unred typo said:
I spoke for Joe only because I felt I had a handle on his theology in this particular area, and you are correct in that I was putting words in his mouth. That’s why I wrote that he should feel free to make any adjustment he wanted. (which I see has he has done while I was writing this post ) He is perfectly adept at good solid scriptural answers but sometimes I myself get weary of the methods you employ to evade the truth or I might actually have more important things to do in the real world. I don’t consider myself any kind of expert on Catholic doctrine but our views on sin and works and grace are similar. I don’t mind at all if he corrects me and he has on occasion. Sometimes we don’t agree but it’s not a big deal to us. Our salvation does not depend on having doctrines perfectly correct but living as Christ would have us to live. In these forums, doctrine reigns supreme.
Well said. Our views on grace and sin and works are very nearly the same. Perhaps it may be surprising to know (for others) that Catholics and Lutherans and Anglicans and Evangelicals have had discussions on these very subjects (justification) and have moved beyond the polemics of the 16th century and have found that there is much more agreement than disagreement on these issues. I personally prefer to follow what Paul says on being divisive. As such, I try not to separate myself from other Christians over the doctrines we may disagree on (e.g. the Eucharist), while focusing on the things we DO agree on. Thus, unred and myself have interacted well on this forum because of our mutual agreement. As such, we are able to share Christian friendship based on where we agree. I do not believe Christ desires us to split hairs and find the points of disagreement and argue over them endlessly.
Now, would I desire that unred would agree with me on the Eucharist? Certainly. But when I see God acting among Protestants, I see something interesting on this subject. I see that (perhaps others will disagree on this, but they are my views) Catholics have been given the full benefits of what God has given man - Eucharist, Scriptures, sacraments, Liturgy, etc. All these things wisely used should bring a person to follow Christ completely. On the other hand, my brother Protestants are entering the Kingdom with "less help", utilizing the Sacred Scriptures and perhaps fewer sacraments and a lesser understanding of Eucharist. But there they are, following Christ with what has been given to them. Perhaps we can equate this to a Catholic given 5 talents and the Protestant 2. However, as in the parable, it depends on what each servant of our Lord does with the talents. The faithful Protestant who follows Scriptures and walks in the way of the Lord will certainly be called the "good and faithful servant" in heaven utilizing the "fewer talents" given. Now, some may disagree on whether Catholics have been given 5 talents, but the fact remains that the parable concetrates on what we do with what is given to us. I feel I have more expectations placed upon me because of the gift given for being Catholic. Again, this analogy enables me to accept ALL people who follow Christ, whether they are Christian, or even those who try to follow the Lord using only the Word written on their hearts (Rom 2) (...call them the person given one talent)
I fully agree with unred's take on salvation and how we should concentrate on the majors. I believe we can all agree that we are initially justified by God by grace, not by anything we do. I believe we can also agree that our own good deeds (moved by God) have some part in determining our eternal salvation. I will patiently try to explain our point of view to those who disagree, but I am not about to question someone's own opinion of their own salvation. Whether someone is saved or not is beyond the scope of my ability to determine, and I believe that people like Solo need to realize this. When a person disagrees with another's theology on this forum, that is no reason to doubt their walk in Christ. Over and over, the Gospels discuss how we are to be saved - by faith working in love. Not by knowledge of theology or Scriptures. Knowledge puffs up, love builds up. Those without love and a huge amount of head knowledge of Scriptures are NOT whom the Father is looking for to enter the Kingdom of heaven. Paul says without love, we are nothing...
While we naturally believe that our own interpretations of Scriptures and Apostolic teachings are correct, I believe it is what we do with that information that is important. If it doesn't lead you to love your neighbor, to die to one's self, to turn the other cheek, OR, if this knowledge leads you to be a modern-day Pharisee, condemning those who do not belong in one's own particular religious group, you are missing the heart of the Gospel teaching. Jesus considered the poor and outcast saved before the "proper religiously-correct" groups. This tells me that those who look down on others, considering the "unwashed and unsaved" as worthy of only contempt, miss the point of Christ's teachings. Thus, condeming another person is NOT the place of the individual Christian - and that is the Catholic stance that I refered to before. We are urged to point out errors, pray for our fallen brothers. But condemn him? Really, we should remember the verses about the timber in our eyes first.
unred typo said:
John 3:15-21 ...
You see that Jesus clearly equates ‘belief’ with doing deeds that show what we believe. Those who do evil, don’t want to believe in the light that Jesus taught. Those who do good are drawn to it because whatever anyone does that is done in unselfish love, is done in God, who is love.
Faith without works is dead, says James, and Faith without love is meaningless, says Paul. It would only be natural to say that the Bible would agree with Christ's own teachings - that a loveless "faith", a faith without love, is not faith at all. Those who have faith in God obey Him and His Commandments, because Christ abides in him.
Regards
