What is the very least I can do and still make it to heaven?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jestocost
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jestocost

Guest
I’m not asking this question myself. I’m actually assuming that any Christian can see the wrongness of asking such a question. Yet, after reading some of the posts here and knowing a little history, it seems that this question is the primary focus of protestant theology.

Most of the sincere questions (as opposed to those that are starters for preaching at us) are along the lines of “do you really need that?”

Let’s look at the reformation. The “pillars” of the reformation all seem to have aimed not at reforming the church, but eliminating large parts of it. Sola Scriptura tries to eliminate the need for a Magesterium and Apostolic Tradition. Sola Fide tries to eliminate the need to follow Christs laws. Sola Cristos tries to eliminate preisthood and most if not all of the sacrements. Luther elimnated the Deuterocanonicals to try to eliminate purgatory.

More recent development continue this chopping away at the faith. OSAS eliminates repentance and perseverence. While the early denominations set up parallel heirarchies, Congregationalists tried to eliminate that and Non-denom’s go even further with that. Although most would refuse to admit it a lot of the most pared down churches have in practice eliminated or nearly eliminated the bible from Genesis thru Luke. Baptism is of the spirit so no water is needed. Eucharist is symbolic so you don’t really need to do it, at least not often. Etc, etc.

The development of Catholic theology is often likened to an oak growing from an acorn. A lot of the Protestant trees have been pared down to the point that they resemble telephone poles.

The one exception to this seems to be dispensationalism. Any thoughts on why those most obsessed with eliminating parts of the faith have embrased this addition most strongly?
 
Many people I have noticed are attracted to denominations with as few trappings as possible because they are easily confused, distracted, anxious or worried and want to keep everything as simple as possible. They want to make sure that they aren’t breaking any rules or inadequate.
 
and possibly they have been confused in another church and want to avoid a repeat.

Also if they have never believed in God they wouldnt want to have alot of complicated rules that make no sense for them. Because they dont know the history of churches.

just to add to your list 🙂
 
I won’t even muddle over this question. To me it’s just not an option. Not that I’m the next Padre Pio or anything, but I just won’t cut myself that much slack. The apostles and all the martyrs sure didn’t.
 
Church Militant et el

Right! to answer the actual question but Im gonna leave out the still make it and change it

What is the very least I can do and hope to make it to Heaven?

Our life is a gift from God
What we do with that life is our gift to God

the least we can do is give Him ourselves. 🙂
 
There’s no answer to that question. It just doesn’t work that way. The path to salvation is different for each person, since each person’s circumstances and life is different. There isn’t a “minimum daily requirement” to get to heaven.
 
I have a feeling people are reading the title only and not the post. Perhaps I should have named it differently.
 
perhaps theres too many topics in there?? sorry about that I think thats exactly what were all doing and commenting on the last persons post.

🙂
 
Jestocost said:
I’m not asking this question myself. I’m actually assuming that any Christian can see the wrongness of asking such a question. Yet, after reading some of the posts here and knowing a little history, it seems that this question is the primary focus of protestant theology.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying (Berndt Hamm called it “normative Zentrierung”–“the concentration of norms”). But when it comes to soteriology, a case can be made that many Catholics actually engage in this. I often hear Catholics say, “If you don’t have to do good works to be saved, why bother?”
Isn’t that an example of asking what the minimum requirement for salvation is?

On other topics, such as devotion to the saints, liturgy, etc., I entirely agree with you.

Edwin
 
I see, broadly speaking, two very different attitudes at play in the paring down of beliefs by modern Protestants:

The first group are the very dedicated Gnostics. They want everything to be strictly spiritual so they can focus on being spiritual people. I see this as a wrong-headed but right-hearted approach to serving God. And God is no help, if I may put it like that, because he will not put out any flame of zeal nor break any reed no matter how fragile. However, reality often sets in for such folks when their stripped down spirituality does not truly answer life’s questions nor satisfy them in the long run.

The other group wants God on their own terms. They have a horror of being put upon by God, as if he were a fussy old grandpa they can just ignore. This is a much worse attitude than the first group, and many of these people simply abandon all pretense at having any religion or moral convictions.

Once again, I am speaking in very broad terms. There are many people somewhere between these extremes, and many of them are Catholics, sad to say.
 
Contarini said:
I understand what you are saying (Berndt Hamm called it “normative Zentrierung”–“the concentration of norms”). But when it comes to soteriology, a case can be made that many Catholics actually engage in this. I often hear Catholics say, “If you don’t have to do good works to be saved, why bother?”
Isn’t that an example of asking what the minimum requirement for salvation is?

On other topics, such as devotion to the saints, liturgy, etc., I entirely agree with you.

Edwin
Click to expand...
I agree that this sounds like a “Catholic” question. For many years I looked at Catholic pastoral theology (da rules) as a way of figuring out the minimum requirements: Mass on Sundays & HDOs, confession once a year, fasting on Friday (in the old days) . . . It was as if the Church were trying to provide people with the answer to the OP’s question.

My 6th grade CCD class asks questions like: How late can you be and still have Mass count?

Glad I figured out that it wasn’t really like that at all!
 
“Be ye perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

It’s the least you can do…

-ACEGC
 
Jestocost said:
Let’s look at the reformation. The “pillars” of the reformation all seem to have aimed not at reforming the church, but eliminating large parts of it. Sola Scriptura tries to eliminate the need for a Magesterium and Apostolic Tradition. Sola Fide tries to eliminate the need to follow Christs laws. Sola Cristos tries to eliminate preisthood and most if not all of the sacrements. Luther elimnated the Deuterocanonicals to try to eliminate purgatory.

More recent development continue this chopping away at the faith. OSAS eliminates repentance and perseverence. While the early denominations set up parallel heirarchies, Congregationalists tried to eliminate that and Non-denom’s go even further with that. Although most would refuse to admit it a lot of the most pared down churches have in practice eliminated or nearly eliminated the bible from Genesis thru Luke. Baptism is of the spirit so no water is needed. Eucharist is symbolic so you don’t really need to do it, at least not often. Etc, etc.

The development of Catholic theology is often likened to an oak growing from an acorn. A lot of the Protestant trees have been pared down to the point that they resemble telephone poles.

The one exception to this seems to be dispensationalism. Any thoughts on why those most obsessed with eliminating parts of the faith have embrased this addition most strongly?
Click to expand...
OK, I’m a protestant, albeit a very orthodox one so bear with me. First I think most of what passes for Church in protestant circles today is anything but and were Calvin and Luther alive today they would condemn most protestant preachers as heretics and they would be right.

About the Reformation. Sola Scriptura does not mean that the Bible is to be read to the absolute exclusion of all other texts writings and books which may be found, even though that is how it is taught today. What it originally meant is that anytime a theological question is raised *and the Bible comments on it *then opinion must be altered to suit Scripture without fail. Of course there was a wide discrepancy among Reformers about what constituted Scripture with Luther being the most radical and Calvin the most conservative. It is interesting that Calvin went on to preach from the duetero books even though the church in Geneva did not recognize them as authoritative, Calvin still saw the value of them and taught liberally from them.

Sola Fide was Luther’s understanding of what St. Augustine meant when he explained salvation being God’s grace through faith. Frankly I think Luther’s mentality of the “hard-boiled sinner” being saved by grace and not needing to agonize over his sin was flatly wrong, but here again Luther is a contradiction. The 96 Theses begin with four in a row about the life of a believer being marked by costant penitence so go figure.

Solus Christos was intended to point out the absolute supremacy of Christ above all things and not to abbrogate the priesthood. After all, it was John Calvin who said that a church could only be defined as such if it “preached the Bible and rightly administered the scaraments.” To ensure this Calvin and his followers instituted a trained professional presbyter to ensure the purity of teaching and the sacraments that the tradition would not be lost. Unfortunately, as denominations spread out, the teaching was lost.

I don’t believe in OSAS see comments on Sola Fide above.

As for dispensationalism remember this, it is American in its orgin, it preaches the preferential treatment of the church (rapture) and promises that when God deals out judgment the (presumably) really good Christians will be able to sit in heaven and cheer on the show as those they hate take it on the chin from God.🤷 Apart from being radically unscriptural it is also mean spirited and thoughtless which are the two thing which most clearly describe American protestants so why shouldn’t they like it.
 
bogeydogg said:
As for dispensationalism remember this, it is American in its orgin, it preaches the preferential treatment of the church (rapture) and promises that when God deals out judgment the (presumably) really good Christians will be able to sit in heaven and cheer on the show as those they hate take it on the chin from God.🤷 Apart from being radically unscriptural it is also mean spirited and thoughtless which are the two thing which most clearly describe American protestants so why shouldn’t they like it.
Click to expand...
A quibble, dispensationalism had its origins in the British Isles and was imported to America: What is Dispensationalism. But, I agree with your assessment of it as a former member of the Assemblies of God, which teaches this quite strongly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top