On Salvation and Slavery
(or Reconsidering the Process of Salvation)
Modern Christians are obsessed over the process of salvation. How does God save us? Does God regenerate us before we can produce faith, or is salvation a result of faith? Before we dive too deeply into this topic, two observations are in order.
First, this concern over the process of salvation is uniquely modern. The process of salvation—how God accomplishes salvation for me—is not something writers often focus strongly on either in the Scriptures nor among the early Christians. We tend to read this question into everything we encounter because we are so deeply focused on this question.
Second, much of what happens in this area of theology is a humblebrag. While God is the actor, I am the focus. What did God do for me? Why did God save me?
God is doing a lot more in the world than saving you.
The modern focus on individual salvation is not healthy.
All this said, let’s return to the question at hand: what is the process or order of salvation?
I will begin with a warning: This post is not going to be an in-depth exposition of every contested passage. A few passages will be used as examples and to develop a theory, but I would like to avoid writing an entire book.
Ability
According to some, humans have the ability and desire to seek God out. Humans can not only understand the Gospel but actively seek out God and salvation.
Many theologians and Christians argue this view places man in charge of salvation. They picture God sitting around in the heavenly realms waiting for some human to seek God out, at which God jumps off his throne, zooms down to Earth, and takes the necessary steps to save this person who has just placed their faith in Christ.
Theologians and scholars opposed to this view call it the Pelagian heresy. It’s questionable whether Pelagius held this view, but we can leave this aside for the moment.
Some people do seem to unconsciously hold this view of salvation, or at least they talk like this is what they hold. Within scholarly circles, however, this view is almost nonexistent. Clearly God does more than wait in the heavenly realms waiting on some human to accept salvation. God plans, influences, and controls the course of history.
This, then, is the ditch on one side of the road of question.
Total Inability
What, then, is the alternative?
According to some, the individual human is a complete and total rebel. Humans, before salvation, can never desire salvation, cannot desire to please God, cannot even understand the Gospel. God must reach into the heart of the individual believer, changing their hearts irresistibly so the person can desire salvation.
Those who hold to total inability accuse everyone who doesn’t agree with them of holding that humans “save themselves,” because “humans can seek God.”
This view relies on a handful of passages.
None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. Romans 3:10–11And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience. Ephesians 2:1–2
These passages say things like “you were dead in your sins,” or “you were a slave to sin.
To reach the total inability position, however, the reader must infer the meaning of words like “dead” and “slave” into their reading of the passage. These words must be read so they mean the individual human cannot even respond to the Gospel unless God changes the person so they can hear, understand, etc. We should always be very careful about assuming the meanings of any writer’s words, particularly when their meaning has such a huge impact on what we believe about God, humans, the world, etc.
We need to ask, then, what does Paul mean when he uses the phrase “slave to sin?”
Considering Slavery
Most Christians I encounter are simply confused by this problem, often calling it a “mystery.” But what if it is not so much of a mystery? What if the Scriptures do give us plain examples and models of salvation, but our modern focus on systematizing theology have turned our attention away from them?
Return to the passages above. In these passages, Paul speaks of the natural human as a “slave” to sin. We should not assume Paul meant what we think of when we use the word “slave” when he wrote those passages, however. Imposing a modern definition of words on an ancient text is what Lewis would call chronological snobbery.
What is Paul talking about, then? Paul was in training (at least) to become a Rabbi, so he was more likely thinking about Jewish antecedents.
The first antecedent that comes to mind is Israel’s captivity in Egypt and the resulting Exodus. This slavery, and this event, has an overwhelming impact on Jewish identity. The vast majority of Jewish Feasts and Holy Days, for instance, are centered on the Exodus, and the Exodus most certainly focuses on slavery. The problem with considering this light of the Exodus is that the example is, in fact, overwhelming. The Exodus covers several books in the Scriptures—far too many to consider in any detail in a shorter work like this.
Is there some other example of slavery that would have been at the top of Paul’s mind? There is. When the average Rabbi thinks about slavery, one passage that would be “top of mind” is found in Exodus 21:2–6, part of the Mosaic Law:
When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.
Consider the process here:
-
The slave is a slave without choice. We are not told why the person has fallen into slavery, only that this is their condition.
-
At a specific point in time, in a certain way, the slave is clearly and openly offered the choice between freedom and continued slavery.
-
Once the slave makes this decision, it is permanent. There are no “do overs.” There is no “second chance.” The decision is final, irrevocable, and life-altering.
There are several interesting points in this passage.
If the slave decides to leave his slavery, he leaves everything. “If he came in single, he leaves single.” The slave, in freedom, is a “new man,” in the sense that he is “starting over” with nothing. This loss of everything is, in fact, the primary reason God gives that someone might want to remain in slavery. The slave does not hate freedom. The slave does not hate the Priest, or the King, or God. The slave simply loves what they have gained through slavery more than they love those things.
The slave is given a clear choice. There is no lack of knowledge. The slave must not be dragged out of slavery against their will. The slave may desire freedom more than their current life, or they may desire their current life more than freedom. While their decision is influenced, their decision is not predestined.
“But where,” the determinist might ask, “does their desire for freedom come from?”
This is an example of the fallacy of the complex question. It assumes the slave cannot desire freedom, which is exactly the question in hand. We should not—we cannot—assume the answer to the question we are trying to answer in the question itself. The passage simply assumes the slave’s decision is free and fair. The passage assumes the slave has the information needed to make a decision that will impact the rest of their lives.
The slave does not (need to) “seek freedom.” The opportunity to claim freedom is not something the slave can do anything about. The slave cannot ask for this moment to come before the seven-year mark, nor can the slave change his mind later.
God, in a sense, brings this singular opportunity at freedom to the slave via a legal process. The slave has no ability to buy himself out of slavery. The slave cannot create the freedom he is given the opportunity to enjoy. The slave did not make the law, nor enforce the law, that gives him this opportunity at freedom. The slave, we might say, is drawn into the process regardless of his desires. Once in the process, the slave can either accept freedom or reject it.
The Parallel with Salvation
Let’s return to Paul’s statements about salvation to see how this view of slavery might fit.
-
No one seeks God. Just as the slave cannot seek freedom, no one seeks God. We can now see, however, that seeking is not the same as receiving. God can bring us into a place where we can receive salvation, even against our desires.
-
We have the freedom to receive—or not. Whatever our reasons, we can accept or reject the offer of salvation, just as the slave can accept or reject the offer of freedom.
-
We must leave everything to accept. Just as the slave must leave their entire life to accept freedom, we must leave our entire lives to accept salvation. The less enmeshed in his life as a slave, the more likely he is to choose freedom. This is why people are most likely to accept salvation at extremely low points in their lives—the world has little to offer.
-
The decision shifts responsibility. Before freedom, the slave’s master was responsible for the slave’s food, and drink, and happiness. Once free, the newly freed man is responsible for those things. Before salvation, we are not responsible for our spiritual health; we are led around by our sin. After salvation, we are responsible for our spiritual growth. We must study, and learn, and pass through times of trouble, learning to lean on God through faith and to fulfill God’s purpose in our lives.
-
There is influence, but the ultimate decision is freely made. When we think of “free will,” we think of a person being able to somehow decide at any moment, throughout their lives, to accept God’s offer of salvation. That’s not the way free will works.
Salvation, according to the example given in the Mosaic Law, and as referred to by Paul, can be described as a process, almost a “dance” between God and the person. While the outline is going to be the same in broad strokes, the process of forming a relationship can be different, on the surface, for every pair of people in the world.
How can we broadly describe this process?
To begin, the human is broken; they do not seek God. While unregenerate, each person entangles themselves in this world more or less, becoming more or less fully enslaved to their passions and desires.
However, over time God influences each person, softening their heart and creating circumstances that will naturally draw them towards choosing salvation and freedom. These influences can be through pain, where God screams at us (as Lewis says), through blessing, through people, or through challenges. God has many means of influence.
At some moment in time, generally (but not always) at a low point in the person’s life, they are faced with a stark choice: accept salvation, or not. There is no hiding at this moment. There is no lack of knowledge. There is no lack of understanding about the consequences of the decision. There is no doubt that the decision is permanent and irrevocable.
No matter how much influence comes to bear in that moment, however, the decision is completely free. The person either accepts, or they do not accept.
Paul is correct, no one seeks God, and all men know enough to be held responsible for their decision to accept or reject salvation. Jesus is also correct; all men are drawn to God.
If you say: “God did it all,” you are right—you just accepted the free gift offered by God. God drew you in many ways and with many influences, created the Law that enables you to be free from slavery to sin, and he paid the price of releasing you from slavery. He creates the path of your life that leads you to the moment of decision.
But God also honors your decision. You will either say to God, “Your will be done,” or God will say to you, “Your will be done.”
Note this: If the accepting is part of God’s work, rather than something you do, the gift is no longer a gift, and love is no longer love.
You are not passive in salvation. You are not changed from without until you surrender to the change God proposes via his Spirit. On the other hand, because you surrender to the change God proposes via his Spirit, God does not change you against your desires.
You are not more moral, or smarter, or more anything because you received the gift freely offered. It just means your spirit was broken, and in your brokenness you accepted God’s free offer. You could have stuck your fist in the face of God and said: “No! I will do this my way!” You did not. You accepted God’s love, and so God changed you.
This, it seems, is the closest we can come to explaining “how salvation works.” It is neither Calvinist, nor Arminian; it is just what the Scriptures describe. You can trace this pattern through the Exodus, through the Prophets, through Christ, through Paul, through Peter, through John—through the whole of the Scriptures.
God offers, pays, and draws; man accepts—or not.