In common parlance, prophecy is often considered to be "predicting the future." For some, it conjures up images of telephone psychics and the like. Others might envision a crystal ball. It generally has a mystical connotation of some type. On the other hand, the "prophets" of Scripture (e.g. Malachi, Habakkuk, Jonah) seem to be doing something different. Making explicit predictions about the future seems to be a small part of their function as a "prophet." So my question is: **Biblically speaking, what exactly is prophecy?** Is there a Biblical definition that matches the actual practices of the prophets? ------ *If possible, please support your answers using the 66 books of Scripture that are found in the Protestant Bible.*

When I medidate on the Passion of Christ, I end up falling into the same doubts about the atonement, which I want to ask. The Catholic Church denies the penal substitutionary atonement, i.e. the notion Jesus presented himself before the Father so that He may be punished in our behalf. Instead, to atone for an offense is to offer to the offended something that he love equally or even more than he hated the offense, and so, because sin is an offense to God, the Church teaches that the sacrifice of Christ to the Father is this offering on our behalf, which, in virtue of Christ being the Son of God, is more pleasing to the Father than the whole collective of sin of human kind. Furthermore, the suffering, crucifixion and death of our Lord were meritorious of all grace to us, this making sense of the seven sacraments, the sacramentals and the spiritual authority of binding and losing of the Church. **My question:** I admit that my doubts, and thus my question, is half driven by emotions. My doubt is this: "Sacrifice" in more general therms can just mean offering for the sake of the one to whom we offer, e.g. I can offer to God my time in prayer and meditation, or my intellect in faith, or my will in obedience, for the sake that He is God, is the ultimate object of my desire. Then why did it needed for Christ sacrifice be in the sense of given His life to suffer and die on the cross, and not just an offering of Himself in this less bloodsheded way? I know that God could save us in any other way for Her is omnipotent, and that He choosed the cross because He thought of it as the fittest way. However, on this I reach another face of my doubt, i.e. when Christ was on the Getsemani He said: > Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me, but not as I will but as You will. Implying that His death on the cross was of the will of the Father. So, how then the Father pleases in the sacrifice of His Son that He wills? For, when I imagine my son sacrificing for the sake of another, I truly understand and can't help but to love my son for it, but not as my son sacrificing himself for the sake of my will. Again, this is half driven feelings, but these often get in the way of my spiritual life so I thought of getting rid of these. I appreciate any comment, and God bless.

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.

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?

Below are several excerpts from Christian websites that discuss the idea of "paying the price" in a spiritual context: > God is a God of process. The major problem with this generation is that men are not ready to **pay the price** to have spiritual power and experiences. But the truth is, if it is genuine, there will be **a price attached to it**. Jesus told the disciples in Luke 24:49 to tarry in Jerusalem until they were endued with power from on high. So, where did you get the version of your divine power without divine process? **Anything valuable always has a price tag**. If you see anything that is valuable, that is cheap, it is either somebody paid for it, or it is stolen. **Authentic power has a price tag**. > > There is a **price you will have to pay** to walk in the authentic power of God. If you see a man that works in supposed power and you don’t see a price in his life, it’s false power he’s working with. The man that God will work with must **pay the price** for spiritual experiences. Specific callings and specific anointing call for specific **prices that we must constantly be paying**. May the Lord find you dependable to carry His power these last days. > > https://spiritmeat.net/2024/06/22/22-june-2024-the-price-for-spiritual-power-and-spiritual-experiences-pay-it-mark-314/ > Every day we need to be watchful by **paying the price to buy the Spirit as the golden oil** so that we may supply the churches with the Spirit for the testimony of Jesus and be rewarded by the Lord to participate in the marriage dinner of the Lamb. > > Our urgent need today is to gain more of the Spirit; we need to live a life of **buying** an extra portion of the Spirit to saturate our entire being. > > Day by day we need to live such a life, a life of **paying the price** to gain the Spirit not only in our spirit but also in our soul, being saturated with the Spirit in our vessel. If we have a day when we don’t **pay the price** to gain the saturating Spirit, that is a wasted day; we do not want to have any wasted days! > > For us to gain more of the Spirit in our soul we need to **pay a price**; we need to **pay the price** of giving up the world, dealing with the self, loving the Lord above all things, and counting all things loss for Christ. > > Day by day we need to **pay the price** of losing our soul life and denying the things that we want to do so that we may pray more, even persevere in prayer and watch unto prayer, so that we may gain more of the Spirit. > > If we don’t **pay the price to buy the oil today**, we will have to pay it after we are resurrected; sooner or later, we will have to **pay the price** – so why not today, why not in this age? > > https://agodman.com/paying-price-buy-spirit-oil-vessel-word-prayer/ > The wise virgins told the foolish virgins to go buy their own oil. When the Bible speaks of the oil, it refers to the Holy Spirit. You may ask, “But, how is it possible to buy the Holy Spirit?” > > Jesus is referring to a person having to **pay the price**, which means denying their will, obeying the Word of God, being faithful, sacrificing and keeping constant watch. > > All those who truly want the presence of God should be aware that **there is a price to pay**. The wise virgins, certainly, **paid the price** (sacrificed) with the time they waited for the bridegroom. Surely, they prepared themselves by investing in their spiritual lives through prayer, fasts, consecration and surrender, not allowing the light of the Spirit to burn out. > > On the other hand, there are those who aren’t willing to **pay that price**. They live according to their fleshly desires, refuse to stop living in sin, are in the church but far from God, have the lamp, which is faith, but don’t have the oil, which is the Holy Spirit. > > https://www.universal.org/en/bispo-macedo/pay-the-price/ Is the idea of "paying the price" for greater spiritual power, anointing, or a deeper experience of God a common teaching across all Christian denominations, or is it emphasized primarily within certain groups? For example, is it widely taught that Christians must *pay a price* to receive more of the Spirit, more anointing, or greater spiritual authority? What is the biblical basis for this teaching?

Most of the Mormon missionaries I've encountered are young men doing a couple year stint. They are typically identified as "elders", but my understanding is that this designation is only temporary during their time of service. How is the LDS use of this term similar or different than the office of elder in mainstream Protestant circles? Does their designation as elders give them any ruling authority over the church body or is their role strictly to work with non members?

Some Christians hold the view that Jesus was the final prophet in a unique or ultimate sense. However, passages like 1 Corinthians 12:10 mention that the Holy Spirit gives some believers the gift of prophecy: >"to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues..." (NIV) If Jesus is considered the last prophet, how do those who hold that view understand the ongoing operation of prophecy in the Church? What terminology is used for individuals who exhibit this spiritual gift, if not “prophet”?

It occurred to me this evening that I didn't know anything about Catholic eschatology, except they do not agree with Martin Luther that the Pope is the Antichrist, and Babylon, the Great Whore was not the Catholic religion! So I consulted Wikipedia and there was no entry explaining the Catholic eschatology that I saw. So how does the Catholic "Church" explain their eschatological view?

The Bible warns us *not* to participate, engage with, or practice magic/sorcery/necromancy/etc. And magic is seen throughout the Bible (not miracles, but magic) For example turning your rod into a serpent (Egypt vs God via Moses round 1) > 2 Chronicles 33:6, Also he caused his sons to pass through the fire in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom; **he practiced soothsaying, used witchcraft and sorcery**, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke Him to anger. > Revelation 21:8, But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, **sorcerers**, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death > Galatians 5:19-20, Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, **sorcery**, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, > Micah 5:10-12, “And it shall be in that day,” says the Lord, “That I will cut off your horses from your midst And destroy your chariots. I will cut off the cities of your land And throw down all your strongholds. I will cut off **sorceries** from your hand, And you shall have no **soothsayers**. > Acts 19:17-20, This became known both to all Jews and Greeks dwelling in Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified. And many who had believed came confessing and telling their deeds. Also, **many of those who had practiced magic** brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all. And they counted up the value of them, and it totaled fifty thousand pieces of silver. So the word of the Lord grew mightily and prevailed > Isaiah 8:19-20, And when they say to you, “Seek those who are **mediums and wizards**, who whisper and mutter,” should not a people seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living? To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. > Isaiah 47:9b Because of the multitude of **your sorceries**, For the great abundance of **your enchantments**. (This one is too long to copy and paste see full passage of Isaiah 47:8-14 here > Acts 8:9-13, [**The Sorcerer’s Profession of Faith**]; > > But there was a certain man called Simon, who previously practiced **sorcery** in the city and astonished the people of Samaria, claiming that he was someone great, to whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, “This man is the great power of God.” And **they heeded him because he had astonished them with his sorceries** for a long time. But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized. Then Simon himself also believed; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done. > Deuteronomy 18:10-14, There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices **witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead.** For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord, and because of these abominations the Lord your God drives them out from before you. 13 You shall be blameless before the Lord your God. For these nations which you will dispossess listened to **soothsayers and diviners**; but as for you, the Lord your God has not appointed such for you. And while the passage from deuteronomy/Chronicles mentions "passing through fire"... what exactly is magic as understood by the Scriptures? We are clearly warned off and God clearly commands us to avoid it as a sin. So what is it? What am I definitely trying to avoid? - Necromancy is obvious. - Divination is obvious.

In the Introduction to the devout life by St Francis de Sales we find ten meditations. In the first meditation we read: > Considerations. > > 1. Consider that but a few years since you were not born into the world, and your soul was as yet non-existent. Where wert thou then, O my soul? the world was already old, and yet of thee there was no sign. > > 2. God brought you out of this nothingness, in order to make you what you are, not because He had any need of you, but solely out of His Goodness. > > 3. Consider the being which God has given you; for it is the foremost being of this visible world, adapted to live eternally, and to be perfectly united to God’s Divine Majesty." - [Meditations From The Introduction To The Devout Life By St. Francis De Sales](https://www.discerninghearts.com/catholic-podcasts/meditations-for-the-introduction-to-the-devout-life-by-st-francis-de-sales/) This consideration (whatever that term means) sounds very academic to me and I often have to tell myself to stop trying to do them before I have done more studying on these subjects. I am not sure they are intended to be academic but to me they sound academic. It might be that he wrote his book for people with good education in philosophy and theology. Many writers in what is called the French school of spirituality can sound like they want us to do academic meditations. What does the term "consideration" refers to and is it something academic?

How do scholars differentiate between a Covenantal and Dispensational view of Biblical understanding? Covenant people criticize Dispensationalists for cutting up the Bible narrative into distinct parts, for saying God deals with his people in different ways in different times. They prefer to use the word "Covenant" instead of Dispensation, but isn't this the same thing using a different word? Covenantal people divide the Bible into different covenants, explaining how God deals with his people in different ways in different times. What would help me make up my mind concerning this dilemma?

In Catholicism, what is the difference between a [Creed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#Nicene_Creed) , an [Encyclical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclical) , a [Decretal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decretal) , a [Canon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Laodicea#Biblical_canon) and a [Papal Bull](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_bull) ? Are there any other decrees or formal or informal outlines of official church doctrine used by the Catholic church and are any excluded from or exclusively used for inerrant revelation from God by the Pope?

In [*Evangelii Nuntiandi*](https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_p-vi_exh_19751208_evangelii-nuntiandi.html) we read: >31. Between evangelization and human advancement- development and liberation- there are in fact profound links. These include links of an anthropological order, because the man who is to be evangelized is not an abstract being but is subject to social and economic questions. They also include links in the theological order, since one cannot dissociate the plan of creation from the plan of Redemption. The latter plan touches the very concrete situations of injustice to be combated and of justice to be restored. They include links of the eminently evangelical order, which is that of charity: how in fact can one proclaim the new commandment without promoting in justice and in peace the true, authentic advancement of man? We ourself have taken care to point this out, by recalling that it is impossible to accept "that in evangelization one could or should ignore the importance of the problems so much discussed today, concerning justice, liberation, development and peace in the world. This would be to forget the lesson which comes to us from the Gospel concerning love of our neighbor who is suffering and in need." It uses very tricky and difficult terminology. This is a document for people who have studied lots of philosophy, it seems. What did the pope mean when he used the terms anthropological order and theological order?

I've been hearing some tributes to Rev. Billy Graham today and one of the things that people were praising him was that he "emphasized people over religion". Now I'm guessing that is not necessarily the Catholic definition of religion which is "the virtue of reconnecting with God". So, it seems to me, based mainly off of my interactions with Evangelicals here and listening to Christian Radio that religion is either bad or a necessary evil. But is this what Evangelicals truly believe? Are they always talking about organized religious ceremonies when they say "religion"? Is there a concrete definition of what religion is, according to Evangelicals?

It appears that the term "evangelical" is one of the most used category of Christians referred to today, but also the least well-defined, imho. On this website, I found an article talking about how the term is used opposite the term "fundamentalist", and sometimes in concert with that same word. It has also been used opposite the term "liberal", implying that one can't be liberal and evangelical. But I'm not sure that is the case either. So how do I know if someone is evangelical? If I ask a Christian, will they know if they are evangelical? It seems absurd that we have this word that is thrown around so much but almost no one can tell me who exactly fits in that category.

I was sufficiently provoked recently by a Lutheran clergyman identifying as "Rev." That seemed to me to be somewhat a poor fit with a tradition that emphasizes the priesthood of believers. By whom, when and where did that title emerge? What authority or character does that title tell us about the Reverend? Did Luther accept that title?

Many Christians emphasize the importance of having an actual *relationship with God/Jesus* as opposed to merely being *religious*. The previously asked question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/69228/50422 attests very well to this fact. But what about when people from other religions claim to have similar personal relationship experiences with their deities? For example, a Muslim claiming to have a personal relationship with Allah, a Hindu claiming to have a personal relationship with Brahman, a Hare Krishna claiming to have a personal relationship with Lord Krishna, a New Ager claiming to have a personal relationship with the Universe, their spirit guides, their higher self, etc. Qualitatively speaking, what sets the Christian *relationship with God* apart from *relationship* experiences that people claim to have in other religions? What makes the Christian *relationship with God* special and unique? Are people in other religions just having counterfeit, deceitful experiences? ____ Related: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/84362/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86124/50422

If a Christian considers that the [burden of proof](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)) has not been adequately met by any known theological doctrines about God's nature, including mainstream ones such as Trinitarianism, Binitarianism, Unitarianism and Modalism, and in the absence of sufficient evidence they decide to withhold judgement and declare themselves to lack a definite position, would any official label apply to them? Candidate labels I have in mind at the moment include *"neutral"*, *"undecided"*, *"uncertain"*, *"still researching"*, *"skeptical but open-minded"*, and even *"agnostic with respect to God's nature"*, but I'm curious to know if there is anything close to an "official" label out there. _______ #### Appendix: examples of questions evidencing the existing debate - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/49022/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/18043/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/2622/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/33246/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/62297/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/40799/50422

Referring to Acts 11:26 : Did the people (unbelievers) of Antioch call the "Believers" Christian, or did the Believers start calling themselves Christian first in Antioch? Here is what I mean: Acts 11:26 The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch. Acts 26:28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You almost persuade me to become a Christian.” I have this feeling in the tone of these two verses that the word "Christian" was more of a mockery since it came from unbelievers, like we have "goody-two-shoes", especially the way Agrippa said it to Paul, I could almost hear the rest of Agrippa's audience laughing at this!? And 1 Peter 4:16 "Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter." sort of supports my argument!? It seems that this mock-name Christian was getting around, and the disciples were resenting it, so 1 Peter 4:16 tells them not to be ashamed (for they mocked our Lord also) but that they should glorify God in this matter!? Your thoughts fellow Believers?

The Oriental Orthodox Church is the non-Chalcedonian branch formed as a result of the Chalcedonian controversy (see [*GotQuestion* article](https://www.gotquestions.org/Oriental-Orthodox-Church.html)) . I am curious where the name "Oriental" comes from for them, as this means "eastern" in Latin, and is therefore confusingly similar to the Eastern Orthodox. Most of them are Coptic (Egyptian) and Ethiopian, which makes them to the south of the Eastern Orthodox parts of the world, not to the east. So why was the term "Oriental" chosen?