> Mark 6 4-6: > > > 4 Then Jesus said to them, “People everywhere give honor to a prophet, > except in his own town, with his own people, or in his home.” 5 **Jesus > was not able** to do any miracles there except the healing of some sick > people by laying his hands on them. 6 He was surprised that the people > there had no faith. Then he went to other villages in that area and > taught. Like above, there are several examples where He can't heal people because of their unbelief. However, there is a difference: He **won't** vs. He **cannot** - heal someone because of their unbelief and this concept is usually overlooked. Is there anyway to determine if His power was drained or weakened by others and what does that mean for a believer today? Does this mean my level of faith (or vice versa) is analogous to this phenomenon described above? Here we see Jesus only recognizes and heals certain people based on their faith or to demonstrate God's will: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/10192/why-does-jesus-feel-only-certain-people-that-come-into-physical-contact-with-him Any studies, papers, speeches on this?

If we define perfection as ["complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement"](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/perfect) then the answer may that God is not yet perfect because humans have not always responded as God intended. There seems to be some scriptural basis for this. For example, 2 Peter 3:9 says: > The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is > patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come > to repentance. Logically, if God wishes all to come to repentance but all do not respond, then God's wish is unfulfilled. Proverbs 13:12 says "Hope deferred makes the heart sick, But desire fulfilled is a tree of life." If we apply this to the situation described in 2 Peter, then God's heart is sick, because His desire has not been fulfilled (that all come to repentance). We also get a sense of God's heart being broken elsewhere in scripture, as the prophets speak of Him as feeling like a husband whose wife has betrayed him, or as a father whose children have gone astray. The argument for God not being perfect boils down the idea that God desires a relationship with His children and that He suffers when we do not respond to His love. Is this idea heretical, or may Christians accept it without falling into serious error? (Note: the question does not seek arguments in favor of God's perfection/completeness, but is concerned primarily with the issue of whether or not belief in God's perfection is necessary to Christian faith.) ---------- Addendum: I hope readers will understand the question as I have defined it (the issue of God's "completeness" as opposed to the issue of His moral perfection). I've edited the title accordingly.

I've been reflecting on the interplay between faith and hope, especially when hope entails some degree of uncertainty and lack of intellectual assent but a strong desire for something to be true. Consider a scenario where an individual, exposed to the preaching of the Gospel, the promises of Christianity, and arguments and evidence for its core tenets, might express, "Though I don't know if Christianity is true, and I'm not highly or overwhelmingly confident, in light of the evidence I certainly believe it has potential to be true (i.e., it makes sense and I can't rule it out), and sincerely *wish* and *hope* it is true." Is it possible to redefine faith, traditionally rooted in strong beliefs, to encompass the prospect of being grounded in hope? Can individuals anchor their faith in hope rather than belief or intellectual assent, acknowledging uncertainty yet finding enough motivation rooted in hope in order to act "as if" a belief were true, with the aspiration that their hope-based faith may eventually, at some point in the future, evolve into a more solid belief? I'm interested in exploring whether this nuanced perspective has been discussed in philosophical or theological contexts, and how it might reshape our understanding of *faith* and its relationship to *hope*, *belief*, and *intellectual assent*. --- **Additional food for thought**: The application of [Pascal's wager](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager) might be considered as an example of this, where an individual, faced with the uncertainty of the existence of a higher power, may choose to embrace a hopeful faith. In acknowledging the inability to decisively prove or disprove the divine, a fence-sitter on the question might opt for a faith-driven approach, investing in the potential benefits of belief (by acting "as if" the belief were true) while recognizing the inherent uncertainty. **Another related and important question** is whether we can choose to believe something based only (or mostly) on our desire for it to be true and in spite of our prior uncertainty. See [To what extent do we choose our beliefs?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/849/66156) --- **Definition of belief** Someone in the comments asked for a definition of *belief*. I will quote the first paragraph of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [article](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/) on belief: > Anglophone philosophers of mind generally use the term “belief” to refer to **the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true**. To believe something, in this sense, needn’t involve actively reflecting on it: Of the vast number of things ordinary adults believe, only a few can be at the fore of the mind at any single time. Nor does the term “belief”, in standard philosophical usage, imply any uncertainty or any extended reflection about the matter in question (as it sometimes does in ordinary English usage). Many of the things we believe, in the relevant sense, are quite mundane: that we have heads, that it’s the 21st century, that a coffee mug is on the desk. Forming beliefs is thus one of the most basic and important features of the mind, and the concept of belief plays a crucial role in both philosophy of mind and epistemology. The “mind-body problem”, for example, so central to philosophy of mind, is in part the question of whether and how a purely physical organism can have beliefs. Much of epistemology revolves around questions about when and how our beliefs are justified or qualify as knowledge. --- **Definition of hope** To clarify, I'm using hope in the following sense: > **Faith as hopeful affirmation** > > Now consider hope. James Muyskens (1979), Louis Pojman (1986a; 1986b; 1991), and William Lad Sessions (1994) have each proposed **accounts of faith that take hope as the central cognitive attitude**. Pojman claims that: >> If belief-in, or trusting, can be analyzed in terms of commitment to a course of action or a disposition to act, then it seems that we do not need to believe-that x exists in order to believe-in **or deeply hope in the existence of x**. (Pojman (1986b), 224) > > But what is hope and is this claim plausible? > > **Hope is a complex attitude that involves both evaluation and opinion or, at least, some relatively weak constraints on opinion**. If I hope for sunny weather on my sister’s wedding day, ordinarily this will involve both a desire that the weather be sunny and a belief, say, that this is at least possible. Notice that I can hope for sunny weather even if I believe that alternatives like rain or even snow are more likely. While there are differences of opinion concerning just how hope is to be analysed, quite generally, it seems that, **for any subject S and proposition p, to say that S hopes that p involves at least that (1) S desires that p and (2) S does not believe that p is impossible. Clearly hope is also an attitude one can have towards the existence of an object, entity, or person x (e.g. God) or the obtaining of some state of affairs. These conditions are arguably necessary minima for hope**. It would make little sense to say Dave hopes that his wound will heal quickly and not become infected but has no desire that this be the case or that he believes that this is impossible. But perhaps a religiously significant sense of hope requires a bit more. As stated, the first condition leaves the nature of the desires quite unspecified (e.g. are these emotions, considered value judgments, or what?); ‘impossible’ in the second condition might mean only logically incoherent. **A plausible case could be made, for example, that the second condition for religiously significant hope should be that p is a live option for S or that S believes that the probability that p is true is not so small as to be negligible or that S does not believe not-p**. > > [...] > > Although hopes can be misplaced, the minimal epistemic opinion involved in hope is a very weak one. Indeed, hope is most nakedly apparent in cases where something is hoped for despite its improbability. Moreover, and for this reason, the hope that p requires less, often far less, in the way of evidence to be rational than the belief in that same content p. It can be reasonable to hope that p in cases where belief with the same content would not be. Clearly, I can hope to win the lottery jackpot without believing that I will and indeed while believing that it is extremely unlikely that I will; that the odds of winning are about one in two hundred million. Lying blind and paralysed in a ditch, I might hope to see and walk again. Devastated by the kidnapping of her child, years later, a tearful mother might still hope to be reunited with her son. Enslaved, I might hope one day to be set free. **Similarly, one can hope that God exists without believing that God exists**. > > Source: [Authentic faith and acknowledged risk: dissolving the problem of faith and reason](https://philpapers.org/archive/MCKAFA.pdf) , DANIEL J. MCKAUGHAN. Religious Studies / Volume 49 / Issue 01 / March 2013, pp 101 ­- 124 DOI: 10.1017/S0034412512000200, Published online: 15 June 2012

If someone carries with them a longstanding doubt constantly throughout the entirety of their life, regarding if they can be saved. Do they have enough faith to be saved? This applies to me personally, and I would love to hear your thoughts. Is there a difference between faith and belief? And in my personal context I think there is a relatively small chance I have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, and if true, I would be unforgivable. If I carry with me the belief that there is a small chance I am not saveable, do I really have enough faith to be saved?

I often find it helpful to illustrate my point with extreme cases. Let's examine some well-known examples of unbelievers: [Graham Oppy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Oppy) , a distinguished atheist philosopher specializing in philosophy of religion; [Peter Atkins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Atkins) , an atheist scientist highly proficient in Chemistry; [Stephen Hawking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking) , a globally recognized atheist theoretical physicist and cosmologist; and [Carl Sagan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan) , a renowned astronomer and science communicator who identified as an agnostic. For example, on the question of whether God exists, Carl Sagan once said: > An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. **To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed**. ([source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#cite_note-Sagan2006-120)) Graham Oppy was [asked](https://youtu.be/OQv_K9toh2k) the question of what it would take to convince him to believe in God during an interview on *Premier Unbelievable?*. He essentially expressed uncertainty, leaning towards skepticism that a new philosophical argument for God's existence would be persuasive to him, given the countless arguments for God he had already studied. Similarly, when Peter Atkins was [asked](https://youtu.be/dRWIsuEL0Ac) on a different occasion, "*Could anything convince you God exists?*" he responded by stating that he couldn't think of any convincing factor, given his unwavering commitment to naturalism. In light of individuals with such backgrounds—who genuinely grapple with the inability to conceive of anything convincing—I find it challenging to reconcile this reality with the notion that the gift of saving faith in Christ is universally accessible. It's difficult for me to envision someone like Graham Oppy simply "choosing" to embrace and exercise the gift of saving faith in Christ supposedly available to him, or simply "choosing" to become born again. Absent a miracle, direct revelation, or an encounter akin to Acts 9, I genuinely struggle to see how this could plausibly unfold. If the offer of saving faith in Christ is a universal gift from God, does this extend to unbelievers like those mentioned earlier? If the opportunity for saving faith is accessible to all, can committed unbelievers such as Carl Sagan or Graham Oppy also avail themselves of this gift?

> And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. - Genesis 15:4-6 > What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. - Romans 4:1-5 > This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. - Galatians 3:2-6 Does Reformed Theology (RT) assert that God made/caused/enabled Abraham to believe the promise God made in a primary fashion? What I mean is, one might say that the giving of a promise creates an opportunity for the choice to believe without directly causing that belief to occur in the same way that the prohibition in the Garden of Eden created an opportunity for Adam to choose but God didn't make Adam disobey. I think that RT affirms the latter (please correct me if I'm wrong). Does RT reject the former and assert that Abraham in no way would or could have believed unless God enabled/gave that ability to him? If yes (which I am sort of expecting) then a good answer will explain why real choice occurred in Genesis 3 but not in Genesis 15 and also whether God activated something latent in Abraham or gave him something brand new. In other words, did Adam's ability to make an actual choice disappear from humanity, go dormant, or something else? Bonus points for explaining (if yes) why Abraham's first act with his God-given faith was to ask for proof of God's re-iteration of his promise from Genesis 12:7. If God gave Abraham faith to believe (which Abraham played no part in), why was it a faith that doubted? > And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it. And he said, Lord GOD, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it? - Genesis 15:7-8

Bit of a darker question but it really needs to be asked for some people, sometimes individuals have really been struggling with faith in themselves and Jesus. How can one resolve this question. Do Scriptures have any clues how to deal with this?

To be more specific: If someone believes there is a 60% chance that they can be saved, and lives as if they have full confidence, is that a saving faith?

For context: "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead. ... https://www.bible.com/bible/2692/HEB.11.NASB2020 https://www.bible.com/bible/2692/HEB.10.NASB2020

Historical Protestantism (particularly in the Lutheran and Reformed traditions) have since the Magisterial Reformation held to two doctrines relating what is required of an individual for salvation. The first is the doctrine of *Sola Fide*, meaning "by faith alone". This principle states that salvation is not by works of man, but by faith in Christ. In fact, not only are works insufficient to merit salvation on their own, they account for not even a portion of our salvation--it is, rather, *wholly* through faith in Christ. The second doctrine was worked out by Luther and put into its present form by his collaborator and successor, Melancthon. This doctrine is simply a definition of faith, or sometimes known as the three aspects of faith--as such, it is intended to explain what is required of the "faith" for salvation "by faith alone". The doctrine has three steps: 1. *notitia* One must know the basic information (or "content") such as Christ's death and resurrection. 1. *assensus* One must agree that the basic information is correct. In other words, he/she must not only have heard that Christ died and rose again, but they must believe that he did do that. 1. *fiducia* One must trust in Christ, and rest on the knowledge that the content to which he/she assented is sufficient to save. It is this last piece--fiducia--that I struggle with reconciling with the concept of Sola Fide. Scripture makes clear that these first two points are insufficient (James 2:19 ), and on the face of it, it makes sense that we must trust in Christ for our salvation. Where I struggle is that *fiducia* puts faith in functional terms. This means that, although in theory, I trust in Christ for my salvation, I don't always do so in practice. Here's an example: I'm can be a bit of a control freak, and sometimes yell at my wife in trying to assert my control. I am not loving her as I'm commanded to do so, and it stems from my pride. Although I think I trust in Christ for my salvation, my actions show that I am considering another functional 'gospel' (control) of 'salvation' and another function 'god' (myself) that will effect that 'salvation'. When I stop and think about it, I know that I am no god, and that my gospel is no gospel, but I do stumble and my actions reveal my heart. In fact, I would argue (and Luther has) that every sin follows such a pattern. To come at the problem more directly, this notion of *fiducia* makes my faith dependent upon my works, whereas "Sola Fide" asserts that salvation is through faith and not works. How does this puzzle fit together?

My question is for protestant Christians. If salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, then what does 2 Thessalonians 2:13 mean by saying that people are saved by the sanctification of the Spirit and believing the truth?

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 was going through the Bible and came across Daniel 4 which is about a vision King Nebuchadnezzar gets and as a result he calls Daniel to interpret. The dream ends up being a prophecy about how God is going to humble King Nebuchadnezzar which eventually comes to pass 12 months later. However, the way King Nebuchadnezzar acts towards the end is what makes me think he received salvation. He says this: > *34 At the end of that time, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven, and my sanity was restored. Then I praised the Most High; I > honored and glorified him who lives forever. > > His dominion is an eternal dominion; > his kingdom endures from generation to generation. 35 All the peoples of the earth > are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases > with the powers of heaven > and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand > or say to him: “What have you done?” > > 36 At the same time that my sanity was restored, my honor and splendor > were returned to me for the glory of my kingdom. My advisers and > nobles sought me out, and I was restored to my throne and became even > greater than before. 37 Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and exalt and > glorify the King of heaven, because everything he does is right and > all his ways are just. And those who walk in pride he is able to > humble.* From this we see that in the end, Nebuchadnezzar believed in God and acknowledged him as the most high. Not only this, but also he says: > Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and exalt and glorify the King of heaven, because everything he does is always right and his ways are just Here, he shows conversion and faith in God. However, the bible repeatedly emphasizes that we are saved BY grace THROUGH faith and that it is faith that justifies us.(Ephesians 2:8-9 , [Galatians 3:11]). It is also seen that following the law is not what saved people in the Old Covenant but it was faith in God that saves people and the function of the law was to let us acknowledge our sin and guide people until Jesus came (Romans 3:20 , Galatians 3:24 , Isaiah 45:22-24 . The Bible then goes on to use Abraham as an example in Romans 4:3 saying that Abraham was justified by his faith and he clarifies in Romans 3:23-24 and Galatians 3:8-9 where it says that this extends to anyone who has faith in God. So with all this in mind, is it a possibility that King Nebuchadnezzar ended up receiving salvation after acquiring his faith in God as sovereign and the one above all, including what he describes as *powers of heaven*, which could maybe be understood as him exalting God above all other known lesser gods?

> **[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.

When the Israelites attacked Jericho, God commanded them not spare the residents of Jericho, or Canaanites generally. Two spies went into the city, and were protected by a harlot named Rahab, who asked them to spare her life and those of her family in return. The spies were able to honor the deal and she became an Israelite. What made her the exception to the "kill all" command? Was it her faith that saved her?

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 (ESV) says: >"The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deceptions for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. **Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness**." My question is: why would God want to send a strong delusion and why would he want people who do not believe to be led further astray? In my mind it doesn't make sense for it to be about simply being condemning the unbelieving because their unbelief already discredits them from heaven, why would they need to be led further astray? Does anybody know of any hypothesis as to why God would send such a strong delusion?

- What are the most common reasons that cause Christians to lose their faith and turn to atheism, agnosticism or skepticism? - Are these reasons only effective against young Christians? What about pastors, priests, elders, evangelists, missionaries, etc.? Are long-time committed Christians also vulnerable to have their faith "shaken" by these reasons? I think these are important questions to answer, especially with so many atheist activists spreading skepticism and atheism nowadays. Wikipedia has an informative [list of atheist activists and educators](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheist_activists_and_educators) . There are also the ["Four Horsemen of the New Atheism"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism#%22Four_Horsemen%22) , namely, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris. In social media we also find lots of content producers who spread agnosticism, atheism and skeptical ways of thinking. For example, on YouTube I'm familiar with [Genetically Modified Skeptic](https://www.youtube.com/c/GeneticallyModifiedSkeptic/featured) (458K subscribers), [CosmicSkeptic](https://www.youtube.com/c/CosmicSkeptic) (446K subscribers), [The Atheist Experience](https://www.youtube.com/user/TheAtheistExperience) (365K subscribers), [Rationality Rules](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqZMgLgGlYAWvSU8lZ9xiVg) (296K subscribers), [AronRa](https://www.youtube.com/c/AronRa) (263K subscribers) and [Bart D. Ehrman](https://www.youtube.com/c/bartdehrman) (83K subscribers). Here is [a list with the top 50 atheist YouTube channels](https://blog.feedspot.com/atheist_youtube_channels/) . ____________ EDIT: [For legacy reasons.] This question originally had a third dot point which was removed to make it more focused. However, before the question was closed a user managed to post an answer where a big chunk of it addresses this third point. Therefore, I'm keeping it below for legacy reasons only. Future answerers may feel free to completely ignore it if they wish. > - What measures (if any) are Christian churches taking to counteract these reasons for deconversion? Do any Christian churches or organizations teach people how to have an unshakable faith, even in the face of the most challenging objections?

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?