Am I supposed to care what Catholics say about the Protestants?
I suppose you’re supposed to care at least as much as you’d like Monty to care what you have to say about the Mormons, and to the same degree of informedness.
—Grendel, God is just. If, by some chance someone had not heard the gospel and ended up dying before they could, I am sure He has arrangements.—
I’ve never quite understood this song and dance. First, we have hard-core rules that are said to be just because GOD lays down what is just. People make all sorts of objections to them on moral grounds, but are sternly told that no, god’s rules are THE rules.
But then we have spontaneously making up whole “arrangements,” assuming whole reams of totally unsupported theology, just to make sure that god fits some concept of “just” that, well, us HUMANS have.
—You have to HEAR the gospel in order to be able to accept/reject it. If you never hear it (which would be extremely hard in this day and age), you never had a chance, ya know?—
Where does the Bible say this? On the contrary: it says that everyone knows god, and they either choose to accept or reject them. It doesn’t say anything about hearing the gospel or not.
—And nobody made me the arbitrator. I’m going by what the Bible says … ya know, the book that Christians are supposed to follow.—
The problem is, other people have read the book, and think you’re totally offbase in your reading of it. So what? Me, a non-believer with no stake in the matter: I can’t see how another denomination couldn’t be just as justified in saying that you’re missing the boat with YOUR interpretation.
The quote from Romans that WV_Woman posted above is the key to where this argument is going, but there is a huge amount of misunderstanding of what Christians mean (or at least IMHO ought to mean) by it.
It’s a three-part process. “Grace” is God’s unearned gift to human beings. We accept that grace through faith in Him – not having a particular belief in the sense of creedal orthodoxy, but through trusting His grace. Having done so, it’s our obligation to Him to do His will – i.e., good works – to the extent possible. The guy with a deathbed conversion is not excluded from the requirement to do His will; he’s merely expected to do them for the few seconds of earthly life remaining to him.
Two analogies may help. Neither is perfect (in the first one, the lifeguard could overcome an untrusting swimmer, for example), but both illustrate the key point to be made. In each case, the POV is that of God, not that of a human.
First, you see someone drowning. You swim out to them, and offer to save them and bring them to shore. It’s incumbent on them to trust you to do what you’re saying you will, in order for the rescue to work. Now, having gotten the drowning swimmer back to shore and allowed him to recuperate from his ordeal, you then let him know a series of things you want him to do – which he ought to be doing out of gratitude to you, and which you feel will keep him from getting back into trouble, such as taking swimming lessons, practicing the buddy system, and buying a life preserver. Those last steps are not a mandatory requirement for being saved from drowning; they’re means to prevent him from another episode of potential drowning.
Second, imagine yourself as a multibillionaire who loves all Dopers. You buy up this ideal tropical paradise and build great homes for all Dopers there (for those who like cold weather, there’s a mountain range just above their homes). You open bank accounts for all of them that will earn them enough income to pay for all their needs, arrange to have them supplied with wonderful food, clothing, complaisant dancing girls (and dancing boys), high-speed broadband access to SDMB, all the necessities of life. You settle all Dopers there with all their needs and wants taken care of.
After you leave to go tend to your other interests, a fast-talking shyster comes by and scams them all out of all that you’ve given them.
Because you still love them, you come back and rescue them from their problems. But to do so, you need to have them trust you – and memory being what it is, some of them have you confused with the shyster and others think that both of you are fairy tales. Having re-endowed all the Dopers who would trust you (and provided them with some extra resources), you then tell them that their job is to convince the other guys, who are living in rags in hovels on a stagnant backwater since the shyster now owns their beachfront homes, that you’re trustworthy, so that you can re-endow them too, and to take care of the guys on the backwater with the extra resources, since they won’t trust you and you still want to see them taken care of – and that one of the key ways they’re going to accomplish doing that convincing is if they try to live up to the sort of life that you’re demonstrating, by being as generous and kind as you’ve been.
Grace first. Then trust. And then kindness and demonstrating what one has received by giving it forward in turn.
Faith in the LORD leads one to repentence of their sins. This leads to baptism (or being saved). Works are then the result of their faith and acceptance of CHRIST’s atonement. Works can not save, but faith without works is not an acceprtance of CHRIST’s atonement. Even with our best ‘works’, we all would be unprofitable servants, but we are truly saved if we accept his gift and show it by good works based in LOVE.
OR in other words
Being a Sunday morning Christian while worshipping money, sports, sex, social standings, promotions, etc. the rest of the time is hypocritical in the least and shows ingratitude for the LORD’s great sacrifice and gift.