In Christianity is food recommended to be consumed using left hand?

There are no rules in Christianity about which hand you eat with. As NigelJ writes, Christianity does not consider how you eat to be important (see Matthew 15). Such rules as there were under Judaism were abolished in Christianity (and those Jewish rules did not prohibit eating with any hand).

So, given this, allow me to explain the story you read.

While there are no rules about which hand to eat with in Christianity, there is a prohibition on eating with the left hand in Islam, and I believe in Hinduism, which are the majority religions in India. So if the character had been Hindu or Muslim he would not have eaten with his left hand. Since he did, the detective deduced he is not Hindu or Muslim, in which case it's a fair bet that he is Christian, which is the third place religion. (Statistically speaking there are other alternatives, but that doesn't make for a good detective story).

So the deduction wasn't about rules in Christianity, but about Hindu and Islamic rules.


How many Catholics believe in Transubstantiation?

Pew research does some awesome polls on questions like this.

  About half of those polled (52%) say, incorrectly, that Catholicism
  teaches that the bread and wine used for Communion are symbols of the
  body and blood of Jesus. Just four-in-ten people correctly answer
  that, according to the Catholic Church, the bread and wine actually
  become the body and blood of Jesus. Even many Catholics are unaware of
  their church’s teaching on this topic; while 55% of Catholics get the
  question right, more than four-in-ten Catholics (41%) say the church
  teaches that the bread and wine are symbols of Christ’s body and
  blood, and 3% say they do not know what the church’s teaching is.
  Still, Catholics perform better on this question than does any other
  religious group.

-Pew Research Who Knows What About Religion

Also this site made a nice graphic.

In conclusion I think it's safe to say that about 40-50% of Catholics believe in the real presence.  I hope that helps!


What is the Biblical basis for Catholic blessings?

The first Bible reference that comes to mind is Jacob's blessing of Isaac (Gen. 27:28).  Countless times in the Gospels Christ blesses something, the most notable that comes to mind is the bread and wine at the Last Supper: "And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body (Matt 26:26)." When Christ cured the sick He blessed them, etc.

At it's most basic elements a blessing is just the minister of the Church invoking a Divine Benediction upon a person or thing.  The power to Bless comes from the Holy Spirit which a priest receives in his ordination (as well as the jurisdiction to give the blessings which the priests of the Church can give) but there are blessings that non-priests can give.  As a parent, I can (and do!) bless my children in the evening before they go to bed (something the parents can do as the spiritual heads of their household through the power and gifts of the Holy Spirit, as alluded to in the above citation of the patriarchs of the old testament blessing their offspring).


I do not think there is a clear-cut answer to this question, primarily because the list of Fathers adhered to by the Church (particularly Roman Catholic and Orthodox) would not be exactly the same as that adopted by the secular academy.  From the ecclesiastical standpoint, no one should be accepted as a Father who taught what came to be regarded as heresy, though this is not consistent (as for example "Saint" Justin Martyr accepted a subordinationist Christology).  Thus, men like Tertullian (a schismatic) and Origen would be excluded.  Usually a Father would also be regarded as a saint. (I know of no exceptions.)

But the Academy is more inclusive.  Those whose teachings tended toward orthodoxy, in spite of some heresies, are regarded as Fathers (including Tertullian and Origen).  The Fathers are generally divided chronologically into two classes - those who lived prior to the Council of Nicea (the pre-Nicenes) and those who lived later (the post-Nicenes).  The last of the Fathers is considered to be John of Damascus (8th century).


What personal possessions did Pope John Paul II have at the time of death?

In his last will and testament he wrote:

  I leave no possessions of which it will be necessary to dispose

However, he seems to have an "estate" in poland, which has been given for use as low income housing:

  Osiedle administracyjne IV im. Jana Pawła II w Ostrowie Wielkopolskim – osiedle administracyjne położone we wschodniej części miasta. Liczy ok. 18 tys. mieszkańców. Obejmuje południową część Krępy oraz północne rubieże dawnego folwarku Stare Kamienice.

through which I roughly translated w/ Google

  The administrative settlement of Pope John Paul II in Ostrow Wielkopolski - Administrative estate located in the eastern part of the city. There are about 18,000 residents. It covers the southern part and the northern reaches of former old tenement farm.

Hopefully, I'm not spreading misinformation with a hasty Google search/translation.  But it appears as if Pope John Paul II's estate was bequeathed to the needy prior to his passing into greater glory.

Feel free to go roll around in the mud on his farm and make of yourself a 3rd degree relic.


According to the Catholic Church, what is the best form of civil government?

The Church does not support any particular form of civil government as being best.

The Church is impartial on this subject as long as the rights of the Church, the faithful and the natural law are preserved.

Pope Leo XIII teaches the following:

  Lastly, there remain those who, while they do not approve the separation of Church and State, think nevertheless that the Church ought to adapt herself to the times and conform to what is required by the modern system of government. Such an opinion is sound, if it is to be understood of some equitable adjustment consistent with truth and justice; in so far, namely, that the Church, in the hope of some great good, may show herself indulgent, and may conform to the times in so far as her sacred office permits. But it is not so in regard to practices and doctrines which a perversion of morals and a warped judgment have unlawfully introduced. Religion, truth, and justice must ever be maintained; and, as God has intrusted these great and sacred matters to her office as to dissemble in regard to what is false or unjust, or to connive at what is hurtful to religion.
  From what has been said it follows that it is quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, or writing, or of worship, as if these were so many rights given by nature to man. For, if nature had really granted them, it would be lawful to refuse obedience to God, and there would be no restraint on human liberty. It likewise follows that freedom in these things may be tolerated wherever there is just cause, but only with such moderation as will prevent its degenerating into license and excess. And, where such liberties are in use, men should employ them in doing good, and should estimate them as the Church does; for liberty is to be regarded as legitimate in so far only as it affords greater facility for doing good, but no farther.
  Whenever there exists, or there is reason to fear, an unjust oppression of the people on the one hand, or a deprivation of the liberty of the Church on the other, it is lawful to seek for such a change of government as will bring about due liberty of action. In such case, an excessive and vicious liberty is not sought, but only some relief, for the common welfare, in order that, while license for evil is allowed by the State, the power of doing good may not be hindered.
  Again, it is not of itself wrong to prefer a democratic form of government, if only the Catholic doctrine be maintained as to the origin and exercise of power. Of the various forms of government, the Church does not reject any that are fitted to procure the welfare of the subject; she wishes only - and this nature itself requires - that they should be constituted without involving wrong to any one, and especially without violating the rights of the Church.
  Unless it be otherwise determined, by reason of some exceptional condition of things, it is expedient to take part in the administration of public affairs. And the Church approves of every one devoting his services to the common good, and doing all that he can for the defense, preservation, and prosperity of his country. - Libertas

The same Sovereign Pontiff states:

  The right to rule is not necessarily, however, bound up with any special mode of government. It may take this or that form, provided only that it be of a nature of the government, rulers must ever bear in mind that God is the paramount ruler of the world, and must set Him before themselves as their exemplar and law in the administration of the State. For, in things visible God has fashioned secondary causes, in which His divine action can in some wise be discerned, leading up to the end to which the course of the world is ever tending. In like manner, in civil society, God has always willed that there should be a ruling authority, and that they who are invested with it should reflect the divine power and providence in some measure over the human race.
  They, therefore, who rule should rule with evenhanded justice, not as masters, but rather as fathers, for the rule of God over man is most just, and is tempered always with a father's kindness. Government should, moreover, be administered for the well-being of the citizens, because they who govern others possess authority solely for the welfare of the State. Furthermore, the civil power must not be subservient to the advantage of any one individual or of some few persons, inasmuch as it was established for the common good of all. But, if those who are in authority rule unjustly, if they govern overbearingly or arrogantly, and if their measures prove hurtful to the people, they must remember that the Almighty will one day bring them to account, the more strictly in proportion to the sacredness of their office and preeminence of their dignity. "The mighty shall be mightily tormented."(2) Then, truly, will the majesty of the law meet with the dutiful and willing homage of the people, when they are convinced that their rulers hold authority from God, and feel that it is a matter of justice and duty to obey them, and to show them reverence and fealty, united to a love not unlike that which children show their parents. "Let every soul be subject to higher powers."(3) To despise legitimate authority, in whomsoever vested, is unlawful, as a rebellion against the divine will, and whoever resists that, rushes willfully to destruction. "He that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation."(4) To cast aside obedience, and by popular violence to incite to revolt, is therefore treason, not against man only, but against God. - Immortale Dei


Can a Roman Catholic be re-catechized and re-confirmed?

The Catholic canon law  889 §1 says that those eligible to be confirmed are: "Every baptized person not yet confirmed and only such a person is capable of receiving confirmation" (My emphasis).


Holy Spirit Presence, Metaphor, Gender; how does gender apply to the Holy Spirit?

So there are some complicated questions there. Let me try to answer them one at a time according what most Christians believe.

Is the Holy Spirit real?

Yes. The Holy Spirit is one of the three "persons" of God the Trinity - loosely speaking one part of God ( the others are God the Father and God the Son, who is Jesus). He is as real as God.

Is the Holy Spirit a Man?

No. Being 'part' of God, the Holy Spirit is not human.

Is the Holy Spirit a person?

As we said above, the Holy Spirit is not a human. However Christians call the three "parts" of God "persons", at least in part because they are living and intelligent. You might think of him as "more than a person". (They are also not strictly "parts" - it's complicated).

Is the Holy Spirit male?

In general Christians believe God has no gender. However the Holy Spirit is often referred to as "he", because in English the only neutral gender pronoun "it" is considered insulting. A few Christians believe that God and/or the Holy Spirit have male or female genders.

Is the Holy Spirit a spirit?

Absolutely yes. That's why he is called that. He has no body, he is entirely spirit. He is also called the "Holy Ghost", where "ghost" is just an old word meaning "spirit ". The word didn't originally carry the the associations we have today of hauntings,  torment, etc.

The Holy Spirit is also likened to many things - wind, fire, water, a dove. These are usually taken as forms the spirit takes, or as metaphors. "Poured out like wine" probably falls into that category.

It should be said that a small number of Christians believe the Holy Spirit to be a name for the "force" or "presence" of God and not an entity in his own right.


Did Martin Luther really nail his 95 Theses to the church door?

Martin Luther, we know from his own writings, was clearly neither a fanatic nor a protester. His sensible and restrained attitude to the Iconoclasts (see other question and answer) demonstrates this.

'Nailed' is somewhat evocative and very likely an exaggeration as is the 'door' of the building. What appears to be the case (see Wikipedia entry below) is that the porchway to the Castle Church was used to post notices of forthcoming events, just as is the porchway of Malvern Abbey, just down the road from me,  today.

The Ferdinand Pauwels painting (below) is not exactly dramatic and may well represent the reality of what occurred.

Luther either pinned his letter to the Archbishop there, or (more probably) pinned a copy of his letter to the usual place for notices of interest, after having sent the original to its addressee.

This is the version of events favoured by the current Wikipedia account of the event.

  Luther sent the Theses enclosed with a letter to Albert of Brandenburg, the Archbishop of Mainz, on 31 October 1517, a date now considered the start of the Reformation and commemorated annually as Reformation Day. Luther may have also posted the Theses on the door of All Saints' Church and other churches in Wittenberg in accordance with University custom on 31 October or in mid-November.

  The main portal was often used by the university staff to pin up messages and notices; it is generally believed that on 31 October 1517, the eve of All Saints' Day, Martin Luther posted his Ninety-five Theses on the doors of All Saints' Church. This act, meant to promote a disputation on the sale of indulgences, is commonly viewed to be a catalyst for the Protestant Reformation. Whether the event actually took place or not, however, cannot be conclusively established. Nevertheless, Luther sent his objections in a letter to Archbishop Albert of Mainz on the same day.

Wikipedia - 'All Saints' Church, Wittenberg'

In the heading of the letter, Luther makes it clear that his 95 theses (see below) will be 'defended' at his ordinary lectures at Wittenberg. It is therefore the notification of an event yet to take place, and therefore quite a justifiable document to pin up outside the Castle Church building, according to common practice.

The Heading of the 95 Theses :

  Out of love for the truth and from desire to elucidate it, the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and Sacred Theology, and ordinary lecturer therein at Wittenberg, intends to defend the following statements and to dispute on them in that place. Therefore he asks that those who cannot be present and dispute with him orally shall do so in their absence by letter. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, Amen.

Luther, himself, claims to have behaved quite properly and in an orderly fashion, according to established procedures within Wittenberg.

  Luther always claimed that he brought his objections through proper channels rather than inciting a public controversy

Wikipedia 'Ninety-five Theses'

  The Full Text of the 95 Theses - is available to read here.


Was Cain a descendant of the serpent, through Eve?

I don't have enough information to speak about the Southern Baptist Convention, where each congregation is a separate entity, and some could accept what the OP cites as the "serpent seed" doctrine, nor can I address the issues of the Assemblies of God.

I do have some familiarity with the beliefs of the Methodist and Presbyterian Churches, and am a practicing Episcopalian, and I can say that these groups most emphatically reject this doctrine. Particularly as it directly contradicts Genesis 4:1, which specifically states

  "Adam knew Eve and she conceived and bore Cain."

And given this verse, the serpent seed doctrine is going to be rejected by the Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholic churches, too.


What did the Trent lack with regard to Immaculate Conception that Ineffabilis Deus did not?

Pope Pius IX wrote in Ineffabilis Deus explicitly:

  Besides, we must note a fact of the greatest importance indeed. Even the Council of Trent itself, when it promulgated the dogmatic decree concerning original sin, following the testimonies of the Sacred Scriptures, of the Holy Fathers and of the renowned Council, decreed and defined that all men are born infected by original sin; nevertheless, it solemnly declared that it had no intention of including the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, in this decree and in the general extension of its definition. Indeed, considering the times and circumstances, the Fathers of Trent sufficiently intimated by this declaration that the Blessed Virgin Mary was free from the original stain; and thus they clearly signified that nothing could be reasonably cited from the Sacred Scriptures, from Tradition, or from the authority of the Fathers, which would in any way be opposed to so great a prerogative of the Blessed Virgin.[12]

  [...]

  Sess. V, Can. 6; Denz. n. 792. Declarat tamen haec ipsa sancta Synodus, non esse suae intentionis, comprehendere in hoc decreto, ubi de peccato originali agitur, beatam et immaculatam Virginem Mariam Dei genitricem, sed observandas esse constitutiones felicis recordationis Sixti Papae IV, sub poenis in eis constitutionibus contentis, quas innovat.

So he explicitly mentions the first quote in the question (the latin text in the footnote is the last paragraoh of your quote), but that did not make him think he should not write the encyclica.

When you look closely at Trent's Decree you see that they only say that they make no definitions on Virgin Mary. They know the title Immaculata and agree with it, but they do not make an exact definition about this. Historically speaking the Council of Trent wanted to condemn the teachings of the protestants, but did not want to restart (and then end) the discussion about the Immaculate Conception of the Middle Ages.

The Council never said "If any one denies the Immaculate Conception let him be anathema." and also never explained what the concept of Immaculate Conception means in detail. Both did Pope Pius IX. His encyclica displays the Council as if it would have said everything before, because a dogma is a teaching that was ever-believed by the church and he wants to prove this. But he knew that there was some work to do left, so he did it.

Making something to an dogma means (ideally) that a faith the church had through all times is exactly defined. This can for example be needed because of an attack on this faith from inside or outside the church. Pope Pius IX has done exactly this with Ineffabilis Deus.


Is the validity of the ransom contingent on Jesus being God?

Irenaeus of Lyons is generally credited with being the first to fully present Recapitulation Theory. He explains that Jesus saves humanity be undoing the error of Adam by succeeding where Adam failed. A significant portion of this is to reveal the Father to all (and so includes Moral Influence as part of Recapitulation). The other aspect is the Recreation of Man.

Revelation of the Father

In the preface of Book V of his Against Heresies, Irenaeus summarizes his theory of atonement:

  For it is thus that thou wilt both controvert them in a legitimate manner, and wilt be prepared to receive the proofs brought forward against them [the heretics], casting away their doctrines as filth by means of the celestial faith; but following the only true and stedfast Teacher, the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself. [Emphasis mine]

So, according to Irenaeus, Jesus's goal is to make us 'what He is Himself' by being 'becom[ing] what we are' to be our 'true and stedfast Teacher'.

Now, one could argue that a perfect (non-divine) man could do this, but Irenaeus disagrees. He opens Chapter 1 of Book V with

  For in no other way could we have learned the things of God, unless our Master, existing as the Word, had become man. For no other being had the power of revealing to us the things of the Father, except His own proper Word. For what other person “knew the mind of the Lord,” or who else “has become His counsellor?”

Now this is a reference to Paul's letter to the Romans (which in turn refer to Isaiah, Jeremiah and Job):

  Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!

For who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has become His counselor?

Or who has first given to Him
And it shall be repaid to him?

  Romans 11:33-35 NKJV

Irenaeus is asserting, based on Paul, that only God knows God's mind. He concludes that only the Divine Word of God could reveal the Father to the world. This logic parallels what Christ explained to Philip:

  [Jesus said] "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him." Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves."  [John 14:7-11 NKJV]

Christ reveals the Father because the Father is in Him and He is in the Father. Of course, it is could be argued that this does not need to mean that Jesus is divine, but Trinitarians certainly interpret it that way. And it is certainly Irenaeus's understanding that Jesus could only accomplish this if He were God.

Revelation as Mediation

You mention

  For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time [1 Timothy 2:5-6 NKJV]

as an example that 'ransom doesn't necessarily need to be by God, but it does need to be by a corresponding perfect man'. I don't think that this is the correct understanding of that passage. Of course, Chalcedonian Trinitarians have no problem with this statement since they affirm that Christ is fully God and fully man, but I would like to place this passage in the context of 1st Century Hellenized Judaism.

Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenized Jew and contemproray of Christ, provides some insight. Much of theology involves the idea of the Logos, the Word of God. Early Christians may not of drawn directly on Philo, but (especially in regards to Johnian Christology) they like were influenced by the same sources. Philo describes the Word as 'High Priest', 'Mediator', 'Advocate', and 'expiator of sins'. (I need to find a good online source for Philo so I can link to quotes.) 1st Century Hellenized Judaism was not foreign to the idea that Word of God, though God, operated, at least figuratively, independantly of God (the Father in Trinitarian parlance). God (the Father) is too transendent, too unknowable, to be directly revealed to man One of the principle activities of the Word (or sometimes Wisdom) is to be the Mediator between God and man, to reveal God to man. (Recall that Irenaeus asserts that this why Christ came.)

To a 1st Century Hellenized Jew, the phrase 'there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus' would be shocking because it identifies the Divine Logos, the Mediator between God and men as the man Jesus Christ. They were already familiar with the idea that an aspect (loosely speaking) of God was the Mediator that revealed the true Nature of God to man, and that job could only be done by God. The Epistle to Timothy takes that concept at attaches it to a man, thus requiring Jesus to be both man and God. To the Timothy, the verse would sound something like "There is one God and the Logos, who is also the man Jesus Christ, who gave Himself a ransom for all". The ransom must be God because only the Logos could be the Mediator.

The Recreation of Man

You also mention Romans 5:12-21 where Paul famously compares Jesus, the Second Adam, to Adam (the First Adam). Jesus is described as succeeding and bringing life where Adam failed and brought death. This is the heart of Recapitualation. Again, let's take a look at Philo. One of the titles of the Logos is 'the Heavenly Adam'. Recall that Paul calls the Son the Image of God and associates the Son with the 'method' of creation:

  He [, the Son,] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. [Colossians 1:15-16]

Philo made this same connection with the Logos (although, of course, Philo did not identify the Logos with Jesus). The Logos is the Image of God. In particular, this was the tied to the creation of man:

  Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. [Genesis 1:26 NKJV]

In his commentary on this verse, Philo identified the the Logos as the Image of God and the Heavenly Adam. The Earthly Adam was created in the image of the Logos. Paul seems to work along similar lines, but Irenaeus takes it further than Paul. At the end of Chapter 1 of Book V, he concludes

  [A]t the beginning of our formation in Adam, that breath of life which proceeded from God, having been united to what had been fashioned, animated the man, and manifested him as a being endowed with reason; so also, in the end, the Word of the Father and the Spirit of God, having become united with the ancient substance of Adam’s formation, rendered man living and perfect, receptive of the perfect Father, in order that as in the natural (Adam) we all were dead, so in the spiritual we may all be made alive. For never at any time did Adam escape the hands of God, to whom the Father speaking, said, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness." And for this reason in the last times (fine), not by the will of the flesh, nor by the will of man, but by the good pleasure of the Father, His hands formed a living man, in order that Adam might be created (again) after the image and likeness of God.

So Irenaeus assets that just as the earthly Adam was created in the image of God, the only way for man to be made spiritually alive was for the Logos to become united to the flesh of Adam.


How did Paul know that Satan hindered his movements?

As John MacArthur said in a recent radio broadcast, Satan and his minions are involved 24/7/365 in doing whatever is in their power to "kill, steal, and destroy" what God is doing in the world through His church and through the servants of His church.

Paul, being as he was on the cusp of doing great things for God by reaching out to the Gentiles with the redemptive message of the Gospel, was not immune from Satanic and demonic hindrances, and if Paul said "Satan hindered us," he was neither copping out nor engaging in the "blame game," but was rather stating a fact.

Satan and his demons and their ways are devious, evil, implacable, insidious, corrupt, immoral, crafty, wily, and much too powerful for even the most spiritual of believers to go "head to head" with them. Moreover, any attempt to "dabble" in the occult is perhaps almost as dangerous as attempting to engage occult forces in combat, which Paul was wise not to do.

The best we can do as believers is to put on the complete armor of God and simply stand against Satan in the power with which God supplies us (Ephesians 6:10 ff.). Prayer, too, can often be effective, particularly when combined with fasting (see Matthew 17:21 and Mark 9:29).

Perhaps God has gifted some of His servants with the gift and responsibility to cast out demons. Back to John MacArthur for a moment, he tells of a time when he came into the presence of a person who was demonized, and the demons communicated with John, telling him they knew who he was and that they wanted him to leave. From that one experience alone, John realized he was out-classed and out-gunned by the devil's demons, and he refused to engage them in battle. The wise man that he is, he, like Michael the archangel who disputed with the devil regarding the body of Moses, said simply, "The Lord rebuke you" and left the scene (see Jude, vv.9,10). We would be wise to do the same, unless God has called us to a ministry of what the Roman Catholic church calls exorcism. In the New Testament it is called simply "casting out demons" (see the list here).


This seems more to refer to the phenomena which Paul recounts when he says, 'I die daily'; in short, one may wake up in the morning with hope that he will walk according to the ways of God, but in the evening find that he hasn't. This is not bipolar; it is realistic and one of the reasons each person can say with certainty, 'I am the chief of all sinners'.

In his novel Till We Have Faces, Lewis has a good recounting of this phenomena - of waking up trying to do and be good, and finding it impossible by the end of the day.

One thing to consider is this: One's relationship with God is not a matter of feelings of peace or good intentions; it is to walk the path of Christ himself which is a path of suffering (consider the Beatitudes.) Thus why Paul says, "I die daily."

According to modern psychological practice and tradiiton, a spiritually healthy person may seem deranged simply because they are not trying to feel good; they are trying to be good. And that involves a lifelong path of, as far as any man may know for himself, feeling bad. There are plenty of NT quotes from even the Lord himself to support this. And this is precisely why, as far as I can tell, the actual peace surpasses understanding.


Does 1 Corinthians 9:27 contradict the doctrine of "The Perseverance of the Saints?"

Let's compare what Paul said in the Greek with a consideration of the doctrine of perseverance, in light of what several commentators taught on 1 Corinthians 9:27.

"Adokimos"

The word in 1Co 9:27 that is commonly translated as "disqualified" is "adokimos" (ἀδόκιμος) in the Greek (Strongs G96), and was normally used to refer to adulterated currencies, metals, soils, etc. Specifically, it was used to describe materials that, when tested for integrity, were found to be impure -- that is, "adokimos" described counterfeits.

Perseverance

The doctrine of perseverance, sometimes derisively termed "once saved, always saved," should not be taken to indicate that mere superficial participation in Christian activities -- going to church on Sunday, claiming that one "loves Jesus," etc. -- is an indicator of salvation. Passages such as Matthew 7:21-23 and Christ's words to the church of Laodicia in Revelation 3, among many others Biblical texts, indicate that not all who call themselves Christian will enter into heaven. Perseverance is granted to the members of the "invisible church" (the "wheat"), as a subset of the "visible church," which also includes the "chaff" (Mt 3:12). See John Darby's Synopsis on 1Co 9:27.

Conclusion

Several commentators have suggested that Paul was expressing concern not over his salvation, but rather over the particular reward ("crown") that he sought to obtain in heaven.1 F.B. Meyer saw the verse as indicating Paul's recognition of the fact that his ability to win souls to God was actually a result of Christ working through him, and that God could just as easily use another in Paul's place. (Cf. Lk 3:8). Gill understood "adokimos" to refer to disapproval from people, rather than rejection by God, if Paul were to live in a way that was discordant with the Gospel that he preached.

Of course, Wesley's commentary describes the verse as a direct indication that the elect may lose their salvation, which interpretation was in keeping with Wesley's Arminian theology. Adam Clarke, as a Methodist, echoed Wesley's understanding in his own commentary.

Calvin, the theologian most closely associated with the Doctrines of Grace (which includes perseverance), offers the following interpretation:

  "That, when I have preached to others..." Some explain these words in this way — “Lest, after having taught others with propriety and faithfulness, I should incur the judgment of condemnation in the sight of God by a wicked life.” But it will suit better to view this expression as referring to men, in this way — “My life ought to be a kind of rule to others. Accordingly, I strive to conduct myself in such a manner, that my character and conduct may not be inconsistent with my doctrine, and that thus I may not, with great disgrace to myself, and a grievous occasion of offense to my brethren, neglect those things which I require from others.” It may also be taken in connection with a preceding statement, (1Co 9:23) in this way — “Lest I should be defrauded of the gospel, of which others are partakers through means of my labors.”

Finally, we can remember that the passage from First Corinthians was written by the same Paul of Tarsus who wrote 1 Corinthians 1:8, Phillipians 1:6, and other passages that are widely interpreted as clearly communicating that: 1) Perseverance requires diligent effort on the part of the individual, and 2) Perseverance is a work that God, in his own strength, accomplishes in believers. That Christians' perseverance is accomplished by God is made especially clear at John 6:35-40:

  Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

See Scofield's Reference Notes on 1Co 9:27 and Albert Barnes' Notes. Barnes also calls on Edwards in support of the same interpretation.


It is not always the case with all Kingdom Halls. In fact there are many with windows. About as many as reasons for having no windows. A few common answers are found below:

For security reasons. Normally they do not have a parish residence nearby to keep a watch on their belongings. This is a bigger problem in larger cities.
Cost benefits. Windows are more expensive and time consuming to install. Plus they are not very well insulated raising heating and cooling costs.
Volunteer labor. Kingdom Halls are built by volunteer Jehovah's Witnesses within a 3 day time-span: Friday thru Sunday. As mentioned above, windows are time consuming to install, and with a 3 day limit....

So, many people would answer "To save money", which is kind of a reason behind all the answers.

Edit:
Thought I might as well just put in an image of a Kingdom Hall with windows (taken from this Wikipedia page):


According to Roman Catholicism, what is the soul and its purpose?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say with regard to the soul itself:

  In Sacred Scripture the term "soul" often refers to human life or the entire human person. But "soul" also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God's image: "soul" signifies the spiritual principle in man. [363, emphasis in original]

The Catechism emphasizes the unity of the spirit and the body, saying that man "is a being at once corporeal and spiritual" (362), and that "spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature" (365).  Perhaps most relevant to your question, the Catechism teaches that the human body "is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul".

Thus, it's not surprising that the instruction Dignitas Personae (2008) deals with the issue of the personhood of embryos the way it does. Quoting Donum vitae, it reads in part:

  Although the presence of the spiritual soul cannot be observed experimentally, the conclusions of science regarding the human embryo give “a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person?”. Indeed, the reality of the human being for the entire span of life, both before and after birth, does not allow us to posit either a change in nature or a gradation in moral value, since it possesses full anthropological and ethical status. The human embryo has, therefore, from the very beginning, the dignity proper to a person. [emphasis added]

N.B. Some have taken the church's teaching of creationism of the soul (see Catechism 366) and argued that we don't know when God creates the soul in each person.  That's likely the argument made by the abortionist you mention, but it's also the exact argument rebutted in Dignitas Personae.  Human embryos, according to Roman Catholicism, are always human persons, and thus have souls from their very beginning.


Do any denominations have a positon on the doctrinal value of Job's friends?

I've been taught (Reformed Presbyterian) that Job's first three friends did some things right (e.g., wait until Job spoke first), but mostly they did things wrong (applied generally good theology incorrectly to the situation at hand). Elihu was not commenting on the previous history and whether Job had sinned before all the catastrophe; Elihu was commenting on what was happening with all the talking that takes up most of the book. For, while Job did not sin initially, he did sin later: that is what Elihu condemned. Elihu also condemned the inability of the first three friends correctly to see what Job's problem was.


Is the term 'word of God' in the New Testament equal in authority to the designation 'scripture'?

Warning: Catholic Answer in which I reinterpret what you say about "Word of God" as "things asserted by the Holy Spirit", I think these are equivalent but you may not. This disclaimer might actually be the whole answer to the question, but read on if you dare.

One of awesome and useful documents from 2nd Vatican Council stated:

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind"
Dei Verbum Ch 3. Paragraph 11

I bolded the word asserted because that's a really, terribly important point.  It's not every participle that is the truth that men live on when bread is found to be insufficient.  It's the things that the Holy Spirit is trying to tell us through scripture that are the inspired parts.  Like, when people to Jesus or Job and told them that a man or his parents must have done something wrong to put him in the place he is.  That's not "asserted" by the Holy Spirit in any way.
Furthermore, the Holy Spirit also is the Interpreter of the Sacred Scripture

Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church". According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church").
CCC 113

It might be fair to call "the Word of God" as subset of Sacred Scripture because only the good stuff is what is "asserted". But it also might be fair to call Sacred Scripture a subset of the Word of God.  Because the good stuff contained in scripture is infinitely deep;  It's like Chesterton's porch with an unbelievably gigantic living room or Lewis's tiny gate that keeps on taking you further up and further in.


What is the purpose of the Penitential Rite in a Catholic Mass?

This part of the Mass comes after the Confiteor (I confess):
Traditionally,

Confíteor Deo omnipoténti, beátæ Maríæ semper Vírgini, beáto Michaéli Archángelo, beáto Ioánni Baptístæ, sanctis Apóstolis Petro et Páulo, ómnibus Sanctis, et vobis, fratres: quia peccávi nimis cogitatióne, verbo, et ópere: mea culpa, mea culpa, mea máxima culpa. Ideo precor beátam Maríam semper Virginem, beátum Michaélem Archángelum, beátum Ioánnem Baptístam, sanctos Apóstolos Petrum et Páulum, omnes Sanctos, et vos, fratres, oráre pro me ad Dóminum Deum nostrum
I confess to Almighty God, to blessed Mary ever Virgin, blessed Michael the archangel, blessed John the Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and all the saints, and to you, brothers, that I have sinned in thought, word and deed: through my fault, through my fault, through my most grevious fault. Therefore I beseech blessed Mary, ever Virgin, blessed Michael the archangel, blessed John the Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, all the saints, and you, brothers, to pray to the Lord our God for me.

(Followed by the server saying the same, exchanging 'brothers' for 'father')
This is a general confession of sins, both past, absolved mortal sins, and any venial sins you currently are guilty of, but which don't merit damnation.
It is in this sense that the general absolution makes explicit the priestly intercession to God on behalf of the people (in concordance with the fact that he is about to offer the perfect Victim to the Father, "in persona Christi"2 Cor 2:10).
He then intercedes for the people:

Misereátur vestri omnípotens Deus, et dimíssis peccatis vestris, perducat vos ad vitam ætérnam. Amen.
May almighty God have mercy upon you, forgive you your sins, and bring you into life everlasting. Amen.

He then blesses the people with a gesture, saying:

Indulgéntiam, absolutiónem, et remissiónem peccatórum nostrórum, tríbuat nobis omnípotens et miséricors Dóminus.
May the Almighty and merciful God grant us pardon, absolution, and full remissions of our sins. Amen.

Mortal sins must be confessed:

John 20:21-23 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained."

This could be because one needs to be quite sure of their absolved state before recieving the Eucharist, that is, whether they are in a state of grace, period.
So that no one should be recieving the Eucharist without purity of conscience in that regard:

1 Corinthians 11:27-29 "Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body [10:16 "body" and "blood of the Lord"] [i.e. from what is profane]"

This petition and intercession for forgiveness generally is not a 'Sacrament' but a general plea for mercy. And it is followed by prayers right up to the Kyrie Eleison (Lord have mercy) before the Mass begins to turn more doxological (worship-oriented).
This is why the Sacrament of Confession/Extreme Unction is still the only means of absolution of mortal sins—a general plea for mercy doesn't constitute said Sacrament. It amounts to a priestly prayer.
A good reason this doesn't absolve everyone is because literally anyone could be there at Mass. To pretend forgiveness of all sins would be impossible, since "if we confess our sins he is just and faithful to forgive."1 Jn 1:9 And we know the method he instituted for such: Confession.
I can't find any authoritative sources which speak to—or feel the need to—on this at this time.
EDIT: Ken Graham has sources in his answer which may be of help.


How to reconcile the Council of Trent and the Apostle John regarding the post-baptismal presence of sin?

The Council of Trent, in this section on baptism, so strongly affirms that sin in a person is utterly remitted

The Council of Trent (Session V, Canon 5) declared

if anyone denies by the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only touched in person or is not imputed, let him be anathema.

Trent is here talking specifically about the effects of baptism: remission of original sin (the inherited effect of Adam and Eve's disobedience of God) and that imputed sin is removed ("true and proper nature of sin is not taken away") truly (in other words, not merely isn't "counted"). It is not saying people never fall into sin afterwards (which is what John is referring to). The same Session of Trent goes on to teach that there "remains in the baptized concupiscence of an inclination although this is left to be wrestled with, it cannot harm those who do not consent, but manfully resist by the grace of Jesus Christ"


What a beginner need to study to be a good christian?

It's tricky because everyone starts in a different place.
Personally, I would recommend focusing on the New Testament to start, and getting good guides or commentaries. What guides or commentaries are 'good' for you or not will depend - you really have to try ones and see if any resonate with you (your spirit is saying 'yes!') and seem to move you forward.
I personally started with a focus on books on the Sermon on the Mount, which contains a lot of advice about what to do from Jesus, and moved outwards from there.
There are a huge number of denominations and different kinds of approaches to Christianity, with a range of views on all sorts of subjects. I personally don't stick with one tradition when reading - Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, non-trinitarian - I find all of them interesting and having strong and weak points. In the end, your best guide to all this will be God's guidance through discernment.
Anyone's spiritual development is going to be an organic process - I am very skeptical of one-size-fits-all recommendations for study for a beginner. In a sense, everyone's a beginner. :)


Why do Christian missionaries start schools?

There are several reasons as to why Christian missionaries start schools. I am taking a missionary class called Perspectives on the World Christian Movement and some of their reasons are as follows:

Making/building something to improve their lives(i.e. a school) is one way to make the people open up and be accepting towards you and your message.
Many times the people need a school to understand their own written language(My friend on Papua New Guinea started a school for this reason.)
At a school, you can have a Christian influence on your students and the other teachers. Unless you are in a closed country, you can teach classes on the Bible and share the Gospel in your classes.

Hope this helps!


Why are sandals considered to be unholy?

It's not so much that sandals or slippers are considered to be unholy, it's that they're dirty, and removing them is a sign of respect similar to removing one's hat when entering a building, or perhaps removing a nose ring when entering a strict parent's house.

From the United church of God's article on the subject:

  Taking off your sandals was like the old custom of a man taking off
  his hat when entering a building or greeting a lady—it was a token of
  respect.

  The ground was holy because of God's presence. People were to approach
  God with solemnity and humility. Taking off their sandals expressed an
  inward reverence through an outward behavior in their worship. Showing
  such respect avoids anything casual, sloppy or rude.

  Some Eastern religions today still require bare feet when entering
  their temples. Anciently the Greeks, in the worship of Diana and
  Jupiter, required worshippers to take off their shoes (Adam Clarke's
  Commentary, Exodus 3:5 ). A common custom in the Orient and for many
  in North America is to take off your shoes when entering a person's
  home. God Has a High Standard for Approaching Him

As to why...

From Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:

  put off thy shoes—The direction was in conformity with a usage which
  was well known to Moses, for the Egyptian priests observed it in their
  temples, and it is observed in all Eastern countries where the people
  take off their shoes or sandals, as we do our hats. But the Eastern
  idea is not precisely the same as the Western. With us, the removal of
  the hat is an expression of reverence for the place we enter, or
  rather of Him who is worshipped there. With them the removal of the
  shoes is a confession of personal defilement and conscious
  unworthiness to stand in the presence of unspotted holiness.

Also, from the Pulpit Commentary (available at the link in the preceding section)

  Rather, "thy sandals." Shoes were not worn commonly, even by the
  Egyptians, until a late period, and would certainly not be known in
  the land of Midian at this time. The practice of putting them off
  before entering a temple, a palace, or even the private apartments of
  a house, was, and is, universal in the East - the rationale of it
  being that the shoes or sandals have dust or dirt attaching to them.


According to Reformed churches, is the trinity a finalized doctrine?

Yes and no.  That is, in simple terms:

No, the doctrine of the Trinity is not "finalized" or "completed" – Reformed theologians regularly debate the intricacies of this doctrine
Yes, the doctrine of the Trinity is "finalized" – anyone who rejects the fundamentals of the Trinity would generally not be considered "Reformed."

Your quote of the Westminster Confession of Faith refers to the canon of Scripture, to which nothing may be added, but Reformed thinkers regularly attempt to develop better (and sometimes new) understandings of Christian doctrines, including the doctrine of the Trinity.  But a radically divergent view of God, such as the quadrinity you mention, would be rejected as not Reformed.

All Reformed confessions strongly defend the Trinity.  Here's what one of them says:

  In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father;  the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. (Westminster Confession of Faith, II)

Other Reformed confessions go into more detail, but none of them exhaustively describe the doctrine.  Thus, it's possible for two people to say "I affirm Chapter II of the Westminster Standards" but disagree on some aspects of the doctrine of the Trinity.  This actually happens with great regularity.  Here are two examples:

Karl Barth's innovations in the doctrine of the Trinity were a lightning rod in 20th century Reformed theology.  Some Reformed theologians claimed that went too far, but others didn't object.  See my answer to Did Karl Barth confess an orthodox doctrine of the Trinity?
Robert Reymond, in his New Systematic Theology, and Wayne Grudem, in his Systematic Theology, find themselves on opposites sides of an ongoing debate within Reformed circles over subordination of the Son to the Father.  Some admit a "subordination of role," while others do not.

So "no," the doctrine of the Trinity is not finalized; it is something that theologians will likely continue to argue over for a long time to come, because of its central place in Reformed doctrine.

But the importance of the doctrine also means that, "yes," the doctrine of the Trinity is finalized – in Reformed circles, it isn't going anywhere.  Those who reject the basics of the Trinity will generally be considered outside the bounds of Reformed theology, and, if they wish to teach their views, forced to join (or start) another branch.

Of course, "Reformed theology" is just a label, and as such it is applied differently by different people.  As previously mentioned, some consider Barth Reformed, and others don't.  But the Reformed confessions provide helpful guidance in this respect – people who explicitly reject confessional teachings of the Trinity, including someone arguing for a "quadrinity" as you mention, would certainly be outside the bounds of the Reformed confessions, and therefore generally considered outside Reformed theology.


How are Catholic priests chosen and assigned to specific parishes?

Many vocational offices explain this process in detail (the Diocese of Fall River has a good explanation, for example), but I'll try to explain it as best I know.

Before that, there are a few things to keep in mind:

There are two different "tracks": the diocesan track, where you are ordained as part of a diocese, and the religious track, where you are ordained as part of a religious order. You seem to be interested in the former, so this answer mostly answers to that. The processes are similar, it's just a question of where you end up.
Priests are, to put it somewhat bluntly, proxies for the bishop. A bishop cannot perform all the duties required of him for everyone, so the priests act as surrogates, performing many of the functions that are needed to successfully tend to the flock. In many ways, the process is about finding suitable matches for the bishops who need more priests: this is sort of the short answer to your question (the bishop decides).
One way to understand the full Ordination process and how the bishop makes his selection is to think of it like a very long, very structured introspection. Accepting the Sacrament of Holy Orders is a huge deal, one that will shape the rest of a person's life. The time in Seminary Formation and up to the Rite of Ordination into the Priesthood is basically the trial run period to see whether a person really, truly wants to commit to the life of a priest: committing one's life to the Church, taking a vow of celibacy, etc.

Process

The process starts off something like a Ph.D. track education in academia: when you go towards getting your Ph.D., you usually find out that you're interested in it during undergraduate school, then you go through an application process, then a core education (Master's) process, then you move into the meat of actually getting a Ph.D. (doctoral thesis).

Similarly, the path to ordination starts off with talking to a priest or other members of one's parish about being interested Holy Orders. The person will then apply to the diocese office of vocations, usually answering some basic questions about why they want to begin the process (example from the Archdiocese of Portland, PDF).

The vocation director will then make contact to begin the application process. This usually consists of a series of interviews, getting letters of recommendation, background checks, and other vetting processes to make sure the person has a high likelihood of succeeding.

Once accepted, the Bishop assigns the person to a seminary (with the recommendation of the vocations director) where they begin the process of Seminary Formation: they'll learn everything they need to know to begin the transition into the clergy. Simultaneously (if they don't already have it), they'll be receive the education to get a Master's Degree in Divinity (generally a requirement to receive Holy Orders).

They'll also begin the process of introspection and guidance to determine whether or not this is something really want to do and whether or not God is calling them to Holy Orders. This is done under the guidance of the vocation director who recruited them.1

Towards the end of Seminary Formation, men are ordained to the diaconate2 as a transitional deacon: similar to a permanent deacon, but with the understanding that they will soon be ordained a priest (usually in about 6 months).

It's at this point the bishop assigns them to a parish. This is sort of a "last chance" period to change one's mind and to start helping with the Liturgy in a real-world setting. The person is still in Seminary, but it's something like a "work-study" or "student teacher" program: he'll split his time between completing Seminary and doing the duties of a deacon.

At the end of Seminary, successful candidates undergo the Rite of Ordination into the Priesthood. Amongst other activities, the bishop will ask them a series of questions to make certain they'll ready to undergo the call of Holy Orders, but this is largely a formality: the Seminary Formation process was intended to weed out the candidates who would not make a good fit long before this moment. Think of it like a "swearing in" ceremony: candidates are going to know beforehand the answer is "yes", "I do", or "I will" to every question asked.

After which, the bishop will consecrate the candidates via the Laying on of Hands and ordain them into the Priesthood.

Once Ordained, priests serve under the bishop. The bishop can work with other bishops to transfer priests between dioceses depending on the needs of the Church.

Notes

1 It's important to note here that not everyone who goes through this process becomes a priest: many are never called by the Holy Spirit to receive Holy Orders and withdraw from the process within the first couple of years of Seminary.

2 If you're not familiar with the term, a Deacon is someone who is able to perform many sacraments one usually associates with a Priest: conduct sermons, baptize, and oversee marriages. But they can't do things like confer Holy Orders themselves or consecrate the bread and the wine used in the Eucharist (but they can help administer it).


Was there a "cessation of church fathers" in Catholicism?

There isn't really a bright line distinction, but John of Damascus (died ~750) is often cited as the last one.  For example, Catholic.com:

the death of St. John Damascene [cir. A.D. 750] is generally regarded as the close of the age of the Fathers

The Catholic encyclopedia takes a somewhat nuanced approach, allowing for the suggestion of some later medieval authors, but ultimately prefers John as the last:

"The Fathers" must undoubtedly include, in the West, St. Gregory the Great (d. 604), and in the East, St. John Damascene (d. about 754).
St. John of Damascus (c. 750) closes the patristic period with his polemics against heresies, his exegetical and ascetical writings, his beautiful hymns, and above all his "Fountain of Wisdom", which is a compendium of patristic theology and a kind of anticipation of scholasticism. [emphasis added]

It's perhaps worth noting that while the title of "Father" is no longer applied, the Catholic Church continues to recognize important contributors to theology/doctrine, calling them "Doctors of the Church."  The most recent of these, Thérèse of Lisieux, died in 1897.


Are there circumstances where to "love your neighbor as yourself" also means you put him ahead of you?

I am responding out of my own Protestant upbringing :

John the Baptist came preaching and said :

  Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance ... Luke 3:8 KJV.

In answer to the question 'What shall we do then ? he explained :

  He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.

John does not say that he who hath a coat give it away to him that hath none (and shiver himself). Nor the same with regard to food.

But it is also true what Jesus says :

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

Which, of course, Jesus did.


What is the Catholic understanding of the idea that Jesus descended into Hell?

First, be careful with your statement "The Christian understanding that everyone was born with origin[al] sin". Yes, this is a common Christian belief, and it is indeed a Catholic one, but it is not universal. This is irrelevant to the rest of your question, but worth noting.
And yes, there does indeed exist the idea that Jesus descended into "Hell" between his death and resurrection, i.e. between the first Good Friday and the first Easter morning. We see this in the Apostles' Creed, for instance: "He descended into Hell". This is an event widely known as the Harrowing of Hell.
Now, the first thing to note is that this is a very different thing to what we imagine Hell to be like today. It does not mean a place of everlasting torment. It's sometimes known as the "Limbo of the Fathers". In Hebrew it is Sheol, the abode of the dead. As the Catechism says, "Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer."(CCC 633)
It was precisely the just -- those made righteous by faith in God and his promised Messiah -- who were saved by Jesus' descent into Hell: "Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him."(CCC 633)
This emphasises the totality of Jesus' redemptive work. It extends not only to those on earth, over whom God is known to have power, but also to those who have died.

The descent into hell brings the Gospel message of salvation to complete fulfilment. This is the last phase of Jesus' messianic mission, a phase which is condensed in time but vast in its real significance: the spread of Christ's redemptive work to all men of all times and all places, for all who are saved have been made sharers in the redemption.(CCC 633)

See also this article on EWTN.

As to its biblical foundation, there are various texts that we might point to.
The Catechism points to the following texts, among others:

When it says, ‘He ascended’, what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth? (Eph 4.10)
you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead (Acts 3.15)
If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit that dwells in you. (Rom 8.11)
He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison (1 Pet 3.19)
For this is the reason the gospel was proclaimed even to the dead, so that, though they had been judged in the flesh as everyone is judged, they might live in the spirit as God does. (1 Pet 4.10)
Very truly, I tell you, the hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live (Jn 5.25)


According to Trinitarians, did the human Jesus worship the divine Jesus?

Trinitarians believe in the "unipersonality" of Jesus – that is, that he is one person and does not have multiple "personalities" that could interact with each other.  The most important trinitarian creedal statement on the incarnation of Jesus is the Chalcedonian Definition, which reads in part:

  [Christ is] acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ.

Thus Jesus has two natures that were united in one person.  And as a single person, Jesus has one personality, as Louis Berkhof writes:

  The term "person" denotes a complete substance endowed with reason, and, consequently, a responsible subject of its own actions. (ST, 3.1.3.A)

Aquinas gives the definition (following Boethius) as "an individual substance of rational nature" in his discussion of the difference between "union in nature" and "union in person" in Summa, Third Part, Question 2.  As part of his defense of the idea of the unipersonality of Christ, he also states:

  [The human nature of Christ] has not its own personality, because it does not exist separately, but in something more perfect, viz. in the Person of the Word. (Article 2, reply 3)

Thus, to directly answer your question: No, the "human nature" of Jesus did not worship the "divine nature" of Jesus – he is a single person.


Did the importance of the resurrection increase as the New Testament was written?

Allow me the liberty to rephrase your question:

Did the concept of Resurrection develop over time?

Yes.

The ancient Hebrews did not seem to have any conception of life after death.  In Job and the Psalms, we start seeing hints that Israelites envisioned some existence after death, but not as anything very exciting.  If you've read any Homer or the Gilgamesh epic, you'll remember that the dead go to a shadowy, dry place.  But it's important to understand that, unlike the Greek concept of Hades, Sheol wasn't a place where souls existed, but where whatever was left of the dead's body and spirit was housed.  It's not clear that the writers of the earlier books in the Old Testament envisioned anything more than a grave when they used the word.

By the Second Temple period, Jews began to develop more sophisticated cosmologies.  We start getting hints of bodily Resurrection:

  Daniel 12:2 (ESV)
  2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

But even then, it's not clear if the Biblical prophets (outside of Daniel) were envisioning people actually rising from the dead.  Ezekiel 37 (the dry bones passage), for instance, was probably a statement of hope for the restoration of the nation of Israel.

Jewish writings in the time between the Old and New Testaments show even more development of the idea of Resurrection, which always had strong nationalistic and (during times of occupation) revolutionary overtones.  But the idea was that at some point in the future, God would gather up all of His people and restore them to life all at once.  Nobody would have pictured one man rising from his grave as the (or even a) Resurrection.  Certainly the Messiah would not participate in the Resurrection, except to make way for it to happen, since he wouldn't die.

When we get to the time of Jesus, we suddenly see the Christian conception of Resurrection appear on the scene.  It draws strongly from the inter-testament ideas, but in a fairly radically altered format because the Messiah Himself dies, is buried, and resurrected.  Sometime later, the general Resurrection as envisioned by late, Second Temple Jews was predicted—along with the return of the Messiah to complete His work on earth.

How did the concept of Resurrection develop in the New Testament?

Surprisingly little.

Our earliest church documents are Paul's letters to various primitive churches.  While it does seem that Paul warms to the subject over the course of his ministry, he does not alter his theology.  In Galatians 2, Paul lets us know that his theology was shared with the leaders of the Jerusalem church (James the bother of Jesus, Peter, and John).  His dispute with them was not whether the Resurrection of Jesus occurred or what it meant, but whether or not it replaced the Mosaic Covenant.

In First Corinthians (ca. 53-54 AD), Paul gives us one of the earliest formulations of the Christian view of Resurrection:

  1 Corinthians 15:3-8 (ESV)
  3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

Many scholars think this represents an even earlier tradition that might have been a creedal statement.  Paul goes on to affirm that there will be a general Resurrection in the future:

  1 Corinthians 15:21-22 (ESV)
  21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

This is also the text (remember it's one of the earliest, written 20 or so years from Jesus' crucifixion) that asserts the Resurrection to be critical to the Christian faith:

  1 Corinthians 15:17-19 (ESV)
  17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

If anything, the Gospels, which were written later, downplay the Resurrection by giving us more details about Jesus' earthly ministry.  Mark even ends immediately after the women's discovery of the empty tomb and doesn't provide a post-Resurrection account.  (Whether this was by design or was a historical accident is not known.)

Reference: I draw most of my information from N. T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God, which stands alone as the best survey of the history of the idea of the Resurrection ever written.  If I don't stop now, I'm in danger of summarizing his entire book.


Are Catholics allowed to leave marriage in order to become a monk or nun?

From Roman Cholij's Priestly celibacy in patristics and in the history of the Church:

Although perhaps strange to our own modern ways of thinking, absolute marital continence was far from unknown or unesteemed in patristic times. Tertullian, himself a married man, informs us in his Catholic period, of lay people who practise continence within marriage «pro cupiditate regni coelestis».11 So do Jerome and Augustine in the following century.12 The rapid growth of monasticism and an attraction to the ascetic life led many couples to renounce their intimacy and to enter a monastery13 or to live in continence within more domestic settings. Church authorities had to intervene decisively when the enthusiasm for continence was deemed excessive and tainted with heretical motives, but at the same time praising those who lived the life of continence for the right motives.14 Four centuries later the Second Nicene Council (787) would still endorse the possibility of monastic vocations for the married.15

The relevant part from the Second Nicene Council (787), Canon 20, reads:

If there are persons who wish to renounce the world and follow the monastic life along with their relatives, the men should go off to a male monastery and their wives enter a female monastery, for God is surely pleased with this.

It would seem 1983 Can. 643 §1.2/ ("The following are admitted to the novitiate invalidly:…a spouse, while the marriage continues to exist;") or the corresponding 1917 Can. 542 1.° [d] abrogate the Second Nicene Council (787), Canon 20; but, as the commentary on the 1983 Code says,

if a couple mutually agrees to renounce marital rights and relationships in order to seek admission to religious institutes, a dispensation from the Holy See must be sought.

A famous recent example of a married couple separating—with the pope's permission, the husband becoming a priest, the wife becoming a nun, and their biological children going to boarding school—is that of Mother Cornelia Connelly (1809-1879), foundress of the Society of the Holy Child Jesus, a sort of modern-day St. Rita of Cascia. See The Life of Cornelia Connelly (1922) or this video documentary on her.

For a history on this, see Spiritual Marriage: Sexual Abstinence in Medieval Wedlock.
Also, pp. 2-3 of Validity of Virginal Marriage by John Cuthbert Ford, S.J., contains a list of married virgin saints.


What is the scriptural basis for believing that God wants us to know an action is morally, objectively right or wrong?

I got these two verses that I hope help you out:

James 4:17 ESV So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.
Isaiah 5:20 ESV Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for  light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!


How many prophecies from Hebrew Scriptures are fulfilled in Jesus Christ’s earthly life?

It is not a settled matter because different Christian scholars have different ideas  on OT verses that may or may not be foreshadowings or prophecies about Jesus.
All agree that there are more than enough to establish that Jesus is the foretold Messiah.

A similar question  was asked in a Watchtower magazine. Part of the answer given explains why nailing down an exact number is difficult

  Not everyone agrees on what is or is not a Messianic prophecy. In his book The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Alfred Edersheim stated that the ancient rabbinic writings classified 456 passages from the Hebrew Scriptures as Messianic, although many of them do not specifically mention the Messiah.

  A close look at these 456 passages raises questions as to whether some of them are prophetic of Jesus Christ. For example, Edersheim said that the Jews regarded Genesis 8:11 as Messianic. They held that “the olive-leaf, brought by the dove, was taken from the Mount of the Messiah.” The author also mentioned Exodus 12:42. Explaining how the Jews incorrectly understood this text, he wrote: “As Moses came out of the desert, so would the Messiah come out of Rome.”
  Many scholars and others would undoubtedly find it hard to relate these two texts and erroneous explanations to Jesus Christ.

  Even if we restrict our attention to those prophecies that were actually fulfilled in Jesus Christ, we encounter difficulties agreeing on an exact number. Take, for example, Isaiah chapter 53, which contains several prophetic features regarding the Messiah. Isaiah 53:2-7 prophesies: “No stately form does he have . . . He was despised and was avoided by men . . . Our sicknesses were what he himself carried . . . He was being pierced for our transgression . . . He was being brought just like a sheep to the slaughtering.” Should this whole passage in Isaiah chapter 53 be counted as one Messianic prophecy, or should each of these characteristics of the Messiah be viewed as a separate prophecy in its own right?

  Consider, too, Isaiah 11:1, which reads: “There must go forth a twig out of the stump of Jesse; and out of his roots a sprout will be fruitful.” In verse 10, this prophecy appears again, with similar wording. Should we count these two verses as two separate prophecies or as one prophecy that is repeated? The conclusions reached on Isaiah chapter 53 and Isaiah chapter 11 would clearly affect the total number of Messianic prophecies.
  Hence, we do well to avoid being specific about the total number of Messianic prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures.

There are lists of prophecy’s that Christian scholars agree on that are helpful for us to build our confidence that Jesus is the promised one from the OT. One such list is found here


What is the difference in rewards between a person who is virgin till death and a person who is married?
So what is will be the difference in reward after they die. And reach heaven.
At a Catholic point of view some of the saints in heaven will have special halos.
St. Thomas Aquinas states that virgins, doctors and martyrs will receive special aureoles:

An aureole is an exceptional reward corresponding to an exceptional victory: wherefore the three aureoles are assigned in accordance with the exceptional victories in the three conflicts which beset every man. For in the conflict with the flesh, he above all wins the victory who abstains altogether from sexual pleasures which are the chief of this kind; and such is a virgin. Wherefore an aureole is due to virginity. In the conflict with the world, the chief victory is to suffer the world's persecution even until death: wherefore the second aureole is due to martyrs who win the victory in this battle. In the conflict with the devil, the chief victory is to expel the enemy not only from oneself but also from the hearts of others: this is done by teaching and preaching, and consequently the third aureole is due to doctors and preachers.
Some, however, distinguish the three aureoles in accordance with the three powers of the soul, by saying that the three aureoles correspond to the three chief acts of the soul's three highest powers. For the act of the rational power is to publish the truth of faith even to others, and to this act the aureole of doctors is due: the highest act of the irascible power is to overcome even death for Christ's sake, and to this act the aureole of martyrs is due: and the highest act of the concupiscible power is to abstain altogether from the greatest carnal pleasures, and to this act the aureole of virgins is due.
Others again, distinguish the three aureoles in accordance with those things whereby we are most signally conformed to Christ. For He was the mediator between the Father and the world. Hence He was a doctor, by manifesting to the world the truth which He had received from the Father; He was a martyr, by suffering the persecution of the world; and He was a virgin, by His personal purity. Wherefore doctors, martyrs and virgins are most perfectly conformed to Him: and for this reason an aureole is due to them. - Whether three aureoles are fittingly assigned, those of virgins, of martyrs, and of doctors?

Perhaps in heaven we will be returning closer to Our Divine Author’s intention to be clothed in light as Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden.
Just maybe!
Adam and Eve Clothed in Light Before the Fall - Origin of this belief?


What is the significance of water from Jesus' side?

Mason and Dan have both noted the literal significance of the blood/water issue. It was a medical indication that A) he was dead and B) he didn't die as the direct result of the crucifixion.

On practical thing we can note from this is that Jesus was in control of things right up to the end. We know from Scripture that nobody forced Jesus's life from him, he gave it up willingly. This is rightly applied to Jesus' willing submission to his captors, even stopping his disciples from fighting his arrest. However, we see this is true all the way to the end, when it is Jesus who surrenders himself to his Father and lets go of his own life rather than the physical reality of the cross actually taking his life.

  Luke 23:46 (ESV)
  46  Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last.

Another practical result that came out of the deal was that finding him already dead at such an early time frame, they did not go on to break his legs to induce a quick death by suffocation as would have been required otherwise.

Thus, something that was said about him in the OT that could have been understood figuratively, also literally happened in spite of the odds.

  Psalm 34:20 (ESV)
  He keeps all his bones;
       not one of them is broken.


Since Mormons believe in multiple earth-like planets, do they believe that the "fall" was likewise needed on each of them?

Do Mormons believe that the fall was likewise needed on each inhabited planet?

No authoritative LDS doctrine on this subject, except that the first man and woman on other worlds had the name Adam and Eve.
Moses 1:33-34,4:26

33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.
34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.
26 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living; for thus have I, the Lord God, called the first of all women, which are many.
Do they believe that Jesus also eventually died on behalf of the inhabitants of each planet?

Mormons believe that Jesus only needed to perform the Atonement once because it was an infinite and eternal sacrifice.
Doctrine and Covenants 76:22-24,40-43

22 And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!
23 For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—
24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.
40 And this is the gospel, the glad tidings, which the voice out of the heavens bore record unto us—
41 That he came into the world, even Jesus, to be crucified for the world, and to bear the sins of the world, and to sanctify the world, and to cleanse it from all unrighteousness;
42 That through him all might be saved whom the Father had put into his power and made by him;
43 Who glorifies the Father, and saves all the works of his hands, except those sons of perdition who deny the Son after the Father has revealed him.

In Times and Seasons 4 no. 6 WW Phelps in a poem verse based on section 76 wrote:

By him, of him, and through him, the worlds were all made,
Even all that career in the heavens so broad.

Whose inhabitants, too, from the first to the last,

Are sav'd by the very same Saviour (Savior) of ours;
And, of course, are begotten God's daughters and sons,
By the very same truths, and the very same pow'rs.

On why the Atonement happened here and not another world Joseph Fielding Smith speculated: (Signs of the Times(this is just a link to amazon) p 5 or 12)

Perhaps this is the reason Jesus Christ was sent here instead of some other world, for in some other world they would not have crucified Him, and His presence was needed here because of the extreme wickedness of the inhabitants of this earth

Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses seems to agree that this world is one of the more wicked worlds.

I suppose that God never organized an earth and peopled it that was ever reduced to a lower state of darkness, sin and ignorance than this. I suppose this is one of the lowest kingdoms that ever the Lord Almighty created, and on that account is capable of becoming exalted to be one of the highest kingdoms that has ever had an exaltation in all the eternities

See also Alma 34:9-10,12-13

However Brigham Young taught that each world had its own Adam and Eve, and its own savior, however, please note that this is not considered final or authoritative.

Let me open the eyes of your understanding. There has never been a time when the creations of worlds commenced. They are from eternity to eternity in their creations and redemption. After they are organized they experience the good and the evil, the light and the dark, the bitter and the sweet as you and I do. There never was a time when there were not worlds in existence as this world is, and they pass through similar changes in abiding their creation preparatory to exaltation. Worlds have always been in progress, and eternally will be.
Every world has had an Adam and an Eve, named so simply because the first man is always called Adam and the first woman, Eve. And the oldest son has always had the privilege of being ordained, appointed and called to be the heir of the family if he does not rebel against the Father, and he is the Savior of the family. Every world that has been created has been created upon the same principle. They may vary in their varieties, yet the eternity is one: it is one eternal round.

emphasis added by me


Six-hundred-sixty-six or six-six-six or six-one-six

The Greek spells out each word:

  ἑξακόσιοι (six hundred) ἑξήκοντα (sixty) ἕξ (six).

At the time the NT was written, place holders were unknown. It was simply not possible to write ἕξ ἕξ ἕξ (or to use the single letters for six which would be three stigmas) and it be understood as six hundred sixty-six. To write out 666 using the letter equivalents would be chi xi stigma (χξϛ). Chi being used for six hundred, xi representing sixty, and stigma being 6 (stigma was used in antiquity only as a numeral). If you did write out ἕξ ἕξ ἕξ or ϛϛϛ, the reader would understand it as "18" because you add up the letters to make the total.

The translator's notes for Revelation 13:18 from the NET Bible concludes that 666 is to be preferred over 616:

  A few mss (Ì115 C, along with a few mss known to Irenaeus {and two minuscule mss, 5 and 11, no longer extant}), read 616 here, and several other witnesses have other variations. Irenaeus’ mention of mss that have 616 is balanced by his rejection of such witnesses in this case. As intriguing as the reading 616 is (since the conversion of Nero Caesar’s name in Latin by way of gematria would come out to 616), it must remain suspect because such a reading seems motivated in that it conforms more neatly to Nero’s gematria.


How do Reformed Protestants interpret Matthew 18:18?

Calvin writes a commentary which address this passage in some detail. He summarises it as follows:

The substance of it is this: Whoever, after committing a crime, humbly confesses his fault, and entreats the Church to forgive him, is absolved not only by men, but by God himself; and, on the other hand, whoever treats with ridicule the reproofs and threatenings of the Church, if he is condemned by her, the decision which men have given will be ratified in heaven.

Calvin's point is that since Christ is the head of the church, the church does Christ's will. If the church chooses to forgive or reject, that is because Christ has chosen to forgive or reject.

For, though Christ alone is the Judge of the world, yet he chooses to have ministers to proclaim his word. Besides, he wishes that his own decision should be pronounced by the Church; and thus he takes nothing from his own authority by employing the ministry of men, but it is Himself alone that looses and binds.

Calvin continues to discuss several objections to and particulars of this teaching, which I won't repeat here.


Was Onan really struck dead by God for masturbating?

The story of Judah and Tamar is an interesting one, to say the least.  Judah and Tamar are both explicitly mentioned in Jesus' lineage (Matthew 1 - and Tamar is only one of four women mentioned, all of whom have sordid stories associated with them).  In the end, Tamar is going to trick her father-in-law into getting her pregnant, and then avoids death by proving Judah is the father.  But the question is about Onan, not Judah...

In the story, Tamar is first wed to Er, the eldest of Judah's sons.  Er dies for some unmentioned reason, and Tamar is left without children. Children in that time were important both for the social support for parents in their old age, and for continuance of the family line.  Being childless, the law calls for something called 'levirate marriage' - the next oldest brother is required to marry and give the widow the children.  This is how Judah's second child, Onan, enters the story.

  Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death also

As you can see, Onan was not masturbating.  If anything, you could accuse Onan of coitus interruptus, but not masturbation.

What Onan was doing, however, was using Tamar for sex, but not giving her the child she deserved.  One could call this theft - it isn't really the sex that is at issue at all. As the text clearly states, Onan did not want his deceased brother to have an heir. That would have negated his claim on the inheritance, and his new found status as eldest brother.

Interestingly, the story continues with this theme of theft - Judah refuses to allow his third son Shelah, to fufill this duty. (I mean, can you blame him? Two sons dead, and now looking at a third?)  Instead of Shelah taking from Tamar, Judah is "stealing" Tamar's due.  In the end, however, Tamar tricks Judah into securing her place in the line of Christ.

Just your typical Sunday School story, I know, but a fun one :)


Who first came up with the "four attributes of Scripture"?

It looks like the "4 attributes" was first used by the theologian Wayne Grudem while the SCAN acronym itself was first used by Justin Taylor.  The rest of this answer will provide evidence.
Another acrostic is NAPS which I found here (Mar 7, 2012), but expresses the same attributes, substituting "Clarity" with "Perspicuous" (a more historic term).  Yet another is SNAC described here, which is another ordering of the same 4 attributes.
Justin Taylor's blog article
Justin Taylor wrote the blog article "SCAN the Scriptures" on Aug 11, 2010, which begins as follows:

If you want a quick and easy way to memorize the traditional four attributes of Scripture, just put them in the order of S.C.A.N.:

the Sufficiency of Scripture
the Clarity of Scripture
the Authority of Scripture, and
the Necessity of Scripture

5 days later, another blogger wrote a short post "Sola Scriptura and SCAN!" dated Aug 16, 2010, which links to the article above, saying:

Justin Taylor gave a handy way for us to remember the key attributes of Scripture– just put them in the order of S.C.A.N.:

the Sufficiency of Scripture
the Clarity of Scripture
the Authority of Scripture, and
the Necessity of Scripture
Read the rest of the post for a helpful explanation of what each one of these characteristic mean.  It’s really worth your time.

But where did Justin Taylor get the idea of the "four attributes" from?
Timothy Ward's book
A clue is from a book he referenced: Words of Life: Scripture as the living and active word of God by Timothy Ward published by IVP only 1.5 years earlier on Feb 22, 2009.  Chapter 4 of that book is titled The Attributes of Scripture: A Doctrinal Outline which contains the following sections:

The necessity of Scripture
The sufficiency of Scripture
The clarity of Scripture
The authority of Scripture

Skimming the book itself I couldn't find the acronym S.C.A.N., so Tim Ward didn't come up with it himself.  At any rate, the section title order doesn't match S.C.A.N.
Wayne Grudem's book
Going back in time to 1994 we find some similarity in the table of contents of Wayne Grudem's very popular book Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine:

Chapter 4: The Four Characteristics of Scripture: (1) Authority
Chapter 6: The Four Characteristics of Scripture: (2) Clarity
Chapter 7: The Four Characteristics of Scripture: (3) Necessity
Chapter 8: The Four Characteristics of Scripture: (4) Sufficiency

I also cannot find the S.C.A.N. acronym in the book, so Wayne Grudem didn't come up with it either.  The chapter order also didn't match.
Luther's understanding of sola scriptura
A 1960 Concordia Theological Monthly journal article Luther's Sola Scriptura by a historian Lewis W. Spitz (d. 1999), specializing in Reformation who also wrote the well cited 1984 book The Protestant Reformation: 1517-1559 traced the development of Martin Luther's own understanding of Sola Scriptura.
Quote from the journal article (emphasis mine):

Luther's sola Scriptura implies the divine authority, efficacy, perfection or sufficiency, and perspicuity of Holy Scripture, but above all Christ as the center of it all.  For Luther there is no sola Scriptura without solus Christus.  Werner Elert shows that for Luther the divine properties of Scripture are based on the fact that for him the Bible is Christocentric.

So three of the "four attributes" (authority, sufficiency, perspicuity) came from Luther himself.  The "four attributes" adds "necessity" but drops "efficacy".
Wikipedia article
In the Lutheran section of the the Wikipedia article Sola Scriptura referencing pages 27-29 from the 1934 book Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture published by a Lutheran publisher Concordia Publishing House, the author spells out Lutheran Sola Scriptura in terms of "inspiration, authority, clarity, efficacy, and sufficiency".
The "four attributes" drops "efficacy" and "inspiration" but adds "necessity".
Westminster Confession of Faith
Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) begins with the Necessity of Scripture in Chapter 1 (Of the Holy Scripture), Section 1:

Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation: therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.

How Wayne Grudem reorganized the historic characteristics in his book
Wayne Grudem understandably makes explicit this very important "necessity" attribute, which in other systematic theologies are discussed more or less implicitly.  Looking closer at Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology book, I can see that he covers "inspiration" under chapter 4 (authority).  He also covers "efficacy" as Point #1 (Teaching of the Word) along with 10 other means of grace in Chapter 48 (Means of Grace Within the Church).
Conclusion
Comparing Wayne Grudem's "4 attributes" with other list of terms related with sola scriptura we can see how Wayne Grudem came up with his own organization of the characteristics / attributes of Scripture in his Systematic Theology book.  Since Wayne Grudem's book is a very popular systematic theology book among evangelicals which has been around since 1994, I think it is safe to say that the 4 attributes mentioned in a variety of blog articles we encounter post 1994 originated from the theologian Wayne Grudem.  Validating my thesis, I also couldn't find any match when skimming Google search dated before 1994 using the keywords: "scripture" "authority" "clarity" "necessity" "sufficiency".
As for the S.C.A.N. acronym, it's very likely that Justin Taylor came up with it after reading both books and noticing Chapter 4 section titles of Timothy Ward's book and Table of Contents of Wayne Grudem's book!  We don't know for sure of course, but I think there is enough circumstantial evidence to say that Justin Taylor was the inventor since Google search also didn't yield any reference to that acronym before Justin's blog article (Aug 11, 2010).


No.
C.S. Lewis converted to Christianity in 1931.  While there is no doubt that Muscular Christianity, as a movement, was still around at that time, the largest proponents for muscular Christianity, Charles Kingsley and Thomas Hughes, died before 1900.
This, of course, does not preclude C.S. Lewis from adhering to these views.  However, his corpus does not include any significant writings regarding Muscular Christianity.
We can presume that even if he held these beliefs (as your quotes suggest), he was not a vehement supporter of this movement, due to his lack of writing on the subject.


From the Wikipedia article you linked:

  St Martin-in-the-Fields is an English Anglican church at the
  north-east corner of Trafalgar Square in the City of Westminster,
  London. [...] Henry VIII rebuilt the church in 1542 to keep plague
  victims in the area from having to pass through his Palace of
  Whitehall. At this time, it was literally "in the fields", an isolated
  position between the cities of Westminster and London.

"In the fields" appears to be a reference to the location of the church, or the location of his burial site – not the name of the saint himself.