Ruminator's question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/108102/117426 prompted me to compile a list of [Biblical passages](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/108109/117426) that discuss mysteries, hidden knowledge, secrets of the Kingdom, and related themes, as well as God's willingness to invite seekers to search these things out. Ruminator also assembled an extensive collection of passages in his own [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/108106/117426) on the theme of mystery in the Bible. Interestingly, some of the answers and comments in the linked question appear to advocate a kind of cessationist position, suggesting that everything has already been revealed in the Bible, and therefore no mysteries remain to be disclosed (or so they seem to argue). With this in mind, I am interested in an overview of doctrines from various denominations—including Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism—regarding the possibility of God revealing mysteries to spiritual seekers today. It is evident from the Bible that God has certainly revealed mysteries to individuals in the past—for example, Paul's experience of the third heaven in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4, where he received revelations not recorded in Scripture. The question, however, is whether this possibility is still considered viable today, doctrinally speaking, and what conditions, if any, are believed to govern access to such mysteries. Would it be reasonable for a spiritual seeker to earnestly desire the revelation of mysteries today, according to different denominations?

I watched the debate between James White and Trent Horn on whether a Christian can lose their salvation: [DEBATE | Can a Christian Lose Their Salvation? | Trent Horn vs. Dr. James R. White](https://youtu.be/72TRODe8BdA) . It's remarkable how well-educated scholars, studying the same biblical passages, can reach such diametrically opposed conclusions, particularly on a doctrine as pivotal as salvation. One would expect that salvation, being a cornerstone of Christian faith, would be communicated by God with utmost clarity to His church. Yet, we find ourselves debating the mechanics of salvation and the possibility of its loss. How do Christians reconcile the extensive debates surrounding salvation doctrines with the expectation that such a crucial tenet of the Christian faith would be revealed with unmistakable clarity by God?

What is the Catholic Church's view of Anne Catherine Emmerich - can her visions and prophecies be trusted? Is she a true prophet by the biblical standard? *(This question has been prompted by the comments to the answer to [What did the serpent look like?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7632/what-did-the-serpent-look-like/31040#31040)*)

[Revelation 1:1 (NIV)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+1&version=NIV) reads: > The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John. So this is the image I get: Sometime before an angel sent by Jesus gave John the revelation, Jesus was given the revelation from God. I first wonder when Jesus was given the revelation: before his birth (assuming the validity of the Trinity doctrine), during his life, after his death but before his resurrection, after his resurrection but before his ascension, after his ascension. Then I obviously wonder how Jesus, being God fully, would not know the nature of the things spelled out in Revelation. So, how do classic Trinitarians answer this question? Why does it appear that Jesus at some time did not know what God knew concerning the little details of the last days?

T.M. Luhrmann cites many instances of this practice in her book *[When God Talks Back: Understanding the American Evangelical Relationship with God](https://www.amazon.com/When-God-Talks-Back-Understanding/dp/0307277275)* . Below I share some quotes to illustrate this point: > **ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS a person must master at a church like the Vineyard is to recognize when God is present and when he responds.** **This can seem odd to someone raised in a mainstream church, where God is usually not imagined as a person with whom you have back-and-forth conversation throughout the day**. **At the Vineyard, people speak about recognizing God’s “voice.” They talk about things God has “said” to them about very specific topics—where they should go to school and whether they should volunteer in a day care—and newcomers are often confused by what they mean. Newcomers soon learn that God is understood to speak to congregants inside their own minds**. **They learn that someone who worships God at the Vineyard must develop the ability to recognize thoughts in their own mind that are not in fact their thoughts, but God’s**. **They learn that this is a skill they should master. At the beginning, they usually find both the skill and the very idea of the skill perplexing.** > It is indeed a striking God, this modern God imagined by so many American evangelicals. Each generation meets God in its own manner. Over the last few decades, this generation of Americans has sought out an intensely personal God, a God who not only cares about your welfare but worries with you about whether to paint the kitchen table. These Americans call themselves evangelical to assert that they are part of the conservative Christian tradition that understands the Bible to be literally or near literally true and that describes the relationship with Jesus as personal, and as being born again. But the feature that most deeply characterizes them is that the God they seek is more personally intimate, and more intimately experienced, than the God most Americans grew up with. **These evangelicals have sought out and cultivated concrete experiences of God’s realness. They have strained to hear the voice of God speaking outside their heads.** They have yearned to feel God clasp their hands and to sense the weight of his hands push against their shoulders. They have wanted the hot presence of the Holy Spirit to brush their cheeks and knock them sideways. > In effect, people train the mind in such a way that they experience part of their mind as the presence of God. They learn to reinterpret the familiar experiences of their own minds and bodies as not being their own at all—but God’s. **They learn to identify some thoughts as God’s voice, some images as God’s suggestions, some sensations as God’s touch or the response to his nearness**. They construct God’s interactions out of these personal mental events, mapping the abstract concept “God” out of their mental awareness into a being they imagine and reimagine in ways shaped by the Bible and encouraged by their church community. They learn to shift the way they scan their worlds, always searching for a mark of God’s presence, chastening the unruly mind if it stubbornly insists that there is nothing there. Then they turn around and allow this sense of God—an external being they find internally in their minds—to discipline their thoughts and emotions. **They allow the God they learn to experience in their minds to persuade them that an external God looks after them and loves them unconditionally**. > I call this point of view the anthropological attitude. Anthropologists are taught as students to seek to understand before we judge. We want to understand how people interpret their world before passing judgment on whether their interpretation is right or wrong. And so I will not presume to know ultimate reality. I will not judge whether God is or is not present to the people I came to know. **Yet I believe that if God speaks, God’s voice is heard through human minds constrained by their biology and shaped by their social community**, and I believe that as a psychologically trained anthropologist, I can say something about those constraints and their social shaping. The person who hears a voice when alone has a sensory perception without a material cause, whether its immaterial origin is the divine presence or the empty night. **Only some religious communities encourage people to pay attention to their subjective states with the suggestion that God may speak back to them in prayer. I will ask how a church teaches people to attend to their inner awareness and what training in prayer and practice they provide—and I can answer that question**. Only some people have those startling, unusual experiences (although more people, it happens, than most of us imagine). I will ask whether some people are more likely to have those experiences than others, and whether there are differences in temperament or training that might set those who are able to have such experiences apart from those who don’t—and again, I can answer that question. What is the Biblical basis for this practice? --- ### Similar questions I found on the site https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/85819/61679 - This question focuses on denominations that believe in hearing from God. Very insightful, but not exactly what I'm asking here. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/16215/61679 - This question sounds like a question that someone who is joining the Vineyard for the first time would probably ask. Related but not exactly what I'm asking here. The question was also closed as opinion-based. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/8564/61679 - This question captures the frustration of someone who would like to hear from God, but hasn't had the privilege yet. Interesting and related, but not exactly what I'm asking here. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/80658/61679 - This question does provide examples of Biblical passages documenting cases in which the Holy Spirit spoke to certain individuals for specific purposes. However, I'm not entirely sure if those passages would constitute the entire Biblical basis that someone from the Vineyard or similar denominations would utilize to support their practices. In addition, that question is concerned with the cessationist perspective, so the focus is different.

Some Christians find it essential to validate their beliefs through personal experiences, as discussed in [*How crucial is it for Christians to 'gain a testimony' validating the truth of their beliefs?*](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/99578/61679) . However, there are those who consider this approach objectionable, viewing it as a form of testing God. As one commenter said : > Seeking the type of testimony you describe is a form of putting God to the test. It is antithetical to the faith that saves. This faith is a gift from God as Scripture says. But we are all responsible for whether we believe the truth or reject it. So seeking the type of “testimony” you describe runs counter to what the Bible teaches. As for the other types of testimonies (about specific teachings), the Bible is all we need. Anything that runs counter to it is false no matter what feelings or signs you receive. Demons can grant feelings and work signs to mislead those who reject God’s Word. How is the pursuit of confirmatory experience reconciled with the principle of not putting God to the test? --- As for the biblical basis for not putting God to the test, although not suggested explicitly by the commenter, there is a question already on the site suggesting a few relevant passages: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/9090/61679 --- A question that is closely related to this discussion is [Is Christianity testable?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/105659/66156) , as well as https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/97877/61679

Latter-day Saints often claim to gain a personal witness of the truth of their beliefs through the Holy Ghost. Sometimes this has been described as a *"burning in the bosom"*: > **A Latter-day Saint “spiritual” experience has intellectual content as well as emotional elements of peace or joy** > > Accordingly, a Latter-day Saint “spiritual” experience has > intellectual content as well as physical phenomena which can include > elements of peace or joy. In the early days of the Church, Oliver > Cowdery received the following revelation through Joseph Smith: > > >Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you desire a further witness, cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart, that > you might know concerning the truth of these things. Did I not speak > peace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater witness can you > have than from God? (D&C 6:22–23). > > Notice the information is spoken to the “mind,” and the feeling of > peace accompanies the intellectual gift. Further, the solution for > later doubts or concerns is not reliance on “a feeling” alone but an > admonition to recall specific information communicated earlier. > > This matches the revelatory pattern later explained to Oliver Cowdery > when he attempted to participate in the translation process of the > Book of Mormon: > > >Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. But, > behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then > you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that > **your bosom shall burn within you**; therefore, you shall feel that it is right. But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, > but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget > the thing which is wrong… (D&C 9:7–9). > > Again, the united witness of intellect and heart are essential. If > either does not agree, then revelation has not yet confirmed the > matter under consideration. Anyone who relies exclusively on any one > faculty – either feeling or reasoning or physical sensation – does not > properly understand the LDS approach to spiritual witness. > > (Source: [Holy Ghost/Burning in the bosom - FAIR](https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Holy_Ghost/Burning_in_the_bosom#Question:_Is_a_.22burning_in_the_bosom.22_simply_a_subjective.2C_emotion-based.2C_unreliable_way_to_practice_self-deception.3F)) Although I find this "burning in the bosom" experience quite intriguing, I'm curious about the LDS Church's stance on other forms of revelation, such as prophecies, dreams, and visions. Here I'd like to mention Jack S. Deere's book, [*Why I Am Still Surprised by the Voice of God: How God Speaks Today through Prophecies, Dreams, and Visions*](https://www.amazon.com/Surprised-Voice-God-Through-Prophecies-dp-0310108152/dp/0310108152/) : > **Not only does God still speak to us apart from the Scriptures—we** > **should expect Him to.** > > This is the story of how Jack Deere learned to hear the voice of God > in his life and how you can too. > > Now a modern classic, Jack wrote *Surprised by the Voice of God* over > twenty-five years ago. Based on that first book, *Why I Am Still* > *Surprised by the Voice of God* has been entirely rewritten and includes > additional thoughts and insights from a lifetime of hearing God speak. > > Deere will guide you through the Bible to discover the variety of > creative, deeply personal ways God still communicates with us today. > You'll learn: > > - How God speaks with people apart from the Bible, though never in > contradiction to it. > - The ways God revealed his thoughts to the men and > women of the Bible. > - Why God continues to speak to us today using the same methods. > > Deere provides counsel and guidance for knowing how to > accurately hear God speak through prophecies, dreams, visions, and > other forms of divine communication. With candor, sensitivity, and a > profound understanding of Scripture, Deere identifies our hindrances > to hearing the voice of God and calls us to a more intimate > relationship with God. > > Filled with fascinating stories and intimate personal accounts, *Why I* > *Am Still Surprised by the Voice of God* is for all who want to walk in > friendship with God Please note that [Jack Deere](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Deere) is a charismatic Christian, not a Latter-day Saint. He used to be a cessationist but later shifted his theological stance after experiencing the charismatic gifts for himself through the ministry of John Wimber. Setting aside theological debates, I believe Deere's emphasis on God's ability to communicate through various means, such as prophecies, dreams, and visions, is pertinent here. What is the LDS Church's stance on seeking communication with God through prophecies, dreams, and visions, or hearing God's voice directly, as a means to gain a testimony, instead of solely relying on a "burning" sensation?

After the Gospels, the Greek scriptures contain many instances of application, clarification, and detail about Christian doctrine. For instance: - The *Book of Revelation* certainly gives many specifics about the end times, as revealed by Jesus to John in a vision. - In *Acts*, Peter was shown by God that he "*should not call any man common or unclean*". But these are not newly introduced doctrines or concepts: - Jesus talked about the Tribulation and about the Kingdom of God, and the latter prophets talked about the resurrection of the dead and the day of the Lord. - Jesus told the disciples to "*teach all nations, baptizing them*". Do the rest of the Greek scriptures contain *any* totally new Christian doctrines not already mentioned in the Gospels or Hebrew scriptures?

I understand this belief is held by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as indicated by the following quote: > This is the true, solid evidence of religious faith. Millions upon millions of Latter-Day Saints attest to the power of this principle: when you go to God in prayer, asking if this thing that purports to be from Him is true, he does answer. **It is a distinctive and unmistakable experience**, and once you have received a confirmation of the truth from God, any earthly evidence pales by comparison. **People can make mistakes, but the witness of the Holy Ghost is powerful and absolute**. > > Source: [According to Latter-day Saints, should every honest, rational, and well-informed individual be able to reach the conclusion that Mormonism is true?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/99550/61679) However, I'm curious to explore whether Christians outside of the LDS faith hold comparable beliefs: 1. Are Latter-day Saints unique in their belief in "unmistakable" and "absolute" personal revelatory experiences by the Holy Ghost? 2. Do Christians from other denominations maintain similar beliefs, albeit with nuances, and if so, what are these nuances? 3. What is a purely biblical basis for this belief, if any?

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

The idea of “**gaining a testimony**” is a key aspect of Latter-day Saint teachings, suggesting a special kind of revelatory spiritual experience serving to establish the truth of specific doctrines. Consequently, this experience is meant to possess remarkable epistemological significance. > **A testimony is a spiritual witness given by the Holy Ghost**. We can **gain a testimony** that we are children of our Heavenly Father, and that he loves us. We can **gain a testimony** that Jesus Christ is our Savior, and because of Him, our sins can be forgiven. We can **gain a testimony** that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Jesus Christ’s restored church on the earth today. **By the power of the Holy Ghost, we can know the truthfulness of these things**. We can share our testimonies with others. > >(Source: [I Know This Church is True](https://www.livingscriptures.com/fhe-lesson-i-know-this-church-is-true-3/)) > **How Can I Gain a Testimony?** > > The most important truth you can learn is that the gospel of Jesus > Christ is true. This knowledge is called a testimony. You can have a > testimony, but it takes work. [...] > > - Read and study the scriptures. > - Obey Heavenly Father’s commandments. > - Attend sacrament meeting and Primary. > - Pray in faith to Heavenly Father **for a testimony** that the gospel of Jesus Christ is true. **You will know it is true “by the power of the** > **Holy Ghost”** (Moro. 10:5). > >(Source: [How Can I Gain a Testimony?](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/friend/2005/11/how-can-i-gain-a-testimony?lang=eng)) > [...] Earlier that month, one of my friends who had also been investigating The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints **received revelation that the Church was true**. I’m not going to lie, I was incredibly happy for him, but a part of me was slightly jealous when I found out. I had been reading the Book of Mormon and praying diligently almost all summer, asking God if this church was true. I was ready to join, ready to convert, ready to take it all in…. **once Christ gave me a sign**. **I had not received my green light yet**, so I sat on the edge of believing and wanting to be a part of this church without committing to a baptism. **I had to know that Christ wanted it for me**. **Without some sort of sign or answer from Him, I was not willing to become a member**. > > (Source: [The Effort to Gain a Testimony](https://ldsblogs.com/43275/the-effort-to-gain-a-testimony)) > This is the true, solid evidence of religious faith. Millions upon millions of Latter-Day Saints attest to the power of this principle: when you go to God in prayer, asking if this thing that purports to be from Him is true, *he does answer*. **It is a distinctive and unmistakable experience, and once you have received a confirmation of the truth from God, any earthly evidence pales by comparison. People can make mistakes, but the witness of the Holy Ghost is powerful and absolute**. > > (Source: [According to Latter-day Saints, should every honest, rational, and well-informed individual be able to reach the conclusion that Mormonism is true?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/99550/61679)) Does the notion of "**gaining a testimony**", perhaps worded in different terms, exist universally across Christianity? Is this something important for all (or at least most) Christian denominations or just for Latter-day Saints?

How integral is a personal experiential aspect to Christian belief in addition to [natural theology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology) ? Can one rely solely on natural theology, or is a personal encounter or experience considered essential in Christian doctrine, and if so, what type(s) of experience(s) specifically? I'm interested in perspectives on the balance between these two elements in shaping and reinforcing one's faith. --- EDIT: @curiousdanni brought up a very good point: > If you rely solely on natural theology you can't be a Christian - the Gospel is communicated only through special revelation. I agree with this observation. Considering this, I think the question can be rephrased in more general terms as follows: Publicly accessible revelation (that can be grasped intellectually, including nature and Sacred Scripture) vs. Privately accessible revelation (involving spiritual experiences that presumably go beyond the confines of the intellect)?

The book of Acts includes several examples: > *Then **the Spirit said to Philip**, “Go up and join this chariot.”* Acts 8:29 > *While Peter was reflecting on the vision, **the Spirit said to him**, “Behold, three men are looking for you. But get up, go downstairs and accompany them without misgivings, for I have sent them Myself.”* Acts 10:19-20 > ***The Spirit told me** to go with them without misgivings. These six brethren also went with me and we entered the man’s house.​* Acts 11:12 > *While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, **the Holy Spirit said**, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”* Acts 13:2 > *6 And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, **having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit** to speak the word in Asia. 7 And when they had come up to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, **but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them**. 8 So, passing by Mysia, they went down to Troas. 9 **And a vision appeared to Paul in the night**: a man of Macedonia was standing there, urging him and saying, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.” 10 **And when Paul had seen the vision**, immediately we sought to go on into Macedonia, concluding that **God had called us** to preach the gospel to them.* Acts 16:6-10 > *9 He had four unmarried daughters, who prophesied. 10 While we were staying for many days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 11 And coming to us, he took Paul's belt and bound his own feet and hands and said, “**Thus says the Holy Spirit**, ‘This is how the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’”* Acts 21:9-11 In Luke 4:1 Jesus Himself is described as being led by the Holy Spirit: > ***And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit**, returned from the Jordan **and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness***. Luke 4:1 Do Cessationists believe that this is still happening today? *\(\*\) Note that the messages need not be communicated via mechanical sound waves travelling through the air necessarily, they could be communicated telepathically, or by impressing the sounds directly into the disciple's mind (aka "hearing a voice in one's head"), etc. Whatever the means, the point is that the Holy Spirit was communicating clear, specific messages or instructions to the disciples in the book of Acts (and to Jesus in the Gospels). Do Cessationists believe that the Holy Spirit is still doing that today?*

As a follow-up to my previous question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89378/50422 , I would like to know now about the implications that the doctrine of [*Sola Scriptura*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura) might or might not have over one's position in the debate between [Cessationism & Continuationism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessationism_versus_continuationism) . Does *Sola Scriptura* entail Cessationism? (And if so, to what extent?) Is it possible to believe that the Bible is *"the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice"* and be simultaneously open to extra-biblical divine means of revelation and guidance such as: - dreams & visions ([related](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83049/50422)) , - prophetic revelations ([related](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/87277/50422)) , - words of knowledge ([related](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/80327/50422)) , - receiving instructions from the Holy Spirit ([related](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/80658/50422)) , - angelic visitations ([related](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86115/50422)) , - Christophanies ([related](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83590/50422)) , - Theophanies ([related](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86465/50422)) , - miracles ([related](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86098/50422)) , - etc.?

The GotQuestions.org article [Are there prophets in the church today?](https://www.gotquestions.org/prophets-today.html) asks the following rhetorical question (in bold): > Are there true prophets today? **If the purpose of a prophet was to reveal truth from God, why would we need prophets if we have the completed revelation from God in the Bible?** If prophets were the “foundation” of the early church, are we still building the “foundation” today? Can God give someone a message to deliver to someone else? Absolutely! Does God reveal truth to someone in a supernatural way and enable that person to deliver that message to others? Absolutely! But is this the biblical gift of prophecy? No. Notice that the question relies on the premise that "we have the completed revelation from God in the Bible". **Question** What is the basis for the claim that "we have the completed revelation from God in the Bible"? **Note**: I'm not asking for the basis for the belief in a closed canon. Although that topic is related, notice that it is possible to believe in both a closed canon and the continuation of non-canonical (divine) revelations. ___ **Related questions** - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/85908/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/90560/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/90502/50422 ___ #### Appendix - Clarifying terminology **Closed canon** Ironically, I find the following quote from this [GotQuestions.org article](https://www.gotquestions.org/closed-canon.html) quite handy: > The canon of Scripture refers to all the books in the Christian Bible and Hebrew Scriptures that together constitute the complete and divinely inspired Word of God. Only the books of the canon are considered authoritative in matters of faith and practice. **The idea of a closed canon is that the Bible is complete; no more books are being added to it**. God is not appending His Word. Emphasis mine. In other words, a closed canon, to my understanding, means that God has no further plans to providentially intervene in human history to add new chapters or books to the Bible. That's it. It doesn't mean that God cannot reveal new things outside of the Bible, although those new revelations will not be appended to the Bible (to remain consistent with the premise of a closed canon). For example, someone might be taken up to the third heaven and receive revelations from God that no-one else knows, and yet the canon would still remain closed because those revelations would not be appended to the canon. There is no contradiction. **Non-canonical revelations** By non-canonical (divine) revelations I mean revelations from God that are not officially recorded in the Biblical canon. I recommend reading [this answer](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/54304/38524) to the question [What was the purpose of the Old Testament prophecies whose contents were not recorded for posterity?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/54296/38524) to better understand this point. UPDATE: I also recommend reading [this answer](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/76560/38524) to the question [Is there a contradiction between Hebrews 1:1-3 and Acts 21:8-11?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/76551/38524)

Many Christians believe that the witness of the Holy Spirit can come through thoughts & feelings (example ). A common objection is that thoughts & feelings are unreliable: - Some Christians claim that thoughts & feelings are generally unreliable, some offer a more nuanced view. For a specifically Christian presentation of a relevant argument, see here - Some atheists claim thoughts & feelings are generally unreliable, some offer a more nuanced view. How do Christians who believe in a witness of the Holy Spirit, communicated through thoughts & feelings, respond to the claim that thoughts & feelings are generally unreliable? *** **Closely related** Do any Christian groups or denominations teach reliable methods for scientifically minded individuals to seek and find God? How do Latter-day Saints rebut GM Skeptic's objection against the epistemic value of personal spiritual experiences? How do Christians discern genuine spiritual experiences from hallucinations or other mundane psychological phenomena?

We use language to describe God. However, Aquinas argues in _Summa Theologiae_ that we can only make **[analogical statements](https://web.archive.org/web/20180709090157/http://www.humanismandculture.com/thomas-aquinas-and-the-language-of-analogy)** about God, in which our language is incapable of truly grasping or describing God. And yet, God chose to reveal Himself partly through human language. Hence we have now Church dogmas like the Trinity. Thus, how is it possible to have True Knowledge expressed in words, and simultaneously sustain Aquinas' position that all out statements about God are always and everywhere analogical? Does it mean that in the end we just cannot grasp what our dogmas mean? This is to say, that Revelation about God's nature is in the end all mystery?

According to https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/should-you-earnestly-desire-to-prophesy : > Charles Spurgeon (1834–1892) once described a remarkable experience he had while preaching: > >> He suddenly broke off from his [sermon] subject, and pointing in a certain direction, said, “Young man, those gloves you are wearing have not been paid for: you have stolen them from your employer.” At the close of the service, a young man, looking very pale and greatly agitated, came to the room which was used as a vestry, and begged for a private interview with Spurgeon. On being admitted, he placed a pair of gloves upon the table, and tearfully said, “It’s the first time I have robbed my master, and I will never do it again. You won’t expose me, sir, will you? It would kill my mother if she heard that I had become a thief.” (Spurgeon, 60) > > What do you call Spurgeon’s experience? Is there anything we can compare it with in the New Testament? How about this: “If all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you” (1 Corinthians 14:24–25)? > > According to the apostle Paul’s description, I would argue that what Spurgeon experienced is a good example of the New Testament spiritual gift of prophecy. And it wasn’t an isolated experience for the Prince of Preachers. > >> I could tell as many as a dozen similar cases in which I pointed at somebody in the hall without having the slightest knowledge of the person, or any idea that what I said was right, except that I believed I was moved by the Spirit to say it; and so striking has been my description, that the persons have gone away, and said to their friends, “Come, see a man that told me all things that ever I did; beyond a doubt, he must have been sent of God to my soul, or else he could not have described me so exactly.” (Grudem, 357) > > #### Prophecy by Any Other Name > Now, Spurgeon didn’t call these revelatory experiences “prophecies,” because as a cessationist, he reserved that term for Holy Spirit-inspired, authoritative, infallible, Scripture-equivalent revelation — the kind of revelation all evangelicals agree ceased at the close of the apostolic age. Spurgeon called his experiences “impressions of the Holy Spirit”: > >> There are occasionally impressions of the Holy Spirit which guide men where no other guidance could have answered the end. . . . I have been the subject of such impressions myself and have seen very singular results therefrom. (Spurgeon, “A Well-Ordered Life,” 368) > > I daresay he did. But, though I blush to offer him correction, I believe Charles Spurgeon indeed prophesied in these instances. I believe this because of how Paul speaks of the spiritual gift of prophecy, particularly in 1 Corinthians 14 — the chapter in the New Testament that provides the clearest apostolic instructions on the use and evaluation of prophecy. **Question**: Are experiences of revelatory “impressions of the Holy Spirit” reported by [Charles Spurgeon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Spurgeon) common among cessationists? If so, do they distinguish them from what continuationists would refer to as manifestations of the gift of prophecy and/or word of knowledge? ___ **Related questions** - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/80327/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83176/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83049/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/88744/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/80658/50422

Matthew 5:17-18 says: >17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. It seems to me that the LDS tradition includes so much new revelation (ex: God as a created being). How is this necessary if Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law? Is this new revelation fulfilling something? **Additional Note** If it’s unclear what I’m asking, look at it this way: The law of the Old Testament, especially when it comes to sacrifice, is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. On the other hand, in the LDS faith, the new revelation given to Joseph Smith doesn’t seem to fulfill anything. In fact, it seems like a total upheaval of Christian Orthodoxy. What’s the reason behind this difference?

It's a matter of fact that God's actions can be seen tangibly in the Old Testament and New Testament. Why did God so favor the ancient ancestors but seems to have left us now? How does God communicate with us today? An overview of how different denominations answer this question would be helpful.