Ch. 5 - Embracing the Fullness of God’s Salvation
Last time we considered the way we define the gospel. Now, let’s consider what we mean when we talk about salvation, in reference to people being saved by Jesus Christ.
Sider says,
In the Old Testament, salvation is clearly social and corporate and includes every aspect of life… But the Old Testament does not speak of God’s salvation as present apart from his covenant with his chosen people where he is consciously confessed as Lord… [In the gospels,] receiving salvation and entering the kingdom are virtually identical… Experiencing the salvation of the kingdom that Jesus announced meant a total transformation of values, actions, and relationships… Salvation is what happens when people respond in faith to Jesus’ preaching, and this preaching is nothing other than the proclamation of a person, Jesus the Messiah, and the announcement of his dawning kingdom.
Does salvation, properly understood, refer only to an individual person’s eternal destiny? Or does it also have a corporate, social, present dimension? In the OT, the concept of an afterlife is almost completely absent, and yet the word salvation is used time and again. What do we do with these passages today, living in light of Jesus and the New Testament?
These days there is a lot of talk among theologians and church folks as to how we are to understand the atonement and God’s saving work. Three prominent views, which Sider briefly explains, are the moral model, the substitutionary model, and the classic model.
Moral model. Jesus is primarily teacher because our main problem as people is ignorance.
Substitutionary model. Jesus is primarily a substitute because our main problem is that we are sinners.
Classic model. Jesus is primarily a conqueror of evil because our main problem is the power of evil in our world.
Sider holds to what he calls a “messianic” model, which “emphasizes Jesus’ interrelated roles as teacher, victor, and substitute.” He says we err when we take one of the three views of the atonement and hold to it to the exclusion of the others. Do you think that, in light of the whole Bible, any one of these views of the atonement is complete in and of itself? Or is Sider correct in saying we need to hold all three in biblical tension?
I am currently taking an early church history course. It fascinates me that as soon as the church began there were different aspects of the Salvation theology that resonated with different peoples.
One that I think is interesting and captures a lot of what others only get pieces of is theosis. It is the idea that God becomes man so that man might become god (please note the capitalization). As I understand it, it essentially prioritizes the Incarnation and the divine and human coming together. The result is that through Jesus as Christ we can be divinized. This divininization is what we talk about as christ-likeness.
What I like about this idea is that it spurs and points us in the direction of living lives as Jesus lived his. This is what “christian” means. Furthermore, it embodies the the role we (as the church) are to play for the world. Obeying his commands as he obeyed the Father’s.
In considering the idea of using the words “god” and “divinization” to describe our eventual eternal state, the following question occured to me: could we describe Adam and Eve’s pre-Fall state in the same way, as “gods” underneath the true God? And thus, is our eternal perfected state lower, higher, or on the same level as the state of pre-fall man? Has sinful rebellion caused such ruination that we can never fully return to what God originally created? Or is redemption about returning us back to exactly what God originally intended us to be? OR…could it be that our eternal state will now somehow be better than it would have been if the Fall had never happened?
Yeah, the theology of theosis is deeply rooted in the story of creation and the “image” and “likeness” that Adam and Eve were created in.
From what I understand this theology focuses in on the distinction between “image” and “likeness”. They suggest that after the Fall we maintain the “image” but loose the “likeness.” A key part then of the Incarnation and our communion with God is a movement of people that re-establishes that “likeness.” It’s primary distinction from the theology of “sanctification” is that the movement towards being christ-like is driven by God’s grace and occurs at a much deeper, more fundamental, spiritual level.
I do not understand it all real well but that is my take. Feel free to google Theosis and you should find some good recaps.