Deeds?

I was raised to believe that accepting Him was Christ's requirement -- not deeds. As I age, I'm not too sure about that.

In his portrayal of the day of judgment, Jesus pictured people from all nations gathered before him, separated into "sheep" and "goats." (Matthew 25:31-46) To the "sheep" he says, "Come you blessed of my Father, for I was hungry and you fed me..." In their astonishment they ask, "When did we do that?" and he answers, "When you did it to the lowliest of my brothers" (and sisters). Conversely, to the "goats" he says, "Out of my sight, you who are condemned, for I was hungry and you did not feed me..."

Sounds like "deeds" were what Christ used to separate the sheep from the goats -- regardless of the animals' theologies.

And then there was the Rich Man and Lazarus -- deeds again with theology not mentioned.

What about, "It's harder for a rich man to enter ..." (regardless of his theology)?

Christ spent a lot of time and effort teaching about self-sacrifice. He spoke little about following the right theology. So why do we have dogmas that reverse this pattern? Have we created a feel-good dogma that allows us to "have our cake and eat it too"? "Accepting", "believing", etc. are far different (and easier) than "self-sacrificing" -- yet such self-sacrifice for others is not only what Christ taught, but demonstrated by his ultimate example.

As we drive our nice cars, eat our steaks, landscape our yards, and "accept Christ as our Savior", we might consider the possibility that Christ's self-sacrifice was not only redempting -- but exampling. Perhaps his command to "Take up your cross and follow me." meant far more than to just "accept Me as your Savior".

Steve