What do Southern Baptists believe about Predestination?

Historically, Baptists drew from both the Calvinist (Predestination) and Arminian (Free Will) soteriologies.  Early Baptists were first and foremost dissenters - people who disliked the establishment churches of England and Virginia.

What drew them together was not soteriology but rather a disdain for establishment church.

The Puritans in particular (one set of proto-Baptists) were basically Calvinist. Many of the more famous English baptists - John Bunyan (1600s), William Carey (early 1800s), Charles Spurgeon (late 1800s), were all Particular Baptists. Many of their kin settled in Virginia and Massachusetts (or like Roger Williams in 1636 were kicked out and stuck in Rhode Island), and helped to form the basis of Baptists in the United States.

When the Baptist movement spread during the two Great Awakenings of the 1700s, much of it was fueled by charismatic Arminians, such as the Wesley brothers. In the 1700s in particular, Baptists and Methodists both were very closely related - the primary distinction between the two was the autonomy of the local congregation. Methodists had bishops, Baptists had "associations."

By the time Baptists were allowed to practice freely (1786 is a good year) both stances were evident.

Eventually, there were two main camps of Baptists - "General" Baptists who believed in General atonement, i.e. anyone who chose (i.e. free will) to believe in Christ.  In contrast, "Particular" Baptists were Calvinists, who believed in Limited Atonement.  These are the Baptists who wrote the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, one of the closest things to a "founding Baptist creed" you'll get from a Baptist.  As you would expect from a Calvinist, they believed in predestination - i.e. that God has foreknown whom he would save from before the beginning of time.

When the Southern Baptist Convention was formed in 1845, the issues that divided Baptists had far more to do with whether or not Sunday schools and missionary work were important, than the means of salvation.  (Actually, the argument against was predicated on the belief that if God had already chosen who was saved, then it was just a waste of resources to invest in those things.  That didn't stop a a guy like William Carey, though, because he realized that even the elect should work to help the elect who didn't know they were saved to be saved!)

More to the point for Southerners was whether or not missionaries could own slaves.  The SBC has acknowledged this was their genesis, and apologized for it in the 1990s.

Throughout all of this, both strains of salvation continued through all the denominations, although many of the more prominent current Baptists (Paige Patterson, Al Mohler) are definately of the Calvinst persuasion.

That said, the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message is clearly ambivelent on the matter.

Section 4. Salvation says:

  Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.

implying free will

Section 5. Grace says:

  Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility. All true believers endure to the end.

which could come out of the Tu-lips of Calvin himself.

Incidently, there is a Free Will Baptists denomination who are most definately Arminian in their soteriology.

tl;dr
In short, Baptists have always been both.


The issue you raised is rooted in the concept of justification.

Through the fulfillment of the will of the Father in His Son, Jesus Christ, the Father declared us righteous in His sight. That is, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is our justification, the declaration of God that we are free of guilt and penalty of sin and acceptable to Him (Romans 4:25, NIV):

  He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

Our justification also marks the beginning of sanctification, a continual process of being made holy by the power of the Holy Spirit, a lifelong process that makes us more and more like Jesus Christ.

We can argue that the Lord’s Prayer is the foremost declaration of our faith in the fulfillment of the will of the Father in His Son. Therefore, it is a means to justify ourselves to the Father. Via the Lord’s Prayer, prayed daily, we are led by the Holy Spirit in our daily lives and become more like Jesus Christ – the precise outcome of sanctification!


Is it official Catholic dogma that Mary is the wife of the Holy Spirit?

It is not dogma

Were it a dogma you'd find a record of it at the Pope's official web site.

Ludwig Ott states in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma that,

  "The Church honours her on account of her position as Mother of God, and on account of her high endowment with grace deriving from her position as daughter of the Heavenly Father and Spouse of the Holy Ghost." (Part 3 {The Mother of the Redeemer}, Chapter 1, Section 2 (p. 196))

Ott does not list it as a dogma of the church. (thank you, @zippy2006) (Nor does Denzinger clearly identify this pious belief as a dogma).

The two dogmas most recently published, and in these two cases pronounced ex cathedra, concerning Mary are the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception.  We have Q&A on both of those topics.  That they are both alluded to during Adoration seems to bear on your question.  Remember that the Church won't endorse polygamy.  During the holy hour of Adoration (which has seen a revival ever since John Paul II became pope), during the  Reposition the faithful pray The Divine Praises

  Blessed be God. Blessed be his holy name.
  Blessed be Jesus Christ, true God and true man. Blessed be the name of Jesus. Blessed be his most Sacred Heart. Blessed be his most Precious Blood. Blessed be Jesus in the most holy sacrament of the altar. Blessed be the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete.
  Blessed be the great Mother of God, Mary most holy. Blessed be her holy and Immaculate Conception. Blessed be her glorious Assumption. Blessed be the name of Mary, virgin and Mother.
  Blessed be St. Joseph, her most chaste spouse.
  Blessed be God in his angels and in his saints. Amen.

No pope has formally declared the Holy Spirit's "spouse" being Mary to be dogma (by speaking ex cathedra) nor condemned it.   (To answer your comment: why would they condemn such a belief?  See Ott's observation above).  Only the Pope can define or reject something binding on Catholic belief one way or another (dogma).

The Catholic church embraces a variety of expressions of belief and faith (for example scapulars, and other sacramentals) without them becoming dogma.  Your look into this "pious custom" has already given you your answer at the Catholic Answers ... but do they have the Nihil Obstat?  (no).  If you check the Catholic Encyclopedia, its treatment of Mary does not include a discussion of her being the spouse of the Holy Spirit.  Nor do you find it as a dogma on the Pope's official site at vatican.va.

The church does not go out of its way to keep a nearly infinite list of "Oh, and this isn't dogma, nor this, nor this ..." - it's rather pointless.

No: the position or belief that Mary is the spouse of the Holy spirit is not dogma.  You are invited to read up on an official written discussion of dogma and its formation here.

An excerpt of the much longer treatment ...

  The study of the history of dogma shows clearly that in these dogmas the Church has not simply taken up already existing conceptual schemes. She has rather subjected existing concepts, imprinted by the upper levels of the language of the milieu, to a process of purification and transformation, or reworking. In that way, she has created the language that fits her message. Take for example the distinction between "substance" (or nature) and "hypostasis", and the working out of the concept of person which was unknown, as such, to Greek philosophy. In fact, it came about as a result of reflection on the reality of the mystery of Salvation and on biblical language.

  The language of the Church's dogma was then forged partly in debate with certain philosophical systems, but is not bound in any way to any definitive philosophical system. In the process of seeking language for the faith, the Church has created a language of her own in which she has given expression to realities hitherto unperceived and unknown, but which belong now, precisely by means of such linguistic expression, to the Paradosis of the Church and through it to the historical heritage of humanity.


If we are saved by grace, then why does Jesus say we must be baptized in both spirit and water?

This is a difficult question - not the question are we saved by grace, because we are - but the question of why does Jesus say "water and spirit".  I am not sure an answer can have any finality to it, because of the nature of deep study that is required, and many top theologians disagree on the meaning of it.

So, what does Jesus mean when he says "born of water". Does he mean necessarily mean baptism? Its important to have the right interpretation so we can know if Jesus is saying we nee to be baptized to be saved.

I get three different interpretations from this scripture (I know there are more).

Jesus is referring to a believers baptism. I am not sure if he would make baptism a requirement, because then it would be a direct contradiction to the thief on the cross going to heaven (there was no time for baptism there)
Jesus is referring to the baptism of John. I think this is plausible because Nicodemus would have known about John's baptism as all teachers of the law. And some thought that baptism of the water is what redeemed them. But of course John just came to prepare the way for Christ, so therefore the statement paraphrased this way, you see John baptizing with water you can't just be baptized with water, but also by the Spirit.
Jesus is referring to natural birth. I think this is also possible, considering we are all in a water sack (placenta) in our mother's womb. This can make sense because Nicodemus says, how can I be born again, can I go back into my mother's womb?, and then Jesus answers (in this interpretations perspective) you must be born naturally (of course you have to be alive first) and born spiritually in order to enter the kingdom of God.

In the verses 7 - 8 Jesus says - 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Jesus drops the born of the water here and just says "So is everyone who is born of the Spirit". So that could provide context to what He said earlier. Meaning that ultimately it is those who are born of the Spirit, and the water is referring to maybe one of the interpretations above, meaning the water is only a start, but the Spirit is what does it.

Last quick note: Mark 16:16 Jesus says - He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Jesus says here that you should believe and be baptized, but only those who don't believe will be condemned. I personally believe you should be baptized if you're a believer, because Jesus commands it and he says those who obey Him are those that love Him. And I also believe the thief on the cross disproves the belief that you have to be baptized in order to be saved. But again... if you are able to be baptized I believe you should be.

Luke 23:42-43 Then he said to Jesus, “Lord remember me when You come into Your kingdom.”
43 And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

Of course that is all just studying this from my perspective, there are probably holes in it, but hopefully that helps a bit.


Is a marriage between a transman and transwoman in accordance with Roman Catholic canon law?

TR;DR
So long as the persons have not rendered themselves impotent, there is nothing preventing two transgender persons from marrying one another.
However, the Church essentially recognizes only the so-called biological sex of the persons. Hence, she would regard the transgender “man” as a woman, and the transgender “woman” as a man.
In general, the Church holds that the faithful have a strict right to the sacrament of matrimony, provided the candidates are one man and one woman, and there are no impediments (e.g., when at least one of the parties is already married to someone else, or impotent).
Hence, although transgenderism is deeply problematic (for the reasons I will mention below), that would not prevent a couple from marrying.
The background behind this
There is very little in Church documents regarding transexualism, because it is a relatively new phenomenon (at least, it did not become a major issue for the Church until very recently). It is not mentioned at all in Canon Law.
Pope Francis has spoken out against so-called gender theory (see, for example, the general audience on April 15, 2015), which asserts that a person’s sex (his biological configuration as male or female) is distinct from his gender (his subjective perception of being man or woman).
The problematic aspect of this theory is not so much that these two notions are distinct (they evidently are, because empirically, gender dysphoria does exist) but the idea that “biological” sex is malleable—that it can be changed by a mere external procedure (such as surgery or hormone treatment).
However, sound philosophical principles, backed up by good science, and reiterated in the Bible, can help to answer the question.
Man is one and whole
The first and most important principle is that a human being is one and whole. Man is not (as René Descartes famously asserted) a spirit that happens to be united to a body—as if the spirit and the body were separate beings. (See Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy, II, in which he explains res cogitans—i.e., the soul—and how it relates to res extensa—realites that are “extended” in space, including our body.)
Rather, each person is a unique and undivided being. His body is just as much a part of his being as his soul—so much so that it can only be separated from his soul with the greatest violence. (We call that “death.”)
Gaudium et spes, Vatican II’s pastoral constitution on the Church in the modern world, sums up this idea succinctly:

Though made of body and soul, man is one. … For this reason man is not allowed to despise his bodily life, rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and honorable since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day (Gaudium et spes, 14).

Indeed, a person’s bodily life is entirely imbued with and ennobled by his soul. It follows that even his biological functions—especially one as fundamental and profound as his sexuality—are most closely united to his soul.
Male and female he created them
A person’s “biological sex,” therefore, is given to a person from the moment of his conception, and it cannot be changed: it is far too fundamental a part of his being. Indeed, a person’s sex endures for all eternity. Although we can know this through reason alone, the Bible beautifully sums up this principle when it says,

So God created man [understood generically, as in “mankind”] in his own image,in the image of God he created him;male and female he created them (Genesis 1:27).

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it,

Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. “Being man” or “being woman” is a reality which is good and willed by God: man and woman possess an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God their Creator (No. 369, emphasis added).

Consequently, the sex that a person is born with is the sex that he will possess for life (indeed, as mentioned, for all eternity). No amount of surgery or other treatment can change it. Catholics would encourage those experiencing gender dysphoria to seek professional help to manage or overcome it.
Regarding the marriage of transgender persons
For these reasons, the Church can only consider the sex that persons possessed from birth (in reality, from conception) when assessing whether a couple is able to marry. If one or both of the parties happens to be transgender, that is a secondary issue, so long as one man (male at birth) marries one woman (female at birth).


" IN Quires and Places where they sing, here followeth the Anthem " (Book of Common Prayer 1662)

An 'anthem' is a sung piece of church music, often a musical setting of a biblical passage. They differ from a hymn in that they are usually musically complex and sung by a choir rather than by the congregation.

Not all services will include a choir, so the anthem is optional. However if one is used, it is sung in the place indicated.

'Quire' is simply an old spelling of 'choir', and the word can be used to mean a place where a choir sings.

So the sentence means:

  If you have a choir or other singers, the anthem will be sung at this point in the service.


What is the source of the belief that the deceased become angels?

Within Christianity, the belief that humans become angels seems to stem from a misinterpretation of Jesus' words:

  For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. (Matthew 22:30)
  And Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. (Luke 20:34-36)

It seems many people incorrectly interpret "like" and "equal to" to mean "identical to."

Mainstream Christianity has never taught this; the early church fathers argued over many things concerning angels (whether they are only spirit or have material bodies, what categories of angels exist, etc.), but it doesn't look like they had to argue against the idea that men became angels. Not one of the thirteen commentaries I've read make the claim (or even leave open the possibility).

Outside mainstream Christianity, a few groups do teach that humans become angels:

According to the Latter Day Saints:

  Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.
  For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever. (D&C 132:16-17)

And LDS teaching on angels:

  There are two kinds of beings in heaven who are called angels: those who are spirits and those who have bodies of flesh and bone. Angels who are spirits have not yet obtained a body of flesh and bone, or they are spirits who have once had a mortal body and are awaiting resurrection. Angels who have bodies of flesh and bone have either been resurrected from the dead or translated.

The Swedish philosopher/scientist-turned revelator Emanuel Swedenborg, in his book Heaven and Hell published in 1758, wrote that angels are man's perfect form (they are the same race; angels are pure/purified humans).

  ... heaven is a communion -- sharing all it has with each one, and each one sharing all he has from this communion. An angel is a recipient, and is thus heaven in least form... Man, too, as far as he receives heaven, is so far a recipient, a heaven, and an angel. This is described in the Apocalypse in the words, He measured the wall of the holy Jerusalem a hundred and forty and four cubits, the measure of a man, that is of an angel (xxi, 17). [NKJV, ESV]


Are there any Christian doctrines that cover lucid dreaming?

To answer the Bible part of your question, the closest Biblical example I could think of was when (apparently) Paul had a dream (or vision) which he says may have been not a dream but a genuine experience. I think that is pretty lucid.

  2 Corinthians 12:2-4

  I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know — God knows. And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows — was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell.


When we forgive our offenders, does it mean we do not want God to punish them anymore?

I'd say that we forgive each other in order to more closely imitate Jesus. It doesn't have to do with letting them off the hook, nor do I believe it necessarily means we expect God to judge them later.

From Matthew 18:21-22,

  Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I
  forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?"
  Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven
  times."

Here Jesus' response was meant to indicate that our forgiveness towards each other should be endless.

And I feel more directly from John 13:34-35,

  "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so
  you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are
  my disciples, if you love one another."


Was the 66 book Bible being used by early Christians?

The answer is most certainly no.

The oldest complete Bible that we have is the Codex Vaticanus, dating to between 300 and 325.  It contains 68 books:  45 Old Testament books plus 23 New Testament books.  The Old Testament includes 2 Esdras (sometimes called "Ezra-Nehemiah"), Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach and the Psalms of Solomon.  The New Testament lacks 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Revelation.
The next oldest complete Bible we have is the Codex Sinaiticus, dating to between 330 and 360.  The Old Testament of the Sinaiticus manuscript is not complete, but it includes several deuterocanonical books:  2 Esdras, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, 1-4 Maccabees.  Assuming the Hebrew canon was complete, the Sinaiticus then would have contained over 45 Old Testament books.  Furthermore, Sinaiticus also included two New Testament books that were later excluded from the canon:  the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.  Together then, New Testament and Old comprised over 74 books.
The first formal Bible canon was set at the 3rd Council of Carthage in 397.  Canon XXXIII of the Council established a 44 book Old Testament and a 27 book New Testament canon, bringing the total to 71 books.
The very first Christian to introduce a New Testament canon was Marcion of Sinope (c 85-160). Marcion essentially rejected the Old Testament and accepted only the Gospel according to Luke and ten Pauline Epistles - essentially defining an 11-book Biblical canon.  Although Marcion was eventually condemned as a heretic and excommunicated, his movement persisted for at least 300 years.

These are a few examples of the discrepancies between the Bibles used by Christians in antiquity, all serving to illustrate that the number of books included was by no means stable.

A work of a 19th century Presbyterian theologian, Archibald Alexander, has been cited as an authority for the argument that early Christians only recognized the 39 books of the modern day Protestant Old Testament canon as authoritative.  In the book, Canon of the Old and New Testaments Ascertained, or The Bible Complete without the Apocrypha and Unwritten Traditions, regarding the deuterocanon, Alexander makes the claim "that these books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal".  As evidence of this, he appeals to the authority of several Church Fathers and early Christian writers.  There are many weaknesses in his claims.  For example:

He states that Justin Martyr (100-165) "does not cite a single passage, in all his writings, from any apocryphal book."  By this logic, any book not quoted by Justin would be considered non-canonical.  A review of Schaff's index of Scriptures cited by Justin Martyr (from the Ante-Nicene Fathers series, vol.1) shows that Justin Martyr quoted from 24 Old Testament books and 13 New Testament books.  Does this imply that he held to a 37-book Bible canon?
Having cited Justin Martyr as an authority for ignoring the deuterocanon, he neglects to mention that Ireneaus of Lyon (130-202) - a contemporary of Justin Martyr and perhaps an even more authoritative Church Father - quotes from the Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) in Against Heresies.
He quotes a list of Old Testament books given, according to Eusebius1, by Melito of Sardis (d. 180) that appears to exclude Esther, Lamentations (which some say is included in Jeremiah), and Nehemiah (which some say is included in Ezra) and may or may not include the Wisdom of Solomon (some say he was referring to "Proverbs" with the phrase ἣ καὶ Σοφία).  In all, Melito's list implies an Old Testament canon of between 36 and 39 books, depending on whether one considers Wisdom, Lamentations, and/or Nehemiah to have been included in the enumeration - with a total of 39 reached only with the inclusion of Wisdom.
He correctly quotes Origen as saying, "We should not be ignorant, that the canonical books are the same which the Hebrews delivered unto us, and are twenty-two in number, according to the number of letters of the Hebrew alphabet.”  He neglects to point out that Origen concluded his discussion of the Old Testament canon with the note, "And besides these there are the Maccabees"2 - which meant that Origen recognized between 41 and 44 books in the Old Testament (3 Maccabees and 4 Maccabees are not always enumerated in other Old Testament canons of the early Church).
He attributes a list from a work called The Synopsis of Sacred Scripture to Athanasius, though scholars generally agree that it was written by some clergyman in the 6th century.  This list also excludes Esther from the list of "canonical" books and instead places it with a list of "non-canonical" books. Further, he quotes only a part of the document. "Such are the books belonging to the Old Testament", it states, "including those which are canonical and those which are not canonical."  In addition to Esther, the list of "non-canonical" books given includes the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Judith, and Tobit.  So depending on whether the "non-canonical" books are to be considered as part of the Old Testament or not, the Synopsis describes an Old Testament canon of either 38 or 43 books.
He again selectively quotes the work of another Church Father, Hilary of Poitiers (310-368), omitting the statement, "To this some add Tobit and Judith to make twenty-four books, according to the number of the Greek letters, which is the language used among Hebrews and Greeks gathered in Rome."3  Thus, Hilary describes an Old Testament canon of between 39 and 41 books.
He states that "Jerome, in his Epistle to Paulinus, gives us a catalogue of the books of the Old Testament, exactly corresponding with that which Protestants receive: 'Which,' says he, 'we believe agreeably to the tradition of our ancestors, to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit.'"  He neglects to point out, however, that Jerome included Tobit, Judith, and Sirach in his Latin translation of the Bible (see "Prefaces to the Books of the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament" here)

Alexander goes on to look for support in some other patristic sources.  I have not bothered to go through the rest of these in detail.  Of these, however, his quote from John Chrysostom (c 349-407) is especially preposterous.  He misquotes Chrysostom as saying in his 4th Homily on Genesis:

  That all the divine books of the Old Testament were originally written in the Hebrew tongue, and that no other books were received.

What Chrysostom actually wrote was:

  All the sacred books of the Old Testament were originally written in Hebrew; everyone would agree with us on this.

Furthermore, Chrysostom in this very same Homily quotes the deuterocanonical book of Sirach (25:9), writing:

  Scripture says, remember, Blessed is the one that preaches to willing ears.

He also quotes from Wisdom (13:5) in the same homily.  In his homilies on Matthew alone, Chrysostom quotes 4 times from the Book of Wisdom, 18 times from Sirach, and twice from Baruch - all deuterocanonical books.  To maintain that he did not accept the deuterocanon as Scriptural is simply inexcusable.  In fact, one would be hard-pressed not to find Chrysostom citing the deuterocanon in any one of his 17 commentaries on the New Testament.

Please note that I am not addressing the question of whether the deuterocanon should or should not be included in Scripture.  I am simply pointing out that based on the writings of many respected Church Fathers and early Christian writers, the deuterocanon was generally considered to be part of Scripture, with varying degrees of acceptance (e.g. it was included in the Old Testament, but at a different level from the "Hebrew" Scriptures).  It's standing even among Jews can be called into question, as copies of Sirach and Tobit were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (as was a copy of 1 Enoch).  All this points to the fact that even with the New Testament canon settled, early Christians did not uniformly and consistently - or perhaps not at all - recognize a 66-book Bible.

1. Eusebius, Church History, IV.26
2. Ibid., VI.25
3. Exposition on the Psalms XV


Who says, "If you are going to Heaven, you will know it"?

The only prominent preacher I could find was Paul:

Hebrews 11 speaks of faith and even faith that leads to a “good report”.  What follows is Hebrews abbreviated to focus on the distinction of this question.  Do we have the benefit of assurance that was not available prior to the completed work of the cross?

  Hebrews 11 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible…By faith Abraham…was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God…All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth…they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them…These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.

So faith and faith’s effectiveness in a relationship with God has ever been extended to mankind.  We who live on the other side of the cross are not unique because of our heavenly destination but that we have received the promise; we have the benefit of knowing whom to serve as Lord.  And as a result of Christ’s finished work on the cross we uniquely have the benefit of the Holy Spirits presence within our heart.  This unique presence of the promise enables Christ to be made manifest through our lives.

Faith in God’s grace saves the soul of mankind, assurance of God’s grace within the heart of mankind comes when we become less and He (Christ) becomes more, when we take up our cross and follow Him.

Evidence of His presence in our lives gives us assurance that we belong to Him, we are no longer our own.


Does the Bible say if animals in Eden were carnivorous, or when animals on Earth became carnivorous?

The short answer is "yes, sort of".

The only sub-group within Christianity that I'm aware of that cares about whether the animals in the Garden of Eden were originally carnivorous or not are the Young Earth Creationists.

To other groups, it's simply a non-issue.  Only within the young-earth paradigm do you get the idea that there was no physical death before Adam's sin, and thus it's only from that view that there's a necessity to explain what the animals ate before the fall.

Example of the YEC teaching on the subject can be found here.

Going further, understanding the YEC mindset, the only reason to believe in a young-earth creation as literal history is because of the belief that the Bible, including the first portion of Genesis, is meant to be taken literally.

The reason this is important is that the Bible is considered to be the only authoritative source of Truth, particularly among these groups.

So, to these groups, the only thing that can be considered "canon" is the Bible itself.

While the Bible doesn't use the word "herbivore", it does say this in Genesis 1:29-30:

  29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed,
  which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which
  is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

  30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and
  to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I
  have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

So, a literal interpretation of verse 30 implies that all living things were given plants to eat.  It doesn't exactly say "They can't eat meat", but it  does say that God has given plants to eat to every beast of the earth and fowl of the air - and every would include those that are carnivorous today.

Most YEC groups do take this to mean that originally all animals were herbivorous.

With that said, there are dozens of alternate ways that the genesis account is understood.  It could be just as easy to say that God gave them plants but that doesn't mean that it's ONLY plants that they were given. It could be that they were able to eat meat, but that just wasn't mentioned.  And of course, to anyone other than the YEC adherents, it's a non-issue.


Are things commonly blessed by priests at certain times of the year appropriate to bring to a priest for a special blessing?

The short answer is yes.

But before doing so make arrangements with your pastor or priest before doing so.

This is something I do, not on a regular basis, but now and again.

As far as I am aware table salt and saltpetre are considered salt and both are edible; thus either one may be used in the blessing of salt. Normally, only table salt is employed.

Some blessings in the Roman Ritual are reserved to one particular feast in the year. Therefore, please make arrangements with your pastor or priest beforehand. Over the years I have had the occasion of getting many diverse these objects specially blessed by the Church with the help of her sacred ministers.

According to the ancient Rituale Romanum several blessing are reserved to specific feasts and/or bishops or even the pope such as the following:

Blessing of Water (Magi Water) on Eve of the Feast of the Epiphany (January 5). In the Extraordinary Form, the permission of the local ordinary (bishop) is required for this blessing because it contains a major exorcism prayer within it.
Blessing of Gold, Frankincense and Myrrh on the Feast Epiphany
Blessing of Chalk on the Feast of the Epiphany
Blessing of (Domesticated/Farm) Animals on the Eve of the Feast of St. Anthony of the Desert (January 16)
Blessing of Throats on the Feast of St. Blaise
Blessing of Herbs on the Feast of the Assumption
Blessing of Seeds on the Feast of the Nativity of the Most Holy Virgin Mary
Blessing of Basil on the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross
Blessing of animals (pets) on the Feast of St. Francis of Assisi (October 4)
Blessing of Hunting Hounds on the Feast of St. Hubert (November 3)
Blessing of Water, Salt and Bread on the Feast of St. Hubert (Page 466) See: Buns for Saint Hubert
Blessing of the Sword and Hat on Christmas Eve  (December 24) This blessing is reserved to the pope and has not been done in modern times.
Blessing of wine on the Feast of St John the Apostle (December 27)

This is not an exhaustive list. Some dioceses and Religious Orders have the privilege or  reserved right of blessing certain religious items or sacramentals.

Some of these blessings are simple blessings. A few are known as containing a minor exorcism. One is actually a major exorcism and the bishop’s permission is required to confer the required blessing.

  According to Catholic belief demons or fallen angels retain their natural power, as intelligent beings, of acting on the material universe, and using material objects and directing material forces for their own wicked ends; and this power, which is in itself limited, and is subject, of course, to the control of Divine providence, is believed to have been allowed a wider scope for its activity in the consequence of the sin of mankind. Hence places and things as well as persons are naturally liable to diabolical infestation, within limits permitted by God, and exorcism in regard to them is nothing more that a prayer to God, in the name of His Church, to restrain this diabolical power supernaturally, and a profession of faith in His willingness to do so on behalf of His servants on earth.

  The chief things formally exorcised in blessing are water, salt, oil, and these in turn are used in personal exorcisms, and in blessing or consecrating places (e.g. churches) and objects (e.g. altars, sacred vessels, church bells) connected with public worship, or intended for private devotion. Holy water, the sacramental with which the ordinary faithful are most familiar, is a mixture of exorcised water and exorcised salt; and in the prayer of blessing, God is besought to endow these material elements with a supernatural power of protecting those who use them with faith against all the attacks of the devil. This kind of indirect exorcism by means of exorcised objects is an extension of the original idea; but it introduces no new principle, and it has been used in the Church from the earliest ages.  - Exorcism (Catholic Encyclopaedia)

I get a priest to bless olive oil during Eastertide when possible. Like I said above, I ask the pastor a week or two before so he is not taken by surprise. Unlike most of the faithful I bring along holy water (aqua benedicta) and a copy of the prayer I desire the priest to employ.


What is the biblical basis for the belief that people do not go to heaven or hell immediately when they die?

Introduction
I intend to show that the concept of a universal realm for all, outside Heaven, where all await the resurrection (Waiting in the Grave, WitG hereafter) is united against other beliefs such as the belief we go Straight to Heaven (StH), that we cease to exist entirely with no afterlife or others such as purgatory/limbo.
While there are variations in WitG, they are all largely formed on the basis of common scripture and with the common concept that our focus should be on awaiting the resurrection as our reward, as our glorification and as a requisite for our eternal life with Christ. Their differences are not so much greater than any differences that occur among StH models.
Preconceptions
What makes this such an expansive topic is that it involves understandings of several key words and concepts that are contrary to the popular understandings of today. Concepts of the grave, hades or hell, life or soul, and heaven or paradise are subtly involved and must be well defined in order to understand the interpretations.
First, permit me to review, as concisely as I can, the foundational suppositions of those who hold to WitG as we build to the biblical evidence. I could simply list the bible chapter and verse references, but your question is asking for the biblical basis of an argument alternative to StH; not just the verses but how they are understood by those who believe WitG.
I will refer now to an eminent article written roughly 100 years ago by Elder Cortland Matthew Keach (1887-1925) titled "Do the Saints Go to Heaven when They Die?" (exact date written unknown). I encourage you to read the entire article in whole, but I will be drawing on it frequently as it is grounded firmly in scripture. He addresses many possible objections (arguments and scripture that StH present) that are beyond my scope here.
What is Heaven?
When one asks "Do people go directly to heaven or hell at the moment of death?" there is an implied definition of heaven that must be clarified.
Heaven is often depicted as the place of our eternal reward with God by StH, though when asked, the resurrection will be given lip service. WitG disagrees with this in all variations. Those who see this Heaven as a temporary waiting place may find they agree with WitG much more than they perhaps realized.
The more critical reader may see Heaven as the place that God dwells. It is outside creation or God dwells there temporarily, unseen, until he makes his home with us. Revelation 5:10, 11:15
What is Hell?
Likewise, we must address what this hell is. It is not really addressed in the OT, but we see it in the NT. However, in the NT Greek we must distinguish between three different terms translated hell: Hades, Gehenna and Tartarus. More on this: What is the difference between 'Hell', 'Sheol', 'Hades' and 'Gehenna'?
Those who hold to WitG understand Hades as was used by NT authors as the Greek language counterpart to Sheol, as we will see later when we compare their usage in scripture.
The final "Hell" of the second death after resurrection and judgment is reference to by Gehenna. The use Tartarus is admittedly unusual and beyond our scope here.
Old Testament Intermediate State
The OT see's death as a physical state. When one dies you are "gathered to your fathers" not in a spiritual sense, but literally, physically, in a grave shared by your fathers. There may be a figurative or even spiritual aspect of this as well, as Sheol better represents.
Sheol is the realm of death, located in the lower parts of the earth, though it is also used to speak of the state of death. It is simply where dead people are in a physical and abstract (or spiritual) sense.
Gathered to Family in Grave
Gen 25:5, Deut 31:16, 1 Ch. 17:11, 2 Ch. 34:28
Man being dead “in the Dust”
Job 17:16, Psa 7:5, Ecc 3:20,  Is 26:19, Daniel 12:2,
Sheol as State or Realm of Death
Gen 37:35, Num 16:30,33, 1 Sam 2:6, Job 7:9, 11:8, 14:13, 17:16, 21:13, Psa. 6:5. 9:17, 16:10, 30:3, 49:14-15, 86:13, 88:3, 89:48, 139:8. 141:7, Prov. 5:5, 7:27, 9:18, Isa. 7:11, 14:9
Notables:

Job 17:16 connects Sheol to “dust” and Ecc. 3:20 says “All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return. Daniel 12:2 Says we will awake from the dust.
Psalm 139:8, Job 11:8, Isa 7:11, Amos 9:2 make irrefutable distinction between Heaven and Sheol.
Job 14:13 Suggests Sheol is where Job expects to be until God “remembers” him (in the resurrection?) Also see Psa 49:15, Daniel 12:2

Hades used in same way
Matt 11:23, 16:18, Luke 10:15, 16:23, Acts 2:27 (Quote of Psa 16:10), Rev 20:13, 14
Notes:

Hades is again down not up in heaven
Abraham's bosom is identified with Hades by Jesus in Luke 16 (not Gehenna as Judaism describes it)
When quoting the Hebrew Sheol in the NT, Hades is used in Greek translation (the LXX does the same throughout the OT)

Abraham's Bosom
In the Second Temple Judaism concept of Abraham's Bosom there was a part of Sheol where the righteous would be greeted by Abraham (or Adam in earlier versions) and enjoy “paradise” while the unrighteous experienced discomfort. This is of great interest when we understand that the Sadducee denied the resurrection. They saw this paradise as their final rest while the Pharisee's saw it as a place of waiting for the resurrection. (Matt 22:23-32, Mark 12:18-27, Luke 20: 27-38, Acts 23:6-8) Does this sound familiar?
Early Church
The Early Church theologians and apologists seem to focus on the resurrection as the hope of the believer. The concept of looking forward to heaven after death is totally foreign, and even understood as denying the resurrection! This makes sense when we read Christ's rebuke of the Sadducees' denial of the resurrection and understand the early church would have connected an eternal “paradise” or “heaven” as subverting a future resurrection.
Justin Martyr
Justin Martyr is as emphatic on this topic as he is on any. In Dialogue with Trypho chapter 80 he says:

For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this [truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians,...

And his description of the intermediate state sounds a lot like Sheol/Abraham's Bosom:

The souls of the pious remain in a better place, while those of the unjust and wicked are in a worse, waiting for the time of judgment. [Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 5.]

Conceptual Argument
Some arguments for WitG are not taken out of just one “proof text”.
Christ brings our reward to us in the resurrection after his second coming
Isaiah 62:11

“Behold, your salvation comes;
behold, his reward is with him,
and his recompense before him.”

1 Cor 4:5

Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.

Isaiah 26:19-21

Your dead shall live; their bodies shall rise. You who dwell in the dust, awake and sing for joy! For your dew is a dew of light, and the earth will give birth to the dead.

This is both the reward for good and for evil:
Revelation 22:12

“Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done.

Revelation 20:12

...And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done.

Daniel 12:1b-2

...But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book.
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.

The Saints are not with Christ until his return
Other passages such as 1 Thess. 4:13-17 show us, if read carefully, that at the trumpet the dead rise and those who are alive are gathered with them to be with the Lord forever. This is often used to support StH but logically it cannot be so! For if the promise of being with him forever does not start until the trumpet and Christ's coming, how can the dead already be in heaven before his coming?  As we see in John 14:3

And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.

Also often used by StH, this passage shows instead that the saints, alive or dead, are not taken to be with Christ until after he comes again. And where is Christ that we may be with him? Here! For he has come again at that point!
It will be noted that this then starts to enter the realm of the debate on the Rapture. It is common for WitG adherents, such as Adventist groups and LDS, to deny a “secret rapture” and hold to it referring to a literal gathering of the saints to Christ at Jerusalem, as a corroborating doctrine. It is my personal opinion based on study of theological history, that the idea of StH has directly lead to the concept of the secret rapture by necessity in order to avoid the WitG understanding.
Where are they? David, Samuel, Jesus
When David's first son with Bathsheba dies at birth, David exclaims “I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.” And yet where did David go upon dying? Peter tells us in Acts 2:34, when arguing that scripture prophesied of Jesus, “For David did not ascend into the heavens”. Unless we are going to say Peter was wrong, and David did go to heaven and the psalm attributed to Jesus really was about David?
Also, when Saul consults the witch of Endor (1 Sam 28:13), the spirit identified as Samuel says, “tomorrow you and your sons shall be with me.” Either this is a false spirit from Hell (who gives Saul correct prophecy) or Samuel and Saul and his sons are together in heaven or hell. Would it really be Samuel's place to promise Saul heaven?
Jesus words to the thief on the cross (Luke 23:43) make far greater sense when one considers the “paradise” he is referring to is the peaceful, temporary rest of the dead, not an eternal existence in heaven. For we are told by Christ after he was resurrected (John 20:17) that “Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father” and Paul confirms in Ephesians 4:8-10 “In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth?” Unless we are to say that Christ ascended to heaven as StH would claim, then returned with his resurrection only to ascend again and that we are truly awaiting his third coming? (Indeed, the fourth, after the secret rapture?)
Common Variations
Abraham's Bosom/Paradise
As mentioned before, still held by some in Judaism. However, even modern Orthodox Judaism see “heaven” as after the resurrection! Still held by some in similar form as described by Justin Martyr (had a recent conversation confirming this or unconsciousness is the general belief of the Amish).
Unconsciousness of the Dead/Soul Sleep
Some believe that the consistent pattern of being compared to sleep in the OT and NT, combined with the OT descriptions of a knowledge-less Sheol points to an unconscious or semi-unconscious dream-like awareness in the intermediate state.
Best known are the Seventh-Day Adventists, but there are some other smaller denominations such as the Advent Christian Church (related in origin to the 7th Day, but are fairly normal evangelical denomination).
Jehovah Witnesses
Jehovah Witnesses believe the dead cease to exist, but are remembered by God. Their argument uses similar scripture and plays out very similar to that of unconsciousness of the dead.
Latter Day Saints
The LDS believe in a "Spirit World" Again, the focus is on a realm where spirits await the resurrection. Very similar to Abraham's Bosom with a few peculiarities that make it worth mentioning separately.
WitG before Christ, StH after
There are some, with no official denominational stance that I'm aware of, that hold to the idea that Sheol and Abraham's Bosom existed prior to Jesus' resurrection, but that afterward he took or sent the saints to heaven and the reprobate to hell.
This is a common compromise among theologians and pastors familiar enough with the Old Testament that they cannot deny the strength of the concept of Sheol as we examined earlier, but wish to hold to a StH view.
Conclusion
Doctrinal history shows the concept of a holding place for the souls of the dead awaiting the resurrection is the view at least by the Second Temple period Judaism, if not earlier, and then the early church. Variations are based largely on the nature of our state there, be it conscious or unconscious, or in comfort or discomfort, on it's division, whether all are in the same place or it divided in two or more sections, or on the nature of man himself, immortal or not. But these particulars do not deviate enough from the basic concept to not be united in their supporting scriptures. There is a wealth of scripture speaking on the human state after death but prior to Christ's second coming and the resurrection for those willing to look.


We are accountable for our actions, words, teachings and judging.
No such thing for age accountability.

it is just another man made doctrine to bound people by their laws, doctrine and beliefs.

  Matthew 12:35-37 ESV
  The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

Unbelievers will give an account

  Romans 14:10-12 ESV
  Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.

Let the people who judge give an account for their judging

God Bless


From where did the Book of Abraham come and how did it become part of LDS Scripture?

Sigh... the reference manuals and official sources say it so much better than do I... So here's some quotes and links.

From the Introductory Note of the Pearl of Great Price:

  The Book of Abraham. A translation from some Egyptian papyri that came
  into the hands of Joseph Smith in 1835, containing writings of the
  patriarch Abraham. The translation was published serially in the Times
  and Seasons beginning 1 March 1842, at Nauvoo, Illinois. (See History
  of the Church, 4:519–34.)

An institute student manual has more to say on the subject:

  How Did the Church Obtain the Book of Abraham?

  On 3 July 1835 a man named Michael Chandler brought four Egyptian
  mummies and several papyrus scrolls of ancient Egyptian writings to
  Kirtland, Ohio. The mummies and papyri had been discovered in Egypt
  several years earlier by Antonio Lebolo. Kirtland was one of many
  stops in the eastern United States for Chandler’s mummy exhibition.
  Chandler was offering the mummies and rolls of papyrus for sale and,
  at the urging of the Prophet Joseph Smith, several members of the
  Church donated money to purchase them. In a statement dated 5 July
  1835, Joseph Smith, declaring the importance of these ancient Egyptian
  writings, recorded: “I commenced the translation of some of the
  characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the
  rolls contained the writings of Abraham. . . . Truly we can say, the
  Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth” (
  History of the Church, 2:236).

This article by Dr. Andrew Skinner of Brigham Young University goes into more detail (formatting lost in the copy operation):

  In the year 1799, an intensified interest in ancient Egypt was kindled
  in the Western world when the Rosetta Stone was discovered near
  Alexandria, Egypt. Made of black basalt, the stone was found by an
  officer of Napoleon’s engineering corps. It bore inscriptions in three
  ancient languages—Egyptian hieroglyphics, demotic (a simplified script
  that succeeded hieroglyphics), and Greek. Among the European linguists
  who began to work on deciphering these inscriptions was the young
  French scholar Jean Francois Champollion. Hieroglyphics, the written
  language of ancient Egypt, had been a riddle to scholars for many
  centuries. Working from clues found in the last inscription on the
  Rosetta Stone, written in Greek, Champollion was finally able to
  decipher the other two inscriptions. In 1822 he published the results
  of his work and the science of Egyptology was born, allowing scholars
  to begin to read the most ancient texts of Egypt. 3

  These developments involving the Rosetta Stone and Champollion
  contributed to the coming forth of the book of Abraham in a
  significant way. As one writer put it, during the early 19th century
  “worldwide interest in Egyptian antiquities fanned itself to a searing
  blaze. Egypt was soon overrun with scientific expeditions,
  adventurers, soldiers of fortune, and robbers of catacombs and ancient
  burial sites.” 4 Into this atmosphere entered Antonio Lebolo, an
  Italian excavator of Egyptian antiquities.

  According to Oliver Cowdery’s account written in 1835, Lebolo and his
  work crew had discovered several mummies in one of the catacombs near
  the place where once stood the renowned Egyptian city of Thebes. 5
  After Lebolo’s death, these mummies and two papyrus rolls and some
  papyrus fragments that had been placed in some of the sarcophagi
  eventually found their way to New York City and then into the hands of
  Michael Chandler. 6 He was told that no one could translate the
  papyri’s inscriptions. He learned, however, that a man named Joseph
  Smith Jr. claimed some kind of special power that allowed him to
  decipher ancient writings. The Prophet’s name continued to come up,
  mostly in derision, at the various places where Chandler stopped to
  display his traveling mummy show. 7 In 1835 Chandler finally made
  contact with the Prophet Joseph Smith in Kirtland, Ohio. An entry in
  the Prophet’s history dated 3 July 1835 reads:

  “On the 3rd of July, Michael H. Chandler came to Kirtland to exhibit
  some Egyptian mummies. There were four human figures, together with
  some two or more rolls of papyrus covered with hieroglyphic figures
  and devices. As Mr. Chandler had been told I could translate them, he
  brought me some of the characters, and I gave him the interpretation.”
  8

  The Prophet Joseph Smith was then inspired to raise money to purchase
  Chandler’s mummies and the accompanying papyri even though he did not
  know exactly what the writings would disclose. Kirtland Saints
  contributed the funds for the purchase. The price was $2,400—not an
  inconsequential sum considering that the temple was under
  construction, but the faith of members who knew the Prophet and his
  works led them to help. 9

  After the purchase, the Prophet Joseph began to translate some of the
  papyri with the assistance of scribes W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery.
  (Warren Parish was later called and employed as scribe.) This is what
  the Prophet recorded in his personal history: “With W. W. Phelps and
  Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the
  characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the
  rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of
  Joseph of Egypt, etc.,—a more full account of which will appear in its
  place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them. Truly we can say, the
  Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth.” 10

  There is no doubt that the Prophet Joseph Smith regarded the manner in
  which these writings came to him as the result of divine intercession.
  The testimony of W. W. Phelps is no less certain: “God has so ordered
  it that these mummies and writings have been brought in the Church.”
  11 This happened only after the Lord had prepared his Church and the
  world to receive the book of Abraham. The rekindled spirit of
  excitement about ancient Egyptian writings in the 19th century, owing
  to the discovery of the Rosetta Stone and Champollion’s work, was one
  step in that preparation. Speaking of the way the Lord has guided
  discoveries and achievements of the human family to further his
  purposes, President Joseph Fielding Smith said:

  “There has never been a step taken from that day [ancient times] to
  this, in discovery or invention, where the Spirit of the Lord … was
  not the prevailing force, resting upon the individual, which caused
  him to make the discovery or the invention. … Nor did the Lord always
  use those who have faith, nor does he always do so today. He uses such
  minds as are pliable and can be turned in certain directions to
  accomplish his work, whether they believe in him or not. …

  “Now, do you think that these discoveries and inventions … have come
  just because these men have been sitting down and concentrating their
  minds upon these matters and have discovered them though their thought
  or accidentally? Not in the least, but the Spirit of the Lord, the
  Light of Christ, has been back of it. … We are ready for these
  discoveries, these inventions, and they all have a bearing upon the
  restoration of the gospel and preparation for the time which is yet
  future, but which is shortly to come, when Christ shall reign on the
  earth, and for a thousand years peace shall be established.” 12

  Hence, this remarkable book of Abraham was brought forth in a
  remarkable way to help prepare us for the Second Coming of the Savior.

I recommend following the cited cross-references (History of the Church, and other linked documents and articles) because the information in them is fascinating history and they go into much more detail.


Is the Mass seen as a sacrifice in the Lutheran Church?

In the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Philipp Melanchthon identifies two distinct meanings of the word "sacrifice," rejecting one (the Roman Catholic view) and accepting the other:

  The proximate species of sacrifice are two, and there are no more. One is the propitiatory sacrifice, i.e., a work which makes satisfaction for guilt and punishment, i.e., one that reconciles God, or appeases God's wrath, or which merits the remission of sins for others. The other species is the eucharistic sacrifice, which does not merit the remission of sins or reconciliation, but is rendered by those who have been reconciled, in order that we may give thanks or return gratitude for the remission of sins that has been received, or for other benefits received. (XXIV §19)

Put another way – a "sacrifice" can be understood as a substitutionary sacrifice that reconciles people to God, or it can be a giving of thanks by those already reconciled to God.  Lutherans reject the idea that the former idea is present in the Eucharist/Mass, but believe that the latter is an aspect of it.  Of the first type, there has been only one:

  There has been only one propitiatory sacrifice in the world, namely, the death of Christ (§22)

But the second type continues to be properly part of the Christian's life:

  Now the rest are eucharistic sacrifices, which are called sacrifices of praise, Lev. 3:1f.; 7:11f.; Ps. 56:12f., namely, the preaching of the Gospel, faith, prayer, thanksgiving, confession, the afflictions of saints, yea, all good works of saints. These sacrifices are not satisfactions for those making them, or applicable on behalf of others, so as to merit for these, ex opere operato, the remission of sins or reconciliation. (§25)

This understanding of "sacrifice" continues in Lutheranism today.  John Mueller, summarizing the work of Francis Pieper, has little regard for the Catholic view of the sacrifice of the Mass:

  Closely connected with the pernicious doctrine of transubstantiation are the papistic errors of the "sacrifice of the Mass," by which "Christ's body "is continually offered up in an unbloody manner for the sins of the living and the dead." (Christian Dogmatics, 511)

So we see that the word "sacrifice" may be used in the context of Lutheran Mass, but not in the same sense as Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would use it.


Catholic interpretation of Revelation by John?

The best, most detailed Catholic commentary on St. John's Apocalypse is

The Book of Destiny (1956) by Fr. Herman Kramer.

cf. the briefer, older commentary: The Apocalypse of St. John (1921) by Fr. E. Sylvester Berry

Commenting on Apoc. 12:1 ("woman clothed with the sun"… etc.), Fr. Kramer writes:

  The woman of chapter twelve is not the Blessed Virgin Mary.

  […]

  According to the ancient Fathers, the human nature or character of the Church is here delineated, while in chapters four and five her divine nature and prerogatives were depicted.

  […]

  The twelve stars represent the twelve apostles; or they may be God's mystical number symbolizing the Christian nations, that as a contrast to the ten crowned horns of the beast, shall be the glory of the Church when the days of Antichrist approach.

  […]

  The moon under her feet has ever been understood to symbolize the unchanging and unchangeable character of the Church.

cf. these excerpts of his commentary on Apoc. 12

Also, St. John's Apocalypse contains a detailed description of the Catholic Mass.


In pre-tribulation pre-millennialism, will those who have died before the millennium return to earth?

According to Theopedia, in classical dispensationalism men, angels and Christ will return to the earth.

  Classic dispensationalists (ala C. I. Scofield and Lewis Sperry Chafer) are pre-tribulationists and believe that the second coming will be in two stages separated by a 7-year period of tribulation. At the first he will return in the air to rescue those who are Christians at that time (the rapture). Then follows a seven-year period of suffering in which the Antichrist will conquer the world and kill those who refuse to worship him. At the end of the seven years, the final witness will go out before men and angels and Christ will return to the earth. He will defeat the Antichrist, and rescue the Jews and those who have converted to Christianity during the tribulation period.

http://www.theopedia.com/premillennialism

Wikipedia says the same thing.

  Dispensational premillennialism[64] generally holds that Israel and the Church are distinct entities.[65] It also widely holds to the pretribulational return of Christ, which believes that Jesus will return to take up Christians into heaven by means of a rapture immediately before a seven-year worldwide tribulation. This will be followed by an additional return of Christ with his saints (though there are post tribulation dispensationalists, such as Robert Gundry).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premillennialism


Which Prominent Modern Religions Came from the "Great Awakenings" and What Have They Done For the World?

In short, the "mainline" Christian denominations/religions existed before the "Great Awakenings," although smaller denominations/religions such as the LDS, the Seventh Day Adventists, the JW emerged through these periods of revival.  The "Evangelical" denominations emerged out of a separate revivalist tradition centered on the West Coast around the turn of the 20th Century (for more info read Hayford, Jack W.; Moore, S. David (2006). The Charismatic Century: The Enduring Impact of the Azusa Street Revival).

A longer answer really begins to question whether the historical theory of the "Great Awakenings" is even correct.  Jon Butler most famously attacked the theory of the "First Great Awakening" in his book Awash in a Sea of Faith.  Butler argues that the traditional theory of Christian Revival spurring on Revolutionary fervor in the years leading up to the American Revolution is invalid and that there is no evidence for a wide-spread revival like traditional textbooks teach.  No other historian has been able to completely refute his claims in these regards.  However, there is no way to ignore the major revivals in the 1740s and 50s in New England.  These revivals though, led to more schism within the Congregationalist tradition than positive change.

The "Second Great Awakening" is the movement which produced smaller denominations/religions such as the LDS, the Seventh Day Adventists, and the JW.  The "Second Great Awakening" occurred in the aftermath of the American Revolution, although it was more of a reaction to the departure of the Church of England and its missionary societies.  When Church of England clergy and money left the colonies, there was a void to be filled in American religious life.  This second "Awakening" is what made the Mainline denominations mainline.  In many colonies they took over former Church of England buildings and congregations.  It took many years from the departure of the Church of England for the Mainline denominations to completely organize themselves[edit: in the modern legal sense]; and within this time, doctrine within the Methodist, Presbyterian, and Baptist movements were fairly fluid.  In her book Southern Cross, Christine Heyrman writes how a Methodist revivalist could found a Baptist congregation because of doctrinal confusion and petty squabbling amongst congregants.  This doctrinal confusion led to the creation of more denominations.

Getting back to your question, the "Great Awakenings" led to the creation of new denominations/religions because of confusion over doctrine and squabbling.  I am personally more of a historian than a theologian, so I leave it up to others whether this was an issue of true doctrinal disputes or an issue of schism.  This is also a very broad summary of very complex movements, and I am sure I have failed to do them justice in some regards, but this is generally how current research perceives the "Great Awakening"s.

The most significant influence that the "Great Awakenings" have had that is generally upheld  by scholars is making religion more individualistic.  The theology of Catholics, Lutherans, and Anglicans/Episcopalians is generally collective (e.g. the Church and her sacraments being important in an individual's salvation) while the "revival theology" of most Protestant denominations is much more individual (e.g. the emphasis on personally receiving Christ and even hymns such as "O What a Friend We Have in Jesus").  A lot of this "revival theology" comes out of the "Great Awakenings"

I know this was quite long, but I hope this helps you.


What is the storyline order of the Bible?

There are plenty of timelines of the Bible. I didn't find anything exactly matching your requirements, so here is a brief overview. Be aware that much of the Bible is not narrative, and there is not necessarily a 'historical order' to all of it. Note that I am assuming the common Protestant/Catholic ordering of the books.

Old Testament

Genesis - Judges History and prehistory of the Israelite nation, up until the founding of the Kingdom of Israel. Historically they are in the order they appear in the Bible
Ruth A side-story, contemporary with Judges
1 & 2 Samuel, 1& 2 Kings. History of the Kingdoms of Israel, in the order in which they appear, up until the Exile of the Israelites
1 & 2 Chronicles A retelling of the events of Samuel and Kings.
Esther takes place during the Exile
Ezra and Nehemiah are stories of the re-establishment of the Kingdoms of Israel after the Exile
Job is difficult to place in the timeline, and doesn't relate to the histories.
Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs are 'wisdom literature' and not narrative and don't really have a place in the timeline. Much of Psalms is traditionally attributed to King David, and the others to his son Solomon, which would relate them to the time of Samuel and Kings.
Isaiah, Jeremiah and Lamentations are books of prophecy and not mainly narrative. They relate to the late period of the Kingdoms of Israel, before the Exile.
Ezekiel and Daniel are similar prophetic books relating to the Exile period.
The remaining books of the Old Testament are also prophetic, mainly relating to the last period of the Kingdoms of Israel.

New Testament

All New Testament events take place several hundred years after the last events recorded in the Old Testament.

The Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) are different tellings of Jesus' life story
Acts picks up the story after Jesus' resurrection
The remaining books are not narrative. They are all letters, except...
Revelation, which is again prophecy. It can be reasonably assumed that all the events described did/will take place after the end of Acts.


What should a Catholic Religious Ed. class be taught about the Reformation?

I have lead a middle school (6th, 7th, and 8th grade) Catholic religious education class for three years and this question often comes up:

  What's the difference between Christians and Catholics? My friends say they are Christian, but I thought we were too. What's the difference?

The reason for their question is because their friends simply say they are "christian", not "non-denominational christian", "baptist christian", or "protestant" for example. Often, they don't even know which denomination they belong to.

Introducing them to the Reformation is a good idea, but be careful not to overload them with more information than they care to know about. It's important to simplify the subject enough that they get the gist of it.

I usually take it as an opportunity to give a brief overview of church history, including a few interesting facts that you might not otherwise get a chance to talk about. I usually summarize it like this:

In the beginning, there was Judaism. The Jews were God's chosen people, but were awaiting a Messiah to save them.
Then God became human and died on a cross for the salvation of everyone.
Jesus organized a special group of 12 followers (the apostles) to lead his church, making Peter the first Pope. The other apostles became the first bishops.
The apostles went on to ordain priests. For the next 1,500 years there was only one church, the Catholic church.
Then in the 16th century, some people decided to "protest" the way the church was being run at the time, split off and start denominations of their own. Then over the next 500 years, more and more denominations have formed. Now there are thousands of denominations.

I'm simplifying a bit there, obviously, but this gets the point across. Then you'll be able to add in a few other factoids:

The word "Catholic" means "universal". The early christians used the word to describe the church because it is open to everyone (not just the Jews like Judaism was before).
This is why, in the creed, we say that "We believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church" because we believe that Jesus started one church and that he wanted us to be one, it's holy because Jesus said he would protect it ("the gates of hell would not prevail against it"), it's Catholic because it's open to everyone, and it's apostolic because our priests can trace their succession back to the first apostles.

In summary, just use it as an opportunity to clear up some confusion and use it as a teaching moment. You don't need to go into the gritty details.


According to Reformed Theology, how is Compatibilism different than Hard Determinism?

Definitions:

Libertarianism= everything free will.
Hard determinism= no free will at all.
Compatibilism combines these and says they are compatible
with each other.

Your question assumes that Reformed Theology has a view of compatibilism. My reason for agreeing that it does is that A.W. Pink, W. Grudem, D.A. Carson, J. MacArthur and J.I. Packer for example would all agree with D.A. Carson's explanation of compatibilism:    I'm sure of this but I only mention their names so that others can check out the details for themselves. If I included quotes from all of these then this answer would be over long, I guess.

Carson:

God is absolutely sovereign, but his sovereignty never functions in such a way that human responsibility [ and freedom] is curtailed, minimized,or maligned.
Human beings are morally responsible creatures- they significantly choose, rebel, obey, believe, defy, make decisions, and so forth, and they are rightly  held accountable for such actions; but this characteristic never functions so as to make God absolutely contingent.

A. W. Pink in "The sovereignty of God" puts that more simply [P9], "God is sovereign, man is responsible".Pink continues on page 9 to say:" To emphasize the sovereignty of God, without also maintaining the accountability of the creature, tends to fatalism".

"Fatalism" then, is something Pink is trying to avoid. I am confident that Pink's "Fatalism" just about = your "hard determinism". Let's try and look at- Reasons against Fatalism. It just reduces man to being a puppet. We are free to choose. [ But what if we are puppets and God holds all the strings, doesn't John 3v35 say, all things are in His hand]. Hard determinism is, man is what he is, sinful, fallen, in need of redemption if he is going to go to heaven, but everything that occurs is dictated by God and man's fate depends upon God's will alone. Can puppets love God? "Yes they can if that is the way their strings are pulled. Or, in Bible terms, if the Holy Spirit chooses to come upon them to make them born from above". This is, I think, the reply of the hard determinist. ["born from above" is literal translation of "anothen" John3 v7 and emphasises initiative taken in heaven rather than "born again" which might be result of human initiative]. Why translate it as born again unless one is trying to keep compatibilism alive? That last sentence is my own comment but the fact that I made it at all shows how important this question is.

In reformed theology compatibilism reigns and hard determinism is not usually thought about. But that does not mean that hard determinism has nothing to say. "The lives we give back, apodo 1 Pet 4v5, an account of, are first given to us. We first give to God nothing, for from Him are all things Rom 11v35/36", is as I understand it, the cry of the hard determinist.


Can other "scripture" (such as the Quran) be used as ultimate authority in presuppositional apologetics?

One argument of the Christian presuppositional apologists is that only the Bible is self-authenticating.  Other sacred texts, like the Quran, are not.

Consider the way Ten Bruggencate's tract on Islam addresses the issue.  To Muslims who claim that they could not be wrong, he presents "contradictions in [their] source of knowledge"; that is, he claims that there are contradictions inherent in Islam and the Quran.

John Frame and Steve Hays deal with the issue similarly, in a response to a similar challenge:

  As a matter of public record, Muhammad did not, in fact, claim that his message was self-attesting. To the contrary, when confronted with doubters, Muhammad appeals to the People of the Book—the Jews and Christians—to validate his message. In the event, then, of conflict between the Bible and the Koran, Muhammad’s prophetic pretensions are thereby invalidated by his own appointed standard of judgment. Case closed.

Steve Hays provides more detail in a subsequent response, calling the Quran's textual history "checkered" and expounding on contradictions between the early (Meccan) verses of the Quran and later (Medinan) ones:

  In the earlier—Meccan—verses, Christians are accorded the right to judge the Koran. Muhammad appeals to the People of the Book (Jews & Christians) to vouch for his prophetic credentials. So he sets up the Bible and its Judeo-Christian interpreters as the standard of reference.  By the time we get to the Medinan verses, there's a dramatic about-face. This is one of the major hurdles in Islamic apologetics.

Thus, the argument goes, the Quran is contradictory and therefore not self-authenticating, and thus that it cannot serve as the basis for knowledge.


Calvinism: How does Limited Atonement Work in View of the Universality of Christ's Work?

Both versions of the atonement here considered are limited -- Calvinists limit it in scope (or recipients), while non-Calvinists limit it in power (or efficacy). It's not a matter of whether it is limited, but rather how it is limited.

  In the scriptures, Christ was spoken of as the last Adam, a title
  which confers universality (in the same way that the first Adam did).

Is that a valid inference from the title? One way to think of it is in terms of the "tree of salvation" imagery in Romans 11:1-24. God had a chosen people, a subset of humanity, and Gentiles were added into that tree, while some of the natural branches were broken off and excluded from the tree. Only those in the tree are saved. Note here how the scope is explicitly limited.

Hence, I don't think universality is properly applied to Christ in this way. There is an analogy to Adam, but not an identical role in every respect. He is the federal head or representative only those who belong to him (John 10, the locus classicus for the Calvinist view of the atonement, though there are others).


What does Paul mean by "witchcraft" in Galatians 5:20?

It wouldn't have you believe in witchcraft it would just have you avoid it.

Whether you believe in it or not is entirely separate from it existing, see this wiki about Ouija boards.

So you don't have to believe that Ouija boards work, I personally don't. However, even though I don't believe they work, I still don't associate with those types of things.

Incidentally this is related to  How does one test the spirits and identify false preachers?.

The power of satan is real, just see the story of Moses in Exodus:

  7:22 And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened,

Which is why we have tests to know the power of the Lord from the power of the devil.


Where was Jesus during the period from His death to resurruction?

Jesus' body was in the tomb (Matthew 27:59ff; cp Mark 15, Luke 23, John 19).

Jesus' spirit was in Paradise (Luke 23:42ff) - else He could not have truthfully promised the thief crucified with Him that "today you will be with Me in Paradise". See also Luke 16:19-31.

Jesus paid our debt in completion while on the cross - while He absorbed the full wrath of God to be our propitiation (Hebrews 2:16ff; cp Romans 3:24ff), He was not put into the Lake of Fire (Revelation 20:9ff) and pulled back out (Revelation 19:20), as that would have been a victory for the Devil whom Christ had already broken (Genesis 3:15) by becoming our atonement.

Three days is significant for a variety of reasons, both in foreshadowing, and in practicalities.

it is a finite period of time
the body won't begin to decay yet (Psalm 16:10)

compare to Lazarus in John 11:17 & 39:

"So when Jesus came, He found that he had already been in the tomb four days." &
"Jesus said, 'Remove the stone.' Martha, the sister of the deceased, said to Him, "Lord, by this time there will be a stench, for he has been dead four days.'"

it was presaged by Jonah (Matthew 12:38ff; cp Jonah 1:17)
it was how long the plague of darkness lasted in Egypt (Exodus 10:21ff)
Jesus said it would only be three days (Matthew 26:61; cp 27:63, Mark 8:31, John 2:19)


Are all the elect raptured before the Tribulation, according to Calvinists?

Most Reformed/Calvinist churches are Amillennial.1 For Amillennials the "millennium" is a symbol for the entire church age, and there is no single time which we could call the "Great Tribulation". Instead there will be times of tribulation throughout this age. The second coming of Jesus is not seen as a complex multi-part event like the pre- and mid-tribulationists do, but just a single time of Jesus' return, the resurrection of the dead, and judgement.

1 The exceptions would generally be Reformed Baptists, who are often Premillennial, but could also be postmillennial. Amongst the Reformed Baptists there's probably lots of diversity about the Tribulation; it is not a clear dividing doctrine unlike credobaptism or Reformed Theology's doctrine of salvation.


Is being asexual considered the same as having the virtue of Chastity?

"Asexual" people are eunuchs.
St. Thomas Aquinas writes in his Commentary on St. Matthew (19:12):

For there are eunuchs, etc. Hence, He distinguishes the continence that is in some men by nature…because certain men are eunuchs by nature, who were born so from their mothers’ womb.

This first type of eunuch needn't refer only to those born without genitals but also to those lacking sexual desire. St. Thomas also mentions that people have various degrees of frigidity/calidity (cf. Summa suppl. q. 58).
"Asexuality" is not synonymous with chastity/virginity.
Discussing whether virginity is a virtue, St. Thomas Aquinas poses the following objection (Summa Theologica II-II q. 152 a. 1 arg. 1):

Objection 1: It would seem that virginity is not a virtue. For "no virtue is in us by nature," as the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 1). Now virginity is in us by nature, since all are virgins when born. Therefore virginity is not a virtue.

to which he responds (ad 1):

Reply to Objection 1: Men have from their birth that which is material in virginity, namely integrity of the flesh and freedom from venereal experience. But they have not that which is formal in virginity, namely the purpose of safeguarding this integrity for God's sake, which purpose gives virginity its character of virtue. Hence Augustine says (De Virgin. xi): "Nor do we praise virgins for being virgins, but, because their virginity is consecrated to God by holy continency."

Similarly, some people are born with a genetic predisposition to alcoholism, for example, but that does not mean those without this predisposition necessarily practice the virtue of sobriety.


According to Catholicism, why do we need a resurrection if we have an immortal soul?

Although I am not a Catholic, I feel confident that I can answer this, as the answer is shared by all Chalcedonian Christians.

This question really gets to the heart of what it means to be a human. And the best way to answer that is to look to the incarnation of Christ.

In the incarnation the eternal person of God the Son was united to a finite human nature. Chalcedonian Christians believe that the incarnation was not just God the Son talking on a human body, but a complete human nature: a human soul, a human mind, a human will, human emotions and desires. Just as a human body has many organs but none of those organs are enough to be called a human by themselves, so too a human person has physical and non-physical parts, which by themselves are not enough to be considered human by themselves. In the early church Apollinaris argued that Jesus had just his single divine mind and took on a human body. This was declared to be heretical by the First Council of Constantinople, as it meant that Jesus was not fully human.

Many Christians today fall into the same trap. I've heard Christians say that we are a soul who has a body. This is a departure from orthodox Christianity which says that the human nature is a complex union of body and soul (a complex union in the sense that it is one thing but yet has distinct parts or aspects.) Instead we should say that human beings are body-soul unions. While the human soul and body may be temporarily separated from each other, that is an unnatural state for a human to be in. Just as Jesus Christ forever remains incarnate in the flesh, so too will the souls of all humans be reunited to flesh in the resurrection.


According to the Bible where exactly did God create Adam?

Where was Adam created, according to the Scriptures?
In the Book of Geneses, we can find a little indication as to where Adam was created.

7then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. 8And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. Geneses 2:7-8 (ESV)

In the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich we can see that she believed that Adam was created not in the Earthly Paradise, but in the region in which Jerusalem.

3. Adam and Eve
I saw Adam created, not in Paradise, but in the region in which Jerusalem was subsequently situated. I saw him come forth glittering and white from a mound of yellow earth, as if out of a mold. The sun was shining and I thought (I was only a child when I saw it) that the sunbeams drew Adam out of the hillock. He was, as it were, born of the virgin earth. God blessed the earth, and it became his mother. He did not instantly step forth from the earth. Some time elapsed before his appearance. He lay in the hillock on his left side, his arm thrownover his head, a light vapor covering him as with a veil. I saw a figure in his right side, and I became conscious that it was Eve, and that she would be drawn from him in Paradise by God. God called him. The hillock opened, and Adam stepped gently forth. There were no trees around, only little flowers. I had seen the animals also, coming forth from the earth in pure singleness, the females separate from the males.
And now I saw Adam borne up on high to a garden, to Paradise.
God led all the animals before him in Paradise, and he named them. They followed him and gamboled around him, for all things served him before he sinned. All that he named, afterward followed him to earth. Eve had not yet been formed from him.
I saw Adam in Paradise among the plants and flowers, and not far from the fountain that played in its center. He was awaking, as if from sleep. Although his person was more like to flesh than to spirit, yet he was dazzlingly white. He wondered at nothing, nor was he astonished at his own existence. He went around among the trees and the animals, as if he were used to them all, like a man inspecting his fields.
Near the tree by the water arose a hill. On it I saw Adam reclining on his left side, his left hand under his cheek. God sent a deep sleep on him and he was rapt in vision. Then from his right side, from the same place in which the side of Jesus was opened by the lance, God drew Eve. I saw her small and delicate. But she quickly increased in size until full grown. She was exquisitely beautiful. Were it not for the Fall, all would be born in the same way, in tranquil slumber.
The hill opened, and at Adam's side arose a crystalline rock, formed apparently of precious stones. At Eve's, lay a white valley covered with something like fine white pollen.

Lambert Dolphin writes that Adam after he was created was placed in the Garden which lay to the East. Because of this statement Jewish sages have long claimed that Adam was created in what is now the land of Israel.

Earliest Legends about the Promised Land
No one knows exactly where the Garden of Eden described in the Bible was located. The general area is generally thought to be in the Tigris-Euphrates Valleys. Sedimentary deposits from the flood of Noah are thousands of feet deep now in the entire area, so the "ruins" of the Garden of Eden are not likely to turn up by accident.
However, Adam after he was created was placed in the Garden which lay to the East. Because of this statement Jewish sages have long claimed that Adam was created in what is now the land of Israel. Adam's footprint in stone is said by Muslim guides to still exist in the bedrock of the Macpelah in Hebron. Early Jewish legends state that Adam himself was buried in the Cave Abraham later purchased for burying his wife.
On Mt. Moriah, the present-day Temple Mount in Jerusalem the exposed bedrock under the Dome of the Rock is known as "the Foundation Stone"in Hebrew Even ha-Shetiyah. Although the Jewish Temples were later built on the same foundation stone, or an extension of this same bedrock elsewhere on Mt. Moriah, the term "foundation stone" refers to the creation of the earth by God on the First Day.

And it was called the Foundation Stone because the world was founded on it. For Isaiah the prophet said, "Thus saith the Lord, 'Behold I lay in Zion a foundation for a stone...a costly corner-stone of sure foundation."' The Almighty, blessed be He, dropped a rock in the waters, and from thence the world expanded.

The Almighty created the world in the same manner as a child is formed in its mother's womb. Just as a child begins to grow from its navel and then develops into its full form, so the world began from its central point and then developed in all direction. (Ref. 2: Zev Vilnay, Legends of Jerusalem, The Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadelphia, 1973.)

The Foundation Stone in known in Arabic es-Sakhra (and the Dome of the Rock, Kubbat es-Sakhra). On the western facade of the Dome of the Rock is the following Arabic inscription, The Rock of the Temple from the garden of Eden. The northern gate of the mosque facing the foundation stone is named the Gate of Paradise, Bab ej-Jinah. On the floor in front of this gate is a stone of green jasper about half a meter square called by the Arabs "the Stone of Eden."

For further information may be gleaned from the following sources:

Early Links between the the Temple and the Garden of Eden
Where was Adam created? (Biblical Hermeneutics)


What is the basis for the Christadelphian belief that Satan is not a personal being?

The following paragraphs are copied from http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_delp.htm which in turn cited the page titled "What Christadelphians believe about the Devil" at the Christadelphians's official website (http://www.christadelphian.org.uk/wcb/devil.html)

The Devil is not viewed by Christadelphians as a quasi-deity with magical powers who travels the Earth trying to lure people into sin --as is believed by most conservative Christian groups. Based on Genesis 6:5, Jeremiah 7:21-28, Matthew 15:19, James 1:13-15, and other passages, they stress that "Temptation and hence sin, comes from inside the person, not outside." Satan is viewed as the principle of evil which resides in people and motivates them to sin and rebel against God.
They point out that the words "devil" does not appear in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). In the New Testament, these terms are sometimes used to translate the Greek word "diabolos" which  means a human slanderer or false accuser. Examples are John 6:70, 1 Timothy 3:11, 2 Timothy 3:1-3 and Titus 2:3.
"Satan" in Hebrew and "satanas" in Greek means an opponent or adversary. Examples are: Matthew 16:23 when Peter was considered an adversary because he opposed what Jesus wanted to do at the time. In Acts 5, Sapphira was an adversary.


Why did Jesus refuse to accommodate the Pharisees insistence on washing hands before eating bread?

Well, they were traditions--not commandments.  Jesus actually rebuked them for rejecting the commandments of God in order to keep their traditions, calling them hypocrites for doing so.

  And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as
  it is written,  “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their
  heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as
  doctrines the commandments of men.’ You leave the commandment of God
  and hold to the tradition of men.” And he said to them, “You have a
  fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish
  your tradition!   Mark 7:6-9 ESV

The problem the Pharisees had was their tradition, because in following it they believed they attained righteousness before God by their own efforts.  Jesus defied the traditions and called them hypocrites to reveal that they could not attain righteousness in such manner.


No, it is not obsolete because Christ instituted it as a memorial of His sacrifice.

"18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. 19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."  (Luke 22:18-20, KJV)

We still remember the sacrifice He paid, the gift of His life for ours every first day of the week.  Although we do not use the word "Eucharist" - from the Greek eucharistia meaning "thanksgiving" - because of the Catholic ritual belief of transubstantiation.  It is most often referred to as Communion, or the Lord's Supper, and is a symbolic representation.
It is very interesting that Christ told them He would not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom came.  As the kingdom was fully established - or came - at the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70; and as the wedding feast for the marriage of the Lamb to His bride, the church took place immediately after the city was burned (Matt 22:1-14), then Christ drank the wine at the wedding feast in AD 70....in heaven.


Did Luther have any disagreements with the teachings of Augustine of Hippo?

Luther and Augustine seem to have disagreed on:

Ecclesiology

Purgatory: Augustine believed it, though Luther claimed he "held nothing at all of purgatory."

Sacraments: Luther claimed three sacraments, but Augustine expressly called at least six of the seven Catholic sacraments a "sacrament."

The canon of scripture: even disregarding Luther's early zeal for purging the canon, Augustine believed the canon to be more expansive than Protestants do.

Justification (see below)

Justification
Luther believed Augustine to be, like himself and all people, prone to err. The only area where he acknowledged disagreement between himself and Augustine is on the nature of justification:

It was Augustine’s view that the law, fulfilled by the powers of reason, does not justify, even as works of the moral law do not justify the heathen, but that if the Holy Spirit assists, the works of the law do justify. The question is not whether the law or the works of reason justify, but whether the law, kept with the Spirit’s help, justifies.
I reply by saying No. Even if in the power of the Holy Spirit a man were to keep the law completely, he ought nevertheless to pray for divine mercy, for God has ordained that man should be saved not by the law but by Christ. Works never give us a peaceful heart. Christ would never have been sad in spirit unless he had been pressed hard by the law, to which he subjected himself for our sake.
Table Talk, no. 85 (found here)

Luther may here have in mind Augustine's The Spirit and the Letter.
For more on the history of the doctrine of justification, see Alister McGrath's Iustitia Dei. McGrath contends that Augustine agreed with Catholicism that "to be justified is to be made just" and that the idea of "imputed righteousness" originated with Luther.


Statements about the doctrine or the future made by current LDS Prophet, and the church view on those

Does the LDS church assert that doctrinal statements made by the current Prophet are either "inspired", "infallible", or both?

Inspired, definitely, but not infallible. Prophets are merely mortal men.

  Has the Prophet made any statements about (near)future events that Mormons expect to happen?

Yes, actually. Just a couple months ago, President Monson announced that four new temples would be built in the near future, and named the cities they will be built in.