and locked in a morgue. I was with a group of people and God impressed upon us to stop at a certain house and ask if we could pray for the person. So we knocked on the door and asked and the lady that answered the door. She thought we had come for her to pray for us, she then explained that people from all over the world had been drawn to her house to hear her testimony. She explained how she had died, explained in great detail the sights of heaven, all matching Revelation's description, and how Jesus had sent her back because it wasn't her time yet. She then woke up in the morgue and started just as the coroner came in and saw her sitting up and of course was scared silly. She had been clinically dead since the day before.

The mother of one of my classmates has seen a small pot of spaghetti multiplied to feed many hundreds of people on several occasions in Africa, when they didn't have enough to feed the people they were ministering to.

People who travel to 3rd world countries do tend to see more miracles than they do in the states mainly because people tend to be more hungry for supernatural activity there. There is usually a lot of blatant demonic activity in those countries so people are used to the supernatural. In the west there is hardly any demonic activity comparatively because the enemies strategy is to make people think he doesn't exist. and there are many churches in the west that claim God stopped doing miracles because we have the Bible, so we don't need them anymore. They think this is faith, just believing what the bible said happened and not needing any proof. Miracles aren't about needing proof, Miracles are about God demonstrating  His extravagant love.  That's why when Jesus was walking around doing mighty works, he didn't do them for the pharisees. The pharisees were questioning Jesus identity as the Son of God, when they said show us a sign, Jesus had been showing signs all along by healing people, but the pharisees where asking him to prove He was God. So Jesus didn't indulge there unbelief.  I see it all the time, God will allow someone demonstrating unbelief to be completely blind to something that really can't be argued with. So in closing, To me this is all about Hebrews 11:6. Faith is not just believing what God said, without any tangible proof(but that is a requirement), it's believing that God will reward you for seeking Him, if you don't meet both requirements, it's not pleasing to him. That doesn’t mean your damned for it, it just means your not fully trusting Him.


On free will, Calvin says:

  "Free will does not enable any man to perform good works, unless he is assisted by
  grace; indeed, the special grace which the elect alone receive through regeneration."

For him, there is such a thing as free will, but it is not necessarily the same thing as what others mean by the term. This quotation says that our theoretical ability to choose is marred by our total depravity, and only through God's prior, irresistible grace do we gain the ability to choose well. Without that, we "cannot conceive, design or desire any thing but what is wicked, distorted, foul, impure and iniquitous."

At the same time, there is the idea of predestination, which for Calvin is primarily a matter of us being unable to frustrate God's will. The idea of "regeneration" here is that God will "guide, turn and govern our heart by his Spirit", and our free will is thereby reoriented without being destroyed. This doctrine is well-matched by the principle that salvation is not brought about by good works, or any human action for that matter: rather, it is something that God wills for us.

In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin examined this passage (and the parallel one in Matthew 19:16-22). In summary, he says that Jesus is trying to warn or reprimand the man, by directing him to his sin under the Law:

  We also distinctly declare, that if life is sought in works, the commandments are to be observed. And the knowledge of this doctrine is necessary to Christians; for how should they retake themselves to Christ, unless they perceived that they had fallen from the path of life over the precipice of death? [...]

  Wherefore, as a teacher of the law, whom our Lord knew to be
  puffed up with a vain confidence in works, was here directed by
  him to the law, that he might learn he was a sinner exposed to
  the fearful sentence of eternal death; so others, who were
  already humbled with this knowledge, he elsewhere solaces with
  the promise of grace, without making any mention of the law.

  (Book III, Chapter 18, Section 9)

and by pointing out his attachment to wealth, which indicates his hypocrisy in assuming himself to be following the Law:

  To show him how little progress he had made in that righteousness
  which he too boldly answered that he had fulfilled, it was right
  to bring before him his besetting sin. Now, while he abounded in
  riches, he had his heart set upon them. Therefore, because he did
  not feel this secret wound, it is probed by Christ - "Go," says
  he, "and sell that thou hast." Had he been as good a keeper of
  the law as he supposed, he would not have gone away sorrowful on
  hearing these words. For he who loves God with his whole heart,
  not only regards everything which wars with his love as dross,
  but hates it as destruction (Phil. 3:8). Therefore, when Christ
  orders a rich miser to leave all that he has, it is the same as
  if he had ordered the ambitious to renounce all his honours, the
  voluptuous all his luxuries, the unchaste all the instruments of
  his lust. Thus consciences, which are not reached by any general
  admonition, are to be recalled to a particular feeling of their
  particular sin.

  (Book IV, Chapter 13, Section 13)

Jesus is therefore trying to prick the man's conscience: he's not saying that salvation automatically follows from giving up material possessions. In addition, he is speaking to a wider audience (including us right now!), regardless of the status of this particular individual.

Quotations are from the 1845 translation by Henry Beveridge of the 1599 Latin edition of the Institutes, available online here


Does anything different happen during General Conference when there's a new president?

Replacing the president of the Church is a special thing.  I addressed the process of calling a new prophet in this answer.  That process is different than what would be used to call, for example, a Ward Sunday School President.  It's no surprise that the process of sustaining a new president of the Church is also different.

D&C 26:2 teaches that all things in the Church must be done with the common consent of the congregation.  "Congregation" has a lot of different scopes in our church.  For example, a Ward (our most common congregational unit) will sustain (vote to approve or accept pursuant to the Lord's command to act with common consent) a new Bishop.  But no other Ward will vote to sustain that Ward's Bishop.  The scope being only that Ward.

The President of the Church requires the sustaining vote of the entire congregation of the Church.  When this is done the first time, it is done in a Solemn Assembly.

LDS Apostle David B. Haight taught:

  A solemn assembly, as the name implies, denotes a sacred, sober, and reverent occasion when the Saints assemble under the direction of the First Presidency. Solemn assemblies are used for three purposes: the dedication of temples, special instruction to priesthood leaders, and sustaining a new President of the Church. (General Conference, October 1994)

As he states, we use Solemn Assemblies for three purposes:

The dedication of temples.
Special instruction to priesthood leaders.
Sustaining a new President of the Church.

As a side note, #2 is interesting and intentionally a bit vague.  Assemblies for that purpose are most commonly to accept new scripture or direction for the Church.  I would need to do some research to see if D&C 136, received by Brigham Young, was accepted in a Solemn Assembly.  The early church was still creating the organization the Lord expected and some procedures weren't formally "locked in stone" for a number of years.  However, sections 137 and 138 were accepted as scripture in Solemn Assembly in the early 1980s along with Official Declaration 1 and Official Declaration 2.  It should be noted that there have been differences between the date a revelation or declaration was received or written and the date it was accepted as scripture by the congregation.  The process is intentionally slow.

The difference between a normal General Conference and a Solemn Assembly is procedurally small.  Rather than receive a single sustaining vote from the congregation as a whole (the normal process), each priesthood quorum votes in turn with the general membership voting last.  Again, we turn to brother Haight.

  There is a pattern to solemn assemblies that distinguishes them from other general Church meetings where we sustain officers of the Church. That pattern, which was established by the Prophet Joseph Smith, is that the priesthood quorums, commencing with the First Presidency, stand and manifest by the uplifted right hand their willingness to sustain the President of the Church as a prophet, seer, and revelator, and uphold him by their confidence, faith, and prayers. The priesthood quorums of the Church so manifest by their vote. Then the general body of all the Saints stand and signify their willingness to do the same.

TL/DR

So, yes, the meeting is different.  A new prophet is sustained (accepted by Common Consent) for the first time in a Solemn Assembly.  That sustaining is different in that each priesthood quorum votes, followed by a vote from the general assembly.  It is this specific and detailed process of exercising Common Consent that makes the meeting a Solemn Assembly.

Edit: Though I know of no official statement that it is this way, it appears historically (and was confirmed the morning of Saturday, March 31, 2018) that the Saturday morning session of General Conference is declared a Solemn Assembly (when they are required) and the sustaining vote takes place then.  At all other times, the sustaining vote takes place during the Saturday afternoon session of General Conference.  A curious detail, but only important from a procedural point of view.


Is the presence of evil necessary for good to be expressed?

From an LDS perspective, this idea isn't simply believed, but explicitly stated as doctrine in the Book of Mormon.  It uses the central idea of opposition, which is touched on at various points in the Book of Mormon, but most clearly in chapter 2 of 2 Nephi.  The basic idea is that the contrast between two opposing principles is what distinguishes them from one another, and therefore the existence of opposition is a necessary part of God's plan.

  11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things.
  If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be
  brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery,
  neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound
  in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as
  dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption,
  happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

  12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught;
  wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation.
  Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his
  eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice
  of God.

  13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no
  sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no
  righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness.
  And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment
  nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there
  is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no
  creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore,
  all things must have vanished away.

  14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit
  and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both
  the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both
  things to act and things to be acted upon.

  15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after
  he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the
  fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must
  needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in
  opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other
  bitter.

  16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for
  himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be
  that he was enticed by the one or the other.

  17 And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs
  suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had
  fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that
  which was evil before God.

  18 And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable
  forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said
  unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the
  father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit,
  and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.

  19 And after Adam and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit they
  were driven out of the garden of Eden, to till the earth.

  20 And they have brought forth children; yea, even the family of all
  the earth.

  21 And the days of the children of men were prolonged, according to
  the will of God, that they might repent while in the flesh; wherefore,
  their state became a state of probation, and their time was
  lengthened, according to the commandments which the Lord God gave unto
  the children of men. For he gave commandment that all men must repent;
  for he showed unto all men that they were lost, because of the
  transgression of their parents.

  22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have
  fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all
  things which were created must have remained in the same state in
  which they were after they were created; and they must have remained
  forever, and had no end.

  23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have
  remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no
  misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

  24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who
  knoweth all things.

  -- 2 Nephi 2: 11-24


How were the books of the New Testament chosen?

The canon developed gradually over the course of more than 300 years. In many cases, when decisions were made, they were simply to acknowledge what was already being read in the churches.

The process started early. Already in 2 Peter 3:16, there is a reference to the letters of Paul:

  There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

So at least some of the churches were already circulating Paul's letters and reading them as scripture.

The Gospels were written after Paul's letters, and the Apostolic Fathers quoted most often from Matthew, but also sometimes from Mark and Luke, and eventually from John.

By the late 2nd century, Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.11.8) was claiming that the canon must contain exactly four gospels:

  It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the “pillar and ground” of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh.

This was to counter fringe groups that were producing their own gospels, as well as Marcion, who argued for just one gospel (Luke).

We don't know who compiled the list known as the Muratorian Fragment, but it also dates from the second century and contains this canon:

Four gospels (the existing fragment begins by naming Luke as the third and John as the fourth)
The Book of Acts
Thirteen letters of Paul (and then names two letters attributed to Paul but not accepted as genuine)
Jude
Two letters from John
Revelations "of John and Peter"
"the Wisdom written by friends of Solomon in his honour"

Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, and 3 John were not yet accepted.

The fragment also recommends the Shepherd of Hermas as being worth reading but not qualifying for the canon because it was written "quite lately in our time".

By the early fourth century, the church historian Eusebius (Church History 3.25) sorts the known early writings into cateogories.

The first category is:

Four Gospels plus Acts

Next in importance are:

The letters of Paul
One letter each from John and Peter

These are the writings that are universally accepted by the church. Eusebius adds that some believe Revelation should be included in this set.

The next category includes books that are disputed by some:

James
Jude
2 and 3 John
2 Peter

These would all eventually be added to the canon.

The next category includes books that rejected from the canon but worth reading:

Acts of Paul
The Shepherd
Apocalypse of Peter
Letter from Barnabas
The Teaching of the Apostles

He mentions that some would place Revelation in this group, and others would include the Gospel of the Hebrews.

And finally, Eusebius mentions other writings that are considered heretical, which he says should be "cast aside as absurd and impious." These include the gospels of Peter and Thomas, among others.

The first known list of canon that matches today's New Testament is found in the Easter Letter of Athanasius for the year 367:

  Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.

Athanasius then adds that other books—the Wisdom of Solomon, the Shepherd, the Teaching of the Apostles, et al.—should be read by new converts. So even as the canon was being defined, there was recognition that among the excluded books were some that were part of the church teaching, and some that were not.

Following Athanasius, we see the beginning of a general agreement throughout the church. The Synod of Hippo in 393 published a list of New Testament books identical to Athanasius' list, but also included an Old Testament canon. The Council of Carthage of 397 published a similar list, but is notable for separating Hebrews from the letters of Paul. The Latin Vulgate translation, commissioned by Pope Damasus in 382 and completed by Jerome in 405, contains the same set of books listed in these. The Decretum Gelasianum, widely thought to be associated with the same Pope Damasus, lists the same 27 books but makes a distinction among the letters of John ("of the Apostle John, one letter, of the other John the Elder, two letters").

The Council of Carthage of 419 lists the same books, but does not make a distinction between two writers named John, and does not separate Hebrews from the letters of Paul.

In the East, there would still be disagreement for more than a century. The Council of Laodicea of 364 accepted all of the current New Testament books except Revelation. The Apostolic Constitutions, compiled around 380, has a Bible canon including this same list, but adding three writings attributed to Clement of Rome.

The first version of the Peshitta, the Syriac translation of the Bible, omitted the books of 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, and Revelation; these books would not be translated into Syriac until the 6th century.

The Quinisext Council or Council in Trullo was held in Constantinople in 692 to reaffirm the rulings of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumencal Councils; while this council did not publish a formal Bible canon, it did reaffirm the canons previously published, including those of Athanasius and others with the Book of Revelation. This set the stage for the 7th Ecumenical Council (Second Council of Nicea) in 787, which finally established what we now know as the 27-book New Testament canon for the entire church.


What biblical or historical reasons have been given for avoiding creeds & catechisms?

The short answer is that The Bible itself claims to be God's authoritative Word, and as such, it is sufficient for teaching and preparing us to do God's will. (2 Timothy 3:16,17)

Along with that, Scripture warn against following any "gospel" other than the one preached in the Bible, and that false doctrines/teachings would arise. (Galatians 1, 2 John 1:9-11, Revelation 22:18-19, 1 Timothy 1:3; 1 Corinthians 1:18-25)

In addition, God gave each and every one of us the Holy Spirit to guide us into truth and an understanding of God's Word. (John 16:13, John 14:26)

The Biblical basis to reject creeds is an application of the verses above, and more like them.  The idea is that creeds are man-made, while God provides His Word and the Holy Spirit to guide us in to Truth. The idea is that man is fallible, and we shouldn't be following man's teachings, but rather God's.

A more detailed response highlighting the same points can be found at thegospelway.com.

George fox, who you asked about, seems to have taken a similar view, using much the same logic.  From George Fox and Christian Theology

  Westcott wrote,4 "was then commonly preached with a crude violence
  which shook the very foundations of morality." Moreover, God was not a
  God at hand, but One afar off: He had prisoned Himself in a book to
  which no page had been added for fifteen hundred years; all the
  knowledge men now had of Him was bound within the covers of the Bible.
  It was against this gloomy creed that Fox came with his message of a
  God who was close to men, still speaking to them as in the days of
  prophets and apostles, teaching, leading and controlling them by His
  Spirit in their own hearts. The Bible was not the only fount of truth,
  for the same Spirit that inspired it was still at work, and only as
  men were enlightened by that Spirit could they understand or use the
  Bible aright. This last had been Luther's conviction, and it had been
  expressed (with caution) in the Reformed Confessions of Faith; but it
  had been largely overlooked and forgotten. There can be no doubt that
  to most of Fox's converts the assurance of a God who was in direct
  touch with their own souls was a joyful discovery that transformed
  their lives, and that it is this discovery which explains their
  attitude towards the Bible and theology.

In fairness, the response from those that find value in creeds would likely be "So these creeds, which are based on Scripture, written by those that have studied it, taken time to distill the meaning, in a rigorous fashion, with many minds working together to prevent error are less likely to be erroneous than the interpretation of individuals who may or may not have the same level of knowledge, experience, and discipline?"

Therefore, I'd like to point out that this answer is not endorsing nor rejecting the idea the creeds should be endorsed or rejected.  I'm just giving the basis for which those that do reject creeds.


What theolological distinctives are exhibited in 'The True Furqan'?

This book imitates the Quran, or tries to imitate it, in order to answer the Quran. The translator, Anis Shorrosh is allegedly also the writer. He is an evangelical Christian. The ideology and theology of the book is based on the beliefs and ideas of this man, and his understanding of Christianity.

The main idea of the book is to tell Christianity in a Quranic form, but the book is too arguing and too furious and stressful compared to the eloquency of the Quran. "Al-Furqan" is one of the names of the Quran, meaning the "The Criterion". The book is to change Muslims' minds into Christianity by showing them "The True Criterion". However all this hoax would make people think how desperate Christians are!

The book actually quotes some parts of the Quran, and keeps talking about Satanic verses and how people left "The True Gospel".

  They recite this gibberish which is nothing but plagiarized wisdom,
  pitiful enunciation and mystifying instructions. (40:5)

There are many Islamic concepts and terminology in it. There are hundreds of verses, quoting a verse from the Quran and giving some answer, sometimes actually by distorting them. These verses generally go like this:

  You said "..." but you did ..., so you are...

Such a verse:

  Furthermore, if it is rumored, "These sayings are his own invention;"
  he recoils from the criticism and announces, "Bring ten such invented
  chapters if you have the creative ability." No one brings forth such
  invented chapters except an imposter who recites what demons
  concocted. (45:12-13)

And the original:

  23.And if you are in doubt about what We have revealed (the Quran) to Our worshiper (Muhammad), then produce a chapter like it, and call
  your witnesses (supporters and helpers) besides God if you are
  truthful.
  24.And if you do not do it, and you can never do it, then fear the Fire (Hell) whose fuel is men and stones.  It has been prepared for
  disbelievers.
  25.And give good news (O Muhammad) to those who believe and do good deeds, that for them are gardens (Paradise) in which rivers flow....
  http://quran.com/2/23-25

Another one with a bigger distortion of the original:

  O you who are fabricators of lies from among Our misled worshipers:
  you announce, "We believe in God and what was given to Jesus and the
  prophets. We make no differentiation among them. Yet from among those
  messengers We have preferred some over others." (51:1)

And the original:

  Say, [O believers], "We have believed in Allah and what has been
  revealed to us and what has been revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and
  Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants and what was given to Moses and
  Jesus and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no
  distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims [in submission] to
  Him." http://quran.com/2/136

Following are extracted by me. These are not from the 'quotation verses'. You can compare some of the verses of the Quran and what this guy have in his book, and see what this book is about:

The Quran:

  And when it is said to them, "Believe as the people have believed,"
  they say, "Should we believe as the foolish have believed?"
  Unquestionably, it is they who are the foolish, but they know [it]
  not. http://quran.com/2/13

The True Furqan:

  Whenever it is urged upon the infidels to believe in The True Furqan,
  which We revealed, just as Our devoted followers have done, they
  proclaim, "Are we to accept what the inferior infidels have believed?"
  (4:7)

The Quran:

  And when there came to them a Book from Allah confirming that which
  was with them (with the Jews) - although before they used to pray for victory against
  those who disbelieved (polytheists) - but [then] when there came to them that which
  they recognized (the Quran), they disbelieved in it; so the curse of Allah will be
  upon the disbelievers. http://quran.com/2/89

The True Furqan:

  At any rate, The True Furqan came to confirm what is with the
  humankind through The True Gospel. Surprisingly, they hid it behind
  their backs as if they had no better sense. (11:26)

The Quran:

  Those to whom We gave the Scripture (Christians and Jews) know him (Muhammad) as they know their own
  sons. But indeed, a party of them conceal the truth while they know
  [it]. The truth is from your Lord, so never be among the doubters.
   http://quran.com/2/146-147

The True Furqan:

  As for those who trusted in The True Gospel, they know it (The Gospel)
  as they know their own sons. Thus they do not conceal the truth! ... (61:13)

The Quran:

  There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The
  right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves
  in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy
  handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.
  http://quran.com/2/256

The True Furqan:

  As for those of Our people who have gone astray, The True Furqan is
  now disclosed to explain Our Way concerning the difference in True
  Wisdom, stubble and hay, "No compulsion in religion," We say.
  Therefore why don't you trust Us and obey? (3:6)

The Quran:

  1.Ha, Meem.
  2.By the clear Book,
  3.Indeed, We have made it an Arabic Qur'an that you might understand.
  4.And indeed it is, in the Mother of the Book with Us, exalted and full of wisdom.
  5.Then should We turn the message away, disregarding you, because you are a transgressing people?
  6.And how many a prophet We sent among the former peoples,
  7.But there would not come to them a prophet except that they used to ridicule him.http://quran.com/43

The True Furqan:

  1.O, you who have gone astray from among Our faithful followers: We have inspired it -a True Furqan- in the Arabic tongue clearly
  miraculous, to distinguish triviality from truth. It will enlighten
  you concerning the evil which you were practicing.
  2. You have counterfeited Our tongue and fabricated deceitfully that We have revealed a message which was never declared and have
  transacted what We have never asked. You have brazenly misled the
  people away so that whosoever trusted you was led astray and whosoever
  believed you ended up losing his way. Yet despair awaits every vile
  slanderer. (4:1-2)

The Quran:

  In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful
  1.Say, "He is Allah , [who is] One,
  2.Allah , the Eternal Refuge.
  3.He neither begets nor is born,
  4.Nor is there to Him any equivalent."http://quran.com/112

The True Furqan:

  1.In the Name of the Father, the Word, the Holy Spirit, the One and only True God
  2.He is Triune in Unity, united in Trinity, indivisible as deity.
  3.He is the Father, Who has never given birth like the race of humanity.
  4.He is the Word, Who has never been born except through virginity.
  5.He is the Spirit, Who has never been separated from the Trinity. (A)

There are endless amount of similarities like the above, therefore we can conclude that, this book is written solely for the purpose of saying "Nay, this one is the true Furqan." to those who believe in "The Furqan". Therefore to answer the question from above,

  What does it say or imply about the nature of the Bible vs. the
  Qur'an?

This book suggests that The Quran is Satanic, and it is all lies, imitation of the Gospel and gibberish.

  They recite this gibberish which is nothing but plagiarized wisdom,
  pitiful enunciation and mystifying instructions. (40:5)

However, because it is written solely for Muslims by an Arab Christian, it starts with,

  To the Arab nation specifically and the Muslim world collectively:
  peace, mercy and blessings from God Almighty!

and keeps using Quranic words and verses. That is a way to deceive people maybe, but it is clearly contradictious.

If we come to the stance of this book on the Bible, it is a hard job. Clearly, it is a book written for Muslims, calling them to so-called "The True Gospel" and telling them whatever came after is counterfeit. Almost every page, the book keeps saying "The True Gospel" is distorted by Muslims.

  Additionally, you have alleged that some portions of The True Gospel
  have been altered. So, you discarded most of it behind your backs. Had
  you believed Our Divine Revelation, you would not have claimed that is
  was altered. (8:4)

Since the aim is to convince Muslims that they do not know The True Gospel and they should believe it, and this is done with Quranic words and verses, it is hard to say if the book, itself believes itself about what is said on "The True Gospel" in it. Also the book, because it is busy giving messages to Muslims, every single verse, does not have time to talk about deeper Christian theology. For example, the chapter "The Crucifixion" can be read, which argues with Muslims, that their rejection of crucifixion is baseless, because they do not get what it is actually. So, the book can be attributed to any form of 'orthodox' Christianity, especially Evangelicalism, when the parts on Christian theology is taken. However, as a whole, it does not fit in any form of Christianity, not even the writer's. The idea of the book "The True Furqan", itself, is ridiculous and do not comply with any doctrinal positions of Christianity. As you should have understood until here, it is a tool to be used against Muslims, but destined to fail for obvious reasons.


How are people who were not approved by Jesus (Matthew 7:21-23) still able to expel demons?

tl;dr

It is possible that they are not casting out the demons but that the demons participate by leaving on their own accord, in order to provide credence to the preacher.

Exorcism exists also in other religions such as some forms of buddhism (they call it bgegs-bloz-chog or za-dre kha sgyur depending on the ritual) and among the nature religions of Africa. Sometimes the show to exercise the demon can be quite "extravagant". This is all for the audience because Satan's intention is to mislead, and confuse if necessary.

A longer explanation:

Demons are capable of other works as well that to us look miraculous, such as healing people.

Some of the miracles done by demons look like they are from God, such as in the case of the Simon mentioned in Acts 8:9-11. This passage says:

  9 Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the
  city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was
  someone great, 10 and all the people, both high and low, gave him
  their attention and exclaimed, “This man is rightly called the Great
  Power of God.” 11 They followed him because he had amazed them for a
  long time with his sorcery.

To the people in the city of Samaria the miracles made by Simon looked like they were from God.

Expulsion of demons and other miracles were also accomplished through "magic" as in the case of people in the ancient city of Ephesus. Acts 19:18-19 tells us that the residents of Ephesus had a large amount of books of that nature:

  18 Also many of those who were now believers came, confessing and
  divulging their practices. 19 And a number of those who had practiced
  magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight
  of all. And they counted the value of them and found it came to fifty
  thousand pieces of silver.

An old book titled "Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Acts of the Apostles" by A. Barnes (published 1863) said on p.264 (left column on the left-side page here) about magic in Ephesus:

  The Ephesian letters...seem to have consisted of certain
  combinations of letters or words, which, by being pronounced with
  certain intonations of voice, were believed to be effectual in
  expelling diseases, or evil spirits; or which, by being written on
  parchment and worn, were supposed to operate as amulets, or charms,
  to guard from evil spirits, or from danger. Thus Plutarch (Sympos. 7)
  says, "the magicians compel those who are possessed with a demon to
  recite and pronounce the Ephesian letters, in a certain order, by
  themselves."

(screen shot of this segment is at the end of this posting)

There is no reason to doubt that "miracles" such as "expelling demons" could be done through these "Ephesian letters" as was stated by Plutarch. We already know from the case of Simon (referred to above) that people were misled thinking that his powers came from God, so apparently those abilities were real.

Demons would likely had wanted to give the impression that such incantations work at least some times, in order to hook people in believing in them.

This is all not particularly surprising in light of 2 Corinthians 11:14-15:

  14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
  15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as
  servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions
  deserve.

The reason for this is that what matters to Satan is that we do not find the path to serve God the right way. Other than that he does not care who or what our God is; it could be money (Matthew 6:24) or our own gut (Philippians 3:19). The issue of whom we worship matters as can be seen in the 3 tests where he was trying to get Jesus to break God's laws (Matthew 4:1-10) in seemingly small ways (not through murder, adultery, or such things). The only test where Satan actually offered something to Jesus in return was the last one in which he offered to give Jesus all earth's kingdoms for an act of worship.

Here is part of the p.264 from the book "Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Acts of the Apostles" by A. Barnes:


When?

Acts 15 famously records what parts of the Jewish law is considered binding on non-Jewish Christians:

  28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”

One will note that the Sabbath day laws are not part of this.  As such, the direct answer to your question is thus:  At the Council of Jerusalem, c. 50 AD.  Over the course of the first few centuries, Gentile Jews (not subject to the Sabbath laws) came to outnumber Jewish ones, establishing the custom for all.

Why?

The Why, of course, stems from Jesus' example and teaching. Understanding Do we have to obey the laws of the bible? If so, what laws? is key to this - and the summary is as follows:

In Mark 2, Jesus was asked precisely this question - Why do your disciples "work" on the Sabbath.  The text reads:

  23 One Sabbath he was going through the grainfields, and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. 24 And the Pharisees were saying to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” 25 And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: 26 how he entered the house of God, in the time of[d] Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?” 27 And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”

His answer, that the Sabbath was actually made for man - to be a rest, and a joy - illustrates the "point" that the law is there to help, not to hurt. For example, in Luke 14 it says:

  14 One Sabbath, when he went to dine at the house of a ruler of the Pharisees, they were watching him carefully. 2 And behold, there was a man before him who had dropsy. 3 And Jesus responded to the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath, or not?” 4 But they remained silent. Then he took him and healed him and sent him away. 5 And he said to them, “Which of you, having a son[a] or an ox that has fallen into a well on a Sabbath day, will not immediately pull him out?” 6 And they could not reply to these things.

As a matter of course, the New Testament is pretty clear that for Jesus "rules" are less important than relationships.  The concept of grace is fairly central to most Christian understanding of how "right action" before God is to be considered.  At the risk of sounding antinomian, Christians who rely on grace do not see the "law" as the point, but rather the means.  As such, working on the Sabbath is not a "most important thing" when it comes to living life.

(Oh, and of course as Seventh Day Adventists would point out, the Sabbath is Saturday anyway.)


Why are most Christians reluctant to identify the Lazarus Jesus raised from the dead with Lazarus in the story of the rich man and Lazarus?

I think taken together the Gospels do make us think about this possibility. God has inspired not just the texts of each Biblical book in isolation, but in relation to each other. Lazarus himself is interesting, being mentioned only in John, despite his resurrection being one of the most stunning of all of Jesus's miracles. But to go so far as to assert that the Lazarus of Jesus's story is the same as the real life Lazarus would I think be dangerous. I think this story should make us think of Jesus's friend Lazarus, but not read him into the story.

First, no one else in the Bible has their afterlife described in such detail. The afterlife is described so generally, and I think this is deliberate, God not wanting us to know enough to be distracted by it. If this is a true story then it gives us a lot of unique information about the afterlife, its seeming "physical" structure, and the role of Abraham in the place of the dead. With no other texts giving anywhere near as much detail, I think this passage would set us up more for unhelpful speculation than right understanding.

Second, it detracts from the real meaning of the story, which is a prophetic condemnation on the Jewish leaders after they refused to believe after Jesus was resurrected. In John the resurrection of Lazarus is given as a catalyst of the chief priests and Pharisees scheming to kill Jesus (John 11:46-53). But in the narrative of Luke, the point is about Jesus. Those in the know, those who've heard other stories, or who've read the Gospel of John, know that there are other resurrections which had similar results. But the main point is focused on Jesus. The chief priests and Pharisees sinned as they schemed after the resurrection of Lazarus, but they were condemned when they refused to believe after Jesus came back to life.

In short, I think this Luke 16:19-31 story reminds us of John 11, but we don't read John into Luke. Instead we read the Luke story with what happens later in the Luke-Acts narrative. Understanding it on its own terms takes precedence over harmonising between the Gospels.


Biblical basis for Heaven *not* being a physical place?

Jn 18:36 Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world . . . this realm"

Heb 9:11,24 Heaven is not of this creation

1 Cor 15:5051,44 Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.


I realize that what I'm about to put forward is not conclusively proven, but it is possible.  It's specifically answering from the perspective of young-earth creationists, which isn't the only view out there. (But it is the one you specified you wanted in your question.)

Noah didn't have to save the fish.

Your question makes two assumptions that seem reasonable, but aren't really axiomatic.

That the oceans were salt water at the time of the flood,
That the fish at the time were already adapted to either fresh water or salt water.

It is entirely possible that at that early stage in earth's history (assuming a young-earth time-line) that the oceans were fresh water, or nearly fresh water.  If this were so, there would have been no dichotomy between fresh and saltwater fish.

The oceans gain their salinity because material from land is constantly eroding into the oceans.  Both sea water and fresh water evaporate, but all water eventually ends up in the oceans.  the reason the oceans are more salty than fresh water is that the minerals can't travel back upstream, so when the water evaporates, the salinity increases. (more here if you want it)

Even secular scientists are saying that most salt-water fish evolved from fresh water fish.  Even the young-earth creationists wouldn't argue that.  We see it as a minor variation within the Biblical "kinds"  Turning from a freshwater fish to a saltwater fish is a minor change compared to the transformation from a dinosaur (primarily reptile from what we understand) to a bird, for example.

One popular YEC view is that likely, at the time of the flood, most sea life was able to live in both ocean water and fresh water because the salinity of the ocean was much less than.  During the flood, large amounts of materials would have been deposited rapidly, and as the flood waters receded, the ocean would have been much more salty shortly after the flood than it was before from that fact alone.  Over the remaining years, the oceans have become more salty at a slower rate.

A similar argument can be found here.

And another here, with a story about someone who experimented an was able to get salt and fresh-water fish living together in the same tank.  There's no reference on the story, but it's certainly possible to try it yourself if you'd like to experiment.

This article Fish in the Flood  has this to add:

  As a matter of fact, most of them didn’t survive. Over 95 percent of
  all fossils are marine creatures. They died and are fossilized by the
  trillions. Many are buried in great fossil graveyards, tightly packed
  together, choked with sediments, buried before they had time to decay.
  Obviously, they didn’t live in the environment in which they died.
  They were transported by rapidly moving water and then buried in
  sedimentary deposits.


What are the written signs referred to in John 20:31?

It refers to the entire book, but especially the Book of Signs, John 1:19 - 12:50. (As with your note about arbitrary chapter beaks, notice that this doesn't align with the beginning of a chapter.) There are seven miracles or signs that John uses to establish Christ as the Son of God

Wedding at Cana
Healing the official's son
Healing the paralytic
Feeding the 5000
Walking on water
Healing the blind man
Raising Lazarus

Some add the Crucifixion, Resurrection, and/or the miraculous catch of fish. However, the list of seven is fairly common, a nice biblical number, and has some interesting theology developed from it.


What were Martin Luther's opinions on the Crusades?

Luther originally condemned the Church being involved in military conquests and advocated non-violence against Muslims
Martin Luther first wrote about the Crusades, and general armed conflict against Muslims (whom he often refers to as "Turks" given that the Ottoman Empire was the primary military force of the day), in his Explanation of the 95 Theses in 1518.
He was suspicious of the motives of the Church
Luther thought that many of the church leaders were warmongers, rather than fighting war out of injustices (bolded text in this and subsequent quotes are mine).

Many, however, even the “big wheels” in the church, now dream of nothing else than war against the Turk. They want to fight, not against iniquities, but against the lash of iniquity and thus they would oppose God who says that through that lash he himself punishes us for our iniquities because we do not punish ourselves for them.

He also argued that the Church preferred to encourage wars against Muslims rather than admit the wrongs of indulgences and give back money from that.

So much is this so that they wanted to devour the Turks and after this banish the Christians themselves to a condemnation worse than that of hell rather than remit one penny of their indulgence tax, to say nothing of upholding the wrong done to their name and body.

He thought that the church should stay within the realm of the spiritual, not the military
Luther was critical about taking up a "sword of iron" rather than a "sword of Spirit".

And that is the truest explanation of the decrees of the fathers which so strongly forbid the bearing of arms to clerics. One can see now that an angry God, observing that we choose to interpret this sword as one of iron rather than one of the Spirit and the gospel, treats us most justly when he grants the sword which we desire and takes away that which we do not desire. Because of this there never have been in the world more cruel devastations of war than those among Christians, and the holy Scriptures have hardly been more neglected than among Christians. Lo, you have the sword which you have desired. Indeed, this explanation is one which is worthy of hell.

He argued for non-violence
Luther noted that the Crusades were a common source of indulgences, but thought that participating in a war had a poor rationale for the forgiveness of sins. He argued that it was better to serve the Muslims than to "lose your soul" by taking up arms against them.

It is well known that indulgences are granted either for participating in the war against the infidels or for building churches or for some other common need of this life. But none of these reasons is so great that love is not incomparably greater, more righteous, and more reasonable. […]
Especially is this so since it is of such great importance to give aid to souls, so that the faithful should prefer to serve the Turks and be killed in body than to lose their souls.

For reference, his contemporary Thomas More criticized this position, saying that while it was all well and good to preach non-violence out of a call to holiness, the end result was that many Christian people and churches were killed, which he found unjust.
With Muslim invasions in to Europe, Luther's stance had changed to support armed resistance against Muslims, but as a secular war
Suleiman the Magnificent led a campaign into Europe in the 1520s, capturing Belgrade in 1521 and laying siege to Vienna in 1529. Luther wrote On War Against the Turk in 1528 and changed his stance to be supportive of armed conflict against Muslims.
He was still suspicious of the motives of the Church
Luther argued that the Catholic Church had the money to effectively fund a war against the Turks, but that they preferred to use the war as an excuse to tax money from commoners in Germany (and presumably other areas).

The popes have never seriously intended to wage war against the Turk; instead they used the Turkish war as a cover for their game and robbed Germany of money by means of indulgences whenever they took the notion […] If they had seriously wished to fight the Turk, the pope and the cardinals would have had enough from the pallia, annates, and other unmentionable sources of income so that they would not have needed to practice such extortion and robbery in Germany.

He still argued that the church should not be involved in military matters

If the pope and his followers were to attack the empire with the sword, as the Turk does, he should receive the same treatment as the Turk; and this is what was done to him by the army of Emperor Charles before Pavia. For there stands God’s verdict, “He that takes the sword shall perish by the sword.” I do not advise that men go to war with the Turk or the pope because of his false belief or evil life, but because of the murder and destruction which he does.

But what motivated me most of all was this: They undertook to fight against the Turk in the name of Christ, and taught and incited men to do this, as though our people were an army of Christians against the Turks, who were enemies of Christ.  This is absolutely contrary to Christ’s doctrine and name […] This is the greatest of all sins and is one that no Turk commits, for Christ’s name is used for sin and shame and thus dishonored. This would be especially so if the pope and the bishops were involved in the war, for they would bring the greatest shame and dishonor to Christ’s name because they are called to fight against the devil with the word of God and with prayer, and they would be deserting their calling and office to fight with the sword against flesh and blood. They are not commanded to do this; it is forbidden.

…if I were a soldier and saw a priest’s banner in the field, or a banner of the cross, even though it was a crucifix, I should run as though the devil were chasing me; even if they won a victory, by God’s decree, I should not take any part in the booty or rejoicing.

However, Luther argued that the secular authorities should wage a war, so long as it was self-defense and not a "Crusade"
Luther argued that it was the duty of the Emperor to protect their people against the Turks who he saw as aggressors maltreating their captives.

Nevertheless, what the emperor can do for his subjects against the Turk, that he should do, so that even though he cannot entirely prevent the abomination, he may yet try to protect and rescue his subjects by checking the Turk and holding him off. To this protection the emperor should be moved not only by his bounden duty, his office, and the command of God, nor only by the unchristian and vile government that the Turk brings in, as has been said above, but also by the misery and wretchedness that comes to his subjects. They know better than I, beyond all doubt, how cruelly the Turk treats those whom he carries away captive. He treats them like cattle, dragging, towing, driving those that can go along, and killing out of hand those that cannot go, whether they are young or old.

Luther viewed the government as the "left-hand kingdom" of God (part of his "two kingdoms doctrine") and said that it could call for war, and a person would be obligated to fight in that war in obedience to God.

In the first place, if there is to be war against the Turk, it should be fought at the emperor’s command, under his banner, and in his name. Then everyone can assure his own conscience that he is obeying the ordinance of God, since we know that the emperor is our true overlord and head, and he who obeys him, in such a case, obeys God also, while he who disobeys him disobeys God also. If he dies in this obedience, he dies in a good state, and if he has previously repented and believes on Christ, he is saved.

But Luther argued that such a war should only be for self-defense, rather than for glory or increasing land.

In the second place, this banner and obedience of the emperor ought to be true and simple. The emperor should seek nothing else than simply to perform the work and duty of his office, which is to protect his subjects; and those under his banner should seek simply the work and duty of obedience. By this simplicity you should understand that there is to be no fighting of the Turk for the reasons for which the emperors and princes have heretofore been urged to war, such as the winning of great honor, glory, and wealth, the increasing of lands, or wrath and revengefulness and other things of the kind; for by these things men seek only their own self- interest, and therefore we have had no good fortune heretofore, either in fighting or planning to fight against the Turk.

Luther made it clear that he did not view the Emperor to be the head of Christendom, as had sometimes been stated in his day.

He has been urged, as head of Christendom, as protector of the Church and defender of the faith, to wipe out the faith of the Turk, and the urging and exhorting have been based on the wickedness and vice of the Turks. Not so! The emperor is not head of Christendom or protector of the Gospel or of the faith. The Church and the faith must have another protector than emperor and kings. They are usually the worst enemies of Christendom and of the faith, as Psalm 2:2 says and the Church constantly laments. With that kind of urging and exhorting things are only made worse and God is the more deeply angered, because that interferes with His honor and His work, and would ascribe it to men, which is idolatry and blasphemy.

He also condemned imposing the Christian faith on others
In particular, killing people due to their faith was something that Luther despised.

Among us there are Turks, Jews, heathen, non-Christians, all too many of them, proving it with public false doctrine and with offensive, shameful lives. Let the Turk believe and live as he will, just as one lets the papacy [i.e. Catholics] and other false Christians live. The emperor’s sword has nothing to do with the faith; it belongs to physical, worldly things, if God is not to become angry with us. If we pervert His order and throw it into confusion, He, too, becomes perverse and throws us into confusion and all misfortune, as it is written, “With the perverse thou art perverse.” We can perceive and grasp this by means of the fortune we have heretofore had against the Turk. Think of all the heartbreak and misery that have been caused by the cruciata, by the indulgences and crusading-taxes, with which Christians have been stirred up to take the sword and fight the Turk, when they ought to have been fighting the devil and unbelief with the Word and with prayer.

One of his later hymns asked for God to protect against "the murder by the Pope and Turks"
Luther's hymn "Erhalt uns, Herr, bei deinem Wort" ("Keep us, Lord, faithful to your word" or "Lord, keep us in Thy Word and Work") is thought to have been written in 1541 for a prayer service at Wittenberg following the Siege of Buda in which the Ottoman Empire captured the city. The second line includes:

und steur' des Papsts und Türken Mord
(And control the murder by the Pope and Turks)

The hymnal Geistliche Lieder titled the song a "A hymn for the children to sing against the two arch-enemies of Christ, and His Holy Church, the Pope and the Turks". However, I'm not able to find any evidence that Luther gave it that title.
So while Luther argued for the secular authorities to fight the Turks, rather than the religious authorities, he still viewed it as entirely appropriate to pray to God for deliverance from them.


Driving out spirits in Jesus's name with discrepancy in Bible

Notice that in the Mark case, Jesus is saying, "Don't forbid them from casting out demons," whereas in Acts 19, it is the demons themselves who are unwilling to be cast out by someone who may use the name of Jesus, but who seems to be trifiling with things they shouldn't be.  In the case of Mark, it would be humans resisting, in the case of Acts, it is demons.
In the case of the passage in Mark, the question was one of association. As answered in another question, the focus is as much on institution as anything else.  Here, Jesus simply said something to the effect of 'Just because they aren't attending your church doesn't mean they can't do something in my name.'
In the Acts passage, we have someone attempting to cast out demons who is clearly unworthy to do so.  The name of Jesus is being invoked as a talisman of sorts - a magic set of syllables that some one is trying to utter in order to gain control. When this unworthy person attempts to cast out the demon, the demons are the ones who realize the would-be exorcist as a person who may know the name of Jesus, but not really be one of his.  When the demons say to the sons of Sceva, "I know Jesus" they are admitting that Jesus has power over them.  When they say, "I  know of Paul," it is because they have heard that Paul is one who correctly uses the power of Christ.  These demons know that Jesus is working through Paul, much to their consternation.  But it is one thing to say a name, and another to understand the one through whom power comes. These sons of Sceva apparently know the words, but not the Christ.
The demons are aware of this - and they pounce.
I would argue the Acts 19 passage should also be read in light of Acts 8.  In Acts 8, a sorcerer named Simon sought to control demons and harness the power of the Spirit for personal gain. He even offered Peter money to learn.

18 When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money 19 and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”

Peter reacts harshly saying this power of Christ is not something that can simply be bought or sold. He says:

20 ... “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! 21 You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. 22 Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that he may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart.

When fighting the demons, Paul says in Ephesians 6 that

10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes.

Notice how the fighter is to be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Notice that we taken on armor - a defense, not an offense.

12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.
14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one.

Finally note, the only offensive weapon we have is the Word of God, nothing of our own:

17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

In other words, Simon, this Jesus' power isn't a game. There are real forces at work that aren't of your control. There is, however, a Jesus who is in control, at whose name demons cringe.  You are not in control - He is. Sons of Sceva, let him fight, for as it says in 2 Chronicles 16:9

9 For the eyes of the Lord range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him. You have done a foolish thing, and from now on you will be at war. ”

In other words, if you are going to fight demons, make sure you realize how the demons are actually defeated.


It seems to me that you can get people who are really rotten but, since they believe all the requisite things, go to Heaven.

Yep, although it's not really about intellectual belief/assent, but that the person trusts God to fulfil all his promises and lives as though they do trust God, i.e., repentance.

These really rotten people are in fact every single human person. As Romans 3:10-18 says:

  “There is no one righteous, not even one;
    there is no one who understands;
    there is no one who seeks God.
  All have turned away,
    they have together become worthless;
  there is no one who does good,
    not even one.”
  “Their throats are open graves;
    their tongues practice deceit.”
  “The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
    “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
  “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
    ruin and misery mark their ways,
  and the way of peace they do not know.”
    “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

Every single person in heaven/on the new earth after resurrection is an evil, sinful, rotten human being who deserves God's wrath and destruction.

Many, probably most, Protestants recognise that several Bible passages seem to indicate that there will be different levels of reward in the afterlife. So although we can never merit acceptance by God, the good that we do will be recognised. This page by J. Warner Wallace seems like a good summary of these passages.

To paraphrase the KJV of John 14:2-3, Jesus is preparing mansions for all his people, and no one deserves a mansion, but some people's mansions will be bigger than other people's mansions. But freed from the sin of envy, when we meet someone on the new earth with a bigger mansion than our own all we will do is praise God that he was working in someone's life to a greater degree than our own!


Do Protestants accept the similarity between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant?

If you look hard enough you can always find similarities. The correspondences between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant remind me a lot of Islamic arguments that Muhammad was the prophet Moses prophesied about in Deuteronomy 18:18-22 rather than Jesus.

According to Muslim apologists, there are many similarities between Moses and Muhammad, many of which do not apply to Jesus (source: whyislam.org):

both were prophets
both had normal human parents
both had wives and children
both had normal deaths
both had spiritual and legal missions, and both served as both a prophet and governor
both were generally accepted as leaders by their people, unlike Jesus
both waged war

But according to Christian apologists, most of these miss the point. While they may be true, the important characteristics of Moses were not that he had a wife and children. Instead the similarities we should be looking for are things like this (source: answering-islam.org):

Moses performed miraculous signs
Moses spoke directly with God
Moses was assured of his calling by God directly, rather than by his wife
Moses's revelations did not need to be abrogated by himself
And unlike Muhammad, Moses never thought he was demon possessed, never became delirious, and never spoke words of Satan (and the link above contains other disturbing claims)

For most Protestants the points of similarity given in the question between the Ark and Mary would look like you're grasping at straws. The similarities are real, but unimportant. The important things about the Ark of the Covenant are the following:

On the day of Atonement the High Priest would take the blood of the bull and goat (which were sacrificed as sin offerings), and sprinkle it over the Ark, making atonement for the nation. This soteriological role points only to Jesus. Some Catholics call Mary Co-Redemptrix, but that is not even official Catholic Dogma!
The cloud of God's presence was positioned above the Ark, demonstrating that God dwelled within his people. But they were cut off from him, behind a curtain only one man could pass through once a year, outside a temple restricted to the priests, behind a system of expensive and bloody sacrifices.
Mary bore Jesus the Son of God, who came to dwell among his people (John 1:14). God's presence at the Ark is a tiny shadow of his presence in the person of his Son, but as such the Ark is pointing to Jesus, not Mary. I don't think the Ark could really be considered to have ever carried God, rather it was the location where God descended to be with his people. If anything, the way in which Mary led to God dwelling with his people is far beyond what the Ark did, and comparing her with the Ark is a negative comparison.
God was holy and so the Ark was holy. But almost all protestants reject the idea of Mary's immaculate conception believing instead that she is a sinner like the rest of us. There is no comparison between the Ark's holiness and hers. Mary's righteousness is imputed to her through her faith in the gospel, not because she carried the embryonic Jesus.


Was casting out of demons done in the Old Testament by any Prophets or was it started in the New Testament?

There are no explicit references to exorcism in the OT. However, in a possible foreshadowing of Christ, David caused an evil spirit to depart from Saul multiple times by playing the harp (1 Sam 16, 18, 19). Some view the NT exorcism accounts as evidence of an increased attempt by Satan to thwart God's plan to redeem the world through Jesus.


Did adherents of apocatastasis in the early church believe that the devil and his demons would be restored?

Origen does seem to have included demons in his concept of apocatastasis, but this specific teaching as well as the doctrine of apocatastasis in general - the teaching that everyone will be saved in the end - was roundly condemned by the local Council of Constantinople in 453.  The acts of this Council were later accepted by the whole Church at the 5th Ecumenical Council in 553, which explicitly excommunicated anyone following his teachings.  Canon XV of this Council reads:

  If anyone shall say that the life of the spirits (νοῶν) shall be like
  to the life which was in the beginning while as yet the spirits had
  not come down or fallen, so that the end and the beginning shall be
  alike, and that the end shall be the true measure of the beginning:
  let him be anathema.1

All told, there are 24 anathemas against the teachings of Origen that came out of this particular council.

The teaching is summarized in Michael Pomazanski's Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (3rd. ed):

  The teaching of a restoration (apokatastasis) of creation at the
  Second Coming of Christ is found in Acts 3: 19– 21: Repent ye,
  therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when
  the times of refreshing shall come fom the presence of the Lord; and
  He shall send Jesus Christ, Who was before preached unto you: Whom the
  heaven must receive until the times of restitution (apokatastaseos)
  of all things*.... Here apokatastasis is to be understood as the
  change, renewal and transfiguration of man and the cosmos at the time
  of the General Resurrection, as outlined in the present chapter. It is
  not to be understood as “universal salvation,” that is, the heretical
  Origenist notion that all human beings and even all the demons will
  ultimately enter into everlasting blessedness. The Orthodox
  understanding of apokatastasis is presented in the Ambigua of St.
  Maximus the Confessor, which contain both a refutation and a
  correction of Origenism. (See St. Maximus the Confessor, On the
  Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ, p. 56.)2

A primary text of Origen's in this regard seems to come from Book III of his First Principles, wherein it is written:

  Into this condition, then, we are to suppose that all this bodily
  substance of ours will be  brought, when all things shall be
  re-established in a state of unity, and when God shall be all in all.
  And this result must be understood as being brought about, not
  suddenly, but slowly and gradually, seeing that the process of
  amendment and correction will take place imperceptibly in the
  individual instances during the lapse of countless and unmeasured
  ages, some outstripping others, and tending by a swifter course
  towards perfection, while others again follow close at hand, and some
  again a long way behind; and thus, through the numerous and uncounted
  orders of progressive beings who are being reconciled to God from a
  state of enmity3

Some of the writings of Gregory of Nyssa also supported Origen's concept of apocatastasis, which he himself appeared to have accepted from Origen.  These writings were subsequently rejected, however, by numerous Church Fathers, including Barsanufius the Great, Herman of Constantinople, Mark of Ephesus, Maximus the Confessor, and Photius the Great.

Origen was the pupil of Clement of Alexandria.  Clement was charged later with heresy by Photius the Great for some of his Christological teachings, but I could not find any evidence that he influenced Origen's doctrine of apocatastasis (Clement of Alexandria is not acknowledged as a Church Father by the Eastern Orthodox Church.  He is not to be confused with Clement of Rome or Cyril of Alexandria, both of whom are acknowledged in the east to be important Church Fathers.)

I could not locate anything that would substantiate the claim that Gregory of Nazianzus (also known as Gregory the Theologian in the east) ever supported anything like what you suggest.

1  Canons against Origen of the Fifth Ecumenical Council
2  p.349n
3  First Principles, III.VI.6


The only Catholic not permitted to be autopsied is the pope, due to Vatican protocol.

At any time, a family may object to an autopsy of one of their family members, but this could be due to some a personally family reasons (perhaps a cultural one).

The Catholic Church teaches that both organ transplants and autopsies are morally acceptable in our times.

For organ transplants the Catechism of the Catholic Church has the following to say:

  Organ transplants are in conformity with the moral law if the physical and psychological dangers and risks to the donor are proportionate to the good sought for the recipient. Organ donation after death is a noble and meritorious act and is to be encouraged as a expression of generous solidarity. It is not morally acceptable if the donor or his proxy has not given explicit consent. Moreover, it is not morally admissible to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons. - Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2296.

For autopsies the Catechism of the Catholic Church has the following to say:

  Autopsies can be morally permitted for legal inquests or scientific research. The free gift of organs after death is legitimate and can be meritorious. The Church permits cremation, provided that it does not demonstrate a denial of faith in the resurrection of the body. - Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2301.

Although popes may be embalmed after death, Vatican tradition does not permit the body of a pope to be autopsied. No pope has ever given this decision making ability to any Cardinal or to the College of Cardinals as a whole.

  The current regulations regarding a papal interregnum were promulgated by John Paul II in his 1996 document Universi Dominici Gregis. During the vacancy caused by a pope's death the College of Cardinals is collectively responsible for the government of the Catholic Church and of the Vatican itself, under the direction of the Cardinal Chamberlain. Canon law specifically forbids the cardinals from introducing any innovation in the government of the Church during the vacancy of the Holy See.

  A dead pope's body then lies in state for a number of days before being interred in the crypt of a leading church or cathedral. The popes of the twentieth century were all interred in St. Peter's Basilica. A nine-day period of mourning (novem dialis) follows after the interment of the late pope. Vatican tradition holds that no autopsy is to be performed on the body of a dead pope. - Papacy

This tradition, however, would probably be waived if there were actual suspicion of serious foul play or something like that.


Power, Authority and Sovereignty in the Character of God

In order to be Sovereign, God would have to be All-Powerful, or Omnipotent.  That means God can do anything that pleases Him, but His actions will always be in accord with the rest of His character (Revelation 19:6; Jeremiah 32:17, 27).  The word omnipotent comes from omni- meaning “all” and potent meaning “power.”  To say God is All-Powerful is to say God is Omnipotent.

In order to be Sovereign, God would have to be the Supreme Authority, meaning that all of His creation put together cannot thwart His purposes (Psalm 93:1; 95:3; Jeremiah 23:20).

  God is, by nature, sovereign. He is judged by no one and has absolute authority over the entire universe and everything in it. His sovereignty is expressed in many ways, including His omnipotence. All of His ways are right (Psalm 145:17), and whether mankind believes God’s ways to be “fair” is irrelevant. The Lord God is not constrained by time or place. He has a plan, He has had it from eternity past, and His purpose will be accomplished (Daniel 4:37; Psalm 115:3).  The Almighty’s sovereignty speaks to His right to do whatever He wishes, and His omnipotence speaks to His ability to do so.

All three attributes work together in perfect harmony.  God’s Power and God’s Authority are what make God Omnipotent and Sovereign.

However, the most important element of God’s nature is His holiness. Holy means “set apart” and God is clearly separate from His creation based on His nature and attributes. Holiness is the foundation of all other aspects of God’s character.  More here: https://www.gotquestions.org/nature-of-God.html


How do I clean, iron and fold purificators?

Here is a traditional Catholic way of looking after altar linens.

  Purificator

  The size of purificators are generally 12″ x 12″ with an embroidered center cross. Purificators are folded in thirds and placed over the chalice and under the paten. These small linens are the most frequently laundered of all the linens in liturgical use. Purificators are used to clean out the chalice and paten after communion. Purificators are washed preferably by hand in the Sacristry following the service.

Here are some instruction for washing altar linens by Sr. Mary of the Visitation. I am putting down those pertaining to purificators only.

  WHAT YOU WILL NEED

  Your own washer and dryer.

  An ironing board and iron. It’s easier to work with a full sized ironing board, but a smaller, table top ironing board is sufficient. You don’t need any special features with your iron. The iron only needs to heat to a linen setting, usually the hottest setting.

  A container large enough to hold all of the purificators and corporals to presoak these items. I use two small, square dish washing tubs, placing one in each side of my kitchen sink.

  A drying rack for air drying the linens after they’ve been ironed. The drying rack should be able to hold up to thirty folded purificators, each about four inches wide.

  SEPARATE AND PRESOAK PURIFICATORS AND CORPORALS

  My preference is to first, separate the hand towels, dish cloths and dish towels from the purificators and corporals. The hand towels, dish cloth and towels can be set aside until you’ve finished the next two steps.

  The linens need to be presoaked to allow all crumbs and remnants of the Precious Body and Blood of Christ to dissolve into the water. During the presoak and removal of the linens from the presoak water, you need to be very careful not to spill or splash this water around, because it contains the Precious Body and Blood of Christ. Because this is the True Presence of Christ this water must be handled carefully and disposed of properly. DO NOT allow this water to spill, splash around or run down any household drain!

  Place the purificators and corporals together in your container to
  presoak. Fill the container with water, hot, warm or cold,
  whichever you prefer. Allow the linens to soak for at least ten
  minutes. The purple stains will disappear if the linens are allowed
  to soak for 90 minutes or more. If you aren’t able to allow them to
  soak for this long, you can remove the purple stains at a later step.
  After the presoak, remove and wring as much water as possible
  out of each linen, being very careful to let the water fall back into
  the container, not run down a drain. Place the linens into another
  container. At this point, I place them into one side of my kitchen
  sink.

  After all of the linens have been removed from the water, this water must be taken and poured out onto the ground outside. Regardless of rain, snow, ice or other weather, this water must be poured out onto the ground outside.

  LAUNDERING THE LINENS AND TOWELS

  Once you have completed the presoak and put soap onto any stains, the purificators and corporals can be combined with the hand towels, dish cloths and dish towels. All of the laundry can then be washed in your washing machine, just as you would do your own laundry, using hot, warm or cold water.

  At the end of the wash cycle, the hand towels, dish cloths and towels may all be placed into the dryer. The purificators and corporals are taken directly from the washer to be ironed while still wet. After drying, the hand towels, dish cloths and towels are folded in any way that you like to fold such items. They can be placed back into the same bag sor container you used to bring them home.

  Ironing Purificators

  Place the purificator flat onto the ironing board, face down. Iron out all of the wrinkles and creases. The moisture from washing will provide steam and make this step easier than if the purificator were dry. If your washer spins out most of the water, you may want to add water to the purificators before ironing. More moisture makes ironing more effective. The purificators may also lose moisture as they wait to be ironed. They will iron more easily if you rewet them. Once the purificator is ironed flat, fold opposite edges inward lengthwise, folding the linen into equal thirds. Try to fold so that each
  edge lines up with the fold that you are making, as shown in the pictures on the next page. Iron these folds into crisp creases. Then fold the corporal in half, neatly aligning the ends. Iron this crease firmly into place. Set the purificator aside, stacking them as you go, or place the purificator directly onto your drying rack to dry overnight, or for at least an hour or so to be sure they are completely dry.

  Folding purificators

  First, folding lengthwise into even thirds. Then folding in half. When done, all of the hems should be hidden inside the folds.

For more detailed information on a very traditional Catholic way of washing linens for the liturgical service, you can find some help here: INSTRUCTIONS FOR LAUNDERING ALTAR LINENS.


Actually, we don't know that his name was changed at all. He may have had both names to start with as per the custom of his day as both a Jew by blood and a Roman citizen. After his conversion and change of direction he seems to have decided his other name was a better moniker.

  Many mistakenly assume the Lord changed Saul's name to Paul sometime after Saul converted from Judaism to Christianity, which happened during his encounter with Christ on the Road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-19). Unlike the instance of Jesus changing Simon's name to Kepha (Gk. Petros) as a way of signifying the special role he would play in the Church (Mt 16:18, Jn 1:41-42), in Paul's case there was no name change.

  Saul of Tarsus was born a Jew, "circumcised on the eight day, of the race of Israel, or the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrew parentage, in observance of the law a Pharisee" (Phil 3:5). The Hebrew name given him by his parents was Saul, but, because his father was a Roman citizen (and therefore Saul inherited Roman citizenship), Saul also had the Latin name Paul (Acts 16:37, 22:25-28), the custom of dual names being common in those days. Since he grew up in a strict Pharisee environment, the name Saul was by far the more appropriate name to go by. But after his conversion Saul determined to bring the gospel to the Gentiles, so he dusted off his Roman name and became known as Paul, a name Gentiles were accustomed to.

(source: catholic.com)

The suggestion that the confusion is born out of having had multiple names from birth is born out by other sources such as Protestant writer F.F. Bruce, although his conclusion is that both names would have continued in use and it is only the preference of the NT writers in which we see a change.

  He was born into an orthodox Jewish family, and as his father was a Roman citizen, he inherited this distinction, a rare one among eastern Jews. In Jewish circles he bore the name of Saul, but in the Gentile world he was commonly known by his Roman cognomen Paullus, Anglicized as Paul [...]

  Saul’s father was a Roman citizen… [so] Saul was born a Roman citizen… As a Roman citizen, he had a Roman name, consisting of three parts: praenomen, nomen gentile and cognomen.2 What his praenomen (first or personal name) and nomen gentile (family name) were we can only guess; his cognomen, however, was Paullus, by which (in its English form Paul) we usually call him.

  In family circles, however, he was known by his Jewish name Saul.

  2. The threefold Roman name may be illustrated from the full names of such famous Romans as Gaius Julius caesar, Marcus Tullius Cicero, Lucius Cornelius Scipio.

(source: F. F. Bruce, The Spreading Flame)

In any event, we do not have a Scriptural source for the why and how of the name change. The most direct hint we have is the one you mention in Acts that simply notes he was "also known as". This is combined with the references to him by both names and and our own deductions from the correlation in how he was generally referred to before and after his life changing encounter with the Christ he had been persecuting.


What is the source of Paul's issues with Sophistry?

The translation you quoted came from Weymouth New Testament, the only one using the word "sophistry" to translate the phrase "τίς ὑμᾶς ἐβάσκανεν ⧼τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πείθεσθαι⧽" (who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth) in Gal 3:1.  It is insufficient evidence to say that Paul or NT believers had issue with sophistry, with the Sophists or with the philosophy that Sophists used.
I agree with your modern definition of sophistry and with the characterization of the sophists of ancient Rome. More fundamentally, the Sophists did not believe that there are objective moral truths, akin to today's moral relativists.  But even worse, Sophists claim that justice is "nothing but the interest of the stronger" (see the article Is Justice a Matter of Truth or Power), again an idea that is distressingly still with us today.  No wonder then, that this idea justified them to defend either side (the "guilty" as well as the "not-guilty") in the courtroom with powerful rhetoric unconstrainted by truth (i.e. with sophistry).
I don't think believers in Paul's era battled them; we only see Epicurean and Stoic philosophers in the NT.  The most powerful philosophy battled by the early church fathers was Neo-Platonism, prompting early apologist Tertullian to exclaim his famous quote "What Has Jerusalem to do with Athens" although he didn't mind using philosophical terminologies to defend Christianity.