I'm asking this question inspired by a recent anecdote told by someone I trust, but the point is to go beyond the anecdote and ask a more general question. The anecdote is as follows: My mother is a widow, but she's seeing a man who is also a widower. My family has a very good relationship with him. He is Catholic. He recently told us about a supernatural/paranormal experience he had before his wife died of cancer. At that time, he was desperate to find a solution for the cancer his wife was suffering from. A friend of his told him he had had a successful experience with a healer who cured him of stomach cancer several years earlier, and he shared the contact information and address. He coordinated an appointment with the healer and went there with his wife. He was really surprised to find that a lot of people were in line waiting for their turn, as if, through word of mouth, people who had a successful experience with the healer would recommend her (it was a she) to their friends and acquaintances, and those to theirs, and so on. So it was clear that this healer was well-known and in demand. The man and his wife went in. The healer examined the wife and noticed that the cancer was in an extremely advanced stage, and said there was nothing she could do for her at that point. However, the man himself was struggling with a strange skin condition that had started a few years earlier, where he would get stains and protuberances, like cysts, in several parts of his upper body, including a few that were quite noticeable and painful when he touched them. Since he was already there, he took the opportunity to arrange a healing session for himself. If I remember correctly, he had about three meetings with the healer. He said something along the lines of this: he was in the same room with several other people who were also seeking healing, and they all had to pray some Catholic prayers that the healer guided them through. But at certain points the healer would utter words that no one else in the room could understand (maybe she was "speaking in tongues"?). Then, probably in the last session, she asked each person in turn to visualize the route to their homes, because that night someone would visit them in their room to perform the "operation" to heal them. He visualized the exact route to his house, and he felt like the healer was able to read his mind while he was doing it. After that, she instructed him to go to his bedroom, sleep early, leave a candle burning and a glass of water, and wear a white blanket. He did as instructed, and he remembers that at some point during the night, while he was asleep, he felt like entities visited him and started moving him around in bed, but he perceived it as if it were part of a dream. But he heard a voice that woke him up saying, "Turn off the candle," just before the candle was about to be fully consumed. He did so, and immediately fell asleep again. A few hours later, he woke up, drank water from the glass, and then checked his skin for the presence of the stains, protuberances, and cysts, and they were gone. The skin condition was completely healed. And I trust this man. He's a very honest, hard-working man, and he's been going out with my mother for several years now. He inspires trust, and he disclosed this experience to us in the context of telling us what he experienced while trying to save his now deceased wife from cancer. For me, the way he described the healer sounded a bit like an esoteric, occult, witchy healer, and yet the fact that he was healed from this skin condition from one day to the next is undeniable for him. However, if these things truly happen in the world, one would need to make sense of them and fit them within a Christian worldview. Does Christianity accept the occurrence of healing miracles outside of Christianity? How does Christianity make sense of experiences like this one? --- --- # CLARIFICATION While the man is Catholic, I never mentioned the healer's (who is female) religious background. I suspect she may be involved in some form of esoteric or syncretic tradition. I consulted an AI about this story, and here is what it suggested: > **Kardecist Spiritism (Espiritismo)** > > The healer's practices align most closely with **Kardecist Spiritism** > (known as *Espiritismo* in Portuguese-speaking countries like Brazil), > a spiritualist doctrine founded by Allan Kardec in 19th-century France > and highly adapted in Latin America. It's not a traditional religion > but a philosophical-spiritual movement blending Christianity, > reincarnation, and mediumship, widely practiced in Brazil. Here's why > this fits best, matching key elements: > > ### Core Matching Elements: > - **Group healing sessions with prayers**: Spiritist centers (*centros espíritas*) often hold collective "passes" (energy transmissions) or > healing sessions where mediums guide participants in > Christian/Catholic prayers (e.g., Our Father, Hail Mary), as Jesus is > central to Spiritism. This respects the man's Catholic faith while > incorporating mediumship. > > - **Speaking unknown words ("tongues")**: Mediums in Spiritism channel spirits (*incorporação*), sometimes uttering languages or sounds > incomprehensible to attendees, akin to glossolalia but attributed to > discarnate entities rather than Holy Spirit baptism. > > - **Visualizing home route for "night visit"**: A hallmark of Spiritist *cirurgia espiritual* (spiritual surgery). The medium > psychically "reads" the route and dispatches spirit doctors/surgeons > to perform invisible operations during sleep. This is routine in > Brazilian Spiritism—no physical tools, just mental direction. > > - **Home ritual preparation**: Instructions like early sleep, burning candle (for spirit attraction/light), glass of water (to absorb > "spiritual fluids" or toxins from the "surgery"), and white blanket > (symbolizing purity/protection, like a shroud) are textbook. The > dream-like sensation of entities moving the body, voice commands > (e.g., extinguishing candle for safety), and post-wake > checkup/drinking water match countless testimonials. > > - **Rapid, complete healing of chronic condition**: Spiritist healings claim to remove "perispiritual" blockages or cysts via spirit > intervention, often overnight. Long lines and word-of-mouth fame are > common for popular mediums (*médiuns curadores*). > > - **Advanced cancer untreatable**: Spirits reportedly refuse "karmic" or terminally advanced cases, focusing on reversible ailments. > > ### Why Not Other Options? | Alternative | Why Less Likely | |-------------|-----------------| | **Catholic Charismatic Renewal (CCR)** | Includes tongues, group prayers, healings—but no home "entity surgeries," route visualization, or candle/water rituals. More prayer-focused, less mediumistic. | | **Pentecostalism/Evangelical** | Tongues and healings fit, but rejects "entities" visiting homes (seen as demonic); emphasizes faith healing in church, not dream operations. | | **Umbanda/Candomblé (Afro-Brazilian)** | Similar rituals/home works, but heavier African deities/orixás, less Catholic prayers; often involves offerings/herbs, not pure visualization. | | **Folk Catholicism (e.g., benzedeira)** | Prayers and blessings common, but typically hands-on with herbs/oils; no spirit surgeries or tongues. | | **New Age/Reiki/Shamanism** | Lacks Catholic prayers; more energy work/crystals, less structured spirit teams. | | **Filipino Psychic Surgery** | Physical fake incisions, not dream-based; no Catholic prayer emphasis or home rituals. | > ### Christian Worldview Fit > Spiritism claims compatibility with Christianity: Spirits are evolved souls (including biblical figures), > healing honors God's laws via reincarnation/karma. Many Catholics > participate syncretically in Brazil (e.g., 3-4% identify as Spiritist, > millions more blend it). Critics (orthodox Catholics) view it as > occult, but practitioners see it as divine aid. The man's trust and > healing don't contradict faith—he framed it as supernatural help > during desperation. > > This is probable, not certain—regional variations exist—but the ritual > details are a near-perfect match for documented Brazilian > *Espiritismo*. If you have more details (e.g., location), it could refine this.

> 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?

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?

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

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?

There is much discussion in secular academia about the possibility/impossibility of Christ being Deity. But there are also sects *within religious circles* who dismiss the idea of Christ really being Deity! Some of those sects fly their flag under the banner of ***Christianity.*** Since the word "Christian" is commonly defined as "one who is a faithful disciple of Christ", then it follows that such a one should believe all that Jesus claimed, ***including His claim to Deity.*** (Also recognized as such by the Apostles.) >Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father...Believe Me when I say that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me... (John 14:9, 11) >My Father is always at work to this very day, and I too, am working.
For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill Him...He was even calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. (John 5:17-18) >He is the [visible] image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all Creation. For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (Colossians 1:15-17) >For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form... (Colossians 2:9) >The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His Being, sustaining all things by His powerful Word. (Hebrews 1:3) >Jesus said to those who believed on Him, "***If you continue in My word***, then you are My disciples indeed." (John 8:31) Since Jesus's "word" included His claim to Deity, can a person ever be called a "Christian" who does not subscribe to believing Jesus is God? ***What is the consensus of Evangelical Protestants in this matter of importance?*** Can sects that deny the Deity of Christ still be considered under the umbrella of "Christianity"? or be considered a "Christian religion"?

*Note*: This question has been inspired by the related question *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/99867/61679* --- I'm intrigued by the prospect of tailoring apologetics strategies specifically to effectively present a compelling case for the truth of Christianity to those who adhere to pagan beliefs. While traditional apologetics often focuses on persuading atheists and agnostics, such as in works like "[I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist](https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615) ," there is a unique challenge when engaging with individuals who already accept beliefs in deities, miracles, the supernatural, and similar concepts within a pagan or non-Christian framework. What arguments and approaches does Christian apologetics employ to effectively persuade individuals holding such perspectives? Delving further into pagan theology unveils intriguing concepts such as [theurgy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theurgy) and [thaumaturgy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaumaturgy) . Theurgy, commonly linked with [Neoplatonism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism) , encompasses rituals and practices aimed at invoking the presence of divine entities. Thaumaturgy, on the other hand, often pertains to the use of magical acts or miracles for practical ends. Additionally, one may encounter related terms such as [Western esotericism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_esotericism) , [Eastern Esotercisim](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_esotericism) , [Perennial philosophy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy) , [Kabbalah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah) , [Hermeticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeticism) , [Occult](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occult) , [Modern paganism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_paganism) , [Shamanism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamanism) , [Spiritualism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritualism) , [New Thought](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Thought) , [Theosophy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophy) , [Witchcraft](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft) , [Druidism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druidry_(modern)) , [Yoga](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga) , [Reiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiki) , [Astrology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology) , and [New Age](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Age) . > Theurgy (/ˈθiːɜːrdʒi/; from Greek θεουργία theourgía), also known as divine magic, is one of two major branches of the magical arts, the other being practical magic or thaumaturgy. Theurgy describes the ritual practices associated with the invocation or evocation of the presence of one or more deities (also called "godforms"), especially with the goal of achieving henosis (uniting with the divine) and perfecting oneself. (Source: [Theurgy - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theurgy).) > Thaumaturgy is the purported capability of a magician to work magic or other paranormal events or a saint to perform miracles. It is sometimes translated into English as wonderworking. > >A practitioner of thaumaturgy is a "thaumaturge", "thaumaturgist", "thaumaturgus", "miracle worker", or "wonderworker". A 'saint', being one who is variably defined as having an exceptional degree of holiness, enlightenment, or likeness or closeness to God, may be claimed to have performed miracles; these generally being defined as exceptional events or deeds not within the normative means of natural or human power, instead being of some supernatural or preternatural manner. Although the definition of a 'miracle', like the definition of a 'saint', will vary yet further among separate religions, sects, and schools. > > **Buddhism** > See also: *Abhijñā* and *Miracles of Gautama Buddha* > In the introduction of his translation of the "Spiritual Powers (神通 Jinzū)" chapter of Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō, Carl Bielefel refers to the powers developed by adepts of Buddhist meditation as belonging to the "thaumaturgical tradition". These powers, known as siddhi or abhijñā, were ascribed to the Buddha and subsequent disciples. Legendary monks like Bodhidharma, Upagupta, Padmasambhava, and others were depicted in popular legends and hagiographical accounts as wielding various supernatural powers. > > **Hinduism** > See also: *Godman (India)* > Godman is a colloquial term used in India for a type of charismatic guru. They usually have a high-profile presence, and are capable of attracting attention and support from large sections of the society. Godmen also sometimes claim to possess paranormal powers, such as the ability to heal, the ability to see or influence future events, and the ability to read minds. > > (Source: [Thaumaturgy - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaumaturgy).) When exploring these concepts, I'm intrigued to know if apologists have crafted arguments or techniques specifically designed to resonate with followers and practitioners of pagan religions. For example, are there instances where apologetics has been meticulously tailored to address the beliefs of modern New Agers or adherents of the *perennial philosophy*? Analyzing specific instances across different religions can provide valuable insights into how apologetics effectively navigates the nuances between Christianity and the diverse viewpoints found within pagan traditions, especially in the context of engaging with and proselytizing a pagan audience.

If being a non-Christian is a sin, and if Jesus died for all of our sins, why should non-Christians go to hell?

The background of this question is in the conversation Abraham and God has over the inhabitants of Sodom. God is focusing on whether anyone within the city of Sodom is **good or righteous**, God doesn't care if they know him. You have most probably seen lots of people who are non-believers engage in humanitarian works of charity that supercede those of regular Christians. If God is to use the same criteria he used with the inhabitants of Sodom, can we be assured that these non-believers will be deemed good and worthy of heaven? Jesus said when you did it to them you did it to me, so aren't these non-believers doing good to Jesus, who will send them to life?

When engaging with non-believers, including atheists, agnostics, apatheists, pagans, and others, two distinct approaches come to light: The first is the **Apologetics** approach, involving the presentation of a rational case for the truth of Christianity via intellectual arguments and evidence. Noteworthy examples include: - [*Five Proofs of the Existence of God*](https://www.amazon.com/Five-Proofs-Existence-Edward-Feser/dp/1621641333) , by Edward Feser - [*Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe*](https://www.amazon.com/Return-God-Hypothesis-Compelling-Scientific/dp/0062071505/) , by Stephen C. Meyer - [*A Mousetrap for Darwin: Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics*](https://www.amazon.com/Mousetrap-Darwin-Michael-Answers-Critics/dp/1936599910) , by Michael J. Behe - [*I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist*](https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615) , by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek - [*Answering Atheism: How to Make the Case for God with Logic and Charity*](https://www.amazon.com/Answering-Atheism-Make-Logic-Charity/dp/1938983432) , by Trent Horn - [*Mere Christianity*](https://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926) , by C. S. Lewis - [*Warranted Christian Belief*](https://www.amazon.com/Warranted-Christian-Belief-Alvin-Plantinga/dp/0195131932) , by Alvin Plantinga - [*The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus*](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001QOGJY0/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0) , by Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona - [*Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts*](https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-New-Testament-Accounts/dp/0801039525) , by Craig S. Keener The second approach is **Evangelism**, with Spirit and power. The Apostle Paul advocates for this approach in 1 Corinthians 2:1-5: >**1** And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. **2** For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. **3** I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. **4** **And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power**, **5** **that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God**. Considering these two approaches to proselytizing, my question is as follows: Are there established and widely recognized principles in Christianity that guide the decision of when to prioritize the approach of evangelism over apologetics, or vice versa? More specifically, is the preaching of the gospel with Spirit and power in evangelism always the preferred method, relegating the use of sophisticated philosophical arguments often associated with apologetics to a secondary and complementary role?

The "skeptic's prayer" was relatively recently brought to my attention by an [answer](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/104847/66156) to [one](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/104798/66156) of my questions on Philosophy Stack Exchange: > More in the vein of Schellenberg's argument above, I hope that I am sufficiently nonresistant to allow for more personal, direct conversion by God. I have said the **"skeptic's prayer"** sincerely at many points in my life but have yet to cross over to true belief (vs just motivated hope). Different versions of the "skeptic's prayer" are available on several websites. Some examples I quickly found: > 'God, I don't know whether you even exist. I'm a skeptic. I doubt. I think you may be only a myth. But I'm not certain (at least when I'm completely honest with myself). So, if you do exist, and if you really did promise to reward all seekers, you must be hearing me now. So I hereby declare myself a seeker, a seeker of truth, what-ever it is. I want to know the truth and live the truth. If you are the truth, please help me.' ([source](http://www.withoutexcusecreations.net/the-honest-skeptics-prayer/)) > Hello God. Honestly, I don’t know if you are real or if I am talking > to myself. People say this, others say that. I don’t know what to > think about you, if there is a you, and all those big questions > regarding life, the universe and everything. > > What can I know about you? How can I know you? Who is worthy of trust > in this world of confusion and betrayal? > > If you are there, If I am not just talking to myself, touch me for a > moment, so that I may find you, wherever you are, and whoever you may > be. > > Maybe if you will trust me a little, Give me a little mercy in my > confusion, I could learn to trust you too. It’s not always easy being > alive in this world. It would be nice to have some help. > > My question is simple. Am I talking to myself here? Or do you somehow, > somewhere exist? If in fact you exist, and are there for me, help me > find you. I don’t know what else to say about this. I do know that yes > or no, I want to know for myself. At least I think I do. In the > meantime, I’ll just wait and see what happens. One more thing. What > does this Jesus fellow have to do with this? > > Ok I’m done praying. What’s the word for the end of a prayer – Amen, > that’s what the church people say. Someone told me it means “so be > it.” I want this to be in my life, whatever this may turn out to be. > So I say Amen. > > We say "Amen" with you too. ([source](http://www.epiphanyokc.com/a-skeptics-prayer)) Is there scriptural support for God being willing to answer the prayers of an open-minded skeptic who sincerely seeks a divine response, hoping that it would confirm to their satisfaction that God is real, if that is indeed the case? And as a follow-up question, would a prayer like this work even in more extreme cases, such as the examples of non-believers referenced in my previous question *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/99650/61679* ?

In diverse contexts, I've encountered encouragements aimed at seekers, skeptics, non-believers, and non-Christians in general, urging them to pray to God, beseeching Him to "reveal Himself" to them. Is there a biblical basis for urging a non-believer or seeker to pray like this? And what should the one praying this kind of prayer expect to happen if God were to indeed answer such a prayer? *Note*: this question is closely related, https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/92165/61679

I would like to delve into the Christian perspective on whether God can be credited for the healing process of an individual who, initially not a Muslim, converts to Islam and undergoes genuine spiritual renewal, or at least claims to undergo such a renewal, based on their self-reported experience. One can find many such testimonies on the web ([example 1](https://youtu.be/4-l7cemjwyI?t=605) , [example 2](https://youtu.be/nwjJS6wfv-s?t=547) , [example 3](https://youtu.be/Ertxy9kMB7M) , [example 4](https://youtu.be/8jNuBgSqYks) , [example 5](https://www.youtube.com/@MuslimConvertStories)) . I want to understand the Christian viewpoint regarding divine involvement in the well-being and spiritual growth of individuals who undergo a religious transformation, particularly in the context of the conversion of a non-Muslim to the Islamic faith. Is it conceivable that God plays a role in the spiritual development of a Muslim convert? **Are there any Christian denominations that believe this is possible in principle?** Or are all Christians denominations necessarily committed by theological reasons to ascribe any improvement and healing experienced by a Muslim convert to psychology, sociology, the influence of deceptive spirits, or any combination of these factors? *Note*: While this question can be broadly applied to individuals reporting healing and spiritual growth in various religions, my primary focus is on Islam, given its close association as an Abrahamic faith, alongside Judaism, with Christianity.

I posted a question on Philosophy Stack Exchange titled [*Is the Skeptic's Prayer a legitimate scientific experiment?*](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/108053/66156) . Please review it for contextual information. Numerous responses, predominantly from non-believers and skeptics, present various objections to the scientific validity of the *Skeptic's Prayer*. However, let's consider a scenario where a skeptic, intrigued by the possibility of God's existence and the truth of Christianity, decides to earnestly give it a try. This individual prays with the hopeful expectation of a divine response, but despite genuine effort, experiences no discernible outcome, and no conversion experience takes place. Eventually, the skeptic abandons their exploratory pursuit. From a Christian standpoint, what conceivable explanations exist for why a truth-seeking skeptic, in the specific endeavor of seeking an encounter with or a response from the Christian God, might perceive a lack of "results" in their pursuit?

In the realm of Christian theology, different faith traditions and denominations utilize distinct terminology to signify key events in the conversion process of non-believers. Examples of such terms I'm aware of include the *new birth* or *born-again* experience, which emphasizes a transformative experience in accepting Jesus Christ, and receiving the *light of faith*, highlighting the illumination that comes through faith, in contrast to the *light of reason* that everyone has access to, including non-believers. Less formally, I've even heard expressions such as 'having an *aha* moment'. What other terms or phrases do various Christian traditions employ to express unique aspects of the conversion journey for those who were previously non-believers? I'm particularly interested in learning about both commonalities and differences in the terminology employed by different faith traditions in Christianity.

From *Nonresistant Nonbelief*, by J. L. Schellenberg: > One might fail to believe in God even while God is open to a belief-entailing personal relationship if one prevents oneself from believing in God through self-deceptive resistance of God. **So the hiddenness argument needs to show that not all nonbelief is of this sort: that there is (or has in the past been) nonresistant nonbelief**. Chapter 6 shows how this may be done. It does so by reference to humans in the early days of human evolution **as well as those today who are in doubt over whether such a God exists after careful reflection on the idea**. With this job completed, we can add a third premise: **Some finite persons are or have been nonresistantly in a state of nonbelief in relation to the proposition that God exists**. And from this premise together with the previous conclusion, a second conclusion can be drawn: No perfectly loving God exists. > > ([source](https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198733089.001.0001/acprof-9780198733089-chapter-6)) Other authors refer to nonresistant nonbelief as "blameless" disbelief or "inculpable" nonbelief. For example, [this article](https://philpapers.org/browse/divine-hiddenness) says: > “Divine Hiddenness” in contemporary philosophy of religion may refer to the supposed fact that the existence of God is less than obvious, or to an argument against theism based on this supposed fact. The argument begins with the observation that many people of apparently good will and at least average intelligence have investigated the claims of theism, and yet still do not believe that God exists. Suppose, as many theists do, that the greatest human good is found in a personal relationship with God. **Not believing that God exists seems an obvious barrier to such a relationship; but many of those who do not believe in God seem morally and epistemically blameless in their lack of belief**. If the God of theism—an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good personal being—did exist, then surely those who genuinely seek God would find God: an omnipotent God would be capable of providing clear self-revelation to those who genuinely seek, and a perfectly good God would want to provide such revelation. **That so many of those who do seek or have sought God persist in unbelief is therefore itself evidence that God does not exist. Or so claims the advocate of the “argument from divine hiddenness.”** Some philosophers have responded by argued that “the problem of divine hiddenness” is simply a special case of the more general problem of evil, adding nothing new to the case against the existence of God, nor any new challenge to extant responses to the problem of evil. For example, it could be that there is some outweighing good that can only be obtained by God allowing **blameless disbelief** to continue in a person’s life. Other philosophers have argued that a good God might provide only “purposive evidence”; i.e., evidence that may only be made available to one if it would accomplish God’s purpose in one’s life (e.g., that one would respond to the evidence not just by believing that God exists, but also by loving and obeying God). There are contemporary individuals who identify themselves as "nonresistant nonbelievers". For example, in a [recent debate](https://youtu.be/rnIQFI1pYLM?t=1406) titled *DEBATE: Theism vs Atheism | Jonathan McLatchie vs Alex O’Connor*, Alex O'Connor said in his opening statement: > [...] I'm going to be making the claim, specifically, that atheism or naturalism provides better account for 3 facts of our universe: > - The first being the hiddenness of God. > - The second being the geographical, statistical arrangement of religious belief. > - And the third will be the problem of gratuitous suffering and we'll see if we get time to finish it off. > > Far from being unable to escape God, there is a very real contingent of nonbelievers, and I would count myself among their number, who are unable by any means to discover Him. Who seek and do not find, who knock and receive, as it were, no answer. This strange phenomenon is known as the problem of divine hiddenness. If there is a God, then simply why is He hidden from so many of us so much of the time? If theism is to offer a sufficient account of reality, then it must offer an account of what J. L. Schellenberg has famously labeled "nonresistant nonbelief", which he distinguishes from "resistant nonbelief" [...] **Question**: From a Christian perspective, what are Alex and others who identify themselves as "nonresistant nonbelievers" doing wrong that is preventing them from finding God and attaining genuine belief in Him? What are plausible reasons for why God may appear hidden to them despite their alleged nonresistance? **Note**: for scoping purposes, I'd be interested in answers that accept the following premises: - *Universalism* is false - Human beings possess some form of freedom of the will (i.e. full determinism is false, e.g. Molinists and Arminians would be welcome to answer this question) ___ Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/81266/50422

Suppose a non-believer is open to the possibility that God and the things of the Spirit might exist, but acknowledges that for them subjectively God appears to be *hidden* and thus feels unable to perceive and understand spiritual matters, fitting the description of *spiritual blindness*. If a non-believer in such a state is proactively interested in opening their "spiritual sight", so to speak, and overcome their *spiritual blindness*, what would they need to do to accomplish that goal, from a Christian perspective on the issue? I ask this as a follow-up to my last question, *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/97717/61679* . Regarding the definition of *spiritual blindness*, I'm borrowing the definition from GotQuestions.org: > To be spiritually blind is not to see Christ, and not to see Christ is not to see God (Colossians 1:15-16; 2 Corinthians 4:6). Spiritual blindness is a grievous condition experienced by those who do not believe in God, Jesus Christ, and His Word (Romans 2:8; 2 Thessalonians 2:12). Those who reject Christ are the lost (John 6:68-69). Being spiritually blind, they are perishing (2 Corinthians 4:3-4; Revelation 3:17). They choose not to accept the teachings of Christ and His authority in their lives (Matthew 28:18). They are blind to the manifestations of God as revealed throughout His Word and Jesus Christ (John 1:1; Acts 28:26-27). They are described as those who “do not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14). > > https://www.gotquestions.org/spiritual-blindness.html

In a recent SE post on epistemic certainty about the truth claims of Christianity a helpful response was given: > Is there any way for a rational person to reach the conclusion that > Christianity is definitely true? > > Yes. Die and stand before God. > > Snark aside, I'd be shocked if there aren't people that would doubt > even then. It is human nature (and the action of the Adversary) that > we have doubts. We aren't 100% certain that gravity is "true", despite > overwhelming evidence. Thomas was an apostle and he had doubts. Even > after the invitation to touch the risen Lord, I'd be surprised if he > didn't sometimes have the thought that perhaps he hallucinated the > whole thing. His answer is not that unlike what C. S. Lewis gave in his essay “Miracles.” Lewis writes: > Whatever experiences we may have, we shall not regard them as miraculous if we already hold a a philosophy which excludes the supernatural… If the end of the world appeared in all the literal trappings of the Apocalypse, if the modern materialist saw with his own eyes the heavens rolled up and the great white throne appearing, if had the sensation of being hurled into the Lake of Fire, he would continue forever, in that lake itself, to regard his experience as an illusion and to find the explanation of it in psycho-analysis, or cerebral pathology. It is intriguing to think that unbelievers will remain unbelievers, even after judgment day. At the end of the age, perhaps God will let unbelievers be comfortable in their own materialist illusions of living a life where He does not exist. Being given heavenly bodies that quickly become corrupted by sin, the non redeemed might very well slowly fade away from the reality of God and heaven into eternal decay - i.e. the Lake of Fire. See Lewis' *Great Divorce*. However, Romans 14:11 states > ... every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God. Is it possible that there will be some sort of momentary grasp by unbelievers of the reality of God, that appears at judgement day, including the weeping and gnashing of teeth against Him? If so, might this acknowledgment of God quickly fade away like the Pharaoh's hardening of heart in unbelief during the days of Moses? What are some Christian thoughts about this idea?

I have an ESL student in Japan. His parent wants him to go to Excel Christian School in Sparks, Nevada but he knows nothing about Christianity not even that Christmas comes from Jesus Christ's birth. He has a standard Japanese schooling so he can speak English only a little. Is there a good source to teach the extreme basics of Christianity for the ESL unaffiliated? I don't think he knows anything about any religion.

Does God ever answer prayers from people that aren’t Christian or even from other religions? From what I see, it looks as if Scripture tends to say no. For example: > We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does his will, God listens to him. John 9:31 > The Lord is far from the wicked, but he hears the prayer of the righteous. Proverbs 15:29 I'm not trying to answer my own question, but I’m wondering if there are some instances where: - God listens and responds to the prayers of a non-believer who prays to Him? AND: - God listens and responds to the prayer of people from other religions (i.e. someone praying to Buddha, Allah, etc) If anyone could shed some light or nuance on this subject that would be great. [I’m aware this may be a contentious subject depending on your specific beliefs, but for the sake of diversity of thought I don’t mind which denomination specifically answers. I think it’s an important question to be asking on this site, and I ask that nobody prematurely vote to close the question *unless* it gets out of hand. I’m happy to see other views I may not normally agree with as I think a variety of Christian thoughts are important. Let the voting system decide for itself] So this question isn’t overly opinion-based and gets closed, if you could include additional scripture or provide nuance on the ones I’ve quoted that would be great thanks.