[...] Anyway, perhaps this will stimulate some conversation here… I’m not sure how many Catholics read this blog, but maybe they’ll come out of the shadows and let us know what they think! So what’s the big deal? It’s a huge announcement: Dr. Wallace is 51% Catholic. [...]

[...] Shane Lems notes that the dialogue above is mirrored here. [...]

Thanks for re-posting the blog.

What do you consider the major differences between the 3 main branches of Christianity to be? Are they primarily theological, ecclesiological, or both?

Good question, as a former Catholic (don’t know too much about the Eastern Orthodox) and student of church history I think there is both.

Dr. Wallace hits the main one – the relationship of faith & works. The “need” to do sacraments to receive grace as defined by the RCC is certainly a major difference. I think the question here is why one does the activity. Is it to maintain salvation and receive grace for the forgiveness of sins or to give praise and thanks to Jesus for His gift of salvation.

Another area of difference seems to be related to authority. I think we would all agree that there is authority – God, Scripture, government, church leaders, husbands, etc. But there would be some disagreement as to the fallibility or infallibility found in some of them. The RCC and Protestants would have a tough time agreeing on the Pope, Bishops and “ex cathedra” infallible teaching or the preservation of teaching (Tradition) outside of the Scriptures having the same authority as the Scriptures. Church leaders have an incredible responsibility to lead well and protect the flock. We are warned to submit to them, but I for one do not see the possession of infallible teaching/preservation of apostolic teaching (outside of the Scriptures).

NB, it is interesting that all three branches of Christendom affirm the bodily resurrection of the theanthropic person as the basis on which we can be saved. And all three recognize that it is only by God’s grace that we are saved. All three recognize that faith is an important aspect of salvation. Ironically, it is almost exclusively within Protestantism that we see disagreements over these fundamentals. Theological liberalism is an outgrowth of the Protestant branch.

There is indeed a synergy of faith and works in Catholic, Orthodoxy, and most of Protestant theology. How it’s defined is a bit different, however. In Protestantism, works become a natural outgrowth of one’s faith for the one who has truly embraced Christ as Savior. Now, here’s where you get some ‘quibbles’ of a major sort: are works totally optional so that a person can be saved and live like the devil? Are works a part of the package of what it means to be saved, so that what we do ensures that we are saved? My point is that even within conservative Protestantism, there is some sort of synergism between faith and works, just as there was in earliest Christianity (cf. Jas 2).

Now, I for one am deeply convinced of the theological correctness of justification by faith alone. But how that manifests itself in a given individual may need some nuancing. And we need to be very careful against holding to a ‘faith in faith’ view. It is not faith in faith that saves us, but faith in Christ.

Dr. Wallace,

I am glad that someone I respect as much as you thinks and ponders some of the same things I do! What do you consider the major differences between the 3 main branches of Christianity to be? Are they primarily theological, ecclesiological, or both?

Specifically, all three share the beliefs of the early ecumenical counsils. The main reason I have understood evangelicals to consider Catholics and Orthodox to be unsaved would be over the issue of faith in Christ’s work alone as the basis of salvation. The usual charge against Catholics and Orthodox, as least as I have understood it in my own circles, is that they hold to the synergy of faith in Christ’s work and good works as the basis of salvation. Is this charge true, and how does it relates to your own process of thinking through these issues?

Thanks.

Paul Maurice Martin: “I, for one, would have a really hard time with the notion that, say, the Dalai Lama or millions and millions of other good people who happened to grow up outside the Christian tradition are going to hell on that account.”

If you have a chance, read CMP’s post “It Does Not Matter if You Don’t Like a Doctrine . . . Truth is Not a Democracy”.

Then read what Jesus had to say about Himself in John 14:6.

Jason, I fully agree with your minimum requirements of a Christian. And Steven, I love the testimony! I’d love to hear more such testimonies.

Dr. Wallace,

Thanks again for a great post . I have a very good friend of mine who came out of Islam and joined the Greek Orthodox Church. Although I would not agree with all the practices, I’ve no doubt that he is a born again believer and that we share a common fellowship in Christ. He is zealous for God’s glory and defends the Truth of God’s Word against those who deny it. I am glad God was able to use me to begin sharing the gospel with him when he was a Muslim and I rejoice that he has entered into the true Kingdom of God. Thanks again.

Paul, thank you for totally misunderstanding the post.

The issue is not “interfaith”, a misnomer anyway as “faith” is not a major concern of religions other than Christianity, but the divisions within the Christian Church. The Dalai Lama, and those millions of other people (billions probably) are not “good” by the only standard that counts. That is, God’s. Why would God invite into his kingdom someone who does not accept him as their King?

Dan, this is why I have my “minimum requirements” of a Christian. As long as a person has pledged their allegiance to Jesus as Lord, accepts his sacrifice as the only way of satisfying God’s justice, and accepts the historical validity of the Resurrection then to my mind they are Christian enough for us to share fellowship. This of course leaves many liberal clergy out, but then it should. The divisions that people make such a fuss about leave me cold.

I think this points to why the interfaith movement is a good thing. We make a huge big deal over the things that divide us and hardly notice the major things we have in common – as Christians and as human beings. I, for one, would have a really hard time with the notion that, say, the Dalai Lama or millions and millions of other good people who happened to grow up outside the Christian tradition are going to hell on that account.