Regarding salvation, which of these three options do you think is most accurate?

[mmmcounts]

1. The first step of belief leads to incomplete salvation, so sanctification is a process that grants more salvation of the same kind. This requires admitting that Jesus’ death was not enough. Also that you are only partially saved. Both a bit awkward. But maybe you can deal with it.

1. The first step of belief leads to complete and total salvation. You are not partially saved, you are completely saved. 100%. The process of sanctification does not make you any more saved. If you believe you can lose your salvation, works maintain salvation, cause you to persevere, and prevent you from losing it. Whether you believe in loss of salvation or not, works are evidence of salvation. But you do not gain any more salvation, because you were fully and completely saved to begin with.

1. The first step of belief leads to complete and total salvation of one kind, and then the process of sanctification leads to a salvation of a different kind. So you have 100% of Salvation A, but you also need to get some Salvation B. Then after you die, you get Salvation C. (This one’s not so popular so far).

Believing in Jesus obviously leads to salvation by grace through faith. The remaining question is this. Is sanctification also salvation? If the answer is no, you should choose option 2. If the answer is yes, you must decide if it is more of the same salvation that was gained by grace through faith (filling up what is incomplete, if you will), or perhaps it is a different kind of salvation that must be gained in addition to the first salvation.

Anyway, what’s your choice?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

2 is most accurate. There is one sanctifying grace that is sufficient for salvation but whose habit can be deepened. When one receives “more grace” through meritorious action (aided, of course, by grace), one does not receive more through the addition of something numerically distinct but a firmer grounding in the one grace already possessed.

 

[EasterJoy]

I don’t like any of those. It makes salvation sound like a commodity…do I get it, do I not get it, can I lose it? The truth is, if you don’t recognize yourself in the person who doesn’t “have it,” you don’t “have it” yourself. Is our relationship with God something that happens in a moment, a process that takes a lifetime, a free gift from God which we cannot merit, or an act of our free will that cannot be done for us? Yes, that is it. That’s what it is.

This is my personal way of looking at it: Salvation is our actual relationship with God. If a person doesn’t live within his or her actual, eternal, and therefore unchanging relationship with God, which alone is true, that person, who is living a lie, is outside salvation. By it’s very nature, our relationship with God permeates our life. Our life does not exist outside that relationship. Our elationship with God exists whether or not we have been blessed to have had it revealed or have chosen to believe it. The difference is whether we accept it or deny what we are and who we are before God. Satan himself is master of nothing, save his own illusions. That alone demonstrates the horrific power that nothing can have.

Because humankind is not innocent, but has chosen to be its own judge of right and wrong, we can’t have a correct relationship with God without the saving death & resurrection of Jesus Christ. Even the Blessed Virgin Mary was dependent on the totally self-giving initiative of God to make a correct relationship with God possible.

The paradox of our relationship with God, the relationship which is alone our salvation, is that it involves a complete giving of ourselves to the inescapable truth that we have nothing to give before God. We give nothing to God, save our total assent to the truth that we have nothing to give, and, moreover, need everything. This is not merely an intellectual sign-on-the-dotted-line kind of faith. This is another animal altogether. This is the faith that drinks from the cup from which Our Lord drank. This is the faith that, if it be but the size of a mustard seed, is capable of moving mountains. It does not take a lot of analysis to see why. Faith puts you on the same page as God. Of course all things are possible for you! On one hand, you have nothing to give, but on the other hand, you “have” everything!

From Mary’s example, too, we see this: our relationship with God is not made manifest within the boundaries of time. If it were, how could Mary be saved from sin by the one she would give birth to? Salvation, then, can only be correctly understood from the vantage point of eternity. To God, all times are present. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, to see something is not the same as being the cause of it. Thus, free will can exist with an omnipotent God, because God is also omniscient and unbounded by time. Arguments about whether one’s salvation can be “won” and then “lost”, seen from this standpoint, are almost nonsensical.

In contrast, if you look at salvation as some commodity that you’re bartering to get from God in some point of time, either by assuming the correct state of mind or by doing the correct set of actions to please God, but which you can lose in some other point in time…well, I hope you can see why I think that the question itself is untenable. So while I know that this is a favored method of discussing a subject at least since the time of Martin Luther, I wonder if it does not do more harm than good.

OTOH, we cannot really talk about God without using analogies and metaphors, all of which break down eventually, including the ones that I happen to like. So what are we to depend on? God. Depend on God. As for philosophy, it is useful only insofar as it helps us to do that.

 

[broski234]

Believing in Jesus obviously leads to salvation by grace through faith. The remaining question is this. Is sanctification also salvation? If the answer is no, you should choose option 2. If the answer is yes, you must decide if it is more of the same salvation that was gained by grace through faith (filling up what is incomplete, if you will), or perhaps it is a different kind of salvation that must be gained in addition to the first salvation.

Anyway, what’s your choice?

Believing in Jesus obviously leads to salvation by grace alone, through faith working in love. We are justified by God’s grace. Faith and works are both necessary. It is a process!

 

[mmmcounts]

I don’t like any of those.

You have to pick one. There are two basic questions that lead you to pick one of them. First: Regarding sanctification, does it grant you salvation? If no, choose option 2. If yes, move to Question 2. Is the salvation resulting from sanctification the same as or different from the salvation received by faith when you first believe? If yes, choose option 1. If no, choose option 3.

The first question (Is salvation involved?) can be answered “yes” or “no.” There is no viable third option. The second question (Is it the same as salvation by grace through faith?) can be answered “yes” or “no.” There is no viable third option.

This is my personal way of looking at it: Salvation is our actual relationship with God.

Sounds like you’re awfully close to admitting that sanctification is a process by which we sustain our salvation rather than pick up some new salvation.

Because humankind is not innocent, but has chosen to be its own judge of right and wrong, we can’t have a correct relationship with God without the saving death & resurrection of Jesus Christ. Even the Blessed Virgin Mary was dependent on the totally self-giving initiative of God to make a correct relationship with God possible.

Ok. I’m still trying to figure out if you think sanctification grants salvation to you or not.

The paradox of our relationship with God, the relationship which is alone our salvation, is that it involves a complete giving of ourselves to the inescapable truth that we have nothing to give before God. We give nothing to God, save our total assent to the truth that we have nothing to give, and, moreover, need everything.

I agree. We need Jesus. Without Him, we wouldn’t have any chance at the grace that we are now able to have through Him- grace that is best understood as a gift we do not deserve.

C.S. Lewis pointed out, to see something is not the same as being the cause of it. Thus, free will can exist with an omnipotent God, because God is also omniscient and unbounded by time. Arguments about whether one’s salvation can be “won” and then “lost”, seen from this standpoint, are almost nonsensical.

So were you saved before you believed in Jesus? More to the point, were you born saved? Or is this just a way to avoid answering the question?

In contrast, if you look at salvation as some commodity that you’re bartering to get from God in some point of time, either by assuming the correct state of mind or by doing the correct set of actions to please God, but which you can lose in some other point in time…well, I hope you can see why I think that the question itself is untenable.

We are sinners. There are wages for sin. The wages of sin is death. Since the very first sin, the wage had to be paid. Sin had to be atoned for. That’s part of what salvation is about. The other part is about the gift. Not only do we experience mercy in not having to pay our debt resulting from sin, but we also experience grace in eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord. Everyone is born with a sin nature and everyone needs a savior. (I include this part so you don’t keep thinking I understand salvation simply as a commodity).

But not everyone will experience salvation because (1) they do not believe it/reject it or (2) they do not understand it. Since salvation is something that you depend and rely on completely and absolutely, wouldn’t it be good to make sure you understand it thoroughly?

Depend on God. As for philosophy, it is useful only insofar as it helps us to do that.

I like this quote. I might extend it to more disciplines than just philosophy- I don’t want to pick on it or anything. Still, though…Do you mind if I use this later?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Believing in Jesus obviously leads to salvation by grace through faith.

Biblically speaking, God gives us the gift of faith to believe in Jesus, because of His grace, and He alone brings us to salvation.

The remaining question is this. Is sanctification also salvation? If the answer is no, you should choose option 2. If the answer is yes, you must decide if it is more of the same salvation that was gained by grace through faith (filling up what is incomplete, if you will), or perhaps it is a different kind of salvation that must be gained in addition to the first salvation.

None of your options really work for me, sorry. Sanctification is not equivalent to salvation, but no one is sanctified apart from salvation, and no one is saved apart from sanctification. There aren’t different kinds of salvation, there is one salvation, but it is not a one-moment-in-time ‘pray a prayer, thank Jesus for dying on the cross and coming into my heart’ salvation. We hope for that which we cannot see. (Romans 8:24)

Anyway, what’s your choice?

I choose to believe that God is my judge and I do not have the ability to judge myself. I choose to pick up my cross daily and follow Him, and try to be a light on a hill top so that others may see the good works that God is working through me and glorify Him.

 

[Jacafamala]

At each moment, we’re either in a state of grace, or we aren’t. There’s no in between. If we commit a mortal sin, we fall from grace and need to be restored through a good Confession.

 

[hays1122]

At each moment, we’re either in a state of grace, or we aren’t. There’s no in between. If we commit a mortal sin, we fall from grace and need to be restored through a good Confession.

So you believe that we can lose our salvation. We have to start all over iF we commit a mortal sin. And how many chances do we get?

 

[mmmcounts]

None of your options really work for me, sorry. Sanctification is not equivalent to salvation

Sounds like option 2 so far.

but no one is sanctified apart from salvation, and no one is saved apart from sanctification.

Except that sanctification has to happen in order for someone to be saved. Interesting. Perhaps moving away from Option 2.

Wait a second, that’s a paradox. And one thing all paradoxes have in common is that upon close questioning, it always ends with saying “Hey, it’s a paradox.” Like with the unstoppable force and immovable object, for example. There’s an ancient Chinese story about a merchant selling a spear and a shield. He tells everyone the spear will penetrate any shield. Then he tells them the shield will stop any spear. Some guy in the crowd asks him what happens when you take the spear and attack a guy with the shield. The merchant had no answer.

So if no one is sanctified apart from salvation as a prerequisite, and it’s also true that no one is saved apart from sanctification…Shoot, this is kind of like trying to get job experience in some field straight out of grad school, but all the jobs require 3 years of experience. Or, better yet, some unknown unspecified amount of time.

Unless you’re saying salvation has to happen first, then sanctification, which affirms…the fact…that salvation took place before. And you already said sanctification is not equivalent to salvation. Is that closer to what you’d say?

How about this: If you were going to pick one option and revise the wording slightly, would it be option 2? It sounds like you’re leaning the direction of saying sanctification does not cause you to be saved, but it really has to be there as evidence of it. Is that getting closer?

There aren’t different kinds of salvation, there is one salvation, but it is not a one-moment-in-time ‘pray a prayer, thank Jesus for dying on the cross and coming into my heart’ salvation.

Fair enough. There’s more than praying a prayer and saying the right words once. I can agree with that. In fairness, though, “Pray a Prayer” was neither affirmed nor denied in any of the options.

But then again, there was the underlying assumption that salvation happens by grace through faith when someone decides to believe on Jesus and be saved, turn their life over to Christ, repent believe and be saved…any of the above. I kind of took it for granted that no Catholic would be caught saying “No, when I made the decision to believe in Jesus and repent of my sins asking for forgiveness, I wasn’t expecting salvation to happen. That comes later.” I don’t think you actually want to say that, but if you’d like to adjust the underlying assumptions concerning the point of decision, repentance, forgiveness, and receiving the Holy Spirit, that’s totally valid. I probably was a little too vague with those details, and it would be interesting to see how someone else would word it. Especially since I didn’t put a huge amount of thought and precision into it like I did with some of the later questions. Maybe that would help me express the idea better.

Anyway, that last part makes it sound a little more like number one. But overall, I’d lean toward number 2 with slight changes to the preconditions. All I know for sure so far is that you don’t like number three.

I’m still curious enough about you to ask a few more questions. Would you call yourself saved? In other words, if you died tonight, do you know where you’d spend eternity?

At what point in the process can someone say they are saved? And again, by “saved” I mean their faith is not misplaced. This is the kind of person who has assurance that what they hope for will come about and the certainty that what they cannot see will come to pass. (And then, of course, it does. But it’s not a surprise; they knew it would all along). That’s faith.

What does it take for a person to be able to say with confidence (or know with certainty? How about that?) that their faith is not misplaced? Have you gotten to that point? If so, when did it happen for you? If not, what would it take?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I’m still curious enough about you to ask a few more questions. Would you call yourself saved? In other words, if you died tonight, do you know where you’d spend eternity?

At what point in the process can someone say they are saved? And again, by “saved” I mean their faith is not misplaced. This is the kind of person who has assurance that what they hope for will come about and the certainty that what they cannot see will come to pass. (And then, of course, it does. But it’s not a surprise; they knew it would all along). That’s faith.

What does it take for a person to be able to say with confidence (or know with certainty? How about that?) that their faith is not misplaced? Have you gotten to that point? If so, when did it happen for you? If not, what would it take?

In one manner of speaking, sanctification is inseparable from salvation - there’s a reason we call the grace that saves us “sanctifying grace.” The way salvation works is that God moves the soul to dispose it towards His grace, then the soul cooperates with His action to accept grace (i.e. He moves the will and the will moves itself), the grace accepted places the soul in proper relationship to God and purifies it - it sanctifies and saves at the same time. Grace, however, is a “habit,” and habits can be more or less ingrained in a person (e.g., I typically do x in situation a, but I always do y in situation b), so the more we cooperate with grace (and the more meritorious the cooperation is), the more deeply ingrained that habit becomes, meaning that we are freed from sinful inclination to a greater extent and thus further sanctified. In this sense, they come separately.

Loosely speaking, one is “saved” when they have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, i.e. sanctifying grace. But no one can know whether God has predestined one to persevere in that grace, because to some grace is given only for a time (after which they fall from grace). Because of this it would be most accurate to speak of being saved only once the will has become fixed (at death). It is impossible to have absolute certainty as to whether one has grace or not, but it is possible to have a solid hope, shall we say “certain hope,” because one is unaware of being in a state of mortal sin after baptism - God has told us about the means of grace and how we might lose it, so if to the best of our knowledge we ought to have grace we are justified in believing this to be the case.

 

[Jacafamala]

So you believe that we can lose our salvation.

It’s what the Church teaches, and what’s been handed down via the Church fathers. This is what I believe.

We have to start all over iF we commit a mortal sin. And how many chances do we get?

Morning by morning new mercies I see…

 

[MariaG]

Believing in Jesus obviously leads to salvation by grace through faith. The remaining question is this. Is sanctification also salvation? If the answer is no, you should choose option 2. If the answer is yes, you must decide if it is more of the same salvation that was gained by grace through faith (filling up what is incomplete, if you will), or perhaps it is a different kind of salvation that must be gained in addition to the first salvation.

Anyway, what’s your choice?

1990 Justification detaches man from sin which contradicts the love of God, and purifies his heart of sin. Justification follows upon God’s merciful initiative of offering forgiveness. It reconciles man with God. It frees from the enslavement to sin, and it heals.

2019 Justification includes the remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner man.

1995 The Holy Spirit is the master of the interior life. By giving birth to the “inner man,” justification entails the sanctification of his whole being:
Just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification. . . . But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.

Since justification includes sanctification, it would appear as if I agree with number one? If “include” means the same to you as is sanctification also salvation.

However, I know from past discussions, that Catholic definitions of sanctification are not always the same as non-Catholic.

So I guess my answer is

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Jacafamala]

In one manner of speaking, sanctification is inseparable from salvation - there’s a reason we call the grace that saves us “sanctifying grace.” The way salvation works is that God moves the soul to dispose it towards His grace, then the soul cooperates with His action to accept grace (i.e. He moves the will and the will moves itself), the grace accepted places the soul in proper relationship to God and purifies it - it sanctifies and saves at the same time. Grace, however, is a “habit,” and habits can be more or less ingrained in a person (e.g., I typically do x in situation a, but I always do y in situation b), so the more we cooperate with grace (and the more meritorious the cooperation is), the more deeply ingrained that habit becomes, meaning that we are freed from sinful inclination to a greater extent and thus further sanctified. In this sense, they come separately.

Loosely speaking, one is “saved” when they have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, i.e. sanctifying grace. But no one can know whether God has predestined one to persevere in that grace, because to some grace is given only for a time (after which they fall from grace). Because of this it would be most accurate to speak of being saved only once the will has become fixed (at death). It is impossible to have absolute certainty as to whether one has grace or not, but it is possible to have a solid hope, shall we say “certain hope,” because one is unaware of being in a state of mortal sin after baptism - God has told us about the means of grace and how we might lose it, so if to the best of our knowledge we ought to have grace we are justified in believing this to be the case.

It’s completely possible for a well formed Catholic to know whether he’s in a state of grace–or not. Mortal sin involves serious matter, full knowledge and consent. In other words, you have to know that what you’re doing will cause a total rejection of your friendship with God in order to fall from a state of grace.

 

[Vincent]

Anyway, what’s your choice?

The misunderstanding Protestants get into when they look at the Catholic doctrines of initial justification(/sanctification) and progressive justification(/sanctification) is caused by the assumption that Catholic thought on these issues is dominated by the same legal vs. behavioral understanding of righteousness that Protestant thought is dominated by . . .

Because the Protestant’s thought world is dominated—so far as the idea of righteousness goes—by the concepts of legal and behavioral righteousness, he naturally assumes that when Catholic theologians are thinking about righteousness in the same sort of way. This is the false premise the cases the entire argument to go askew . . .

—Jimmy Akin
​

​

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

It’s completely possible for a well formed Catholic to know whether he’s in a state of grace–or not. Mortal sin involves serious matter, full knowledge and consent. In other words, you have to know that what you’re doing will cause a total rejection of your friendship with God in order to fall from a state of grace.

It’s impossible for a Catholic to know with 100% certainty that he has grace. Check the Council of Trent:

Sess. 6, Decree Concerning Justification, Ch. IX: “no one can know with the certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God”

As I said and I think you were gesturing towards, we can certainly have very well-founded hope when to the best of our knowledge we should have grace, but that doesn’t give us certainty. We could be lying to ourselves about the gravity of our sins, the depth of our contrition, etc. Only God can read our hearts with certainty. As Paul himself said (1 Cor 4:3-4): “But to me it is a very small thing to be judged by you, or by man’s day; but neither do I judge my own self. For I am not conscious to myself of any thing, yet am I not hereby justified; but he that judgeth me, is the Lord.”

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Unless you’re saying salvation has to happen first, then sanctification, which affirms…the fact…that salvation took place before. And you already said sanctification is not equivalent to salvation. Is that closer to what you’d say?

How about this: If you were going to pick one option and revise the wording slightly, would it be option 2? It sounds like you’re leaning the direction of saying sanctification does not cause you to be saved, but it really has to be there as evidence of it. Is that getting closer?

The grace and mercy of Almighty God causes me to have been saved nearly 2000 years ago when Christ died on the cross for my sins, the same grace and mercy is the reason that I am being saved as daily He conforms me to the image of His Son, and that same grace and mercy is how I will be completely and fully saved eternally when He brings me into His Presence at the end of this temporal life.

Fair enough. There’s more than praying a prayer and saying the right words once. I can agree with that. In fairness, though, “Pray a Prayer” was neither affirmed nor denied in any of the options.

Yes, but you’re still thinking of salvation as a one time, “Do ____ and be saved.” The Scriptures actually speak of many things that we must do in order to be saved, and they don’t all happen at the same moment in time.

By Believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)- this is the ONLY thing ‘necessary’ for salvation, according to my former denomination.

By Repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9) - this was not taught as a means of salvation, but rather the action of a person who IS saved. Scripture says otherwise.

By Baptism (John 3:5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5) - Oh no no no, never ever was I taught that baptism was salvific. It’s the first step in obedience for a new believer, but absolutely not a means of salvation. Scripture says otherwise.

By the work of the Spirit (John 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6) - yes, but everyone has their own ideas about when and how the Spirit works to bring us to salvation. Is it at the moment we ask Jesus into our hearts, or when we’re baptized with water, or at another time?

By declaring with our mouths (Luke 12:8; Rom 10:9) - yep, pray the Sinner’s Prayer and you’ll be saved! That’s what they told me and continued to tell others. Just pray this prayer and accept Jesus as your personal Saviour. Scripture never says to “accept Jesus as your personal Saviour.”

By coming to a knowledge of the Truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26) - I think this ties in with “the work of the Spirit” convicting us of our need for a Saviour.

By Works (Rom 2:6, 7; James 2:21, 24-25) - again, not ever was I taught that we are saved by our works. That contradicts the idea of grace! But boy oh boy was there a list of works that we “should” be doing as Christians.

By Grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)

By His blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)

By His righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)

By His cross (Eph 2:16; Col 2:14)

The last four are beliefs that I can say were taught in my former Baptist church, but the means of that grace were invisible, intangible. His righteous, sinless life, and His blood, shed on the cross, are what made it possible for me to BE saved. Occasionally, we’d remember that shed blood and broken body with a symbolic memorial service. I was never taught that Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” and that He really MEANT it.

I’m still curious enough about you to ask a few more questions. Would you call yourself saved? In other words, if you died tonight, do you know where you’d spend eternity?

I have been saved, I am being saved, and I will be saved because I have full confidence in the promises of Christ.

At what point in the process can someone say they are saved? And again, by “saved” I mean their faith is not misplaced. This is the kind of person who has assurance that what they hope for will come about and the certainty that what they cannot see will come to pass. (And then, of course, it does. But it’s not a surprise; they knew it would all along). That’s faith.

What does it take for a person to be able to say with confidence (or know with certainty? How about that?) that their faith is not misplaced? Have you gotten to that point? If so, when did it happen for you? If not, what would it take?

When I’m in Heaven.

 

[Jacafamala]

It’s impossible for a Catholic to know with 100% certainty that he has grace. Check the Council of Trent:

Sess. 6, Decree Concerning Justification, Ch. IX: “no one can know with the certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God”

As I said and I think you were gesturing towards, we can certainly have very well-founded hope when to the best of our knowledge we should have grace, but that doesn’t give us certainty. We could be lying to ourselves about the gravity of our sins, the depth of our contrition, etc. Only God can read our hearts with certainty. As Paul himself said (1 Cor 4:3-4): “But to me it is a very small thing to be judged by you, or by man’s day; but neither do I judge my own self. For I am not conscious to myself of any thing, yet am I not hereby justified; but he that judgeth me, is the Lord.”

It’s entirely possible for any well formed Catholic to know if they’ve commited a mortal sin, that’s all I’m saying.

 

[MariaG]

The misunderstanding Protestants get into when they look at the Catholic doctrines of initial justification(/sanctification) and progressive justification(/sanctification) is caused by the assumption that Catholic thought on these issues is dominated by the same legal vs. behavioral understanding of righteousness that Protestant thought is dominated by . . .

Because the Protestant’s thought world is dominated—so far as the idea of righteousness goes—by the concepts of legal and behavioral righteousness, he naturally assumes that when Catholic theologians are thinking about righteousness in the same sort of way. This is the false premise the cases the entire argument to go askew . . .

—Jimmy Akin

​

This is so absolutely true.

 

[benedictus2]

Believing in Jesus obviously leads to salvation by grace through faith. The remaining question is this. Is sanctification also salvation? If the answer is no, you should choose option 2. If the answer is yes, you must decide if it is more of the same salvation that was gained by grace through faith (filling up what is incomplete, if you will), or perhaps it is a different kind of salvation that must be gained in addition to the first salvation.

Anyway, what’s your choice?

Here’s a question. When did you stop beating your wife?

 

[1holycatholic]

Believing in Jesus obviously leads to salvation by grace through faith. The remaining question is this. Is sanctification also salvation? If the answer is no, you should choose option 2. If the answer is yes, you must decide if it is more of the same salvation that was gained by grace through faith (filling up what is incomplete, if you will), or perhaps it is a different kind of salvation that must be gained in addition to the first salvation.

Why can’t I find your beliefs in the writings of the early Christians, say the first 250 years?