[CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA (1917): *Protestantism*](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm#:~:text=Catholicism%20numbers%20some%20270%20millions,their%20only%20common%20denominator.) : > ### Conclusion > Catholicism numbers some 270 millions of adherents, all professing the same Faith, using the same sacraments, living under the same discipline; Protestantism claims roundly 100 millions of Christians, products of the Gospel and the fancies of a hundred reformers, people constantly bewailing their "unhappy divisions" and vainly crying for a union which is only possible under that very central authority, protestation against which is their only common denominator. That final claim, that protestation against the central authority (of the Catholic Church), is their only common denominator, seems too extreme. But is it? What fundamental beliefs that aren't also part of Catholicism are shared by all Protestant denominations?

In Romans 11, Paul describes Gentile believers as being “grafted in” to the olive tree of Israel. If Gentiles are joined to Israel spiritually, why does circumcision — a covenant sign originally given to Abraham and his descendants (Genesis 17) — no longer apply as a requirement for salvation or covenant membership? How do Christian traditions theologically reconcile the Abrahamic circumcision command with the New Testament statements that circumcision is not required (Acts 15, Galatians 5)?

Note: I'm interested in the Christian perspective on the question [*Can God's existence be established through reason and publicly accessible evidence?*](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/107660/66156) that I recently asked on Philosophy Stack Exchange. Feel free to read that question and the answers that people have posted for a broader context. --- I am curious to understand the perspectives within the Christian community regarding the use of reason and publicly available evidence to establish the existence of God in general, and the existence of the Christian God specifically. Are there prevailing viewpoints or consensus among Christians on this matter? **What I already know** I'm aware that at least some Christians frequently cite passages like [Romans 1:18-25](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A18-25&version=NKJV) and [Psalm 19:1-3](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+19%3A1-3&version=NKJV) as Biblical expressions of [teleological arguments](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/) for God's existence. This category of arguments has evolved in more contemporary discussions, adopting a renewed shape, notably through an emphasis on the intricate fine-tuning of the fundamental constants in the universe (see [fine-tuned universe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument#Fine-tuned_universe)) , and an emphasis on the extraordinary complexity and specified information found in living organisms (see [intelligent design movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement)) . I'm also aware of the existence of disciplines such as [natural theology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology) and [apologetics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics) , which in one way or another attempt to argue for the rationality of the belief in the existence of God and posit that there is sufficient evidence in the natural world to confidently conclude that God must exist. **What I do not know** One aspect that intrigues me, and about which I seek more clarity, pertains to the widespread acceptance or not among Christians of concepts such as natural theology, apologetics, intelligent design, and philosophical/scientific arguments for God's existence that hinge on reason and evidence. Do a majority of Christians align with these disciplines and share the perspective that the existence of God can be established solely through the use of reason and publicly available evidence, in a manner that any reasonable person should be able to study and verify? If there are available statistics on this matter, I would greatly appreciate them, although it's not strictly required to answer this question. As a point of reference, in the realm of philosophy, there are statistics available such as the following: #### God: theism or atheism? |Option|2009|2020|Change|Swing| |-|-:|-:|-:|-:| Accept or lean towards: theism|14.61%|12.5%|-2.11|-1.76| |Accept or lean towards: atheism|72.82%|74.23%|1.41|1.76| |Accept a combination of views|2.47%|0.31%|-2.16| |Accept an alternative view|0.86%|2.78%| 1.92| |The question is too unclear to answer|1.72%|2.01%| 0.29| |There is no fact of the matter|0.54%|0.31%|-0.23| |Insufficiently familiar with the issue|0%|0.15%| 0.15| | |Agnostic/undecided|5.48%|6.94%| 1.46| | |Skipped|0.97%|0.31%| -0.66| | |Other|0.54%|0.46%| -0.08| | N (2020) = 648 N (2009) = 931 (Source: [2020 PhilPapers Survey](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/longitudinal)) --- **A case for consideration: Blaise Pascal** Blaise Pascal serves as an illustration of a Christian who contends that the existence of God cannot be conclusively established through reason alone. While his perspective is just one instance, it raises the possibility that others may share a similar viewpoint. > Pascal maintains that we are incapable of knowing whether God exists or not, yet we must “wager” one way or the other. Reason cannot settle which way we should incline, but a consideration of the relevant outcomes supposedly can. Here is the first key passage: > >> “God is, or He is not.” But to which side shall we incline? **Reason can decide nothing here**. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up… Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose… But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is… If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. > > (Source: [Pascal's Wager - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/)) --- **Another view for consideration: Reformed Epistemology** Reformed Epistemology is another viewpoint that exemplifies the rejection of evidence and intellectual arguments as necessary requirements for justifying belief in God. > Reformed epistemology is a thesis about the rationality of religious belief. **A central claim made by the reformed epistemologist is that religious belief can be rational without any appeal to evidence or argument**. There are, broadly speaking, two ways that reformed epistemologists support this claim. The first is to argue that there is no way to successfully formulate the charge that religious belief is in some way epistemically defective if it is lacking support by evidence or argument. The second way is to offer a description of what it means for a belief to be rational, and to suggest ways that religious beliefs might in fact be meeting these requirements. This has led reformed epistemologists to explore topics such as when a belief-forming mechanism confers warrant, the rationality of engaging in belief forming practices, and when we have an epistemic duty to revise our beliefs. As such, reformed epistemology offers an alternative to evidentialism (the view that religious belief must be supported by evidence in order to be rational) and fideism (the view that religious belief is not rational, but that we have non-epistemic reasons for believing). > > Reformed epistemology was first clearly articulated in a collection of papers called Faith and Rationality edited by Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff in 1983. However, the view owes a debt to many other thinkers. > > (Source: [Reformed Epistemology - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy](https://iep.utm.edu/ref-epis))

[Alien abductions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_abduction) , [close encounters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_encounter) and [UFO sightings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reported_UFO_sightings) have been widely reported by many individuals around the world. Many self-proclaimed alien abductees and first-hand eyewitnesses of close encounters have testified to this effect. For instance, the YouTube Channel [UFO HUB](https://www.youtube.com/c/UFOHub/videos) hosts multiple interviews with such people. But beyond eyewitness accounts and anecdotes, on a more serious note, the UFO phenomenon in particular has been deemed worthy of a more rigorous evaluation, as evidenced by the [Pentagon UFO videos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_UFO_videos) and the [U.S. Intelligence UFO Report](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_Report_(U.S._Intelligence)) . What is an overview of Christian views on alien appearances and abductions? Do most Christian denominations and organizations tend to take an official position on this issue?

I realized today that when I used the word "demons" I was thinking of evil spirits of all varieties, including human beings that work evil from the spirit world. But others believe the word "demon" only applies to non-human spirits such as fallen angels or perhaps evil deities of some sort. In the Bible, Jesus refers to the "unclean spirit" [or spirits] that possessed the man who called himself Legion because he was tormented by so many evil spirits. > [Jesus said] “Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!” And Jesus > asked him, “What is your name?” He replied, “My name is Legion; for we > are many.” And he begged him eagerly not to send them out of the > country. Now a great herd of swine was feeding there on the > hillside; and they [the spirits] begged him, “Send us to the swine, let us enter > them.” So he gave them leave. And the unclean spirits came out, and > entered the swine; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed > down the steep bank into the sea, and were drowned in the sea. (Mark > 5:9-13) But elsewhere, Jesus heals various people possessed by "demons." > That evening they brought to him many who were possessed with demons; > and he cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick. I'd like to know more about how various Christian denominations and other religions view those who do evil in the spiritual realm, and especially: do they believe that the term "demons" includes evil spirits who were once human beings. Rather than personal opinions, a good answer will provide the perspectives of several religions or experts. I would not rule out spiritualists in the latter category.

The Jews (Israelites) were God's chosen people for nearly all of Biblical history. But, they reject Christ as the Messiah. If the only path to the Father is through the Son, and Jews reject the Son, how do they still reach the Father? If they never accept Christ as their savior, how are they saved? Are they "grandfathered" in because they were chosen before the arrival of Christ? Lets say from the protestant denominations. It's really just a general question and I'd be interested in reading several perspectives

I have read in Christianity.SE where some say that "YHWH" refers only to Jesus. Are there groups with this belief or only individuals? Which Christian groups believe that "YHWH" refers only to the Father and never to the Word?

Many individuals die never having heard the Gospel. Some illustrative examples are: pretty much everyone who was born before Jesus, individuals contemporary to Jesus but who were too far away at the time to hear about him (e.g. Native Americans and all tribes from the Pre-Columbian era during the first and many subsequent centuries), isolated jungle tribes in Africa and the Amazon, and [uncontacted peoples](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontacted_peoples) in general. How do different denominations across Christianity view the problem of individuals dying without ever having heard the Gospel's salvation message? What is the biblical basis in each case? *Note that this is an overview question: answers must summarise the positions of several different major Christian branches, and if possible even some of the smaller ones as well.* EDIT: I recently realized there is a decent overview of Christian viewpoints in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fate_of_the_unlearned . Just linking this to complement the already excellent answers to this question.

In *Acts 2:38–39 (ESV)*, Peter says: >“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” Some Christian traditions—such as the Reformed, Anglican, Lutheran, and Catholic—practice infant baptism (paedobaptism), while others—such as Baptist and Pentecostal churches—practice believer’s baptism (credobaptism). How do these two traditions each interpret this passage (and similar texts) when justifying their baptismal practices? In particular, how do they understand the phrase “for you and for your children,” and how does it fit into their broader theology of baptism?

> **[John 20:29 ESV]** Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” > > **[Matthew 16:4 ESV]** An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” So he left them and departed. > > **[Romans 8:24–25 ESV]** 24 For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. > > **[2 Corinthians 5:6-7 ESV]** 6 So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, 7 **for we walk by faith, not by sight**. Some Christians cite passages like these to argue that we should not pursue experiences but should believe purely by faith, without seeing. Yet this raises the question of what exactly counts as "seeing" in the sense that Jesus seems to caution against. The Bible contains numerous examples that could easily be described as forms of "seeing," and yet there appears to be nothing wrong with those instances. For example: * The Apostle Paul's conversion, in which he saw Jesus on the road to Damascus (Acts 9) * The Apostle Paul's visit to the third heaven (2 Corinthians 12) * The transfiguration of Jesus, witnessed by Peter, James, and John (Matthew 17) * Stephen's vision of Jesus standing at the right hand of God, which led to his martyrdom (Acts 7:54–60) * Peter's vision of a great sheet descending with all kinds of animals (Acts 10) * Peter being rescued from jail by an angel (Acts 12:3–19) * The Apostle John's vision of the Son of Man (Revelation 1) * Jesus's response to John the Baptist, pointing to visible miracles as confirmation of his identity (Luke 7:22): *“Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them.”* * The early church's experiences of powerful outpourings of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2, Acts 4) * Joel's prophecy about dreams, visions, and the outpouring of the Spirit (Joel 2:28) * And others. There seems, then, to be a tension between two ideas. On one hand, some passages appear to warn against a kind of "seeing" that runs contrary to faith. On the other hand, the Bible includes many examples of "seeing" — visions, revelations, and experiences — especially among believers in the New Testament. **So my question is: is there any agreement or consensus among Christians about what kind of "seeing" Jesus warns against (i.e., the sort of "seeing" that undermines faith), and whether there are other forms of "seeing" or experience that are legitimate, valid, and even desirable to pursue?**

[Word of Faith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_Faith) : > Word of Faith is a movement within charismatic Christianity which teaches that those who believe in Jesus' death and resurrection **have the right to physical health**, **that our words have power**, and that **true faith is more than simply mental knowledge, it is deeply held belief that cannot be shaken**. The movement was founded by the American Kenneth Hagin in the 1960s, and has its roots in the teachings of E. W. Kenyon. > **Teachings** > > Distinctive Word of Faith teachings include **physical, emotional, financial, relational, and spiritual healing** for those who keep their covenant with God. **The movement urges believers to speak what they desire, in agreement with the promises and provisions of the Bible, as an affirmation of God's plans and purposes. They believe this is what Jesus meant when he said in Mark 11:22–24 that believers shall have whatsoever they say and pray with faith**. The term word of faith itself is derived from Romans 10:8 which speaks of the word of faith that we preach. Many dismiss *Word of Faith* teachings as heretical (for instance, as discussed in [*Is the Word of Faith movement biblical?*](https://www.gotquestions.org/Word-Faith.html)) . Simultaneously, there is a belief among many that [Christianity is testable](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/97877/61679) , implying that Christianity encompasses promises that can be tested through sincere and faithful engagement. I'm interested in the views of those situated at the intersection of both groups. What Christian traditions consider Word of Faith teachings heretical but continue to uphold the belief in the empowering role of faith to activate God's promises? --- **Notes** 1. By activating/testing God's promises, I'm specifically referring to the belief in promises that can be tested *on this side of the grave*. Therefore, promises that only become actualized *on the other side of the grave*, such as resurrection to eternal life, for the purposes of this question, do not count. 2. My use of the word *activate* has been criticized as inappropriate in the comments section. My observation in response is that my use of this word in the context of God's promises is not novel. With a quick search one can easily find several examples of churches/ministries that have used it in this way. For instance: - [GOD’S PROMISES AREN’T AUTOMATED, THEY’RE ACTIVATED](https://www.redeemercoast.church/blog/2021/1/22/gods-promises-arent-automated-theyre-activated) - [3 Keys to Activating God’s Promises in Your Life](https://faithisland.org/bible/3-keys-to-activating-gods-promises-in-your-life/) - [Activating the Promises of God: Unlock the Power of the Bible & Empower Your Life](https://www.amazon.com/Activating-Promises-God-Unlock-Empower-ebook/dp/B0CR31XPYS/) - *"Perhaps they did not believe that such a simple action could **trigger the promised healing**. Or perhaps they willfully hardened their hearts and rejected the counsel of God’s prophet."* *"The principle of **activating** blessings that flow from God is eternal.* [...] *In fact, it can be seen in heaven because small acts of faith are required to **ignite God’s promises**."* *"I invite you to faithfully **activate heavenly power to receive specific blessings from God**. Exercise the faith to strike the match and light the fire. Supply the needed oxygen while you patiently wait on the Lord. With these invitations, I pray that the Holy Ghost will guide and direct you so that you, like the faithful person described in Proverbs, will “abound with blessings.” I testify that your Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son, Jesus Christ, live, are concerned with your welfare, and delight to bless you, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen."* (source: [Abound with Blessings](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2019/04/41renlund?lang=eng)) What I'm having a hard time verifying is whether any of these ministries denounce *Word of Faith* teachings as heretical, or if they are tacitly endorsing them.

There's a Christian podcast on YouTube named *[A Stronger Faith](https://www.youtube.com/@AStrongerFaith/)* which also has a [website](https://www.astrongerfaith.org/) . The podcast focuses on interviewing Christians about their spiritual experiences, conversion experiences, their testimonies, and so on. The host is [Stacy McCants](https://www.astrongerfaith.org/about) . My question is motivated by Stacy's reference to John 17:3 in this [short video](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5Ctpqezp0Nk?feature=share) : > You can experience God, so whatever doubts you might have in your mind of "am I just believing something that I've been taught because just in case there really is a hell I don't wanna go there" or have an encounter and experience him. You experienced God. People kind of get on our comments sometimes and talk about "don't be trying to go for the emotional experiences." I think God wants us to experience him. I think a lie of the enemy is that we should not seek experiences with God. That it should just be from an intellectual "just get the book, believe what the book says" perspective. And I can't read what Jesus said in John 17:3 and then say he doesn't want us experiencing him. He says "this is eternal life, that they know you, the one true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." Not that they know *about* you, and *about* Jesus. He says that they *know you*, and know his son. You cannot know somebody without experiencing them. Stacy posits that you cannot know someone without experiencing them. If we apply this to God, then John 17:3 would implicitly suggest that eternal life involves knowing God and Jesus, which, by his logic, means we ought to experience God and Jesus. Interestingly, Stacy McCants's podcast *A Stronger Faith* largely revolves around spiritual or supernatural experiences shared by the Christians he interviews. I suspect Stacy is a charismatic Christian, which might suggest a charismatic bias in his interpretation of John 17:3. **What is an overview of Protestant interpretations of John 17:3? Is knowing God and Jesus typically understood as involving experiences, and if so, what kinds of experiences are usually implied?**

Most denominations teach the idea that someone must feel guilt or remorse for their sins and must desire not to do them, however some like those teaching Calvinism or Once Saved Always Saved seemed to stop there while other denominations seem to suggest either certain more severe sins like the Catholics or any intentional sin like the Methodists must be repented of, or one is not in a State of Grace and one will go to hell. There is scriptural support in John, Romans and Galatians for both of these view points. I am wondering about an overview of how the different modern as well as the early Church soteriologies would reconcile the more well known grace passages (particularly among Calvinists and those supporting Once Saved Always Saved) with passages that say sinners would not inherit the Kingdom of God such as Romans 1:29-1:31, 1 Corinthians 6:9-6:10, Galatians 5:19-5:21, Ephesians 5:3-5:5, 1 Timothy 1:9-1:10, Revelation 21:8, and Revelation 22:15. I am curious to know about the doctrine of repentance in the apostolic age as well. I have looked at Jerome, Tertullian, and Chrysostom and how they taught some sins needed repenting of for one to be saved. I recognize from Romans to Revelations that there are lists of sins which say that people who commit them do not enter the Kingdom of God. I also know that the first thing Jesus asked the rich man was not whether he had faith in Jesus but did he keep the commandments. On the other hand John repeatedly mentions that those who have faith will be given eternal life. Romans seems to teach salvation by faith alone at least in the majority of its passages and Jesus also told the rich man that with God anything is possible. One iteration of the decalogue in the Old Testament (I believe it is Deuteronomy) teaches that God is merciful to those who love Him for thousands of generations.

The passage reads: > [Ephesians 5:18-21 NASB] 18 And do not get drunk with wine, in which there is debauchery, **but be filled with the Spirit**, 19 speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your hearts to the Lord; 20 always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to our God and Father; 21 and subject yourselves to one another in the fear of Christ. My modern-day interpretation of verse 18, *“And do not get drunk with wine, in which there is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit,”* would be this: Instead of chasing a dopamine rush or neurochemical high through alcohol, drugs, opioids, or any other addictive behavior (whether food, sex, pornography, gambling, or the like), seek to be filled with the Spirit. The one who is filled with the Spirit experiences a holy satisfaction that immeasurably surpasses alcohol, drugs, food, sex, psychedelics, or any combination of fleshly indulgences. In other words, I see Ephesians 5:18-21 as a spiritually challenging passage because it seems to urge the Christian to pursue a deep, Spirit-filled state, a profound transformation of affections and emotions that far exceeds any earthly intoxication. I personally picture this spiritual state as vastly superior to the strongest dopamine-driven highs of substances such as alcohol, cocaine, ecstasy, methamphetamines, or any other stimulant the world offers. Furthermore, in verses 19-21 the apostle sets forth several practices. What is not immediately clear, however, is whether these should be understood as *manifestations* (that is, consequences) of being filled with the Spirit, or rather as *means* (that is, practices that foster or open the way toward being filled). With this in mind, I am seeking an **overview of Protestant interpretations** of Ephesians 5:18-21 concerning the lived Christian experience of being filled with the Spirit. In particular, I am asking: - How do Protestants compare the experience of being filled with the Spirit to indulgence in alcohol, drugs, or other dopamine-releasing behaviors? - How do Protestants understand and seek to obey Paul’s command to be filled with the Spirit? ----------- NOTE. You can read parallel commentaries by Biblical scholars on Ephesians 5:18 here: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/ephesians/5-18.htm

Mystery religions: >Hydria by the Varrese Painter (c. 340 BCE) depicting Eleusinian scenes Mystery religions, mystery cults, sacred mysteries or simply mysteries (Greek: μυστήρια), were religious schools of the Greco-Roman world for which participation was reserved to initiates (mystai). The main characteristic of these religious schools was the secrecy associated with the particulars of the initiation and the ritual practice, which may not be revealed to outsiders. The most famous mysteries of Greco-Roman antiquity were the Eleusinian Mysteries, which predated the Greek Dark Ages. The mystery schools flourished in Late Antiquity; Emperor Julian, of the mid-4th century, is believed by some scholars to have been associated with various mystery cults—most notably the mithraists. Due to the secret nature of the schools, and because the mystery religions of Late Antiquity were persecuted by the Christian Roman Empire from the 4th century, the details of these religious practices are derived from descriptions, imagery and cross-cultural studies. > >Justin Martyr in the 2nd century explicitly noted and identified them as "demonic imitations" of the true faith; "the devils, in imitation of what was said by Moses, asserted that Proserpine was the daughter of Jupiter, and instigated the people to set up an image of her under the name of Kore" (First Apology). Through the 1st to 4th century, Christianity stood in direct competition for adherents with the mystery schools, insofar as the "mystery schools too were an intrinsic element of the non-Jewish horizon of the reception of the Christian message"... Source: Greco-Roman mysteries (Wikipedia)

I know that all Protestants consider prayer and Bible study to be important, but what about other spiritual disciplines, such as fasting, participating in an all-night vigil, practicing silence and solitude, or engaging in ascetic practices like giving up certain foods, refraining from entertainment, living simply, or voluntarily limiting material possessions, as is often seen in monastic life? For example, Jesus fasted for 40 days and often withdrew to solitary places to pray, such as when He spent the whole night in prayer on a mountain (Luke 6:12). Related to this, this question discusses the biblical basis of twelve spiritual disciplines: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/3469/117426 Do Protestants believe in spiritual principles or laws that make some or all spiritual disciplines effective or beneficial? I understand that Protestants value prayer as a way to communicate with God, and Bible study as a way to receive guidance from God (while not necessarily excluding the possibility of extra-biblical communication). This clearly explains the centrality of prayer and Bible study in Protestant practice. But do Protestants also have a theological or spiritual framework that sees fasting or other ascetic practices as spiritually useful? If someone does not practice fasting, for example, are they missing out on something important? Do Protestants believe that certain spiritual disciplines—beyond prayer and Bible study—can have specific spiritual effects, such as aiding in spiritual warfare or bringing about other spiritual benefits? I recognize that Protestantism encompasses a wide range of perspectives, so I am interested in an overview of them.

I watched the debate between James White and Trent Horn on whether a Christian can lose their salvation: [DEBATE | Can a Christian Lose Their Salvation? | Trent Horn vs. Dr. James R. White](https://youtu.be/72TRODe8BdA) . It's remarkable how well-educated scholars, studying the same biblical passages, can reach such diametrically opposed conclusions, particularly on a doctrine as pivotal as salvation. One would expect that salvation, being a cornerstone of Christian faith, would be communicated by God with utmost clarity to His church. Yet, we find ourselves debating the mechanics of salvation and the possibility of its loss. How do Christians reconcile the extensive debates surrounding salvation doctrines with the expectation that such a crucial tenet of the Christian faith would be revealed with unmistakable clarity by God?

Ruminator's question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/108102/117426 prompted me to compile a list of [Biblical passages](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/108109/117426) that discuss mysteries, hidden knowledge, secrets of the Kingdom, and related themes, as well as God's willingness to invite seekers to search these things out. Ruminator also assembled an extensive collection of passages in his own [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/108106/117426) on the theme of mystery in the Bible. Interestingly, some of the answers and comments in the linked question appear to advocate a kind of cessationist position, suggesting that everything has already been revealed in the Bible, and therefore no mysteries remain to be disclosed (or so they seem to argue). With this in mind, I am interested in an overview of doctrines from various denominations—including Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism—regarding the possibility of God revealing mysteries to spiritual seekers today. It is evident from the Bible that God has certainly revealed mysteries to individuals in the past—for example, Paul's experience of the third heaven in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4, where he received revelations not recorded in Scripture. The question, however, is whether this possibility is still considered viable today, doctrinally speaking, and what conditions, if any, are believed to govern access to such mysteries. Would it be reasonable for a spiritual seeker to earnestly desire the revelation of mysteries today, according to different denominations?

I just read https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/52081/117426 and felt inspired to ask the same question from a Protestant perspective, which also relates closely to my previous question [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/108199/117426) . According to Wikipedia, the *[Philokalia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philokalia)* is described as follows: > The Philokalia (Ancient Greek: φιλοκαλία, lit. 'love of the > beautiful', from φιλία philia "love" and κάλλος kallos "beauty") is "a > collection of texts written between the 4th and 15th centuries by > spiritual masters" of the mystical hesychast tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church. They were originally written for the guidance and instruction of monks in "the practice of the contemplative life". The collection was compiled in the 18th century by Nicodemus the Hagiorite and Macarius of Corinth based on the codices 472 (12th century), 605 (13th century), 476 (14th century), 628 (14th century) and 629 (15th century) from the library of the monastery of Vatopedi, Mount Athos. > > Although these works were individually known in the monastic culture of Greek Orthodox Christianity before their inclusion in the Philokalia, their presence in this collection resulted in a much wider readership due to its translation into several languages. The earliest translations included a Church Slavonic language translation of selected texts by Paisius Velichkovsky (Dobrotolublye, Добротолю́бїе) in 1793, a Russian translation by Ignatius Bryanchaninov in 1857, and a five-volume translation into Russian (Dobrotolyubie) by Theophan the Recluse in 1877. There were subsequent Romanian, Italian, French, German, Spanish, Finnish and Arabic translations. OrthodoxWiki.org also has an [article](https://orthodoxwiki.org/Philokalia) on the *Philokalia*: > The Philokalia is a collection of writings, mostly centering on practicing the virtues and spiritual living in a monastery. In recent decades it has become an important resource for Orthodox Christians, laity and clergy alike, in personal living and in some ways has achieved status as a major secondary spiritual written resource (after the primary one, Holy Scripture) along with St. John Climacus' The Ladder of Divine Ascent. The original question aimed at Catholics says: > The absence of a "mysticism"-oriented text in Catholic Christianity > has always struck me. The *Philokalia* are an incredible source of > ascetic instructions for the believer who seeks communion with God. > > (1) In what consideration do Catholic Christians keep the Philokalia? > And, (2) is there a similar text in the Catholic tradition? I would like to ask similar questions of Protestants: 1. What do Protestants think of the spiritual teachings found in the *Philokalia*? 2. Are there Protestant traditions with teachings emphasizing ascetic practices and mystical spirituality?

I'm seeking to understand the theological distinctions between two significant concepts in Christianity: **Eastern Orthodox *theosis* (deification/divinization)** and **Protestant *sanctification***. While both terms describe a process of spiritual transformation and growth in the believer, my preliminary understanding suggests there are fundamental differences in their nature, scope, and the means by which they are understood to occur. Specifically, I'm interested in answers that address: 1. **Definitions:** A concise theological definition of both *theosis* and *sanctification* from within their respective traditions. 2. **Nature of the Process:** Is the transformation described by each tradition primarily ontological (a real change in being), forensic (a change in legal status before God), relational (a change in relationship with God), or some combination of these? 3. **Role of Grace and Human Effort:** How do grace and human effort (or synergy) factor into each process? 4. **Goal/Telos:** What is the ultimate aim or culmination of each process? What does a "theosified" or "sanctified" person look like from each perspective? 5. **Key Theological Differences:** What are the most crucial points of divergence between the two concepts? Are there areas of unexpected overlap? References to key theological sources or official teachings would be especially helpful.