What is works salvation and why will it send people to hell?

  • Thread starter Thread starter VociMike
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ve done that elsewhere, you can search for those posts if you’d like.

However, in keeping with the OP, ISTM that your position, as a Catholic, is that works are necessary, meritorious, and contribute to salvation; is that correct?
My understanding is that Jesus died for all mankind and God’s grace and salvation is therefore freely available for those who avail of it.
Now that is where we seem to differ. Availing of it means accepting God’s invitation to a relationship with him. Sin is a valve that we use to turn off God’s grace from flowing to us. Works are what is required of us Christians by Jesus’ command to love one another and not doing them is a sin of omission.
I can explain this by means of an analogy which makes sense to us here in Bombay but don’t know if it will to you.
Our mobile phone operators have their service in the city and it is up to me to avail of it. I do this by buying a SIM card and establishing a relationship with them. I then maintain that relationship by paying a monthly rental. I can still switch off my cell phone (SIN) and consequently lose the service that is available.
So while God’s salvation is freely available, it is up to me to take it or leave it. Each is necessary and together they become sufficient.
 
I’ve been reading this thread at the invitation of a friend and my mind is boggled that there are people still debating the question of faith vs. works. Just a few years ago, probably less than 15, the major players in Christianity: Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Lutheran, Anglicans (American Episcopalians), Baptists and Methodists reached an agreement on this question. They agreed that faith, hope and charity are necessary for salvation. How this did not trickle down to the masses of Christians in these churches boggles my mind.

They agreed on the following:
  1. Salvation comes from God alone. The Church is the teacher of the faith.
  2. By his glorious Cross Christ has won salvation for all men. He redeemed them from the sin that held them in bondage.
  3. Our salvation flows from God’s initiative of love for us, because “he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins” (1 Jn 4;10) “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” (2 Cor 5; 19).
  4. The flesh is the hinge of salvation. We believe in God who is creator of the flesh; we believe in the Word made flesh in order to redeem the flesh; we believe in the resurrection of the flesh; the fulfilment of both the creation and the redemption of the flesh.
  5. Divine providence works also through the actions of creatures. To human beings God grants the ability to cooperate freely with his plans so that our works are in union with the Divine plan for our salvation and in union with Christ’s work on the cross. Through our good works we cast in our lot with Christ on the cross.
  6. By charity we love God above all things and our neighbour as ourselves for love of God. Charity the form of all the virtues, “binds everything together in perfect harmony” (Col 3; 14). Therefore charity binds all things together in Christ who is perfect harmony. Without charity, there is no bond to Christ, for Christ’s saving act was the perfection of charity to which humans freely bind themselves through their love of God and neighbour or from which humans freely divorce themselves through injustice or indifference.
  7. The Apostle reminds us that “If I have not charity, I am nothing.” Whatever my privilege, service, or virtue, “if I have not charity, I gain nothing.” Charity is superior to all the virtues. It is the first of the virtues. “So faith, hope and charity abide, these three. But the greatest of these is charity.”
It was agreed by the major Christian Churches that Calvin and Luther’s teachings have been misconstrued, most likely due to the way the term “works salvation” was translated. For neither of them was against works of charity. Nor was either man of the belief that humanity had no responsibility in his own salvation. “Christ did save man, but man has to accept salvation in kind,” said Luther. In other words, man has to respond to God’s love through an act of selfless love. Calvin added asceticism to this. Man had to become detached from all that was worldly if he was to truly accept salvation. In the Wesleyan tradition (Methodist) man must engage in a method or a way of life that is consistent with Salvation, hence the term Methodism. As you see, the reformers were not against any kind of work or action on man’s part to achieve salvation. They were grossly mistranslated and misquoted. What they were opposed to was the idea that man could achieve salvation through his own efforts, but never did they deny that God grants man freedom to unite his efforts to those of Jesus. They never hold man free of responsibility; otherwise they would not have demanded methods of prayer, asceticism, reflection on the scriptures and even celebration of the sacraments. This is consistent with Catholicism and Judaism.

JR 🙂
 
Show me that this is prevenient grace without twisting…

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. (John 6:37 KJV)

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:44 KJV)

And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. (John 6:65 KJV)

Nobody can come to Christ without them being given to Him by the Father…drawn…this results in them coming to Christ - them being raised up on the last day. This is effectual grace resulting inthe salvation of those foreknown…predestined…called…justified…glorified…

Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. (Romans 8:30 KJV)

God can influence the will to the point of salvation!

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy **has caused us to be born again **to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, (1 Peter 1:1-3 NAS95)

We are all enslaved to something…our deadness must be overcome.
I see no inconsistency in these scriptures with anything that I have stated.

God gives grace. We are saved by his grace. We are drawn to Christ by the Father. No one comes to Christ without the gift of grace. Faith is a gift. We cannot choose to believe except by the grace of God. I cannot freely respond to God without God’s grace. God’s grace enables me to respond and God’s grace works within me for His good pleasure. Likewise, we are warned about our free will when Paul says, “Do not quench the Spirit.”[1 Thess 5:19]

Likewise, by grace we must pursue the peace with all men and the holiness without which no man will see God.[Hebrews 1:14] All of this comes by way of God’s enabling grace which gives us the freedom and ability to do God’s will and to turn from sin. In this way we are washed, sanctified, justified, and glorified. We are a new creation, we are God’s handiwork, we are adopted sons and daughters, and all of the glory goes to God.

So what’s the problem?
 
I’ve been reading this thread at the invitation of a friend and my mind is boggled that there are people still debating the question of faith vs. works. Just a few years ago, probably less than 15, the major players in Christianity: Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Lutheran, Anglicans (American Episcopalians), Baptists and Methodists reached an agreement on this question. They agreed that faith, hope and charity are necessary for salvation. How this did not trickle down to the masses of Christians in these churches boggles my mind.

They agreed on the following:
  1. Salvation comes from God alone. The Church is the teacher of the faith.
  2. By his glorious Cross Christ has won salvation for all men. He redeemed them from the sin that held them in bondage.
  3. Our salvation flows from God’s initiative of love for us, because “he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins” (1 Jn 4;10) “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” (2 Cor 5; 19).
  4. The flesh is the hinge of salvation. We believe in God who is creator of the flesh; we believe in the Word made flesh in order to redeem the flesh; we believe in the resurrection of the flesh; the fulfilment of both the creation and the redemption of the flesh.
  5. Divine providence works also through the actions of creatures. To human beings God grants the ability to cooperate freely with his plans so that our works are in union with the Divine plan for our salvation and in union with Christ’s work on the cross. Through our good works we cast in our lot with Christ on the cross.
  6. By charity we love God above all things and our neighbour as ourselves for love of God. Charity the form of all the virtues, “binds everything together in perfect harmony” (Col 3; 14). Therefore charity binds all things together in Christ who is perfect harmony. Without charity, there is no bond to Christ, for Christ’s saving act was the perfection of charity to which humans freely bind themselves through their love of God and neighbour or from which humans freely divorce themselves through injustice or indifference.
  7. The Apostle reminds us that “If I have not charity, I am nothing.” Whatever my privilege, service, or virtue, “if I have not charity, I gain nothing.” Charity is superior to all the virtues. It is the first of the virtues. “So faith, hope and charity abide, these three. But the greatest of these is charity.”
It was agreed by the major Christian Churches that Calvin and Luther’s teachings have been misconstrued, most likely due to the way the term “works salvation” was translated. For neither of them was against works of charity. Nor was either man of the belief that humanity had no responsibility in his own salvation. “Christ did save man, but man has to accept salvation in kind,” said Luther. In other words, man has to respond to God’s love through an act of selfless love. Calvin added asceticism to this. Man had to become detached from all that was worldly if he was to truly accept salvation. In the Wesleyan tradition (Methodist) man must engage in a method or a way of life that is consistent with Salvation, hence the term Methodism. As you see, the reformers were not against any kind of work or action on man’s part to achieve salvation. They were grossly mistranslated and misquoted. What they were opposed to was the idea that man could achieve salvation through his own efforts, but never did they deny that God grants man freedom to unite his efforts to those of Jesus. They never hold man free of responsibility; otherwise they would not have demanded methods of prayer, asceticism, reflection on the scriptures and even celebration of the sacraments. This is consistent with Catholicism and Judaism.

JR 🙂
Are you speaking of the ECT agreement?

If not, what is the agreement that you are speaking of called?
 
There have been some good posts in the thread that as JReducation says is something that should already be known.

The way I see it is that man, being so lowly in comparison to God, cannot by his own efforts make any kind of action or work that would be on the level of “redeeming” to be back in the graces of God. This is the salvation by works which we know does not “work”. (pun) We all do good things every now and then but that cannot overcome the gap between us and the supernatural because our acts are purely human.

Since Christ became one of us and died to offer the perfect gift of Himself as a sacrifice to the Father, He redeemed us by meriting the graces necessary for our renewed relationship of now being sons and daughters of God through the Church of the New Covenant.
Now we, who have faith and God’s graces, must do the “works” that show our living faith or else we will be like those St. James talks about as having a dead faith. These are not the works that save but the works that show the living faith in us.

mdcpensive1
 
The works are not just a show of our faith. God doesn’t need to see works to know if we have faith. Our faith must be alive and must produce works. That is why the apostle James makes the comparison of faith and works to that of the body and spirit. The body and spirit make up a living human being. Separated the body is dead. Likewise, faith and works are what justify. Faith, like the body without the spirit, is dead without the works. The works are necessary.
 
Are you speaking of the ECT agreement?

If not, what is the agreement that you are speaking of called?
I have to be honest with you, I do not know if it’s called the ECT agreement. However, in 1999, the World Lutheran Federation and the Roman Catholic Church signed a Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. Since then, thanks to the work of other Protestant and Catholic theologians such as Lane, Cecil, and Dominguez, other Christian Churches have agreed to the content of the declaration.

Here is the link to the declaration if you want to read the entire thing. It’s actually very beautiful.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

JR 🙂
 
. . . once one is placed “in Christ” by God, he has peace with God, and all condemnation is lifted (Rom 5:1; 8:1).

That is because he was crucified with Christ (Rom 6), and all of his transgressions have been forgiven, and all of his debt to God has been canceled and taken away (Col 2:13-14).
Well stated. Just to clarify, to be crucified with Christ doesn’t take place one night when a believer ‘accepted Christ and got saved’ or preformed an empty ritual. It is when the believer crucifies self that he\she comes alive in Christ. That happens daily.

Luke 9:23

And (Jesus) said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
 
My understanding is that Jesus died for all mankind and God’s grace and salvation is therefore freely available for those who avail of it.
The all mankind is the few believers that live, for instance, in India or Indiana, USA. It is God’s extended family outside of the Jews of the Hebrew Bible. That Family has an exact number. All mankind does not mean every man, woman, child that ever existed.

The Bible doesn’t teach that Grace is something you have freewill over in accepting.
Availing of (grace) means accepting God’s invitation to a relationship with him.
That doctrine isn’t taught in the Bible.
Sin is a valve that we use to turn off God’s grace from flowing to us
God’s grace is not indoor plumbing.

With respects to your SIM card analogy . .

If Jesus was your mobile phone operator, He would command you to establish a relationship with His service; your monthly rental would become daily. You may think you have the power to ‘switching off’ your service, but He will come to your door and beat you into continuing.
 
Sand…

To You in Christ…

Perhaps we are just not hearing what the other is saying, so, perhaps at this point we must accept that we have offered each other our views…

My final statement is simply that with respect to works, lack of doing is like any other sin. It compounds on itself till it eventually causes separation. It is not that I am working my way into heaven. It is that I am doing what I can to avoid sin.

Lack of works is not special in that it has no effect on the soul. Lack of doing right is a sin… plain and simple…

If you wish to continue in saying that it is a works salvation… so be it. That is not what was said by me. I have simply said sin separates us from Christ, something the bible teaches, and not doing what is right is sin.

Do works is nothing more complicated than avoiding the specific sin of not doing what is right.

I will pray for you and your journey (a work, the right thing) and I will ask you to pray for me in my journey (a work, the right thing)

In Christ
 
I have to be honest with you, I do not know if it’s called the ECT agreement. However, in 1999, the World Lutheran Federation and the Roman Catholic Church signed a Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. Since then, thanks to the work of other Protestant and Catholic theologians such as Lane, Cecil, and Dominguez, other Christian Churches have agreed to the content of the declaration.

Here is the link to the declaration if you want to read the entire thing. It’s actually very beautiful.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

JR 🙂
Hey JR Thanks for stopping in here and lending us the benefit of your objective and very learned mind.

James
 
Well stated. Just to clarify, to be crucified with Christ doesn’t take place one night when a believer ‘accepted Christ and got saved’ or preformed an empty ritual. It is when the believer crucifies self that he\she comes alive in Christ. That happens daily.

Luke 9:23

And (Jesus) said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
Well Tabcom - you seem to be adverse to the “rituals” for some reason; even where Jesus was not. After-all Jesus did submit to the ritual dedication in the temple as first born Jews all do. Jesus also submitted to the ritual of Baptism as all Christians now do. If Christ as Head of The Church can submit why can’t you? Is this too much of a suffrage for you to suffer?

But what I see here above is EXTREMELY promising. You admit to the daily works of carrying one’s cross. This tells me you do in fact believe that salvation requires works. BRAVO BROTHER! The problem now is simply to get you to take to heart the truth that you speak.

James
 
The all mankind is the few believers that live, for instance, in India or Indiana, USA. It is God’s extended family outside of the Jews of the Hebrew Bible. That Family has an exact number. All mankind does not mean every man, woman, child that ever existed.
That doctrine isn’t taught in the Bible.
The Bible doesn’t teach that Grace is something you have freewill over in accepting.
THIS IS A PRIVATE INTERPRETATION AND IS IN ERROR. The bible does not “teach” - teachers teach. Biblical teachers get their authority through the Apostolic succession of the Catholic Church. The bible is not a self-study guide. Where did you get your diploma to teach and your authority to teach?

James
 
The Bible doesn’t teach that Grace is something you have freewill over in accepting.
God forbid, you are not suggesting that The Holy Spirit raped Mary to impregnate Her against her consent during the Incarnation are you?!! :mad:

James
 
Let me start from the beginning:
40.png
JReducation:
I’ve been reading this thread at the invitation of a friend and my mind is boggled that there are people still debating the question of faith vs. works. Just a few years ago, probably less than 15, the major players in Christianity: Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Lutheran, Anglicans (American Episcopalians), Baptists and Methodists reached an agreement on this question. They agreed that faith, hope and charity are necessary for salvation. How this did not trickle down to the masses of Christians in these churches boggles my mind.
What’s “mind boggling” to me is that you make an assertion, then go on to list 7 points made by these folks, and, you can’t attribute it to a source:
I have to be honest with you, I do not know if it’s called the ECT agreement.
If it did come from ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together), then the statement is one concerning those who signed the agreement—there is no unanimity with respect to ECT—it was/is controversial, and opposed by many. The central point of ECT was joining together to present a united front on social issues. Many of the signees included strong caveats that the agreement resolved none of the doctrinal differences, nor was it the point of ECT.
40.png
JReducation:
It was agreed by the major Christian Churches that Calvin and Luther’s teachings have been misconstrued, most likely due to the way the term “works salvation” was translated.
The “criticism” movement has been maintaining the “misconstruing” of many things for quite some in attacks against scripture and its authenticity, the “new perspective” on Paul, and the emergent church, and so forth. These things will continue, and probably worsen.
40.png
JReducation:
However, in 1999, the World Lutheran Federation and the Roman Catholic Church signed a Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. Since then, thanks to the work of other Protestant and Catholic theologians such as Lane, Cecil, and Dominguez, other Christian Churches have agreed to the content of the declaration.

It’s actually very beautiful.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, or in this case, the reader.

Many disagree with the content of the agreement, both Catholics, and Lutherans.

I’ve read excerpts of the agreement, so thanks for the link, JR; I’ve bookmarked the site, and will make time in the near future to read the entire document.
 
THIS IS A PRIVATE INTERPRETATION AND IS IN ERROR. . . . Where did you get your diploma to teach and your authority to teach?
When I was a neophyte member to this forum, I would chomp at the bait to your question. That experience taught me that arguing theology on a Roman Catholic forum is a waste of time.

Receiving questions like you have asked is a code. The code is translated into saying, ‘I have my theology and the bible doesn’t matter’. Regretfully, there is no room for dialog with that set of belief system.

Be advise that any post you submit that doesn’t take Scripture out of context (i. e. John 15:15) will be met with a finger twitching press of the Page Down key on my keyboard.
 
Sand…

To You in Christ…

Perhaps we are just not hearing what the other is saying, so, perhaps at this point we must accept that we have offered each other our views…

My final statement is simply that with respect to works, lack of doing is like any other sin. It compounds on itself till it eventually causes separation. It is not that I am working my way into heaven. It is that I am doing what I can to avoid sin.

Lack of works is not special in that it has no effect on the soul. Lack of doing right is a sin… plain and simple…

If you wish to continue in saying that it is a works salvation… so be it. That is not what was said by me. I have simply said sin separates us from Christ, something the bible teaches, and not doing what is right is sin.

Do works is nothing more complicated than avoiding the specific sin of not doing what is right.

I will pray for you and your journey (a work, the right thing) and I will ask you to pray for me in my journey (a work, the right thing)

In Christ
🤷 There’s only so much you can do. Some people just like the straw man better. 🙂

God Bless,
Michael
 
Let me start from the beginning:What’s “mind boggling” to me is that you make an assertion, then go on to list 7 points made by these folks, and, you can’t attribute it to a source:
This is inacurrate and an attack on my person, rather than a response to the points in my post. You asked a question and I sent you the link, as your clearly indicate at the bottom of your post.
If it did come from ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together), then the statement is one concerning those who signed the agreement—there is no unanimity with respect to ECT—it was/is controversial, and opposed by many. The central point of ECT was joining together to present a united front on social issues. Many of the signees included strong caveats that the agreement resolved none of the doctrinal differences, nor was it the point of ECT.
You asked me if this was the ECT and I responded honestly by saying that I had never heard it called that and sent you the link. This is obviously not the same document, so why are you bringing in the ECT?
The “criticism” movement has been maintaining the “misconstruing” of many things for quite some in attacks against scripture and its authenticity, the “new perspective” on Paul, and the emergent church, and so forth. These things will continue, and probably worsen.
How is this related to the points that I made on my post?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, or in this case, the reader.
Many disagree with the content of the agreement, both Catholics, and Lutherans.
Many of us happen to feel that it is bautifully stated and that it resolves many issues. Is it going to please everyone? Of course not, life is not that smple. You’ll have to read it and decide if it pleases you. Keep in mind that I also named other Christian theologians from different churches who also feel comfortable with it. Over the past several years it has been examined by scholars from different Christian traditions who have a good eye for this kind of writing. These are not John Does who are self-proclaimed experts. These are genuine experts in this field. If you want to take them on, go for it.

I’m not about to discredit their opinions any more than I would a nuclear physicist, unless I was one myself.
I’ve read excerpts of the agreement, so thanks for the link, JR; I’ve bookmarked the site, and will make time in the near future to read the entire document.
At the top you said that I didn’t reference my source. Now you thank me for the source.

I would suggest that you read the document calmly, look up the other names that I included and see what they have to say. You may find that you like what you read.

Let me know.

God bless,
JR 🙂
 
40.png
JReducation:
This is inacurrate and an attack on my person, rather than a response to the points in my post. You asked a question and I sent you the link, as your clearly indicate at the bottom of your post.

You asked me if this was the ECT and I responded honestly by saying that I had never heard it called that and sent you the link. This is obviously not the same document, so why are you bringing in the ECT?
Relax, JR; the way you worded your post gives the impression, to me anyway, that the seven points of the various protestant denoms are different from the agreement of the CC with the Lutherans; are the two different?
40.png
JReducation:
How is this related to the points that I made on my post?
Simple; there are various “discrediting” movements afoot in Christianity; they attempt either to discredit such things as the reformation, the authenticity of Scripture, Christ, God, Paul, and other things Christian; they will, of course, appeal to those Catholics who worship unity to the detriment of doctrine, IMO.
40.png
JReducation:
I would suggest that you read the document calmly, look up the other names that I included and see what they have to say. You may find that you like what you read.
Probably not, JR; I’m one of those people who believes that doctrine is more important than unity, as unity is already present in Christ’s true church; as Paul says, there is only one church (Eph 4:4-5), and that church will not compromise doctrine for unity—if it does, it proves itself false (cf 1 Cor 11:18ff).
 
I would recommend a book by Dr. Norman Giesler who is a popular Evangelical Protestant theologian and a very good one. Dr. Geisler is the co-author with Ralph MacKenzie of a book entitled Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, which I would recommend to Protestants as helpful. He is one of the first non-Lutheran Christian theologians to embrace the Lutheran-Catholic accord and has some interesting points to make.
  1. Our differences come at fundamental turns in theological development that occurred after the first five Ecumenical Councils. Perhaps we should bear this in mind as we explore each other’s differences and debate one another. Remember, if this were the sixth century, both views would likely be held to be within the pale of orthodoxy.
  2. The differences between Protestants and Catholics are in the same order. We share common beliefs in Sacred Scripture, and we each even follow “traditions”. Within each tradition, the picture looks very obviously one way. Both religious expressions are true, but the human person is capable of living only one tradition at a time. It is not really possible to look at the picture and see both images simultaneously. Yet, both points of view are true within their own framework.
  3. The Protestant articulation of soteriology (theology of justification) is as follows: We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, apart from good works.
  4. Most Protestants say we are saved by a faith that produces works, but the works themselves do not save us and are not necessary. However, such works have no merit to the person.
  5. Let’s look again at how Hank Hanegraaff presents the Catholic position: We are saved by grace alone through faith infused works.
  6. With the Protestants, Catholics believe that salvation is by grace alone, such that all people who will be saved are saved by Christ, and we can rightly say that God is the initiator of salvation and the one who brings the work to completion. Salvation is a free gift and we do not earn it through our works.
  7. As long as you are alive on earth, God is still working out your own salvation with you. There is God’s initiation and then there is the response of the human person. This is not a one time deal, but an ongoing relationship made possible by what Jesus did on the cross.
  8. PROTESTANT VIEW: Rom 5:12 says that all people are sinners. Protestants believe that the works of humanity are totally depraved, and even good works are performed with impure motives. We are sinners to the core. Protestants believe that the world is deeply effected by sin, and salvation occurs solus Chistri, or in Christ alone. Protestants are Christo-monic.
  9. CATHOLIC VIEW: Catholics believe in original sin as well as Protestants. However, Catholics focus much more on the Biblical language of humanity as the image of God (Gen 1:26). Even after the fall, Catholics believe that some inherent goodness adheres to the human soul. Rather than dung covered in snow, Original sin affects everyone, but not quite to the depth of depravity described by Protestants. Catholics believe the world is effected by sin, but basically good. Rather than being Christo-monic, Catholics are Christo-centric.
Dr. Geisler ends his book with a strong suggestion to the Evangelical Churches that they begin to dialogue not on the merits of works, but on an attempt to see both the Saviour and humanity in a different light, maybe both Christo-monic and Christo-centric. What is interesting about the way that he does theology is that he recognizes that Catholicism and Protestantism are valid forms of Christianity and are both rooted in traditions. So, the challenge that he throws on the table is to find the links between the two traditions, rather than the differences. Stop drawing lines in the sand and start trying to understand each other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top