Phil 2:12 "corporate" and NOT eternal salvation

[alexaustralia]

Phil 2:12 reads

12Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling,

Now according to R. Rhodes this passage the word “salvation” does not refer to eternal salvation; rather because of the church’s temporal problems, Paul was asking the church as a community (i.e. not to individuals) to work out their salvation…i.e become a mature church without personal ambitions (superiority) and also without having to rely so heavely on him (Paul).

Feel free to comment on the statement above on how such view of this passage is incorrect.

Thanks

Alex

 

[petra]

Now according to R. Rhodes this passage the word “salvation” does not refer to eternal salvation; rather because of the church’s temporal problems, Paul was asking the church as a community (i.e. not to individuals) to work out their salvation…i.e become a mature church without personal ambitions (superiority) and also without having to rely so heavely on him (Paul).

Defining “salvation” as “the maturation of the Church” is silly. The Church does not need salvation (as if it had corporately fallen from grace), but rather individuals need salvation. Certainly, the spiritual state of individuals have a cumulative effect upon the Church’s ability to appear as lights to the world. But the word “salvation” can only apply to individuals. Individuals must work out their salvation with fear and trembling because God is at work within us to will and to work. If we resist His work within us, we put our personal salvation in jeopardy and we lose our ability to witness to others.’

To put it another way, if a need for maturity equals a need for salvation, then one can not be truly saved until he or she is fully mature. We all recognize that babes in Christ are saved, in spite of not being mature. So to say that the Philippian church was in need of salvation because it was immature does not make any sense at all.

petra

 

[alexaustralia]

The author does not take the passage in any way to mean a salvation that leads to heaven. Rather he makes a new “class” of salvation for this passage. He states that the salvation Paul is refering to here has nothing to do with justification rather it is just a call to ACT in a colorful and I guess severe language that they need to save their church from the disputes and other temporal issues the church at Philipii was facing at the time.
I have never heard (or read) such interpretation before so I was wondering how much substance there is in such argumentation. From reading the 3rd chapter it seems Paul is talking about justification and resurrection in the normal sense

9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. 10I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.

So in context I would imagine that Paul in 2:12 is also speaking of individual salvation/justification. So I do not believe Paul is giving a communal exortation for church maturity in 2:12. But I would like to hear other people’s opinions on this matter so that I can understand things a bit better.

Alex

 

[Vincent]

Now according to R. Rhodes this passage the word “salvation” does not refer to eternal salvation; rather because of the church’s temporal problems, Paul was asking the church as a community (i.e. not to individuals) to work out their salvation…i.e become a mature church without personal ambitions (superiority) and also without having to rely so heavely on him (Paul).

I’m not sure about the plausibility of Rhodes’s interpretation. I would have to see his reasons for reducing the discussion of salvation in Philippians 2:12 to the temporal sense of the term. A “communal” interpretation isn’t necessarily incompatible with a Catholic reading of the passage.

It’s been a long time since I’ve read Rhodes’s book, but it *seems *that he’s responding to a perceived Catholic position that one must do good works to get (a) from the state of non-justification to the state of justification, or (b) from the state of partial justification to the state of complete justification. There are probably other presuppositions.

If these are the positions he’s responding to (and I’m not sure), then he’s attacking a straw man, for as the Council of Trent holds, good works do not move a person from the state of non-justification to the state of justification, and the moment one is justified (instrumentally, in Baptism) one is completely, not partially, justified.