[This week's post was written by guest blogger Kevin Regal. Some of you may recognize him better as a frequent contributor to Chaos and Old Night under the handle "KWR" or "O Felix Culpa".]
Every subculture eventually develops a vocabulary that is distinctive to itself. Sometimes this happens by the invention of new words (e.g., “groovy” or “proactive”), but more often it happens by the endowing of old and otherwise common words with new and/or specialized meanings (see Fraiser’s post on Van Til and certainty). Though this is a natural part of how language works, it can lead to misunderstanding. Often such language is unintelligible to outsiders, and sometimes such uses of words (due to various other meanings which a word may carry) can be confusing even to the group itself.
One of Christianity’s specialized words which very often confuses Christians themselves is the word “save”—especially in its past tense. Most people in our culture have been exposed to the “Christian-speak” of the word “saved” (“I got saved last week;” “We hope you will get saved soon;” “She is a saved person;” “Let’s try to get him saved;” etc.) It is understandable that non-Christians would not know what those sentences mean, but Christians also often have an incomplete or biblically incorrect idea of the meaning of the word when they use it in such contexts.
The four examples above betray many misconceptions about salvation. I will limit this discussion to two of the most common. The first involves who does it, and the second involves when it is done.
Most Christians are aware on some level that it is God who saves. Fortunately, it is rare—though not unheard of—for Christians say things like “I saved him” (meaning he professed belief after I proclaimed the gospel to him) or “I saved myself” (meaning I believed the gospel). However, many Christians seem incapable of consistently working the truth that it is God who saves into their thinking and speaking about salvation. Part of the problem is that we tend to identify salvation as a thing that we achieved by or received as a result of a prayer we repeated when we converted to Christianity (e.g., people very commonly say they know they are saved because they remember the time when they prayed such a prayer). This identification leaves people with a subconscious but nearly indelible belief that they—in some sense—saved themselves, and that false belief winds up finding expression in the various “get saved” or “got saved” phrases that we so often hear—phrases which give the impression of a personal achievement on our part more than of God’s mercy. But neither those phrases nor that belief are biblically defensible. Knowing that it is God alone who saves should at least lead us to use language more like “I was saved” or better yet “God saved me.” That kind of language more clearly conveys the truth that it is God who saves, and (unlike the “got saved” language) examples of it can be found in the New Testament. Even those phrases, however, should be understood and used with qualification, as I will explain in the next point.
The second misconception regards the completion of salvation. It appears that believers in Christ very often completely misunderstand this issue. As a whole, our salvation is not, at this point in history, something that is “done,” “over with,” “behind us,” etc. God’s salvation is multi-faceted—he saves us from more than a single thing. For those of us who believe, some facets of our salvation (e.g. justification) occurred in the past, but our salvation has not been completed. So, we can correctly use language like “I was saved many years ago” only if we mean by it that the work of our salvation was begun some time in the past. I expect that assertion will sound strange to some, so it is appropriate to consider briefly the ways in which the New Testament speaks of salvation and whether my assertion is consistent with them.
Generally when the New Testament speaks of salvation it is clear that it is not speaking of an event completed in the past in the sense that phrases like “I got saved when I was 15” tend to suggest. Here are some examples:
Mt 10:22—All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.
—Here salvation is said to happen at the end, after the standing firm.
Rom 5:9-11—Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
—We have been reconciled (in the past) but we will be saved (in the future).
Rom 13:11—And do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation in nearer now than when we first believed.
—The point of belief was in the past, but salvation is still not present.
1 Cor 15:1-2—Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
—Here salvation is conditioned upon future events (our holding firmly), and thus cannot be something completed in the past.
1 Thes 2:13—But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.
—Here sanctification is how salvation is brought about rather than something which follows salvation. Obviously, salvation cannot be synonymous with conversion here.
Heb 9:27-28—Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
—He is bringing salvation to those who are waiting for him. This cannot be unbelievers, because unbelievers aren’t waiting for him.
1 Pet 1:3-5—In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade—kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by God’s power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time.
—It hasn’t come yet and won’t until the last time!
1 Pet 1:8-9—Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, for you are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls.
—Receiving; not already received.
Of course, there are places in which the New Testament writers speak of salvation in language that could suggest that it is a past event. I would argue those passages are also consistent with my assertion that our salvation is not yet complete. This is not meant to be exhaustive, but I want to mention the major passages to which people might appeal for support of the idea that salvation is something which we can speak of as complete. All refer to facets of salvation rather than salvation as a whole.
Lk 7:50—Jesus said to the woman, ‘Your faith has saved you; go in peace.’
—This is the last verse of a section in which Jesus is teaching about forgiveness. The climax of the account occurs in v48 where Jesus said to the woman “Your sins are forgiven.” The salvation Jesus speaks of in v50 refers to his pronouncement of forgiveness in v48. Forgiveness was granted in the past, but salvation involves much more than bare forgiveness.
Eph 2:4-9—But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.
—The word “saved” in v5 and again in v9 refers primarily to regeneration, as can be seen in the context (“made us alive…raised us up”). Notice that Paul makes the future expectation very clear.
2 Tim 1:9-10—But join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God, who has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace.
—This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.” I think verse 10 actually restates the content of v9, with “saved” and “called us to a holy life” in v9 being equivalent to “destroyed death” and “brought life and immortality to light” in v10. If that is correct, then the main idea of “saved” here is regeneration. Again, the future expectation is prominent.
Tit 3:3-7—But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.
—The primary focus here is again regeneration, but Paul also specifically mentions justification. Yet again Paul ties those facets of salvation to the future expectations.
Rom 8:22-25—We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.
—Though this passage uses “complete” sounding language (“we were saved”), it very clearly teaches that salvation is predominantly future. It has begun, but it is something that we wait, long, and hope for.
Conclusion: In view of the New Testament usage of the term saved, I suggest that the “get saved” phrases and other language which tends to portray salvation a past event are not supported by scripture and are hopelessly unclear or incorrect. Therefore, we should use them only with explicit qualification (following Paul’s example) or abandon them entirely. Because of the overwhelming amount of confusion which they occasion among contemporary evangelicals, I tend to prefer abandoning them.
Likely some will argue that my point, even if valid, is a minor issue of semantics and not really worthy of the concern I have expressed— certainly not worth trying to change long-standing habits of thought and speech. It is true that changing long-entrenched habits is very difficult. In this case it is worth the effort. This particular semantic error supports a very wrong theology and makes it very difficult for Christians to understand some very important truths (e.g., the truth that salvation is much more than just being let “off the hook” for one’s sinful behavior). Correct semantics does not guarantee correct theology, but wrong terms can (and in this case do) represent—and lend an appearance of legitimacy to—faulty categories which, when held, make the truth very hard to mentally process or believe. The importance of the truths in question (truths about salvation), should more than justify the effort.
Kevin,
By no means is this a mere semantical issue. For that matter it is not just an matter of theological interest. This is an issue of genuine importance in the day-to-day life of the church. I know whereof I speak, for I experience this regularly in pastoral ministry. I frequently encounter believers, most often parents, who have deluded themselves that a loved one is “saved” because they had at one time made a profession of faith. Even though they have not walked with Lord for years. I have no doubt this in no small part due to how we talk about salvation. The challenge for pastors is to be precise without being pedantic when communicating the gospel. It takes time to overcome ways of thinking about salvation that have etched in the mind by popular misrepresentations of the doctrine of salvation.
Blessings,
Les
Kevin,
I enjoyed reading your very well writen article. Of course, you expect me to take exception to some of it. It is true that salvation is more than justification. Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man. But, at the point of my justification, I was saved! Justification brings the believer into a place of peace and favor with God. ( See Romans 8:1) The evidence I have truly been regenerated is proven by my perseverence. The old way of historically phrasing this still holds; I have been saved, I am being saved and I will be saved. To believe in perserverence of the saints does not negate justification as a point in time experience.
Kevin,
Great points! What we believe is of the utmost importance and consequently we should constantly evaluate both our understandings of as well as ways of expressing it. I believe this tendency to present our salvation as something for which we were primarily responsible comes not only from a misunderstanding or ignorance of Scripture but also a poor anthropology and hamartiology. We don’t really understand who we are apart from the grace of God and the degree to which sin has bent us away from God. If we understood this more accurately, it might well cause us to more accurately think and speak about our salvation.
Jim,
Thanks for your comment; it is good to hear from you.
You mentioned taking exception, but I’m not quite sure if you are or not, for what you say seems to concur with what I have said.
If you are taking exception, I think it must be in this statement:
“at the point of my justification, I was saved! Justification brings the believer into a place of peace and favor with God. (See Romans 8:1)”
It seems that you are agreeing that salvation is not complete, but still wanting to affirm the simply complete terminology. If that is a correct assesment (you will have to tell me), then you are agreeing with my argument (i.e., because it is God who saves, because salvation is predominantly future, and because the Bible gives us no warrant to speak of salvation in the past-tense/personal achievement fasion many evangelicals are accustomed to) , but balking at my conclusion (i.e., some of our favorite terminology should either be abandoned or qualified so that it conforms to biblical example). I think the argument, if we aim to be consistent, forces us to the conclusion.
Rom 8 actually helps my argument more than yours. Vv1-2 and v24a use completed terminology, but both are speaking of the beginning of the work of salvation. The rest of the chapter makes it perhaps more clear than anywhere else in the New Testament that the work of salvation is focused on the future. Furthermore, vv9-17 repeatedly speak of salvation as conditioned upon present and future events, thus not currently complete. But then, you are not contesting that part. So far as I can tell, you agree that our salvation is not yet complete.
What I aimed to demonstrate with the passages I cited (one of them being Romans 8 ) is that the Bible never speaks of salvation as a simply past event. It is my conclusion that we should not do so either. I think you are arguing that it is ok to speak of salvation in that way. My question is: Why? What warrant do we have either biblically or theologically to speak of salvation in that way?
Thanks again for commenting. I hope to hear more.
KWR
Gene,
Thanks for your comment. I couldn’t agree with you more. I have found (in our own church) that it is extremely difficult to communicate a biblical view of man and sin because of the typical ways of thinking and talking about salvation. It often seems that many evangelicals truly believe the only thing they need from God is for him to let them “off the hook” for their sinful behavior. Shockingly, they often don’t really believe that they need to be saved from their sin; they just don’t want to be punished for it. I can’t express how great a concern this is to me.
KWR
Les,
It is good to hear from you! I understand exactly what you are talking about. The popular ways of talking and thinking about salvation do leave people with the impression that, so long as their child has touched the sinner’s prayer “base,” they are “safe” and nothing else matters.
For a parent, that can be a very comforting view, but the problem is that it is terribly unbiblical. Trying to dislodge it and make room for biblical views of man, sin, and salvation is an uphill battle to be sure.
Keep in the fight!
KWR
Kevin –
I have nothing of significance to contribute to this discussion, only to say that it is a crucial discussion to have on this blog. Thanks for yours and others contribution to our understanding of biblical salvation.
- John M
I’m going to give the person’s perspective from the street: If I were a person recently “saved” and encountered someone saying to me,”you’re not really saved, but forgiven. The saving comes later” I would probably question what I had just done and possibly run far away because I had just humiliated myself and though to believe a lie. Coming back to reality, I myself understand what is being said and quasi agree with the fact of our speech in certain aspects of really important things. To some, it is the most awesome thing to become a Christian, to feel saved from a life that was circling the drain. But for some it is more of a prgression, a next step toward -dare I say it-progressive sanctification for those who have grown up knowing the truth, but maybe not quite understand it all in one chunk. People coming into a relationship with Christ at a later age I would hope would be just that-”saved” from a life without God. They have obviously seen and lived life outside of God’s will and would hopefully run to Jesus and live. Those of us who may have been in church our whole lives tend to have a different perspective and some unfortunately don’t move any farther that that first prayer of faith. They were “saved” for fire insurance. Some of these you may have to wonder if they are “saved” at all and are just playing the game. I feel the Romans 8 passage hold a lot in the fact that we should have hope in being saved, being adopted and being held accountable until that day when we get to see Jesus face to face. It is my wish that those who hold on to what they claim they have would build on that “saving” faith to progressively take steps to understanding God and His Word instead of wondering why they don’t have all the words or all the faith they should have especially when asked or even cornered by theological questions. Is it part of being culturally relevant? Maybe we need to start a new class in the seminaries about how to speak with impact on the really important things.
Thanks for your comment. You make several points; I’ll try to respond a piece at a time.
First, no one has suggested that people be told “you weren’t saved, but forgiven.” My point is that the New Testament does not speak of salvation as a simply past event. Aside from such language having no biblical or theological warrant, it leads to all sorts of confusion about what salvation is.
Second, if Evangelical Christians would use biblically and theologically accurate language when they talk about salvation, the predicament you describe would never arise. If we didn’t speak of salvation as if it were synonymous with “praying the prayer,” new converts would be spared both that misunderstanding and the need of having it corrected.
I’m not completely sure I understand you here. I’ll respond to what I think you are saying, and you will have to correct me if I’m missing your point.
It seems like you are saying that salvation is complete for some people but not for others. The basis on which you make that assertion appears to be the fact that some people feel like their salvation is entirely past-tense while others do not. Of course, I think there are problems with that kind of reasoning. What people feel very often has very little to do with reality. As you point out, it is entirely possible for a people to feel they are justified before God when the reality of their life demonstrates emphatically that they are not. The passages cited in my original post very clearly teach that our salvation is not yet complete. We should build our understanding of salvation upon that, not on what people may or may not feel.
I think you are referring to vv22-25, but I cannot figure out what you are trying to say. Paul very directly says that we wait for and hope for those aspects of salvation, and he goes on to explain that we hope and wait for them specifically because we do not yet have them. Please clarify.
If I understand correctly, this is bizarre logic. It seems you are saying that because we want people to understand God and his word better, we should refrain from teaching them about God’s word. How does careful teaching about God’s word prevent people from understanding it better? How does refusing to teach God’s word help them to understand it better? Also, as I mentioned above, if Christians would use biblically and theologically accurate language to begin with, the embarrassment you describe would not happen. If we didn’t teach new converts to think and say things like “I decided to get saved yesterday” then they wouldn’t. If we don’t teach them bad theology, then they won’t need to be “untaught.”
This question appears to be an appeal to an unquestionable standard for our faith and practice. The part that I find troubling is that the standard appealed to is our culture rather than God’s word. The truth is, they two could not be further apart. In Rom 1:18-21 Paul tells us that humankind, in its wickedness, suppresses the truth. Looking to our culture for instruction about how to teach God’s word is like consulting Hitler for advice about how to hide your Jewish friends from the Nazis.
Speaking with impact is worse than useless if we are not speaking the truth. God’s word is our authority on what is true; if we disregard what the Bible says when we teach about salvation, I think the less “impact” we have the better.
Thanks again for your comment. I’m sorry we didn’t find more upon which we could agree. Let’s keep talking, though.
Kevin
Sorry my original message might have been a little biting. I understand what is being talked about, but I may not have let things sink in before commenting. I know there are a lot of grey issues dealing with this subject, but I am trying to remain in the black and white. Without reading too much into the text, I feel that to say that I’m saved is exactly that-I am saved from a life of deadly sin. I am justified in my decision to accept what Christ has done for me and I am truly saved from my sin and myself(human nature). I see everyday where I could be. The physical and spiritual point my not necessarily have come yet, but by promise of God’s Word. I want to be able to relay that to anyone that I’m talking to about God’s Word. I’m not saying that we need to dummy down the Bible, but there is a point of coming to one’s level to come along side and help in understanding. You’ll have to excuse some of the way I say things because of the interruptions I constantly get when I get on any computer. Anyway, the point being for me is these intricate, grey area issues are dare I say bottom of the barrel in the dealings I run into. Not to make it any less important, but one has to dig to get there. 99% of the Christians I run into are just surface Christians. They might know that there is a barrel full of stuff they need to eventually unpack, but until someone really comes alongside, they are uninterested to look deeper and happy to claim the “saved” slogan without deepening their faith. I would love to investigate the deeper truths of God’s Word with someone, at a progressive rate and to make it relevant to perk interest in digging deeper and enjoying it! I know my arrow is still off target, but in the few minutes I have to look at this, that’s how I see it.
Scott,
It has been two weeks since you responded; I didn’t even know until tonight. I’m sorry I didn’t respond sooner.
I was not at all offended by your first comment; actually, I appreciate it. A blog would be an insufferable bore if everyone agreed about everything.
In your latest comment, you seem to be saying that many people who profess Christianity are shallow and would have some difficulty understanding if we were to speak of salvation in biblically and theologically correct ways. You don’t actually say it, but it seems the implication is that we should use the language they are used to, even though it is incorrect.
I agree with you that many people who profess to be Christians find what I am saying strange. I also very much agree that we should be gracious in teaching them. My point is that we SHOULD teach them. More than that, we should stop teaching them incorrect theology and stop affirming–through our talk about salvation–the incorrect theology that they have picked up. Perhaps we still disagree on that.
Don’t underestimate the importance of that point. When new believers hear us talking about salvation, they listen. Our use of biblically and theologically wrong terms and ideas communicates through what we say, and it either teaches them that bad theology or at least affirms it in their minds.
Also, speaking correctly about salvation is not going to embarrass anyone. I am not suggesting that we publicly flog anyone who says “I got saved.” We should, however, avoid using such language when we talk about salvation–newer believers will pick that up as well. Further, as you suggest, time with a person may yield opportunities to discuss issues of salvation more directly without embarrassing or offending them. Of course we should make good use of such opportunities whenever they arise.
Thanks again for your comments.
KWR