Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Lordship Salvation Part 2

In my last post I defined Lordship Salvation and asked what people thought of it. Those who answered agreed that some sort of change must happen for a person to be saved (or at least I understood it that way) or that if some one is saved this that some sort of change would happen. Then in my discussion with Josh I asked in what way do you approach someone who does not appear to have any sort of change in his life. This is Josh's comment,

I'd say we approach the person you speak of as, simply, a person. We cannot reconcile them to God but only to the Church. Only God can reconcile the person to God, but we as the Body of Christ can reconcile this person to ourselves as the Church.


As for the welfare of souls, the Church does not redeem anybody but redemption is often found through the Church.


As for the "new creation," I believe that this is a difficult passage to consider. Often, we immediately assume that the "new creation" is some sort of post-conversion-person. As if a magical and instantaneous conversion has occurred turning the person totally from sin to total purity. However, the passage simply says that "there is a new creation." It doesn't explicitly say that this creation is this new person. It is through our interpretation that we arrive at this point.


As for the individual of our consideration, I believe that we must attempt to reconcile them to the Church so that the practices and actions of the Church can have some redemptive presence in their life. Furthermore, this reconciliation will result in further discipleship and education. We should not, immediately, leave them to their own devices but, rather, invite them to act in and be part of the Church. But, we must not compel them to do so. It is only valuable that they make this decision for themselves.


When we say that we are "saved," I think it might be better to say that we "have faith that we will be redeemed from ourselves and sin and have eternal life hidden in God." "Saved" seems so "past-tense."



To me this makes great since. You are bring the sinner, who may or may not be a believer, back into the church, or at least attempting to, so that he can be further discipled and educated in the ways of God. And previous Josh suggested if such a person was in the church that he should be disciplined (I suggest the way Matthew 18 prescribes). In the end you are leaving the decision up to the person who is in sin and God. I like this thought. What do you think?

4 comments:

  1. I know I made some error in typing this but I'm in a hurry , I have to go to class, so forgive me.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just to make it clear, though:

    I do not mean to imply that the whole salvation experience is entirely personal. I think that the idea of "Just me and my Jesus" is poisonous for faith.

    I do, however, stand by what I've previously written. I just want to make it especially clear that I think community is integral in the faith and formation of the Christian.

    I'm not a fan of "Just Me and My Jesus" but I do believe that reconciliation between God and the human occurs through Jesus as our advocate and intercessor.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yeah, I get what you mean. Our relationship to God is between us and Him, but that unites us with the church. Therefore if we are in Him we are in the church. That is what you are saying right?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Maybe.

    I think this is one of those beautiful terrible mysteries that plagues/blesses the Church.

    We are called to community but we work out our salvation in fear and trembling. We're united but separate. We must find the balance in between. I only answer to God as to how I am reconciled to God but community plays a part in my formation and discipline.

    Community is important, but you can't have community if you dissolve the self.

    So, yes, I think i probably agree with your most recent comment.

    ReplyDelete