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?

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.[1] >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 - click here.

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?

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.

The GotQuestions article, [What is Hesychasm?](https://www.gotquestions.org/Hesychasm.html) , offers one Protestant perspective on the Eastern Orthodox practice: >Hesychasm is a form of [Christian mysticism](https://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-mysticism.html) found almost exclusively in [Eastern Orthodoxy](https://www.gotquestions.org/Eastern-Orthodox-church.html) , rising to popularity in Greece in the 1300s. Roman Catholicism and Protestant denominations have no meaningful equivalents to it. Hesychasm has many similarities to Buddhist concepts of meditation, but it maintains a Judeo-Christian framework, rather than a pantheistic one. The general idea in Hesychasm is to use contemplative prayer, particularly the repetition of “[the Jesus Prayer](https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Prayer.html),” as a means to **experience union with God**. This requires the Hesychast to block out all his senses and eliminate all his thoughts. > > Hesychasm is, supposedly, grounded in Jesus’ command in Matthew 6:6. There, Jesus refutes the ostentatious prayers of hypocrites who want to be seen praying in public. Instead, Jesus says, “Go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” Hesychasts take Jesus’ reference to secret praying in an extreme and absolute sense. In particular, they believe that Jesus intended His followers to separate themselves from all sensory and intellectual inputs. In other words, “go into your room,” really means “go into yourself.” > > This withdrawal into oneself is accomplished by a form of repetitive [contemplative prayer](https://www.gotquestions.org/contemplative-prayer.html) . The Jesus Prayer is a short, liturgical chant very popular in Eastern Orthodoxy: Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, Υἱὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐλέησόν με τὸν ἁμαρτωλόν (“Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner”). Hesychasts will repeat this prayer over and over, seeking to invoke the power of the name of God. As they do so, practitioners gradually cut off their perception of external stimuli and eliminate all stray thoughts. **The ultimate goal of this process is [theosis](https://www.gotquestions.org/theosis.html) , a personal unity with God**. > > ... > > Mysticism is based on the quest to “experience” God through the use of rituals or other techniques. All forms of mysticism are rooted in an assumption that God can only truly be “known” in some subjective or personal way. **Contrary to mysticism in general, and Hesychasm in particular, the Bible commands us to pray with a purpose and intent, not with a goal of washing out our own thoughts** (Philippians 4:6; John 16:23–24). Scripture also indicates that God can be known objectively—or else it would not be possible to “examine” or “test” our own faith (1 John 4:1; 2 Corinthians 13:5). > > **Jesus’ comment in Matthew 6:6 was never meant to be taken as a command to go “within ourselves.” It was and is simply a refutation of hypocritical and showy religious antics. While Hesychasm is not quite the same as Eastern meditative practices, it is neither biblical nor beneficial**. Does GotQuestions reflect the mainstream Protestant view on Hesychasm and the pursuit of union with God (theosis)? Is the idea of "experiencing" union with God, as understood in Eastern Orthodoxy, generally rejected by most Protestants? Are there branches of Protestantism that are more open to similar concepts of theosis or experiential union with God? Do any Protestant traditions embrace spiritual disciplines aimed at deepening one's experiential relationship with God?

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.

## Overview Question ## **When a truth in the various fields of human knowledge contradicts or appear to contradict Divine Revelation, what is an overview of what various Christian religious traditions say is incumbent upon a Christian when their religious tradition hasn't said a thing one way or the other about the contradictory truth?** Science says > *"Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us."* - WMAP Site FAQs Q9. Here are some fields of human knowledge (of course not exhaustive): *Mathematics, Astronomy & Cosmology, Natural Sciences, Human Sciences, History, The Arts, and Indigenous Knowledge Systems*. If a truth in these appears to contradict or directly contradicts Divine Revelation [= Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition for the Church], what is an overview of what various Christian religious tradition teach a Christian ought to do, when their religious tradition hasn't said anything as yet on the truth in question? The best answer will also have Scriptural support and include a Catholic Perspective. Some examples: - *Current Cosmological model.* Outer Space, shape of the earth, that the earth moves and rotates, etc. - Darwin's *"Descent with modification"*. The above appear to contradict Genesis. - This one was big with me: that *that SARS-CoV-2 - a **"novel virus"** that is supposed to cause CoViD-19 disease - could have been created in a lab* when both Scripture and my Catholic Church says only God is Creator Please note that the answer can use an example for illustrative purposes, but not labor in trying to prove or debunk a truth in human knowledge field. Finally, it appears we are in the End-Times, and if the devil is the deceiver of the whole world, and in the End-Time he will be most active, one would expect to find his lies pervasive in ALL human fields of knowledge.

I've asked many people this question, but they all have different opinions. Some say that the beast is a disease or war or something along that line. Others tell me that the beast is an actual beast. I am looking for answers among the broad spectrum of all denominations Christianity. I know there is no way of knowing, but I would just like to know the different beliefs about the *kinds of things* the beast might be. This question refers to ALL of the beasts. I would also like to know what types of denominations think that the end of times have already come.

I was looking at this question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/16918/is-there-any-protestant-method-how-to-deal-spiritual-dryness . In it, the OP describes "spiritual dryness" as when a person doesn't feel the 'presence of God'. Let's pause and think about this. Feeling something entails perception—sensing something. In other words, it involves the senses: mechanisms that take in signals and convert them into conscious experience. But if we are talking about "feeling the presence of God," and if God is supposed to be a spiritual being, then unless God chooses to perform a miracle by intervening in the physical world and making his presence physically evident—by impacting our senses of sight, hearing, touch, smell, or taste—the only other alternatives I can think of are: 1. God making his presence known through emotions (which makes me wonder: do we perceive emotions through our five senses—although [some estimate up to 33 senses!](https://www.senseationalspaces.com/blogs-1/re7az3aj7icnauvk324h5l5o0du6vz)—or are emotions perceived through a different sense in the brain?). 2. God making his presence known through our thoughts (perhaps by implanting spontaneous thoughts in our minds?). 3. We actually have a spiritual sense or senses, but these are dormant in most people. For example, an atheist, naturalist, or physicalist who denies the existence of the spiritual might be "spiritually blind" because their spiritual senses are inactive. However, if their spiritual senses were activated, they would be able to have spiritual experiences, just as most people are able to have auditory, visual, tactile, mental, or emotional experiences through the conventional senses. A whole new category of experience would be unlocked through the activation of spiritual senses. The third option reminds me a bit of the concept of the [third eye](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_eye) , though that's an Eastern religious concept rather than a strictly Christian idea. Still, I wonder if Christianity teaches—perhaps with different terminology and nuances—about the existence of some kind of spiritual sense or senses, whether these can be activated (and if so, how), and whether, through them, we can perceive the presence of God (as a spiritual being), or even the presence of angels, demons, or the spiritual world in general. Given these considerations, I’m interested in how different Christian denominations and traditions address the idea of "spiritual senses." Do various branches of Christianity teach that humans have spiritual senses through which they can perceive God or spiritual realities? If so, how are these senses understood, and how do they relate to experiences like "spiritual dryness," the "dark night of the soul," or "feeling the presence of God"? I would appreciate an overview of how major Christian traditions—such as Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism—approach this concept.

In Revelation 20:11 (KJV), it says: >*“And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away...”* This verse describes the **Great White Throne Judgment**, a central event in Christian eschatology. However, Scripture does not explicitly say whether the throne itself was created (as part of creation) or whether it is eternal — existing with God before creation. From a Christian theological perspective, is the Great White Throne: - A **created object**, like the rest of the heavens and earth, or - An **eternal and divine seat**, inseparable from God's being? Do any Christian traditions (e.g., Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed, etc.) address the nature and origin of this throne in their teachings or theological writings?

>1 John 2:15 (ESV): "Do not love the world or the things in the world..." Many Christian teachings warn against loving "the world," often interpreted as a system opposed to God. But since the body is part of our earthly existence and shares in physical desires (e.g., lust of the flesh), is the body itself part of what Scripture refers to as "the world"? Or is the body viewed separately from the "world" that believers are warned against befriending? How do different theological traditions (e.g., Augustinian, Reformed, Orthodox, etc.) interpret the role of the body in this context?

### Nicene Beliefs Non Latter-day Saint Christians (also known as Nicene Christians) believe the following about God: - **There is only one God** > “We believe in one God...” — Nicene Creed, opening line - **God created everything in existence** > “…the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things > visible and invisible.” — Nicene Creed, 381 version - **God is eternal, uncreated, and the source of all life** > “…begotten, not made…” (referring to the Son), and “the Lord and Giver > of Life” (referring to the Holy Spirit) — Nicene Creed - **God is a Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — three persons, one essence** > Implied throughout the Nicene Creed and formally defined at the 1st Council of Constantinople (381 CE) ### LDS Beliefs On the other hand, these core Nicene beliefs are **not** shared by the Church of Latter-day Saints. Indeed the LDS Church explicitly rejects these tenets: > **There is only one God** Latter-day Saints worship only God the Father through Jesus Christ, but they also believe in the existence of a plurality of Gods. God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct beings, and this divine plurality extends beyond them — faithful humans can and have also become exalted and become gods themselves: > “I will preach on the plurality of Gods… The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us.” - Joseph Smith, King Follett Discourse --- >> **God created everything in existence** LDS theology holds that God organized the universe from pre-existing, eternal matter, rather than creating ex nihilo (out of nothing). Matter is considered co-eternal with God: > “The elements are eternal...” — Doctrine and Covenants 93:33 --- >> **God is eternal, uncreated, and the source of all life** LDS theology teaches that God is eternal, but not uncreated in the classical Christian sense. According to LDS theology, the LDS God was once a mortal man who progressed to godhood: > “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man... If you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form.” — Joseph Smith, King Follett Discourse --- >> **God is a Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — three persons, one essence** Latter-day Saints reject the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity. Instead, they believe in a Godhead of three distinct divine beings: God the Father, Jesus Christ (His Son), and the Holy Ghost. These are united in purpose but are not of one substance. > “Latter-day Saints do not believe in the traditional doctrine of the Trinity as developed in the post–New Testament church.” — Gospel Topics: Godhead ### Question With these apparent fundamental differences in mind, do Nicene Christians believe that they worship the same god as Latter-day Saints? Or do they believe that the Nicene/Trinitarian God is ontologically different enough from the LDS God that they cannot be said to be the same being?

Does Psalm 51 imply that an unborn child will have no sin? Assuming that is true, are there any denominations that support that all unborn children have salvation? Is there newer scripture (in the NT) that reverses this? **Psalm 51:3-5 ESV** > For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. > > Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment. > >Behold, (K)I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. **Psalm 51:3-5 CEV** > I know about my sins, and I cannot forget my terrible guilt. > > You are really the one I have sinned against; I have disobeyed you and have done wrong. So it is right and fair for you to correct and punish me. > > I have sinned and done wrong since the day I was born.

In many ethical and philosophical systems, a morally good action—such as a doctor inventing a cure for tuberculosis and saving countless lives—is considered unquestionably good. However, in Christian theology, particularly within Protestant and Catholic traditions, I’ve read that "good works" are not just about doing good things, but also involve faith, grace, and the right intention before God. Ephesians 2:8–10 speaks of salvation by grace through faith, followed by a calling to do “good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” Similarly, James emphasizes that faith without works is dead, yet the works seem to be expected as a fruit of living faith—not merely outward moral actions. My question is: **If a person does something objectively good (like curing a disease) but does not do it out of Christian faith or for God’s glory, does Christian theology still regard that as a "good work"?** How do major Christian traditions (especially Protestant and Catholic) interpret such acts? I’m not asking whether the act is socially or ethically beneficial, but whether it qualifies as a “good work” in the theological sense—something pleasing to God or meritorious in any way. Citations from Scripture, Church Fathers, or confessional documents (like the Catechism or Reformed confessions) would be helpful.

According to the Catholics, Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. Which denominations also teach that those who have not heard the Gospel and are ignorant of Christ can be saved if they seek the truth and obey God?

When I read Rev 20:11-15 to answer [another question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/107604/10672) an idea occurs to me. Maybe there are two books at play in the Great White Throne Judgment, the book of life (criteria for salvation) and what appears to be the "books of works" (title not given), noting the phrase "another book" and the plural form of "books" in v. 12. Here's the CSB translation: > 11 Then I saw a great white throne and one seated on it. Earth and heaven fled from his presence, and no place was found for them. 12 I also saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and **books were opened**. **Another book was opened, which is the book of life**, and the dead were judged according to **their works by what was written in the books**. 13 Then the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them; each one was judged according to their works. 14 Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. Is it possible that the "book of life" is the criteria of inclusion for going to heaven while the "book of works" (for lack of a better name) is for giving rewards for the "treasures in heaven" (Matt 6:19-21) that one has accumulated while on earth, namely good works out of faith? That the "book of works" contain everything that God sees we do in secret (Matt 6:4) and the unrewarded suffering we do for Christ (Matt 5:10-12)? One is also reminded about Paul talking about how the works of God's servants (who labor in the field of harvest) will be tested by fire (1 Cor 3:10-15). Or is my speculation in the preceding paragraph unwarranted because I'm mixing un-relatable concept of "works" from 3 completely different *genres* (a gospel, an epistle, and an apocalypse)? Am I guilty of reading Matthean / Pauline concepts into Revelation or am I to be applauded for doing ["inductive Bible study"](https://biblestudy.tips/inductive-bible-study/) ? My question: **Compare and contrast Reformed and Catholics view on the role of both books mentioned in the Great White Throne Judgment, especially with regards to "merit" and "reward".** What I'm trying to ascertain: - **For Reformed**: what is the use of the *other* books since it appears that what matters is only whether the names are found in the "book of life"? - **For Catholics**: does the church use the *other* books in connection with the doctrine of good works, **EITHER** with regards to the treasury of merit **OR** with regards to justification by faith and works? **OR BOTH?** *Note*: - For the sake of answerability, I only ask to contrast the Reformed position and the Catholic position as a minimal scoping, although additional position(s) are welcome as a bonus. - To defend that this Q is not opinion-based, I require citations from published Reformed and Catholic theologians.

What are the main differences between the two? I know that both reject the trinity and the divinity of Jesus, but that's about it. I'm particularly interested in knowing their doctrinal differences (if any) with regards to the following points: - Christology, - Pneumatology, - The nature of God, - Soteriology, - The nature of humans (what happens to us when we die), and any other important doctrinal aspects in which they part ways.

All three believe Jesus is not God, there is no Trinity as understood by traditional Christians, yet at the same time Jesus is the Messiah, the word of God, born of the virgin Mary, and accept the Torah and gospel accounts. Jesus is the Messiah, and word of God (but Trinity is wrong): https://quran.com/4/171?translations=95,101,85,20,18,22,19,17 > O People of the Book! Do not go to extremes regarding your faith; say nothing about Allah except the truth.1 The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger of Allah and the fulfilment of His Word through Mary and a spirit ˹created by a command˺ from Him.2 So believe in Allah and His messengers and do not say, “Trinity.” Stop!—for your own good. Allah is only One God. Glory be to Him! He is far above having a son! To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And Allah is sufficient as a Trustee of Affairs. Jesus fulfills the Torah, and brings the gospel: https://quran.com/en/al-maidah/46 >Then in the footsteps of the prophets, We sent Jesus, son of Mary, confirming the Torah revealed before him. And We gave him the Gospel containing guidance and light and confirming what was revealed in the Torah—a guide and a lesson to the God-fearing. Virgin birth (and immaculate conception?): https://quran.com/en/at-tahrim/12 > ˹There is˺ also ˹the example of˺ Mary, the daughter of ’Imrân, who guarded her chastity, so We breathed into her ˹womb˺ through Our angel ˹Gabriel˺.1 She testified to the words of her Lord and His Scriptures, and was one of the ˹sincerely˺ devout. In the case of Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, this is sufficient for them to be considered Christians, but in the case of Muslims, they are considered a foreign religion. What explains this difference in categorization? A corollary, is there a list of minimal beliefs that categorizes a group as Christian or non-Christian, which would categorize Jesus' disciples as Christian? In older times, according to John of Damascus , it seems Islam was considered a Christian heresy, not a separate religion. >From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, devised his own heresy. Based on my limited knowledge of medieval theology, it does seem like Islam (along with Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses) would be considered a form of Arianism.

It was a surprise to me during a recent conversation that a marriage could be performed by someone other than a priest in the Catholic Church. And after reviewing the only similar question on this site, I decided that I would ask it more properly. Here is some of my understanding of the Sacrament of Marriage within the [Eastern] Orthodox Church. However, as I know people might like to read a source, here is the Orthodox Church of America website (The Orthodox Faith, Volume II - Worship / The Sacraments - Marriage ) >Jesus taught the uniqueness of human marriage as the most perfect natural expression of God’s love for men, and of his own love for the Church. > > According to Christ, in order for the love of a man and woman to be that which God has: perfectly created it to be, it must be unique, indestructible, unending and divine. The Lord himself has not only given this teaching, but he also gives the power to fulfill it in the sacrament of Christian marriage in the Church. 1. The Sacrament of Marriage is the oldest sacrament, instituted by God Himself within the Garden of Eden. 2. A Man and Women become one spirit and one flesh, in a way that is not possible for humans alone. (The Holy Spirit is involved here) 13. Marriage is the human expression of the creative and caring love of God, (the perfect Love of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity) 14. As such a Marriage is a relationship between Man, Woman, and God. 3. Marriage does not "part in death" but is fulfilled and continues. (It is an eternal sacramental reality) 8. Marriage is a mystical participation in the divine relationship with God. (it is a Sacrament) 15. Marriage is a sacrament, it requires a Priest/Bishop. 4. Marriage as Sacrament is closed to the non-Orthodox, without explicit permission from the Bishop. 9. The Sacrament is preceded by the Betrothal rite. (Where rings are exchanged) 5. The Physical Symbol of the Marriage are crowns. (Stefana) 6. There are no Vows or Contractual Language, God unites the couple through the Church's blessing. 10. Marriage involves the Eucharist, the couple receive communion together. 7. The marriage is a combination of Joy and ascetic struggle. 11. Marriage is a path to theosis (union with God) where the couple helps each other grow in holiness. 12. Only 1 marriage can contain the perfect meaning and significance that Christ has given us. (Divorce/remarriage is ... a whole other subject) I'm not sure if that is everything, but that is what came to mind after looking up and remembering the preparation stuff for my own marriage. How is it different for the Catholics?