Recent personal experiences have made a close relative question their Christian beliefs to a far extent. They still believe in the possibility of an all-knowing God but question specific characteristics of Protestant-Christianity such as Priesthood. They strongly believe every Christian should have equal and direct access to God, preferring to align towards agnosticism. From the perspective of protestant-catholicism (Anglicanism) can this individual be said to be an unbeliever?

I recently took the time to re-read the prelusive words of William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith. This quote stuck with me:

When a person refuses to come to Christ, it is never just because of lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties: at root, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of God’s Spirit on his heart. No one in the final analysis really fails to become a Christian because of lack of arguments; he fails to become a Christian because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with God.

A decade after first reading this, I remember I was struggling to understand who he intends the book to be for, and Craig's motivations. If we are not to assume that Craig is not serious or that he is lying about his sincerity, it could be that he is sincere but wrong: in the sense that he genuinely cannot make sense of atheism as an intellectual position. But then it seems to me that he is so caught up in his own religious convictions he cannot fathom the possibility someone could sincerely disagree with his position. An unfortunate position, in my view. The disagreement is also shifted from the intellectual realm of evidence to the moral realm of personal integrity, effectively *faulting the non-believer* for an emotional or spiritual deficiency. It appeals to notions of spiritual deficiency rather than engaging directly with intellectual critiques. The quote makes apologetics seem like its whole purpose is to convince those who already are convinced. I also think this type of argumentation renders the argument difficult to empirically verify or falsify. If non-belief is attributed to an internal disposition (such as a preference for "darkness" over "light"), it becomes impossible to test or refute through evidence. Thus I am curious if Craig has revised these position in recent times, if he has matured as he has gotten older. Questions: 1. Has Craig changed his view or added nuance to his stance? Does he still attribute unbelief primarily to the willful rejection of God rather than to intellectual or evidential challenges? 2. Is evidence still something that, for him, acts only insofar as a dual warrant of one’s Christian beliefs alongside the inner witness of the Spirit? 3. Has he acknowledged intellectual or evidential factors as genuine obstacles to faith? 4. What role does he currently assign to evidence and objective methods in relation to the work of the Holy Spirit?

There's a concept that I heard used many times throughout my life in regards to idolatry. The idea is that inside each of us is a "God-shaped hole"--a place inside of our hearts that only God can fill. If we try to put anything else in there, it won't fit (meaning, it won't fill the need we have inside of our heart/soul). Where does this concept originate? Is it a biblical concept or just a fanciful rhetoric?

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

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

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

Why is the doctrine that a Christian subscribes to such as Trinitarianism, Unitarianism, Methodists, Baptists et cetera so important when someone like Abraham was justified on faith alone? God told him to leave and he did and it was accorded him righteousness: *Genesis 15:6* >Abraham believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness. Paul also reinforced that salvation is by faith alone: *Romans 4:3* >Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” The two instances above actually seem to teach that believing in Jesus is what actually saves people and not whether or not they were Trinitarian or Unitarian since faith is universal to all Christian denominations. The Jewish saints of the OT who came after Moses did not seek a reason as to why God who is "one" uses the word "us" to refer to Himself; they did not care about doctrine yet they were saved, so why is it so important now?

For backstory, I've recently been looking for confirmation that I'm really saved. I've started to repent of all my sins (that I know of) about 1-2 weeks ago. I've pretty sure I've been saved since I was 8 years old, but I dedicated myself to God again, just to make sure. So I've recently been listening to an audio teaching about prayer, and the last little bit of the teaching is about healing yourself and others in the name of Jesus. I was having a bit of a headache, so I decided to try it out on myself when I got home instead of just using painkillers. I got home, and spoke to my body. I put my hand on my temple and said, "temple, you will stop hurting in the name of Jesus" or something along those lines. And it worked! That was the first time I've ever healed myself in Jesus name. Does the fact that God was able to heal me through myself mean that I'm saved for sure? Or could someone who isn't saved do exactly what I did? This is assuming they have faith that God will heal them as well.

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

There has historically been opposition by Fundamentalists to the "Social Gospel" presented by Liberal churches in the early 20th Century, and an emphasis placed on the "Gospel of Grace" by Conservative denominations in response. Since both the Old Testament and the New Testament spoke of "social activism", and both Testaments spoke of "Faith for pleasing God", are these two Gospels simply ***two sides of the same coin***? [Zechariah 7:9-10, James 1:27] Are they both two different facets of the grand Kingdom of God? Or are they mutually incompatible? One or the other being "a different Gospel" Paul warned about in Galatians 1? If compatible, how do they relate? [And by extension, how then can liberal and conservative churches relate?] Is the word "social" as referring to social reform in the Bible, to be only redefined in modern times, as synonymous with "secular"? Can there be a Christian social reform as well?

I have wondered that if it is faith alone that gets a Christian into Heaven, then why was it important to Jesus that his followers do certain things such as obeying His commandments and caring for their fellow man? Case in point, consider these two Biblical passages: _"Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.”_ -- John 14:21 _“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’_ _“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’_ _“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me."_ -- Matthew 25:34-40

The [2020 PhilPapers Survey](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4842) includes the following result: # God: Atheism or Theism? As shown, the majority of philosophers are non-theists, with only 18.93% accepting or leaning toward theism. From a purely statistical perspective, it seems that engaging in philosophy is more likely to lead one away from theism than toward it. **Does Christianity consider philosophy a threat to the faith?** --- **Question:** > Were the total number of respondents 1,770? That's literally that the website says. Screenshot below: --- **Question:** > Did the target group include all 30 plus branches of philosophy? The target population is described [here](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/design/population) : > ## Target Population > > The Survey's target population includes 7685 philosophers drawn from > two groups: (1) From Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK, > and the US (6112 philosophers): all regular faculty members > (tenure-track or permanent) in BA-granting philosophy departments with > four or more members (according to the [PhilPeople > database](https://philpeople.org/departments)) . (2). From all other > countries (1573 philosophers): English-publishing philosophers in > BA-granting philosophy departments with four or more > English-publishing faculty members. An English-publishing philosopher > is defined as someone with one or more publications in the [PhilPapers > database](https://philpapers.org/) in a wide range of English-language > venues, including English-language journals and book publishers. > > For meaningful longitudinal comparisons, we also designated a > [100-department target > group](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/design/comparison-departments) > in the same regions as the 2009 survey, based largely on rankings (all > Ph.D.-granting departments with a 2017-2018 Philosophical Gourmet > Report score of 1.9 or above, plus two leading departments with MA > programs and a selected group of European departments based on expert > recommendations). This group of 2407 philosophers was used only for > longitudinal comparisons. > > We also allowed any PhilPeople user to take the survey, regardless of > whether they were in the target populations. These populations cannot > be considered controlled, but results for all respondents and for > graduate students are given in some tables on this site. > > > Lists of departments > * [Target departments for the survey](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/design/target-departments) > * [2020 departments used for longitudinal comparison](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/design/comparison-departments) > * [2009 departments used for longitudinal comparison](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/design/comparison-departments?old=true)

Can we say that faith is a mixture of intuition and emotion? We have the intuition, the vague cognitive perception that something exists beyond the natural reality that can be described by modern science, and we feel a particular emotion when we think about it. The two complement and reinforce each other, to form 'faith' **NB:** It inquiries the point of view of protestants/protestantism on the question

Some random quotes from online Trinitarian sources. >The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of the Christian faith and life. >The most profound and mysterious doctrines of the Christian faith: the Trinity. >The mystery of the Trinity doctrine is the manifestation of three distinct persons in one God. Given the very specific statements of Jesus who declared the Father was the only true God, with no mention of a spirit 'person', and literally *excluding* himself from being God, this biblical evidence from the 'only Savior and Lord' would seem a sufficient explanation. The Biblical evidence describing the one God, Yahweh, is not a mystery, Jesus is not a mystery especially as his God is the same as ours. The Apostles affirmed these simple truths, especially about the man Jesus, who again, is never described as God, so no mystery there either.

The Bible says > It is by grace that you are saved, by the means of faith. And it does not come from you, it is the gift of God’. (Eph 2:8). > So faith comes from what we hear, and what we hear comes from the word of Christ.’ (Rom 10:17). According to the passages of the Bible quoted (Ephesians 2:8 and Romans 10:17), faith and grace are necessary for salvation. However, these passages also emphasize the importance of hearing the word of Christ. In this context, is it possible to be saved without having heard of Jesus? Can we be saved without having heard of Jesus?

The difference between a person like me who **knows** that God exists and a person who **believes** that God exists is personal experience. For example I have experienced events in my life where mystical beings have spied on me and taken information to a remote human being in control of those beings. I applied my reasoning and logic proved that the only way someone in the US can know what I am doing in Israel is through divination or necromancy, and that otherwise a normal person wouldn't. This is how I arrived at the knowledge that mystical beings indeed exist and are able to do things normal humans wouldn't be able to. > Editor's note: Assume the reasoning above is valid for the sake of answering the question. The Bible says that without faith we do not please God *Hebrew 11:6* >And without faith it is impossible to please God," meaning that in order to be pleasing to God, one must have faith in Him Does that mean a person who **knows** instead of **believes** is in violation of that verse?

From my studies, Scripture seems to make a very clear difference between the requirements of receiving the gift of salvation (by faith alone) and the requirements to enter the kingdom of God. **A. Biblically the only condition or requirement for salvation is FAITH.** 150x total in the New Testament we see that faith is the only requirement to be saved, justified, and have eternal life. (Examples: Acts 16:30-31; John 3:16, 36, 6:47, 5:24, Romans 10:9-10...) **B. Yet when you look at the requirements for entering the Kingdom of God / Kingdom of Heaven (one and the same) we have a list a various requirements such as:** 1. Born again (John 3:3-5) 2. Do the will of God (Matthew 7:21-23) 3. Be a disciple, follower of Jesus (Luke 9:57-62) 4. Live righteous, free from sin (Mark 9:43-47; Matt 18:6-9, 5:20, 21:31-32; 1 Cor 6:9-11; Eph 5:5; Gal 5:19-21) 5. Be like a child (Matt 18:3-4, 19:14; Mark 10:15; Luke 18:17) 6. Enter the narrow way (Luke 13:23-30; Matthew 7:13-14, 21) 7. Go through hardships & persecution (Mark 10:24; Acts 14:22; Matt 5:10, 20:20-21; 2 Thess 1:5; John 15:20) 8. Produce fruit (Matthew 21:43) 9. Be poor in spirit (Matthew 5:3) 10. Love God and people (James 2:5; Matthew 25:34-39) 11. Not with our physical bodies (1 Corinthians 15:50) When I researched this idea to find others who see and make this distinction, I did not find very many. Instead most think that salvation and entering the kingdom of God the same thing. The person who makes the distinction the clearest that I found is **Watchman Nee** in his work about "The Difference between the Kingdom of the Heavens and Eternal Life." I also see a correlation in Scripture between the list of requirements for being a disciple and to the list for entering the Kingdom of God. Salvation is by faith and is an entry point and then the invitation Jesus makes is to discipleship, which is about Lordship, and about entering the kingdom of God. There has been an ongoing debate about the distinction between salvation and Lordship known as “**Lordship Salvation**” vs “**Free Grace Theology**.” In short Lordship Salvation says that Jesus must be Lord to be Savior. Free Grace Theology says that Jesus can be your Savior without being your Lord, and that Lordship is a journey that starts after salvation. John MacArthur in his book *The Gospel According to Jesus * lays out the case for lordship salvation. Dr. Charles C. Bing in his book *Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation and Response * and *Grace, Salvation, and Discipleship: How to Understand Some Difficult Bible Passages * lays out a case for distinguishing salvation and Lordship/discipleship. This debate was started earlier in 1959 in **Eternity Magazine** between “Must Christ Be Lord To Be Savior?" - a debate between John R. Stott and Everett F. Harrison But I don't see a lot of people making the distinction between salvation and the kingdom of God. **Can anyone help me with this or speak into this?** I'd love to find any and all books, articles, or resources that talk about this distinction and I would love your comments and answers on this topic. I am writing a book on this topic and am looking for a list of resources that mention the idea. Thank you!

How long did it take for a couple who were perfect to have a child? Why Adam and Eve never got pregnant before the fall?

I am an adoptive mother. Years after adopting two children I have learned that 80% of children NOT living with a biological parent was exposed prenatal to alcohol. 4-5% of the entire population of the developed world is so impaired by prenatal alcohol exposure that if the resources existed to actually diagnose everyone, they would have a diagnosis of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. This disorder impairs the typical development of the brain and body. My child has FASD as well as 4 other diagnoses that are as a direct result of the fewer and less connected neurons and reduced speed of conduction. My child has impaired coordination, initiation, language skills and has an intellectual disability. It is expected that my child will not be able to care for themselves and will likely live in a group home unless supports fail and is homeless because no one understands the disabilities and helps when I am no longer around. The alcohol consumed during pregnancy was done responsibly… one to two beer a couple times a week. This would not be considered overindulgence. There is NO safe amount of alcohol use during pregnancy. As I have grieved this diagnosis I have reflected on how I have contributed, if any, to the social acceptance of alcohol consumption. My contribution is very little. My experience is that alcohol smells bad, tastes worse, burns going down and alters who you are and what you do. I cannot think of another individual who has done more to promote the production, and consumption of alcohol than Jesus: **the first miracle involves turning water into wine, and it is a critical element in some churches' communion**. It has become more than difficult for me to praise him after this life experience. If the purpose of the wine is to provide joy and gladness then it’s unlikely that it was just fresh unfermented juice. While wine and juice may not have been linguistically distinguished until more recently, I don’t think it’s plausible that when speaking of wine this was always fresh unfermented juice because there is a harvest time and a single time of year to make wine. It would be impossible to source just juice year round for something like communion. Wine would have almost always been actual wine with alcohol. So with the discussion about wine not really being wine out of the way, can anyone help me view this from another angle? And if you haven’t guessed, I really don’t relate to the idea of alcohol actually gladdening effectively. I am certainly not feeling the gladness watching my children struggle everyday with simple things. **Why would Jesus perpetuate the use of alcohol?** He either didn’t know, or he did know but did it anyway. My faith has experienced significant rupture. Sadly. I wish it were not so.

I am pondering this question and would like other people's help/thoughts. James, the brother of Jesus, author of the Epistle of James and leader of the early Jerusalem church, writes in the book of James, "Faith without works is dead." He clearly sees that faith leads a person to action. Yet, in Acts 21, Paul comes to Jerusalem and James tells Paul to perform the Jewish ritual of purification so that other Jews do not wrongly judge Paul as being anti-law. Paul does what James asks, but the plan does not go well. Paul is nearly killed and is imprisoned. Here is my question - why did James not support Paul when he was arrested? Where is James' faith in action supporting and caring for Paul?