If this is necessary to the ideology of salvation, then one might do well to scoff at it. It does not seem to be legitimate to project that Christ will save the world from the evil which is wrecked upon it by humans or by nature. Indeed, it seems remarkably irresponsible for a modern human to merely sit waiting for Christ to save the world rather than take active steps as part of the social community to assure that the world is preserved. (for example, it has been suggested that Bush's radical policy in the Middle East is "literally and determinedly drawn, consciously and unconsciously, toward the enactment of such a [endtimes] scenario, as he believes, for God's sake" [Hill] if this were true, it would be a perfect example of the sort of irresponsibility that might arise from a faith in the eschatology of Revelations) However, I do not believe that this physical return and conquest is inherent in salvation. On the contrary, I think that the references to Christ's physical return which will bring about global warfare and destruction are not physical prophecies, nor do they relate to the actual "endtimes." Rather, those that are not specific references to current or near-current events (such as the sack of Jerusalem or the depredations of Rome) --and possibly even those specific references-- are metaphors for that which goes on in the soul. As Jesus said in John 18:36: " John 18:36: "Jesus told Pontius Pilate, My kingdom is not of this world: if My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews." There was never a point in the early church where Christians took up arms, even against the most extreme oppression, for they seem to have understood what is being missed here -- that the kingdom was not physical, and could not be won with arms, nor would it ever be.

I believe it is a legitimate claim to suggest that Jesus can provide personal salvation. If one were to truly follow the teachings of Jesus, so as to overcome their own self-will,...

Indeed, the legitimacy of this claim is backed up by the fact that it parallels the most exalted traditions of most major religions. For example, the teachings of Jesus regarding esteeming others above one's self and emptying one's self of worries for the world, are closely paralleled in the pacifistic teachings of Eastern mystics. The idea about abandoning all hypocrisy, and being pure or heart and mind so as to approach God, is so ancient that it is prefigured in Egyptian rituals describing how one might achieve personal salvation after death by reuniting the Ba and Ka (soul and spirit).
The self-sacrifice demanded by Jesus of his followers is described be most of the greatest mystics throughout time. How then is it legitimate to say that Jesus is the way? It is legitimate because Jesus presents a way to reach these heights of self-sacrificing through surrendering to him, and following in his footsteps, even unto death. By allowing Christ to indwell, one would become capable of fulfilling the call which has been given to mankind time immemorial to reach beyond the present into the kingdom of God. Indeed, in the early church thousands of believers found this path and were martyred.

So, in conclusion, I believe that it is legitimate to say that Christ is the way to salvation, but it is illegitimate to suggest that his salvation is divorced from personal enlightenment/transcendence, or that it is without personal investment and sacrifice.

Bibliography

Branick, Vincent. Understanding the New Testament and Its Message: An Introduction. Paulist Press: New York, 1998.

Hill, Michael. "Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory: Bush's Armageddon Obsession, Revisited" CounterPunch, Jan 4, 2003. http://www.counterpunch.org/hill01042003.html