Most Christian will say that you ask God to forgive your sins you repent of, and ask Jesus into your heart. That simple.
Or not. From what I've read here or have listened to what a street preacher says, even as a Christian, there seems to be a lot of fine print:
You repent of your sins. If you still sin, you are not saved, you haven't really repented. Hell. Next?
You ask forgiveness of sins you have done that week at church, or daily, but you didn't willingly sin. So, maybe you sinned against you will, or did it unknowingly. Maybe the devil made you do it. And that lie you told? Well, you are forgiven, so you're good, right?
You keep the commandments, no matter how arbitrary, like men and women not wearing the same garments (like pants.) Hell. Yes, visited a church where this was stressed that the had to correct The Last Supper, so that now, even Jesus look like he went to Great Clips.
Oops! You weren't baptized baby? Sorry. Hell. Sucks to be you. Next?
You are born again. If not..hell...next?
You prove your salvation in your works, or even a co-salvation. If not, goat. Hell.
You are saved through grace.
You are saved through faith, something you do.
A list of sins that disqualify you. Yeah, gossip and slander are in it, but the focus is on one.
You've blasphemed the HS. Sure, you might not even understand what that means, but, alas. Hell. Thanks for playing.
If you haven't met these qualification, to Hell you go.
God loves you, but will send you to Hell if you don't love him in return with the same "good riddance" attitude of the person making the claim. An eternal torture for not believing in his existence and obeying for a life of at max 100 years, or as short as a day.
Oh, and btw, you might lose your salvation. So nobody's safe. As one person stated, "God drowned the whole world except one family, so..you better watch out.
i appreciate a good discussion or debate, but when I really read through this, it is not "simple," so that you enter into Heaven becoming as a child. It sounds so complicated, with so many exceptions, how can Christians preach to others how one is saved and enter into a relationship with God, if no one even agrees on how that happens, so much so, to the point of damning the other to hell?
This ended up being incredibly long, and I move through several different topics. I apologize for the length, and the unwieldiness of this post:
There are disagreements because there isn't a uniform agreement among Christians of differing traditions on the matter of soteriology--the theology of salvation.
It's probably impossible to cover all possible views and perspectives which exist, but it is possible to cover some of the larger ideas and who believes what.
Two important terms that can be helpful here are Synergism and Monergism.
Synergism, in the context of salvation, refers to the cooperation between God and man in the work of salvation.
Monergism, conversely, refers to the idea that salvation is purely the sole work of God.
Additionally, there are terms that get used a lot in these debates and discussions, but the way the terms are used aren't always the same--that is there are different understandings.
For example, all Christians speak of God's grace as being of chief importance when it comes to salvation, after all we reading countless times in the New Testament that God has and is saving us by His grace. But there is no single, undisputed definition of grace that all Christians agree upon.
One of the first major disagreements on grace was in the middle ages between the Western Church and the Eastern Church; specifically in a series of debates between the Barlaamists and the Palamists, that is between Barlaam of Calabria and Gregory Palamas. A full coverage of this topic is much too big for this post; but one of the key points was this: Are God's energies (God's acts or works) God Himself or are they created by God; and thus is grace created and thus a "power" which God uses or is God's grace God Himself. The Barlaamists, and the position taken in the West, is that Divine Grace is a created energy; the Palamists, and the position taken in the East, is that Divine Grace is God's uncreated energies. It's a complicated topic, and it might seem purely esoteric without a whole lot of ramification--but it actually has a lot of importance as we talk about the very idea of salvation and the differences between Catholics, Orthodox, and the different Protestant denominations.
I don't feel totally comfortable trying to explain the Eastern Orthodox view, but I am more comfortable talking about the theology of salvation in the West.
So if we have the idea that Grace is a created energy, then the question of "salvation by grace" means what, exactly? And so in the language and theology of Catholicism God infuses us with His grace in order to enable us to respond and cooperate with Him. God infuses His grace in us through those things which He gave His Church, preaching the word, the Sacraments, the sacramentals, and in short through an active participation in the life of the Church. Like a mother nourishing an infant, the Church is a mother through which God nourishes us with His many graces. And so, infused with God's grace, we respond and cooperate with God with faith and good works, specifically works of charity (love). We love God, we love our neighbor, we love one another, we abide in Christ's word through our obedience, humility, and love which is all sustained by God in His grace. It's not, as some mistakenly believe, that we must earn salvation by our good works; but that we must cooperate with God and His grace with faith and good works that we might continue to abide in Christ and, thus, when all is said and done we might be found justified when we stand before God in judgment and thus partake in the everlasting joy that is to come.
In the 1500's there was an Augustinian monk by the name of Martin Luther. Luther's father wanted him to go to school to become a lawyer, but one day in a thunderstorm Luther, terrified, called out and made a promise to St. Anne that if God would spare his life he would devote his life to becoming a monk. That is how he found himself in the care of Fr. Johann Staupitz, Luther's spiritual father, confessor, and the head of the Augustinian Order in Saxony. Luther was a man riddled with guilt and terror about God, and so would regularly, almost obsessively, try and confess every last sin--or even things that might be sins in his mind but really weren't sins. To the point that Fr. Staupitz once told Luther that Luther's confessions were kind of boring, not in a mocking or mean way, but as a loving father to a terrified child. It was Staupitz who consistently pointed Luther back to Christ.
Luther ended up being sent to Wittenberg to teach theology at the university there, he also continued his studies, earning his doctorate in theology. As such Luther served in Wittenberg both as a priest and a professor of theology.
I mention this back story to help better understand some of the personal background of Luther and what led to the Reformation.
While teaching and serving in Wittenberg, Saxony there were a number of traveling priests who, unbenownist to Luther at the time, were being allowed by the Archbishop (Albert of Mainz) to go around selling indulgences. The most infamous of these indulgence sellers was Johann Tetzel. While indulgences weren't new, the selling of indulgences certainly was; and was technically forbidden by the Church. However back in Rome they wanted to build a brand new basilica (what we know today as St. Peter's Basilica). So the selling of indulgences was, while wrong, not allowed, but being tacitly permitted because the money was helping to raise funds for the building of the basilica back in Rome. When Luther got wind of this he was less than thrilled, he saw it as a vile racket which was a tremendous abuse against the Church.
So in response Luther wrote out a series of arguments against the practice of the selling of indulgences which he had hoped the other academics at the university would join him in debate. He posted the invitation to debate, along with his list of arguments, on the city bulletin board--which was actually the church door in Wittenberg. These are the famous 95 Theses. Along with posting them to the church door to encourage debate, he also wrote a letter to Archbishop Albert to warn him about the indulgence sellers. What Luther didn't know was that some of his more enthusiastic students who knew Latin read the 95 Theses that were posted, and thought they should get more attention. So they translated them into German, and then went to the local publishers to publish them and distribute them. And they spread across Saxony fast. The printing press was still a very new technology, but it sure did make information spread like wildfire.
It was this that set off the chain of events that forever changed the course of Western history.
However, it wasn't the 95 Theses themselves that are all that important. Instead Luther, being faced with sharp criticism and threat of excommunication became more emboldened. In the following year, in 1518, Luther outlined a different set of theses, the 28 Theses of the Heidelberg Disputation. Where in the 95 Theses Luther outlined his arguments for why the selling of indulgences was wrong; it is the Heidelberg Disputation where Luther's theology actually shows up.
For Luther there were, basically, two Theologies: the Theology of Glory and the Theology of the Cross.
From Theses 19 and 20 of the Heidelberg Disputation:
"
19. That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the »invisible« things of God as though they were clearly »perceptible in those things which have actually happened« (Rom. 1:20; cf. 1 Cor 1:21-25).
This is apparent in the example of those who were »theologians« and still were called »fools« by the Apostle in Rom. 1:22. Furthermore, the invisible things of God are virtue, godliness, wisdom, justice, goodness, and so forth. The recognition of all these things does not make one worthy or wise.
20. He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.
The manifest and visible things of God are placed in opposition to the invisible, namely, his human nature, weakness, foolishness. The Apostle in 1 Cor. 1:25 calls them the weakness and folly of God. Because men misused the knowledge of God through works, God wished again to be recognized in suffering, and to condemn »wisdom concerning invisible things« by means of »wisdom concerning visible things«, so that those who did not honor God as manifested in his works should honor him as he is hidden in his suffering (absconditum in passionibus). As the Apostle says in 1 Cor. 1:21, »For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.« Now it is not sufficient for anyone, and it does him no good to recognize God in his glory and majesty, unless he recognizes him in the humility and shame of the cross. Thus God destroys the wisdom of the wise, as Isa. 45:15 says, »Truly, thou art a God who hidest thyself.«
So, also, in John 14:8, where Philip spoke according to the theology of glory: »Show us the Father.« Christ forthwith set aside his flighty thought about seeing God elsewhere and led him to himself, saying, »Philip, he who has seen me has seen the Father« (John 14:9). For this reason true theology and recognition of God are in the crucified Christ, as it is also stated in John 10 (John 14:6) »No one comes to the Father, but by me.« »I am the door« (John 10:9), and so forth."
And further,
"
26. The law says, »do this«, and it is never done. Grace says, »believe in this«, and everything is already done."
This becomes, in essence, the thread that runs right through all of Luther's theology; and consequently, through Lutheran theology.
This is the distinction between Law and Gospel. The Law says "Do this" but because we are sinners, we cannot do it, and so we sin, fall short of God's righteousness, and are condemned under the Law. So the Law commands what we ought to do, but then shows us that we do not do it. The Gospel, on the other hand, does not command but says "believe this", "trust this" because what it says has been done already. Christ died for us. Christ's work is already finished. God has already accomplished His work for us--we can therefore trust in that, depend upon that. It's already done, and that saves us.
The Law proclaims what cannot be done.
The Gospel proclaims what has already been done for us.
Thus nobody can be righteous under the Law.
And it is only the righteousness that is through faith, which is from Christ, by grace alone that we can be saved.
Hence the very heart of Lutheran theology is this: That we are saved by grace alone, through faith, on Christ's account alone.
God does not infuse us with His grace to enable us; rather God in His grace--in Himself, in His loving, kind, generous own self-disposition toward us--actually accomplishes our salvation objectively. He has done this once and for all through Christ's own life, death, and resurrection. So the work is already done. So then, how does Christ's finished work get applied to me that I might personally benefit from it? God accomplishes this too.
God comes to us through His Word and Sacraments, through which He Himself acts upon us, to create and give us faith, through which we receive the fullness of Christ and Christ's finished work. That is why whoever is baptized has been baptized into Christ, has been baptized into His death, buried with Him, and thus been raised with Him. That's why whoever eats and drinks the bread and wine of the Eucharist eats and drinks the body and blood of Jesus Christ, the body which was broken and the blood which was shed for us on the Cross on Calvary for the forgiveness of our sins. That is why when the Gospel is preached it is the power of God to save all who believe. Etc.
We don't come to God, God comes to us.
This is the Lutheran position (and I'm Lutheran).
But it is at this point, with the Protestant Reformation now under swing, that we begin to get other players. For example John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli who kicked off the Reformed tradition, from which we get Calvinism (and also Arminianism but that comes later). We also get a number of movements popping up all over the place, such as various Anabaptist groups, most famously the Mennonites, named after Menno Simmons.
And then, in England in the 17th century we start to see Baptists, Quakers, Shakers, and others. Methodists with John Wesley who was himself influenced by the Arminian theology of some Moravian Brethren he encountered.
The 19th century saw the rise of a diverse number of movements through explosions of Pietism and Revivalism resulting in the Holiness and later Pentecostal movements. The 20th century saw the further rise of Evangelicalism, largely influenced by the Revivalism of the 19th and early 20th centuries, from Charles Finney to Billy Sunday. This New Evangelicalism of the 20th century (Neo-Evangelicalism) was really given voice by people such as Bill Bright and Billy Graham.
And each of those groups I mentioned could be explained is as much detail as I did in discussing some of the history of Luther and Lutheran theology.
-CryptoLutheran