Ah, soteriology...let's conjugate the verb: have we been saved, are we saved, are we being saved, will we be saved? Let's look at Paul's soteriology (warning: very long post ahead!)
Paul is frequently at pains to stress the utterly transformed nature of the Christian’s new life in Christ, and the consequences of this. The classic starting point here is 2 Cor 5:17 – the Christian as a new creation, as it were ab initio. This ties in well with the discourse on baptism in Romans 6, particularly v4; the picture is generated of the old having died and been completely replaced so that, the Christian being “in Christ”, there is “now no condemnation” (Rom 8:1) and nothing can separate us from God’s love (Rom 8:31-39), there being complete reconciliation (Col 1:21-23). The consequences of this for us as Christians, particularly vis a vis God, are clearly laid out in such Scriptures as Gal 3:26-47, Eph 1:5-14 and Eph 2:1-10. The general thrust of Paul’s message to many of his churches is that we are made righteous (or justified) as a result of putting our faith in the crucifixion (eg Rom 5:1-2) and thus God regards us as if we were Christ (perfect) with all the attendant rewards; furthermore, this is referred to in the past tense, indicating that it has already been done for us.
Some important provisos:-
• As with any Biblical interpretation, the usual exegesis needs to be carried out – for example, we have to ask ourselves whether Paul wrote what he did because there was a particular issue in the addressee church which required comment. It is important to bear this in mind; for the moment, I would say that the fact that the above soteriological theme was communicated to a number of Pauline churches strengthens the case for it being treated as a principle of general theological application.
• There are also apparently contradictory Pauline passages that cannot be ignored – on suffering, on the lack of completion of God’s work in us, producing a dialectic tension with my comment above
I will look first at the Pauline scriptures that appear to go against the picture of salvation painted above, with a view to explaining these to a degree; this includes examining the meanings of both salvation and sanctification.
It is clear that, despite the verses referred to in the last section, Paul also talks about the concept of ‘unfinished business’ between us and God quite a bit. Important verses here include Rom 6:18-22, 1 Cor 9:24-27, Phil 3:12-16 and, perhaps most perplexing of all, Phil 2:12. The Romans passage is of particular interest since it contains the ideas of both salvation (Rom 6:18) and sanctification (Rom 6:19-22). Both these terms need looking at.
The distinction between salvation and sanctification has been the subject of a great deal of writing and preaching, especially by evangelicals, and I don’t really want to add a great deal to what has already been said here. Broadly speaking, most evangelicals would draw a clear-cut line between salvation, which they would see as being a once-and-for-all event occurring when an individual repents and gives his/her life to Christ, and sanctification, which is an ongoing work of the Holy Spirit within that individual beginning at the point of salvation and working out the consequences of salvation within this/her life. Putting it simply, whilst salvation is a crisis, sanctification is a process.
I think it is fair to say that, in contrast, the interpretation of the more traditional churches, such as the Catholic and Orthodox churches, appealing more perhaps to Phil 2:12, is to blur the difference between the two terms, and also to down-play to a degree the role of the individual in both whilst emphasising the agency of the Church (the Holy Spirit is seen more as acting in the Church collectively, through for example the hierarchy of the Church). Salvation and sanctification are more interwoven, and sanctification is seen more as a means of effecting salvation rather than as a consequence of it (see for example the notion of purgatory and, perhaps also, suffering as an agency of sanctification).
To a degree, I find both approaches to salvation and sanctification inadequate. Whilst agreeing with the general principle that salvation is a once-and-for-all occurrence (and thus disagreeing with the Catholic view), I take issue with it necessarily being a crisis event; I know many people for whom conversion was far more of a process, and perhaps evangelical soteriology needs to recognise this and be couched more in terms of individuals making a series of steps towards Christ rather than just one great leap. As an example, I understand that apparently Billy Graham can put his finger on the exact moment when he came to faith (crisis) but his wife cannot and her experience is better described as a journey to faith (process). Phil 2:12 is however a verse that cannot simply be ignored. It could be, adopting an exegetical approach, that Paul is admonishing the Philippians for taking their salvation lightly. It can also be interpreted as the results of salvation working themselves out through sanctification, but this does not explain the use of the words “fear and trembling”. Personally, I do not believe that Paul is here warning the church against forfeiting their salvation; he is perhaps reminding them just what they have been saved from and also heightening their awareness of the sheer wrongfulness of sin, something that maybe we Western Christians need to remember as well.
Sanctification also is a term that can cover a multitude of sins (if you’ll pardon the double entendre). The very word itself has connotations of holiness, which is one of God’s defining attributes, so one way of looking at it is to regard sanctification as being the process by which we are made more like God (cp Rom 12:1-2). Clearly, therefore, on one level this is a life-long process; as obvious evidence of this I know of no Christian who does not sin (even those who have been baptised into Jesus’ death and resurrection) and who is therefore already perfect ‘on the ground’, as it were, and accordingly we all have some ongoing business with God that we need to attend to in this area (some, like me, more than others!). On the other hand, Paul also talks in terms of sanctification having already occurred in 1 Cor 1:2. Applying exegetical principles to this passage, we need to ask ourselves whether Paul was correcting an imbalance within the Corinthian church here, as he sometimes did with his churches elsewhere. For example, he is keen to stress grace to the Colossians and Galatians, who were still bound up by the Law to a large extent, but is by contrast harsh with the Corinthians’ licentiousness. It seems unlikely, given the Corinthians’ general arrogance in their spiritual gifts etc, that Paul is trying to reassure them that all is well between them and God; in fact, if there is any corrective soteriological concept which is addressed to this church’s over-confidence it is the idea of beholding God “as through a glass darkly” (1 Cor 13:12 and 2 Cor 3:15-18). I think therefore we need to take what Paul is saying here at face value; that there is a level on which sanctification is already accomplished – having been declared righteous, God regards us as being holy already and treats us accordingly. (Elsewhere, Paul does seek to correct the possible attitudinal problems arising from this way of thinking (Rom 6:1-2)).
I would prefer accordingly to see a fine tuning of the definitions of the terms salvation and sanctification. I see salvation (and sanctification too, in the way set out in the above paragraph) as being accomplished by a combination of grace and faith, grace being a past act (the crucifixion and resultant forgiveness) with continuing consequences, and faith being a response-decision to that (whether taken instantly or over a number a graduated steps). The life-long ongoing process resulting from that I see more in terms of developing and deepening our relationship with God which flows from our salvation and in that way, God being Love, we are fitted for heaven; we try not to sin, not so much because it is wrong, but because it wounds God – love, not Law, should be the motivating factor.
It seems from the above that there is a contradiction inherent in being made perfect in God’s eyes by Christ whilst at the same time suffering the consequences of imperfection – suffering and death – and perhaps also not receiving all the apparent rewards of righteousness. I believe that a big clue in solving this riddle lies in the use by Paul (and indeed other New Testament writers) of the concept of teleios.
Teleios, (together with its associated similar words, teleioo, teleiotes, and teleiosis) is used frequently by Paul. You will have noticed by now that I have failed to give translations of these Greek words yet, and therein lies part of the problem: teleios and co have multiple meanings. Just as a Greek would have trouble translating our word ‘love’ (is it agape, eros, storge or phile?), so too do we have difficulties with teleios. Basically, it can be translated, inter alia, in all or some of the following ways: complete, finished, perfect, having-achieved-the-end-result, accomplished, fulfilled, full-grown, fully-developed, adult and mature. It derives from the Greek noun telos, meaning end/ goal, and, as a further aid to our understanding of the word, the teleological school of philosophical thought essentially asserts that ‘the end justifies the means’ (e.g.: that the bombing of Hiroshima was morally right because it saved lives in the long-run). To a degree, the meaning can vary according to the context but I would suggest that, by and large, teleios (and the associated words above) encompasses all of these meanings and that Paul’s use of it in his soteriology demonstrates conceptually the same kind of dialectic tension as between now and not yet which we have with the Kingdom of God being at hand. Judge for yourselves by these examples of the use of teleios-rooted words, both in Pauline texts and other New Testament writings: 1 Cor 14:20; 2 Cor 12:9; Eph 4:13; Phil 1:6; 3:12-16; Matt 5:48: Heb 2:10; 10:1; 12:23; James 1:4; and 1 Jn 2:5.
To further illustrate this tension between “now” and “not yet”, we have Paul’s own example: his use of the word rhabdon. The rhabdon was used in the Hellenistic world as a deposit, a pledge or down-payment, on the striking of an agreement, to guarantee performance of the contract and to provide compensation in the event of default. In this way, it is remarkably similar to the deposit paid by buyer to seller on exchange of contracts when buying a house. In English and Welsh law, it is the point of exchange of contracts at which legal rights and obligations arise; from exchange, the buyer has the right to own and live in the house and has the obligation to pay over the balance of the purchase monies on the completion date, minus the deposit which s/he pays to the seller at the point of exchange. However, it is only at completion, which typically takes place a week or two after exchange (so that mortgage finance can be called upon and the parties make removal arrangements), that these rights are realised: the keys are delivered, the balance of the price paid, the title deeds handed over, the seller vacates and the buyer moves into occupation. Paul, in Eph 1:13-14 says that the Holy Spirit is our rhabdon (usually translated ‘deposit’). His use of the word is very significant: there is a contrast between the rhabdon (exchange), which is where we are at now, and the telios (completion) which is where we will be after the eschaton; only at completion do we enter into the fullness of that which is promised at exchange, yet we can act with faith that completion will occur, just as the buyer who has exchanged contracts can book a removal firm and order furniture for the new home with confidence. So, then, exchange constitutes the ‘now’ and completion the ‘not yet’.
Therefore:-
• The same kind of dynamic tension exists within Pauline soteriology as with Jesus’ preaching on the Kingdom of God. (As further evidence of this I would refer you to Paul’s discourse on the resurrection in 1 Cor 15 )
• Our salvation and sanctification are already complete, yet the outworking of both continues until our death (not beyond as per the doctrine of purgatory) or the eschaton, whichever is the sooner; whilst this process is being fulfilled we experience the fruits of our salvation/sanctification, but not completely, both with regard to relationship with God and the ‘blessings of righteousness’, thus death and suffering, whilst restrained to a degree, are still at work in our (mortal) bodies
Hope that helps!
Yours in Christ
Matt
