For a while, I have had thoughts on areas of scripture that suggest different degrees of punishments and rewards for different kinds of people both for and against Christ. Starting with Christians, we see Jesus making a statement in Mathew 5:19 where he says: > 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Note how Jesus doesn't say they won't be saved but rather, they will be of a lower status in heaven than those who actively put their faith to action. Paul repeatedly echoes this point in multiple places such as: (2 Corinthians 5:10 ) > 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may **receive what is due us for the things done** while in the body, whether good or bad. (1 Corinthians 3:11-15 ) > 11 **For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ**. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 **their work will be shown for what it is**, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and **the fire will test the quality of each person’s work.** 14 **If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward**. 15 **If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved**—even though only as one escaping through the flames. Paul here also implies that all those who are in Christ will be saved because he is a strong foundation even if the work they build in that foundation is poor. However they will be at a loss when it comes to receiving whatever inheritance (possibly other than eternal life which will be given to all Christians) God has prepared for us. The same also goes for the other side where Jesus mentions the punishment given to the pharisees and those towns that reject his disciples being worse than the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah on judgment day.(Matthew 10:15, Matthew 11:24, Luke 10:12 ) or his parable in Luke 12:47-48 : > 47 “**The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows**. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. Considering all these (and more), is it safe to assume (and why) that there will be varying levels of punishment and reward within both hell and heaven respectively? If not, kindly explain how and why these verses do not support that idea. Appreciated.

In the Pure Land school of Buddhism, especially in Japan, there is an idea which sounds very similar to Protestant soteriology, especially *Sola Fide*, which is basically the idea that one can be "saved" only and entirely by putting one's trust in the saving power of the work of Amitabha Buddha. This is the practice of *shinju nembutsu*, or "*nembutsu* only", was taught by Honen in the 12th century and especially by his disciple Shinran. Now, there are obviously myriad fundamental differences between Buddhism and Christianity. However, I am wondering if any Protestant scholars have commented on the difference between the understanding of faith encapsulated by *Sola Fide* and the understanding of "*nembutsu* only" in Pure Land Buddhism. *Note: I am not asking about differences between Buddhism generally and *Sola Fide*. Also, I am most interested to hear from sources that have actively studied the teachings of Honen and Shinran; if this is your first time hearing about Pure Land Buddhism, please do not answer unless you first studying it thoroughly or cite sources which have already done that work for you.* A brief review to see why I'm interested: **Sola Fide** is the Protestant idea that faith alone is necessary for salvation. Our good works contribute nothing to our justification. It is intimately tied to the idea of *Sola Gratia*, which is that salvation is accomplished solely by the grace of God. **Shinju Nembutsu** is based on a statement in the *Sutra of Infinite Life* wherein the Amitabha Buddha makes a series of vows before becoming enlightened. The eighteenth of these vows is > If, when I attain Buddhahood, sentient beings in the lands of the ten quarters who sincerely and joyfully entrust themselves to me, desire to be born in my land, and call my Name, even ten times, should not be born there, may I not attain perfect Enlightenment. Excluded, however, are those who commit the five gravest offences and abuse the right Dharma. Since Amitabha did attain enlightenment, the followers of Honen and Shinran taught that this statement must true that all who sincerely trust in Amitabha will be born into his land (where they would later be able to attain enlightenment). The more radical idea of "*nembutsu* only" is related to the Buddhist concept of Dharmic decline, which basically means (for Shinran), that in the present age it is not possible to attain enlightenment by good works, and thus the only hope for mankind in the present age is the work of Amitabha. Hence, one must only say "*namu amita butsu *" (I trust in Amitabha) with true faith, and one will be saved. As a further parallel with Protestant soteriology, Shinran also apparently taught that this faith is a gift from Amitabha to the believer, and not something which arises from within the believer himself.

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)?

Evangelicals believe that salvation is by grace alone through faith, that Christ's death and resurrection alone is the basis of their Salvation. Is this comparable to the Catholic concept of salvation?

I have many catholic friends, and lately I have been engaging them as to whether or not they believe that salvation is by grace alone. My one catholic friend, (who would label themselves as an "Ecumenical charismatic Catholic" ) agrees with me completely that salvation is by grace alone. On the other hand, another catholic friend says that salvation is by following the ten commandments, and when asked what happens when we mess up, they responded, "That's what confession is for." So my question is, is Catholicism really this broad, or is one of my catholic friends not really catholic? Also, what does Catholicism actually say? Salvation by grace alone, or by works?

At the council of Trent, the Catholic Church made several statements which seemingly reject the idea of Sola Gratia - Salvation by Grace alone. Examples include > If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not > increased before God through good works, *but that those works are > merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained*, but not the > cause of its increase, let him be anathema. And > If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and > justified, because he assuredly believed himself absolved and > justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes > himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and > justification are effected; let him be anathema More recently however, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity released the "Joint Declaration of the Doctrine of Justification" which seems to reverse this by saying that Lutherans and Catholics share "a common understanding of our justification by God's grace through faith in Christ." Does this represent an official doctrinal position by the Catholic Church and does it represent a change in Doctrine?

Historically, the five *Solae* have been a divider between Catholic and Protestant theologies. Yet, I can't help but notice that most denominations do not believe in the "alone" taken in its fullest sense. For example, The Methodist church does not believe in *sola scriptura,* but instead *[prima scriptura](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_scriptura).* Are there other Protestant denominations which reject some or all of the *solae?*

Protestants often consider the Roman Catholic church to have significantly distorted the gospel. Were there Christians prior to the Reformation who had essentially the same understanding of the doctrines of salvation (particularly _sola gratia_) as the later Reformers did? I'm interested in people between Augustine (approx. 400 AD) and Luther (1517 AD).