If a Christian considers that the [burden of proof](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)) has not been adequately met by any known theological doctrines about God's nature, including mainstream ones such as Trinitarianism, Binitarianism, Unitarianism and Modalism, and in the absence of sufficient evidence they decide to withhold judgement and declare themselves to lack a definite position, would any official label apply to them? Candidate labels I have in mind at the moment include *"neutral"*, *"undecided"*, *"uncertain"*, *"still researching"*, *"skeptical but open-minded"*, and even *"agnostic with respect to God's nature"*, but I'm curious to know if there is anything close to an "official" label out there. _______ #### Appendix: examples of questions evidencing the existing debate - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/49022/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/18043/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/2622/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/33246/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/62297/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/40799/50422

There are a number of Christians (groups that believe in Christ and name themselves "Christian") who don't believe in the Trinity. Many of these are broadly considered Christians. Muslims are non-Trinitarians, but they believe in Jesus and claim that they follow his teachings. Why won't Muslims be considered Muslims and Christians at the same time in the sight of God?

I came across a blog author [Matthew Bryan](https://conciliarpost.com/author/matthew-bryan/) who self-identify as a "post-Protestant", a term that I encountered for the first time. When I Googled what "post-Protestant" means, I came across [this entry](https://religion.wikia.org/wiki/Post-Protestant) from *religion.wikia.org*: > Post-Protestantism is the movement in 20th century and 21st Christianity to even further remove Christian faith from the influence and traditions of the Roman Catholic church and "her sister churches" (traditional, mainline, liturgical Protestant denominations dating back mostly to the 1600s and 1700s). > > Many of these "post-Protestant" churches refer to themselves simply as "Christian", or nondenominational, but also commonly use the terms "Church of", followed by such words as "God", "Christ", "Jesus", "The Bible", etc. The trend was the natural outgrowth of the evangelical and fundamentalist movements of the earlier 20th century (1900s), and partly includes, but is not limited to, Restorationists and the Community Church movement, who refer to themselves as being post-Protestant and postdenominational. > > These leaders of these often promote points of view which are anti-intellectual, or at least ahistorical, to the point that they totally deny or are even oblivious to the history of Christian denominations, and the meaning of the word Protestant (which essentially, is any Christian who is not a Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox Christian). This often adds to the confusion and ignorance of people who mistakenly believe that only churches with the words "Christian", "Christ", or "Jesus" in the name are Christian, and that Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Catholics, etc. are something else. I'm looking for a good article from either a religious studies scholar or a Christian / church that self-identify as "post-Protestant" that can do at least a few of the following: - explain why they don't simply use the term "non-denominational" or "evangelical" - describe specific hermeneutical principles that they use to interpret Bible, which distinguish them from evangelicals - describe their understanding of *sola scriptura* since they seem to reject mainstream Protestant (and even some evangelical!) use of the early church councils to narrow down certain interpretation of the Bible (for example, to reject non-Trinitarian interpretation) - describe several theological positions that unite them as a group (for example, their view of the Lord's supper, baptism, and gifts of the Holy Spirit) - speak for others who identify as "post-Protestant"

Many Christians who attend church, when confronted by inquirers outside the church, who wonder why they believe in Christianity, simply respond by saying, *I just accept it by faith*. Or they might say, *It was good enough for my grandpa, so it's good enough for me.* But in an age of science and technology, which places a premium on "facts, evidence, proofs, etc., those responses seem hollow--even irrational, or at least unintellectual. Quite inadequate to the modern mind enmeshed in collegiate surroundings. The average church-goer seems oblivious to the biblical aspect of *apologetics*. Nor do they understand the exhortation of Saint Peter: >Sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always to give an answer (Gk. apologian) for the reason (Gk. logos) of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear. (1 Peter 3:15) This leaves the Christian, especially the Christian student, in the lurch, susceptible to attacks of doubt by professors, as well as peer pressure from culture. So should pastors and teachers equip their congregations with occasional sermons on the *evidences, infallible proofs (Acts 1:3), metaphysical proofs (Romans 1, Acts 17:18-34), reasons (1 Peter 3:15), supernatural conclusions (John 5:36 miracles), eye-witness testimony (1 John 1:1-3):* things which would provide a "reasonable response" to skeptics who doubt these revolutionary facts"? Or is "faith in faith" without proofs, or "blind faith" as some would call it (uninformed faith, that is), sufficient for Christian believers? Should this be the biblical approach for preparing congregates to survive in modern society? What is the correct definition of "faith"? What is the best definition that would be adequate for the modern mind, and cause him to consider Christ as God?

Recently, I have noticed a trend here of people fighting to deny self-identifying Christians who deny parts of the Nicene creed the label Christian. I am of course talking about LDS and I guess the part that is denied is consubstantiality(??). Anyway, this question is not about whether or not LDS are Christians, it's just the context of the question. Christian seems to me like a label that should be applied to those professing to follow Jesus Christ, independent of other doctrinal differences!? I found this question which deals with whether Catholics are Christians according to evangelicals , but I am not completely happy with the answers because they revolve around being born again, which is personal, as opposed to doctrinal points which seem to be the issue when you deny whole groups the label. Is there any theological significance attached to the label that causes this reluctance to grant the label Christian (according to evangelicals)? Or are there non-theological reasons?

Lately I've been trying to figure out whether or not Constantine is a Nicene Christian. He was baptised by Eusebius who was of course an Arian. And since he was very close to Eusebius, he was influenced by Arian views (exiling Saint Athanasius). Some sources I have looked at say that he favored Arianism instead of the Orthodox christian view. Others say that he also exiled Eusebius because he continued to teach Arianism. Was Constantine an Orthodox/Nicene Christian believing Christ was in fact God?

Referring to Acts 11:26 : Did the people (unbelievers) of Antioch call the "Believers" Christian, or did the Believers start calling themselves Christian first in Antioch? Here is what I mean: Acts 11:26 The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch. Acts 26:28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You almost persuade me to become a Christian.” I have this feeling in the tone of these two verses that the word "Christian" was more of a mockery since it came from unbelievers, like we have "goody-two-shoes", especially the way Agrippa said it to Paul, I could almost hear the rest of Agrippa's audience laughing at this!? And 1 Peter 4:16 "Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter." sort of supports my argument!? It seems that this mock-name Christian was getting around, and the disciples were resenting it, so 1 Peter 4:16 tells them not to be ashamed (for they mocked our Lord also) but that they should glorify God in this matter!? Your thoughts fellow Believers?

>If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. There is arguably little difference between the lifestyle of the Stoic and the lifestyle of the Christian. Both eschew effeminacy in pursuit of virtue. Both find it best for man to worry about things he can control and to not worry about the things he cannot (Epictetus wrote of this. Christians call this "trusting the plan"; there is also the Christian serenity prayer which expresses this). Both believe in the cardinal virtues of Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, and Temperance (Christians certainly ought to believe these, and I'd bet most Stoics do believe them as well). I would argue that their way of life is in essence, the same. The question is this: if a Christian and a Stoic both **live the same exact life**, and the **only** difference in their essence is that the Christian believes in the gospel, then why does the Christian go to heaven while the unbelieving Stoic does not? More generally, the question is about the "mechanics" of Christian salvation: when one comes to believe in Christ (esp. when converting from stoicism) what is it that *actually* changes in the person's essence/soul/existence that makes him fit for the Kingdom of God? In other words, what is it about the intellectual position of being Christian that impacts the *state* of someone's soul?

If a Christian "converts" to Judaism or Islam (or any of the Abrahamic religions), is he still considered saved as a Christian? What if he/she converted from Trinitarian to Unitarian? This is a general Christian question, so I am requesting an overview of Christian positions on such conversions.

I am told that the New Testament is the New Covenant. If that is so, why didn't God remove the rainbow that He made for the Jews. If the Old Covenant has gone away, how does the Church explain the continuation of rainbows? Genesis 9:13 (NIV) > I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the > covenant between me and the earth

Recently there has been a ban on the use of the word Allah to refer to the Christian God. What are the good alternatives to the word Allah in countries where it is banned? I heard Tuhan is one of them.

Hebrews 2:11 NRSV >For *the one who sanctifies* and those who are sanctified *all have one Father*. For this reason Jesus is not ashamed to call them *brothers.* According to this passage, the one who sanctifies is Christ and those who are sanctified are the saints. We are all one family from one source, which is God the Father. Jesus therefore calls us his brothers, as we are sons of God just as he is the firstborn Son of God (Col 1:15). But if Jesus is God, how could we be brothers with him if both we and him come from the same source which is God our Father? How could we all be brothers of God if we are sons of God? We would no longer be sons of God but would instead all be God together. A son of God and a brother of God are two entirely different things. Are we not brothers of the Son of God rather than brothers of God, which implies that Jesus is not God but the Son of God?

I'm listening and following compline that was livestreamed here but the final Marian antiphon at the end doesn't seem to the prescribed Marian antiphon in my Monastic Diurnal. Can someone explain what they are singing here? According to my Monastic Diurnal, it says *From Feb 2, even if the Feast of Purification has been transferred, through Wed of Holy Week*: the Antiphon is Ave, Regina caelorum. https://kerkdienstgemist.nl/stations/1972/events/recording/174223800001972

In the Lord’s Prayer, we see these words: > and forgive us our debts, > as we also have forgiven our debtors. (Matthew 6:12, ESV) Among the views on how to understand Matthew 6:12 are: - **Conditional View**: Direct correlation. God's forgiveness is contingent upon our prior or simultaneous forgiveness of others. - **Consequential View**: Our forgiveness of others is a result or evidence of God's forgiveness working in our lives. Experiencing God's grace empowers us to extend grace to others. - **Relational View**: The two acts of forgiveness are parallel and interconnected, not strictly conditional. Emphasizes the relational aspect. God's forgiveness restores our relationship with him, and our forgiveness of others restores our relationships with them. I would like an overview of: - Which denominations lean toward each view - Which Prominent theologians endorse each If possible, include quotes from confessions or theologians that show that they hold that view. If there are other important and different ways to look at this verse, include them as well. Note: This is related to a previous question on Luther’s view: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/97180/how-do-lutheran-discern-law-and-gospel-in-the-lords-prayer **Example: John Calvin** As an example, here is a quote from John Calvin, suggesting the Consequential View: > *As we forgive our debtors…* This condition is added, that no one may > presume to approach God and ask forgiveness, who is not pure and free > from all resentment. **And yet the forgiveness, which we ask that God > would give us, does not depend on the forgiveness which we grant to > others:** but the design of Christ was, to exhort us, in this manner, to > forgive the offenses which have been committed against us, and at the > same time, to give, as it were, the impression of his seal, to ratify > the confidence in our own forgiveness. Nor is any thing inconsistent > with this in the phrase used by Luke, καὶ γὰρ, for we also Christ did > not intend to point out the cause, but only to remind us of the > feelings which we ought to cherish towards brethren, when we desire to > be reconciled to God. And certainly, if the Spirit of God reigns in > our hearts, every description of ill-will and revenge ought to be > banished. The Spirit is the witness of our adoption, (Romans 8:16 ,) > and therefore this is put down simply as a mark, to distinguish the > children of God from strangers. The name debtors is here given, not to > those who owe us money, or any other service, but to those who are > indebted to us on account of offenses which they have committed. - John Calvin (1509-1564) *Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 1* https://www.lords-prayer-words.com/commentary/john_calvin_matthew_6_12.html

This is a two part question. 1. In Full Preterism we localize all meaning of the "cosmos", "world", & "heaven and earth" to mean nothing more than "covenant". Apocalyptic language used in the Olivet discourse and revelation are not about the end of the world, but actually the end of the Jewish age. Therefore we are in perfection now. There are no plans to redeem the world, only to redeem a localized group of people. Judgment is the same, There is only judgment for a small localized group (Jews in 70ad). This hermeneutic is largely based on Jeremiah 4:22-26 where the world is described as lifeless, void, without form, and there being no sun, as the author describes the destruction of the first temple. This language clearly mirrors that of the creation story. So, to consistently apply the hermeneutic we must acknowledge that Genesis 1 is not about creation, but rather, the story of God stumbling upon a world, and creating covenant with Adam. Further, we need to localize the judgment of the flood. Judgments (as we know from 70ad) are not actually over the whole world, but only a small, select group of people. 2. In understanding revelation 19-21 there is a vital piece of text that states Satan will join the beast and false prophet (Revelation 20:10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown). So this has a large implication over the 1000 years. The 1000 years is likely not literal, but during the 1000 years Satan is bound, until the brief time that he is loosed. Then he finally he joins the beast and the false prophet after the 1000 years. This creates a struggle, because Satan cannot join the beast and the false prophet, until the end of the 1000 years, where he was bound, and then loosed for a short time.

How do the different Protestant denominations interpret these verses? Is it in the light of apostasy that happened in the 1st Century? Right before Luther? A general principle of being aware to no fall away presently? **Acts 20:29-30** >29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. > >30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. **2 Thessalonians 2:1-4** >1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, > >2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. > >3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; > >4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. **2 Timothy 4:3-4** >3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; > >4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. **2 Peter 2:1-3** >1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. > >2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. > >3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. Are these verses seen as not general apostasy? These seem to teach of immediate apostasy in the 1st Century, but I am curious about the differing views in Protestantism. I understand that there may even be different interpretations for each reference here.

I am only interested in the Evangelical/Protestant or other reformist denominations and sects who come to the conclusion that (insert something from revelation here) is (insert modern person/place/thing here) despite this process repeatedly having failed for the couple hundred years. This is the other side of the "coin" of my other question here . Instead of answering what is the basis of the practice. I'm asking for a kind of reconciling of the logical contradiction of persisting in the practice. Here are some modern examples of people that Christians have "identified the Antichrist" from revelation: The Popes of rome, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Gorbachev, Oliver Cromwell, Vladimir Lenin, Saddam Hussein, Trump, ... and I'm sure in 4-12 years there will be another new one. Here is an example of an event: Chernobyl = Wormwood/Absinth (Revelation 8) Here is an example of a technology: Digital currency from the Chinese/European/etc is easily combined with implanted chips... (oh no, mark of the beast and the inability to buy and sell) --- #### How do they keep their conviction of faith despite being repeatedly disproven by reality? Do they just ignore history? "It never worked before, but I've got it right"? > At a time when more and more people feel the need, because of the profound crisis affecting mankind, to deal with eschatological events as described in the Apocalypse of Saint John the Theologian, as well as those things revealed by the Grace of God to the Prophets, the Fathers of the Church and contemporary saintly elders like Elder Paisios, **we must especially stand with the view of Elder Porphyrios, and decode why such a great Saint of our time, while knowing with precision and detail everything that we are living and where things come from, avoided talking about these things.** (Hieromonk George Kaufsokalyvites ) And so I note at the end here the observation that when the Orthodox Church speaks about the end times and about the second coming, **it is always a hopeful message.** (And consistent, etc)

(Related to https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/78085/48290) Most know Sir Isaac Newton as the person who discovered gravity when he observed the fall of an apple or his discovery of light being a particle, but few are aware of his religious views. For one, he held much disdain for Catholics and the Anglican church. He was an Antitrinitarian monotheist, declaring the trinity idolatry. Some would call him a heretic. Many did, but he has never been ostracized. He was not public about his views and his study of alchemy. Today, is he still branded as a heretic?

The verb ζῳοποιέω , *zōopoieō* is only used in John's Gospel and only by Jesus: >For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. (John 5:21) >It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. (John 6:63) There are two meanings BDAG provides for *zōopoieō*: ❶ **to cause to live, *make alive, give life to*** and ❷ **to keep alive, *sustain life*** 1 Outside John's Gospel it used by Paul (7x ) and Peter (1x ). The three uses by Jesus describe *zōopoieō* by a different means. 1. The Father raises the dead and ζῳοποιέω 2. The Son ζῳοποιέω to whom He will 3. It is the Spirit who ζῳοποιέω The use seems straightforward. The Father raises the dead and *gives life*, but it is the Son who *gives life* to whom He will, and the means by which the Son and Father *give life* is the Spirit. When the two statements by Jesus are considered together it is hard for me to see how this can not be seen as an explicit definition of the Trinity. How do Biblical Unitarians understand the Gospel's use of ζῳοποιέω, "to give life?" ----- 1. Frederick William Danker, *A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition*, The University Chicago Press, 2000, pp. 431-432.

What are some examples of Christian apologetics responses to the Islamic concept of God that God is all-powerful so that everything that happens to a human being is because of fate and thus that what happens to a human being is interpreted as being more deterministic in nature? Background to this question: what is the use of praying if fate is a ruling force against/for a person?