Christian doctrine—particularly in Protestant traditions—teaches that salvation is by grace alone through faith (e.g., Ephesians 2:8-9). However, Revelation 20:12 states that the dead are "judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books." How do Christians reconcile salvation by grace with a final judgment based on works? If our works don’t contribute to our salvation, what is their role in the judgment described in Revelation and similar passages?

In the Reformed view of predestination and human will, could we say that human will consists of two inseparable parts — a detached will, as the capacity to deliberate or step back from objects, and an oriented will, as the capacity to unite with or choose an object apparently good? If so, would it be accurate to say that any exercise of the will that *chooses* something other than God represents a false or incomplete use of that will, since only God constitutes the true end that fulfills and rightly orients it as true freedom? In this view, God would be not merely one object of choice, but the very source and end of a properly ordered will. All other created goods—wealth, pleasure, ideologies—represent only *apparent* fulfillments. That would mean that, apart from union with God, human willing collapses into a kind of existential fragmentation: always active, but never truly free. This would imply that: 1. Human beings retain a capacity to will and choice (and thus remain morally responsible) *even in their fallen state*, but this will is fundamentally misoriented since *any* object is going to be a sinful one. 2. Only God's grace restores the true orientation of the will, reordering it toward its proper end in Him (= freedom). 3. Thus, God is not the author of our sin (since our willing as a capacity of abstraction from any object, though corrupted, remains our own), but He alone is the author of our salvation (since only He can rightly reorient the will). Would this framework be consistent with Calvinist theology? Or does it risk introducing assumptions that conflict with doctrines such as total depravity or monergistic regeneration?

What does teaching morality result in?

Yet 1 John 1:9 is widely taught as conditional forgiveness for the Christian when the passage of 1 John 1 is directed as an invitation to Gnostic Jews to become believers.

Not rightly dividing the word of truth is a major source of confusion in Christianity today.

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

The question is stemming from what looks like a complete blanket of grace not only concerning the reception of salvation, but also being applied to the process of sanctification without limitations. There are different views on the grace that is gifted and exactly what it applies to. For example evangelicalism applies total grace to salvation and sanctification, even if someone is apostate, while others don't do that. Others limit grace to those who stay in repentance. What are the main differences concerning grace between church factions and how do they justify their beliefs according to their doctrine and scripture? Philippians 2:12 - "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" There are some passages like Ph 2:12 that make it sound like grace being attached to sanctification is conditional based on obedience. This is not about what grace is, but how it's taught differently and applied from denomination to denomination.

The Catholic Church always has taught that Our Lord Alone redeemed mankind; and so, only through Him are salvation and Grace obtained. The term *mediator* means a "go-between." Thus, and in a sense, we are *mediators* when we pray to God on behalf of another person. Over the centuries, many Christians have believed the Blessed Virgin is the dispenser of all of the Graces which God deigns to grant; for example, St. Peter Damian: "In thy hands are all the Treasures of Divine Mercies." St. Bernardine of Sienna: "Thou art the dispenser of all Graces; our salvation rests in thy hands." And also, says St. Alphonsus Liguori, "was the doctrine of St. John Damascene, of St. Germanus, of St. Anselm, of St. Antonine, of Idiota, and of so many other learned authors..." Furthermore, although The Church has never solemnly defined this as dogma, the term "Mediatrix of All Graces" seems to have been used for centuries in reference to the Blessed Virgin Mary. As far as I can tell, the title dates back at least the fifth century, when Bishop Basil of Selucia made use of it. Prior to that, Church Father, St. Ephrem of Syria (4th century) writes: *"after the mediator, you (Mary) are the mediatrix of the whole world."* However, I'm not sure this means "mediatrix of all graces." QUESTION: When might the title, "Mediatrix of All Graces," first have been applied to the Blessed Mother; and, did any of the Church Fathers definitely make use of it (or something equivalent to it) to describe the Mother of God? Thank you.

>Thus speaks the LORD of hosts, Execute true judgment, and show mercy and compassions every man toward his brother; and oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart. (Zechariah 7:9-10) Although this is an Old Testament quotation, these admonitions seem to be repeated throughout the New Testament as well. (Matthew 25:31-46) >Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, "To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. (James 1:27) Is the modern emphasis by Evangelical and Reformed churches on "Salvation by faith alone through grace alone"---and just saying a "sinner's prayer" for salvation---giving a wrong impression as to what the Christian faith is all about? Should the "discipleship decision" include acceptance of the "social gospel" ,as well as, acceptance of the Apostles Creed (or denomination's creed)? And is Zechariah's verses an accurate presentation of what has historically been called "the Social Gospel". ***Is it non-essential in today's presentation of the Gospel of Grace. (A different gospel? Galatians 1:6-7), or is it an essential part of the evangelical Gospel?*** Is what is called "the Social Gospel" legitimate today, if it doesn't surplant the "Gospel of Grace" for salvation? We are basically seeking a critique of the present status of "the Social Gospel idea" in modern Protestantism denominations---and in actual preaching.

I'm doing a study on grace and the fulfilment of the Law at present, and wonder if someone can assist: some texts definitely state that it is not humanly possible to perfectly keep the Law. Thus Paul in Romans 7:14-23, 9:31-32, Peter’s words in Acts 15:10, that the Law was a burden that the Israelites could not bear, etc. However, other texts seem to indicate that keeping the Law was possible. For instance, concerning the Law and the choice between obedience and disobedience proffered to the Israelites, Moses says (Deuteronomy 30:11), > ‘Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or > beyond your reach.’ In other words, they have no excuse for disobedience. Also, in Philippians 3:6 Paul, in giving his credentials as an impeccable Pharisee, avers that he was, ‘as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.’ There is also the argument and thrust from Romans 7 to 8 that, as heeding of the Law is not possible, the solution is through the power of the Holy Spirit (thus 8:1-4). A related query might be, then: did the OT Israelites for over 1,000 years go through the same sense of guilt, frustration, and inability to keep the Law as did Paul (cf. Romans 7), because of the absence of the indwelling Spirit? This would seem unfair, but would be in line with the Romans 7 theology of difficulty in keeping the Law. However, how would this square with Moses’ parting exhortation that the Law was ‘not difficult’ (Deut 30.11)? A thought: might Paul's (and Peter's) comments perhaps have something to do with an attempt at perfectionism, which is attested in the Talmud among first century rabbis?

Two of the Five Solas are: - Sola Gratia: Salvation by Grace Alone - Sola Fide: Justification by Faith Alone If salvation is by "grace alone", how can "faith alone" be added as well? Only one of these two should be chosen in order to use the term "alone". From scripture grace and faith work together, e.g.: > ... we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand ... *(Romans 5:2, ESV)* > > For by grace you have been saved through faith. *(Ephesians 2:8, ESV)* Suppose someone builds a bridge over a chasm to rescue a group of hikers from a great disaster, and announces to all hikers that the bridge has been built. Arriving on the safe side, someone tells the hikers: "You arrived here *only* through the goodwill of the bridgebuilder", and "You arrived here *only* because you actually crossed the bridge". How logical is that? Clearly, the two must work together (and not together, although separately alone)?

This question is in the context of Protestant Trinitarianism. There are two schools of thought within Protestant Trinitarianism : one, founded mainly in the Westminster Confession (or Savoy Declaration) which accepts that 'the Law is a rule of life for the Christian' and looks to the commandments (whether an expansion of ten, or whether two or whether one) as the 'Law' by which the Christian is to live. This school of thought can be seen set forth in the Westminster Confession The other school of thought accepts that salvation is by grace and that the Christian is 'freed from law' (that is to say, not just 'ceremonial law' but *all law*). The 'rule of the Spirit' is just that, they say - a governance of the Holy Spirit who brings the things of Christ and ministers them to the soul, whereby the believer receives the 'shedding abroad of the love of God' and is kept, in Spirit, walking in holiness by means of faith in Christ. This school of thought can be seen set forth in the pages of The Gospel Standard . I am interested in what the former school of thought teach, regarding Titus 2: 11-14 : >For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, (12) Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; (13) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (14) Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. There is no mention in these few verses of the Law being administered in order to achieve either holiness or preparation for the last day. The latter school of thought hold that the 'grace of God' refers to the Holy Spirit and that his ministrations result in sanctification. What, I would like to know, is the teaching of those who suggest that Christians are 'under the Law' (and the Westminster Confession states that this is as 'advice') in regard to these verses. Whose, exactly, is the 'grace' referred to ? And why, would they say, is Law completely missing from these exhortatory verses ?

As per Acts 21:24, Paul keeps the law. If Paul keeps the law, why does he say that he is not under the law in 1 Corinthians 20-21? If he is not under the law, then why did he perform the nazirite vow in Acts 21? I am confused

Are the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John related to the Old Covenant (Old Testament, Hebrew Bible) since the Testator (Jesus), who lived, preached, and performed miracles within it, had not yet died? Hebrews 9:16-17 King James Version > For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

I am a theistic skeptic, but if I have a theistic virtue I do not demand God's grace (whatever it is I expect or need from Him). Is this a virtue? Or Is this a vice?

I recently came across the phrase "Three Manifestations of Grace". The author used the phrase as if its meaning were common knowledge. As far as I can tell, some Christian writers do speak of three main types of Grace, but they do not necessarily agree on what they are. The clearest example I could find in terms of a denominational doctrine was from Methodism, which takes it [theology of grace from Wesley](https://www.umcdiscipleship.org/resources/foundations) : - Prevenient grace literally means "the grace that comes before." Prevenient grace calls us into a relationship with God before we are even aware of God. It prepares us for the dawning awareness that God loves us so much that God seeks us out first. - Justifying grace offers reconciliation, forgiveness of sin, freedom from the power and guilt of sin, and the possibility of new relationships with God and with one another. - Sanctifying grace enables us to grow into the image of Christ and to live as a sign of God’s reign among us. Sanctifying grace leads to inward and outward holiness. Wesley's system owes much to Augustine, but I do not know if Catholic theology speaks of three types of grace per se. Also, I notice that writers of other denominations refer to different manifestations or stages of grace... sometimes numbering as high as fifteen. What I'm really looking for is whether 1) prevenient, 2) sanctifying and 3) justifying grace are the most likely types of grace this writer was referring to. Related questions: Do other denominations - especially Catholicism - also formally refer to these three as the main types? Do some denominations use a different three-fold typology?

To provide more context addressing the seemingly unfit and vague closing reason, this is a follow up question from [one of my comment threads](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/99632/a-specific-difference-between-christianity-and-other-religions/99638?noredirect=1#comment282363_99638) of my previous [question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/99632/a-specific-difference-between-christianity-and-other-religions/99638) . Suppose **1000** people are simultaneously bestowed God's coming down provisions of grace via his radiation, then these 1000 radiated lights must be his 1000 sons as Jesus Christs since the scripture famously asserted the Way as the Saving Faith can be attained only through Jesus Christ. But the scripture also asserted that Jesus Christ is God's **only** son, so how to resolve this paradox of my hypothetically contemplated 1000 incarnated sons of God simultaneously? Bear in mind that saving faith is all about the person Jesus Christ, not about any of his particular character or words or some other processes. **Addendum**: There's an up-voted answer below pointing out the importance of the Biblical hermeneutic interpretation about Jesus Christ as the only 'begotten' son of God in light of the hermeneutic circle of the whole context as opposed to many other sons of God. But since Jesus Christ is also a person, it seems this interpretation doesn't really add much clarification on above question. Any feedback to my genuine question is appreciated.

There are many Christian pastors, scholars, and theologians who are positive they have the correct interpretation of the unpardonable sin. There isn’t a universal interpretation that everyone agrees on. I assume they all take into account verses such as John 7:37-38, 1 John 1:8–9, Hebrew 7:25, John 6:44, and Romans 10:9-10 when forming their interpretations. Questions 1. Can it be correctly said that all interpretations by pastors and theologians on the unpardonable sin, involve a rejection of Jesus within the interpretation, or involve non-repentance? I don’t believe any interpretation to be correct if it implies that after said interpretation occurs, one could be denied by our Lord if they repent and believe in their heart that Jesus is Lord and they call on His Name. Based on so many other verses, that interpretation is just unBiblical. 1. If some pastors or theologians think otherwise, do they ever attempt to explain their view of the unpardonable sin and how it would hermeneutically fit within the rest of scripture, without contradictions? Looking for common ground within interpretations of this sin by theologians and pastors. I know of folks who are terrified they may have accidentally committed this sin. (I asked these similar questions in a different community on this site but didn’t get a lot of answers due to it being the incorrect community, I think by the site’s guidelines, to ask in.) The unpardonable sin verse I have been referring to is Matthew 12:31-32: >**31** And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. **32** Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

My question isn't so much about reconciling specific Scripture passages as it is about reconciling two teachings supported by Scripture, so I'm asking here rather than on Hermeneutics. I'm wondering how to reconcile these two thoughts: 1. Christians can know they have eternal life (1 John 5:13; 2 Tim. 4:7-8), so much so that they can be excited for Jesus's return rather than fearful (Heb. 9:28; 1 Thess. 5:2-5; Rev. 22:20). 2. Those who sin, even unknowingly, are still guilty (Leviticus 5:17; Matthew 15:14; Luke 12:48) and are "poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity" until they repent and pray for forgiveness (Acts 8:20-24, NKJV; c.f. 1 John 1:9). When Jesus comes, if I can still be punished for things I've done without knowing they're sinful (Luke 12:48) and am "poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity" (Acts 8:23, NKJV) until I discover the sin and repent, then how can I know I "**have [present tense]** eternal life" (1 John 5:13, NKJV, emphasis added), so much so that I can be excited for Jesus' return (Heb. 9:28; 1 Thess. 5:2-5; Rev. 22:20)? Instead, wouldn't I lack certainty as to whether I have eternal life? Also, if sins of ignorance can condemn, shouldn't I hope Jesus' coming will delay so that I can study as long as possible to learn of any sins I need to repent of? How are the two thoughts bulleted above reconcilable? I'd like the range of acceptable answers to be broad, but if I must limit answers to that of a group, I'll choose answers considered orthodox within Christianity. If you'd like to list multiple possible ways to reconcile the two thoughts, that's fine as well. My main desire is for answers consistent with the Scriptures I presented.

What is the biblical basis for systematic Antinomianism, or, if you prefer, extreme Grace? I am looking for someone with first hand knowledge of its teachings who can justify this view. Wikipedia lists verses of the Bible which seem to counter it. A good answer will rebut those verses from an Antinomianist's perspective.