Title: The
Salvation Equation
Subtitle: Rethinking
the Flow of Predestination, Grace, Faith, Repentance, Justification,
Sanctification and Glorification in Whole and Part
Author: Christopher
Travis Haun for http://rethinker.net
Draft Date: August
2008
Copyright: This
rethink may be reproduced and distributed as long as no meaningful changes and
no monetary charges are made
Feedback: Please
feel free to send questions, suggestions, or constructive criticism to
cthaun[at]hotmail[dot]com
A young lady once asked a stranger in concern, “Sir, are you saved?”
The stranger, who happened to be a Greek scholar, replied, “Now precisely which do you mean, young lady:
esothan, sesosmai, sodzomai, or sothaysomai?”
Summary:
This rethink
attempts to avoid common oversimplifications about salvation in an attempt to
improve our thinking about the gospel’s parts in light of the whole. In the attempt to consider the topic’s complexity,
various confusing and controversial questions (such as “faith versus
works,”“lordship salvation,” and “can you lose your salvation?”) should be
illumined.
In thinking
about God’s salvation for sinners, it is easy for evangelical inheritors of the
protestant reformation to teeter to either one side or the other of the debate
generally called “Lordship Salvation.”
Since this debate has surged a few times in this century and the two
camps familiarly recognized by certain names already, I’ll refer to the more
demanding camp as “the Lordship camp” and the less demanding camp as the “Grace
camp.” The approach here, however, is
less towards being polemic in favor of one side or the other and is more
intended to avoid oversimplification while simplifying for the sake of
understanding of both camps and hopefully for the sake of creating some
additional respect and peace between both camps. When we think simplistically
about the salvation equation, it is easy to have disdain for one or the other
camp. This article will attempt to go
beyond the oversimplified forms of the equation for the sake of garnering
respect for each side. It is my hope and
intent for this writ that both sides may gain more respect for the other side
and that we may learn from one another.
Having spent time ping-ponging between camps and finding that my
pendulum has slowed down somewhere between both camps, I’ll attempt to present
what I find worthy of praise in both camps and what I find perhaps in need of
more dialogue.
It is sometimes
helpful to think of salvation in terms of a logical equation. It seems Paul wonderfully summarizes the
equation for us in Ephesians 2:8-9 where he says, “For it is by grace and
through faith that you have been saved, not by works.” This lends its self well to an equation of:
Grace + Faith = Salvation
At this
starting point, neither camp would have any qualms accepting this equation as
aptly summing up their own position. And
if anyone added “Works” (whether works of the mosaic law or good works) to
faith there would also be agreement that the gospel has been violated. Anyone from either camp would recognize the
following equation as “legalism” or as “the galatian heresy:”
Grace + Faith + Works = Salvation
On these two
simple equations, we are in agreement so far.
It seems
that the feathers of the grace camp get ruffled the most when they hear an
equation from the Lordship camp that sounds like:
Grace + Faith = Salvation + Works
It is this
addition of works to the equation, which, albeit on the other side of the “=”
smacks of legalism. This is seen by the
Grace camp as an offense to Grace, a confusion of justification and
sanctification, and tantamount to a dilute form of legalism. To the Lordship camp, the failure to
recognize Works as being a needed part of the equation is a cheapening of faith
(“easy believism”), a pernicious recipe for growing wheat and tares in the same
fields, and a thwarting of God’s Grace.
Lamentably, for some this is the end of the debate and it need go no
further. I would like to get past this
initial hurdle with three reasons.
First, I would like to remind that Paul, the first to offer an equation,
didn’t stop with Ephesians 2:8-9. He
also included verse 10 which shows that good works should be worked into the
equation somewhere. Second, I’d like to
remind that all evangelical camps recognize that “Salvation” is a multi-faceted
gift of God which encompasses justification, sanctification, and glorification.[1]
Grace + Faith => Justification => Sanctification =>
Glorification
This
expanded equation provides a superior framework for discussion which I believe
transcends the dilemmas caused by the oversimplification in the previous
equation. If there is any doubt about
the legitimacy of expanding the equation, let me be quick to remind that Paul
himself seems to do so when he lays out the sequence of, “And those he
predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified,
he also glorified.”[2]
If we break
salvation out into its three components or phases in this manner it becomes
clear where Works fits into the equation.
It is here that quickly most will place Good Works into the category of
Sanctification and it is here that I believe few would have trouble seeing that
since Sanctification is a work of God upon justified sinners, so too would
works be an installment of God’s salvation.
In this sense, some say that faith is the root and works are the
fruit. Perhaps a slightly better way to
put it is that if we are twigs grafted into a living grapevine by grace and
through faith, good works are the natural result of having been plugged into
the vine. At this point there should be
harmony across the full spectrum of positions in this debate. All thinkers involved would agree that
ideally Grace and Faith will produce not just justification but at least some
modicum of sanctification. It is normal
for a tree that God plants to bear fruit.
In the wakes
of the Reformation and Great Awakening it is common for Evangelicals today to
oversimplify salvation by merely equating it with justification--the moment
where God as Judge declares the sinner “not guilty” based upon his or her
placement into the faultless Jesus Christ through faith. This is common on the popular level. In the evangelical sub-culture one often
hears phrases such as, “I was saved in my second year of college,” or “I was
saved at age five,” or “Have you been saved yet?” But theologians in virtually all
Evangelical camps tend to sub-categorize salvation into three distinguishable installments. If you read a book such as Five Views of
Sanctification, it is clear that theologians from Wesleyan, Keswick, Reformed,
Pentecostal, and Dispensational all seem to categorize the data into past,
present, and future tense categories:
·
“Positional Sanctification” – the moment in the past where the
sinner placed his or her faith into Christ, was placed into Christ, spiritually
reborn, and was declared holy and just
·
“Progressive Sanctification” or “Experiential Sanctification” –
after the sinner becomes a believer, the life-long process of growing in
holiness begins
·
“Final Sanctification” or
“Ultimate Sanctification” - the
salvation isn’t complete until after death and resurrection we receive full
healing of body and spirit
To make it a
bit less awkward, this rethink takes those same categories and renames them
·
Justification (“I was saved”)
·
Sanctification (“I am being saved”)
·
Glorification (“I will be saved”)
Although the
popular level seems unbalanced, ironically, the simple ‘salvation bracelets’
crafted commonly by children out of leather cords and plastic beads while
attending Evangelical Vacation Bible Schools serve as a terrific primer for
thinking holistically about salvation.
|
|
|
Black |
|
The impurity and stain of sin |
|
Guilt |
|
"For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of
God." Romans 3:23 |
||
|
|
|
Red |
|
The blood of Christ |
|
Atonement |
|
"While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8 |
||
|
|
|
Blue |
|
Water Baptism |
|
Faith/Confession |
|
"We were buried with Him through baptism." Romans 6:4 |
||
|
|
|
White |
|
Purity |
|
Justification |
|
"Wash me and I shall be whiter than snow." Psalm 51:7 |
||
|
|
|
Green |
|
Spiritual Growth |
|
Sanctification |
|
"Grow in grace and in knowledge of our Lord and Savior
Jesus Christ." 2 Peter 3:18 |
||
|
|
|
Gold |
|
Heaven and glory |
|
Glorification |
|
"Be faithful until death and I will give you a crown of
life." Revelation 2:10 |
||
Many Christians are quick to recite Ephesians 2:8-9 but how many
remember verse 10?
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not
from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship,
created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
I really like how all the main elements (salvation, grace,
faith, works) are represented here, how the adjectives in Greek are very
distinct, very clear, and under no dispute. What are the logical
mechanics of salvation?
By grace
Not by
works
Through faith
For works
I think this is a great passage for its succinctness and
understandability.
American Evangelicals typically think of salvation as a one-time
thing. “Have you been saved yet?” is a common question which betrays the
assumption. But salvation in the New Testament is presented in at
least four different verb tenses. So it’s important, I think, to think of
salvation in terms of past tense, present tense, and future tense.
In what way is the sinner who has repented unto God and believed
into Jesus saved (past tense)?
Perhaps the best answer here is “we have been saved from the
guilt of sin.” (justification)
In what way is the believer being saved (present tense)?
Perhaps the best answer to this facet is “we are being saved
from the power of sin.” (sanctification)
In what way is the believer going to be saved (future tense)?
Perhaps the best answer to this is “we will be saved from the
presence of sin.” (glorification, resurrection, translation)
If we think more holistically about salvation then good works
fit in as a huge part of the second phase of the present-tense installment of
salvation. So the tension is removed. I think Paul
demonstrates a holistic or panoramic view in Romans 8 when he wrote, “30And those he predestined, he also called;
those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.”
Some argue that this is the proper New Testament equation:
Grace
+ Faith = Salvation
Others would argue for:
Grace
+ Faith = Salvation + Works
Many recognize the following equation as “legalism”:
Grace
+ Faith + Works = Salvation
I think these equations are oversimplified. Perhaps the
equation looks more like this:
God’s
Predestination =>
God’s
Grace + Sinner’s Faith =>
Salvation-Justification
(event) =>
Salvation-Sanctification
(lifelong process) =>
Salvation-Glorification
(event)
And, if so, it becomes quite clear where good works fit
in. It’s root versus fruit. Faith is the root that taps us twigs
into the Vine. Works are the grapes which naturally spring out of twigs
that have been truly tapped into the Vine.
However,
here there is a side door to a sub-topic which could use more dialogue.
First, can a
sinner be justified and later glorified if in fact he or she has not made any
progress in sanctification?
Those in the
Lordship camp would all be quick to answer this question with a vehement No but
they might also point out that their confessions do allow that someone who is
justified, and who is being sanctified, can fall into sin for a season. Most in the Grace camp would follow Chafer’s
lead on this sub-topic such that (a.) they would tend toward the position that
it is normal and natural for the justified to also enjoy at least some modicum
of progress in sanctification[3]
but (b.) they’d probably also be pretty qhic to allow also as “normal” for a
Christian who had “saving faith” to be a “carnal Christian” or a “babe in
Christ.” This affords us some conflict
between the two camps but it also affords us a chance for listening to one
another and perhaps maturing in some ways.
The LS
thinker would probably be reminded of, “sins of the flesh are… these will not
inherit the kingdom of God…” and say, “If you were one of these before God
brought you into the fold, that is normal.
But if you remain this way, you never made it onto the train. Faith
without works is dead. We are saved by
faith alone, but the faith that saves is not alone, it brings forth
works.”
The G
thinker would probably tend toward saying, “it is the sinner’s faith which
satisfies the human responsibility for receiving salvation, not works. So just
because they don’t have any works to boast about, that’s irrelevant, for the
boast is neither in our works nor in our faith but the works of Christ.”
Both sides
bring up intelligent points here which merit further dialogue I believe.
I don’t
think the LS camp has dealt with the reality of the carnal Christian we see in
Corinthians. One might also be reminded
that one can build nothing and still “escape as one through the flames.” But has the grace camp really embraced the
NEED for progress to occur? Are there
not several passages which say that your personal assurance of your salvation
is your fruit?!?! (1st
John. And end of 2nd
Cor?)
Without here
offering a solution to passages which might be difficult to harmonize with one
another, I would like to remind us all that those passages are still there and
that we shouldn’t simply use our own system of theology to attempt to ignore or
downplay or misinterpret which ever one we do not tend to focus on. The LS camp needs to realize that a xian can
be carnal. The G camp needs to realize
that not only is progress normal but it is necessary. With extreme forms of Calvinism, it is
perhaps impossible to not be prejudged towards the idea that any man god
justifies will also be sanctified, for man is not so much an active participant
as he is a puppet. We can neither resist
his effectual calling to faith nor to the outworking of his grace unto works.
Those on the
Arminian side of course can say, “well, he just lost his salvation.” But the LS and G camps tend to be Calvinistic
to varying degrees, with the LS camp tending towards a more rigorous pole of
Calvinism. Anyway, neither G nor LS
camps will be inclined towards saying one looses his salvation. The LS camp would simply be quicker to say,
“See, he never had his salvation.” The G
camp will be quick to say, “No, he didn’t loose his salvation, he’s just
proving he is of a class known as carnal Christian.”
Has the G
camp overplayed the carnal Christian card?
And the LS camp over ignored it?
