this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2025
879 points (99.3% liked)
People Twitter
8058 readers
559 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.