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.

This may come off as an odd request - but I’m looking for a catholic roadmap of salvation that gives an order to how one comes to salvation and maintain salvation through the sacraments. This request is in order to give a better explanation to my Protestant friends, especially in relation to baptism and faith. Thanks a bunch!

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?

I watched the debate between James White and Trent Horn on whether a Christian can lose their salvation: [DEBATE | Can a Christian Lose Their Salvation? | Trent Horn vs. Dr. James R. White](https://youtu.be/72TRODe8BdA) . It's remarkable how well-educated scholars, studying the same biblical passages, can reach such diametrically opposed conclusions, particularly on a doctrine as pivotal as salvation. One would expect that salvation, being a cornerstone of Christian faith, would be communicated by God with utmost clarity to His church. Yet, we find ourselves debating the mechanics of salvation and the possibility of its loss. How do Christians reconcile the extensive debates surrounding salvation doctrines with the expectation that such a crucial tenet of the Christian faith would be revealed with unmistakable clarity by God?

In [Matthew 25:1-12](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A1-12&version=ESV) we read about ten young ladies (a bridal party) eagerly awaiting the arrival of the groom. Five of them run out of oil and have to go buy more, missing the groom's arrival and thus be excluded from the wedding feast. The groom is universally seen as representing Jesus, the women are seen as representing individual believers, and the oil is generally seen as representing God's grace. (See [my analysis](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/20227/10092) on the parable and especially the symbolism of the oil.) A surface reading would seem to indicate that all the women were nominally believers in Jesus, but someone of them did not properly prepare for his arrival (i.e. for their death or Jesus' Second Coming). This would suggest that there is more to salvation than faith alone - an aspect that can be "bought". How do *sola fide* adherents explain this passage? A good answer should cite published commentary by notable advocates of salvation by faith alone.

From my reading of the following passages, it seems that Christianity does recognize at least two distinct types of knowledge of God: > [Romans 1:18-23 ESV] 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be **known about God** is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although **they knew God**, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. > [John 17:3 ESV] 3 And this is eternal life, that **they know you**, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. The passage from Romans 1 describes a knowledge of God that does not lead to salvation. In contrast, John 17 presents Jesus declaring that eternal life *is* the knowledge of God (and Jesus), a knowledge that clearly brings salvation. What kind of knowledge is Jesus referring to? Am I correct in concluding that the knowledge of God Jesus speaks of is fundamentally different from the knowledge described in Romans 1? Does Christianity indeed recognize different kinds of "knowledge of God"? If so, what are the various ways in which God can be *known* according to Christian teaching? Is there a type of "knowledge of God" that transcends merely acquiring information from books or making intellectual inferences from creation (as in Romans 1)? Is there a "spiritual" kind of knowledge of God, and how is this understood within Christian spirituality?

In 2 Samuel 12:23, David says about his deceased infant son: >*"But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me." (ESV)* Many Christians interpret this as David expressing confidence that he would see his child again in the afterlife. This is often cited as evidence that infants who die are in God’s care and go to heaven. - Does it imply that children who die before reaching an age of moral accountability are saved? - Is David speaking about the afterlife or merely about joining his son in the grave? I'd appreciate perspectives from different theological traditions, especially Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox interpretations.

The statement, "Christ *paid the penalty* for our sins" does not appear in the Bible. When in the history of Christian theology did this specific statement first appear? Who said it? Please provide the actual text (and source) from the writings of the Christian theologians or teachers who first said it—or at least, the earliest ones you can document. **If that is clear to you, there is no need to read the rest of this question.** *Please note:* - This question is specifically about the statement that Christ *paid the penalty* for our sins. Equivalent wordings, such as "Christ paid the *price* for our sins" or *"Jesus* paid the penalty for our sins," are on-topic. However, "Christ died for our sins" or "Christ suffered for our sins" or even "Christ was punished for our sins" are off-topic. I am looking for statements specifically about Christ *paying the penalty,* or *paying the price,* for our sins. - "Paying the price" in the context of Ransom Theory is also off-topic. A ransom is not a penalty or punishment for sin. - I am *not* looking for antecedents for this idea, nor am I looking for passages quoted as the biblical basis for this idea. I am looking for the earliest *explicit statements* of the idea itself. - For reference: the Wikipedia article on Penal Substitution . Please do not just quote from or refer to the Wikipedia article, which seems rather murky and disorganized. ***Edit** in response to comments:* My hypothesis is that the Penal Substitution theory of atonement is closely tied to the phrase "paid the penalty." This is a history of doctrine question rather than simply an English phrase question. However, it is common for proponents of Penal Substitution to see this theory of atonement in phrases representing ideas that are not necessarily the same. For example: - *"Christ died for our sins."* If a drunk driver hits you and kills you, you have died for (due to) the sins of the drunk driver, but you have not *paid the penalty* for the sins of the drunk driver. S/he remains guilty of the crime, and subject to punishment. - *"Christ suffered for our sins."* If a drunk driver hits you and injures you, you have suffered for the sins of the drunk driver, but you have not *paid the penalty* for the sins of the drunk driver. S/he remains guilty of the crime, and subject to punishment. - *"Christ was punished for our sins."* If a drunk driver hits you, and you are wrongfully accused and put in jail instead of the drunk driver, you have *still* not paid the penalty for the drunk driver's sins. The drunk driver remains guilty of the crime, and subject to its penalty if and when it is discovered that there was a miscarriage of justice. Or if you were to voluntarily go to jail *with* the drunk driver, taking the same punishment even though you didn't commit the crime, you would still not have *paid the penalty* for the drunk driver's sins. S/he would *still* remain guilty of the crime, and subject to punishment. The point is, every one of these statements can easily and very reasonably be read as meaning something other than Christ paying the penalty for our sins. (And I happen to think that they *do* mean something other than Christ paying the penalty for our sins.) That is why I am insisting on the precise language that most specifically expresses the Penal Substitution theory of atonement: that Christ *paid the penalty* for our sins. Protestant tracts are full of the statement, "Christ paid the penalty for our sins." That phrase is not in the Bible. It must have come from *somewhere.* I want to know where it came from. I suspect this will also provide the origin point of the Penal Substitution theory of atonement in the history of Christian doctrine. If none of that works for you, just repeat over and over again before writing an answer: **Where did the precise phrase "Christ *paid the penalty* for our sins" come from?**

I get mixed messages. Protestantism declares that justification is by faith alone. Catholicism declares that justification requires faith supplemented with various stipulations. **Yet both Protestants and Catholics seem to declare that what they really need are the shedding of divine blood.** Faith, works and divine blood... what part does each play in effectual justification for Catholics vs Protestantism?

I ask this in Christianity (rather than in Hermeneutics), because I want answers to reflect the whole Bible, not Hebrews 11 in isolation. I am looking for responses from the point of view of those who believe that those who reject Jesus in this life will be condemned. I am not interested in whether or not these people would need to accept Christ after death. I am not interested in whether condemnation is eternal punishment or annihilation. > Instead, they were longing for a better country — a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them - Heb.11:16. > These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, 40 since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect - Heb.11:39-40.