In 1 John 4:1–3, we are instructed to "test the spirits" and are told that "every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God." This passage seems to suggest that verbal confession of Jesus' incarnation is a reliable test for determining whether a spirit is from God. However, in the Gospel accounts — for example, Mark 5:7 and Luke 8:28 — we see the demonic legion that possessed the man in the region of the Gerasenes recognizing Jesus and crying out: “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God?” This shows that demons are capable of identifying and even verbally acknowledging who Jesus is. Given that, how should 1 John 4:1–3 be interpreted? - Can demonic spirits confess Jesus Christ in a way that appears genuine? - Is verbal confession alone a sufficient test of the spirit's origin? - How do we reconcile 1 John’s teaching with the demonic acknowledgment of Jesus in the Gospels? I’m hoping to understand whether this test is meant to be literal, theological, or deeper than just spoken words.

In **Deuteronomy 19:15**, Scripture says: >*“A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.”* (NIV) This principle is echoed in the New Testament as well (e.g., **2 Corinthians 13:1**, **Matthew 18:16**), and it forms a biblical basis for establishing truth through multiple witnesses. Recently, a group of around fifty schoolgirls claimed to have witnessed what they described as a literal white horse moving in the sky. The account spread quickly, with many asserting that it was a divine or supernatural sign. While some observers dismiss such claims as imagination or psychological suggestion, others argue that the number of consistent witnesses makes the event harder to ignore. This raises the theological question: >**According to Christian teaching, should the testimony of multiple human witnesses—especially when it involves a supposed divine encounter—be taken as credible?** Or are there other tests (e.g., alignment with Scripture, discernment by spiritual authorities, the fruit of the encounter) that must also be considered?

Deuteronomy 18:21–22 says that if a prophet’s words do not come to pass, then the Lord has not spoken through them. This seems to suggest that fulfilled prophecy is a sign of true prophecy. Some Christians also believe that Satan does not know the future in the way God does (i.e., perfectly and completely), so any accurate future prediction would necessarily come from God. However, in Matthew 24:24, Jesus warns of false prophets performing great signs and wonders that could deceive even the elect if that were possible. Does this imply that even seemingly accurate future predictions could come from deceptive sources? So my question is: Can fulfilled predictions about the future be used as a reliable test to determine whether a prophet is truly from God, considering the claim that Satan does not know the future? Or are there additional biblical criteria that must be used to discern a true prophet?

Jesus said in Matthew 7:16, "You will know them by their fruits." This verse is often cited to identify genuine believers based on their actions and character. However, a recent incident in Minnesota where a self-professed evangelical Christian—who had even received an appointment—was involved in the shooting of a congresswoman raises questions. How should this verse be understood in light of such events? Can we truly and reliably know a believer by their fruits, especially when someone outwardly identified with Christianity ends up acting in a way that seems so contrary to Christ’s teachings? How do different theological traditions interpret this principle when actions contradict profession of faith?

Jeremy Camp is a contemporary Christian artist known for music that deals with faith, suffering, and hope. His song "He Knows" contains the lyric: >All the bitter weary ways Endless striving day by day You barely have the strength to pray In the valley low And how hard your fight has been How deep the pain within Wounds that no one else has seen Hurts too much to show All the doubt you're standing in between And all the weight that brings you to your knees He knows He knows Every hurt and every sting He has walked the suffering This lyric suggests that Christ understands not just our physical suffering, but also our internal struggles and doubts. The song is often described as encouraging and biblically grounded. I’m seeking to understand what biblical and theological principles should be applied to evaluate whether such a song is inspired by the Holy Spirit. I’m not looking for personal opinions on musical style, but for scripturally grounded criteria such as alignment with biblical truth, spiritual fruit, and edification of the Church.

I believe the Holy Spirit can make you feel guilty for an actual sin while the enemies of God can make you feel guilty for an alleged sin that isn't one or keep you feel guilty for a sin you repented from. What are ways to discern if a feeling of guilt is from the Holy Spirit or from the enemy? Do any Catholic or Orthodox saints or Pentecostals provide insight on how to discern?

Many Christians encourage people to "seek" God. Similarly, many Christians claim that God can be "found". I'm also well aware of the existence of many passages in the Bible that talk about the possibility of "seeking" and "finding" God (see for example https://dailyverses.net/seeking/niv/kjv) . In concrete and practical terms (for the lay reader): - What does it mean to "seek" God? - What does it mean to "find" God? - How can a person know for sure that they have finally "found" God after a long process of "seeking" Him (whatever that means)? [Given the controversial nature of spirituality questions](https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7168/how-do-we-ask-spirituality-questions) , I'd like to narrow the scope to the **Protestant** perspective. ____ For those interested in the Catholic perspective: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86589/50422

In the spirit of https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/12584/on-what-basis-do-some-denominations-prohibit-christians-from-drinking-alcohol and https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/10051/why-do-young-earth-creationists-make-such-a-big-deal-about-the-yec-view First, what this question isn't: - It is not asking whether the gifts discussed are still valid today. (That's been asked already). - It is not asking if the Ongoing Revelation as believed by some denominations is ***valid*** or ***true***. - It's not about asking for a Scriptural reason. As noted in the question linked to in the first bullet point, Scripture can be interpreted either way on this. Put other way, ***this is not a "Truth" question***. It's a question of the cultural and doctrinal understandings that leads to adherence to a particular view. In other words, what are some of the reasons some Christians are so wary of a view that other Christians are so willing to embrace? --- Many of the Pentecostal denominations believe that things like speaking in tongues, prophecy, and ongoing revelation are still happening today as ways for God to provide us with Truth. Likewise, the LDS Church believes in continuing revelation to the Church through the Prophets , as do others . Some of the more conservative/Fundamentalist denominations believe that extra-Biblical revelation stopped with the closure of Canon , and tend to view modern day practice of these types of personal revelation as false, and even dangerous. Most people can understand the Scriptural arguments, which would lead to believing that such a view is either true or false, but why ***dangerous***?

Dreams & visions - how do Christians discern between genuine dreams & visions from God and false dreams & visions from a different source (flesh, enemy)? Are there any denominations that teach how to tell the difference between the two? ___ Relevant passages: > 16 But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: > > 17 “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, **and your young men shall see visions**, **and your old men shall dream dreams**; 18 even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. 19 And I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; 20 the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day. 21 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’ > > (Acts 2:16-21 ESV)​ > 45 just as you saw that a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. A great God has made known to the king what shall be after this. **The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure**.” (Daniel 2:45 ESV) > 10 **And when Paul had seen the vision**, immediately we sought to go on into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them. (Acts 16:10 ESV)

Several sects place a high premium on personal spiritual experience and/or personal revelation as a means for discovering Truth. For example: angelic visitations, miracles, dreams, visions, LDS's "burning in the bosom". Others (likely *Sola Scriptura* believers in particular) would say that these experiences can be demonic in origin and are not trustworthy. In particular, they might argue that common beliefs of such sects are untrue and dangerous because they contradict Scripture (e.g. a Christian confronted by an alleged supernatural experience of a Muslim would likely assert said experience to be demonic in nature on the basis of Scripture contradicting the Qur'an). **What *Scripture passages* exist (if any) in support of the idea that "spiritual" experiences can be misleading?** Relatedly, which verses speak to the necessity of reading Scripture rather than relying entirely on spiritual experiences and/or private revelation?

It's my understanding that most Christians have never had an overtly spectacular, extraordinary, supernatural experience themselves, yet they find no problem in holding very specific supernatural beliefs (e.g. the resurrection of Jesus) based on the eyewitness accounts of others (e.g. the apostles, as recorded in the gospels). However, doctrines such Continuationism can find support on the basis of eyewitness accounts as well, [yet Cessationists would object to those as unreliable](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83141/50422) . Latter-day Saints also appeal to the first-hand accounts of 3 & 8 witnesses as supportive evidence for the supernatural origin of the book of Mormon (see [this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/83978/50422) for an eloquent presentation of this argument), [yet non-LDS Christians would object to those as unreliable](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/84581/50422) as well. When it comes to assessing the reliability of eyewitness accounts as supportive evidence for specific supernatural beliefs, is there anything close to a consensus on how to make these kinds of judgments? Has any denomination or Christian scholar published a set of principles on how to judge the credibility of eyewitness accounts and applied them to concrete cases, such as the apostles (in the case of the resurrection of Jesus) or the eyewitnesses to the golden plates (in the case of Joseph Smith and the book of Mormon)?

Simple question: non-LDS Christians believe the testimonies of the apostles, yet they reject the testimonies of the (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Witnesses) & (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Witnesses) witnesses to the golden plates. Why? *In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every matter be established* (2 Cor 13:1) -- why is this reason not enough? _____ EDIT: Why should they? From a Latter-day Saint perspective, because this is one of the positive arguments for the divine inspiration of the Book of Mormon -- which should be of the utmost importance if it happens to be the case. See [this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/83978/50422) and [this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/83904/50422) for example presentations of this argument. _____ Related: [Is there anything close to a consensus on how to assess the credibility of eyewitness accounts as supportive evidence for supernatural beliefs?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/84551/50422) _____ For a defense of the credibility of the Book of Mormon witnesses (the opposite view), see https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89274/50422

Saints sometimes exhibited mystical phenomena in the cognoscitive order such as visions, locutions, revelations, discernment of spirits , and hierognosis (ability to distinguish blessed from profane objects); cf. Antonio Royo Marín, O.P., *Teología de la Perfección Cristiana* p. 814. Discernment of spirits in the sense of reading souls (as opposed to distinguishing good from evil spirits; cf. *ibid.* p. 826) would seem to include the ability to know what state of life God is calling a particular soul to. What saints gifted with spiritual discernment were able to accurately determine what vocation God is calling someone to?

As a Protestant who really tries to abide by the *sola scriptura* principle to subject my understanding of God, His works, and His relation to us under the accepted Protestant canon, I am bewildered on how to choose the "correct" interpretation of key Bible verses relating to competing understanding of key doctrines necessary for my "walk in the spirit" such as Trinity, dual nature of Christ, Original Sin, baptism, justification, union with Christ, sacrament, spiritual gifts, etc. There seems to be many legitimate options, leading to several Protestant theologies on offer, all of which adopt *sola scriptura* : Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Pentecostal, etc. but each theology seems to be evolving. While a particular theology can then gives me *a responsible interpretation* that leads into a certain position I can then adopt of baptism, sacrament, etc, and while *sola scriptura* correctly subjects these theologies under scriptural authority, **there remains the problem of choosing which theology to use for an individual Christian**. Some key doctrines like the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ seem to require me to trust in the judgment of early councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon to favor one particular interpretation of Bible verses related to God and Jesus. While Kenneth Collins and Jerry Walls in their book [Roman *but Not* Catholic](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0801098939/) offers a way for *sola scriptura* proponents to coherently accept the *binding authority* of those early councils (because nearly all Christians accept them), **there remains the problem of choosing post Reformation councils / confession document to trust**. Should I go with a Reformed church which adopts Westminster Confession of Faith, or with an Anglican church which adopts the 39 articles, or with a Lutheran church which adopts the Augsburg Confession, or with a Methodist church which adopts the United Methodist Confession of Faith? In [an answer to a related question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/72162/10672) we read (emphasis mine): > *Sola scriptura* says there is no guarantee that any doctrine of the church is certain; the only mark of divine certainty is on the scriptures. So our relationship to the scriptures is one of **an ongoing project of investigation** guided by the spirit's insights. As God guides us we may collectively decide that some things which were believed in the past, although they do not directly contradict the scriptures, are weaker exegetically and have unfortunate theological implications compared to alternative interpretations. And **just as we have a measure of skepticism towards earlier generations' traditions and interpretations, so future generations will judge that some of our interpretations and theological theories are unjustifiable as God continues to guide them**. It seems to me that at the end of the day, as a *sola scriptura* believer I only have myself to rely on, combined with: - the assistance of Holy Spirit in my heart, - the binding authority of those early ecumenical councils - several peers that I trust, that they're engaged in the same project as myself, to collaboratively understand God and his scriptures under the Spirit's guidance With the above guidance, **am I then free to choose a theologian I trust** and enlist him/her as one of my peers to help me in my "project of investigation" to choose a responsible interpretation of key Bible verses by reading his/her commentary / book and knowing as much as I can about his/her life as a Christian, and THEN use that guidance to select a church to attend? Is that the correct procedure? It still sounds lonely to me, or do the followers of those "peer theologians" (such as CS Lewis) count as a collective so my position is not solitary? Is this the best that *sola scriptura* can offer, and that means I have to keep a lingering doubt in the back of my mind about my currently chosen position on doctrines that the Protestant churches have differences on? It feels like standing on shifting tectonic plates waiting for an earthquake to happen. So the complete question is: **How do proponents of *Sola Scriptura* choose the "correct" interpretation of key Bible verses to adopt for one's faith life when many responsible exegesis in different faith traditions lead to different interpretations?** ### Real life significance of this question As a Christian we can speculate all day long and thus risk "living in an ivory tower", but the rubber really meets the road when that Christian is married to a spouse that holds the same *sola scriptura* position and but are unable to come to an agreement because they do their own "project of investigation", enlist different "peers" and then strongly decide to go to a different church of a different tradition. For example, one wants to go to a Pentecostal church (with "memorial" understanding of eucharist and double adult baptism, the 2nd one for filling), but the other wants to go to an Anglican church (with "means of grace" understanding of eucharist and infant baptism). Not only about church attendance, how are they supposed to baptize their children? I have seen in some couples that this happens and this became an element in their divorce. Are we supposed to consider this as a **defect** in both of their faiths? In this situation, should a couple who are persuaded to different faith traditions (each claim to have Holy Spirit backing) subject themselves to *sola scriptura* and attempt a compromise? What does this compromise look like since the couple cannot appeal to the Holy Spirit anymore for common ground? Ideally the couple should be "peers" to each other, but what if they cannot even agree on a single external "peer" to include in their "project of investigation"? A high profile real life example of a compromise is that of Prof. Francis Beckwith who [resigned as President of the Evangelical Theological Society](https://www.etsjets.org/announcements/frank_beckwith_resigns) to avoid a conflict of interest because he wanted to return to the Catholic Church. He has been "Catholic friendly" but the catalyst was when his nephew asked if he could be his sponsor when he receives the sacrament of Confirmation, which requires the sponsor to have a good standing in the Catholic Church. (read the full story [here](https://baptistnews.com/article/baylorprofessorbecomescatholicresignsasheadofevangelicalgroup/)) . He was baptized Catholic, but apparently joined his wife's Presbyterian church after marriage. Subsequent to his returning to the Catholic Church, his wife underwent RCIA to become Catholic as well.

How do errantists, i.e. Christians who reject the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, distinguish the parts of the Bible that are trustworthy from the parts that have errors? How do they know which parts have errors and which parts are trustworthy and authoritative? ___ Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/92924/50422

When believers appeal to their private spiritual experiences to argue for their faith, skeptics typically respond by dismissing their stories entirely, conjecturing that these are more likely cases of hallucinations, some form of mental illness, or just mundane feelings or emotions that are being incorrectly interpreted as spiritual experiences. How do Christians make sure this is not the case? How do Christians discern genuine spiritual experiences from mundane hallucinations, emotions or other psychological phenomena with natural explanations? ____ Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86467/50422

An evangelist is a specific office that is **different** from pastors & teachers. **Q: According to Protestantism, how does one know if they have been called to be an evangelist?** > “He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the > heavens, so that He might fill all things.) And He gave some as > apostles, and some as prophets, and **some as** **evangelists**, and some as > pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of > service, to the building up of the body of Christ;” ‭‭Ephesians‬ > ‭4:10-12‬

If person X is called by God to be an apostle, what should person X do next in order to convince others that their calling is genuine? What kind of evidence should person X provide to an audience of fellow Christians with a healthy dose of skepticism so that they may be fully assured that person X's calling to apostleship is from God and authentic? Worded in another way: if someone comes to me and tells me that they were called by God to be an apostle, what kind of evidence should I demand or look for to either verify or reject their claim? Since this is probably a controversial question, I would like to narrow the scope to Christians who are open to this possibility in the first place, that is, Christians who adhere to [Continuationism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessationism_versus_continuationism) .

Latter-day Saints have [Joseph Smith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith) . Seventh-day Adventists have [Ellen G. White](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_G._White) . And surely other denominations recognize other individuals as authentic modern prophets. But none of them would regard Muhammad as an authentic prophet of God, for example. And other denominations would say there are no prophets anymore (e.g. see [cessationism vs continuationism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessationism_versus_continuationism)) . **What is an overview of criteria used by different denominations to identify authentic prophets?** How come they do not always agree on who is an authentic prophet and who isn't?

Many Christians emphasize the importance of having an actual *relationship with God/Jesus* as opposed to merely being *religious*. The previously asked question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/69228/50422 attests very well to this fact. How do Christians who subscribe to this distinction make sure that they themselves are having a **genuine** *relationship* with the living God, as opposed to a 'religious' illusion of it, a counterfeit relationship with a false deity, or a mere psychological delusion? ____ Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86438/50422