© 1992 Kenneth T. Glasziou
© 1992 The Christian Fellowship of Students of The Urantia Book
Many students of The Urantia Book who come from a mainline Christian theological background regard the concepts of salvation in the Bible and The Urantia Book as symbiotic and mutually reinforcing. Others who identify with evangelical or fundamentalist traditions might disagree. It may be helpful in our discussion to try to understand this difference of opinion. Upon reflection, we see that it is not so much what the Bible says but how we interpret what it says that formulates Christian beliefs and Christian ethics.
Historically, concepts advanced by two individuals, St. Augustine (A. D. 354-430) and Bishop Irenaeus (A.D. 130-202), have had a dominating but somewhat opposing influence in the theological development of Christianity. Augustine’s view of salvation was influenced by his belief that evil is not an entity in its own right but only a privation of good (privatio boni). Evil had its origin in finite beings with free will. Exercising this free will resulted in a dual fall: first in heavenly places (Lucifer), then with Adam and Eve. The sin of Adam and Eve was at the same time the sin of all of their descendants who are born in a state of guilt and condemnation that would merit the consignment of the entire human race to the eternal torments of hell.
Historically, concepts advanced by two individuals, St. Augustine (A. D. 354-430) and Bishop Irenaeus (A.D. 130-202), have had a dominating but somewhat opposing influence in the theological development of Christianity.
Augustine also reasoned “in the mysterious workings of God’s grace, He has chosen some to be saved, the predestinated (including some who have led the worst lives) who are, by the goodness of God, led to repentance. But the rest of mankind… who are made vessels of wrath, are brought into this world for the advantage of the elect.” (Contra Julianum Pelagianum, Bk. 5, Chap. 14 —John 5:39 is cited in support) These basic teachings were carried on by Thomas Aquinas and revived in the reformation by Martin Luther and John Calvin, both of whom quoted extensively from Augustine and regarded him as presenting the best wisdom of the ancient church. The influence of these teachings persist up to the present times.
The somewhat opposing views of Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, pictured Adam and Eve as well-intended children in the Garden of Eden. Their sin was not a damnable revolt but rather an error in judgment calling forth God’s compassion on account of their weakness and vulnerability. Man was created as an imperfect and immature creature who has to undergo moral development and finally be brought to the perfection intended for him by his Maker. Instead of the Augustinian view of life’s trials as being a divine punishment for Adam’s sin, Irenaeus saw our world of mingled good and evil as a divinely appointed environment for man’s progressive development.
The teachings of Irenaeus were pursued by the Hellenistic theologians of the Eastern Church centered in Constantinople, but did not develop theologically as did the Augustinian doctrines in Rome, and later during the reformation. In modern times, however, with the explosion of knowledge, particularly in science and logic, and the need to reconcile religious views with this new knowledge, the doctrines of Irenaeus have re-emerged and now appear to be having a strong influence on the formulation of much current theology.
The Irenaean interpretation of the existence of evil is closely linked to the expectation of a continuing life after death. Whereas Augustine denied that evil is an entity in its own right and therefore developed no evolutionary strategy for overcoming it, the Irenaean view is that God is gradually perfecting humanity whose full and perfect nature we may glimpse in Jesus. Evil, even malevolent and deadly evil, is not denied as a real entity but it is accepted as a fact of experience with the conviction that, in the end, it will be defeated and made to serve God’s good purposes. The Irenaean view is compatible with the concept of continued development in some future environment — a possibility inferred by Jesus’ statement: “In my Father’s house there are many mansions. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?” (John 14:2)
The difficulty with the implied Augustinian view of our instantaneous perfection after death is that it is by no means obvious that a highly imperfect person would remain the same person if instantaneously perfected. Also such a procedure would make all of our earthly efforts to progressively improve our spirituality virtually useless and meaningless. For could not have God created or transformed us into these perfect creatures in the first place and spared his children the anguish of their earthly experience? There is something obviously wrong with this instantaneous scenario of perfection.
The concept of progressive development subsequent to leaving our earthly existence raises the question of universal salvation. Does God wish to save all of his mortal children? If not, is there an implied premise limiting God’s goodness? Paul writes in I Tim. 2:3-4, “God our Savior desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” But what are the consequences of some not desiring to accept salvation? Theologians who support the Irenaean view suggest the possibility of either divine annihilation or the dwindling out of existence of those who refuse salvation.
The Urantia Book teaches the concept of progressive perfection of all those who sincerely wish to achieve the perfection that results finally in the attainment of the presence of the Universal Father. It also teaches that it is the Father’s desire that all should be saved and no stone should be unturned in order to achieve this result. But free will belongs always to the individual personality and: “The final result of wholehearted sin is annihilation. In the last analysis, such sin-identified individuals have destroyed themselves by becoming wholly unreal through their embrace of iniquity. The factual disappearance of such a creature is, however, always delayed until the ordained order of justice current in that universe has been fully complied with.” (UB 2:3.2) The final adjudication of such an individual must prove entirely satisfactory to all related personalities, and be so fair “as to win the approval of the sinner himself.” (UB 54:3.2)
The Urantia Book teaches the concept of progressive perfection of all those who sincerely wish to achieve the perfection that results finally in the attainment of the presence of the Universal Father.
The most basic concepts of salvation center around the meaning of the suffering of Christ on the cross. The Irenaean view of the suffering endured by Jesus during his agonizing death by crucifixion is that it was not, as such, willed by God but rather was the result of human wickedness, self-centeredness, and moral failure. In enduring this appalling event, Jesus was not placating a wrathful God but was his agent in overcoming evil with good. The Urantia Book also teaches that the crucifixion was the result of human wickedness and ignorance and it was the Father’s will that Jesus submit to the natural outcome of this depravity.
In describing this tragic situation, Jesus said, “From olden times the prophets have perished in Jerusalem, and it is only befitting that the Son of Man should go up to the city of the Father’s house to be offered up as the price of human bigotry and as the result of religious prejudice and spiritual blindness. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which kills the prophets and stones the teachers of truth! How often would I have gathered your children together even as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you would not let me do it! Behold, your house is about to be left to you desolate! You will many times desire to see me, but you shall not. You will then seek but not find me.” And when he had spoken, he turned to those around him and said: “Nevertheless, let us go up to Jerusalem to attend the Passover and do that which becomes us in fulfilling the will of the Father in heaven.” (UB 171:4.7)
The Irenaean viewpoint sees the judicial murder of Christ as the focus of God’s saving work and the turning point of man’s salvation. It is the ultimate example of evil being transformed to a good purpose by Jesus’ voluntary endurance of suffering as God’s servant and agent. This view of suffering as being put to constructive use is continued in the later documents of the New Testament in which we are confronted with the extraordinary phenomenon of those early Christians rejoicing in the difficulties and persecutions of apostleship as permitting them to share directly in the sufferings of Jesus in his saving work (2 Cor. 1:5-6; I Peter 2:21-22). In the New Testament, evil and suffering are also seen as a preparation for our participation in the glory of God’s kingdom (2 Cor. 4:17; I Peter 4:13), and for our acceptance in full sonship with the Father in that Kingdom (Heb. 12:6-7).
Although not propounding the Irenaean interpretation as such, we find much support for it in the writings of Canon Ivor F. Church, Principal of the Anglican Theological College in Brisbane, Australia, who cites the parables of Jesus as being the best place to discover the real teachings of Jesus about the wrath of God. He also says that if we are patient and discerning enough and use the right critical tools, we can find the most characteristic form of Jesus’ teachings. Canon Church accepts the view that the Gospels may also contain embedded material that reflects the minds of various teachers in the early church rather than the mind of Jesus in his authentic parables. This view is reiterated in the introductory remarks to the Catholic Study Edition of the Good News Bible which also refutes the divine dictation theory concerning Biblical writings that, as a consequence of the knowledge explosion, have come to be recognized more correctly as the “Word of God in the words of men.”
Canon Church asserts that in parables such as the prodigal son, and in Jesus’ acceptance of the despised tax collectors and notorious sinners of his contemporary society, Jesus was demonstrating the fact that the sheer goodness of God is beyond all imagining, and that his mercy knows no limits.
The Irenaean viewpoint sees the judicial murder of Christ as the focus of God’s saving work and the turning point of man’s salvation. It is the ultimate example of evil being transformed to a good purpose by Jesus’voluntary endurance of suffering as God’s servant and agent.
The parable of the laborers in the vineyard is one in which the vineyard owner hires more and more workmen throughout the course of the day, but at the conclusion of the day’s work, all laborers receive the same pay. To the complaints of one who was among those hired first, the vineyard owner responds, “Friend, I did you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius…Am I not allowed to do what I choose with that which belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?” (Matt. 20:13-16) In this parable Jesus is again illustrating the goodness of God who lavishes generosity on all mankind without discrimination, and incidentally rendering null and void the whole concept that the doing of good works entitles one to preconceived rewards from the Creator.
The parable of the prodigal son is one in which a wastrel son, having dissipated his inheritance in riotous living, in desperation decides to return to his father’s household, there to beseech forgiveness and to request a place in the household as a servant. The father, however, when he sights the prodigal approaching from afar, does not stay home and wait to receive an apology and a plea for forgiveness, but quickly runs to greet his lost son to welcome him home as a loved and honored guest.
The same incredible outflowing of the Father’s love is depicted in many other parables and in the Sermon on the Mount. The parable of the good shepherd is one in which the shepherd, when leading his flock of one hundred sheep to new pastures, loses one of them. Having assured the safety of the ninety-nine, the shepherd sets out in search of the one that is lost, determined not to rest until the lost one is found. In this parable, along with that of the lost coin and the prodigal son, Jesus shows that it is both his and the Father’s nature to go out in search of the lost sinner and never to be content until all who are lost are recovered. We do not fully comprehend the story of the good shepherd unless we recognize it as John’s description of Jesus as the Good Shepherd who is fully willing to lay down his life for his sheep, an action which in the mind of Jesus has no association with the wrath of God, but was simply a commitment demonstrating the depth of love which he and the Father have for their mortal children. His followers can be assured that no measures will be spared to secure and maintain their security in the family of his Father-God.
…The Urantia Book reminds us that, “The affectionate heavenly Father, whose spirit indwells his children on earth, is not a divided personality-one of justice and one of mercy-neither does it require a mediator to secure the Father’s favor or forgiveness. Divine righteousness is not dominated by strict retributive justice; God as a Father transcends God as a judge.” (UB 2:6.6)
“The cross makes a supreme appeal to the best in man because it discloses one who was willing to lay down his life in the service of his fellow men. Greater love no man can have than this: that he would be willing to lay down his life for his friends — and Jesus had such a love that he was willing to lay down his life for his enemies, a love greater than any which had hitherto been shown on earth.” (UB 188:5.7)
Canon Church observes that some declare that the concept of God’s infinite capacity for forgiveness contains an inconsistency in so far as it does insufficient justice to the nature of sin and sinful deeds. On the contrary, Church says, God’s mercy and forgiveness, far from being a breach of the integrity of his character, is an integral part of his righteousness. In the Heavenly Father’s relationship with his mortal children, love is always superior to and inclusive of justice.
Along the same vein, The Urantia Book reminds us that, “The affectionate heavenly Father, whose spirit indwells his children on earth, is not a divided personality — one of justice and one of mercy-neither does it require a mediator to secure the Father’s favor or forgiveness. Divine righteousness is not dominated by strict retributive justice; God as a Father transcends God as a judge.” (UB 2:6.6) In discussing the atonement doctrine, the book states: “The barbarous idea of appeasing an angry God, of propitiating an offended Lord, of winning the favor of Deity through sacrifices and penance and even by the shedding of blood, represents a religion wholly puerile and primitive, a philosophy unworthy of an enlightened age of science and truth. Such beliefs are utterly repulsive to the celestial beings and the divine rulers who serve and reign in the universes. It is an affront to God to believe, hold, or teach that innocent blood must be shed in order to win his favor or to divert the fictitious divine wrath.” (UB 4:5.4)
It is no easy matter to change overnight the familiar and established beliefs that have been accepted since childhood. In some instances the anguish of having to modify or discard such ideas could well cause more harm than good. The authors of The Urantia Book observe, “Sometimes error is so great that its rectification by revelation would be fatal to those slowly emerging truths which are essential to its experiential overthrow.” (UB 48:6.32) And, “It has often been the error of the teachers of new truth to attempt too much, to attempt to supplant slow evolution with sudden revolution.” (UB 95:1.8)
Doctrinal belief in the inerrancy of scripture and the blood atonement theory have had an enormous influence upon the way the Bible has been interpreted by those who formulated traditional Christian theology. Many mainline ministers still struggle with this issue today.
Many of us know good Christian people whose sense of guilt is so overwhelming that to take away the thought that their sins can be washed away by the blood of Christ would be devastating. Among this group there are those who never think of God as being the wrathful God of Sinai, but look upon Him only as the infinitely good and merciful Heavenly Father revealed to them through Jesus. The inconsistency of these opposing concepts simply does not register. Both the emerging Irenaean-type theology and the teachings of The Urantia Book may be too much for some minds to adjust to during what remains of their earthly existence. Since they have already started out on the path that leads to the very presence of the Father, it may be better that they continue along their present road than be thrust onto an unfamiliar highway.
Doctrinal belief in the inerrancy of scripture and the blood atonement theory have had an enormous influence upon the way the Bible has been interpreted by those who formulated traditional Christian theology. Many mainline ministers still struggle with this issue today. Much of this traditional doctrinal theology has been increasingly challenged. Many of the emerging concepts associated with salvation take either a parallel or converging pathway with teachings in The Urantia Book. A paragraph from the book concerning the meaning of the cross in relation to salvation appears to portray succinctly a meeting place for contemporary thought in the church:
“The cross forever shows that the attitude of Jesus toward sinners was neither condemnation nor condonation, but rather eternal and loving salvation. Jesus is truly a savior in the sense that his life and death do win men over to goodness and righteous survival. Jesus loves men so much that his love awakens the response of love in the human heart. Love is truly contagious and eternally creative. Jesus’ death on the cross exemplifies a love which is sufficiently strong and divine to forgive sin and swallow up all evil-doing. Jesus disclosed to this world a higher quality of righteousness than justice-mere technical right and wrong. Divine love does not merely forgive wrongs; it absorbs and actually destroys them. The forgiveness of love utterly transcends the forgiveness of mercy. Mercy sets the guilt of evil-doing to one side; but love destroys forever the sin and all weakness resulting therefrom. Jesus brought a new method of living to Urantia. He taught us not to resist evil but to find through him a goodness which effectually destroys evil. The forgiveness of Jesus is not condonation; it is salvation from condemnation. Salvation does not slight wrongs; it makes them right. True love does not compromise nor condone hate; it destroys it. The love of Jesus is never satisfied with mere forgiveness. The Master’s love implies rehabilitation, eternal survival. It is altogether proper to speak of salvation as redemption if you mean this eternal rehabilitation.” (UB 188:5.2)
Ken T. Glasziou, M. Sc., Ph.D., is a research scientist, retired, who is active in church work in Australia. He is author of “Science and Religion: The New Age Beyond 2000 A.D.”