How do proponents of salvation by faith explain this verse: > "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached > unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which > also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, > unless ye have believed in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:1–2, KJV) On the one hand, this passage says that a believer is saved by having believed. However, it also adds a condition: "unless you have believed in vain." That must mean there's a kind of belief—or faith—that is in vain, and therefore doesn’t lead to salvation. What’s especially challenging for the doctrine of salvation by faith, it seems to me, is that this "vain faith" isn't just belief in something minimal, like the historical existence of Jesus, but belief in the gospel itself. So how do proponents of salvation by faith reconcile this verse with their view?

Scriptures have clear evidence that God has already chosen some individuals for salvation. Here are some references... "When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and **as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.**" (Acts 13:48) "And the Lord said to Paul in the night by a vision, “Do not be afraid any longer, but go on speaking and do not be silent; for I am with you, and no man will attack you in order to harm you, **for I have many people in this city**.” (Acts 18:9-10) "For those whom He foreknew, **He also predestined** to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified." (Romans 8:29-30) The above verses provide us ample evidence that God in His sovereignty chooses some individuals for salvation. Them He justifies and glorifies. Then we also see in the Scriptures... "And He said to them, “Go into all the world and **preach the gospel to all creation.** The one who has believed and has been baptized will be saved; but the one who has not believed will be condemned." (Mark 16:15-16) “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that **everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life.**" (John 3:16) According to the reformed theology how can the above both sets of verses be reconciled?

One of my latest questions concerned the issue of animal sacrifices in the Old Testament times. (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/103127/why-were-animal-sacrifices-required-for-those-in-the-old-testament-period-but-n) . There are verses in the Bible that suggest that animal sacrifice led to forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 9:22; Numbers 15:25 (ESV): and Leviticus 4:20). One of the responses to my question (above) asserted that it is impossible to have salvation through animal sacrifice. Since childhood, we have been taught that salvation is through Jesus. The discussion on my earlier question made me ask myself whether salvation and forgiveness of sins are the same thing. If a person had their sins forgiven (for instance under the Old Testament covenant), is that different from salvation?

Jesus is reported as mixing with sinners and eating with them in Luke 15:2. The RSV and KJV say this was “murmured”, which I take to show that those stating this fact were complaining, or – worse – sneering. This question wants to explore (1) how persons who knew themselves to be sinners would have felt, that: “This man receives sinners and eats with them”. Then, (2) how might that contrast with what the people who murmured that fact thought of themselves with regard to sin. Finally, For both groups, (3) how would their view of salvation affect their response to what Jesus did? I’m *not* looking for a hermeneutic-type answer because this question asks whether the unspoken implication that the murmurers had was a view of themselves that meant they did not view themselves as ‘sinners’. There are many Bible texts that deal with this matter of different views of what it is to be a sinner, not just the one I gave as an example. Nor do I want the parables Jesus gave after others said he ‘receives sinners and eats with them’ to be explored. **The question is not about what Jesus said, but about what others said of him. Did they say it invidiously, with ill will, and being offended? If so, why?** ***I wanted to avoided the general tag of ‘sin’*** and use ‘sinners’ and ‘sinless’, plus ‘salvation’, all of which are listed as possible tags. Unfortunately, the sinner tag only gives, 'sinners-prayer' which is ***not*** what I'm after. It only gives 'sin' which is ***not*** the same as sinlessness. It only gives 'assurance of salvation', **which is *not* what I'm after**. *The tags will turn out to be worse than useless if people just look at them and launch into that.* This is a topic about sinners compared with those who view themselves as sinless, and all with regard to salvation. I address this to those in the Reformed, Protestant, Evangelical category, noting that some may not identify themselves with any particular denomination, but be evangelical Protestants nevertheless.

Do you know for sure you are going to Heaven. https://marymargretsamerica.blogspot.com/2024/11/the-christ-child_69.html

This question is aimed at those Christians who believe that someone saved can't become "unsaved" later. At least in 1 Corinthians 9:27 apostle Paul says he is not sure whether he will be saved or not (AFAIK there are other verses like this, and of course other places where Paul expresses his hope he will be saved). Here it is: > 27 No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have > preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize. (NIV–1984) Question is simple: how do those Christians interpret this? ---------- Related: - Can a Christian walk away from their salvation? - Do parts of Hebrews 3 and 4 imply that saved Christians can become unsaved? - [Once saved always saved. Is eternal security Biblical? \[closed\]][3] - How does 1 John 2:19 fit with the teaching that Christians can lose their salvation

According to the [Mormon Doctrine](https://archive.org/details/MormonDoctrine1966/page/472/mode/2up) written by Bruce McConkie, >If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation. There is no salvation outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But Paul says: "...Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved..." (Acts 16:31) Is it mutually exclusive? Could Joseph Smith have gone to heaven according to the NT, obviously extending to all members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? Protestant tradition may used as the starting point of the answer, although biblical support would be much appreciated.

Among some Protestant groups such as Evangelicals and Pentecostals, it is a very common question to ask "*Are you saved?*" or *"Are you born again?*". They say that the moment you believe in Jesus Christ, confess your sins, ask for forgiveness and have the peace of forgiveness, you are saved. The evidence of Salvation is then found in the life of the person through repentance, change in character, desire for God and His word, desire to share the gospel, etc. Do Catholics also have Assurance of Salvation? At what point in their life can they say that they are saved and will go to Heaven? Or, do they strive their whole life in order to have Salvation?

In contrast to the *Reformed* tradition, it it the best of my understating, that Lutherans hold in election unto salvation for all who all in Christ, yet also hold that individuals, because of their own fault and will, can turn away fro the faith and lose their salvation. This being the reason for all the warnings and admonitions in the Bible. One example would be John 15, where Jesus says that anyone who does not abide in his word, will be cut off. Given all that, what does apostasy mean in Lutheranism? Is it someone who utterly rejects Christ, or is it anyone caught up in habitual sin, like for example adultery or gambling, etc.

From my understanding and through examples in history and my life as well, God allows good and bad things to happen. Although I would always be curious as to why certain things happen, especially when it comes to bad stuff, I know His reasonings would go beyond my comprehension and understanding as He knows all. God will only allow certain things to happen if He wants it to happen. The devil, on the other hand, can only do things as he is allowed to by God. With that being said, would it be possible for God to allow the devil to skew His Word (Bible) in any way, shape, or form? Knowing that the devil is pure evil and one who deceives, manipulates, and twists the things of God, one would wonder what kind of things he would do prevent Christians from fully benefitting from reading God's Word and progressing in their spiritual life. An example that I think could be something that he would do or has done is change certain words in the Bible. As you may be aware, one word or phrase can have the power to change a sentence or meaning completely, whether in the Bible or just everyday conversation. **John 3:16** > For this is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. > ~ NLT (New Living Translation) > For God so loved the world that He gave the only begotten Son, so that everyone believing in Him should not perish, but should have eternal life. > ~ BLB (Berean Literal Bible) Both are the same verse, that pretty much says the same thing, but one glaring difference is the words **will not** and **should not**. Would it be fair to say that **will not** is pretty definitive, that if I truly believe in Jesus, I **will** be saved regardless of what happens afterwards? As opposed to **should not** or **shall not** (in other translations), which would indicate that it could happen but not guaranteed. For this verse, I would think that figuring out which translation or meaning is the true meaning would be pretty crucial. One implies that I'm good once I'm saved and the other implies that I should be good to go once I'm saved but... It would seem that either you can or cannot lose your salvation once you accept Christ. If you **can't**, then that would allow me to focus on other aspects of the Bible and if you **can**, then that makes me wonder what I must do to make sure that I keep it that way and not mess up (unforgivable sin comes to mind). God is not one to cause confusion when it comes to those that want to seek Him and His Word, so I'm wondering to what lengths or permissions would He allow the devil to do his thing? These are beliefs from **Arminianism** vs **Calvinism**, which if I'm not mistaken, for this topic, is that you are good once you're saved vs you can be unsaved, respectively. I'm not asking which view is correct, but clarification of which words would more accurately reflect the original texts/Scriptures. Would it be **will** or **should**? And if you read my responses in the comments, I made a point about why I'm not convinced that they are the same words. Unless I'm misunderstanding something and that back in the day, those words meant the same thing or something, those two words do not convey the same meaning to me. I would be much more convinced that something was or wasn't going to happen with the words **will/will not** than **should/should not**.

For those who beleive in the doctrine of **O**nce **S**aved **A**lways **S**aved (OSAS). How does one reconcile our need to not only confess our sins, but to ask God for forgiveness for those sins? > Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us Some might say that in Mathew 6 the word should be translated as "debts" which are not necessarily "sins." Yet the parallel passage in Luke 11 uses the word "ἁμαρτία" which clearly speaks of sin. Question: If we have received forgiveness in full, and it is completed as many would suggest, why would the Lord have us petition (Pray) for our forgiveness when it has already, according to the OSAS doctrine, been freely given and can never be taken away? This question are for the Faith Practices that adhere to 'assurance of salvation' which includes most but not all the ecclesial bodies that broke and continue to break away from the Catholic Church.

I am trying to find out what the early church fathers had to say about “eternal security” or “assurance of salvation”. By that, I refer to the following Bible verses: >To Him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy... (Jude 24) >...whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16) >My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no-one can snatch them out of my hand (John 10:27-28). >And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption (Ephesians 4:30) >For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:38-39). From verses such as these, Protestants understand that our eternal security is purchased by Christ, promised by the Father, and sealed by the Holy Spirit. This assurance is experienced by Christians who have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, whose lives have been transformed as evidence of the new birth and who live for Christ Jesus and who are prepared to die for Him – born-again Christians. I say this not to promote a particular belief but to clarify what I mean by expressions like “eternal security” and “assurance of salvation”. Neither do I wish to enter into a discussion on the theology. I simply want to know what the early church fathers had to say on this subject.

My question is for protestant Christians. If salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, then what does 2 Thessalonians 2:13 mean by saying that people are saved by the sanctification of the Spirit and believing the truth?

Revelation describes the nature of the event that led to Lucifer's demise. It seems to be quite clear that Lucifer and his angels, in rebelling against God, engaged in an act of terrible sin. >**7** And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, **8** And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. **9** And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. **10** And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. ... **12** "Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you who dwell in them! But woe to the earth and the sea; with great fury the devil has come down to you, knowing he has only a short time.” (Rev 12:7-10, 12) The Bible says of sin and those who engage in it... >**4** Everyone who practices sin practices lawlessness as well. Indeed, sin is lawlessness. **5** But you know that Christ appeared to take away sins, and in Him there is no sin. **6** No one who remains in Him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has seen Him or known Him. **7** Little children, let no one deceive you: The one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as Christ is righteous. **8** The one who practices sin is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the very start. This is why the Son of God was revealed, to destroy the works of the devil. (1 John 3:4-7) John 3:16 says... >For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. So given the above, and in particular the notion that Christ made available an offer of salvation by grace through faith to mankind, was that same offer made to those angels and indeed even Lucifer himself during/or after the rebellion in heaven?

I am struggling with Judaism and Christianity on the role of the Messiah. I have been taught that the Messiah is not some divine figure, but a righteous leader who will castigate nations for their treacherous ways and resolve their conflicts. (Isaiah 2:3-4). After studying the entire New Testament thrice, it is hard to see the compatibility of Jesus life with this role, as during the first century, no peace was acquired, nations continued to war against each other, and etc. The book of Matthew particularly makes claims that the Jewish prophets foretold of Jesus’ role. **What prophecies or scriptures do you guys think are the most evidently clear in order to help me resolve my “incompatibility” issue?** I am looking for scriptures ONLY from the Old Testament with reason as to how this applies ONLY to Jesus’ life. (I would appreciate even the most common scriptures such as Isaiah 7:14 and why you think these scriptures confirm that Jesus had to come, die, AND resurrect for us to have an eternal relationship with our Creator). I hope my question is clear, I have been fed too much information from both sides it’s hard to juggle it all. I will be researching similar questions on the Jewish stack exchange and conducting comparative analyses on the role of the Messiah.

> If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. **He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself**: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. **These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life**, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. - 1 John 5:9-13 The emboldened word "that you may know" is a word that properly deals with seeing. As used throughout the New Testament in this form it means a past-tense seeing which results in a present-tense knowing ("I saw" means "I know"). The tense here is active so it is the "you" that John has written to who may see unto knowledge. The emboldened word "have" is present, active, indicative which means that it actually, actively is in the now by the subject and it means: > The verb εχω (echo) means to have or hold and occurs in its various forms 708 times in the New Testament; see full concordance. Its usage slightly transcends that of the English equivalent. Where our English verb "to have" mostly emphasizes possession and control of external things, our Greek verb mostly describes the set of features that collectively define identity. When someone "has" something (say: an object or property, a quality or condition, a word to say, a feeling, a skill, an obligation or conviction), that something helps to determine who that person is, what his past might have looked like, and what his future might be all about. - abarim publications Can a Roman Catholic say that they **know** in this sense that, having seen something, they now actually and actively possess knowledge that they **have** eternal life in a manner that helps define who they are?

I have a belief that all sins mentioned in Galatians 5:19, 1 Corinthians 6:9, Revelations 22:15, and the sins referred to in "those who commit this sin shall not inherit eternal life" are sins which lead one out of grace. In my country, there are some people in vanity sin but who are clearly with the Holy Spirit. For example, my mom has cast out a demon from my grandpa although she is in vanity sin. But how could she cast out this demon without the Holy Spirit (salvation)? If someone is in a sin such as sexual immorality he/she seems to have NO authority against demons. This fact might show that such a person has lost the Holy Spirit because of a sexual sin. But why does someone in vanity sin seem to still have the Holy Spirit? Sometimes I fall in sexual sin and I clearly feel the Holy Spirit is getting away from me. Is there anything in literature regarding this problem?

Working solely from the word of Christ, it seems that almost all but poor Christians would fail the test Jesus put to the rich young man. "Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?" "If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments." Christ challenges the rich young man to follow the two greatest commandments (love his neighbor as himself) and love God maximally (devote himself to following Christ). The young man proves unable to do so. ([Matthew 19:16-22](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A16-22&version=ESV)) I don't know any Christian with accumulated wealth (myself included!) who could meet Christ's test. I've heard every excuse. I'll address some here. 1. **Jesus was addressing that man in particular. It doesn't apply to everyone**. By itself, this suggests we can ignore all the epistles (addressed to particular groups) and, arguably anything that wasn't addressed to a general audience. 2. **It only applies to the young rich man because wealth was a problem for him.** One: that scope-restriction is not clear from the text. Two: distributing resources to your neighbor without special bias to yourself is upholding the second great commandment, which applies to everyone. Three: If it's not a problem, those appealing to this claim should be able to meet Christ's challenge, but almost none do. (Now, perhaps they could, but because it's not a problem for them, they don't feel the need to do so. But it seems too convenient that this would be true for almost every Christian who has anything.) 3. **But then there would be no room for blessings** I haven't read anything that Christ said about leaving room for material blessings beyond what's required for our day to day needs. 4. **Christ finishes his eye-of-the-needle analogy by remarking that it's possible for rich people to be saved** That it's possible for a person to be saved, does not mean that it's likely. Fitting a camel through an eye of a needle is impossible (the claim that the 'eye of the needle' is a short gate has been conclusively refuted). The 'but he says it's possible' reply has always reminded me of the line from the movie Dumb and Dumber: "so you're saying there's a chance." It ignores the powerful analogy that's meant to convey that it's all but impossible. Given that just about everyone who has more than a little to give up would not pass the test of the young rich man, it seems that very few people are saved. That said, to distribute resources among you and your neighbors with no special bias for yourself as the one with sole say on distribution is often seen as supererogatory. I assume there's a reason why that has become the dominant view. 1. Are there many with excess resources who are saved (by excess, I mean more than sufficient to meet basic needs) 2. Why is distributing resources without a self-serving bias considered supererogatory despite the second great commandment? Any answer well-reasoned from the words of Christ would suffice (regardless of denomination).

> “And in that day thou shalt say, O Lord, I will praise thee: though > thou wast angry with me, thine anger is turned away, and thou > comfortedst me. Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust and not be > afraid: for the Lord Jehovah is my strength and my song; he also is > become my salvation. Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the > wells of salvation.” Isaiah 12:1-3 A.V. Given that God *is* salvation here to those who trust and prise him as such discovering God to be their personal salvation, **how could one discover God that way, and what does drawing water out of those wells (plural) entail?** I immediately thought of Jesus’ words to the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well, as to asking him for living water (that clearly had nothing to do with literal water nor that literal well.) > “But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never > thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of > water springing up into everlasting life” (John 4:14 A.V.) Isaiah speaks of something spiritual, not literal, and Jesus agrees with that, so how would those who know God to be their own salvation explain how to discover such deeply hidden waters of eternal life? It strikes me as obvious that it’s no use anyone answering who looks to a system of religion for salvation, or who believes that the refreshing reality of God as salvation in this life cannot be experienced – it’s only for the next life. So, ***I’m directing my question to those who take Isaiah 12:1-3 to be a present, experienced reality in this life.***

I consider the grace of the Holy Spirit as an enablement to be blameless in holiness when we detach from the body and be saved (not to sin and still being blameless). I believe that when someone sins he loses salvation. I don't want to argue about *sola fide* and things like that, I'm Protestant, but Pentecostal and I follow the doctrine of the Holy Spirit (total separation from distractions that keep us away from God even though it's not written in the bible). I'd like to know some arguments to defend my idea; those below are the ones I know so far: - Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. (James 1:15) - Paul apostle advised us to become blameless on holiness as a requirement to be saved: "Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." (Thessalonians 5:23) - "Do everything without grumbling or arguing, so that you may become blameless and pure, “children of God without fault in a warped and crooked generation.” Then you will shine among them like stars in the sky." (Philippians 2:14-15). This leads us to understand that this church was in the sin of dissension and would have to repent to become blameless. - Salvation by grace in Ephesians 2:8 implies that we receive the Holy Spirit by grace and enable us to do good works to be holy when the Lord asks our soul. This seems clean by the verse below: "He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit." (Titus 3:5). The first salvation through baptism and a power of the Holy Spirit, however often we may lose our salvation sometimes, to enable us to live a life which is in short blameless in holiness to give us a saving confidence in the final judgment where everyone is judged (not just rewarded) for their works at Revelation 20:12. I know this sounds like a doctrine of salvation only by works, but it is the grace of the Holy Spirit that enables us for these works. I would like to know if there are more biblical arguments for this and if this branch has a name (in my country there is this name I mentioned, but I believe it is not formalized in theology).