If Mary was born without original sin and remained sinless, even so Jesus was her savior, for she said, > “My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my > Savior..." (Luke 1:46-47) What do Catholics claim that Mary needed to be saved from? I imagine natural disasters, murderers, and Satan might be in the list, plus the grief of seeing her son executed. What does the church teach?

What Bible passages affirm that God determines, prior to their birth, whether each person will end up in the New Jerusalem or in the lake of fire? The Bible is clear that some people were predestined to spend eternity in the New Jerusalem. But the Bible is not clear that the fate of everyone else is also predetermined. I expected to find this question asked and answered multiple times in the past, but I was unable to find this. Ephesians 1:4-5 ESV >Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, Ephesians 1:5 ESV >He predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, Romans 8:29 ESV >For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. Romans 8:28-30 ESV >And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

>For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God - Ephesians 2:8. >No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day - John 6:44. There are other passages that say that we are saved through faith and other passages that say that God calls us to salvation, but I've found no passage that mentions both. So is it reasonable that the way God calls/draws to salvation is by giving faith? I look for answers from the point of view of those who believe that both Bible verses are talking about salvation. I am very pleased that I have received answers from a number of different perspectives. If I have to choose one, I will choose the recommended *sola fide*, especially since I already have excellent answers for Reformed Theology. **Conclusion:** God's saving call is the Gospel message we'd probably already heard. The difference is that God opens our spiritual ears to accept that call. The Gospel message heard through spiritual ears produces Faith. This is the relationship between God's call and Faith, and this is the way that Faith is the gift of God. My thanks to you all for reopening this question.

We are told that God calls, but is there any denomination which describes the nature of that call? >9 God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord - 1 Cor.1:9. 24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God - 1 Cor.1:24. For instance, if it is a voice in our mind , what does it say? Or if it's an urge, what are we urged to do? **Summarizing the answers** - God's saving call is the Gospel message we'd probably already heard. The difference is that God opens our spiritual ears to accept that call.

From what I understand, Calvin not only taught, but effectively systematized the doctrine of "predestinarianism," which holds that: >God for His own glorification, and without any regard to original sin, >has created some as "vessels of mercy", others as "vessels of wrath". >Those created for hell He has also predestined for sin, and whatever faith >and righteousness they may exhibit are at most only apparent, since all >graces and means of salvation are efficacious only in those predestined for >heaven. (From the Catholic Encyclopedia article on predestinarianism .) 1. Is strict Calvinism so extreme that it says God created certain souls as "vessels of wrath" destined for destruction? 2. If so, then what criteria did Calvin say a person could use to determine whether they personally were created for salvation or destruction?

Of course many (if not most) denominations believe that what they teach and believe as doctrine critical to salvation is, in fact, critical to salvation. Most denominations also teach and believe many doctrines that they will admit as being 'secondary' and debatable or uncertain. Often a doctrine critical in one denomination is secondary in another. In my experience most official members of particular denominations, while not asserting that only they are completely correct, would be comfortable as classifying their denomination as 'the most correct'. Most folks would not assert that *only* their denomination can attain salvation however, since theirs is *most correct*, they would be comfortable asserting that, when all come to face to face with God, they will all come 'round to that *most correct* view. My question is: Are there denominations that officially teach that God will have respect toward one denomination over another such that one denomination gets a 'blanket pass' based upon membership whereas others might undergo individual evaluation?

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.

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.