Unsettled ChristianityOne blog to rule them all, One blog to find them, One blog to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
This is interesting from JPII.
“Eternal damnation”, therefore, is not attributed to God’s initiative because in his merciful love he can only desire the salvation of the beings he created. In reality, it is the creature who closes himself to his love. Damnation consists precisely in definitive separation from God, freely chosen by the human person and confirmed with death that seals his choice for ever. God’s judgement ratifies this state.
I have heard Pentecostal pastors say that a loving God would never send a person to Hell. John Paul II had the same belief.
Also, I note that JPII states that the path to the state of Hell is immediate at death, and is irreversible. So praying for the dead (at least some of them) is useless, as confirmed by JPII himself.
In his homily at the final World Youth Day Mass in Madrid, Benedict XVI said that faith, and therefore salvation, is a free gift from God.
Faith is more than just empirical or historical facts; it is an ability to grasp the mystery of Christ’s person in all its depth. Yet faith is not the result of human effort, of human reasoning, but rather a gift of God.
A commentator noted a few of these posts ago that Willimon liked Narrative Theology. I am not always a fan of any theology which seems to force Scripture interprets Scripture as the only means of interpretation, however, which Narrative Theology, on the surface, seems to enforce. I do, however, like a theology which can take the whole of Christian canonical experience and create a story, but without prohibiting the free study of the individual parts. I’m not sure where Willimon fits into this quandary here, but in this chapter (3), he does use Narrative Theology to tell the story of Salvation.
He begins with the statement that, “Salvation is God’s projection of God’s desires upon us.” Agreed. He moves to write, “Salvation is the story, the whole story, from beginning to end, the discernible shape of the narrative that is being told by God, not just the end of the story.” Agreed, doubly so. I note that many view salvation as a one time moment in their particular history, in that they have a religious experience or moment of compunction and declare themselves saved, but (and I think that this is where Willimon’s nascent Wesleyanism comes in at) salvation is a long, broad path which the Christian journeys upon to a final destination which is really just the beginning. In the back of my mind is Paul who writes of having been saved (past), of being saved (present), and of being saved (future). Paul, Wesley, Barth and now Willimon are saying nothing different – that salvation, having already occurred at the Cross is now something people are called to participate in, but that there will be a final realization of it in the Eschaton.
Willimon says something else though, something that I find particularly intriguing today. He says that we have been taught to listen to “Scripture anthropologically rather than theologically.” He’s right. Often times I hear well intentioned people saying, “How does Scripture speak to me?” or “what does this mean today?” Instead, Willimon what us to understand that Scripture is not about us, but about God and then, only because Scripture is it about God, it turns to us. Scripture is not speaking to us as Dagon, but it is God’s story which we are invited to listen too.
For Willimon, Salvation is a Comic Event (Christus Victor?) which is only something that God can accomplish. The more I read Willimon and others, the more I come to see Salvation as indeed a past event, decided already, for everyone, at the Cross. While it is an on going ‘Mass’, it is forever set in History, and yet above History. It is something we are called to participate in, but we cannot validate it or ’cause’ it or even ‘accept’ it. In my opinion, any of these actions would take Salvation out of hands of God and put it into our hands, as if we can somehow either cause it or prevent it. I would agree with Willimon, that God’s desire is one which reaches from Genesis 1 and 2 (more 2 than 1 in my opinion) and completed at Golgotha. He writes, “The restless Creator became the relentless Redeemer. The Redeemer is the same fabricator of the chaos whom we met as Creator. The work of the cosmic Christ is cosmic salvation.”
From here, he knows the question which will be asks and goes to answer it, “Is the hope of universal restoration, the hope that all people will be saved – that hell will not be eternal and that God will eventually be “all in all” (1 Cor 15.28) – a legitimate Christian hope?” Well, is it? (He answers it, but you, what do you say?)
God reveals Himself to us, He doesn’t give us theories.
Salvation is not found in a theory – Salvation is found in Jesus Christ.
Jesus is the most important part of Creation
- Jesus is the Creator
- Jesus is the Redeemer
- Jesus is the Restorer.
If you have read this blog for long, or others (why would you read others?) then you will remember the controversy which erupted over Rob Bell‘s book, Love Wins. It actually began due to a tweet by John Piper which simply read, ‘Farewell, Rob Bell’. I’ve since read and reviewed Bell’s book and found it lacking of the need to have such a controversy. It was, after all, nothing really new, and in all actuality, more of a pastoral book. Indeed, it was truly a pastoral book because it was Bell telling his congregation to shut up about sending people to hell.
Willimon’s book was published in 2008. I hadn’t heard of it until I read a post by another author who happens to be a former UMC student pastor. But while reading this book, I had to wonder why Willimon wasn’t given the treatment that Bell was…
I would postulate that either it didn’t make it on the radar of Piper et al, or maybe Piper wasn’t really wanting to confront a well-known conservative United Methodist Bishop. Or maybe, Bell is just really easy to pick on because he dresses funny. Whatever it is, I ponder these things when I read statements such as the one on page 14:
The Revealer who delights in revelation desires recipients for the revelation. So a first response to the question, “Who shall be saved?” might be, “Well, who is created? What creatures are so beloved by the Creator that the Creator cannot let them alone? Who is God’s favorite conversation partner? These are the ones God saves.”
That’s not nearly as vague as most of Bell’s book. Considering everything said before and after that statement, about how God doesn’t want to be alone and seeks to be near us, then we are left with only a few legitimate answers to Willimon’s questions.
Willimon, unlike Bell, is a theologian. This is a strength for him, actually. Further, where as Bell is concerned with our own self-imposed hells, Willimon is concerned with God’s salvation. The viewpoint between the two are different. For Bell, it is more about humanity’s actions and choices; for Willimon, it is about God in Christ.
He begins chapter 2 with,
“Who will be saved?” is not as interesting a question as “Who saves?” That which makes Christian salvation counter-intuitive, counter-cultural, and strange is the God who saves.
The Bishop is deeply concerned with having God placed in the right order. Salvation is God’s and not ours. It is a gift, not earned. It starts and ends with God. For Bell, I get the feeling that humanity is the center of the universe. In reading so far, there is a sence of some of the Reformed Tradition mixed with self-professed Wesleyanism.
So far, so good.
<< But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong. ” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” >>
Luke 23:40-43 (NIV)
That I can pray, talk, ask, sing, praise, ask for forgiveness, repent, to Jesus directly, and He will not condemn me is a truth I know.
Jesus did not condemn the thief who believed in Him and who asked for Salvation.
I keep coming back to this line:
All of our lives are lived in the light of a prior choice – not our choice, but God’s. (pg5)
This is seems to be my current theological mindset. In that I have always rejected that somehow Christ’s sacrifice is only valid when we ‘accept’ it. I have never liked that terminology. If is only sufficient when accepted, then it is null if we do not. Do we have that ability within ourselves to either accept or reject the sacrifice of Christ based on our own free will?
I see the Christ-Event as something in the past but something ever proceeding so that while it was ‘once for all’ given, it pervades us even today and is an ongoing sacrifice which covers all sins.
Willimon posits that the choice is that God wants to be near us and to have us near Him. Maybe it’s the same thing – in that the choice while Willimon expresses is itself expressed in the Christ-Event so that only in the death of Christ we are made near to God. Does this involve a certain amount of election? Of course – it must. Salvation must. Throughout the grand narrative, Election is ever present, but so is the ability to attach oneself to the people of God through various ways. But, regardless, the Covenant between God and His Elect was always made at a past event, and was celebrated in various ways.
So far, I really enjoy this book – finding it dense enough to hold my attention and yet, not too dense so as to have the lay person grasp and find him or herself drawn in.
Jesus fulfilled the Law, and the Law ended by His death and rising. Jesus was sinless and the only one who could keep the Law. To not keep the Law in the OT was a sin. Peter in Acts 15:9-11 said that no one (but Jesus) could keep the Law, and that salvation was then by faith in Jesus Christ.
Catholic doctrine is that Mary was sinless and was redeemed upon her conception, so her salvation was, according to Catholic doctrine, in advance of the death of Jesus.
If no one could perfectly keep the Law but Jesus, and Mary was sinless and already had salvation, does this mean that Mary was not required to follow the Law? By not following the Law she wouldn’t have been sinning as she would have already been living under the grace of Jesus the Son of God before the conception of Jesus.
So, is it Catholic doctrine that Mary was sinless only by the grace of God, and not by grace combined with following the Law perfectly (something she couldn’t do, as only Jesus could)?
The Basis of Salvation:
“This point needs to be fully and clearly grasped: salvation is only and always through the work of Christ, only and always because ‘God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son’ (John 3:16). From Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden to those in the last human generation on earth at the time of Christ’s glorious return, there is no basis for salvation other than Christ’s death and rising.”
Bruce Milne, Know the Truth.
“The title “Advocate” goes back to St Irenaeus. With regard to Eve’s disobedience and Mary’s obedience, he says that at the moment of the Annunciation “the Virgin Mary became the Advocate” of Eve (Haer.5,19,1; PG7,1175-1176). In fact, with her “yes” she defended our first mother and freed her from the consequences of her disobedience, becoming the cause of salvation for her and the whole human race.”
Pope John Paul II
I have the Basis. Do I need the Cause?
The problem with gender for Christians is not only one of biblical interpretation or translation, (or are they the same?), but I think it has to do with struggling to reconcile God’s transcendence of gender with a God who forever enfolded Godself in the flesh of a Jewish rabbinical day-laboring male.
And now, Willimon who is discussing the image of salvation in the parable of the Good Samaritan.
Many looked upon God’s salvation – a Jew from Nazareth who lived briefly, died violently, and rose unexpectedly – and responded, “We would rather die in the ditch than to be saved by you.” Therefore, the story of our salvation is, at key points, a story of our resistance, our violence to the Savior we did not expect.
He goes on to call this salvation wrought by Christ ‘odd, threatening, humiliating, and extravagant (in a) form by which God draws near to us for our rescue (parenthesis addition mine)’.
He posits that we may in fact reject Christ because it is not the salvation which we want because Christ is not the Savior who we want. Some of us need to feel more or do more for our salvation. Maybe this is why legalism remains popular – because people need such to feel like they are ‘saved.’ It may also be that we struggle with this idea of God’s gender because we need to see him as a male – warrior, king – and would find a female god – mother, lover, wisdom, peacemaker – as impotent and thus ineffectual. I personally do not assign a gender to God, any more or any less than what Scripture does (and yes, you need to read my words to know what I am actually saying.)
What is God’s salvation has already occurred, and whether or not we consent to it, makes no difference?
- Help for Those Doubting Their Salvation (godsbreath.wordpress.com)
- Biblical language that describes the operation of the Spirit of God “after” Salvation (ptl2010.wordpress.com)