The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Comparing Jesus and Paul

I suppose it all depends on how salvation is defined and when it occurs. I admit to much confusion on this point myself, as there seem to be a number of plausible answers. But if we are to believe that all are ultimately ‘saved’, then how do we resolve this apparently clear teaching of scripture with the knowledge that some will not inherit the kingdom, but will rather apparently be saved through the assistance of those who do? It seems clear enough to me that not all will be saved at the same time, but rather “each in his own order”. And what can the role of the firstfruits be as co-rulers if not to be part of bringing in the rest of the harvest? We know that Jesus must reign until all is subjected to him, but then the kingdom reign of Jesus ends when it is handed back over to the Father, who is then all and in all at that point. It seems to me that part of the point of the kingdom is to bring all into it, even if only as subjects. Kingdoms have a King, they also have princes (and princesses) and other members of the royal family who have inheritance in that kingdom; and the kingdom also has subjects who are not privileged members of the royal family. These are some illustrations that have helped me see the distinction between those who are merely saved and those who share in the inheritance of the kingdom.

I do see your point about reassuring people (particularly believers) that how we live is optional, yet it seems that so much of that has been left out of our ultimate control, since we can do nothing apart from Him.
And what “works” are we specifically referring to? They cannot be our works, but must be works of the Spirit. The line between faith and works can get frustratingly fuzzy at times.

Perhaps you can shed some light on these difficulties?..

Do you believe that faith + works equals salvation, or is it “faith alone”? And whichever the case, how does this work?

Thanks for your reflection. On your paragraph 1, I still sense that experiencing “salvation” or “God’s kingdom” (reign) is a similar concept. The timing of salvation can be in all tenses, but I don’t see a contradiction in affirming that not all will be “saved” (or be judged ready to “inherit his kingdom” blessings) at a future judgment, yet will eventually. I trust the details and chronology that are even more beyond me than you to God. It’s enough on my plate to seek to faithfully navigate in the known present.

On paragrahs 2-4, it remains a mystery to me as to how to precisely define and balance our essential part with God’s gracious part which you rightly say “ultimately” assures a saving outcome. (I.e. I find Calvinists and Arminians both reflect some Biblical affirmations, yet how to formulate them together is over my head.) But when you emphasize that the righteousness required in our life “cannot be our works” because “we can do nothing… it’s out of our control,” you may underplay the Bible’s approach that treats us as learners who are called upon to make crucial responses as if with God’s enablement we can make choices that make a difference. I’m afraid the last two pages of my paper is my best shot at this point of how to formulate holding these two truths in a balanced tension. I tend to follow Tom Talbott’s papers on how short of hard determinism we are bound to fail, and yet how we ignorant creatures were created to grow in knowledge and ‘freedom.’ But it’s assured because God the great Chessplayer’s love and grace will ultimately get all the credit for bringing us (with both carrots and sticks) to where we reflect the righteous character (and works) that are required. So the “works” are not ultimately “ours” in the sense that we get credit for the ability to do them, and yet in another sense we genuinely and freely need to participate in them. But, no, I don’t fully comprehend him or any of this. I’m only seeking to maintain both sides of the tension that I find in Scripture!

Mel asks if “faith alone” or faith and works = salvation. I’m closer to Catholics than some, in sensing that works and fruit (and faith) are essential in it. But if Luther said, true “faith can never be alone,” the differences may be semantic. I don’t see that believing at a certain moment, in the sense of agreeing with the truth that God provided a gracious atonement, is said to guarantee a good verdict on the day of judgment. God’s love toward producing a good work of blessing in us may see that we need to experience more ‘fire’ (whatever that literally is, but talk about sounding like a Catholic on purgatory!). But I see an assumption that saving faith involves demonstrating ongoing repentance and a persevering trust in God that is reflected in obedience and holiness. The warning passages even seem to assume that it’s possible to experience that, but choose to fall away from it. Thus, in a real sense, the passages my paper cites, while seeing works as a corollary and fruit of faith, appear to treat works as “required,” even though in an ultimate sense, such genuine goodness will be recognized as not coming from us, but dependent on the grace of God.

Thanks Bob,

One key seems to be identifying the works as that which God does through us. We know self-effort isn’t going to cut it. In a sense, works are the evidence that faith is working itself out in our lives. It seems like works are more a by-product of genuine faith, rather than a separate requirement for salvation. I think Luther was probably right. If you don’t see a tree producing fruit, you’ve got to wonder if the tree is healthy.

I’m also one who believes that real faith has got to be more than mental assent to the truth. You mention ongoing repentance (metanoia) which is actually changing or renewing of the mind. This is true transformation, and I suspect that worthy works of the Spirit flow out from this.

It seems that our responsibility is to walk by the spirit, to hear and obey that voice vs. the voice of the flesh. Though again, I’m not sure where to draw the line of where our responsibility begins and ends with regard to this, as scriptures such as: “He is the author and finisher (perfecter) of our faith”, “He who began a good work in you will be faithful to complete it”, “No one can come to the Father unless I draw him”, etc. come to mind. There just seems to be so little room for any of US in there, if you know what I mean.

I also wonder if the role of works in salvation may be something along the lines of an experiential thing. Perhaps positionally, we are all saved because of the cross; but like faith, this does not become a practical reality for us until it begins working itself out in our lives.

Mel, we’re simpatico! Faith seems to be a link to receiving God’s gracious work of producing in us by his Spirit truly righteous character and ‘works’ (not just hopeless ego-tistic self-effort). Yes, the assurance that God will complete the work of saving All can sound as if there’s “little room for US in there.” Still, Talbott contends for God’s ability to accomplish this without sheer determinism, validating in some sense your words, “our responsibility is… to obey.”

On your last note, I’d say that God’s gracious character, as demonstrated at the cross, means that we are all in a secure “position” of being embraced in a love that assures full transformation and reconciliation. And yet in our practical reality, experiencing that may yet lie ahead through our life’s ‘journey’ that involves a sort of ‘soul-making’ in which we are accountable to learn and obey (even though God is the One who makes that possible). Thus e.g. in Romans 6:14-18, being those “under grace” who are “set free from sin,” doesn’t mean that we’re just granted an imputed righteousmess, or are simply now exempt from sin’s consequences. For it is still required that we be those who “come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance.” Grace be with you.

I’ve found this thread both interesting and edifying (and I have nothing to add but thanks.)

Perhaps I could add that I agree with the statement that “saving faith involves demonstrating ongoing repentance and a persevering trust in God that is reflected in obedience and holiness.”

(That seems to me to be the clear teaching of Jesus, James, Peter, and Paul.)

And again, thank you both.

Michael, thanks for expressing your appreciation and ressonance with the discussion! I suspect that some would be less receptive to the emphasis on the need for “obedience and holiness,” but they haven’t launched a challenge yet:)

Unfortunately, I haven’t always been as receptive to such things as I should be.

I’ve benefited from reading along here (and God willing, I’ll continue to read along.)

Thank you (God Bless.)

I have found Bob’s posts on this thread helpful as well, and agree with most everything he’s said. Having an obedient will that is growing more and more in harmony with God’s law is absolutely essential to our enjoyment of God’s blessing. I think my only main difference in opinion regarding the ideas expressed on this thread is that I do not see salvation by faith (or rather salvation by “faith-based obedience!”) as something extending beyond this mortal life, since I don’t think the faith by which we are made obedient (and thus saved) will be possible in the resurrection. Nor do I think that there will any longer be an ongoing struggle between “the flesh” and “the spirit” that makes obedience and holiness a matter of perseverance. Whereas our subjection to Christ at present is a progressive growth into his moral likeness that requires wise decisions and a refusal to yield to the temptations that continually assault us, in the resurrection I believe that subjection to Christ will be complete and permanent for all, and that temptation will no longer be possible.

Aaron, thanks for the clear reaction. We seem very close on the main controversies over what God seeks and requires upon which my paper focused. These are distinctions far more important to me than the one on which we differ, and I’d be fine with seeing transformation after death as a unilateral and instant divine deed. Yet as I’d expect, our difference is that you believe physical death suspends all development and growth in our journey.

Two things make me skeptical: (1) A modern sense that logically expects some continuity in the realities of our experience and growth, and in the developing priorities that God would seek in us. (2) Esp. the traditional understanding of texts that seem to indicate God’s dealings beyond death. I hope to develop such a Biblical case (some facets of which have been already discussed on other threads). But as I’m now working much overtime at the census, it must wait. (Have you found yet whether Jerzak’s take is compatible with your view?)

Hi Bob,

I can certainly understand your skepticism in regards to the Ultra-U view that there will be no need for further moral development post-resurrection, and that sin does not extend beyond this mortal existence. It’s a radical thought, to be sure! However, I think we should be very careful when attempting to apply what we know of this mortal existence to our existence “beyond the grave,” which we can really know nothing about apart from a divine revelation. What may be a “normal” and perfectly reasonable aspect of this existence may not be in the next. Even assuming that I’m wrong about there being no sin or punishment after the resurrection, I still don’t think we can fully comprehend just how different our post-resurrection existence will be when compared to this life. What is “normal” now will not be so when we are “made alive in Christ” and taken to heaven to dwell with God; the only constant will be some essential aspect of what makes us who we are as a person. Everything else about our existence will be forever changed.

Moreover, I think it’s highly significant that, when discussing the topic of the resurrection with the Sadducees, Christ places the emphasis not on the continuity between this life and the next (as the Sadducees had erred for doing), but on the radical discontinuity! Walter Balfour (one of my favorite Ultra-U’s from the 19th century) noted, “The Sadducees adopted the principle of analogy, and reasoned on it between the present and future state, and proposed this question to our Lord as presenting a serious difficulty against the resurrection. But I know of no part of Scripture which teaches that we ought to reason on the principle of analogy between the present and future state of existence. Mr. Hudson (a universalist who believed in future punishment, and with whom Balfour engaged in a few debates) and many others make great use of this principle, but I do not remember seeing any writer prove by an appeal to the Bible that the sacred writers either taught the principle or used it in any of their reasoning respecting a future state of existence. If such things are to be found in Scripture, they have escaped my observations…Whatever others may do, it is a principle I cannot adopt myself, nor admit as correct in others, until I see it established by divine authority.”

As far as those texts that “seem to indicate God’s dealings beyond death,” I look forward to discussing them with you in the future. I haven’t had time to check out Jerzak’s book yet, but it’s at the top of my list! I’ll let you know how compatible (or not) I think our views are as soon as I am able. But as someone who is familiar with it, what is your first impression?

No one expects total continuity, but it seems that our Western assumptions of the coherence of reality and of God’s nature would logically encourage the expectation of some basic continuity, putting the burden on those denying it. Like all fundamentalists, you presume that the only way we can know anything is “divine revelation.” Even if that debateable premise were true, they still can’t seem to agree on what it reveals, and other input seems bound to influence conclusions.

Does revelation reveal that the Sadduccess erred on the side of continuity about the nature of “our future state of existence”? I thought they believed in the ultimate discontinuity: there is no such life after death. I.e. they assumed that continuity made NO sense. Wasn’t Jesus’ response that experiencing God now as the God of Abraham must logically mean that there IS a continuity of Abraham’s “future state of existence,” such that he must continue in a similar existence before God as he experienced in this life? I.e. it seems like his argument against the Pharisees was FOR continuity.

Aaron, I do appreciate you in tackling my admission that a debateable assumption influences my interpretation of Scripture. But you argue, “No part of Scripture says to reason on the principle of any analogy between our present and future existence!” Yet Jesus seems to assert (despite a discontinuity regarding marriage) that the Sadduccees (not the Pharisees), despite their insistence that “divine revelation” does not reveal Jesus’ conclusion at all, have erred on the side of too much discontinuity.

And doesn’t Paul parrallel Jesus’ assumption on this in his main text on “the nature of our existence” “beyond the grave.” 1 Corinthians 15 urges us to expect that we will experience its’ similarity as similar to the relationship of a seed and the life that emerges out of that same seed’s nature. Isn’t that precisely another argument that assumes that we should think in terms of some continuity. Maybe because of my assumptions, I find Jesus’ & Paul’s reasoning attractive & persuasive.

Bob wrote: No one expects total continuity, but it seems that our Western assumptions of the coherence of reality and of God’s nature would logically encourage the expectation of some basic continuity, putting the burden on those denying it. Like all fundamentalists, you presume that the only way we can know anything is “divine revelation.” Even if that debateable premise were true, they still can’t seem to agree on what it reveals, and other input seems bound to influence conclusions.

Aaron: Actually, I wasn’t arguing for a complete lack of continuity; that which makes us who we are as a person (e.g., our memory and first-person perspective) will certainly continue. But as this much is revealed by in Scripture, we don’t have to speculate. But the question of whether or not we will still be sinners and in need of further punishment is entirely a matter of speculation unless it is revealed to us by God. To argue that we probably will be able to sin in the next life (since that is a part of our present existence) is no different than someone who is competely ignorant of the Bible asserting that we will probably will be able to die in the next life as well (since death is a part of our present existence) - or that we will probably be able to procreate and raise a family, since that too is a part of our present existence.

Bob: Does revelation reveal that the Sadduccess erred on the side of continuity about the nature of “our future state of existence”? I thought they believed in the ultimate discontinuity: there is no such life after death. I.e. they assumed that continuity made NO sense.

Aaron: Actually, in one sense they believed in strict continuity. Since for them the Torah didn’t reveal life after death, and there was no reason to believe from experience or observation that we continue live beyond death, then they believed that this present existence would simply continue just as it is, with life beginning with birth and ending with death, and no miraculous interruption of this natural cycle. There’s no discontinuity in this view unless it is assumed that there is some “part” of us that would continue on after death, but for whatever reason, doesn’t.

The idea of “life after death” was absurd to them because (as is evidenced by their question to Jesus about the woman who had seven husbands) they were applying the same strict continuity to it as well. Jesus corrects their erroneous view of the resurrection existence by arguing against such continuity.

Bob: Wasn’t Jesus’ response that experiencing God now as the God of Abraham must logically mean that there IS a continuity of Abraham’s “future state of existence,” such that he must continue in a similar existence before God as he experienced in this life? I.e. it seems like his argument against the Pharisees was FOR continuity.

Aaron: Again, only in a limited sense. The only thing Jesus is arguing will continue is the persons themselves - and even that is not due to some natural process, but because God is going to miraculously intervene and bring us back to life by his direct power. That is, our resurrection is going to be an interruption in the continuity of this natural existence. And we have no reason to argue from other aspects of our present mortal existence what our future immortal existence will be like. While one may speculate about it all they want, all we can know for sure is what Scripture has to say about it.

I’ll have more to say later, when I have more time! Time to head on to work.

Ok, just to be clear: While I think the Sadducees held to what might be called a naturalistic continuity (i.e., they believed, like the modern atheist, that this mundane state of affairs would simply continue without divine intervention, and people would continue to be born and die, and once dead would continue to be dead) I agree that, in one sense it could be said that the Sadducees denied continuity (i.e., the continuity of the life/consciousness of the individual after death). But to believe in the continuation of the person after death would itself mean that there is or will be a “break” in the continuity of the existence we know from experience and observation (which, for the individual, is defined by birth and death). But this particular “break” in continuity regarding individual human existence is revealed in Scripture (including the Torah!), and was brought to light through Christ’s death and resurrection (which is why I happily affirm what the Sadducees denied!).

For instance, we know based on the nature of Christ’s resurrection that our future existence will be physical and embodied, and that we will be (or have the capacity to be) recognizable to others, as well as have the ability to eat (since Christ was able to do so). But the fact that Scripture reveals this “minimalist” continuity does not therefore give us license to reason from analogy on what every aspect of our future existence will or will not be like. Just because someone was a drunkard or a thief in this life doesn’t mean we should assume that this aspect of their present identity will continue in the resurrection - especially when Scripture teaches it won’t (which I think is the case). But even if Scripture was silent in regards to the question of whether or not some (or all) people will be raised as immortal sinners, I think we should resist the temptation to attempt to reason from analogy regarding what Scripture doesn’t reveal about our future existence, since there is no precedent for doing this. Paul’s “seed analogy” in 1 Cor 15 is no exception to this, since Paul used it merely to defend what had already been revealed (i.e., that the dead will be raised just as Christ was raised, and that, therefore, there will be some essential continuity between this life and the next). He’s not, however, referring us to some characteristic or feature of our mortal existence to prove something about our future existence that was not previously revealed in the OT or through Christ’s resurrection.

Aaron, these differences in how folk read sacred texts are fascinating. You say “well, continuity requires discontinuity,” and maybe I say, yes, and vice versa too?? Even seeing the Sadduccees as endorsing “continuity” concerning the nature of our existence beyond the grave sounds like a word game. Yet you do appear to move from “no” Scriptural usefulness in thinking in terms of analogy to “some essential continuity between this life and the next,” or at least undeniable “minimalist” continuity, that still doesn’t “insure” that “every aspect” will be the same. But of course I agree that there are “breaks.” I.e. we agree that there is both continuity and discontinuity in the texts, and thus seem to be quibbling over how much continuity it would be reasonable to expect.

You grant that there are elements of continuity, if “only in a sense.” But don’t folk read texts so differently because they pick up on different “senses” and their importance? I am struck that Jesus doesn’t appeal to revelatory Scripture, or to a fresh revelation, but urges that we we take what we understand in the now as a clue to our future experience with God. But for you there is clear revelation that leads to another way of thinking. You repeatedly speak of the OT as clearly defining your view of the afterlife. I’d find it more objective to find that the clariity of its’ view is at best much debated by its’ most devoted readers. And theological assumptions circularly affect what we pick up on in the text.

I’m NOT saying that we can assume ‘analogy’ guarantees the specifics of any future existence! I’m only saying that how one reads supposed Biblical clues, e.g. that there may be development, or perversity, beyond this world, will be influenced by one’s bias’ about what we already know. When much of what I see seems to reveal that God values a process that facilitates growth in our character and choices, it seems reasonable to me to think that the burden is on those who assert that they’ve been told by a revelation that in the big picture there can be no place for such dynamics.

Hi Aaron, Here’s my simplistic perception of our main exchange:

Bob’s posts: God pursues a process that forms obedient character (and may do that beyond death).

Aaron (5/2): I agree! But this dynamic can’t go on beyond our physical death.

Bob: An understandable expectation of “some” continuity (or partial similarities) in the realities of existence, and of God’s ways (in all ages) will influence how we perceive the Biblical data.

Aaron (5/3): No! Contra Sadduccees, Jesus posits radical discontinuity, and for our understanding "no" Scripture uses any “analogy between our present and future states of existence.”

Bob: What? The main texts look precisely to an analogy (and partial continuities) to understand this relationship! Contra Sadduccees (and closer to Pharisees), Jesus insists there is a most fundamental continuity in the nature of our existence beyond death (and that we should expect e.g. Moses’ relationship later is similar and analogous to what we experience in this life). Also 1 Cor. 15: There is continuity analogous to a seed and the future reality that will be coherent with it.

Aaron (5/4): We agree there are discontinuities, and I agree there are indications of some continuities. Indeed, Paul does use “analogy” to support his interpretation of the relationship between our existence in the 2 ages. But that is “no precedent” for thinking there could be any other analogies(!), because these are only used to develop what God has already been revealing about similarities. (Or, ?? it’s unfair to think anything else else could be analogous because Scripture appeals to analogy for our understanding only to reinforce what it reveals??)

Bob: It seems apparent that Balfour(?) was simply incorrect. Paul wants us to think of a “spiritual body” as being analogous (similar and different) to our present bodies. And he is simply not at all discrediting the possibility that there could be other analogies. Indeed, it appears to me that he bolsters my original premise.

Hi Bob,

To help keep the discussion on this thread more on-topic and relevant to your original post, I decided to continue our discussion on a new thread: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=888&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

Hope that’s ok!

Aaron, yes I think that’s appropriate since we are really addressing a major contention of yours, which is at most tangential to the points for which I was laying a case in my paper.