That word up there is only used among theologians and seminary types.(even my spell-check doesn’t know it) It simply means “salvation knowledge, ” or the study of salvation. Believe it or not there is not wide agreement in the theological academy as to what the word salvation means, in fact, quite the opposite; there is a wide spectrum of speculation as to the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus, and the church as they pertain to salvation.
Last night at our monthly vestry meeting we had a fairly lengthy conversation about the “Special Ministries Camp” sponsored by All Saints. As most of you know we send somewhere between twenty to thirty inner city children to Camp Beckwith, our diocesan camp, for four days. Most of these kids, if not all, would never be afforded such an opportunity. Many will spend the night away from home for the first time; many have never been over the bay; many will learn to swim; and all will experience the hospitality and fellowship that imbues such a community of faith. As you will note in this week’s Herald, thanks to our “burgers for Beckwith” lunch gathering this past Sunday, we have already reached our monetary goal of having the resources to send thirty campers. We have been doing this for over forty years, and by all accounts, this is the earliest we’ve raised all the money for it.
So back to soteriology. I believe this ministry has everything to do with salvation…salvation whose synonyms include: welcome, empowerment, well being, inclusion and embrace….and most of all I think salvation is synonymous with dignity….at this camp these underprivileged and disenfranchised children will be treated the same as the regular summer campers who are privileged, who already know welcome and inclusion, well being and dignity. They will not so much learn about the iconic Jesus of our culture, but they most assuredly will learn about the Way of Jesus; and that is to experience the embracing dignity of God’s love. So as I’ve said on countless occasions, and as long as I have breath I will continue to say it: that salvation is not something we possess; it is something we are duty bound to give away to those who, for circumstance beyond their control, lack it….and that lack must not be….it is not as God would have it….this is one such opportunity to bear salvation to our neighbor, and I thank you for making this possible faithfully year after year. It will change the lives of many who will experience in a most tangible way the love of God (another way yet to speak of salvation).
They will be spirited away, as it were, on the fifth of July in the morning. (we’ll let you know the time) It would be worth your while to come and see them off….hugging their parents amid tears and laughter, excited and fearful, as if they were going on some mysterious marvelous adventure….and indeed they are…on the wheels of a rickety bus trundling towards the love of God that awaits them in a tiny corner of the world called Weeks Bay….Fare forward travellers…you will never be the same.
It is curious that the name “Jesus” is mentioned in this post regarding soteriology, and it is contended that there is not wide agreement on the meaning of this term. This proposition is true in a sense: if the parties engaged in the discussion are not operating with a common text on which they may base their arguments regarding soteriology, then any opinion goes. But if professing Christians utilize the canon as their basis for argumentation, then the very name “Jesus” settles the question. “You shall call his name ‘Jesus,'” the angel announces in St Matthew 1:21, “for he shall save (from the Greek verb *sozo*) his people *from their sins*.” (Jesus is a form of the Hebrew name “Joshua,” meaning, “The Lord saves” or “The Lord is salvation.” Clearly, salvation — soteriology — is connected to the name and therefore the mission and work of the person Jesus. (“Sin” is any want of conformity to, or violation of, the law of God [lust, greed, meanness, pride, to name a few]). To use the name “Jesus” and then to define soteriology in any way that does not center on humans’ violations of God’s law is nonsensical — at least for one who claims to be a follower of Christ.
St John says it best: “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
Mr. Rolison,
Repeat this to yourself five hundred times before you go to sleep: “Sola scriptura is not the way Episcopalians do theology.” Say it instead of singing Old McDonald when you wash your hands. Write it on a sticky note and put it on your bathroom mirror. Get a funky James Brown beat behind it and rap it. Whatever it takes to help you understand that Episcopalians are not Calvinists. Episcopalians understand Scripture in light of tradition and reason. We believe that it is best to live as if God’s gospel were true. We don’t have to name-drop “Jesus” all the time, we don’t have to scour our bibles for a scripture passage to support what we do, and we don’t obsess about sin. We believe that all people live in the freedom of God, which includes freedom from outward displays of piety and freedom from obsessing about sin. We believe that living in the freedom of God is what Easter and Pentecost are about. We believe that life is a witness to God’s freedom and therefore is a sacrament, a gift, to and for the world. And somewhere, in all of that, is salvation, for the bible and tradition and reason tells us so.
Mr. Wilson, I would venture to say that some Episcopalians ARE Calvinists. Are you not tolerant of those beliefs? In previous posts, Mr. Flowers seemed to indicate that Episcopalians are open to many beliefs.
Ms. McClain,
Please don’t lecture me about religious tolerance. I don’t give a rip whether someone is Calvinist, pantheist, Buddhist, or atheist. In the freedom of God these things don’t matter. When it comes to doing theology, Calvinists and Episcopalians differ. The Calvinist way of doing theology is sola scriptura. That is not the Episcopal way of doing theology. Episcopalians use scripture, tradition, and reason. If you or anyone else wants to be Calvinist and Episcopalian, fine. But don’t impose Calvinist theology on me because I won’t have it.
Mr. Wilson,
Respectfully, your error of fact should be corrected: I personally am friends with two priests in TEC who are Calvinists, and doubtlessly there are more. And although they are/were not in the American church, such notable Anglicans as James I. Packer, John Charles Ryle and Thomas Cranmer(!) are or were Calvinistic in theology and exegesis.
Hooker’s “Three-Legged Stool” has been given a life of its own, far apart from anything he was trying to assert in the context of his theological interactions with Puritans. He never intended to place reason and tradition on par with Scripture. You also might find it curious and challenging to learn that Calvinists do not jettison tradition or reason. You will find Calvin himself referring to the church fathers and to the use of sanctified reason! Calvinists, however, *reasonably* give Scripture the place it claims for itself: it is the only infallible rule of faith and practice for those who profess and call themselves Christians. At the end of the day, any authoritative appeal in the church must be to Scripture — not to fallen human reason or to tradition.
Now, Mr. Wilson, it is obvious that you personally, as a professing Episcopalian, consult three sources to inform your theology: Scripture, tradition and reason. Based on this comment in your post, “(W)e don’t have to scour our bibles for a scripture passage to support what we do,” any reasonable observer could make a solid guess as to how you might rank Scripture in relation to tradition and reason. In a free country, a person indeed can hold such a view. No one is denying you your right to hold this view as a professing Episcopalian; this view simply is being challenged, respectfully, in the spirit of learning.
The real issue is not if the “Three-Legged Stool” (as it has wrongly come to be understood presently) truly is the practice of historic Protestant Episcopalianism; again, many of us have our doubts. The issue is, are reason and tradition — however helpful they might be in some circumstances — properly placed on par with Scripture? If so, why?
Mr. Rolison,
Thank you for the lesson in church history, but this is not new information. It doesn’t matter that Cranmer was a Calvinist or that Henry VIII was a Catholic. They lived and thought in the context of their own times. The generations that succeed them are not beholden to their beliefs. Additionally, you might consider that the doctrine of sola scriptura, like Hooker’s three-legged stool, exists in the same fallen condition and therefore has no superior moral claim over any other theological approach. Claiming as you do that scripture is “the only infallible rule of faith and practice,” or what some might call biblical literalism or fundamentalism, is a human interpretation of scripture’s purpose and meaning. All interpretation, even literal interpretation, involves the use of, as you put it, “fallen human reason.” Therefore, both sola scriptura and the three-legged stool are imperfect, fallen tools for theological speculation. And around these imperfect, fallen tools have grown imperfect, fallen traditions: Calvinism and Episcopalianism. Thus, if you are as concerned about human sin as your previous post suggests, you might meditate on the sin of denominationalism which distracts from faithful witness to the freedom of God.
As an Episcopalian, I put scripture, tradition, and reason on the same level. All are gifts from God and can be used in faithful witness to the freedom of God’s gospel. I am not about to surrender the gift of reason to a fallen human doctrine like sola scriptura. The freedom of God means the freedom to use all gifts given in creation. It also means freedom from human-engineered pieties and proclivities, which is why I’ve said before and say again that theology is always speculative at best. It is never absolute. Therefore, what Cranmer and Hooker thought over four hundred years ago was part of an evolutionary drift. Their thoughts are neither proof nor testimony of anything except of their own limited capacity to witness to God in their own day using the tools available to them at the time, which is all that any of us can do or even expect to do in our own time.
Mr. Wilson,
I find it interesting that you perceived a lecture out of my three sentence post. You actually were the one who started on Sola Scriptura in a previous post. You keep referring to “God’s gospel,” in your posts. Would you care to clarify that? I’m assuming from these posts and discussions that perhaps we have a different interpretation of the term “Gospel,” in that I believe it is Solus Christus.
I ask respectfully with no lecture intended. Perhaps in the cyber world it is often hard to determine inflection, tone, etc. But since I asked the questions regarding Episcopalian beliefs a while back, you seem to be very defensive in your answers.
My parents, especially, were long time members of your church, and my mother’s parents before that probably 100 years ago. So I didn’t drop in out of the blue of cyber space to ask these doctrinal questions. I do have some legacy with All Saints. I think my late father would be quite sad to see the tone of your answers and the basically universalist beliefs that are in the Episcopal Church. That is, if I’m interpreting Mr. Flowers’ posts on these topics correctly.
Cordially,
Robin McLain
Mrs. McClain,
Spare us the pity party. Mr. Rolison’s comments have called Mr. Flowers’s posts on salvation “nonsensical,” “baseless,” and “autocratic.” He called the beliefs behind the Native American Eagle Poem “reprobate.” And then you chimed in and took Mr. Flowers’s posts to task arguing implicitly that theology doesn’t evolve, citing some random bible verses to “prove” that. I’m not convinced that you are genuinely interested in the Episcopal Church’s beliefs, as you earlier claim. I think you want to sound off about your own theology. When your views are stridently challenged, as they should be in this context, you retreat to an irrelevant critique of tone, and then you conclude your remarks with an obvious attack on the Episcopal Church’s “universalist beliefs.” If you do not like vigorous push back, you should think twice before posting.
As to the phrase “God’s gospel,” the meaning could not be more clear. It is the gift of salvation which Christians believe is offered by God through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and by the gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. It is the freedom from bondage to death and the fear of death, freedom from bondage to the principalities and powers, freedom from outward displays of piety, freedom from obsessing about sin and salvation, freedom to care for all of creation, freedom to live humanly in the midst of death. God’s gift of freedom is good news, indeed.
If you are genuinely interested in the Episcopal Church’s beliefs as you claim, you should start with the 1979 Prayer Book. Begin with the liturgy of Holy Baptism. Study the words on your own and then attend an Episcopal Church where a baptism is celebrated and observe it. Then move to the liturgy of Burial of the Dead, Rite II, and repeat. Then move to the liturgy of Holy Eucharist, Rite II, especially forms B and C, and repeat. Then study the liturgy for Easter Vigil, including all of the scripture readings in order, and repeat. Worship with an Episcopal congregation regularly. Talk with Episcopalians about what they do and why they do it. Also, get to know someone in your area who is needy, lonely, or troubled. Listen to them, talk with them, and care for them. When you put all of these experiences together you will come to an understanding of the Episcopal Church’s beliefs, if that is indeed what you desire.
Mr. Wilson,
In an earlier post, Mr. Flowers wrote: “And at least according to Paul, the gospel of John and in Hebrew scripture salvation is intended by God for all, it is universal, not just for a chosen few.” It was Mr. Flowers, not I, who originally brought up the universal term in these discussions. Can we agree on that?
My original questions asked of Mr. Flowers were answered respectfully by him. Since he has his blog as a public web site I assumed it would okay to comment. He took the time to reply in detail and did not seem to have to be “convinced” of my “genuine interest.”
You, Mr. Wilson, however, have not reciprocated the respect that I have given you. It goes further than a vigorous push back and I think you are aware of that.
You say: “As to the phrase “God’s gospel,’ the meaning could not be more clear. It is the gift of salvation which Christians believe is offered by God through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and by the gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.” This is Solus Christus. Can we agree on that?
Now, you may say that your term “gift of salvation” in the above paragraph is different from my definition of it. That seem to be the purpose of Mr. Flowers’ post this week.
But Solas Christus and universalism are not one in the same. And if I were to cite a Scripture verse to, as you say “prove” that, that might upset you again to the point of saying it is random or that my comment is irrelevant.
I am not the one to answer for Mr. Rolison’s or any other’s comments on these posts. I do not bring up others’ comments in my posts to you, other than to cite what your minister has said on behalf of the Episcopal Church.
I think perhaps your church (and maybe other local parishes) may have dialog from time to time with other religions like the Jewish community, am I correct? Wonder how it would be if some churchmen from All Saints had dialog with some of us evangelicals? Perhaps an “in person” dialog might smooth over some of the possible misconceptions in tone that I alluded to earlier and you found irrelevant? Just a thought.
Cordially,
Robin McLain
Perhaps only remotely related to soteriology [and thus cause, perhaps, for exclusion from this blog], I have a couple of questions for the three [and you, too, Jim, if you want to jump in] of you and they are, how did you come to a belief in Christ and to paraphrase what he is supposed to have said, “Who do you say that he is?”
Mr. Hester,
I would love to tell you how it was that I became a Christian! It would be, however, quite long to post of this blog. I will say, to make a “short” version of it, that it’s only by the gift of God’s Grace in all areas of my life that I was made aware of the need for a Savior and that His Grace makes Jesus Christ real in my life.
And, although it’s not popular on this blog to speak of sin, we are separated from our Heavenly Father by our sin that He cannot tolerate, and I was made aware of mine by the quickening of the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity.
I do not presume to equate the Holy Spirit with my imagination because I am in no way equal with any part of the Triune God.
In the meantime: Romans 6:23, Romans 5:8, John 14:6, John 3:16, and of course there are many other Scripture verses that confirm that Jesus is who He says He is.
I recognize your name because I believe my parents knew you when they attended All Saints!
Would you please email me privately so that I will have your email and I’ll be glad to discuss my Christian journey with you?
My email is robinmclain@gmail.com.
Cordially,
~Robin
P.S. Reverend Joe Rolison will be able to share his answer to your question in a much more eloquent way that I can. The simple answer, though, and I think that the beauty of the Gospel is its simplicity! We are sinners, who, apart from Jesus’ selfless propitiation for our sins, would be hopelessly separated from the Loving Father who created us.
Dear Mr Hester,
Thanks for your questions. Let me take them in reverse order.
As for who I say Christ to be, I say he is who he claimed to be in Scripture, and what his Name declares him to be: the incarnate Son of God and the only Savior of God’s people. As the Christ, the Anointed of God, “great David’s greater Son (Psalm 110),” he is understood only from the Old Testament matrix. He is both priest and sacrifice for sin (hence St Peter’s description of him as a “Lamb without blemish”); he is the true King, sovereign over all; and he is the prophet who finally and fully declares the invisible God to man (St John 1:18; Hebrews 1:1-2). His human name, “Jesus,” literally means “the Lord saves” and was given to him by the Father as a clear description of and mandate for his mission on earth (St Matthew 1:21). So to speak of Jesus Christ as being merely a “great moral teacher” or something other than the only Savior of sinners is to miss the point entirely of who he was and of what he came to accomplish on earth.
Now, in answer to your first question, there are a couple of ways of “knowing” according to Scripture. The first sort of knowing is embodied in what I wrote above: it is factual and informational. The second sort of knowing is personal and intimate — based on essential factual knowledge, but going beyond information to a personal communion with the triune God.
I “knew” God factually and intellectually growing up in a Christian home, as many of my fellow Southerners might. I didn’t come to “know” God as my Creator, Judge, Redeemer and Father, though, until late in high school. I’d always been a well-behaved, studious boy, and after taking courses in the Bible as Literature and in European history (taught by clergymen at the private school I attended, Bayside Academy), I even developed a curiosity about religious matters. But I came to learn that “moral conduct” and “curiosity about religious matters” were not the same as a personal, saving knowledge of the triune God, who communicates Himself by His Word written and in the Word made flesh, Jesus Christ.
One night, as I was reading and contemplating Scripture, the Holy Spirit impressed on me that I was the “chief of sinners” (1 Tim 1:15) and that I had no hope before God unless I personally placed my sin upon Jesus Christ, who “came to save his people from their sins.” Not only did God exist, but He was holy and would hold me accountable for the sin in my life. I had known about the Lord all my life, but I didn’t know Him as my Savior and sin-bearer until that night. I was no better than a demon (James 2:19)! I had hidden behind “decent behavior” and politeness and respectful talk about God but had never come to terms inwardly and personally with the One who reveals Himself in the Word as Redeemer (1 John 1:8-9). All those facts about Jesus Christ became real and true and personal to me by the work of the Holy Spirit, taking out my dead heart and giving me a new heart to believe on Christ as my Savior (St John 3:5; Ephesians 2:1-4; Ezekiel 36:24-26).
So, only by God’s undeserved mercy when I rightly deserved His wrath for worshipping everything but Him, I came to know personally, by God-given faith, the One whom I had known about factually all my life. Praise the Lord for His tender mercies to the chief of sinners. My prayer is that I would grow every day in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which happens only by His mercy.
Blessings to you and yours.
Yours,
Joseph Rolison