Reply #31: It is a big deal among many Christians, though

[Dogmudgeon]

The "Faith-vs-Works" issue is mainly an internal debate over the required method for a Christian to assure his or her salvation. However, it's not the only consideration of Christians who place paramount importance on salvation; before the "Great Awakening" of the 1820s, the main form of Fundamentalist Christianity was Calvinism, which made salvation entirely the choice of God.

It has been one of the major debates in modern Christendom, and I'd argue that it has shaped the Fundamentalist power grab(s) in the English-speaking world in the 1820s, 1880s, and 1930s, as well as the most recent one. (The dates I give are approximate, and the particular Christian movements remained powerful for as long as 30 years.)

Worth noting, the architect of the modern Dominionist Christian movement, Rousas Rushdoony, is usually considered a neo-Calvinist.

Atheists, agnostics, Liberal Christians, and non-Christians should keep an eye on how these arguments play out, since they strongly influence the prevailing form of Christian Fundamentalist craziness of any particular era. The original "Great Awakening" was actually fairly progressive, especially when compared to modern Fundamentalists like Falwall and Robertson.

In reference to the ongoing "Real Christian" topic, I've observed that it has been consistently aimed at Christians who adopt the modern version of the "Combat Christianity" metaphor from St. Paul, at the expense of the social gospel of Jesus himself. Although it really isn't helpful in DU Atheist/Religion/Theology flame wars, it's a fairly effective method for dealing with "Combat Christians" who use Biblical literalism as part of their armamentarium. As a non-believer who nevertheless has strong sympathies with liberal Christians, I'm not bothered by it, although tit-for-tat Bible quote wars are not exactly my idea of a good time.

--p!