The question is above. The term Sola Scriptura: Belief that Scripture is the final and only infallible authority for the Christian in all matters of faith and practice. While there are other authorities, they are always fallible and the must always be tested by and submit to the Scriptures. The Adherents are generally speaking Reformed Protestants/Evangelicals --- Please note, This is not directed at those who believe in **solo** scriptura: The Belief that Scripture is the sole basis and authority in the life of the Christian. Tradition is useless and misleading, and creeds and confessions are the result of man-made traditions.

How should I as a born again Christian begin to practice messianic Christianity?

How do Christians that believe that proper obedience to the Torah is required begin to follow it?

**Summary of the question**: How can the "angel of the Lord" be the pre-incarnate Jesus if Hebrews 1:5 makes the point that God never said "Thou art my Son" to *any angel*? Those who believe Michael the archangel is Jesus (JW, SDA, and others) usually get Hebrews 1:5 quoted by those who don't share their belief about Michael in an effort to disprove their belief. But what about those who believe the angel of the Lord is the pre-incarnate Jesus? Doesn't the same verse disprove that belief? This is a fairly widely accepted stance, in my opinion. We even have the following question with good answers on this very site: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/89609/on-what-basis-do-some-protestants-believe-the-angel-of-the-lord-is-the-pre-incar However, some groups like Jehovah's Witnesses (due to the belief that Jesus is Michael the Archangel) have to respond to questions like this one: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/78168/dont-the-questions-of-hebrews-15-and-113-demand-an-answer-of-none-so-how-c **How would a Protestant who believes the angel of the Lord is the pre-incarnate Jesus (or any Christian who believes this) respond to a very similar question?** If one believes that the angel of the Lord was the pre-incarnate Jesus, how can that be reconciled with Hebrews 1:5 (KJV): > For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? I've heard some explain this by saying that the angel of the Lord was not a created angel so that excludes him from the context of "the angels" in this passage. However, the verse doesn't say, "For unto which of the *created* angels said he at any time"... Of course, the basic meaning of "angel" in both the Hebrew and Greek is "messenger". But that doesn't really change the meaning of the passage either. I'm curious how this could be answered satisfactorily.

>King Charles and Pope Leo are to become the first British monarch and pontiff to pray together at a church service ***since the Reformation in the 16th Century.*** > >This historic moment will be in the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican, during next week's state visit by King Charles and Queen Camilla. > >BBC NEWS 17th October 2025 >A Foreign Office spokeswoman said: "The Catholic Church is the largest denomination of the world's largest religion."As such, the King and Queen's visit will "strengthen the UK's relationship with this crucial and influential partner", she said. > >BBC NEWS 17th October 2025 >The King will sit in a purpose-made seat, decorated with the King's coat of arms, which will stay in place for the King's future use ***and his successors.*** > >BBC NEWS 17th October 2025 Is this a 'reconciliation' or is this, after 500 years, the complete capitulation of a supposed 'Protestant' denomination, overturning the Reformation ?

There's a Christian podcast on YouTube named *[A Stronger Faith](https://www.youtube.com/@AStrongerFaith/)* which also has a [website](https://www.astrongerfaith.org/) . The podcast focuses on interviewing Christians about their spiritual experiences, conversion experiences, their testimonies, and so on. The host is [Stacy McCants](https://www.astrongerfaith.org/about) . My question is motivated by Stacy's reference to John 17:3 in this [short video](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5Ctpqezp0Nk?feature=share) : > You can experience God, so whatever doubts you might have in your mind of "am I just believing something that I've been taught because just in case there really is a hell I don't wanna go there" or have an encounter and experience him. You experienced God. People kind of get on our comments sometimes and talk about "don't be trying to go for the emotional experiences." I think God wants us to experience him. I think a lie of the enemy is that we should not seek experiences with God. That it should just be from an intellectual "just get the book, believe what the book says" perspective. And I can't read what Jesus said in John 17:3 and then say he doesn't want us experiencing him. He says "this is eternal life, that they know you, the one true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." Not that they know *about* you, and *about* Jesus. He says that they *know you*, and know his son. You cannot know somebody without experiencing them. Stacy posits that you cannot know someone without experiencing them. If we apply this to God, then John 17:3 would implicitly suggest that eternal life involves knowing God and Jesus, which, by his logic, means we ought to experience God and Jesus. Interestingly, Stacy McCants's podcast *A Stronger Faith* largely revolves around spiritual or supernatural experiences shared by the Christians he interviews. I suspect Stacy is a charismatic Christian, which might suggest a charismatic bias in his interpretation of John 17:3. **What is an overview of Protestant interpretations of John 17:3? Is knowing God and Jesus typically understood as involving experiences, and if so, what kinds of experiences are usually implied?**

### Introduction In the Christian New Testament, *The Epistle to the Hebrews* cites Jeremiah 31:33 to inaugurate a "new covenant". Jeremiah 31:33 and it's immediate context reads: > See, a time is coming—declares GOD—when I will make a new covenant > with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. > It will not be like > the covenant I made with their ancestors, when I took them by the hand > to lead them out of the land of Egypt, a covenant that they broke, > though I espoused them—declares GOD. > But such is the covenant I will > make with the House of Israel after these days—declares GOD: > **I will put My *Torah* into their inmost being and inscribe it upon their** > **hearts. Then I will be their God, and they shall be My people.** > **No longer will they need to teach one another** and say to one another, > “Heed GOD”; for all of them, **from the least of them to the greatest**, > **shall heed Me**—declares GOD. **For I will forgive their iniquities,** **And** > **remember their sins no more**. This "new covenant" in Jeremiah appears to involve the following: - The *Torah* is written on the hearts of Israel and Judah - Affirmation of Israel and Judah as God's people - A cessation of needing to teach each other to follow God - All of Israel and Judah (from the least to the greatest) will follow God - Forgiveness of their sins ### Question Do *Sola Scriptura*/Protestant Christians believe that this new covenant has taken effect? Do they believe only parts of the covenant are in effect? If so, which parts?

**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.

### Introduction In the Hebrew Bible in Deuteronomy 30:15, God says that He is who sets the choice between good and evil before people: > See, I have set before you this day life and good, death and evil. In the Lords Prayer in Matthew 6, God is asked to not lead people into temptation: > Our Father who art in heaven, > Hallowed be thy name. ... > **And lead us not into temptation**, > But deliver us from evil. There seems to be many possible answers from the Christian bible: Satan, mankind's own fallen nature, or even Jesus himself. ### Question In Protestant theology, who or what tempts people into sin?

Some disagree on whether a Christian in this life may fall utterly and lose or forfeit eternal life. However, most Christians do agree that after death, the Christian is eternally secure in heaven (or the new earth). And this seems to be well supported in Scripture: > **[John 10:28](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+10%3A28&version=ESV)** (ESV) > 28 A)"> I give them eternal life, and B)"> they will never perish, and C)"> no one will snatch them out of my hand. > > **[Revelation 21:4](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation+21%3A4&version=ESV)** (ESV) > 4 A)"> He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and B)"> death shall be no more, C)"> neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” So it seems clear that Christians could not be susceptible to another Fall . My question is, Why? What is the fundamental reason why Christians would not be susceptible to another Fall or rebellion against God? *Please answer from a Protestant, non-Calvinist perspective.* ---------- ### Possible responses I have considered ### > There will be no law, and thus no concept of sin *But wouldn't rebellion against God would be considered sin, even apart from a "law"?* > After death we no longer have a sin nature, and are thus incapable of sin *But weren't Adam and Eve created without a sin nature, and yet sinned?* > Satan will be vanquished, unable to tempt us *But didn't Lucifer rebel without being externally tempted? If we are unable to rebel without a tempter, that implies that we will have less free will than Lucifer and the angels had.* > We will be unable to sin, either through lack of free will, or prevention by God *The argument that I usually use and hear for the existence of free will is that God would rather have willful obedience than robotic obedience. Is God then hedging on this preference for the sake of our eternal souls?* > We have already been atoned for by Christ, so if we were to sin, it could not be counted against us *This allows for sin in heaven, which I can't buy. It contradicts Revelation 21:4 for one thing, and makes heaven imperfect*

The passage reads: > [Ephesians 5:18-21 NASB] 18 And do not get drunk with wine, in which there is debauchery, **but be filled with the Spirit**, 19 speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your hearts to the Lord; 20 always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to our God and Father; 21 and subject yourselves to one another in the fear of Christ. My modern-day interpretation of verse 18, *“And do not get drunk with wine, in which there is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit,”* would be this: Instead of chasing a dopamine rush or neurochemical high through alcohol, drugs, opioids, or any other addictive behavior (whether food, sex, pornography, gambling, or the like), seek to be filled with the Spirit. The one who is filled with the Spirit experiences a holy satisfaction that immeasurably surpasses alcohol, drugs, food, sex, psychedelics, or any combination of fleshly indulgences. In other words, I see Ephesians 5:18-21 as a spiritually challenging passage because it seems to urge the Christian to pursue a deep, Spirit-filled state, a profound transformation of affections and emotions that far exceeds any earthly intoxication. I personally picture this spiritual state as vastly superior to the strongest dopamine-driven highs of substances such as alcohol, cocaine, ecstasy, methamphetamines, or any other stimulant the world offers. Furthermore, in verses 19-21 the apostle sets forth several practices. What is not immediately clear, however, is whether these should be understood as *manifestations* (that is, consequences) of being filled with the Spirit, or rather as *means* (that is, practices that foster or open the way toward being filled). With this in mind, I am seeking an **overview of Protestant interpretations** of Ephesians 5:18-21 concerning the lived Christian experience of being filled with the Spirit. In particular, I am asking: - How do Protestants compare the experience of being filled with the Spirit to indulgence in alcohol, drugs, or other dopamine-releasing behaviors? - How do Protestants understand and seek to obey Paul’s command to be filled with the Spirit? ----------- NOTE. You can read parallel commentaries by Biblical scholars on Ephesians 5:18 here: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/ephesians/5-18.htm

There is a similar question asking for the Catholic viewpoint: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/63452/117426 . The accepted [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/63458/117426) states the following about marriage specifically: > # Complete hermaphrodites cannot validly marry. > > Dom Augustine wrote on 1917 Can. 1068 (= 1983 Canon > 1084 ), which deals with sexual impotence, an impediment to the > valid reception of the sacrament of marriage: > > >As to *hermaphrodites*, or such persons as have the sexual characteristics of both sexes, whether it be *androgynia* or > *gynandria* or *hermaphroditismus neuter*, the testimony of physicians is required [to determine whether they are sexually impotent or not]. > No *hermaphroditus neuter* can possibly be called capable of marrying > because the sex is not sufficiently determined. > > *androgynia* = hermaphroditic with male aspect predominant
> *gynandria* = hermaphroditic with female aspect predominant
> *hermaphroditus neuter* = a complete hermaphrodite (equal male and female aspects) > > > > There are no other canons explicitly forbidding hermaphrodites *qua* > hermaphrodites from receiving the other sacraments (Confirmation, > Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction). Do Protestants hold the same position? Are intersex individuals generally advised—or even required—to remain celibate for life? How are alternatives, such as self-pleasure, regarded in this context? What if an intersex individual experiences a strong sex drive? In 1 Corinthians 7, the Apostle Paul encourages marriage as a remedy for those who "burn with passion." But does this counsel apply equally to intersex individuals?

What it says on the cover. I'm interested in: - monasteries that are self-styled Protestant or belong to denominations generally recognized as Protestant - not ecumenical such as Taize - specifically celibate (preferably gender-separate), not merely closed or intentional communities - if there are any examples in hierarchical denominations, I'm interested in to what degree such monasteries are acknowledged or approved by church leadership.

Fasting is mentioned multiple times in the Bible. Some passages that I remember: > [Joel 2:12-13 ESV] 12 “Yet even now,” declares the Lord,  “return to me with all your heart, **with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning**; 13 and rend your hearts and not your garments.” Return to the Lord your God, for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love; and he relents over disaster. > [Luke 2:36-37 ESV] 36 And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years, having lived with her husband seven years from when she was a virgin, 37 and then as a widow until she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, **worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day**. > [Matthew 4:1-4 ESV] Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 **And after fasting forty days and forty nights**, he was hungry. 3 And the tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” 4 But he answered, “It is written, “‘**Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God**.’” > [Luke 4:1-4 ESV] And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness 2 for forty days, being tempted by the devil. **And he ate nothing during those days**. And when they were ended, he was hungry. 3 The devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread.” 4 And Jesus answered him, **“It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’”** > [Acts 9:8-9 ESV] 8 Saul rose from the ground, and although his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. So they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9 And for three days he was without sight, **and neither ate nor drank**. > [Acts 13:2-3 ESV] 2 While they were **worshiping the Lord and fasting**, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then after **fasting and praying** they laid their hands on them and sent them off. > [Acts 14:23 ESV]  And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, **with prayer and fasting** they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed. > [Matthew 17:20-21 KJV] 20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. 21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out **but by prayer and fasting**. > [Matthew 9:15 ESV] And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, **and then they will fast**. > [Mark 2:20 ESV] The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, **and then they will fast** in that day. > [Luke 5:35 ESV] The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, **and then they will fast** in those days.” I'm seeking book recommendations on Christian fasting, **written by Protestant authors**, encompassing both its theoretical and practical aspects. Specifically, I'm interested in resources that explore the spiritual dimensions of fasting within Christian spirituality, including its influence on prayer, worship, fostering a closer relationship with God, combating sin and temptation, subduing the flesh, and strengthening the spirit. Additionally, I'm looking for practical tips and suggestions on how to integrate fasting into daily life, discern when to undertake longer fasts (e.g., 21 days, 40 days), and understand the Holy Spirit's guidance regarding fasting (as we see in Luke 4:1 and Matthew 4:1). Thank you.

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.

[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.

Some sects including Jehovah's Witnesses believe the archangel Michael to be one in the same with Christ . The basic premise of this claim seems to stem from the unique usage of the role archangel rather than just any-ol-angel. > Michael is the only one said to be the 'archangel', meaning 'chief angel' or 'principal angel'. I would like to know what a mainline Protestant understanding about the role of "archangel" is. What makes them different from a mainline* angel? Do they bear any special relation to Christ? How many might there be? Also, are there any ways in which Protestants view the type "archangel" differently than other major traditions? \* Sorry, couldn't resist.

In answering a question on Bible Hermeneutics.SE, Carly Perkins asked, "Why can [Protestants] believe the men who decided which books were in the canon (around 400 A.D.) but not believe what they lived and believed?" I realize that my question is somewhat different from Carly's. What did the people who set the Protestant canon of the Bible believe were the requirements for salvation?

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?