Protestants believe you need to have faith in Christ to be saved, and that will lead you to wanting to do good works. They’re basically Catholics, but without the church institutions being central to salvation.
For Catholics and many other churches, you need to be baptised to be saved. For Catholicism specifically, this is done by your parents while a child, but it is also required for converts to be saved.
Born again Christians require a profession of faith and repentence. That’s not a high bar there, but it’s still a thing you need to do.
Calvinists believe in predestination, meaning your salvation is already determined, believe that those who will be saved will demonstrate certain behaviours, thus encouraging people to do things to convince themselves they’re part of that elite group.
So generally speaking, Christians believe you need to do something to be saved.
I think the idea of grace is - there are no good works good enough to warrant eternal salvation, right? No human person is really that good, and we live in a temporal world, our works are temporary. So only by grace can you get something so out of proportion to what you can do.
Like, you can’t do something here that really would earn you eternal damnation, even blowing up the earth isn’t as bad as sentencing someone to ETERNAL damnation. But still it is threatened for human level failings.
Yes, grace is to cover for natural human failings (Romans 3: 23-24). But we also need to do our part to show our faith (James 2:14-26). It is the faith that saves you, but it is works that keep that faith alive. Works alone (going through the motions) isn’t sufficient, nor is faith alone, though we are judged based on our faith and not our works, that much seems clear.
you can’t do something here that really would earn you eternal damnation
I don’t think that’s consistent with the majority of religious thought. For example, Judas Iscariot is commonly accepted as having been damned, so surely there is something you can do to earn eternal damnation, according to Protestantism. In fact, the rule here seems to be pretty simple, to earn damnation, you need to not accept Jesus as your savior, and it seems that, given 1 Peter 3:19-20, you have a chance at that after this life (i.e. if you would’ve accepted Jesus in life, you receive salvation even if you didn’t have the opportunity in life). You don’t get damnation for regular sin, only for that denial.
My personal belief here is a bit different than the protestant one. I don’t think the Bible really supports there being one heaven and one hell, but instead something like this:
damnation/hell - completely cut off from God because you never accepted him in the first place
spirit prison - some kind of holding place where you await judgement and are given a chance to accept Jesus if you didn’t have it in life
heaven - reward for your faith in life, and the reward likely includes some form of additional progression/learning (God is truth, so life with God means life w/ truth, i.e. learning)
The Bible isn’t clear on what the next life is actually like, but it does seem to imply there’s something comparable to this life after we die, provided we exercise faith in Jesus (else why would we need a resurrection?). I think the top priority for God is to ensure we’re comfortable in the next life, so putting someone who denied Jesus in his presence for eternity wouldn’t really fit, they’d instead feel more comfortable away from God’s presence, and the “suffering” is probably largely based on knowing what they could have had (i.e. guilt).
That’s my take reading between the lines. But the important part is generally agreeing that faith is the most import and works are merely there to reinforce that faith, and that we’ll be rewarded based on our faith, not our works.
Well protestant can mean anything from high Anglican to happy clappy Pentecostal.
The big realisation by Martin Luther that led to Protestantism was that it was all about grace and nothing else matters. There are other things (fruits, works, call them what you will), but none of them lead to salvation - only grace. That is the very core of Protestant Christianity in all its forms.
My point is that faith is still something you need to cultivate, and that’s what leads to salvation. According to Protestants, Joe Blow who has never heard about Jesus isn’t saved because he hasn’t attained the faith needed to receive that grace. Maybe you don’t need a baptismal service or other ritual to be saved, but you do need faith.
If grace truly was all that was needed, what’s the point of these churches existing, and who doesn’t get salvation? Protestants certainly have a concept of hell, so there’s certainly something you need to do to avoid it (believe in Jesus and that he has saved you).
Absolutely true, but faith and grace is apart from works.
Remember the 2 guys crucified next to Jesus. One had faith in Jesus and was told he would be with him in paradise. He had no chance to exercise works, no chance to be baptised or anything of the like, but he is in heaven anyway.
Church, in it’s true sense, becomes a natural (and perhaps unavoidable) extension of being saved by grace. It is not the means by which you are saved, but just something that happens as a result.
I understand “works” to be outward expressions of belief, such as Communion, baptism, service to others, etc, and does not include inward changes like faith, repentance, etc. My understanding is that Protestants believe some form of internal change needs to happen before one attains salvation.
None of what follows is particularly relevant to the original discussion, it’s just a follow-up to something you said.
One had faith in Jesus and was told he would be with him in paradise.
the thief was likely a Jew, so Jesus would’ve used Jewish terminology
the Jewish afterlife had multiple levels, the top of which had saints waiting to enter heaven once the Messiah came
Jesus didn’t ascend to heaven until after the resurrection, and before doing so went to spirit prison (Catholic purgatory; see 1 Peter 3:19-20)
heaven wasn’t “open” until his ascension, so the thief couldn’t have gone there
I think Luke 23:43 is reassurance to the thief that he’ll have a chance to be taught, believe in Christ, and repent. The Catholics call this state purgatory, but many Christian denominations don’t believe in that (me included, at least not the Catholic description). My point, however, is that Jesus does seem to be referring to some temporary place for people waiting for Christ to teach them and allow them into heaven. In Lutheran terminology, this would be hell, but perhaps a part of hell where redeemable people are (e.g. not the devil, but people who didn’t have the chance to accept Christ). I don’t know a ton about Lutheran theology, but it seems from 1 Peter 3:19-20 that some still have a chance after death to accept Christ.
You’re correct that about protestants believing in the internal change. “Works” are a natural result of that internal change, but are not enough. Luther’s kind of “Eureka” moment was realising that we can do nothing to get into heaven and that it was grace and grace alone.
I cannot talk about all branches of Protestantism as I only know pentecostal (more specifically Assemblies of God) and low Anglicanism, but to my understanding is that communion/baptism or a separate thing to service/charity/etc (liturgy and works perhaps?), neither of which have any bearing on salvation. Having said that, Jesus did tell us to be baptised and take communion.
As for the purgatory stuff, the general teaching that I have heard is that Jesus went “down” in to Hell for that time before resurrection. As far as I know, only Catholics believe in purgatory (perhaps Orthodox too, I know next to nothing about them unfortunately). In any case, I have always understood that Jesus was talking about heaven and that there is only heaven, earth and hell with no intermediary stages. I will have to have a think about that passage in 1 Peter though, I agree that it can be interpreted that way.
Having said all that, maybe I should put out my standard disclaimer: I am not a theologian, but an engineer who has been Christian for 30+ years and has good education. Take everything I say with that in mind.
Protestants believe you need to have faith in Christ to be saved, and that will lead you to wanting to do good works. They’re basically Catholics, but without the church institutions being central to salvation.
For Catholics and many other churches, you need to be baptised to be saved. For Catholicism specifically, this is done by your parents while a child, but it is also required for converts to be saved.
Born again Christians require a profession of faith and repentence. That’s not a high bar there, but it’s still a thing you need to do.
Calvinists believe in predestination, meaning your salvation is already determined, believe that those who will be saved will demonstrate certain behaviours, thus encouraging people to do things to convince themselves they’re part of that elite group.
So generally speaking, Christians believe you need to do something to be saved.
I think the idea of grace is - there are no good works good enough to warrant eternal salvation, right? No human person is really that good, and we live in a temporal world, our works are temporary. So only by grace can you get something so out of proportion to what you can do.
Like, you can’t do something here that really would earn you eternal damnation, even blowing up the earth isn’t as bad as sentencing someone to ETERNAL damnation. But still it is threatened for human level failings.
Yes, grace is to cover for natural human failings (Romans 3: 23-24). But we also need to do our part to show our faith (James 2:14-26). It is the faith that saves you, but it is works that keep that faith alive. Works alone (going through the motions) isn’t sufficient, nor is faith alone, though we are judged based on our faith and not our works, that much seems clear.
I don’t think that’s consistent with the majority of religious thought. For example, Judas Iscariot is commonly accepted as having been damned, so surely there is something you can do to earn eternal damnation, according to Protestantism. In fact, the rule here seems to be pretty simple, to earn damnation, you need to not accept Jesus as your savior, and it seems that, given 1 Peter 3:19-20, you have a chance at that after this life (i.e. if you would’ve accepted Jesus in life, you receive salvation even if you didn’t have the opportunity in life). You don’t get damnation for regular sin, only for that denial.
My personal belief here is a bit different than the protestant one. I don’t think the Bible really supports there being one heaven and one hell, but instead something like this:
The Bible isn’t clear on what the next life is actually like, but it does seem to imply there’s something comparable to this life after we die, provided we exercise faith in Jesus (else why would we need a resurrection?). I think the top priority for God is to ensure we’re comfortable in the next life, so putting someone who denied Jesus in his presence for eternity wouldn’t really fit, they’d instead feel more comfortable away from God’s presence, and the “suffering” is probably largely based on knowing what they could have had (i.e. guilt).
That’s my take reading between the lines. But the important part is generally agreeing that faith is the most import and works are merely there to reinforce that faith, and that we’ll be rewarded based on our faith, not our works.
Well protestant can mean anything from high Anglican to happy clappy Pentecostal.
The big realisation by Martin Luther that led to Protestantism was that it was all about grace and nothing else matters. There are other things (fruits, works, call them what you will), but none of them lead to salvation - only grace. That is the very core of Protestant Christianity in all its forms.
Sure.
My point is that faith is still something you need to cultivate, and that’s what leads to salvation. According to Protestants, Joe Blow who has never heard about Jesus isn’t saved because he hasn’t attained the faith needed to receive that grace. Maybe you don’t need a baptismal service or other ritual to be saved, but you do need faith.
If grace truly was all that was needed, what’s the point of these churches existing, and who doesn’t get salvation? Protestants certainly have a concept of hell, so there’s certainly something you need to do to avoid it (believe in Jesus and that he has saved you).
Absolutely true, but faith and grace is apart from works.
Remember the 2 guys crucified next to Jesus. One had faith in Jesus and was told he would be with him in paradise. He had no chance to exercise works, no chance to be baptised or anything of the like, but he is in heaven anyway.
Church, in it’s true sense, becomes a natural (and perhaps unavoidable) extension of being saved by grace. It is not the means by which you are saved, but just something that happens as a result.
I understand “works” to be outward expressions of belief, such as Communion, baptism, service to others, etc, and does not include inward changes like faith, repentance, etc. My understanding is that Protestants believe some form of internal change needs to happen before one attains salvation.
None of what follows is particularly relevant to the original discussion, it’s just a follow-up to something you said.
It is highly likely that Jesus was referring to Jewish “sheol” or something like Catholic purgatory, not Christian heaven. Here’s a Catholic perspective that cites Lutheran scholars, but basically here are the arguments:
I think Luke 23:43 is reassurance to the thief that he’ll have a chance to be taught, believe in Christ, and repent. The Catholics call this state purgatory, but many Christian denominations don’t believe in that (me included, at least not the Catholic description). My point, however, is that Jesus does seem to be referring to some temporary place for people waiting for Christ to teach them and allow them into heaven. In Lutheran terminology, this would be hell, but perhaps a part of hell where redeemable people are (e.g. not the devil, but people who didn’t have the chance to accept Christ). I don’t know a ton about Lutheran theology, but it seems from 1 Peter 3:19-20 that some still have a chance after death to accept Christ.
You’re correct that about protestants believing in the internal change. “Works” are a natural result of that internal change, but are not enough. Luther’s kind of “Eureka” moment was realising that we can do nothing to get into heaven and that it was grace and grace alone.
I cannot talk about all branches of Protestantism as I only know pentecostal (more specifically Assemblies of God) and low Anglicanism, but to my understanding is that communion/baptism or a separate thing to service/charity/etc (liturgy and works perhaps?), neither of which have any bearing on salvation. Having said that, Jesus did tell us to be baptised and take communion.
As for the purgatory stuff, the general teaching that I have heard is that Jesus went “down” in to Hell for that time before resurrection. As far as I know, only Catholics believe in purgatory (perhaps Orthodox too, I know next to nothing about them unfortunately). In any case, I have always understood that Jesus was talking about heaven and that there is only heaven, earth and hell with no intermediary stages. I will have to have a think about that passage in 1 Peter though, I agree that it can be interpreted that way.
Having said all that, maybe I should put out my standard disclaimer: I am not a theologian, but an engineer who has been Christian for 30+ years and has good education. Take everything I say with that in mind.