[Word of Faith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_Faith) : > Word of Faith is a movement within charismatic Christianity which teaches that those who believe in Jesus' death and resurrection **have the right to physical health**, **that our words have power**, and that **true faith is more than simply mental knowledge, it is deeply held belief that cannot be shaken**. The movement was founded by the American Kenneth Hagin in the 1960s, and has its roots in the teachings of E. W. Kenyon. > **Teachings** > > Distinctive Word of Faith teachings include **physical, emotional, financial, relational, and spiritual healing** for those who keep their covenant with God. **The movement urges believers to speak what they desire, in agreement with the promises and provisions of the Bible, as an affirmation of God's plans and purposes. They believe this is what Jesus meant when he said in Mark 11:22–24 that believers shall have whatsoever they say and pray with faith**. The term word of faith itself is derived from Romans 10:8 which speaks of the word of faith that we preach. Many dismiss *Word of Faith* teachings as heretical (for instance, as discussed in [*Is the Word of Faith movement biblical?*](https://www.gotquestions.org/Word-Faith.html)) . Simultaneously, there is a belief among many that [Christianity is testable](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/97877/61679) , implying that Christianity encompasses promises that can be tested through sincere and faithful engagement. I'm interested in the views of those situated at the intersection of both groups. What Christian traditions consider Word of Faith teachings heretical but continue to uphold the belief in the empowering role of faith to activate God's promises? --- **Notes** 1. By activating/testing God's promises, I'm specifically referring to the belief in promises that can be tested *on this side of the grave*. Therefore, promises that only become actualized *on the other side of the grave*, such as resurrection to eternal life, for the purposes of this question, do not count. 2. My use of the word *activate* has been criticized as inappropriate in the comments section. My observation in response is that my use of this word in the context of God's promises is not novel. With a quick search one can easily find several examples of churches/ministries that have used it in this way. For instance: - [GOD’S PROMISES AREN’T AUTOMATED, THEY’RE ACTIVATED](https://www.redeemercoast.church/blog/2021/1/22/gods-promises-arent-automated-theyre-activated) - [3 Keys to Activating God’s Promises in Your Life](https://faithisland.org/bible/3-keys-to-activating-gods-promises-in-your-life/) - [Activating the Promises of God: Unlock the Power of the Bible & Empower Your Life](https://www.amazon.com/Activating-Promises-God-Unlock-Empower-ebook/dp/B0CR31XPYS/) - *"Perhaps they did not believe that such a simple action could **trigger the promised healing**. Or perhaps they willfully hardened their hearts and rejected the counsel of God’s prophet."* *"The principle of **activating** blessings that flow from God is eternal.* [...] *In fact, it can be seen in heaven because small acts of faith are required to **ignite God’s promises**."* *"I invite you to faithfully **activate heavenly power to receive specific blessings from God**. Exercise the faith to strike the match and light the fire. Supply the needed oxygen while you patiently wait on the Lord. With these invitations, I pray that the Holy Ghost will guide and direct you so that you, like the faithful person described in Proverbs, will “abound with blessings.” I testify that your Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son, Jesus Christ, live, are concerned with your welfare, and delight to bless you, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen."* (source: [Abound with Blessings](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2019/04/41renlund?lang=eng)) What I'm having a hard time verifying is whether any of these ministries denounce *Word of Faith* teachings as heretical, or if they are tacitly endorsing them.

> **[John 20:29 ESV]** Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” > > **[Matthew 16:4 ESV]** An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” So he left them and departed. > > **[Romans 8:24–25 ESV]** 24 For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. > > **[2 Corinthians 5:6-7]** 6 So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, 7 **for we walk by faith, not by sight**. Some Christians cite passages like these to argue that we should not pursue experiences but should believe purely by faith, without seeing. Yet this raises the question of what exactly counts as "seeing" in the sense that Jesus seems to caution against. The Bible contains numerous examples that could easily be described as forms of "seeing," and yet there appears to be nothing wrong with those instances. For example: * The Apostle Paul's conversion, in which he saw Jesus on the road to Damascus (Acts 9) * The Apostle Paul's visit to the third heaven (2 Corinthians 12) * The transfiguration of Jesus, witnessed by Peter, James, and John (Matthew 17) * Stephen's vision of Jesus standing at the right hand of God, which led to his martyrdom (Acts 7:54–60) * Peter's vision of a great sheet descending with all kinds of animals (Acts 10) * Peter being rescued from jail by an angel (Acts 12:3–19) * The Apostle John's vision of the Son of Man (Revelation 1) * Jesus's response to John the Baptist, pointing to visible miracles as confirmation of his identity (Luke 7:22): *“Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them.”* * The early church's experiences of powerful outpourings of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2, Acts 4) * Joel's prophecy about dreams, visions, and the outpouring of the Spirit (Joel 2:28) * And others. There seems, then, to be a tension between two ideas. On one hand, some passages appear to warn against a kind of "seeing" that runs contrary to faith. On the other hand, the Bible includes many examples of "seeing" — visions, revelations, and experiences — especially among believers in the New Testament. **So my question is: is there any agreement or consensus among Christians about what kind of "seeing" Jesus warns against (i.e., the sort of "seeing" that undermines faith), and whether there are other forms of "seeing" or experience that are legitimate, valid, and even desirable to pursue?**

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

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

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

Recent personal experiences have made a close relative question their Christian beliefs to a far extent. They still believe in the possibility of an all-knowing God but question specific characteristics of Protestant-Christianity such as Priesthood. They strongly believe every Christian should have equal and direct access to God, preferring to align towards agnosticism. From the perspective of protestant-catholicism (Anglicanism) can this individual be said to be an unbeliever?

I recently took the time to re-read the prelusive words of William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith. This quote stuck with me:

When a person refuses to come to Christ, it is never just because of lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties: at root, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of God’s Spirit on his heart. No one in the final analysis really fails to become a Christian because of lack of arguments; he fails to become a Christian because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with God.

A decade after first reading this, I remember I was struggling to understand who he intends the book to be for, and Craig's motivations. If we are not to assume that Craig is not serious or that he is lying about his sincerity, it could be that he is sincere but wrong: in the sense that he genuinely cannot make sense of atheism as an intellectual position. But then it seems to me that he is so caught up in his own religious convictions he cannot fathom the possibility someone could sincerely disagree with his position. An unfortunate position, in my view. The disagreement is also shifted from the intellectual realm of evidence to the moral realm of personal integrity, effectively *faulting the non-believer* for an emotional or spiritual deficiency. It appeals to notions of spiritual deficiency rather than engaging directly with intellectual critiques. The quote makes apologetics seem like its whole purpose is to convince those who already are convinced. I also think this type of argumentation renders the argument difficult to empirically verify or falsify. If non-belief is attributed to an internal disposition (such as a preference for "darkness" over "light"), it becomes impossible to test or refute through evidence. Thus I am curious if Craig has revised these position in recent times, if he has matured as he has gotten older. Questions: 1. Has Craig changed his view or added nuance to his stance? Does he still attribute unbelief primarily to the willful rejection of God rather than to intellectual or evidential challenges? 2. Is evidence still something that, for him, acts only insofar as a dual warrant of one’s Christian beliefs alongside the inner witness of the Spirit? 3. Has he acknowledged intellectual or evidential factors as genuine obstacles to faith? 4. What role does he currently assign to evidence and objective methods in relation to the work of the Holy Spirit?

There's a concept that I heard used many times throughout my life in regards to idolatry. The idea is that inside each of us is a "God-shaped hole"--a place inside of our hearts that only God can fill. If we try to put anything else in there, it won't fit (meaning, it won't fill the need we have inside of our heart/soul). Where does this concept originate? Is it a biblical concept or just a fanciful rhetoric?

If there are unmistakable events or experiences that prove "true" salvation, how would we then be able to discern a deceptive event or experience that was administered by Satan? Isn't this why faith is required instead of visible proof? I believe it protects us from the power of Satan, "the god of this world" and master of deception, along with his false "ministers of righteousness". **2 Corinthians 4:3-4** >But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. **2 Corinthians 11:13-15** >For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. Please provide actual scripture from our apostle Paul's epistles (Romans through Philemon) that states where we will experience an immediate event or experience that would confirm our eternal salvation aside from having faith alone in Jesus Christ and the work that He completed on the cross on our behalf.

I'm interested in answers particularly from Evangelicals who might disagree with this idea, as well as those who agree with it. I'm especially interested in theological considerations — i.e. does this misunderstand the Trinity. Essentially the thought came to me, **if the Son is fully God, do those who have *never heard*** the Jewish name of the Messiah (Joshua, meaning the Lord saves) or the exact details of his virgin birth, death, and resurrection, **nevertheless believe in him** (for salvation) **when they trust in 'God' to forgive/save them?** This excludes those who reject Christ explicitly (ie. orthodox Islam). This would not be a universalist position, but a form of inclusivism. More like a psychological/conceptual faith in the Messiah/Christ/Savior. I'm looking for arguments for/against, as well as relevant verses/examples/doctrines. A similar question was asked here , but this gives it a trinitarian/soteriological bent. For a practical consideration, Don Richardson (*Eternity in their Hearts*) notes a number of peoples geographically and intellectually isolated from Christianity/Judaism for centuries that had an underlying monotheism, and belief that this 'creator' was going to set things right if they only waited for special messengers bringing a special 'book'. Would their 'waiting for salvation' be comparable to some in Israel during the intertestamental period, waiting for the Messiah?

This is certainly not found in the New Covenant of Jesus yet it is prevalent in Christian teachings, media, and reading materials.

Why is the doctrine that a Christian subscribes to such as Trinitarianism, Unitarianism, Methodists, Baptists et cetera so important when someone like Abraham was justified on faith alone? God told him to leave and he did and it was accorded him righteousness: *Genesis 15:6* >Abraham believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness. Paul also reinforced that salvation is by faith alone: *Romans 4:3* >Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” The two instances above actually seem to teach that believing in Jesus is what actually saves people and not whether or not they were Trinitarian or Unitarian since faith is universal to all Christian denominations. The Jewish saints of the OT who came after Moses did not seek a reason as to why God who is "one" uses the word "us" to refer to Himself; they did not care about doctrine yet they were saved, so why is it so important now?

For backstory, I've recently been looking for confirmation that I'm really saved. I've started to repent of all my sins (that I know of) about 1-2 weeks ago. I've pretty sure I've been saved since I was 8 years old, but I dedicated myself to God again, just to make sure. So I've recently been listening to an audio teaching about prayer, and the last little bit of the teaching is about healing yourself and others in the name of Jesus. I was having a bit of a headache, so I decided to try it out on myself when I got home instead of just using painkillers. I got home, and spoke to my body. I put my hand on my temple and said, "temple, you will stop hurting in the name of Jesus" or something along those lines. And it worked! That was the first time I've ever healed myself in Jesus name. Does the fact that God was able to heal me through myself mean that I'm saved for sure? Or could someone who isn't saved do exactly what I did? This is assuming they have faith that God will heal them as well.

Many Christians who attend church, when confronted by inquirers outside the church, who wonder why they believe in Christianity, simply respond by saying, *I just accept it by faith*. Or they might say, *It was good enough for my grandpa, so it's good enough for me.* But in an age of science and technology, which places a premium on "facts, evidence, proofs, etc., those responses seem hollow--even irrational, or at least unintellectual. Quite inadequate to the modern mind enmeshed in collegiate surroundings. The average church-goer seems oblivious to the biblical aspect of *apologetics*. Nor do they understand the exhortation of Saint Peter: >Sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always to give an answer (Gk. apologian) for the reason (Gk. logos) of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear. (1 Peter 3:15) This leaves the Christian, especially the Christian student, in the lurch, susceptible to attacks of doubt by professors, as well as peer pressure from culture. So should pastors and teachers equip their congregations with occasional sermons on the *evidences, infallible proofs (Acts 1:3), metaphysical proofs (Romans 1, Acts 17:18-34), reasons (1 Peter 3:15), supernatural conclusions (John 5:36 miracles), eye-witness testimony (1 John 1:1-3):* things which would provide a "reasonable response" to skeptics who doubt these revolutionary facts"? Or is "faith in faith" without proofs, or "blind faith" as some would call it (uninformed faith, that is), sufficient for Christian believers? Should this be the biblical approach for preparing congregates to survive in modern society? What is the correct definition of "faith"? What is the best definition that would be adequate for the modern mind, and cause him to consider Christ as God?

There has historically been opposition by Fundamentalists to the "Social Gospel" presented by Liberal churches in the early 20th Century, and an emphasis placed on the "Gospel of Grace" by Conservative denominations in response. Since both the Old Testament and the New Testament spoke of "social activism", and both Testaments spoke of "Faith for pleasing God", are these two Gospels simply ***two sides of the same coin***? [Zechariah 7:9-10, James 1:27] Are they both two different facets of the grand Kingdom of God? Or are they mutually incompatible? One or the other being "a different Gospel" Paul warned about in Galatians 1? If compatible, how do they relate? [And by extension, how then can liberal and conservative churches relate?] Is the word "social" as referring to social reform in the Bible, to be only redefined in modern times, as synonymous with "secular"? Can there be a Christian social reform as well?

I have wondered that if it is faith alone that gets a Christian into Heaven, then why was it important to Jesus that his followers do certain things such as obeying His commandments and caring for their fellow man? Case in point, consider these two Biblical passages: _"Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.”_ -- John 14:21 _“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’_ _“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’_ _“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me."_ -- Matthew 25:34-40

The [2020 PhilPapers Survey](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4842) includes the following result: # God: Atheism or Theism? As shown, the majority of philosophers are non-theists, with only 18.93% accepting or leaning toward theism. From a purely statistical perspective, it seems that engaging in philosophy is more likely to lead one away from theism than toward it. **Does Christianity consider philosophy a threat to the faith?** --- **Question:** > Were the total number of respondents 1,770? That's literally that the website says. Screenshot below: --- **Question:** > Did the target group include all 30 plus branches of philosophy? The target population is described [here](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/design/population) : > ## Target Population > > The Survey's target population includes 7685 philosophers drawn from > two groups: (1) From Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK, > and the US (6112 philosophers): all regular faculty members > (tenure-track or permanent) in BA-granting philosophy departments with > four or more members (according to the [PhilPeople > database](https://philpeople.org/departments)) . (2). From all other > countries (1573 philosophers): English-publishing philosophers in > BA-granting philosophy departments with four or more > English-publishing faculty members. An English-publishing philosopher > is defined as someone with one or more publications in the [PhilPapers > database](https://philpapers.org/) in a wide range of English-language > venues, including English-language journals and book publishers. > > For meaningful longitudinal comparisons, we also designated a > [100-department target > group](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/design/comparison-departments) > in the same regions as the 2009 survey, based largely on rankings (all > Ph.D.-granting departments with a 2017-2018 Philosophical Gourmet > Report score of 1.9 or above, plus two leading departments with MA > programs and a selected group of European departments based on expert > recommendations). This group of 2407 philosophers was used only for > longitudinal comparisons. > > We also allowed any PhilPeople user to take the survey, regardless of > whether they were in the target populations. These populations cannot > be considered controlled, but results for all respondents and for > graduate students are given in some tables on this site. > > > Lists of departments > * [Target departments for the survey](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/design/target-departments) > * [2020 departments used for longitudinal comparison](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/design/comparison-departments) > * [2009 departments used for longitudinal comparison](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/design/comparison-departments?old=true)

Can we say that faith is a mixture of intuition and emotion? We have the intuition, the vague cognitive perception that something exists beyond the natural reality that can be described by modern science, and we feel a particular emotion when we think about it. The two complement and reinforce each other, to form 'faith' **NB:** It inquiries the point of view of protestants/protestantism on the question

Some random quotes from online Trinitarian sources. >The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of the Christian faith and life. >The most profound and mysterious doctrines of the Christian faith: the Trinity. >The mystery of the Trinity doctrine is the manifestation of three distinct persons in one God. Given the very specific statements of Jesus who declared the Father was the only true God, with no mention of a spirit 'person', and literally *excluding* himself from being God, this biblical evidence from the 'only Savior and Lord' would seem a sufficient explanation. The Biblical evidence describing the one God, Yahweh, is not a mystery, Jesus is not a mystery especially as his God is the same as ours. The Apostles affirmed these simple truths, especially about the man Jesus, who again, is never described as God, so no mystery there either.

The Bible says > It is by grace that you are saved, by the means of faith. And it does not come from you, it is the gift of God’. (Eph 2:8). > So faith comes from what we hear, and what we hear comes from the word of Christ.’ (Rom 10:17). According to the passages of the Bible quoted (Ephesians 2:8 and Romans 10:17), faith and grace are necessary for salvation. However, these passages also emphasize the importance of hearing the word of Christ. In this context, is it possible to be saved without having heard of Jesus? Can we be saved without having heard of Jesus?