A clergy colleague and friend – the Rev. Zabron “Chip” Davis, rector of Trinity Episcopal Church in Natchez, MS – sent me some reflections which I share with his permission.
At a recent gathering of diocesan clergy and General Convention deputies, Bishop Gray led us through a brief study of the Draft Anglican Covenant using, among other resources, the study guide prepared by the Executive Council. I must admit to hearing many of the same conversations I’ve been hearing since I was on the diocesan sexuality study committee mandated by the 1991 General Convention.
In my work as a conflict resolution consultant and consultant with vestries and other governing boards, I find that differences, misunderstandings and misconceptions about process, procedures, mission and the core governing principles of any organization are at the root of many conflicts. Often clarity around these basics will help to reduce tension and anxiety. But, try as I may, I’ve not been able to see how clarity about polity, ethics, or even basic Anglicanism has served to reduce the anxiety and tension I experience in the Church today. Something about essentials seems to be missing in our conversations. (See paragraphs 38 – 39 of Section A and paragraphs 87 – 96 Section B of The Windsor Report.)
Is it possible that we are divided by one of the (if not the) core beliefs of Christianity? After conversations with several of my most theologically educated and articulate colleagues, I am convinced that the time has come to ask a question I haven’t heard asked and that we seem unable to discuss in polite circles. My hope in asking the question is not to divide us further but to see if we have a hope for restoration to unity. Here it is: What is necessary for salvation?
Also, what is the meaning of the second sentence on p. 298 of the BCP: “The bond which God establishes in Baptism is indissoluble?”
My hope is that answers will include a discussion of how the norms and principles of behavior (or departures from those norms) impact salvation. In other words, what difference does it make to individual salvation and/or the “soul of the Church” that The Episcopal Church or the Anglican Communion (or any Christian tradition) would ‘license’ behaviors that seem to be departures from what sound like clear teachings of Holy Scripture?
Another way of asking the question may be, “What is at stake?” When I was a Southern Baptist I was clear, as one who sat in the pew at least 4 times weekly up until my 18th birthday, that my condemnation to Hell was assured if I unrepentantly committed certain well-defined, scripturally prohibited sins. Is the same true of The Episcopal Church? Anglicanism? If so, what are those sins?
Based upon my colleague’s reflections, there are three questions I’d like to put on the table:
- What is necessary for salvation?
- What is the meaning of this sentence at the top of page 298 in The Book of Common Prayer: “The bond which God establishes in Baptism is indissoluble”?
- Are there certain behaviors or sins which, if committed without repentance, can condemn a baptized Christian to hell? If so, what are those behaviors/sins?
I am especially interested in responses that reflect the theology of Anglicanism in general, and the Episcopal Church in particular.
23 comments:
What, exactly, is "the soul of the church," please? That's not a term I've ever heard before, especially not in a discussion of "salvation." Is the suggestion being made that the church will somehow be "condemned to hell"?
What's the definition of this term?
(I'd also like to point out that the phrase "'licensing' behaviors that seem to be departures from what sound like clear teachings of Holy Scripture" is quite overloaded with one-sided assumptions.
Our Lord Jesus Christ told us to "Love One Another." Unfortunately we're certainly not seeing much of that kind of "behavior" around these days; would this count as a "departure from clear teachings of Holy Scripure"?
If so, I'd say we're all "going to hell."
bls,
My colleague Chip and I have sometimes heard the term "soul of the church" used by our conservative brothers and sisters. The claim being made - either implicitly or explicitly - is that the current direction of the church is putting the fate of "the soul of the church" in peril (that we are collectively in danger of going to hell?).
We're not saying we agree with that view. What we are saying is it's possible that beneath all of the current disagreements and divisions within the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion more generally are rival and perhaps incompatible views of just what exactly salvation is and what is necessary for salvation.
As to your second comment - I would point out that the original author puts the word 'license' within scare quotes.
Let me also add that, in all of the years I've been in the Episcopal Church - that includes several parishes, seminary, reading numerous books and articles by Episcopal/Anglican authors, and meetings informal and formal with clergy colleagues - I've never once seen the first of these three questions addressed, much less the other two. Indeed, it's been my experience that many (most?) Episcopalians - bishops included - are not familiar with the Prayer Book's language about the indissoluble bond of baptism. Why is that?
So - do you have a specific, reasoned response to one or more of the questions we're putting on the table that draws on our core identity as Episcopalians/Anglicans?
Fr. Bryan, I've already answered questions 2 and 3: if we're to be judged by unrepentant behavior and its departure from the clear teachings of Scripture - specifically, by its departure from the clear teaching of Jesus Christ that we are to "Love Ye One Another" - then just about all of us are condemned to Hell. Why is this not considered a "specific, reasoned response"? Do you think it's inaccurate?
I find it very problematic, in fact, that this answer isn't taken seriously. The Anglican world at present is wrapped up in being as unloving as one can imagine (I'm putting this as nicely as I can), and I'm afraid people have simply gotten used to this state of affairs and are no longer even aware of how short we all fall in living up to this most central of Christ's teachings.
This particular question, as I said, is loaded with certain assumptions: are there "certain behaviors or sins which, if committed without repentance, can condemn a baptized Christian to hell?," etc. IOW, the idea is that certain specific, discrete, unrepentent acts are worthy of condemnation, but an entire worldview of unquestioned assumptions is not. Where is the Love that we are all called to? I know people think this question is rhetorical - or boring - but I'm asking seriously: where is the love for one another that we are called to? Why are people not asking themselves why they haven't found a more excellent way to live, along the lines of what Christ taught? Why is the emphasis on "acts" - as if all was perfectly OK, except for certain momentary lapses on the part of certain (no doubt other) people? I thought the whole point was that we were all sinners? Jesus told us to look to our own sins, and not those of others; that's the point where we ought to find the "core agreement" he is talking about.
As for question 1, as far as I can tell it is answered in the very same liturgy: it means that "We are marked as Christ's own forever." It tells us where we belong.
Here are three quotes from Rowan Williams' book "Where God Happens," about the Desert Fathers and Mothers, that illustrate what I'm talking about.
First, from Anthony the Great:
"Our life and our death is with our neighbor. If we win our brother, we win God. If we cause our brother to stumble, we have sinned against Christ."
Second, from Moses the Black:
" "The monk, says Moses, "must die to his neighbor and never judge him at all in any way whatsoever." If our life and our death are with the neighbor, this spells out something of what our "death" wtih the neighbor might mean: it is to renounce the power of judgment over someone else - a task hard enough indeed to merit being described as death. And the basis of this is elaborated in another of the Moses sayings: in reply to a brother who wants to know what it means to "think in your heart that you are a sinner," which is defined as another of the essentials of the monastic life, Moses says, "If you are occupied with your own faults, you have no time to see those of your neighbor."
....
Everything begins with this vision and hope: to put the neighbor in touch with God in Christ. On this the rest of our Christian life depends, and it entails facing the death of a particular kind of picture of myself."
The third is a quote from John the Dwarf:
"We have put aside the easy burden, which is self-accusation, and weighed ourselves down with the heavy one, self-justification."
Okay, bls, let me see if I'm following you. If we're not loving to one another, then we're departing from a clearly articulated teaching of scripture. Indeed, we're violating a commandment from our Lord himself. To do that is to be guilty of sin.
I'm not sure exactly what it means to be "loving" here. After all, Christians disagree about that.
Also, if I'm not "loving" and I fail to repent for it, are there any consequences that affect my salvation? Or is my salvation "off the table," as it were, because of my baptism (the "indissoluble" bond of which the Prayer Book speaks)?
I appreciate your thoughts about all of this, and I invite others to address the three questions in the original posting.
I think 1 Corinthians 13 is the source from which springs the Christian understanding of "love." Perhaps rather than using our own definitions on which we can disagree, we could use that one?
But let me put it a different way: would you say that what is going on in the Anglican world at present is a good example of what Christ meant when he told us to "Love one another"?
And if not, why not? I'd say there are also some pretty solid answers there.
The questions you're asking do not make sense to me, to be honest. The whole goal of the Christian life is to "love God and love the neighbor"; that's what "salvation" consists of. It's not a matter of avoiding certain "acts" to try to "stay out of hell"; it's a matter of learning to live in right relationship with God and neighbor.
Thanks for your response bls. I'm sorry that the questions that my colleague and I are asking don't make sense to you. And I'm sorry, as well, that they appear to not make much sense to many other Episcopalians as well (at least in my experience thus far).
My concern is that we're not only operating with radically different core beliefs, but also that we're unable to articulate our beliefs in relationship to what the BCP says or what we've inherited from the Anglican tradition. More and more, we just don't know who we are as a Body of Christ called the Episcopal Church. If that's the case, then it's not surprising that words like "salvation" and phrases like "indissoluble bond" just don't register and/or seem to be irrelevant.
What about others out there? What are your thoughts on the three questions in the original posting?
What is necessary for salvation?
Salvation (soteria) is understood as liberation from something- generally undesirable things such as suffering, hardship, oppression etc. In the New Testament soteria generally is applied to liberation from sin and its consequences (eternal death).
So then, salvation is liberation from death. Salvation begins with God’s grace touches at the heart of man, calling him to repent of the sin that binds him. Through that grace man is thusly disposed for salvation. Traditionally understood (through sacred scripture and Tradition, the man must then come to believe in the revelation of Almighty God, posses holy fear of the judgment of God, posses Hope and Trust in the Mercy of God, posses a love for God, and have a sorrow or hatred of his sins. (these things are then seen as necessary for salvation- see the questioning and Baptismal Covenant)
This act of free will brings about a justification of the man, in which the man is counted as being righteous before God. The act of salvation wherein all of these things are brought together and celebrated is commonly understood as the sacrament of Baptism.
2. What is the meaning of this sentence at the top of page 298 in The Book of Common Prayer: “The bond which God establishes in Baptism is indissoluble”?
Lasting, indestructible…not possible to dissolve, disintegrate or break-up (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/indissoluble)
Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans VIII.xxxv-xxxix)
I understand the indissoluble bond to mean that no outside forces (such as evil and most especially death can break or dissolve this bond). So the Christian can be of good hope and fully trust in the Love and Mercy of God- or there is no force of more power than God and we can trust in that fully and never fear that something or someone can separate us from Christ.
3. Are there certain behaviors or sins, which, if committed without repentance, can condemn a baptized Christian to hell? If so, what are those behaviors/sins?
Classically understood, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit can condemn a baptized Christian to Hell. It is important to note that it is not on God’s part that this condemnation comes about, rather it is man who condemns himself.
Despair- is the willful act of completely abandoning any and all hope of eternal life, while possessing the means and intellect to cooperate with the saving grace of God.
Final impenitence (obstinacy)- A final refusal to be sorry for one’s sins.
These are closely related to the conditions for salvation, and I think a good argument could be made that a willing denial or refusal of the other points could be understood as blasphemy against the Holy Ghost as well.
Collectively then, it is also possible for a church body to so deviate from the revelation of God (by “‘licensing’ behaviors that depart from what appears the clear teaching of scripture”) that they could fall into a state of unrighteousness or blaspheme against the Holy Spirit (apostasy- to abandon or renounce received religion)
I won’t get any more detailed than this for now…but I thought I would throw my two cents in.
Thanks for your response Jeff. This is a well-written, carefully thought through expression of an Anglo-Catholic response to the questions raised in my posting.
I do have some questions for you.
First, if the bond established by God in baptism is “indissoluble” (BCP, p. 298), doesn’t that imply that no matter what the individual baptized Christians does or fails to do, God remains faithful to “the assurance of eternal life given at Baptism” (BCP, p. 496)? IOW, does not the Prayer Book’s language of an “indissoluble” bond suggest that, for the baptized Christian, there is always the possibility of following the example of the prodigal son: coming to one’s senses and returning to the Father’s house? If there are instances in which that is not possible, does it make sense to speak of an “indissoluble” bond at all? Would it not rather make more sense to speak of a “contingent” bond – a bond, IOW, which is contingent on the individual baptized Christian’s faithfulness and behavior? And if so, what behaviors in particular are we talking about?
And second, would you be willing to offer examples of what you think it would take for “a church body to so deviate from the revelation of God” as to constitute apostasy? And would that, in your view, mean that anyone who continues to be a member of such a church body has thereby placed their salvation in peril? More strongly, would it mean that such a person is damned to hell?
1. First, if the bond established by God in baptism is “indissoluble” (BCP, p. 298), doesn’t that imply that no matter what the individual baptized Christians does or fails to do, God remains faithful to “the assurance of eternal life given at Baptism” (BCP, p. 496)? IOW, does not the Prayer Book’s language of an “indissoluble” bond suggest that, for the baptized Christian, there is always the possibility of following the example of the prodigal son: coming to one’s senses and returning to the Father’s house?
Before I begin, let my state clearly that I am no judge, rather I will face judgment before the Almighty…and that I write this with a deep sense of humility and fear.
The bond established by God in Baptism is indissoluble- meaning no outside force can remove that bond, and that God Himself is trustworthy and merciful. It can also be said that man is regenerate or born again at baptism and becomes a new creation “Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come” (II Cor V.xvii).
But I think one would be very hard pressed to find scriptural warrant, proof within the corpus of the Church Fathers or Tradition that would say that this new creation is devoid of free will.
So then, a man may be baptized at infancy, and then reach an age of religion and make an act of the will to be an enemy of God…spending the entirety of His life refusing to act on the Grace of God, performing thoughts, words, and deeds that are carried out with the purpose of hurting God or disrespecting God, and finally that man could die, refuse to be sorry for his sins, refuse to accept what God in Christ offers and want nothing of what God offers. If we are truly free creatures, and if God truly is just, then I understand that God will honor the will of the man. So, while the man still has within him the mark of baptism, the man also has the opportunity to forfeit the benefits of that mark.
2. And second, would you be willing to offer examples of what you think it would take for “a church body to so deviate from the revelation of God” as to constitute apostasy? And would that, in your view, mean that anyone who continues to be a member of such a church body has thereby placed their salvation in peril? More strongly, would it mean that such a person is damned to hell?
One hypothetical example would be that a church body begin to teach and received enthusiastically the doctrine that repentance of sins is not necessary and in fact undesirable for a “true Christian.” I think on all sorts of levels this could constitute apostasy. (looking back to my first answer on what is necessary for salvation) I would also say that this would place the soul of the believer in peril.
But, I think there is always the opportunity for repentance and it is not mine to say that the person could not repent before the Seat of Judgment…so I could not say with any degree of certainty or integrity that that would condemn a person to Hell. I believe Christ came to earth to save us from death and hell, and wishes for us to live forever. So perhaps it is best to look at judgment as a celebratory act and not a condemning one…perhaps it is best to look at judgment as the realization of God’s justice and give thanks for that.
This is probably not a detailed or a ‘juicy’ as you would like, but hopefully it gives you some part of an answer to your questions. If you desire, I can give you a more technical answer looking at the western notion of ‘mortal’ sin and the effects that sin has on the soul of a person. Perhaps that would generate some little amount of discussion.
Sorry...in the above post that sould read 'age of reason' and not 'age of religion'. That's what I get for not rereading a comment before I post.
Thanks for the clarifications, Jeff. And please feel free to add more detail if you would like to.
I wish more people were getting involved in this discussion; I would like to read more detailed responses on this topic that should be basic but that we can't seem to clearly articulate.
It has been my understanding that the Anglican/Episcopalian tradition was not of the "Once saved, always saved" category. Being a simple lay person I will use simple words: Baptism makes you a part of Christ's family, but you can always choose to leave.
Of course sins are committed after baptism, and none can claim to perfectly obey God's commands. What we are promised is that when we repent of our sins (daily, weekly, annually) God forgives us and we try anew.
It is obviously easier to identify and recognize when we miss the mark for negative commands (do not steal) than positive ones (love your neighbor), since the latter lacks objective criteria(s). This is why traffic laws don't say "you must drive well", but rather "you can't drive faster than speed limit". Compliance can be measured.
I have not been taught that there is a list of sins that cannot be erased by absolution. I would think, however, that not acknowledging our sins and not asking God's forgiveness and grace to do better would as some point be equivalent to openly renouncing God. I don't know when that point is, or when is our last opportunity to repent... Fortunately I'm not in charge of that !
Thanks for a very helpful contribution to the discussion Veronique.
I'm inclined to agree with Jeff and with you that while we can never lose the indissoluble bond God creates in our Baptism, we still have free will and can (to borrow from the parable of the prodigal son) wander off to a far country to squander our inheritance. But we are also always free and welcome to come back home, too.
There's something relevant to the discussion of question #2 in a book (now out of print, I think) by Beverley D. Tucker and William H. Swatos, Jr. The book is entitled Questions on the Way: A Catechism Based on The Book of Common Prayer, Revised Edition (Forward Movement Publications, 1995). Here's the relevant question and answer (from p. 78):
Q. Does being baptized mean we will automatically be saved?
A. No. Baptism is ordinarily required as the first step on the way to salvation, placing ourselves in God's hands in a saving relationship of love. If we are to receive the promises of God, then we must keep our side of the covenant by faith and following Christ in his way of love (1 Cor. 10:1-15).
I posted this response to Chip's questions on the HoD/B list:
“What is necessary for salvation?” and, also, what is the meaning of the second sentence on p. 298 of the BCP: "The bond which God establishes in Baptism is indissoluble.” I’d like to offer some thoughts on these questions. In this note I will respond to the second query first, and to the second in a follow up note.
Noting that this is a rubric and not part of the liturgy, I would say that, following Paul, baptism is the explicit sealing of the New Covenant with God through Christ. Thus, baptism is the sign of God’s, and Christ’s, covenantal faithfulness to the baptized, and the baptized ones’ covenantal commitment to God and to the promises of this covenant. They are the same as in the old covenant: “I will be your God and you will be my people,” and I will never abandon my covenant with you, however you may stray from your promises. This covenant is re-presented in Confirmation when those baptized in infancy make these promises on their own and have this covenant sealed upon them with chrism and the laying on of hands. Then the covenantal promise becomes as personal as the covenant with Abraham, just as it has been as corporate as the Mosaic covenant. The promises we make (and renew) are spelled out in the liturgy on pp. 302-303, including the Baptismal Covenant on pp. 304-305. Because God is always faithful, this covenant can never be dissolved.
Let me go to Paul and point out that for Paul Baptism became the act that initiates one into the new covenant with God in Christ, just as circumcision had been for the old covenant. And further, Paul connected baptism with the work done in Christ to overcome the principalities and powers that held all humankind in the bondage of sin. This concept gets short shrift with the emphasis on justification by faith, and needs to be brought front and center. In baptism, Paul declares, we participate in Christ’s death and resurrection; we experience the Paschal mystery. We die to sin and rise with Christ. Christ has overcome death and overcome the powers that we still struggle against, those powers of the world that work against the Kingdom of God. Christ has reconciled the world (all things) through the blood of his cross (Col. 1:20); and we are called to be ambassadors announcing the good news of this reconciling work (2 Cor. 5:18). The Ephesians Paul goes so far as to say that God has already “raised us up” with Christ “in the heavenly places”! (Eph. 2:4-7). I would say, then, that baptism is necessary in order for one to become part of Christ’s Body, to be a part of those knit and joined together in the household of faith (Eph. 2:21-22). Whether it is necessary for salvation is a question I’ll address in another note.
“What is necessary for salvation?”
Paul uses many models to attempt to convey the mystery of what God has done in Christ Jesus. One major model, labeled the “participatory model,” I described in a previous note. Here I’ll turn to the “justification model,” the one commonly thought of. We sinners stand in the divine courtroom, judged guilty, but amazingly God declares us innocent. What is necessary for this to come to pass? Faith. Here Paul’s Greek is a bit ambiguous: “pistis Iesous Xristou” can mean either “faith in Christ” (objective genitive) or “the faithfulness of Christ” (subjective genitive). Perhaps both are intended. The faithfulness of Christ in obedience to the will of the Father guarantees the covenant of salvation; while the faith that we hold in Christ brings it about from our perspective. God’s grace (the OT hesed, the NT chairis), freely given and unmerited cements and nourishes the covenantal relationship. What is also given to us is the gift of the Holy Spirit, the fruit of whose activity in us Paul exhorts us to express: “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. There is no law,” he says, “against these.” (Gal. 5:23)
The Ephesians Paul states that “by grace we have been saved through faith, and it is not of our own doing, it is the gift of God.” But then he continues, “For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life. (Eph. 2:8, 10) It is not enough to rejoice in this unmerited gift. We are called to live out the “Torah” of Christ (Gal. 6:2), a law that is summed up in “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Gal. 5:14). To know the Torah of Christ, we turn to the gospels, where Christ’s every action is our instruction. He has pointed out the way of good works we are to walk in. How we will be judged according to our fruits is pointed out in various places as well, especially Matt. 25:31ff.
A question that arises often in discussion of salvation is this: what about those who have never known Christ or who are comfortable in their own religious tradition? Will they be saved? Is “I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me” to be interpreted in an exclusive and rejectionistic way, as so many Christians have done? I do not believe so. In Scripture itself, Peter in Acts 10 declares, “I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what it right is acceptable to him.” And in one of the pseudo-Pauline letters it is said that God desires the salvation of every one. I think that is where we start, and so did the early Church Fathers. Recognizing that there were so many good pagans among them that they couldn’t conceive of them being separated from God and Christ for eternity, one of them (I don’t recall right now, maybe Clement of Alexandria) theologized as follows: the Word that has come into the world enlightens every person (John 1), and so the Logos dwells in every human being. Therefore, every human being may enjoy the fruit of God’s grace. Tertullian spoke of those who possess a “naturally Christian soul” (naturaliter anima Christiana). These notions have been recovered in our time thanks to the Second Vatican Council. Declaring that the Logos dwells in every human being, and that the Spirit blows where it will (John 3:8), we can hold, the bishops said, that in some way known only to God, every human being shares in the Paschal Mystery. That is my belief, and my impression of our Presiding Bishop is that she shares also the teaching of Vatican II on this matter. Both of us also declare that we believe that Jesus “is truly the Savior of the world” (John 4:42), and see no contradiction in it.
One might also ask whether there are certain actions or thoughts that are contrary to God’s will and that if persistent and willful throughout one’s lifetime may take one off the list of the saved written in the Book of Life. Let me just raise the question here and see if anyone else wishes to pursue it.
Let me add here that I love Gregory of Nyssa's definition of sin. "Sin," he said, "is the failure to love."
Thank you so much, Robert, for taking the time to share some extended reflections in response to the questions in the original posting.
I tend to find myself most drawn to two speculative theological stances regarding soteriology, etc.
Firstly, I find the particular kind of Trinitarian 'universalism' put forth by such as von Balthasar, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor, Origen very compelling. This is of course rooted in Scripture, and what is argued as the overwhelming number of passages in which it seems to be expressed that 'God willeth all men to be saved,' that 'Christ will be all in all,' etc. As I understand this trajectory of thinking, it does not at all preclude a stage of existence post-earthliness, (a kind of refrigerium, purgatory, etc.) Indeed, it seems to require it. This recalls CS Lewis' Great Divorce. And I find this a compelling way of putting together my understanding of the Gospel, the various passages of Scripture which point towards a vast 'all' as the scope of Christ's saving mission, and also questions of free-will, etc.
The second trajectory I get to is one of annihilationism - as taught by such as John Stott -- in which the end of the soul that rejects the Holy Spirit is condemned not to eternal torture but to 'conflagration' -- i.e. 'annihilation.' "The wages of sin is death."
I resist any notions of Hell as a place of eternal torture in which the unsaved are 'resurrected unto eternal suffering' as being unbelievably cruel - unbelievably unjust -- and not really supported by much of Holy Writ.
There is yet another possibility, Greg. We find it in certain parts of the Old Testament (particularly in the Psalms, but also in some of the Wisdom literature and in some of the prophetic writings).
Here's how N. T. Wright describes it:
"Sheol, Abaddon, the Pit, the grave. The dark, deep regions, the land of forgetfulness. These almost interchangeable terms denote a place of gloom and despair, a place where one can no longer enjoy life, and where the presence of YHWH himself is withdrawn. It is a wilderness: a place of dust to which creatures made of dust have returned. Those who have gone there are 'the dead'; they are 'shades', rephaim, and they are 'asleep'. As in Homer, there is no suggestion that they are enjoying themselves; it is a dark and gloomy world. Nothing much happens there. It is not another form of real life, an alternative world where things continue as normal" [The Resurrection of the Son of God (Fortress Press, 2003), pp. 88-89].
Perhaps, rather than annihilation or a place of eternal torture, this OT understanding of Sheol is a more biblically faithful depiction of our Prayer Book catechism's definition of hell as "eternal death in our rejection of God" (BCP, p. 862).
Bryan+
Very interesting!
I've been turning this over for a while, and the result may turn up on my own blog (with appropriate references).
However, I did find myself thinking about your question, and the answers offered so far. It is an interesting exploration of soteriology - what does "salvation" mean, and how does God accomplish it. However, the question, in context, might better be put, "What in Scripture is necessary to salvation?" After all, the issues do seem to revolve in one sense or another around use of Scripture; and our "historic formulary" usage, whether in the Articles or the Quadrilater, is that "Holy Scripture... contains all things necessary to salvation."
My point here is that, at least behaviorally, the issues aren't about whether our views of soteriology can be supported by Scripture, but rather which themes and passages of Scripture are essential kerygma and which not? So, some ask for "a positive justification from Scripture for blessing same sex unions," and so say less about how God might save than about how Scripture and our embrace of it participate. It certainly does affect our soteriology; but it also affects our ecclesiology (what are appropriate characteristics and responsibilties of bishops?), our Anthropology (how do our sexual selves contribute or not to our understanding of what it means to be human), our Christology (or at least our understanding of the Works, if not the Person, of Christ), and our Pneumatology (how do we discern how the Holy Spirit continues to work in this post-Pentecost Church).
I think we are divided on a core belief; but I think it is what in Scripture is necessary to salvation, and not the related (but arguably secondary) question of what salvation means and how God accomplishes it.
Thanks for your comments, Marshall. I think you're right to hone in on our historic formularies - particularly their language about the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments containing "all things necessary to salvation."
If we follow that lead, the question is: what exactly in scripture is "necessary to salvation"? And by what criteria do we say that some parts of scripture are necessary while others are not?
Post a Comment