Shraders in Zambia - Welcome to Poisonwood, Stephen- Part 3

[eh02]

Please forgive my Roman Catholic upbringing (I am now decidedly lapsed), but I find the emphasis on "faith alone" and prejudice against "works" to be the worst thing that ever happened to Christianity. Good works are what makes the world a better place for everyone here. If these missionaries weren't so worried about "works," maybe they'd do a little good for the lives of the people they are trying to "save." :angry-banghead: Alright, rant over, carry on. :|

I totally agree. I was raised Baptist and I, too, am "decidedly lapsed" (to put it lightly). But I still have always found it so disturbing when people think acts of service don't matter because converting is what sends people to heaven.

Jesus is supposed to be the perfect model of human behavior, the sinless guide for the type of person we should all aspire to be, and the one person whose actions actually deemed them worthy of heaven. If you think you believe in Christ as a savior and refuse to prioritize a lifestyle similar to the one he had - which was a life of service, rejection of a material lifestyle and showing unconditional love for people THROUGH ACTIONS - you are not a true believer, IMO. I would not call myself a Christian anymore, but I still find it highly disturbing that people have bastardized the central messages of Jesus (at least in the Biblical context) himself to such an extreme degree.

[Rebelwife]

I'm at a loss with the repentance thing. I think even in John's doctrine repentance is necessary. It seems to be a squabble over what constitutes "true" repentance.

I'll give explaining the "Grace" versus "Works" business a shot from a total cynic's POV though. No texts -- just what I remember of the debate and very oversimplified. Corrections are always welcome.

It's also known as the clash of the apostles. What Paul preached in the Letters versus what James said in the Gospel.

Saved by Grace: Paul.

What matters is that you accept Jesus into your heart as your personal savior. By Grace and Blood Jesus saved your soul -- so long as you are best buddies with him. "Works" like good deeds (self-explanatory), rituals (like baptism, going to church, taking communion) and all that fancy good person stuff is irrelevant to your flying up to Heaven if you have accepted Jesus. So "Works" are are a sneaky way of trying to buy yourself into heaven. Thus, you can be a selfish shithead and still get to heaven if you are Saved by Grace.

Saved by (Faith and) Works: James.

Good deeds are very relevant. Faith alone is not automatic ticket to heaven and you need Works too. Yes, Jesus died for our sins to save our souls and all that but we should do our best to be good people on earth too. Also called "earned" salvation by John-types.

Extreme Fundies of the Pauline persuasion think that any Christian (even Protestants) that follow the Jamesian version is not really Christian. Especially Ebil Catholics. Catholics have all those magical rituals like infant baptism and absolution (all the Sacraments really) and rely far too much on "Works" instead of being on best buddy terms with Jesus.

John Shrader is selling Salvation by Grace Alone.

He is also very against helping Africans with material goods (charity). Once they are "Saved" by John in the "right" way they need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Money and goods corrupt the process. Tracts, bibles and prayers are all they need from the leg-humpers. John needs the cash because he/Jesus is harvesting their pagan souls for Salvation.

It's like a perversion of the old "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime" thing. To John, giving an African man his version of Christianity is teaching him to fish. Except Africans are really unreliable and need constant supervision by white men like John to hold onto the only real fish of his version of Christianity.

Have you read the book "Zealot" by Reza Aslan? It's a fascinating book for many reasons, but one of the most interesting parts was towards the end where he talks about the feud and doctrinal differences between James, who stayed in Jerusalem, and Paul. James very much carried on Jesus' radical social gospel - going so far as to say that giving up your goods and living communally was necessary to really follow Jesus. Paul was catering to a much different crowd. James' group pretty much lost all influence after the destruction of Jerusalem in 60 AD and Paul's version of Christianity became prevalent. According to Aslan, it was very important for the Pauline Christians to distance themselves from the Jews who had rebelled against the empire and prove that you could be a good Christian and a good Roman at the same time.

It made me wonder what "Christianity" would look like, if it existed at all, if radical Jews in Jerusalem (not connected with Jesus in any way) hadn't risen up when they did.

[gustava]

Lordship Salvation, even after the above discussion and my own googling, still confuses me. It seems to require three things: 1. acknowledging Jesus as Savior; 2. Make Jesus one''s Lord; 3. Accomplish #2 through exhibiting "fruit" of one's spirit, and this is what some people take to be "work."

John doesn't believe in "work" (ha), but does believe that one must both acknowledge Jesus as Savior and Lord and one does the latter through a change in own's heart that makes one submissive to Christ.

Am I even in the ballpark???

[happy atheist]

Moving on:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24929