Next Article in Journal
The Environmental Gaze of Mission: Nigerian Landscapes Through the Lens of Dutch Missionary Photography (1960–1968)
Previous Article in Journal
Transcending the Boundary Between the Religious and the Secular: The Sacralization of the Person in Korea’s 1970s Protestant Democratization Movement
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Love Supreme: Love’s Associations with Well-Being, Anxiety, Depression, and Spirituality
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Religions
Volume 16
Issue 6
10.3390/rel16060757
religions-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Christian Beliefs About Salvation: Measurement and Associations with Mental Health and Well-Being

by
Anthony Edward Rose
1,* and
Timothy B. Smith
2,*
1
Psychology Department, Calvin University, Grand Rapids, MI 49546, USA
2
Counseling Psychology Department, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Religions 2025, 16(6), 757; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16060757
Submission received: 1 May 2025 / Revised: 27 May 2025 / Accepted: 7 June 2025 / Published: 11 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Spirituality as Core to Mental Health and Wellbeing; Cultivating Awareness in Interventions)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Religious beliefs influence many behaviors and perspectives relevant to well-being and mental health. In Christianity, beliefs about how one attains salvation may be particularly relevant to psychology, but limited scholarship has considered cognitive aspects of religiosity. This study developed and evaluated a new measure of Beliefs about Salvation (BAS) that assesses affirmations of salvation (a) by God’s grace alone and (b) by God’s grace after human repentance/ordinances, as understood by different Christian denominations. We examined the association of the BAS with three measures of mental health and six measures of influences on religiosity. In a sample of 1556 predominantly members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Protestant Christians, which traditionally hold distinct views about the roles of divine grace and human works/ordinances necessary for salvation, the BAS data demonstrated evidence of reliability and validity in exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses with two subscales, faith and works. Neither BAS subscale was significantly associated with the other variables measured in this study, except for religious legalism, which was negatively correlated with faith and positively correlated with works. Additional analyses indicated that six measures of influences on religiosity were moderately associated with one another and tended to be more strongly associated with mental health than religious involvement, with spiritual transcendence being the most strongly correlated with well-being. Psychological research can benefit from evaluating multiple aspects of religiosity, including inquiry about the psychological influence of specific religious beliefs.

1. Introduction

Religion and spirituality are complex and multidimensional constructs within the purview of psychology and psychotherapy (Koç 2024; Koenig et al. 2015; Paloutzian and Park 2021; Slife and Reber 2009; Smith et al. 2026). Researchers have commonly divided religious variables into three dimensions: behavioral (e.g., practices), affective (e.g., feelings of guilt, fulfillment), and cognitive (e.g., doctrinal beliefs) (Larson et al. 1998; C. L. Park 2017; Stewart and Koeske 2006). Interestingly, the majority of psychological research has tended to focus on the behavioral and affective, rather than the cognitive, dimensions of religion (Ellison et al. 2009; Hempel et al. 2012; C. L. Park 2017).
Religion and spirituality have primarily been studied in terms of denominational affiliation, church attendance, fasting, prayer, meditation, guilt, forgiveness, and intrinsic/extrinsic religiosity, rather than beliefs (Flannelly 2017). Even when religious beliefs are considered, they are often assessed broadly (e.g., simple belief in God or the afterlife; C. Park 2020). Examples of specific doctrinal beliefs neglected in the literature include those of Judaism (e.g., covenant identity, divine law), Christianity (e.g., original sin), Islam (e.g., quadar), Hinduism (e.g., karma), and Buddhism (e.g., samsara). Very few empirical studies explore the possible impact of specific religious beliefs on mental health.
The degree to which religious beliefs relate to mental health is an important aspect of psychology and mental health counseling (Smith et al. 2026). Consideration of religious and spiritual issues should not be seen as a niche or specialty within counseling, but as part of our general competence as clinicians (Sargeant and Yoxall 2023; Vieten and Lukoff 2022), as acknowledged by the American Psychological Association (2017). Researchers have argued that specific religious beliefs hold a primary place in faith traditions and communities (Koenig et al. 2012; Sherkat 2008). Indeed, much of the uniqueness of the world religions comes from their distinct belief systems, rather than solely their behavioral and affective artifacts, which are arguably less distinguishing (Pérez and Rohde 2022; Slattery and Park 2012).
Scholars’ neglect of the cognitive dimension of religion is therefore unfortunate, because “understanding the role of religious beliefs on psychological functioning is essential for understanding people and for promoting well-being” (C. L. Park 2017, p. 446). If researchers and clinicians seek to fully explore religious life, they must tap into the cognitive dimension of religion, namely religious beliefs.

1.1. Christian Beliefs About Salvation by Faith or Works

The present study sought to explore the relationship between the cognitive dimension of religion and mental health, specifically focusing on beliefs about salvation within Christianity. Doctrines of salvation, in a Christian context, refer to one’s beliefs about how they attain eternal life (i.e., how to be admitted to heaven after death). Beliefs about salvation were chosen as the object of study as they are considered among the most consequential beliefs for Christians (Flannelly et al. 2008; Pew Research Center 2015). Stated in psychological terms, the anticipation of salvation in the afterlife is essentially an expectation for infinite/eternal well-being. It stands to reason that an individual’s attention to such an ultimate concern may be relevant to present levels of well-being (e.g., Oio 2023).
In contemporary Christianity, there are two major perspectives of how one attains salvation: by faith in Jesus Christ alone (apart from any action/works), or by faith in Jesus Christ along with additional necessary human works/behaviors (i.e., sacraments, ordinances, service, obedience to commandments). Historically, these two views have been associated with major schisms in the church, most notably the Reformation (Ferguson 2016; Rausch 1996). To evaluate the associations of different beliefs about salvation within Christianity, two groups known to differ in their beliefs about salvation were held in focus: Protestant/Evangelical Christians, who generally believe in faith alone for salvation, and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (in prior decades labeled Mormons), who believe in salvation by faith accompanied by repentance and ordinances. Interestingly, the historic Protestant position of justification by “faith alone”, with no personal action being necessary or contributing in any way to one’s justification, is arguably unique among world religions (Keller 2011; White 2007). This makes examination of Protestant beliefs particularly interesting for human psychology, along with a contrast group of Latter-day Saints whose beliefs regarding salvation differ markedly.
If it was only the behavioral or affective dimensions of religion being examined (e.g., reading the Bible, practicing prayer, tithing, worshiping in church), denominations with different beliefs, such as Protestants/Evangelicals and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, may appear very similar (Smith and Denton 2009). However, since this study focuses on the cognitive aspect of religion, examining variations in beliefs about salvation by intentionally sampling different denominations should provide researchers with data less susceptible to floor and ceiling effects characterizing samples obtained from a single religious population.

1.2. Theoretical Implications of Beliefs About Salvation

Belief systems about salvation based on faith alone or inclusive of works have theoretical psychological associations. It is a common assumption that believing in salvation by faith alone could encourage moral laxity (Ferguson 2016; Johnson and VanVonderen 2005; Keller 2011; Prager 2018; Wallace 1984). From this perspective, if someone believes in faith alone for salvation, religious involvement (e.g., attending church, praying, reading scripture) and moral behavior (e.g., honesty, altruism) could be considered less important, since they are not required for salvation. At the same time, belief in salvation by faith alone may consequently entail less maladaptive guilt or legalism, with positive mental health associations (Abramowitz et al. 2002).
On the other end of the spectrum, individuals whose theology emphasizes salvation based in part on personal actions may demonstrate above-average levels of maladaptive perfectionism and scrupulosity (Adams 2018; Allen and Wang 2014; Allen et al. 2023; Crosby et al. 2011; Williams 1999). For instance, legalistic beliefs among Latter-day Saints (i.e., beliefs that one must work to earn/merit grace for salvation) have been found to mediate the positive effects of belief in divine grace; the more legalistic one is, the less beliefs in divine grace appear beneficial (Judd et al. 2020).
Thus, beliefs about salvation appear theoretically linked to numerous clinically salient mental health and behavioral variables, such as perfectionism (Allen and Wang 2014; Allen et al. 2023), scrupulosity (Allen et al. 2015), and religious involvement (George et al. 2002), among others. Overall, while researchers, therapists, and theologians have intuitive and logical suppositions about the relationship between beliefs about salvation and other mental health and behavioral variables (e.g., Ellis 1986), these theories have often been made in the absence of data explicitly accounting for beliefs about salvation. C. L. Park (2017) notes, “[a]lthough rich theoretical linkages between religious beliefs and well-being have long been posited, empirical investigation of these linkages has been slow to develop” (p. 448), particularly as pertaining to one’s beliefs about salvation (Judd et al. 2020). Thus, measuring beliefs about salvation is necessary to support or challenge these theoretical linkages.

1.3. Other Religious Beliefs Relevant to Mental Health and Well-Being

Religious beliefs exist on a spectrum among believers, even within the same religious group (Davis and Robinson 1996), with some holding to personal or experiential beliefs rather than what their church or denomination teaches (Zahl and Gibson 2012). Consequently, this study was interested in differences in beliefs, rather than merely denominational affiliation.
Moreover, religious beliefs tend to be held by individuals in a variety of ways: from passive to self-condemning, from literal to figurative, from flexible to rigid. Thus, it is plausible that even more relevant to mental health than the beliefs themselves are the ways in which individuals interpret their religious beliefs; it is likely that responsibility (Watson et al. 2011), legalism (e.g., Judd et al. 2020), scrupulosity, perfectionism (e.g., Allen and Wang 2014), and transcendence represent such facets of interpretation. Each one of those variables has been shown to be relevant to mental health and well-being in prior research.

1.4. Research Questions

In this study, the associations of beliefs about salvation (by faith alone, or by faith and additional works/ordinances, respectively) were evaluated and then examined along with the following, theoretically salient variables influencing religiosity: responsibility, legalism, religious involvement, spiritual transcendence, scrupulosity, and perfectionism—as well as the mental health variables of well-being, anxiety, and depression.
This study’s primary research question was whether beliefs about salvation have statistically significant associations with the other variables just listed. As a related research question, we also asked whether beliefs about salvation (a cognitive dimension of religion) have greater, lesser, or similar associations with the variables above compared with religious involvement (a behavioral dimension of religion)? This subsequent question evaluates the common assumption that it is external religious variables (e.g., prayer, community) that predict mental health, rather than the more internal factors (i.e., belief and doctrine; Chaves 2010; Ellison and Levin 1998).

2. Method

2.1. Procedure

To assess the associations of Christian beliefs about salvation with the religious, psychological, and mental health variables, a survey written in English was distributed to Christians in the United States and Canada (age 18+). The confidential survey required endorsement of a statement of informed consent and took participants an average of 10–15 min to complete. The study was approved by the authors’ institutional review board and followed professional research ethics. No changes to the research plan were made after the commencement of data collection.

2.2. Participants

As mentioned previously, since Christian beliefs about salvation can vary in terms of emphasis on faith and works, we intentionally sought participants identifying as Protestant/Evangelicals, emphasizing faith apart from works, and Latter-day Saints, who affirm a combination of faith and works. Most research with Latter-day Saints has involved those in the Intermountain West (e.g., Bergin et al. 1994; Judd 1999), so to expand the data for our study, we sampled participants more broadly using two data sources: (a) one limited to Latter-day Saints residing outside the state of Utah, recruited by Qualtrics (Qualtrics-administered, or QA) and (b) a broader sampling of Christians across the U.S. and Canada, recruited by the authors (researcher-administered, or RA). Although we oversampled Protestants and Latter-day Saints, we did not exclude participants from any Christian denomination.
To recruit participants for the broader RA sample, the authors posted the survey link on multiple social media accounts several times during data collection. The authors also sent solicitation emails to instructors at religious universities and to Protestant/Evangelical pastors and leaders, requesting distribution of the survey link. As an incentive to increase response rates in the RA survey (Singer 2018), three $50 gift cards were distributed by drawing approximately once every six weeks during data collection. Participants had the option to include their email at the end of the survey for the gift card drawing; email remained confidential and was excluded from the downloaded dataset.
Two initial screening questions in the survey limited participation to those who broadly affirmed (a) belief in God and Jesus Christ, and (b) the reality of an afterlife. Cases were removed from the overall sample if they did not complete any items after the demographics section, if they completed the entire survey in less than five minutes, or if they engaged in observable patterned/stereotyped responding. After removing such cases from the RA and QA samples (n = 340 total removed respondents), 381 participant responses remained in the QA sample (all Latter-day Saints) and 1175 in the RA sample (578 Protestants/Evangelicals, 561 Latter-day Saints, and 36 other). Thus, there were 1556 total participants, 125 of whom did not complete the entire survey but otherwise met criteria.
In terms of religious affiliation, 37.3% of the overall participants identified as Protestant/Evangelical (including Baptists [5.5%], Presbyterians [4.1%], Methodists [10.9%], and Non-Denominational Christians [9.1%]), 60.6% identified as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and 1.9% identified as Roman Catholic. Regarding self-described religious liberalism/conservatism, 20% reported being more liberal, 46% more conservative, and 34% somewhere in between.
Of the combined QA and RA participants who reported gender, 929 were female, 623 male, one transgender, one nonbinary, and one other. Participant ages ranged from 18 to 92 (M = 39.31, median = 34, mode = 21, SD = 20.1). Ages 18–24 were overrepresented in the sample, likely due to partial sampling from colleges, but the data were evenly distributed after age 24. Across all demographic variables, the only significant difference between the QA and RA sample was that in the QA sample participants were older than the RA sample participants by about 15 years. The majority of participants (92%) were from the U.S. and 125 respondents (8%) were from Canada. Regarding state/province of residence, every U.S. state (except Vermont) and every Canadian province (except Newfoundland and Labrador) was represented. In terms of ethnicity, the majority of participants (88%) were White/European American, with 4% Latino/a, 3% Asian, 2% Black, 1% Biracial, 0.6% Native American, 0.6% Pacific Islander, and 0.6% other. Regarding sexuality, 95% of participants identified as Straight/Heterosexual, 1% Gay/Lesbian, 3.0% Bisexual, 1% other. Marital status consisted of 52% married, 32% single, 10% in a relationship, 3% divorced/separated, and 3% widowed.

2.3. Measurement

2.3.1. Beliefs About Salvation

Because we located no previously published scales capturing the relevant differences in beliefs about salvation by faith alone or by works, we consulted with other scholars who deemed it appropriate for us to generate a new measure for this study. Fifteen draft items were created, reviewed, and revised for wording and face validity. Items were created by consulting nationally renowned experts in the psychology of religion, reviewing doctrinal statements from Protestant/Evangelical and Latter-day Saint websites, reviewing relevant theological literature, and conducting focus groups (Bandalos 2018). Certain items from published scales had items which touched on beliefs about salvation (e.g., Martin and Nichols 1962), but were not used verbatim due to lack of specificity differentiating between salvation based on faith or works.
After these methods, the 15 generated items were reworded, refined, and reduced to 14 statements about salvation, with seven items relating to faith alone and seven items relating to necessary additional works or religious ordinances, scored on a 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree = 1, strongly agree = 5). Each item was worded to be understandable to the belief systems of different Christian denominations. Items were also intended to clearly differentiate between beliefs about salvation by faith alone versus beliefs about salvation including necessary additional action. The list of generated items can be found in the Appendix A.

2.3.2. Responsibility and Legalism

The Richmont Grace Scale (Sisemore et al. 2011; Watson et al. 2011) assesses the role of grace in a Christian’s life. It is a 27-item self-report measure on a 5-point Likert-type scale (strongly disagree = 1, strongly agree = 5), though only the Grace and Responsibility subscale (10 items) and the Graceful Avoidance of Personal Legalism subscale (four items) were used in the present study to assess Responsibility and Legalism, respectively. The first subscale includes items such as: “Knowing God will forgive lets me do anything I want”. A sample item from the subscale is: “The harder I work, the more I earn God’s favor”. A high Responsibility score suggests over-relying on God’s forgiveness (implying moral laxity), while a high Legalism score suggests feeling one must earn God’s grace and forgiveness. The scale’s authors reported a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.84 for the scale (Watson et al. 2011). In the present study, both the Responsibility and Legalism subscales were averaged to create two composites, with Cronbach’s alpha of 0.90 and 0.81, respectively.

2.3.3. Religious Involvement

The Duke University Religion Index (Koenig and Büssing 2010) was used to assess religious involvement. The scale consists of five items assessing three dimensions: organizational religious activity, non-organizational (or, private) religious activity, and intrinsic religiosity. Example items include: “How often do you attend church or other religious meetings?”, and “My religious beliefs are what really lie behind my whole approach to life”. Items are rated on both a 6-point (first two items) and 5-point Likert scale (remaining 3 items), ranging from 1 (rarely/never/not true of me) to 5/6 (more than once a week/day/definitely true of me). The authors note Cronbach’s alpha between 0.78 and 0.91 (Koenig and Büssing 2010). All items in the present study were averaged to create a composite (Religious Involvement), with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.81.

2.3.4. Spiritual Transcendence

The Spiritual Transcendence Index (Seidlitz et al. 2002) is a measure of intrinsic religiosity, spiritual fulfillment, and communion with God. The STI has eight items (“My spirituality gives me a feeling of fulfillment”) on a 6-point scale (strongly disagree = 1, strongly agree = 6). Cronbach’s alpha “ranged from 0.90 in the seminary sample to 0.97 in a large community sample” (p. 450); more recent validations of the scale were also supportive (Abernethy and Kim 2018). A Spiritual Transcendence composite was created by averaging the eight items. Cronbach’s alpha for the present study was 0.94.

2.3.5. Scrupulosity

The Penn Inventory of Scrupulosity–Revised (Abramowitz et al. 2002; Olatunji et al. 2007) measures religious obsessive-compulsive symptoms, and features two subscales: Fear of Sin (“I worry that I might have dishonest thoughts”) and Fear of Punishment from God (“I am afraid my behavior is unacceptable to God”). The 15 items are measured on a 5-point Likert-scale (never = 1, constantly = 5; Abramowitz et al. 2002). It is recognized as the most widely used and validated measure of scrupulosity, and has shown strong correlations with obsessive–compulsive and anxiety symptoms (Olatunji et al. 2007). Cronbach’s alpha for the composite score of the subscales was 0.93 (Abramowitz et al. 2002). The 15 items were averaged to create a composite (Scrupulosity), with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.95.

2.3.6. Perfectionism

The Brief Perfectionism Scale (Gosselin 2003) is a seven-item measure of perfectionism on a 7-point scale (on evaluation, the 7-point scale was reduced to 5 points, for the sake of consistency with the other measures in the present study; strongly disagree = 1, strongly agree = 5). An example item is: “Even making a little mistake can ruin my day”. The BPS is reported by the author to have high internal consistency reliability (0.86), and is correlated with measures of maladaptive functioning. It held moderate to strong correlations with other scales measuring perfectionism (Gosselin 2003). A more recent study with 255 undergraduate participants showed a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.86 (Tangney et al. 2018). The seven items were averaged to create a composite (Perfectionism), with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.92.

2.3.7. Well-Being

The Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (Tennant et al. 2007) is a 14-item measure of well-being on a 5-point scale (none of the time = 1, all of the time = 5). Example items include, “I’ve been feeling optimistic about the future”. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale ranged from 0.89 to 0.91 in the initial study. A Well-Being composite was created by averaging these items. In the data collected in this study, Cronbach’s alpha for Well-Being was 0.92.

2.3.8. Anxiety

The Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (Spitzer et al. 2006) is a 7-item measure for assessing generalized anxiety symptoms, considered over the past two weeks on a 4-point scale (not at all = 1, nearly every day = 4). Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.91 (Spitzer et al. 2006), and it was deemed a valid and reliable measure of anxiety for the general population (Löwe et al. 2008). A composite was created by averaging the seven items (Anxiety). In the data collected in this study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.91.

2.3.9. Depression

The Patient Health Questionnaire Depression Scale (Kroenke and Spitzer 2002) is a nine-item measure of major depressive disorder. Similarly to the GAD-7, the PHQ-9 assesses nine common diagnostic symptoms of depression, considered over the past two weeks. It is rated on a 4-point scale (not at all = 1, nearly every day = 4). Cronbach’s alpha for the scale is 0.89 (Kroenke et al. 2001), and it was deemed a valid and reliable measure of depression in the general population (Martin et al. 2006). A depression composite was created by averaging the nine items. In the data collected in this study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.89.

2.4. Data Analysis

Data analyses were conducted in SPSS 27 and Mplus 8.0 (Muthén and Muthén 2017). First, descriptive statistics were evaluated for irregularities, testing assumptions of linearity, independence, multicollinearity, equality of variance, and normality (Bandalos 2018). Composite scores were then created by averaging items from each of the scales for analyses.
Next, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed in Mplus with the 14 generated beliefs about salvation items to determine the number of factors in the scale, followed by a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with the beliefs about salvation (BAS) factors. This study utilized the following fit indices, with their cutoff values: root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA: <0.07; <0.08 adequate), the comparative fit index and the Tucker–Lewis index (CFI and TLI: >0.95; >0.90 adequate), and standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR: <0.08; Bandalos 2018; Cheung and Rensvold 2002). Parsimony was also considered (i.e., the fewest factors that adequately fit the data), as well as the theoretical coherence of the constructs. Elimination of individual items was considered based on insufficient communalities (<0.30), cross-loadings (0.15 absolute value), and factor loadings (<0.20; Worthington and Whittaker 2006).
Mean scores for the beliefs about salvation factor(s) between religious groups (Protestants/Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints) were also examined to determine whether the expected distinctions in beliefs about salvation were observed between denominational groups, for further scale validity. To assess the two research questions about beliefs about salvation and about the degree to which measures of religiosity were associated with mental health/well-being relative to religious involvement, a correlation matrix featuring the scale composites was generated.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 contains the composite scores for the nine variables in the overall sample. The Beliefs about Salvation Scale will be described in the subsequent section.
Mean scores and standard deviations were in the expected range, and the composite scores did not have skewness or kurtosis exceeding ±1.5 absolute direction, except for Responsibility, which was positively skewed (1.93) and leptokurtic (4.48). On examining the mean scores for these nine variables, participants reported levels consistent with a community sample: relatively low Depression and Anxiety and relatively high Well-Being. They also reported high levels of Religious Involvement and Spiritual Transcendence, indicating that this sample placed great value on religious participation and fulfillment. Scores of Perfectionism, Scrupulosity, and Legalism were average for a nonclinical sample.

3.2. Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses of Beliefs About Salvation Scale Items

The 14 items generated for this survey were examined by EFA to determine the number of factors in the data. There was a range of 1–3 assumed latent factors, and oblique rotation (oblimin) was utilized. Maximum Likelihood was used to estimate the model. On evaluation of 1–3 factor models, it was determined that the two factor model was the best compromise between fit statistics and parsimony, corresponding to the initial hypothesis that the 14 item scale was a two factor model (Faith and Works, respectively, with seven items for each subscale). Notably, each of the generated items properly corresponded to the theorized factor (seven per factor), with factor loadings and communalities deemed sufficient in light of the aforementioned cutoffs.
A CFA was then conducted with Faith and Works. The generated items showed good fit statistics, and met all of the predetermined cutoffs: RMSEA = 0.06, CFI/TLI = 0.97/0.97, and SRMR = 0.03. Cronbach’s alpha for the seven Faith and seven Works items in this sample was 0.93 and 0.94, respectively. R-square ranged from 0.55 to 0.82 for the 14 items. The diagram of the two factor CFA with standardized factor loadings is pictured below (Figure 1).
The high negative correlation between the Faith and Works factors (r = −0.80/−0.56 for Protestants/Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints, respectively) was expected due to the dichotomous nature of the scale. High Faith scores ostensibly imply low Works scores (and vice versa), and the correlation was not large enough to negate discriminant validity.

Beliefs About Salvation Scale Scores

While religious denomination was not of importance in our analyses, the expectation was that our recruitment strategy would result in variability in scores, with Protestants/Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints responding to the BAS scale items in ways consistent with the teachings of their denominations. On examining Faith and Works composite means, the scores showed appropriate variability, with expected differences observed between Protestants/Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints (Table 2). Every identified Protestant/Evangelical denomination (Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, and Non-Denominational Christians) had mean scores on the 5-point Faith scale ranging from at least 3.38 to 3.99 (majority agreement), while Latter-day Saints had mean scores of 2.00 on the same scale (majority disagreement). Conversely, on the 5-point Works scale, Latter-day Saints had a mean score of 4.14 (majority agreement), whereas the Protestant/Evangelical groups had scores ranging from 1.95 to 2.40 (majority disagreement).

3.3. Correlation Matrix of Measures of Beliefs About Salvation, Influences on Religiosity, and Mental Health

The primary research question of this study was whether beliefs about salvation by faith or works are significantly associated with the religious and mental health measures. Table 3 contains correlation coefficients between all scales in this study, indicating the strength and direction of the relationship between them. No variables showed excessively high correlations (r > 0.80). Correlations with p < 0.01 were considered statistically significant.
The matrix can be divided as follows: beliefs about salvation (Faith and Works), influences on religiosity (Responsibility, Legalism, Religious Involvement, Spiritual Transcendence, Scrupulosity, and Perfectionism), and mental health variables (Well-Being, Anxiety, and Depression). The primary research question focused on the Faith and Works subscales, and the second research question focused on the other variables, including a comparison between Religious Involvement and the other influences on religiosity measured.
Regarding beliefs about salvation, the Faith subscale had small and statistically insignificant correlations with most variables. It showed a significant but moderately small positive correlation with Responsibility (r = 0.20, p < 0.01; a higher Responsibility score suggests over-reliance on God’s grace relative to personal responsibility). Faith also had a significant, moderately large negative correlation (r = −0.41, p < 0.01) with Legalism, suggesting that greater affirmation of faith alone for salvation is related to non-legalistic beliefs (i.e., not needing to “earn” grace). Regarding the mental health variables, the Faith subscale only had a significant but small positive correlation with Well-Being (r = 0.11, p < 0.01). Faith had no significant correlations with the remaining variables.
The Works subscale also had few significant correlations. Contrasting the Faith subscale, Works had a significant and large positive correlation with Legalism (r = 0.62, p < 0.01). The Works subscale also had a small positive correlation with Perfectionism (r = 0.11, p < 0.01), and a significant but small positive correlation with one of the mental health variables, Depression (r = 0.10, p < 0.01). No other significant correlations with the Works subscale were found. These correlations between the Faith and Works subscales and the other variables were replicated after controlling for demographic variables (gender, marital status, etc.).
Relevant to the second research question, most of the religious variables had significant correlations with measures of mental health. The strongest positive correlation was between Well-Being and Spiritual Transcendence (r = 0.50, p < 0.01), which was also strongly negatively associated with anxiety and depression. Scrupulosity and Perfectionism were strongly positively correlated with anxiety and depression but negatively correlated with Well-Being (absolute r values ranging from 0.30 to 0.47). In terms of magnitude of correlations, the measure of Religious Involvement exhibited moderate correlations with the three mental health variables, ranging from 0.23 to 0.34, absolute value). The measures of Legalism and Responsibility had smaller correlations with the measures of mental health: Well-Being (r = −0.13 and −0.03), Anxiety (r = 0.19 and 0.18, p < 0.01), and Depression (r = 0.22 and 0.22, p < 0.01). Thus the data provided a mixed answer to the second research question: (a) Spiritual Transcendence was much more predictive of mental health and well-being than Religious Involvement; (b) religious beliefs characterized by Scrupulosity and Perfectionism were more strongly associated with anxiety and depression than Religious Involvement but were equally predictive of Well-Being, albeit in opposite directions; (c) measures of Responsibility and Legalism were associated less with Well-Being than was Religious Involvement, but they were associated with anxiety and depression to about the same degree as Religious Involvement, albeit in opposite directions.
Although not aligned with a predetermined research question, it would be important to note that the six measures of influences on religiosity were consistently correlated with one another. Relatively large correlations existed between Scrupulosity and Perfectionism (r = 0.42, p < 0.01) as well as Religious Involvement and Spiritual Transcendence (r = 0.78, p < 0.01). Legalism had mild negative correlations with Religious Involvement (r = −0.27, p < 0.01) and Spiritual Transcendence (r = −0.22, p < 0.01), and positive correlations with Scrupulosity (r = 0.23, p < 0.01) and Perfectionism (r = 0.29, p < 0.01). Thus, amongst themselves, the mental health variables demonstrated the expected associations and direction of correlation with one another.

4. Discussion

4.1. Associations of Beliefs About Salvation with Other Variables

The Beliefs About Salvation scale developed for this study showed evidence of validity through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, as well as in differentiating Christian participants believing in salvation by faith alone or by a combination of faith and works. Across the entire sample of participants, the Faith and Works subscales exhibited small or insignificant correlations with most variables. This finding refutes the hypothesis that beliefs about salvation are associated with well-being or mental health variables. Moreover, beliefs about salvation were not consistently correlated with other influences on religiosity, except for Legalism, which conceptually overlaps with a belief in salvation requiring work beyond faith. In this religiously diverse sample, individuals’ beliefs about salvation (a cognitive dimension of religion) had little relation to their involvement in religious activities, spiritual fulfillment, fear of divine punishment, perfectionism, or mental health.
This result is fascinating and raises further questions. Given the professed importance of religious beliefs (Pew Research Center 2015), why do different beliefs about salvation not have the expected associations? Are other confounding variables at play? Is the cognitive dimension of religion not as relevant as has been theorized (Ellison et al. 2001)? Or are there differences between sub-groups that might explain the unexpected findings?
This lack of association between beliefs about salvation and other variables is a significant and theologically important finding. The commonly theorized deficits or moral laziness from believing in faith alone was not observed in the present sample (e.g., Hodge 1993; Prager 2018). Instead, beliefs about faith alone and beliefs about necessary works for salvation had strikingly similar correlations with the other variables measured in this study. This evidence refutes the common assertion that believing in justification by faith alone for salvation leads to moral complacency or grants a license to sin among Christians. To our knowledge, this is the first time this question, which has been a major area of contention since the Reformation (Ferguson 2016), has been addressed with statistical data. It seems that the historic Protestant view that we are justified by faith alone, but that justifying faith is accompanied by good works as its fruit, was realized in this sample (Bonhoeffer 1963; Ferguson 2016; White 2007). Believing in faith alone was just as weakly correlated with perfectionistic tendencies, guilt tendencies, and religious involvement as beliefs about necessary works.
Conversely, these results also showed that beliefs about necessary additional works for salvation did not have the expected positive correlations with variables like Scrupulosity and Perfectionism (Adams 2018; Allen and Wang 2014). A possible explanation of these results may be that prior data evaluating Latter-day Saint perfectionism have typically been obtained from religious college students in the Intermountain West (Bergin et al. 1994; Judd 1999); and perfectionism rates are generally higher among college students (Curran and Hill 2019). Perhaps it is not Latter-day Saint doctrine that is associated with perfectionism or scrupulosity, but rather being a college student in the aforementioned setting. Once again, these findings may be comforting to those who worry that their religious beliefs may have deleterious mental health implications.
Beliefs about salvation were only significantly correlated with legalism. To be sure, legalism is a relevant mental health variable among religious populations (Watson et al. 2011), defined by an over-emphasis on obedience to the letter of the law and feeling one has to “earn” grace and forgiveness. The relationship among these variables was intuitive: if one believes their salvation is based on works, one may feel they must “earn” grace; conversely, if one affirms faith alone for salvation, the grace has already been earned by Christ. Legalism has been shown to have significant associations with mental health variables (Allen and Wang 2014), mediating the psychological benefits of belief in divine grace (Judd et al. 2020); beliefs about grace have been found to be associated with well-being (Hodge et al. 2022). In the present sample, legalism showed small and moderate positive correlations with perfectionism and depression. Overall, our study provided evidence that beliefs about faith alone for salvation are associated with non-legalistic tendencies, and that beliefs about additional works necessary for salvation are associated with legalistic tendencies.
It must be noted that significant correlations were observed among the remaining measures of influences on religiosity with the mental health variables. These findings fit with prior research around such relationships (e.g., Allen et al. 2015; Judd et al. 2020). However, a remarkable finding was that the absolute magnitude of the correlation between Spiritual Transcendence and Well-being approached the negative correlation of Well-Being with Anxiety (r = −0.59, p < 0.01), indicative of substantial conceptual and experiential overlap. That is, Spiritual Transcendence represents a condition closely aligned with Well-Being, but opposite Anxiety.
It was also notable that the data relevant to the second research question about religious involvement yielded correlations smaller or equivalent to the influences on religiosity and the mental health variables. This finding provides some evidence that psychological/internal variables may have just as much relevance as behavioral/external religious variables regarding mental health (Ellison et al. 2001).

4.2. Doctrinal Unity

In this study, by and large, individuals did in fact profess what their denomination teaches about doctrines of salvation. It was also remarkable that, despite their numerous superficial differences, Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglican/Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, Pentecostals, Reformed, and Non-Denominational Christians (i.e., Protestant/Evangelical Christians) all responded in strikingly similar ways to items on the Faith and Works subscales, clearly favoring Faith items over Works for salvation (see Table 2). Latter-day Saints likewise demonstrated a general unity with one another, emphasizing Works over Faith. The fact that participants from the different denominations responded to the 14 salvation items in the anticipated fashion is reassuring for the purposes of using the newly developed scale in future research—and can encourage other scholars to create similar scales in the future for specific doctrinal beliefs among religious populations. We hope denominations can use research like this as a bridge in the spirit of ecumenism.

4.3. Clinical Implications

Overall, these findings hold some clinical and pastoral relevance when working with clients from religious and spiritual backgrounds. First, the findings suggest that since different religious groups do indeed hold different beliefs, a one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate, such as when working with Protestant/Evangelicals compared with Latter-day Saints. For a clinician to simply know that a client identifies as a “Christian” would not be particularly helpful to that individual client; clinicians can and should inquire about specific doctrinal beliefs relevant to individuals’ presenting concerns. Similarly, assumptions should not be made about clients’ religious involvement, perfectionism, or scrupulosity based on their particular beliefs and perspectives about religious doctrines. An example would be not assuming that a Latter-day Saint client (affirming necessary works) is necessarily going to be more perfectionistic or guilty than a Protestant/Evangelical client (affirming faith alone).
At the same time, this study suggests that, when clients have a sense of spiritual fulfillment and engagement, they are most likely to experience an overall sense of well-being, irrespective of other factors. Taken as a whole, the findings of this study support prior assertions that religious and spiritual assessment is important in determining how religious and spiritual factors relate to religious clients’ mental health (Richards et al. 2009).

4.4. Limitations

There were various potential limitations in this study. In terms of the sample, a disproportionate number of participants were conservative in their religious beliefs, married, and highly religiously involved (in fact, the sample’s mean scores of Spiritual Transcendence were closer to those of seminary students than the community sample from the original study (Seidlitz et al. 2002)). Since correlations involving religiosity and well-being vary across cultures, the results of this study of predominantly heterosexual White/European American participants will likely not generalize to other cultures/nations or to sexual minorities. Because this was a religious sample, there are also concerns around social desirability bias (i.e., answering how one thinks they should respond, rather than realistically, especially when asked about piety or stigmatized mental health symptoms; Grimm 2010). Data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic, at a time when anxiety may have been higher and social support was lower than at other times. Finally, it should be stressed that this study examined associations, so the data do not address important considerations of causal direction among the examined variables.

4.5. Considerations for Future Research

Despite calls from researchers to place more emphasis on the cognitive dimension of religion, research in this area remains nascent (C. L. Park 2017). Considering the lack of data touching on the psychological effects of belief in different religious doctrines, there are numerous tantalizing but unanswered questions about religious beliefs, with limited empirical precedent. For instance, what are the behavioral or psychological implications, if any, of believing in the doctrine of the Trinity (as held by most Protestant/Evangelical Christians, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox Christians), as compared with forms of Unitarianism (as held by Unitarian Christians, Muslims, and Jews)? Calvinism compared with Arminianism? Infant baptism compared with credobaptism? Of particular interest would be eschatological beliefs relevant to people’s well-being and anticipated future conditions (e.g., Messianic visitation, nature of heaven/hell, retention of individual identity or merging/losing identity after death). To be sure, as demonstrated by the present study, such questions about doctrine are not speculative nor philosophical in nature: they ask about the practical, observable, measurable effects of belief in these core doctrines.
Incidentally, such questions are not typically asked by psychologists, even within religious and spiritual circles (Ellison et al. 2001). Subtle but important messages could be sent by this neglect. Indeed, it is arguable that psychologists who study religion and spirituality could unconsciously be operating from a naturalist-materialist worldview, focusing on the visible, tangible elements of religion rather than the spiritual, invisible elements, like belief (Richards and Bergin 2005; Slife et al. 2017; Slife and Reber 2009). What we hope was reflected in this study was a reverence and credulity towards religious belief in general.
In any case, when religious belief is so widespread (Newport 2011), and when doctrinal distinctions between religious traditions are stark, it would be remiss not to rigorously investigate their psychological and clinical implications (Richards and Bergin 2005). It is likely that many religions could stand to benefit from such data and would be enriched by it. We do a disservice to multiculturalism by not appreciating diversity with respect to differences between religious denominations and their beliefs (Richards and Bergin 2005; Sandage et al. 2012; Worthington et al. 1996).
Though results from this study did not yield expected correlations between beliefs about salvation and other variables, they did confirm expected associations with mental health among all other influences on religiosity. We believe that measuring multiple aspects of religiosity enriched this study, and we anticipate even more valuable data about doctrinal beliefs between denominations to be investigated in the future. Given the large magnitude of religious variables with well-being and mental health observed here and elsewhere, we trust that scholars will increasingly undertake study of the psychology of religion.

4.6. Conclusions

To evaluate Christian beliefs about salvation, this study developed a measure inclusive of perspectives emphasizing faith/grace, as well as perspectives including accompanying works/ordinances. These beliefs in salvation by faith and works were negatively associated with one another, as anticipated, but they were not associated with mental health variables or with other aspects of religiosity, except for legalism. This lack of association provides empirical evidence that belief that salvation comes by faith alone was not negatively correlated with traditional Christian practices/works, such as prayer, church attendance, or reading scripture, nor was it positively correlated with lack of accountability and responsibility. Similarly, affirming works necessary for salvation was not correlated with perfectionism or scrupulosity. In both cases, doctrines of salvation were not associated with maladaptive religiosity. Of additional significance is that the variable of spiritual transcendence was more strongly correlated with mental health variables than religious involvement, suggesting the importance of considering psychological and cognitive religious variables in research.

Author Contributions

Methodology, A.E.R. and T.B.S.; formal analysis, A.E.R. and T.B.S.; writing—original draft, A.E.R.; writing—review and editing, A.E.R. and T.B.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding but benefitted from a grant from the Council on Religious Endeavors of Brigham Young University, the authors’ institution.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Brigham Young University (IRB2020-172; 29 April 2020).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Acknowledgments

We appreciate the assistance of university research team members in collecting data and in strengthening the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
BASBeliefs about Salvation
QAQualtrics-administered
RAResearcher-administered
EFAExploratory factor analysis
CFAConfirmatory factor analysis
RMSEARoot mean square error of approximation
SRMRStandardized root mean squared residual

Appendix A. Beliefs About Salvation Items

Salvation by Faith alone or by Faith and Works (F = faith, W = works)
  • Salvation comes by God’s grace through faith alone, without any contribution of my own. (F)
  • My place in the afterlife is based on both Christ’s atonement and my own efforts. (W)
  • I must perform certain works and ordinances to obtain eternal life with the Father. (W)
  • After I accept Christ as Savior, my own works are unimportant for me to go to heaven. (F)
  • My own good deeds, obedience, and faithfulness determine whether I will be with God when I die. (W)
  • I will go to the highest glory of heaven simply by believing in Jesus Christ. (F)
  • I am saved by God’s grace after performing certain works and ordinances. (W)
  • Faith is all I need to attain eternal life with God. (F)
  • Alongside faith, I must keep God’s commandments to be with Him in the afterlife. (W)
  • Regardless of my good or bad works, I will attain the fullness of heaven by faith alone. (F)
  • I am saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel through the Atonement of Christ. (W)
  • I must prove to be worthy to attain the highest glory of heaven. (W)
  • Faith in Jesus Christ brings the highest salvation, with no role played by my own works. (F)
  • Even if I have never been baptized, I will be with the Father when I die because of my faith in Jesus Christ. (F)

References

  1. Abernethy, Alexis D., and Seong-Hyeon Kim. 2018. The Spiritual Transcendence Index: An Item Response Theory Analysis. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 28: 240–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Abramowitz, Jonathan S., Adam B. Cohen, Jonathan D. Huppert, David F. Tolin, and Shawn P. Cahill. 2002. Religious Obsessions and Compulsions in a Non-Clinical Sample: The Penn Inventory of Scrupulosity (PIOS). Behaviour Research and Therapy 40: 825–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Adams, Michael. 2018. Religious Perfectionism: Utilizing Models of Perfectionism in Treating Religious Clients. Issues in Religion and Psychotherapy 39: 61–76. Available online: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/irp/vol39/iss1/10 (accessed on 6 June 2025).
  4. Allen, G. E. Kawika, and Kenneth T. Wang. 2014. Examining Religious Commitment, Perfectionism, Scrupulosity, and Well-Being among LDS Individuals. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality 6: 257–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Allen, G. E. Kawika, Kenneth T. Wang, and Hannah Stokes. 2015. Examining Legalism, Scrupulosity, Family Perfectionism, and Psychological Adjustment among LDS Individuals. Mental Health, Religion & Culture 18: 246–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Allen, G. E. Kawika, Sara Pulsipher, Abigail Norton, David Johnson, and Benson Bunker. 2023. I Worry That I Am Almost Perfect! Examining Relationships among Perfectionism, Scrupulosity, Intrinsic Spirituality, and Psychological Well-Being among Latter-Day Saints. Spirituality in Clinical Practice 10: 316–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. American Psychological Association. 2017. Multicultural Guidelines: An Ecological Approach to Context, Identity, and Intersectionality. Available online: https://www.apa.org/about/policy/multicultural-guidelines.pdf (accessed on 6 June 2025).
  8. Bandalos, Deborah L. 2018. Measurement Theory and Applications for the Social Sciences. New York: Guilford Publications. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bergin, Allen E., Paul H. Jenkins, I. Reed Payne, and Marie Cornwall. 1994. Religion and Mental Health: Mormons and Other Groups. In Contemporary Mormonism: Social Science Perspectives. Edited by Marie Cornwall, Tim B. Heaton and Lawrence A. Young. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 138–58. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. 1963. The Cost of Discipleship. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. Available online: https://df34e017f9c26b9c7b00-b8e800764aa7fb8b32de2e07e74ef69f.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/uploaded/t/0e8233652_1547052993_the-cost-of-discipleship-bonhoeffer-pdf.pdf (accessed on 6 June 2025).
  11. Chaves, Mark. 2010. SSSR Presidential Address Rain Dances in the Dry Season: Overcoming the Religious Congruence Fallacy. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 49: 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Cheung, Gordon W., and Roger B. Rensvold. 2002. Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Testing Measurement Invariance. Structural Equation Modeling 9: 233–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Crosby, Jesse M., Scott C. Bates, and Michael P. Twohig. 2011. Examination of the Relationship Between Perfectionism and Religiosity as Mediated by Psychological Inflexibility. Current Psychology 30: 117–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Curran, Thomas, and Andrew P. Hill. 2019. Perfectionism Is Increasing over Time: A Meta-Analysis of Birth Cohort Differences from 1989 to 2016. Psychological Bulletin 145: 410–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Davis, Nancy J., and Robert V. Robinson. 1996. Religious Orthodoxy in American Society: The Myth of a Monolithic Camp. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 35: 229–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ellis, Albert. 1986. Do Some Religious Beliefs Help Create Emotional Disturbance? Psychotherapy in Private Practice 4: 101–6. Available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1300/J294v04n04_16? (accessed on 6 June 2025).
  17. Ellison, Christopher G., Amy M. Burdette, and Terrence D. Hill. 2009. Blessed Assurance: Religion, Anxiety, and Tranquility among US Adults. Social Science Research 38: 656–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Ellison, Christopher G., and Jeffrey S. Levin. 1998. The Religion-Health Connection: Evidence, Theory, and Future Directions. Health Education & Behavior 25: 700–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ellison, Christopher G., David R. Williams, Jason D. Boardman, and James S. Jackson. 2001. Religious Involvement, Stress, and Mental Health: Findings from the 1995 Detroit Area Study. Social Forces 80: 215–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ferguson, Sinclair B. 2016. The Whole Christ: Legalism, Antinomianism, and Gospel Assurance—Why the Marrow Controversy Still Matters. Wheaton: Crossway. [Google Scholar]
  21. Flannelly, Kevin J. 2017. Belief in Divine Forgiveness, Evil, and Biblical Literalism and Mental Health. In Religious Beliefs, Evolutionary Psychiatry, and Mental Health in America: Evolutionary Threat Assessment Systems Theory. Edited by Kevin J. Flannelly. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 243–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Flannelly, Kevin J., Kathleen Galek, Christopher G. Ellison, and Harold G. Koenig. 2008. Beliefs about Life-After-Death, Psychiatric Symptomology and Cognitive Theories of Psychopathology. Journal of Psychology and Theology 36: 94–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. George, Linda K., Christopher G. Ellison, and David B. Larson. 2002. TARGET ARTICLE: Explaining the Relationships Between Religious Involvement and Health. Psychological Inquiry 13: 190–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gosselin, Jennifer Torri. 2003. Perfectionism: Examination from a Self-Regulation Framework. Ph.D. thesis, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/docview/305241909/abstract/1361B80977474DD5PQ/1 (accessed on 6 June 2025).
  25. Grimm, Pamela. 2010. Social Desirability Bias. In Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hempel, Lynn M., Todd Matthews, and John Bartkowski. 2012. Trust in a ‘Fallen World’: The Case of Protestant Theological Conservatism. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 51: 522–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hodge, Adam S., Joshua N. Hook, Don E. Davis, Daryl R. Van Tongeren, Rodger K. Bufford, Rodney L. Bassett, and Mark R. McMinn. 2022. Experiencing Grace: A Review of the Empirical Literature. The Journal of Positive Psychology 17: 375–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hodge, Charles. 1993. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  29. Johnson, David, and Jeff VanVonderen. 2005. The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse, Reprint edition. Grand Rapids: Bethany House Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  30. Judd, Daniel K. 1999. Religion, Mental Health, and the Latter-Day Saints. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft. [Google Scholar]
  31. Judd, Daniel K., William Justin Dyer, and Justin B. Top. 2020. Grace, Legalism, and Mental Health: Examining Direct and Mediating Relationships. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality 12: 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Keller, Timothy. 2011. The Prodigal God: Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith, Reprint edition. New York: Penguin Books. [Google Scholar]
  33. Koç, Melisa Sevi. 2024. Integrating Spirituality in Psychological Counseling: Historical Insights and Contemporary Applications. Spiritual Psychology and Counseling 9: 301–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Koenig, Harold, Dana King, and Verna B. Carson. 2012. Handbook of Religion and Health, 2nd ed. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  35. Koenig, Harold G., and Arndt Büssing. 2010. The Duke University Religion Index (DUREL): A Five-Item Measure for Use in Epidemological Studies. Religions 1: 78–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Koenig, Harold G., Doaa Ahmed Khalifa, Faten Al Zaben, and Saad Al Shohaib. 2015. Chapter 19—Measures of Religiosity. In Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Constructs. Edited by Gregory J. Boyle, Donald H. Saklofske and Gerald Matthews. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 530–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kroenke, Kurt, and Robert L. Spitzer. 2002. The PHQ-9: A New Depression Diagnostic and Severity Measure. Psychiatric Annals 32: 509–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kroenke, Kurt, Robert L. Spitzer, and Janet B. W. Williams. 2001. The PHQ-9. Journal of General Internal Medicine 16: 606–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Larson, David B., James P. Swyers, and Michael E. McCullough, eds. 1998. Scientific Research on Spirituality and Health: A Consensus Report. Bethesda: National Institute for Healthcare Research. [Google Scholar]
  40. Löwe, Bernd, Stefanie Müller, Oliver Decker, Dieter Schellberg, Elmar Brähler, Wolfgang Herzog, and Philipp Yorck Herzberg. 2008. Validation and Standardization of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7) in the General Population. Medical Care 46: 266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Martin, Alexandra, Antje Klaiberg, Winfried Rief, and Elmar Braehler. 2006. Validity of the Brief Patient Health Questionnaire Mood Scale (PHQ-9) in the General Population. General Hospital Psychiatry 28: 71–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Martin, Carol, and Robert C. Nichols. 1962. Personality and Religious Belief. Journal of Social Psychology 56: 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Muthén, Linda K., and Bengt O. Muthén. 2017. Mplus User’s Guid, 8th ed. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén. [Google Scholar]
  44. Newport, Frank. 2011. More than 9 in 10 Americans Continue to Believe in God. Gallup. Available online: https://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/americans-continue-believe-god.aspx (accessed on 6 June 2025).
  45. Oio, Pablo Damián. 2023. Salus: Salud y salvación en la ciencia y en los Padres de la Iglesia. Razón y Fe 1461: 131–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Olatunji, Bunmi O., Nathan L. Williams, Jonathan S. Abramowitz, Kevin M. Connolly, and Jeffrey M. Lohr. 2007. Scrupulosity and Obsessive-Compulsive Symptoms: Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Validity of the Penn Inventory of Scrupulosity. Journal of Anxiety Disorders 21: 771–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Paloutzian, Raymond F., and Crystal L. Park. 2021. The Psychology of Religion and Spirituality: How Big the Tent? Psychology of Religion and Spirituality 13: 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Park, Crystal. 2020. Finally, Some Well-Deserved Attention to the Long-Neglected Dimension of Religious Beliefs: Suggestions for Greater Understanding and Future Research. Religion, Brain & Behavior 10: 191–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Park, Crystal L. 2017. Religious Cognitions and Well-Being: A Meaning Perspective. In The Happy Mind: Cognitive Contributions to Well-Being. Edited by Michael D. Robinson and Michael Eid. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 443–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Pew Research Center. 2015. Importance of Religion in One’s Life. Available online: https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/importance-of-religion-in-ones-life/ (accessed on 6 June 2025).
  51. Pérez, Sergio, and Daniela Rohde. 2022. The Relationship Between Religious/Spiritual Beliefs and Subjective Well-Being: A Case-Based Comparative Cross-National Study. Journal of Religion and Health 61: 4585–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Prager, Dennis. 2018. Exodus: God, Slavery, and Freedom. Washington: Regnery Faith. [Google Scholar]
  53. Rausch, Thomas P. 1996. Catholic-Evangelical Relations: Signs of Progress. One in Christ 32: 40–52. [Google Scholar]
  54. Richards, P. Scott, and Allen E. Bergin. 2005. Spiritual Strategy For Counseling and Psychotherapy, 2nd ed. Washington: American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar]
  55. Richards, P. Scott, Jeremy D. Bartz, and Kari A. O’Grady. 2009. Assessing Religion and Spirituality in Counseling: Some Reflections and Recommendations. Counseling and Values 54: 65–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Sandage, Steven J., Carla M. Dahl, and Mark G. Harden. 2012. The Psychology of Religion, Spirituality, and Diversity. In Psychology of Religion and Workplace Spirituality. Edited by Peter C. Hill and Bryan J. Dik. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, pp. 43–62. [Google Scholar]
  57. Sargeant, Sally, and Jacqui Yoxall. 2023. Psychology and Spirituality: Reviewing Developments in History, Method and Practice. Journal of Religion and Health 62: 1159–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Seidlitz, Larry, Paul R. Duberstein, Alexis D. Abernethy, Theresa H. Chang, James S. Evinger, and Bar’bara L. Lewis. 2002. Development of the Spiritual Transcendence Index. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 41: 439–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sherkat, Darren E. 2008. Beyond Belief: Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theistic Certainty in the United States. Sociological Spectrum 28: 438–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Singer, Eleanor. 2018. Survey Incentives. In The Palgrave Handbook of Survey Research. London: Palgrave Macmillian, pp. 405–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Sisemore, Timothy A., Melinda Killian, Matthew Arbuckle, Mahogany Swanson, Elizabeth Mortellaro, Robert Fisher, and Joshua McGinnis. 2011. Grace and Christian Psychology—Part 1: Preliminary Measurement, Relationships, and Implications for Practice. Edification: The Transdisciplinary Journal of Christian Psychology 4: 57–63. Available online: https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=fa92f7f6-d845-390a-a796-6180267bf030 (accessed on 6 June 2025).
  62. Slattery, Jeanne M., and Crystal L. Park. 2012. Religious and Spiritual Beliefs in Psychotherapy: A Meaning Perspective. In The Psychology of Religion and Spirituality for Clinicians. Abingdon: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  63. Slife, Brent D., and Jeffrey S. Reber. 2009. Is There a Pervasive Implicit Bias against Theism in Psychology? Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 29: 63–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Slife, Brent D., Kari A. O’Grady, and Russell D. Kosits. 2017. The Hidden Worldviews of Psychology’s Theory, Research, and Practice. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis. [Google Scholar]
  65. Smith, Christian, and Melina Lundquist Denton. 2009. Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  66. Smith, Timothy B., Maddie R. Garret, Rhonda Harris, Samantha Heder, Rosemay Jolicoeur-Webster, Indra Lokatama, Jamila Mastny, Jordan Robertson, Shannon Stuebs, Javiera Troncoso, and et al. 2026. Ethical Integration of Psychology and Religion: A Review and Conceptual Mode. In The Oxford Handbook of International Psychological Ethics, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  67. Spitzer, Robert L., Janet B. Williams, Kurt Kroenke, and Bernd Löwe. 2006. A Brief Measure for Assessing Generalized Anxiety Disorder: The GAD-7. Archives of Internal Medicine 166: 1092–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Stewart, Chris, and Gary F. Koeske. 2006. RESEARCH: A Preliminary Construct Validation of the Multidimensional Measurement of Religiousness/Spirituality Instrument: A Study of Southern USA Samples. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 16: 181–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Tangney, June P., Angie Luzio Boone, and Roy F. Baumeister. 2018. High Self-Control Predicts Good Adjustment, Less Pathology, Better Grades, and Interpersonal Success. In Self-Regulation and Self-Control. Abingdon: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  70. Tennant, Ruth, Ruth Fishwick, Louise Hiller, Stephen Joseph, Stephen Platt, Jane Parkinson, Scott Weich, Jenny Secker, and Sarah Stewart-Brown. 2007. The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS): Development and UK Validation. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 5: 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Vieten, Cassandra, and David Lukoff. 2022. Spiritual and Religious Competencies in Psychology. American Psychologist 77: 26–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Wallace, Dewey D. 1984. Socinianism, Justification by Faith, and the Sources of John Locke’s the Reasonableness of Christianity. Journal of the History of Ideas 45: 49–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Watson, Paul J., Zhuo Chen, and Timothy A. Sisemore. 2011. Grace and Christian Psychology—Part 2: Psychometric Refinements and Relationships with Self-Compassion, Depression, Beliefs about Sin, and Religious Orientation. Edification: The Transdisciplinary Journal of Christian Psychology 4: 64–72. Available online: https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=eaced608-5478-3f46-8ce8-470f3906eee5 (accessed on 6 June 2025).
  74. White, James R. 2007. The God Who Justifies. Ada: Baker Books. [Google Scholar]
  75. Williams, Marleen. 1999. Family Attitudes and Perfectionism as Related to Depression in Latter-Day Saint and Protestant Women|Religious Studies Center. In Religion, Mental Health, and the Latter-Day Saints. Edited by Daniel K. Judd. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, pp. 245–80. Available online: https://rsc.byu.edu/religion-mental-health-latter-day-saints/family-attitudes-perfectionism-related-depression-latter-day-saint-protestant-women (accessed on 6 June 2025).
  76. Worthington, Everett L., Jr., Michael E. McCollough, Taro A. Kurusu, and Steven J. Sandage. 1996. Empirical Research on Religion and Psychotherapeutic Processes and Outcomes: A 10-Year Review and Research Prospectus. Psychological Bulletin 119: 448–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Worthington, Roger L., and Tiffany A. Whittaker. 2006. Scale Development Research: A Content Analysis and Recommendations for Best Practices. The Counseling Psychologist 34: 806–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Zahl, Bonnie Poon, and Nicholas J. S. Gibson. 2012. God Representations, Attachment to God, and Satisfaction with Life: A Comparison of Doctrinal and Experiential Representations of God in Christian Young Adults. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 22: 216–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Religions 16 00757 g001
Figure 1. Beliefs About Salvation (BAS) scale: two-factor model of Faith and Works.
Figure 1. Beliefs About Salvation (BAS) scale: two-factor model of Faith and Works.
Religions 16 00757 g001
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
ScalesnMeanSDSkewnessKurtosis
Responsibility14621.620.651.934.48
Legalism14642.500.990.13−0.77
Religious Involvement14424.430.81−1.130.93
Spiritual Transcendence14375.020.89−1.171.33
Scrupulosity14312.290.790.57−0.08
Perfectionism14312.530.940.28−0.56
Well-Being14533.510.62−0.29−0.03
Anxiety14511.830.721.040.48
Depression14461.690.631.090.53
Table 2. Faith/Works group mean comparisons.
Table 2. Faith/Works group mean comparisons.
Religious Denomination * MeanSDn
BaptistFaith3.990.8380
Works1.950.93
PresbyterianFaith3.930.7757
Works1.950.88
MethodistFaith3.770.86159
Works2.170.79
Non-DenominationalFaith3.380.98131
Works2.401.03
Latter-day SaintFaith2.000.83926
Works4.140.68
* Only denominations with n > 30 are shown.
Table 3. Correlation matrix of beliefs about salvation, influences on religiosity, and mental health.
Table 3. Correlation matrix of beliefs about salvation, influences on religiosity, and mental health.
1234567891011
  • Faith
1
2.
Works
−0.79 *1
3.
Responsibility
0.20 *0.071
4.
Legalism
−0.41 *−0.62 *0.46 *1
5.
Religious Involvement
−0.050.04−0.41 *−0.27 *1
6.
Spiritual Transcendence
0.020.05−0.33 *−0.22 *0.78 *1
7.
Scrupulosity
0.030.070.21 *0.23 *−0.11 *0.16 *1
8.
Perfectionism
0.020.11 *0.28 *0.29 *−0.18 *0.16 *0.42 *1
9.
Well-Being
0.11 *−0.05−0.03−0.13 *0.34 *0.50 *−0.31 *−0.28 *1
10.
Anxiety
0.000.060.18 *0.19 *−0.23 *−0.30 *0.47 *0.42 *−0.59 *1
11.
Depression
−0.030.10 *0.22 *0.22 *−0.26 *−0.34 *0.46 *0.41 *−0.62 *0.77 *1
Note. * p < 0.01.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rose, A.E.; Smith, T.B. Christian Beliefs About Salvation: Measurement and Associations with Mental Health and Well-Being. Religions 2025, 16, 757. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16060757

AMA Style

Rose AE, Smith TB. Christian Beliefs About Salvation: Measurement and Associations with Mental Health and Well-Being. Religions. 2025; 16(6):757. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16060757

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rose, Anthony Edward, and Timothy B. Smith. 2025. "Christian Beliefs About Salvation: Measurement and Associations with Mental Health and Well-Being" Religions 16, no. 6: 757. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16060757

APA Style

Rose, A. E., & Smith, T. B. (2025). Christian Beliefs About Salvation: Measurement and Associations with Mental Health and Well-Being. Religions, 16(6), 757. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16060757

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop