You live ethically, do good, and try to keep God's commands because you have been saved by grace.

Surely you're not suggesting that people who aren't "saved by grace" can't also live ethically, do good, and try to keep God's commands?

Of coure not. I'm merely suggesting a reversal of cause and effect - that good works and ethical living and following God's commands do not earn salvation, they flow out of gratitude of having been saved.

I grew up in a Christian tradition that teaches a works-based salvation. You must follow a five-step plan to gain salvation, and then keep it via doing good works and avoiding sin. If you mess up, you're in danger of hell unless you remember to ask forgiveness of God in a prayer.

But, as I happily realized a decade or so ago, I can't earn salvation via good works and keeping the law - there's no sacrament that saves, no checklist of good works that add up sufficient "heaven points," and no ammount of law-keeping and sin-avoiding that merits salvation.

Salvation is an act of grace on the part of God, period. I can accept it or reject it. But I can't earn it.

And once I've accepted it by accepting Jesus as my savior - accepting that what He did on the cross is enough - I don't then go out and live an evil life. I live the way God intended me to live in response to the gift he gave me.

It's a very freeing realization that salvation is a gift, not a reward for theological, traditional or ethical perfection. You stop looking at others who also are Christ-followers and judging whether they have done enough of the right things, believe enough of the right doctrines, keep enough of the right traditions, and avoid enough of the bad, to be considered your brothers in sisters in Christ. You see others who claim Christ and realize they are like you - imperfect sinners who are saved.

I grew up in Baton Rouge. For those not familiar with our religious demographics, Baton Rouge is somewhat of a dividing line: Louisiana south of the Baton Rouge, all the way to the Gulf coast, is overwhelmingly Catholic. Louisiana north of Baton Rouge, right on into Arkansas, is overwhelmingly Protestant. Baton Rouge itself is a hodgepodge of both. (Accents, incidentally, correspond. It gets more Cajun the further south you go, and more Gomer Pyle the further north you go.)

I was raised in a hardcore, fire and brimstone Southern Baptist church, complete with a bright red, sweaty screaming preacher. (And that church was considered moderate compared to some of the Pentacostal outfits to the north). I was told all the Catholics were going to burn in Hay-yuhl, because they thought their works would get them into heaven but they hadn't "got saved" by the blood of Jay-zuss. My Catholic friends, however, told me that it was all of us "crazy born-agains" who would be eternally roasting, for we were not members of The One True Church™. (sounds oddly like a cellular calling plan to me)

While I've grown fed up with religion in general, I do tend to agree with your position that, if Chritianity really is the way to salvation, and if you analyze its teachings, then some folks are a bit too focused on good works as a means of getting into Heaven. I'm still not clear about one thing, though:

"...good works and ethical living and following God's commands do not earn salvation, they flow out of gratitude of having been saved."

From where do you figure these things flow when they are done by the un-saved? Or do you simply mean people are MORE motivated to do these things after they get saved?

(Bill- I'm really not trying to be antagonistic, so I apologize if my question is coming off that way)

I've always wondered why self-professed Christians who don't accept that Jesus was God in the flesh, that he really was crucified on a Roman cross, and really was resurrected, bother to wake up early and go to church on Sundays. They reject Jesus' own claims about himself - they believe him a liar - yet participate in the religious activities because they like his ethics?

I am sorry but we have no idea as to what Jesus himself actually professed in his own words. Nobody could possibly call Jesus a liar. Perhaps Paul was a liar. Perhaps the Roman Senators who met in Nicea in the 4th century were liars, but certainly not Jesus

Dave - I meant "more" motivated. Clearly there are atheists who live ethical lives and do good works and may even keep - coincicidentally rather than intentionally - some of God's commands.

Zen: Jesus claimed to be the son of God, and claimed, after his resurrection, to be ascending to sit at the right hand of God. He made MANY claims about himself in the Bible.

Did Jesus make these claims or did the authors of the New Testament (and the Coucil of Nicea) make these claims about Jesus?

I've always believed that all human goodness and kindness flows from the love of God. God is the source of goodness, not just its cheerleader.

Christians recognize the source; agnostics and other non-Christians may be very, very good and kind people, yet reject where those emotions come from (for whatever reason).

Zen raises a good point. We know about Jesus because of what other's did and said. The reason I trust them to be mostly right is that many were quite willing to die for what they believed in. And not for the promise of rivers of wine and 72 virgins. They did what they did because they believed hat He died, was buried, and raised from the dead three days later, and met with some of them. They showed a willingness of faith that convinces me today that they weren't lying, or doing things for their own benefit. If Jesus didn't raise from the dead, why then did Peter and the others decide to carry the word of God to other Jews, despite the resistance from the leaders of the time? Why did they eventually try and tell the good news to the Gentiles? Why did they risk, and face, death if they didn't actually believe the words they were preaching? To me, their actions demonstrate that they knew, not just felt, but knew, that death was not the end, that there was in fact something after. It is by the faith of others that I first understood its true meaning.

As for Salvation, that is something that we should be careful about. In the Bible, there was some doubt about it, or at least debate. As for me, I think that we each have our own way to salvation. For some the good deeds are easy, but the faith is hard. For other the faith is easy, but the good deeds are hard. We can but trust in this: God loves us, was willing to suffer death for us, and will judge with mercy those who do what they can.

I said years ago that Jesus was one of three things: 1) a charlatan, 2) a fruitcake or 3) who He says He is. There's no middle ground, here. The idea that some folks push that He was a "great prophet" is nuts; no prophet claims to be God incarnate. I found out just a few weeks ago that C.S. Lewis made a similar observation years ago.

Given that, I have to agree with Bill (and Rev. Sensing). Church is just another social group for a lot of people.

I'm of the opinion that doing good works is part of being born again.

I'm also of the opinion that some of the things Jesus is reputed to have said were either attributed to him, or wrong.

So a question: By concentrating on Jesus' divinity are we giving short shrift to his message?

Why is it not possible that we are all equally children of the Almighty and that Jesus was himself a great teacher of morality who has been deified by those with political agendas (i.e. Paul and the evangelicals)?

As for salvation, that is in the hands of the Almighty. No man or woman has the power to determine who is fit or unfit for eternal reward. I have known many Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims of remarkable moral fortitude-and just as many judgemental Christians who call themselves saved, and then behave as if they have no moral obligations to their fellow mankind.