Even More on Being "Saved"
Some months back, I posted (here and here) about how I thought that evangelical traditions have reduced the word "saved" to something that, while more definable, is also less rich and less mysterious than that which is is present in scripture. Last night, I had a really good conversation with a friend on a similar subject, and I was hoping some of you might want to weigh in on it. Here, in short, is the issue:
There are at least two ways to look at what it means to be "saved":
1. An event (the traditional evangelical perspective): you profess Jesus as Lord, sincerely accepting him as your Savior. In some traditions, such as my own, there may be a little more to it. You may need to be baptized, for example. Or, in the charismatic traditions, you may need to experience a manifestation of the Spirit. In all of those variations, however, being "saved" is an instantaneous event. One is "saved" from one's sins because they have accepted Jesus' sacrifice and God has forgiven them. There is no room for being "more" or "less" saved. Either you are, or you aren't.
2. A journey: professing Jesus as Lord is still significant, but only because it starts you on a journey of spiritual formation. During that journey, you are shaped into the image of Christ, and as that shape is formed within you, you are less subject to sin. That is, you are "saved" from your sins because you are made into a person who is no longer sinful. In this viewpoint, a person can, in a sense, be more or less "saved."
I am not ready to completely give up on the first perspective. However, I believe that scripture leans more toward the second perspective, and I am at a point right now where I am wondering how much of the first perspective really gets at what God is doing in the redemptive process. My friend, on the other hand, accepts the second as being a part of scripture, but still believes there is something important that instantaneously happens when a person confesses Jesus and is immersed.
We both recognize that we don't have all the answers, and believe that our best chance of getting closer to the truth is through conversation on the subject.
I think that this is a really important question, because it goes to the heart of some of the differences between mainline evangelicals and more progressive, so-called post evangelicals.
Anyone else want to weigh in on this one?
Technorati Tags: saved, evangelicalism, post-evangelicalism, emergent, emerging church
There are at least two ways to look at what it means to be "saved":
1. An event (the traditional evangelical perspective): you profess Jesus as Lord, sincerely accepting him as your Savior. In some traditions, such as my own, there may be a little more to it. You may need to be baptized, for example. Or, in the charismatic traditions, you may need to experience a manifestation of the Spirit. In all of those variations, however, being "saved" is an instantaneous event. One is "saved" from one's sins because they have accepted Jesus' sacrifice and God has forgiven them. There is no room for being "more" or "less" saved. Either you are, or you aren't.
2. A journey: professing Jesus as Lord is still significant, but only because it starts you on a journey of spiritual formation. During that journey, you are shaped into the image of Christ, and as that shape is formed within you, you are less subject to sin. That is, you are "saved" from your sins because you are made into a person who is no longer sinful. In this viewpoint, a person can, in a sense, be more or less "saved."
I am not ready to completely give up on the first perspective. However, I believe that scripture leans more toward the second perspective, and I am at a point right now where I am wondering how much of the first perspective really gets at what God is doing in the redemptive process. My friend, on the other hand, accepts the second as being a part of scripture, but still believes there is something important that instantaneously happens when a person confesses Jesus and is immersed.
We both recognize that we don't have all the answers, and believe that our best chance of getting closer to the truth is through conversation on the subject.
I think that this is a really important question, because it goes to the heart of some of the differences between mainline evangelicals and more progressive, so-called post evangelicals.
Anyone else want to weigh in on this one?
Technorati Tags: saved, evangelicalism, post-evangelicalism, emergent, emerging church
posted by Matt at Monday, February 20, 2006
2 Comments:
I believe salvation is a journey. I don't believe that the moment you come up out of the water there is a switch thrown from "not saved" to "saved."
But.
I can't get my head around the idea of "partially saved." Maybe it's because I'm a math teacher and I deal in answers that are right or wrong. It just seems to me that there is a right and a left and no groups in the middle.
I think it's dangerous (and, unfortunately quite prevalent in my CofC tradition) to promote the idea of a MOMENT of salvation. It seems to sort of put us in charge of the decision. We're not.
It's also dangerous though to be too wishy-washy about it and give someone the idea that they MIGHT be saved. I think the world needs to deal with the idea that being wrong about the identity of Jesus is a great big thing to be wrong about.
That all sounds alot like I'm fence-sitting. I suppose I'm working my way through it just like everyone else.
I think we're all (my friend included) wrestling with the same issue - how much of the "old" evangelical way of looking at the "moment of salvation" is consistent with scripture and our experience?
Thurm really put his finger on something I worry about, too. There IS a present sense in which one can call themselves "saved" (and they ought to be confident about it). But the thrust of scripture seems to lean toward "becoming" someone who is transformed in the image of Jesus.
I suppose the age-old dialogs about justification versus sanctification continue to be relevant in the twenty-first century.
Post a Comment
<< Home