Soteriology – from the Greek soteria meaning “healing”.
“Religion is supposed to make life worth living.” “Religion is the opium of the masses.”
Salvation is not a uniquely Christian or even religious concept. The uniqueness in the Christian concept of salvation is that it is directly linked to the life (and death and resurrection) of Jesus.
Any Christian will state “Jesus saves us” (or me) – but as soon as we ask, “what does that mean?”, or “how?” the answers multiply. One of the greatest tragedies in the history of the church is that the differences between these answers have been the greatest cause of conflict, often violent, between those who claim to be followers of Christ.
What is salvation for us?
Primitive understanding of salvation/evil: protection from natural disaster and from enemies (as in OT, and animist religions)
Modern people feel more secure in that respect – although not in all parts of the world.
Individual protection from evil – “bad things happening”? – not so in reality.
We can’t rely on God to save us = protect us. Failure of primitive understanding of evil and salvation leads to loss of faith.
Salvation is personal, interior – for next life rather than this life.
This has been perspective in much of Christian thinking, but doesn’t ring true to Jesus’ presentation of salvation, nor is it a very satisfying view of being saved – it doesn’t contribute much to making life worth living.
Is salvation only in the personal domain, or does it involve a change in relationships, community, society? Links to understanding of sin – personal vs communal. Salvation as forgiveness; liberation; counter to alienation; freedom from death; release from ignorance; …
Original sin – personal (transferred) guilt, the human condition (external), human nature (internal). The concept was developed by Augustine to address the challenge of human weakness – otherwise how could our failure be excusable in the light of God’s goodness. It was not initially seen as a transference of guilt. This is more in line with the modern thinking that recognizes the essential imperfection of humankind and the inherent alienation from our world and our creator. Original sin is not a topic that divides Catholics from Protestants simply – Reformed Churches (following Calvin) have a very strong adherence to the concept, often going beyond Augustine.
When does salvation occur?
Is salvation something that is already achieved, is happening now, or will happen in the future – or all the above? This mirrors the question about The Kingdom, as Jesus proclaimed it.
Also is salvation a process (occurs over time), or an event? Very different answers even within some traditions to this question. Charismatic perspectives emphasize the latter.
Theories of soteriology typically divide the process of salvation in phases or stages:
- Justification, Sanctification, Salvation, or
- Justification, Regeneration, Sanctification
- Participation, Acceptance, Transformation. (Tillich)
This has been a cause of confusion (and conflict) between Catholics and Protestants, and between Protestant traditions. Council of Trent used the term “justification” to mean what to Protestants was both justification and sanctification.
Further conflict and confusion arises within these terms; e.g. is justification purely the action of God independent of the sinner, or is it dependent on the sinner being in a “state of righteousness”?
How does Jesus save us?
Is Jesus role in salvation illustrative (showing how things can be), or constitutive (making things different)?
Theories of soteriology are closely linked with theories of Christology. If the understanding of Jesus is primarily as a teacher or as a revealer of the nature of God, then this fits with an illustrative view of Jesus’ salvific activity. If we focus on Jesus’ nature as being common with God, then this accommodates a constitutive view. But it still does not explain the how – specifically, why is the crucifixion a saving act?
Christus Victor: the triumph over sin and death.
The theory of atonement: paying ransom, making restitution, substitution.
Opening the possibility for participation: recreating the link between human and divine nature; divinization or deification (the Eastern tradition)
Who is saved?
Universalism vs. particularism: Salvation is offered to all vs. only to some. Jesus died for all – but was his death then ineffective for some (those who have not been saved, or have chosen not to be saved) – so did Jesus only die for the “elect”?
Justification by faith vs. works. Salvation by grace vs. justification by faith: Are humans capable of being saved as a result of their own action. Augustine (contra Pelagius) and Luther said no. Justification by faith does not mean the sinner is justified because he/she believes, rather justification is God’s action received though faith, which is trust in and total acceptance of Christ.
Predestination is a clear implication of Augustine’s soteriology, recognized in his writings. Salvation requires grace, grace is a gift, a gift is not given to all. Many did not accept this. Calvin also accepted predestination, but essentially as an explanation of how/why it was that not everyone accepted the Gospel. Later Reformed theologians took predestination as a foundational principle. Modern thinking (Barth) removes the notion of predestination to condemnation. Modern Catholic teaching emphasizes the gift of salvation offered to all and stresses the human initiative in accepting or rejecting the gift – an optimistic view of human nature, opposing the pessimism of both Augustine and Luther.
Pascal (1623-62): “there is a God whom human beings can reach and there is a corruption in their nature which renders them unworthy of God… Knowledge of one alone causes either the pride of philosophers who have known God but not their misery, or the despair of atheists who know only their misery but not their Redeemer.”
Some closing (personal) thoughts on theology
The nature of reality. The world is not divided into two domains: the world of the scientific and comprehensible, and the world of faith, religion and theology – the mysterious and incomprehensible.
There is mystery is the nature of being. Mystery is not a puzzle to solved but the unknowable. The mystery of gravity, the mystery of the electron. We can have an understanding of the behavior of gravity or the electron – the way they show themselves to us; but we have no understanding of the nature of gravity, and our understanding of the nature of the electron is rooted in paradox.
So it is for the nature of God. We can see and understand the action, the love of God, but we cannot understand the nature of God.
We face similar challenges in the moral sphere. When bad things happen we expect to be able to blame someone, to hold someone accountable. There are no accidents. This is also a misunderstanding of the nature of reality. God does not play the blame game and it is pointless for us to try to play it with him.
But the issue is deeper still. We assume that if a question is clear and well-formed it must have an answer. We might not know the answer at any given point in time, but with due diligence an answer can be found, if not by us, then by someone cleverer than us. Even this is a very deep error in our thinking about reality. This point can be demonstrated from a simple case involving measurement – nothing remotely theological or mysterious.
Does this mean there are no absolutes and we should rejoice in ignorance and incomprehension? It is in the nature of the human spirit (as created by God and sharing His nature) to strive for absolutes even while recognizing they are unachievable. A life lived in determined ignorance and without seeking to dispel prejudice (bad thinking) is not worthy of our human nature.