Why is this a regularly-used term? Isn't it a tad condescending? Proud? Isn't it a remnant of the fire-and-brimstone stuff? Like I'm gonna go to heaven and you're not unless you become like me?
I don't see how the term "saved" leaves any room for pride. In order to be saved, one has to acknowledge one's need for salvation, i.e. one's unworthiness and helplessness before a holy God.
okay wait, i've been thinking about this, freakersoup. i agree; what exactly are we "saved" from? was the big hullaballoo death of jesus really necessary to save us all from, what ends up being, god's wrath anyway? he's saving us.... from himself. what??? not only that, but he "dies" for us... couldn't god's will just save us? further, it wasn't a completely loving, selfless act, because there's a requirement attached - "i'll save you all from myself, but only if you believe i'm god, doing it".. after all, think of what happens if we don't believe that jesus died for our sins? the more i think on it, the more twisted and confusing it seems. i am truly confused about this issue of saving. to quote another questioner, "wouldn't a true act of love (ie. a godly act of love) be, 'I love you so much that I will sacrifice myself to myself (for reasons you can't comprehend),' and leave it at that? Meaning that we are all now and forever saved by his true act of sacrificial love for us, with no conditional strings attached?" comments, please? peace, sophia
No, he's saving us from ourselves and making it possible for us to be reconciled to him. No. He is both merciful and just. He can't simply ignore our sin and pretend everything's fine. See Rom. 3:23.
No, he is saving us from equitable punishment for our offenses. He is saving us not from Himself, but from justice. He paid the price so that justice could be served and we could then recieve mercy if we choose. Nope. God is just. A just person cannot tolerate injustice. The offenses against God must be paid for. We couldn't pay, so Christ voluntarily paid it. Scenario: You are sued and, in a phenominal loss, you owe ten billion dollars. I just happened to be a billionaire with 10 billion dollars. I offer to pay for you, but I will become a pauper by doing it. There is a requirement though... you have to accept the indemnification. You must allow me to do this for you. How does that requirement make my gift somehow *less* loving and selfless. Same thing occured at Calvary. If you refuse to believe, then you reject the gift automatically. By refusing, you are simply refusing allow indemnification. So, in the scenario above, how long would it take for you to pay off 10 billion with interest? Most people could *never* do it. However, by refusing to be indemnified, you are justly condemned to paying it off forever. It can be. Knowledge and understanding are key issues here. A God of love would do that (and did). But if there is no justice, then the sacrifice itself becomes moot. If justice didn't need to be satisfied, then God could just forgive without sacrifice. But, because God is just, he cannot forgive without justice being satisfied. In order for justice to be satisfied, someone must pay. Christ paid the price, but unless you allow His sacrifice to count on your behalf, you are still stuck with the bill. The choice is yours. If you refuse, then Christ can do nothing more. You have told God, I want to stand on my own merit. Unfortunately, "all our good works are as filthy rags". No one but Christ can meet the requirements of justice. The only string attached is acceptance of a gift. That is hardly a string. In fact, what kind of person, God or otherwise, would shove a gift down your throat whether you wanted it or not? If God paid and then *forced* everyone to accept it by denying our ability to choose to be indemnified, well... that's exactly the kind of God I wouldn't follow. Would you?
I think that this term is most often used because it is most often taught. As a child in sunday school you get "saved" and then are tought how to "save" your friends. It is just part of the regular vocabulary, just like one calls running running or swimming swimming. Getting someone into heaven is "saving" them from hell. I can definitely see how the term seems a bit pompus, and maybe churches need to consider their vocabulary choices if they want to recruit more people. But for the more naieve, those never hearing of heaven or hell, "saved" is a perfect term. I mean, here is someone here to "SAVE" you from suffering! How can you turn that down!!
