Analytic meditation, as defined : > Our minds are filled with confused thoughts and beliefs; often, even when we recognize logically that our beliefs are wrong, they are so embedded that they are virtually impossible to shed. By employing vigorous analytical methods and reasoning, we can deconstruct these beliefs, actively examining the concepts we cling to and questioning whether they really exist. With practice, logic becomes more sustainable, and understanding gains force, leading to wisdom. Is there any equivalent of analytic meditation in any Christian tradition/denomination/sect, specifically in ***Protestant*** tradition? If yes, what are the supporting scriptures?

I know that Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon tried to oppose the school system introduced by the Catholic Church (according to Luther, Oxford and Cambridge model was influenced by the Paris universities, which in their turn by the Catholic Church). This happened at the beginning of the 16th century, when they founded some of the so-called Reformed Schools (based on the Protestant beliefs) like the University of Wittenberg. As far as I know, a little later, some bigger universities like the University of Halle and University of Göttingen were created on the same model. The latter was indeed a very prestigious institution during the whole 18th and 19th century together with Univ. of Berlin and some other German schools. It looks that at a certain moment, the whole movement ceased to be active. Does anyone know more about this reforming of the schools' movement and what exactly happened with it? Which of the currently prestigious universities in North America have been founded according to the Luther and Melanchthon's ideas?

### Background Protestants believe that all scripture is infallible (that it is incapable of error) and that it is inspired by God (that it is God-breathed and the words of God). In 1st Corinthians 7:10-13 (NRSV) Paul gives two commands. In the first command, Paul says that it is "**from the Lord**". In the second command, Paul interestingly says that it comes from himself and "**not [from] the Lord**". > To the married **I give this command—not I but the Lord**—that the wife > should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does separate, let > her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband) and that > the husband should not divorce his wife. > > **To the rest I say—I and not the Lord**—that if any brother has a wife > who is an unbeliever and she consents to live with him, he should not > divorce her. And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever > and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce the husband. ### Question Do Protestants believe that the command that Paul explicitly says is "not from the Lord" is both infallible and inspired? Is this portion of 1st Corinthians considered scripture by Protestants?

I just read https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/52081/117426 and felt inspired to ask the same question from a Protestant perspective, which also relates closely to my previous question [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/108199/117426) . According to Wikipedia, the *[Philokalia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philokalia)* is described as follows: > The Philokalia (Ancient Greek: φιλοκαλία, lit. 'love of the > beautiful', from φιλία philia "love" and κάλλος kallos "beauty") is "a > collection of texts written between the 4th and 15th centuries by > spiritual masters" of the mystical hesychast tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church. They were originally written for the guidance and instruction of monks in "the practice of the contemplative life". The collection was compiled in the 18th century by Nicodemus the Hagiorite and Macarius of Corinth based on the codices 472 (12th century), 605 (13th century), 476 (14th century), 628 (14th century) and 629 (15th century) from the library of the monastery of Vatopedi, Mount Athos. > > Although these works were individually known in the monastic culture of Greek Orthodox Christianity before their inclusion in the Philokalia, their presence in this collection resulted in a much wider readership due to its translation into several languages. The earliest translations included a Church Slavonic language translation of selected texts by Paisius Velichkovsky (Dobrotolublye, Добротолю́бїе) in 1793, a Russian translation by Ignatius Bryanchaninov in 1857, and a five-volume translation into Russian (Dobrotolyubie) by Theophan the Recluse in 1877. There were subsequent Romanian, Italian, French, German, Spanish, Finnish and Arabic translations. OrthodoxWiki.org also has an [article](https://orthodoxwiki.org/Philokalia) on the *Philokalia*: > The Philokalia is a collection of writings, mostly centering on practicing the virtues and spiritual living in a monastery. In recent decades it has become an important resource for Orthodox Christians, laity and clergy alike, in personal living and in some ways has achieved status as a major secondary spiritual written resource (after the primary one, Holy Scripture) along with St. John Climacus' The Ladder of Divine Ascent. The original question aimed at Catholics says: > The absence of a "mysticism"-oriented text in Catholic Christianity > has always struck me. The *Philokalia* are an incredible source of > ascetic instructions for the believer who seeks communion with God. > > (1) In what consideration do Catholic Christians keep the Philokalia? > And, (2) is there a similar text in the Catholic tradition? I would like to ask similar questions of Protestants: 1. What do Protestants think of the spiritual teachings found in the *Philokalia*? 2. Are there Protestant traditions with teachings emphasizing ascetic practices and mystical spirituality?

I'm seeking to understand the theological distinctions between two significant concepts in Christianity: **Eastern Orthodox *theosis* (deification/divinization)** and **Protestant *sanctification***. While both terms describe a process of spiritual transformation and growth in the believer, my preliminary understanding suggests there are fundamental differences in their nature, scope, and the means by which they are understood to occur. Specifically, I'm interested in answers that address: 1. **Definitions:** A concise theological definition of both *theosis* and *sanctification* from within their respective traditions. 2. **Nature of the Process:** Is the transformation described by each tradition primarily ontological (a real change in being), forensic (a change in legal status before God), relational (a change in relationship with God), or some combination of these? 3. **Role of Grace and Human Effort:** How do grace and human effort (or synergy) factor into each process? 4. **Goal/Telos:** What is the ultimate aim or culmination of each process? What does a "theosified" or "sanctified" person look like from each perspective? 5. **Key Theological Differences:** What are the most crucial points of divergence between the two concepts? Are there areas of unexpected overlap? References to key theological sources or official teachings would be especially helpful.

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

I know that all Protestants consider prayer and Bible study to be important, but what about other spiritual disciplines, such as fasting, participating in an all-night vigil, practicing silence and solitude, or engaging in ascetic practices like giving up certain foods, refraining from entertainment, living simply, or voluntarily limiting material possessions, as is often seen in monastic life? For example, Jesus fasted for 40 days and often withdrew to solitary places to pray, such as when He spent the whole night in prayer on a mountain (Luke 6:12). Related to this, this question discusses the biblical basis of twelve spiritual disciplines: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/3469/117426 Do Protestants believe in spiritual principles or laws that make some or all spiritual disciplines effective or beneficial? I understand that Protestants value prayer as a way to communicate with God, and Bible study as a way to receive guidance from God (while not necessarily excluding the possibility of extra-biblical communication). This clearly explains the centrality of prayer and Bible study in Protestant practice. But do Protestants also have a theological or spiritual framework that sees fasting or other ascetic practices as spiritually useful? If someone does not practice fasting, for example, are they missing out on something important? Do Protestants believe that certain spiritual disciplines—beyond prayer and Bible study—can have specific spiritual effects, such as aiding in spiritual warfare or bringing about other spiritual benefits? I recognize that Protestantism encompasses a wide range of perspectives, so I am interested in an overview of them.

**John 16:13**: > (KJV) Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. > > (NLT) When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own but will tell you what he has heard. He will tell you about the future. I've often heard John 16:13 quoted as an argument for the various "infallibility" doctrines, be it Biblical infallibility, infallibility of the ecumenical councils, or general Church infallibility. In particular there is great emphasis placed upon the fact that the Holy Spirit will "guide you into all the truth." In fact I have heard it stated that if you believe that the Church can err, then you believe Christ was lying when he said the Holy Spirit would guide the Church to "all the truth," not "some of the truth." Yet a plain reading of that verse does not seem to require infallibility. "Guide" seems to imply a process, and one not necessarily free from error. If someone is being guided to a final destination they may still get lost along the way, perhaps even be allowed to do so. The verse just seems to be assuring us that in the end the Holy Spirit will bring us to "all the truth." So am I missing something? Is there something that has been lost in translation? Is there extra-Biblical commentary somewhere amongst the Church Fathers that more thoroughly explains the verse? I am particularly in the Catholic position, but I would also be interested in the Orthodox and Protestant interpretations as well.

In trying to understand various trinitarians theologians like Karl Rahner/Karl Barth, the concept of "subsisting" often comes up. I'm really not sure what to make of it, initially I imagined it means (because of the "sub" prefix) what is the substance something is made of, or more likely a quality of an entity that exists within. But I'm really trying to wrap my head around what's the difference between saying: 1. There's one God who subsists in three persons 2. There are three persons who subsist in one God. Does the first affirm that there really is only one God, as in one person, who inside lives as three? And then the second to mean that there really are three distinct persons, but who inside live as one? Because my trinitarian theology is more western, I'd appreciate (and I've tagged this question) for Catholics and Protestants – as, again, that's what I'd wish for – but Eastern-Orthodox are also welcomed to respond as long as they keep my background in mind.

[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schism#Christianity) says that formal schismatics are those who: > knowing the true nature of the Church, have personally and deliberately committed the sin of schism. But if formal schismatics have to truly know the true nature of the Church, is it ever actually a category that can apply to people? For example, Protestants reject the authority of the Catholic Church and the Pope, and so would not be said, I would think, to know the true nature of the Church. Likewise, are the SSPX truly formal schismatics if, in their rejection of Vatican II, they believe the true nature of the church is other than that of the Catholic Church after Vatican II? If you have to know and truly believe in the true nature of the Church in order for your rejection of it to be "formal", then it seems to be that this is a largely academic category, and that there would be exceedingly few actual cases of formal schismatics.

I was listening on (**audio**) to Wayne Grudem’s systematic theology and in the chapter on biblical inerrancy.. he mentioned some people dispute Gamaliel's historical accuracy on certain uprisings, and they thus dispute biblical reliability & inspiration on such a text. The text at hand: > “But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law, respected by all > the people, stood up in the Council and gave orders to put the men > outside for a short time. > > And he said to them, “Men of Israel, be careful as to what you are > about to do with these men. > > > For, some time ago **Theudas** appeared, claiming to be somebody, and a > group of about four hundred men joined him. > > But he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came > to nothing. ***After this*** man, **Judas** of Galilee appeared in the days of > the census and drew away some people after him; he also perished, and > all those who followed him were scattered. > > > And so in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and > leave them alone, for if the source of this plan or movement is men, > it will be overthrown; but if the source is God, you will not be able > to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against > God.”” ‭‭**Acts‬ ‭5:34-39‬** ‭ Wayne Grudem said that Judas & Theudas were spoken by Gamaliel in the wrong order according to Josephus in his antiquities, in terms of historical chronology. Wayne Grudem was still in defense of biblical inerrancy and gave some reasons for certain views on Acts 5 with Gamaliel, but what can we interpret here for historical accuracy?? Who made the error here? The Holy Spirit cannot err, so what’s going on? This is my main question below: **Q: According to Protestant NT scholars/historians did Gamaliel get the chronology & history wrong in Acts 5?**

From what I can tell the majority of Protestants use and prefer the Masoretic Text, believing it to be a trustworthy representation of the original Hebrew text of Scripture. I see this based on the Bible translations they tend to use. These translations use the Masoretic Text primarily. - King James Version (KJV) - Revised Version (RV) - 1885 - American Standard Version (ASV) - 1901 - Revised Standard Version (RSV) - 1952 - New American Standard Bible (NASB) - 1971, updated 1995, 2020 - English Standard Version (ESV) - 2001 - New King James Version (NKJV) - 1982 - New International Version (NIV) - 1978, updated 1984, 2011 - Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) - 2004 - Jewish Publication Society Tanakh (JPS) - 1917, updated 1985 - Christian Standard Bible (CSB) - 2017 - Luther Bible (German) - 1534 - ... At the same time, most Protestants reject Orthodox Church Tradition as being untrustworthy. Here are 5 clear examples. 1. Veneration of Icons: The Eastern Orthodox practice of venerating icons—honoring images of Christ, the Virgin Mary, and saints through bowing, kissing, or lighting candles—is rooted in an oral tradition emphasizing their role as "windows to heaven." This practice, developed and defended during the Iconoclastic Controversies (8th-9th centuries), holds that icons facilitate a connection to the divine prototype they represent. Mainstream Protestants, particularly those from Reformed and Baptist traditions, reject this as idolatry, citing the Second Commandment (Exodus 20:4-5) against making graven images. They argue it lacks biblical mandate and reflects a later human tradition, not an apostolic one, despite Orthodox claims of its roots in early Christian art and the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787 AD). 2. Theosis (Divinization): The Orthodox doctrine of theosis, the process of becoming partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4), is an oral tradition elaborated through the teachings of the Fathers (e.g., Athanasius: "God became man so that man might become god"). It emphasizes sanctification and union with God through participation in the sacraments and ascetic life. Many Protestants reject this as unbiblical or semi-Pelagian, asserting it overemphasizes human effort over divine grace alone. While some Protestant theologians acknowledge sanctification, they distance themselves from the Orthodox framing, seeing it as a development beyond scriptural boundaries. 3. Prayer for the Dead and Intercession of Saints: The Orthodox practice of praying for the departed and seeking the intercession of saints is an oral tradition traced to early Christian commemorations and the belief in a "communion of saints." This is evident in liturgical texts and the writings of figures like John Chrysostom. Mainstream Protestants, especially Evangelicals and Reformed churches, reject this, arguing it lacks explicit biblical support (e.g., Hebrews 9:27) and introduces mediators beyond Christ (1 Timothy 2:5). They view it as a later accretion, despite Orthodox assertions of its apostolic origin. 4. The Role of Tradition as Equal to Scripture: The Orthodox belief that oral tradition, including unwritten apostolic teachings (e.g., on worship practices or sacramental theology), holds equal authority with Scripture—based on 2 Thessalonians 2:15—is a foundational oral tradition. Protestants counter that this contradicts sola scriptura, insisting that only what is written in the Bible is authoritative. They see the Orthodox reliance on tradition as unverifiable and prone to human error, challenging the claim that it preserves an unbroken apostolic witness, especially given historical variations in practice. 5. Liturgical Practices and Sacramental Theology: Specific unwritten traditions, such as the detailed structure of the Divine Liturgy (e.g., the use of incense, specific chants, and the Epiclesis in the Eucharist), are considered apostolic by the Orthodox, passed down orally and refined over centuries. Mainstream Protestants, particularly low-church denominations like Baptists, reject these as non-essential or extra-biblical, favoring simpler worship forms aligned with their interpretation of New Testament gatherings (e.g., Acts 2:42). They question the apostolicity of these practices, suggesting they evolved post-apostolically. To my understanding, and based on other interactions on this website. They believe that the Church’s oral tradition could not possibly preserve Truth over a long period of time. (That is, it was affected by the additions of man, it was corrupted over time) But at the same time we know that the Masoretic text added Vowel points to Hebrew. The original text was all consonants, **the reader of the text had to remember from oral tradition the proper vowels**. This means since the Time of Moses until the 5th century AD when the Masorites added the vowels to every word in the Old Testament the proper understanding of the text was preserved through oral tradition alone. (See my answer here ) So my confusion is based on this apparent contradiction. 1. the Masoretic vowels are trustworthy, the Jews successfully preserved the vowels of Scripture for thousands of years, **through oral tradition alone**, until the Masoretes finally invented the vowel points hundreds of years after Christ. 2. But things like the oral traditions I listed above are untrustworthy, despite the oral tradition claim that these are directly from the Apostles. My question is simply if we cannot trust the early church to maintain oral tradition for a few hundred years, why do we trust the Jews to maintain oral tradition **inerrantly for millennia?** --- I looked at this other question, but it doesn't really answer my question. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/40843/how-are-emendations-to-the-masoretic-text-viewed-within-the-doctrine-of-inerranc *P.S. I do not see how the catholic church would be relevant, I'm referring to the oral traditions of the Eastern Orthodox Church.*

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

I'm looking for a comparable Protestant teaching, and hopefully the scriptural reference it's based on, for this point within the Catholic catechism. > The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. [CCC, n. 1](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c1.htm)

According to Protestantism, why did God create humanity? I have been looking around this website for some Biblical verses, etc for some clues, but couldn't find any.

I thought of this when I was researching [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3121/when-did-knowledge-of-christs-sacrifice-become-necessary-for-salvation) . [Leviticus 4](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%204&version=NIV) goes into great detail about the sacrifice that must be made in order for a sin to be forgiven. However, we see here that God actually provided a way for these sins to be forgiven. Specifically, Leviticus 16 shows that this sacrifice and the [Day of Atonement](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2016&version=NIV) did provide forgiveness of sins: >[Leviticus 16:30 (NIV)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2016:30&version=NIV)Emphasis added
>because on this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. **Then, before the LORD, you will be clean from all your sins.** Now, Jews no longer provide sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins, however God has still provided a way for these sins to be forgiven. (See [Why don't Jews sacrifice animals anymore?](https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/8862/why-dont-jews-sacrifice-animals-anymore) for more information.) So, if God has previously given us a way to have forgiveness of our sins, why did he send Jesus to be our ultimate sacrifice? *Edit:*
I believe that there is some doctrinal basis for this. I'm not sure which specific doctrine would best be applied to this, but I am seeking a mainstream Protestant doctrine on the matter.

For Catholics we've got a lot of cool call and response stuff built into our liturgies that can easily translate to everyday life. So if someone in a truck shouts at me "Dominus Vobiscum", I know to say "Et cum spiritu tuo”. I was wandering around down in the southern US a few day ago and someone in a truck yelled at me "Jesus Loves You". I thought that was wonderful and it really cheered me up. I waved and said "thanks". Is there a cool thing that Protestants say (like "ping" - "pong" on IRC or that cool sign Harley guys do)? I know Bill Cosby thought it was cool that Protestants say "Amen", but I don't think that's an "Amen" moment. I want to say "Thanks for remembering me, Jesus loves you too!", I don't want to say "I know, ain't I cool". Also, and this may be pertinent information to the question at hand, I really did look like a hobo at the time. I was walking from a Motel 6 to a Wafflehouse wearing 3 shirts, a jacket, a scraggly beard a stocking cap and carrying a mug and I'd just been camping for the weekend, the fact that I left my sleeping bag and over-stuffed backpack in the hotel room didn't seem to improve my appearance.

The Pew Research Center's Religious Landscape Study frequently highlights distinctive trends among **historically Black Protestant (HBP) denominations** in the United States. For example, the 2023-24 study identified HBP as the only Christian group where a majority believed that **moral behavior requires a belief in God**, a view that contrasts sharply with other Christian categories and the general U.S. population (Pew Research Center, "Religion and Views of Right and Wrong ," 2023-24 survey). What are the key factors (e.g., **theological/doctrinal emphases**, **historical experiences**, specific **cultural values**, or **sociological dynamics**) that contribute to this distinctive proportion of adherence to this belief? In short, where does the HBP coupling of **being a moral person** with **believing in God** come from? **Majority of adults in the historically Black Protestant tradition say believing in God is necessary to be moral** *%who say ...* | |It is possible to be
moral and have
good values
without believing
in God|It is necessary to
believe in God in
order to be moral
and have good
values|Don't know/
Refused| |--|:--:|:--:|:--:| |**All U.S. Adults**| 68% | 30% | 2%=100% | |**Religiously affilliated**| 60 | 38 | 2 | |Christian|58|40|2| | Protestant|55|42|3| | *Evangelical*|51|46|2| | *Mainline*|71|27|3| | *Historically Black*|40|57|3| | Catholic|62|37|2| | Orthodox Christian|67|39|3| | Latter-Day Saint (Mormon)|73|23|3| |Other Religions|78|21|1| | Jewish|82|16|2| | Muslim|52|46|2| | Buddhist|79|19|1| | Hindu|73|26|1| |**Religiously unaffiliated**|88|11|1| |Atheist|98|2|1| |Agnostic|98|1|Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding. Source: conducted July 17, 2023-March 4, 2024. **PEW RESEARCH CENTER**

**Are there examples of Marian Apparitions to Orthodox faithful, Protestants or non-christians?** After reading this [question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/106340/25495) (**Best arguments against Marian apparitions?**), it got me wondering if there are examples of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, appearing to the Orthodox, Protestants (or other denominations) or non-christians? I am desiring an answer that has examples of all three fields if possible.

I’m very curious to hear the Protestant view of Fatima, considering that it involves the Virgin Mary appearing before witnesses, many of whom were skeptics.