If there are unmistakable events or experiences that prove "true" salvation, how would we then be able to discern a deceptive event or experience that was administered by Satan? Isn't this why faith is required instead of visible proof? I believe it protects us from the power of Satan, "the god of this world" and master of deception, along with his false "ministers of righteousness". **2 Corinthians 4:3-4** >But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. **2 Corinthians 11:13-15** >For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. Please provide actual scripture from our apostle Paul's epistles (Romans through Philemon) that states where we will experience an immediate event or experience that would confirm our eternal salvation aside from having faith alone in Jesus Christ and the work that He completed on the cross on our behalf.

Which denominations, past and present, would be insulted by opening a statement with premise "when Jesus created the world..", and why? ---------- _background for this is firstly the whole creational account given in the Bible, but which lastly is not limited to Genesis; I do not want to specify John 1:3, or Genesis 1, or anything else here, because different denominations make different arguments based on different approaches to the text; **I am wondering what words in the 5-word phrase exactly may be disturbing for some groups and what arguments they create to sign the phrase "when Jesus created the world" as false** or heretical_

The Pew Research Center's Religious Landscape Study frequently highlights distinctive trends among **historically Black Protestant (HBP) denominations** in the United States. For example, the 2023-24 study identified HBP as the only Christian group where a majority believed that **moral behavior requires a belief in God**, a view that contrasts sharply with other Christian categories and the general U.S. population (Pew Research Center, "Religion and Views of Right and Wrong ," 2023-24 survey). What are the key factors (e.g., **theological/doctrinal emphases**, **historical experiences**, specific **cultural values**, or **sociological dynamics**) that contribute to this distinctive proportion of adherence to this belief? In short, where does the HBP coupling of **being a moral person** with **believing in God** come from? **Majority of adults in the historically Black Protestant tradition say believing in God is necessary to be moral** *%who say ...* | |It is possible to be
moral and have
good values
without believing
in God|It is necessary to
believe in God in
order to be moral
and have good
values|Don't know/
Refused| |--|:--:|:--:|:--:| |**All U.S. Adults**| 68% | 30% | 2%=100% | |**Religiously affilliated**| 60 | 38 | 2 | |Christian|58|40|2| | Protestant|55|42|3| | *Evangelical*|51|46|2| | *Mainline*|71|27|3| | *Historically Black*|40|57|3| | Catholic|62|37|2| | Orthodox Christian|67|39|3| | Latter-Day Saint (Mormon)|73|23|3| |Other Religions|78|21|1| | Jewish|82|16|2| | Muslim|52|46|2| | Buddhist|79|19|1| | Hindu|73|26|1| |**Religiously unaffiliated**|88|11|1| |Atheist|98|2|1| |Agnostic|98|1|Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding. Source: conducted July 17, 2023-March 4, 2024. **PEW RESEARCH CENTER**

Yet 1 John 1:9 is widely taught as conditional forgiveness for the Christian when the passage of 1 John 1 is directed as an invitation to Gnostic Jews to become believers.

I'm interested in answers particularly from Evangelicals who might disagree with this idea, as well as those who agree with it. I'm especially interested in theological considerations — i.e. does this misunderstand the Trinity. Essentially the thought came to me, **if the Son is fully God, do those who have *never heard*** the Jewish name of the Messiah (Joshua, meaning the Lord saves) or the exact details of his virgin birth, death, and resurrection, **nevertheless believe in him** (for salvation) **when they trust in 'God' to forgive/save them?** This excludes those who reject Christ explicitly (ie. orthodox Islam). This would not be a universalist position, but a form of inclusivism. More like a psychological/conceptual faith in the Messiah/Christ/Savior. I'm looking for arguments for/against, as well as relevant verses/examples/doctrines. A similar question was asked here , but this gives it a trinitarian/soteriological bent. For a practical consideration, Don Richardson (*Eternity in their Hearts*) notes a number of peoples geographically and intellectually isolated from Christianity/Judaism for centuries that had an underlying monotheism, and belief that this 'creator' was going to set things right if they only waited for special messengers bringing a special 'book'. Would their 'waiting for salvation' be comparable to some in Israel during the intertestamental period, waiting for the Messiah?

Not rightly dividing the word of truth is a major source of confusion in Christianity today.

While listening to a video of "Ready to Harvest" (a great neutral viewpoint denomination YouTube channel), he said something very briefly that made it sound like Seventh-Day Adventists don't believe in hell, which I wasn't aware of, I was only aware of their view of soul sleep. So for clarification, what is the SDA view of hell?

This is certainly not found in the New Covenant of Jesus yet it is prevalent in Christian teachings, media, and reading materials.

The Protestant Marko Latvakoski of "The Mission of God" (or a certain "Cory Cornelius"), in the context of Apocalypse 13 supposedly being fulfilled, claims : >Pope Leo XIV declared, “We must dissolve the barriers between faiths {ONE WORLD THEOLOGY} to achieve lasting peace on earth.” Did Leo XIV say this? Latvakoski/Cornelius continues: >The Antichrist is said to perform great acts in the name of peace, seducing the world into worshiping as one. Pope Leo’s unprecedented interfaith push has set off alarm bells for believers everywhere. >

Considering the language of 1 John 1, this passage is clearly not addressed to believers, yet is widely mistaught in Christendom. 1 John 1:9 KJV >If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

The question is stemming from what looks like a complete blanket of grace not only concerning the reception of salvation, but also being applied to the process of sanctification without limitations. There are different views on the grace that is gifted and exactly what it applies to. For example evangelicalism applies total grace to salvation and sanctification, even if someone is apostate, while others don't do that. Others limit grace to those who stay in repentance. What are the main differences concerning grace between church factions and how do they justify their beliefs according to their doctrine and scripture? Philippians 2:12 - "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" There are some passages like Ph 2:12 that make it sound like grace being attached to sanctification is conditional based on obedience. This is not about what grace is, but how it's taught differently and applied from denomination to denomination.

There is much discussion in secular academia about the possibility/impossibility of Christ being Deity. But there are also sects *within religious circles* who dismiss the idea of Christ really being Deity! Some of those sects fly their flag under the banner of ***Christianity.*** Since the word "Christian" is commonly defined as "one who is a faithful disciple of Christ", then it follows that such a one should believe all that Jesus claimed, ***including His claim to Deity.*** (Also recognized as such by the Apostles.) >Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father...Believe Me when I say that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me... (John 14:9, 11) >My Father is always at work to this very day, and I too, am working.
For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill Him...He was even calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. (John 5:17-18) >He is the [visible] image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all Creation. For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (Colossians 1:15-17) >For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form... (Colossians 2:9) >The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His Being, sustaining all things by His powerful Word. (Hebrews 1:3) >Jesus said to those who believed on Him, "***If you continue in My word***, then you are My disciples indeed." (John 8:31) Since Jesus's "word" included His claim to Deity, can a person ever be called a "Christian" who does not subscribe to believing Jesus is God? ***What is the consensus of Evangelical Protestants in this matter of importance?*** Can sects that deny the Deity of Christ still be considered under the umbrella of "Christianity"? or be considered a "Christian religion"?

In summary, 2nd century Logos-theology taught that God's Logos was always part of God but later became a distinct Person. In 4th-century Nicene theology, the Son is the Father's only Mind. In Arian theology, the Father and Son are two distinct Minds. Did the Nicenes or the Arians follow the Logos-theologians in this regard? To explain in more detail: When the Church became Gentile dominated in the second century, the Apologists explained Jesus Christ as the Logos of Greek philosophy. In this philosophy, the Logos always existed as part of God but became a hypostasis (a distinct Person or Existence) when God decided to create. Through the Logos, the high God created and communicated with the creation: > “Ever since the work of Justin Martyr, Christian theologians had > tended to use the identification of the pre-existent Son with some > similar concept in contemporary Middle Platonism as a convenient > philosophical device” (Hanson, p 22-23). > > “They used to great effect several features of contemporary Greek > philosophy to enable them to construct their doctrines of God. They > identified the pre-existent Christ, thought of as manifesting himself > on critical occasions throughout the history of the Jewish people, > with the nous or **Second Hypostasis** of contemporary Middle > Platonist philosophy, and also borrowed some traits from the divine > Logos of Stoicism (including its name).” (Hanson Lecture ) > > "Greek-speaking theologians of the early fourth century had three > words for something that really exists, and exists in itself, as > distinguished from an accident or a quality. The words are ousia, > hypostasis, and hyparxis. ... As the fourth century progressed, > hypostasis became, more and more, the one term that was the center of > controversy." (Lienhard ) Logos-theology remained the dominant teaching right into the fourth century: > "The theological structure provided by the Apologists lasted as the > main, widely-accepted, one might almost say traditional framework for > a Christian doctrine of God well into the fourth century, and was, in > differing form, the basic picture of God with which the great majority > of those who were first involved in the Arian Controversy were > familiar and which they accepted" (Hanson ). Almost all delegates to Nicaea in 325 were from the East and the East maintained Logos-theology: > “Around 250–300 attended, drawn almost entirely from the eastern half > of the empire” (Ayres, p. 19). > > "The great majority of the Eastern clergy (at Nicaea) were ultimately > disciples of Origen. … they were simply concerned with maintaining the > traditional Logos-theology of the Greek-speaking Church" (Frend, > W.H.C. The Rise of Christianity. See also, Bible.ca). Alexander and Athanasius taught that the Son is the Father's only Logos or Wisdom. In other words, only one Logos existed: > “In Alexander, and in Athanasius … Christ is the one power and wisdom > of the Father” (Ayres, p. 54). > > Alexander stated that if, as Arius claims, there once was when the Son > was not, then “there was once when God was without wisdom, power, > brightness, and so on” (Anatolios, p. 87). > > Athanasius argued similarly that the Son is “present with Him (the > Father) as his Wisdom and his Word” (Ayres, p. 46). > > Athanasius wrote: “There is no need to postulate two Logoi” (Hanson, > p. 431), meaning two minds. > > “He (Athanasius) is appalled at the Arian statement that the Son > exercises his own judgment of free-will” (Hanson, p. 428). Origen, Arius, and the 'Arians' taught two Logoi. In other words, the Father has His own mind apart from the Son: > Origen argued that “Father and Son are two … in subsistence > (hupostasis), but are one in likemindedness, harmony … and … will” > (Williams, p. 132), implying two distinct minds. > > “Arius also talks of two wisdoms and powers, speaking of a Logos that > was not distinct from the Father's hypostasis, after whom the Son is > designated Word” (Ayres, p. 55). “God's own power and wisdom is the > source of Christ.” “The proper power of God Himself … is natural to > him and coexistent with him unoriginatedly” (Ayres, pp. 53-54, quoting > Asterius, a prominent early Arian). > > Asterius, a prominent early Arian, wrote: “There are … two Wisdoms, > one God's own who has existed eternally with God, the other the Son > who was brought into existence. … There is another Word in God besides > the Son” (Hanson, p. 13). My question is, therefore, did the Nicenes or the Arians follow second-century Logos-theology? The Nicenes taught one mind and the Arians two. Did Logos-theology teach one or two minds (Logoi)? I put a similar question to Bryan Litfin, a theologian who wrote in Logos-theology. He said: > The general idea of the Logos Theology is that there is only one > mind, which belongs to God. ... In his one, single mind, there is an > eternal existence which goes by several names. In particular, it can > be called Word, or Wisdom. What happens in Christian theology, due to > the 2nd century Logos Theologians, influenced by Stoicism and by > John's Prologue, is that the abstract Word/Wisdom of God comes to be > "hypostasized" as a separate Person, the Second Person of the Trinity. > He only becomes a Son when God decides to create the cosmos. Then > later, he becomes incarnate for salvation (at the virginal > conception). So the Word/Wisdom is eternal, residing in the eternal > mind of God. But Sonship is temporal, and so is Incarnation. If I understand this correctly, it seems to say that in Logos-theology, there is only one mind in God, which means that the Nicenes followed Logos-theology in this regard, while the Arians deviated from Logos-theology. Further insight will be appreciated.

I am of the understanding that generally, the Catholic Church recognizes non-Catholic marriages as valid marriages. So in general, if a non-Catholic couple converts to Catholicism, they will not have to re-certify their marriage (or even if just one of the two becomes Catholic). I'm wondering under what circumstances one might not be able to transfer his/her marriage in this way, i.e. when would a converting person's marriage *not* be considered valid by the Church. For instance (and these things may be common in some cultures): * The person could be a remarried divorcee, * The couple may be first cousins, * One or both may have been underage at the time of the marriage, or still underage at the present time, * The marriage may have been conducted without consent of one or both parties, * The person may be a polygamist. Which situations which would definitely never be considered a valid marriage? If some are considered on a case-by-case basis, how are cases determined?

In my parish (err pastorate) there has recently been some hubbub about the music directors not wanting to do "chant" any more, which I believe they refer to as "anything you can't play with a flourish on a piano". In any event, some of the more traditional minded parishioners (pastoratees?) have uncovered their plot to undermine their own sacred duties and petition the Bishop to get out of singing the antiphons at Mass. What this sounds like, and if you've never heard it before - you're probably not alone, I had never heard this. At the beginning of Mass, the cantor belts out one verse of a psalm and then the opening hymn is played. Then before communion, she belts out another verse. She always uses the same psalm tone with no accompaniment and it always seems very out of place. So I can agree with the music directors, to a point, but I think like Christianity itself, singing the antiphons during Mass isn't something that has been tried and found difficult, it's something that has been done poorly and left for dead by professional liturgists. So can anyone point me to an example of what the antiphons _should_ sound like during Mass and does anyone know what kind of leeway music directors have with them - when is it appropriate to leave them out altogether?

Can anyone explain what the Eastern Orthodoxy's eschatological view is? The one that I've spoken to can't (or won't) give a direct answer when I've asked him if everyone outside of Eastern Orthodoxy isn't saved.

In Genesis 19, Lot is rescued from Sodom before its destruction by fire and brimstone. In 2 Peter 2:7–8, Lot is described as a righteous man living among the wicked. Given this, I’m wondering how Christian theology interprets Lot’s story in light of salvation and judgment themes. - Is Lot considered a "type" or symbol of the Christian believer, who is saved from judgment? - Is the fire and brimstone that destroyed Sodom seen as a foreshadowing or symbolic representation of hell? - Does this event function in any way like substitutionary judgment, or is it purely a direct act of divine justice? - How is Lot’s wife understood theologically—as a warning to believers who long for or look back to the sinful life they’ve left behind (cf. Luke 17:32)? I’m looking for insight into how theologians or biblical scholars interpret the parallels between this Old Testament narrative and New Testament themes of salvation and final judgment

With the rise of brain-computer interface technologies like Elon Musk’s Neuralink , which aim to enhance cognitive functions such as memory, learning speed, and attention, how do Christian theologians and denominations view the use of such implants purely for enhancement rather than healing or therapeutic purposes? Would using such technologies be seen as overstepping the boundaries of God’s design for the human mind, or could they be interpreted as a legitimate form of human innovation and stewardship over creation? Are there any official statements, theological writings, or denominational positions—particularly from Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant perspectives—that address this issue, either directly or through applicable principles?

According to Mormon doctrine, Resurrected beings have physical bodies that can only be in one place at one time, which is why the Holy Ghost remains a spirit, so that he can dwell in the hearts of men: > "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son > also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a > personage of Spirit. **Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in > us.**" (D&C 130:22 , *emphasis added*) It appears to me that some form of power or ability is *lost* at the resurrection. An essential power that only spirits have, which resurrected beings do not, hence the necessity of the Holy Ghost remaining a spirit. It seems somewhat paradoxical to me that we would have anything to *lose* at the resurrection–if anyone understands what I'm trying to communicate by phrasing it that way... Obviously the Holy Ghost is going to be resurrected at some point (I feel it's safe to assume so at least), at which point in time he will forfeit the power that makes his role in the Godhead essential, and receive a resurrected body. My question is, what exactly is this power that the Father and Christ cannot wield as resurrected beings? Or where do I err in my pondering or phrasing of my question?

I've seen the following quote attributed to St. John Chrysostom : >The road to hell is paved with the bones of priests and monks, and the skulls of bishops are the lampposts that light the path. Where did he say this?