This is related, but intended to be a more specific version of [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/14573/20) . The answer provides a pretty concise, Sunday-school refutation to Arianism, but it assumes a Trinitarian view. From within an Arian theological framework, how does Christ fit into the work of human salvation? Please provide Biblical and historical references as appropriate.

According to this article from the The Society for Effective Evangelism : > Up until Billy Sunday, altar calls were invitations for seekers to come to an after-meeting or inquiry room where counselors would help people understand their heart condition. These ministers worked in concert with the Holy Spirit to help seekers repent and yield to God, and to pray that God would save them. Someone was saved only when they were born again—when the Holy Spirit came into them. Conversion and being born again meant the same thing. Of course, I've been to _many_ Christian events that feature altar calls and even more where the speaker simply asks non-Christians to "pray the Sinner's Prayer " with them. I assumed the practice went back at least to Revivalists such as Charles Finney, but according the the article, evangelists before Sunday provided individual counseling before telling people they were saved. Is there any evidence the practice of "salvation by altar call" is older than Sunday?

I will often engage in dialogue with Catholics and Orthodox Christians who tell me that the doctrine of their churches affirms that salvation is by grace through faith. If that is true, then what distinguishes Lutherans from Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians?

A friend recently made the following statement regarding the heresy of Arianism: >The conflict was about the nature of Christ before the Creation of the Universe. It was a Philosophical/Metaphysical cum Theological difference which really had no practical manifestation in terms of Saving Faith or practice. As Arianism denies the divinity of Christ and the fullness of the Godhead, I am inclined to disagree. (The emphasis of my studies are mostly biblical theology with an Old Testament emphasis and this is a systematics issue.) What impact, if any, does an Arian view of Christ have on a person's salvation? While I welcome answers from a purely biblical perspective, I also welcome historical arguments and answers quoting authors from the time of and close to the controversy.

I often find it helpful to illustrate my point with extreme cases. Let's examine some well-known examples of unbelievers: [Graham Oppy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Oppy) , a distinguished atheist philosopher specializing in philosophy of religion; [Peter Atkins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Atkins) , an atheist scientist highly proficient in Chemistry; [Stephen Hawking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking) , a globally recognized atheist theoretical physicist and cosmologist; and [Carl Sagan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan) , a renowned astronomer and science communicator who identified as an agnostic. For example, on the question of whether God exists, Carl Sagan once said: > An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. **To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed**. ([source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#cite_note-Sagan2006-120)) Graham Oppy was [asked](https://youtu.be/OQv_K9toh2k) the question of what it would take to convince him to believe in God during an interview on *Premier Unbelievable?*. He essentially expressed uncertainty, leaning towards skepticism that a new philosophical argument for God's existence would be persuasive to him, given the countless arguments for God he had already studied. Similarly, when Peter Atkins was [asked](https://youtu.be/dRWIsuEL0Ac) on a different occasion, "*Could anything convince you God exists?*" he responded by stating that he couldn't think of any convincing factor, given his unwavering commitment to naturalism. In light of individuals with such backgrounds—who genuinely grapple with the inability to conceive of anything convincing—I find it challenging to reconcile this reality with the notion that the gift of saving faith in Christ is universally accessible. It's difficult for me to envision someone like Graham Oppy simply "choosing" to embrace and exercise the gift of saving faith in Christ supposedly available to him, or simply "choosing" to become born again. Absent a miracle, direct revelation, or an encounter akin to Acts 9, I genuinely struggle to see how this could plausibly unfold. If the offer of saving faith in Christ is a universal gift from God, does this extend to unbelievers like those mentioned earlier? If the opportunity for saving faith is accessible to all, can committed unbelievers such as Carl Sagan or Graham Oppy also avail themselves of this gift?

Since the time canon was formed, when did the teaching that salvation can still be obtained by people after their physical death first appear in Christianity?

What is the basis in the Scripture for the doctrine that those who haven't received salvation during their physical life, especially those who heard of Christ and yet chose not to pray to Him, will still have a chance to get saved after their physical death?

Which early church fathers (pre 500) taught it was possible for a person after their death to hear and receive salvation in Christ Jesus? We know some groups teach the necessity of water baptism to be saved. So for example, for them, a baby born but not baptized would be consigned to hell. Who taught it is possible to be saved even after one died, rather than go to and stay in hell for all eternity?

Some Christian traditions and theologians suggest that there might be an opportunity for repentance and salvation after death. Others reject this view and argue that Scripture teaches salvation must be received in this life. What are the key biblical arguments against the idea of a post-mortem chance for salvation? In particular, which passages are commonly cited to show that the opportunity for repentance ends at death?

The word 'Saviour' (σωτήρ, *soter*) is used twenty-four times in the Greek New Testament scriptures. Eight times, this refers to 'God'. Sixteen times it refers to 'Jesus', 'Christ', 'Jesus Christ', 'Lord Jesus Christ', and 'The Son'. One notable time, the wording used is 'the great God and Saviour of us, Jesus Christ', Titus 2:13, and here I am quoting the original, literal, in which the Greek idiom known as 'Sharp's rule' should be noted. No other person is called a 'saviour' in the Greek New Testament. Moses is referred to as a 'deliverer', the proper translation for λυτρωτῆς, *lutrotes*, in Acts 7:35, in regard to a national, not a spiritual, deliverance: and Noah is said to have 'saved' his household (from a flood, not a spiritual salvation) in Hebrews 11:7 when God was the Saviour by his warning Noah of the future flood. The salvation of one's own soul ; the salvation from one's own, personal sins; the salvation of oneself in regard to the sin which entered into the world and humanity in general; the salvation of one's body in resurrection: all are the province, solely, of 'God our Saviour' and of 'the God and Saviour of us, Jesus Christ.' In the light of this evidence, why do some suggest that Jesus Christ is not 'God' when the evidence appears to be, very substantially, in favour of the opposite conclusion? The list of eight references to 'God our Saviour': Lk 1:47, 1 Ti 1:1, 2:3, 4:10, Titus 1:3, 2:10, 3:4, Jude 25. The list of sixteen references to Christ as Saviour: Lk 2:11, Jn 4:42, Ac 5:31, 13:23, Eph 5:23, Phil 3:20, 2 Ti 1:10, Titus 1:4, 2:13, 3:6, 2 Pe 1:1, 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, 3:18, 1 Jo 4:14. -------------------------------------- All references and quotations relate to the TR Greek text and to the KJV translation of that text.

In some Reformed/Calvinist circles, a theological framework called the [Federal Vision](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Vision) (FV) has led to significant internal debate over the true nature of the covenant between God and man, and, by extension, the role of faith and works in justification and salvation more generally. I'm currently reading a book by an FV opponent, David J. Engelsma, called [*Federal Vision: Heresy at the Root*](https://books.google.com/books?id=SqTGMQEACAAJ) . In chapter 6 he seems ready to address the following challenge: > Some of the proponents of the federal vision are decisional regenerationists; others hold to presupposed regeneration. How can you say that both hold to the same view of the covenant? But Engelsma's response does not shed much light on the difference between these views – he simply continues to group them together and critiques FV more generally. That's less than satisfying, so my question here is: **according to FV proponents, what are the perceived differences between decisional regeneration and presupposed regeneration views?** What impact do these differences have on the doctrine of the covenant held by different FV proponents?

# Problem description # A protestant made the following two arguments about the assumption of Mary: 1. A catholic that doesn't accept the assumption of Mary will be excommunicated from the Catholic church 2. A catholic must believe in the assumption of Mary ---------- # Questions # - Are these arguments correct? - Is the assumption of Mary a salvific issue for Catholics? - If it's not a salvific issue why is it "good" to believe in it as a Catholic? The last question was asked from a Catholic perspective.

Many individuals die never having heard the Gospel. Some illustrative examples are: pretty much everyone who was born before Jesus, individuals contemporary to Jesus but who were too far away at the time to hear about him (e.g. Native Americans and all tribes from the Pre-Columbian era during the first and many subsequent centuries), isolated jungle tribes in Africa and the Amazon, and [uncontacted peoples](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontacted_peoples) in general. How do different denominations across Christianity view the problem of individuals dying without ever having heard the Gospel's salvation message? What is the biblical basis in each case? *Note that this is an overview question: answers must summarise the positions of several different major Christian branches, and if possible even some of the smaller ones as well.* EDIT: I recently realized there is a decent overview of Christian viewpoints in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fate_of_the_unlearned . Just linking this to complement the already excellent answers to this question.

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?

Every time I revisit questions about God's nature on Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange I can't help but come out with more doubts than convictions. For example, take a look at the following questions: - [Is Paul suggesting in Eph. 4:6 that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not God?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/70188/38524) - [Is 2 Corinthians 13:11-14 an assertion that God is three equal Persons?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/55344/38524) - [“Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.” - why did the Jews want to throw stones at Jesus for saying this?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/55803/38524) - [What does it mean to be "equal with God" in John 5:18?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/60302/38524) - [What does "equality with God" mean, and how can it be "exploited"? Philippians 2:6](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/55612/38524) - [What can we learn about the relationship between "God" and "the Spirit of God" ontologically from 1 Corinthians 2:6-16?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/55640/38524) - [Is the Son second in authority under God the Father? 1 Corinthians 15:24-28](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/55872/38524) When questions about Christology, Pneumatology and the nature of God in general can cause so much debate and doctrinal division among Christians, with arguments both for and against each conceivable position, it is very hard for me to accept the idea that one has to embrace a particular doctrinal position about God's nature **as an essential condition for salvation**, as opposed to simply withholding judgement. Personally, I see no other way to hold a strong conviction about the nature of God than God Himself revealing these details about Himself in a crystal clear manner to the individual, through a special revelation. **Question**: Are there any Christian groups or denominations that do not see having a definite doctrinal position on God's nature as essential for salvation, even if they, personally, have one? Or in more colloquial terms, are there any Christian groups or denominations that either lack a definite doctrinal position on God's nature OR believe in one but say *"we believe that God's nature is best described by X, but if you are not sure or have doubts about X, that's okay, you can still be saved"* ? ___ Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86199/50422

I feel silly asking this because I feel like it should be obvious. Why did Jesus need to die for our sins? I am asking because this part of Christianity still confuses me. I thought Judaism taught that we will go to heaven if we believe in Judaism, but after a purification (by fire??) of our earthly sins. So Jesus' dying also guaranteed that we would go to heaven, but weren't believers guaranteed entry into heaven to begin with? So does that mean that Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross so we would not have to go through the purification process? Is this the reason he died on the cross? Otherwise we all could have just become Jews and went through the purification process to go to heaven. Please help me understand what I am missing because I feel this can't be right.

I was going through the Bible and came across Daniel 4 which is about a vision King Nebuchadnezzar gets and as a result he calls Daniel to interpret. The dream ends up being a prophecy about how God is going to humble King Nebuchadnezzar which eventually comes to pass 12 months later. However, the way King Nebuchadnezzar acts towards the end is what makes me think he received salvation. He says this: > *34 At the end of that time, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven, and my sanity was restored. Then I praised the Most High; I > honored and glorified him who lives forever. > > His dominion is an eternal dominion; > his kingdom endures from generation to generation. 35 All the peoples of the earth > are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases > with the powers of heaven > and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand > or say to him: “What have you done?” > > 36 At the same time that my sanity was restored, my honor and splendor > were returned to me for the glory of my kingdom. My advisers and > nobles sought me out, and I was restored to my throne and became even > greater than before. 37 Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and exalt and > glorify the King of heaven, because everything he does is right and > all his ways are just. And those who walk in pride he is able to > humble.* From this we see that in the end, Nebuchadnezzar believed in God and acknowledged him as the most high. Not only this, but also he says: > Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and exalt and glorify the King of heaven, because everything he does is always right and his ways are just Here, he shows conversion and faith in God. However, the bible repeatedly emphasizes that we are saved BY grace THROUGH faith and that it is faith that justifies us.(Ephesians 2:8-9 , [Galatians 3:11]). It is also seen that following the law is not what saved people in the Old Covenant but it was faith in God that saves people and the function of the law was to let us acknowledge our sin and guide people until Jesus came (Romans 3:20 , Galatians 3:24 , Isaiah 45:22-24 . The Bible then goes on to use Abraham as an example in Romans 4:3 saying that Abraham was justified by his faith and he clarifies in Romans 3:23-24 and Galatians 3:8-9 where it says that this extends to anyone who has faith in God. So with all this in mind, is it a possibility that King Nebuchadnezzar ended up receiving salvation after acquiring his faith in God as sovereign and the one above all, including what he describes as *powers of heaven*, which could maybe be understood as him exalting God above all other known lesser gods?

I have heard the term "Lordship Salvation" several times now, including in an answer I read recently. Can anyone explain to me what this is? Is this the official position of any major churches? Is this a term only used by critics of the view? (Like "easy believism" or "cafeteria Christianity" - terms nobody would actually associate ***themselves*** with!)

Most denominations teach the idea that someone must feel guilt or remorse for their sins and must desire not to do them, however some like those teaching Calvinism or Once Saved Always Saved seemed to stop there while other denominations seem to suggest either certain more severe sins like the Catholics or any intentional sin like the Methodists must be repented of, or one is not in a State of Grace and one will go to hell. There is scriptural support in John, Romans and Galatians for both of these view points. I am wondering about an overview of how the different modern as well as the early Church soteriologies would reconcile the more well known grace passages (particularly among Calvinists and those supporting Once Saved Always Saved) with passages that say sinners would not inherit the Kingdom of God such as Romans 1:29-1:31, 1 Corinthians 6:9-6:10, Galatians 5:19-5:21, Ephesians 5:3-5:5, 1 Timothy 1:9-1:10, Revelation 21:8, and Revelation 22:15. I am curious to know about the doctrine of repentance in the apostolic age as well. I have looked at Jerome, Tertullian, and Chrysostom and how they taught some sins needed repenting of for one to be saved. I recognize from Romans to Revelations that there are lists of sins which say that people who commit them do not enter the Kingdom of God. I also know that the first thing Jesus asked the rich man was not whether he had faith in Jesus but did he keep the commandments. On the other hand John repeatedly mentions that those who have faith will be given eternal life. Romans seems to teach salvation by faith alone at least in the majority of its passages and Jesus also told the rich man that with God anything is possible. One iteration of the decalogue in the Old Testament (I believe it is Deuteronomy) teaches that God is merciful to those who love Him for thousands of generations.

Many Christians experience the manifestation of the Holy Spirit through spiritual gifts such as prophecy, tongues, healing, or teaching (cf. 1 Corinthians 12). My question is: If a believer has clearly received and exercised a gift of the Holy Spirit, does this mean they are assured of inheriting eternal life? Or is it still possible for someone to fall away despite having once been used by the Spirit in this way (cf. Matthew 7:21–23, Hebrews 6:4–6)? I am seeking answers from a Christian theological perspective, preferably with biblical support.