What does it mean to be saved?

[Gatekeeper]

Nearly every Christian I know proclaims salvation, but most Christians rarely offer a definition of what Christian salvation is. What 'exactly' does it mean to be saved, then? Does it mean that we are free from sin, or the wages of? Does it mean that we will live in paradise for all eternity, or is there more to it than this?

What if salvation is a state of mind, or a state of emotional well being? What if salvation actually means freedom or liberty from the negative forces that most everyone allows themselves to dwell on? Is it possible that scriptural laws and principles simply exist to help us (as a species) to conquer those forces that harm us inwardly/emotionally?

That's the faith and salvation I want to know - To be able to stare (In the face) anything this world throws at me and not fear the potential sting. What if this is what salvation is about - To live life free from the negative forces (Like fear) that we allow to control our inner/emotional well being?

God's love can help us live an abundant life. What if true salvation comes when we let go of our tendencies to resit His comfort. Whether we believe in Him or not, I believe His spirit (The Comforter) can lead us to true liberty (Salvation). Fear causes torment/Perfect love casts out fear.

I think many of us resist God's love (Which is perfect) and/or we are simply unaware that His love extends to all men regardless of our pasts. To know in our hearts, to trust, and to have faith that His grace/love extends to even "you" is one of the most empowering and comforting realities that I can think of. To know this draws us closer to Him.

God is not partial, nor is His love limited to only the elect. It is simply a matter of knowing Him (In heart) as love. That is how I view salvation. To know God as love, and to allow His love to comfort us in times of trial.

"My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing."

James 1:2-4 (KJV)


GK

 

[Dondi]

Nearly every Christian I know proclaims salvation, but most Christians rarely offer a definition of what Christian salvation is. What 'exactly' does it mean to be saved, then? Does it mean that we are free from sin, or the wages of? Does it mean that we will live in paradise for all eternity, or is there more to it than this?

What if salvation is a state of mind, or a state of emotional well being? What if salvation actually means freedom or liberty from the negative forces that most everyone allows themselves to dwell on? Is it possible that scriptural laws and principles simply exist to help us (as a species) to conquer those forces that harm us inwardly/emotionally?

That's the faith and salvation I want to know - To be able to stare (In the face) anything this world throws at me and not fear the potential sting. What if this is what salvation is about - To live life free from the negative forces (Like fear) that we allow to control our inner/emotional well being?

God's love can help us live an abundant life. What if true salvation comes when we let go of our tendencies to resit His comfort. Whether we believe in Him or not, I believe His spirit (The Comforter) can lead us to true liberty (Salvation). Fear causes torment/Perfect love casts out fear.

I think many of us resist God's love (Which is perfect) and/or we are simply unaware that His love extends to all men regardless of our pasts. To know in our hearts, to trust, and to have faith that His grace/love extends to even "you" is one of the most empowering and comforting realities that I can think of. To know this draws us closer to Him.

God is not partial, nor is His love limited to only the elect. It is simply a matter of knowing Him (In heart) as love. That is how I view salvation. To know God as love, and to allow His love to comfort us in times of trial.

"My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing."

James 1:2-4 (KJV)


GK

Well, no need to comment then. Looks like you answered your own question, GTG.

 

[Saltmeister]

Nearly every Christian I know proclaims salvation, but most Christians rarely offer a definition of what Christian salvation is. What 'exactly' does it mean to be saved, then? Does it mean that we are free from sin, or the wages of? Does it mean that we will live in paradise for all eternity, or is there more to it than this?

What if salvation is a state of mind, or a state of emotional well being? What if salvation actually means freedom or liberty from the negative forces that most everyone allows themselves to dwell on? Is it possible that scriptural laws and principles simply exist to help us (as a species) to conquer those forces that harm us inwardly/emotionally?

I don't think of Christianity as being about salvation, but I instead think of it as being about a tradition as well as a relationship with God.

I know that salvation is a prominent theme in Christianity. You may be instructed to follow in the footsteps of others, but I think you should only do so if you find it meaningful. If you don't find it meaningful, I think you need to find a new way of thinking about Christianity. If you don't find the prominent themes meaningful, you can make a better contribution to Christianity by thinking for yourself.

I treat the written tradition of Christianity as just like any other piece of literature. Not only is it open to interpretation, but the message you receive, or more accurately, the perspective you form from reading the written tradition will depend on your own life experiences. There are 6 billion people on this planet, so there could be as many as 6 billion different messages and perspectives that could come from reading the written tradition.

As for the idea of salvation itself, I think there should be a salvation from the notion of salvation itself. I think many Christians make themselves prisoner of the idea of having to reconcile everything to the notion of salvation, giving themselves and others the impression that Christianity is all about salvation.

I think this is one kind of liberation you could have as a Christian if you are one. Salvation may be a prominent theme or idea, but that doesn't mean that Christianity revolves around it.

As for me, I don't think in terms of salvation. I set myself free from salvation itself. I have broken free from the ideological hegemony of the notion of salvation. I think in terms of freedom from legalism and freedom to pursue my individuality so that I may make the best contribution I can to the world around me. Maybe that is a kind of "salvation." I just don't think of it as "salvation" and nor do I use the word "salvation." I think in terms of my freedom and individuality. I am free to be an individual in the sense that nobody can judge me except God. I answer only to God.

To me, the more natural form of "salvation" is not to mention salvation at all, but to realise that you are an individual.

 

[Tao_Equus]

It means they have reached a level of dissonance where they feel guiltless about rejecting personal accountability. It is absolution, hand washing, giving up and even cowardice. You cannot be saved unless you have something to be saved from. Whether that be from mental and moral responsibility for real or imagined sins or the intellectual honesty of realising you really do not matter at all in the big picture, you are saved from thinking for yourself. A very attractive proposition for all its dishonesty.

 

[wil]

It means they have reached a level of dissonance where they feel guiltless about rejecting personal accountability. It is absolution, hand washing, giving up and even cowardice. You cannot be saved unless you have something to be saved from. Whether that be from mental and moral responsibility for real or imagined sins or the intellectual honesty of realising you really do not matter at all in the big picture, you are saved from thinking for yourself. A very attractive proposition for all its dishonesty.

From which Christian denomination do you derive this perspective?

From my understanding of the teachings of my church it is when you can move beyond negative thinking (the adversary), and live from love and understanding. You are saving yourself, from drawing yourself into a self made hell.

 

[Dogbrain]

It means they have reached a level of dissonance where they feel guiltless about rejecting personal accountability. It is absolution, hand washing, giving up and even cowardice. You cannot be saved unless you have something to be saved from. Whether that be from mental and moral responsibility for real or imagined sins or the intellectual honesty of realising you really do not matter at all in the big picture, you are saved from thinking for yourself. A very attractive proposition for all its dishonesty.

You are correct to the same extent that atheism makes people behave exactly like the mass murderer Pol Pot.

 

[Gatekeeper]

It means they have reached a level of dissonance where they feel guiltless about rejecting personal accountability. It is absolution, hand washing, giving up and even cowardice. You cannot be saved unless you have something to be saved from. Whether that be from mental and moral responsibility for real or imagined sins or the intellectual honesty of realising you really do not matter at all in the big picture, you are saved from thinking for yourself. A very attractive proposition for all its dishonesty.

I'm not sure where you get your info from, but 'they' and I can only assume you mean Christians, are not only encouraged to take responsibility for self but also others. It just takes a great deal of time for most to realize this.

GK

 

[Saltmeister]

It means they have reached a level of dissonance where they feel guiltless about rejecting personal accountability. It is absolution, hand washing, giving up and even cowardice.

For the record, my sense of guilt is the same as that for everybody else. I'd have to be a sociopath to think that.

What you said is more true of the fundamentalists. Ironically, though, I don't see even fundamentalist Christians going around murdering, raping and robbing people. You'd think they'd have a license to do these things with the kind of ideology they follow.

I think I was talking about a straw man there and not real people. Even the fundamentalists somehow have a sense of civility. My logic told me they'd be criminals and lawbreakers, but alas I was wrong.

You cannot be saved unless you have something to be saved from. Whether that be from mental and moral responsibility for real or imagined sins or the intellectual honesty of realising you really do not matter at all in the big picture, you are saved from thinking for yourself. A very attractive proposition for all its dishonesty.

I think the real "salvation" was supposed to be from legalism. Jesus wanted to set people free from the strict rule-based ideology of the fundamentalist religious leaders. It wasn't about saving people from actual "sins" and wrongdoing, but from judgment by what was taught as "wrong" by the powers that be -- rather than people deciding for themselves what was right or wrong.

The reason why the philosophy you described continues to be popular is that people are afraid of deviating from established ideas.

The trouble is that a lot of the time, people don't think about how those ideas became established in the first place.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Nearly every Christian I know proclaims salvation, but most Christians rarely offer a definition of what Christian salvation is.

Is there a New Testament definition?

 

[Netti-Netti]

I treat the written tradition of Christianity as just like any other piece of literature. Not only is it open to interpretation, but the message you receive, or more accurately, the perspective you form from reading the written tradition will depend on your own life experiences.

I'd be interested in your thoughts about what other written traditions have to say about salvation.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Jesus wanted to set people free from the strict rule-based ideology of the fundamentalist religious leaders. It wasn't about saving people from actual "sins" and wrongdoing, but from judgment by what was taught as "wrong" by the powers that be -- rather than people deciding for themselves what was right or wrong.

My impression of the expulsion from the Garden of Eden is that people get into trouble when they think they can decide right or wrong for themselves. Kind of like the idolatry of personal judgment.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

It means they have reached a level of dissonance where they feel guiltless about rejecting personal accountability. It is absolution, hand washing, giving up and even cowardice. You cannot be saved unless you have something to be saved from. Whether that be from mental and moral responsibility for real or imagined sins or the intellectual honesty of realising you really do not matter at all in the big picture, you are saved from thinking for yourself. A very attractive proposition for all its dishonesty.

Saved seems to imply a voluntary separation from that which is Lost. Saved means coming aboard the boat, Lost means staying on shore. This is how I think most Christians see it. The boat is leaving, which action will you take?

I think, based on my experience as an ex evangelical having to come to terms with his programming, that the actual function of being Saved is that it insulates one from having to stare directly at Truth.

Chris

 

[Saltmeister]

My impression of the expulsion from the Garden of Eden is that people get into trouble when they think they can decide right or wrong for themselves. Kind of like the idolatry of personal judgment.

But who is it that is actually telling us what is right or wrong? Is it God, or men who claim to speak for God?

Which is better, a bunch of people deciding for themselves what is right or one bunch of people telling another group what is right when they may or may not understand the reality of the situation?

One may argue that it is idolatry of personal judgment but sometimes I am suspicious that in denouncing one's own personal judgment a person is moving closer to idolatry of the establishment or established ideas than something that honours God's will.

Sometimes I think it is better to appear narcissistic and self-centred than to appear subservient to some higher power or to put on pretentious displays of false humility (grovelling) as I often find the former more honest and genuine. I found the latter phony and pretentious. I talk about satisfying and gratifying myself and getting what I want but really, deep inside, it's because I believe I'm doing it for God.

What I find others doing is often what I think is the exact opposite. They speak of trying to honour God but do their actions really serve God?

I talk about pursuing my individuality because that is exactly what I mean. I believe that I will one day be able to contribute something back to the community. I serve God by contributing to the community. I contribute to the community by pursuing my individuality and seeking my full potential. I can't contribute to my community if I don't have my individuality. I need to be human. I need to be a person. I am useless to God and to my community if I am not a fully-formed person. I cannot neglect the self. The way I see it, the self is very important.

 

[Netti-Netti]

But who is it that is actually telling us what is right or wrong? Is it God, or men who claim to speak for God?

Which is better, a bunch of people deciding for themselves what is right or one bunch of people telling another group what is right when they may or may not understand the reality of the situation?

I'm no sure how one can talk about Christianity as a source of guidance without accepting Revelation.

Since this is in the Abrahamic area, I'd still be interested in looking at a scriptural view of what it means to be saved.

 

[Dream]

All very nice responses! I also point out that salvation has strong associations with building the tabernacle.

Jesus connects salvation to the word 'Finished', and it connects in many ways to various passages in the Pentateuch where either the world, Noah's ark or the tabernacle are finished. Salvation is like several buildings: the individual, the church, and the initiation of a better world. All three are works that must be finished and are a type of salvation, (and you can probably think of more buildings but there are at least three). In conversation, these really represent the same work, so you can talk about them as one 'building project'. The apostles are the foundation of this building, and Jesus is the author and finisher -- corresponding to Moses who built the tabernacle(s) and Solomon. You can read about salvation in many ways, however frequently it is as as a building planned, begun, and finished.

Hebrews 11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place
which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs
with him of the same promise: For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

Exodus 40:33 And he reared up the court round about the tabernacle and the
altar, and set up the hanging of the court gate. So Moses finished the work. Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.

1:6 that says " Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:"

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

I Corinthians 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a
wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

 

[Saltmeister]

I'm no sure how one can talk about Christianity as a source of guidance without accepting Revelation.

Since this is in the Abrahamic area, I'd still be interested in looking at a scriptural view of what it means to be saved.

I wasn't talking about the written tradition itself, but people thinking they understand the written tradition, promoting one interpretation over another and rejecting interpretations that don't agree with their thinking.

The people who decide what Christianity means are just as human as I, yet people regard them as more authoritative and credible. Who makes the rules on that?

People have come up with contradictory, yet equally valid and justifiable theories and interpretations. It's not a matter of who's right. It's a matter of who wins and dominates. It's a matter of ideological hegemony, and Christianity has for much of its history been dictated by those with ideological hegemony. History and truth is rewritten from the point of view of the victors. Christianity was defined by the people with the power to define Christianity, not necessarily by the ones with the best ideas.

People adopted the ideas of those in power. Creativity and imagination were suppressed. Conformity was promoted, encouraged and enforced. Anything else was suppressed and opposed. Conformity led to stagnation and stagnation prevented people from living out "the Christian ideals."

The decisions made by the so-called "ecumenical councils" were decided by majority vote. This was democracy at work. However, I doubt the wisdom of the decisions made. This was where majority vote did not generate the best results. I believe the decision made wasn't reached by a deliberation involving the best people and nor do I think reaching a decision itself on "defining what specifically to believe" led to a better understanding of Christianity. The decision was made by mediocre people who didn't have the best creativity, imagination or intelligence. I dispute the credibility of those who decided what was or wasn't Christianity in the first millennium.

I consider the absence of influence of Judaism on the decisions reached as an important factor. Christianity arose from a background of Judaism and a Jewish context, yet whatever decisions people made in efforts to define Christianity in the first millennium didn't involve Jewish Rabbis and scholars, people who would have had a good understanding of Christianity considering its literary links with Judaism. But the Christians of the 3rd and 4th centuries rejected the authority of these people.

I am not here to dispute Revelation, but interpretation. The interpretations formulated for understanding Christianity have excluded a very important group in the process of deciding how to interpret.

I am just criticising the arrogance behind the establishment and established ideas.

 

[Dream]

Hmm, salt. It does seem arrogant. On the other hand, when people get caught up in something bigger than themselves it is like getting onto a ship and heading out to sea (Like parenthood or citizenship in a country, etc.) The good ship Christianity was chugging along through time before the printing press, before sliced bread and cotton gins. In medieval times there was a clear stratification in society between the few wealthy and the many poor, and this had a lot to do with population vs. technology level.

I stop short of declaring the church as an arrogant tyrant, just on the same argument that I cut the USA the same slack. Its a big community with all kinds of people in it, and what is good today might be declared evil tomorrow. Maybe 10 years from now, everyone will decry the evils of...telephone call centers. Actually, in 30 years, I feel like the fact that my country had nukes first probably will look very bad on the history books. People might forget what it looked like for us during WWII, and they might decry USA and its allies as savage. Well, we're not not proud of what we did; but we did what we thought best Perhaps the times were savage. Maybe it is the same for the medieval church and all of its intrigues.

 

[Saltmeister]

I reckon the best church we could have is one where there are no pastors, presbyters, priests (or whatever you call them) but just a library of books.

People will learn from pens, paper and shelves rather than from the pulpit.

There are no sermons, just library loans and money to buy books.

Read whatever you like, whenever you like. Think whatever you want, whenever you want, however you want.

This is the way religion should be. Spontaneous and voluntary. Zero peer pressure.

 

[Dream]

I reckon the best church we could have is one where there are no pastors, presbyters, priests (or whatever you call them) but just a library of books.

People will learn from pens, paper and shelves rather than from the pulpit.

There are no sermons, just library loans and money to buy books.

Read whatever you like, whenever you like. Think whatever you want, whenever you want, however you want.

This is the way religion should be. Spontaneous and voluntary. Zero peer pressure.

Absoluta-mata, but that is already written into the NT as a goal. It is the goal that we are all "Transformed into the image of his Son" to the point that even laws are not really needed any longer. That will be the day, you know; and that is what Revelation talks about. Democracies aim to be a sort of crude version of that day, hopefully with an ever increasing perfection in our world. Looking back at ancient Greece and pre-Byzantine Rome, in those times there was already a type of religious freedom and 'Zero pressure'. You could believe whatever you liked, so long as you paid taxes and made a few offerings. Even so, somehow Greece and Rome still had a lot of slavery, ignorance, and general public malice. That is why theirs was just another one of the kingdoms of men, never really coming close to the ideal society in which love rules all. Such an ideal is the society that Christianity is about, where God eventually becomes all and is in all. I would do anything to bring such a situation about. Right now, I only know that it is still a long way off; but it has to come. Hopefully that is what we all want and will all work to achieve.

 

[dan b]

Hi guys,
Mabey to be saved is to have passed through the two lower forms of governments and be a Christian. First we had, as Paul himself explains, the natural man. This type of human being sees the world and himself just as animals do. He tries to get happyness for himself and his family, and thats it. This is called "survival of the fittest. It developes natual vitality in plant, animals and people.
But then God(yes God) made a covenant with some of the people. He said try being a group. Have a just set of laws for everyong in the group and live in justise and safety. So the Israelites crossed the Jordan River, Each took a fair portion of land and insisted on a fair must law of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and death for death. It all went well enoughg when they kept it up.(the Moslems keep it up today) But for human consciusness and sentiment the ridgid law system lacks.
So then Jesus came with Christianity. It keeps the law but adds Mercy and Compassion to it. Thats how he magnified it. When you keep the law and add mercy, compassion and following your highest conscience to it; you will be judged in Rev.20'8 by the works in ;the book. But there is also another book as it says "books". This is the book of Jesus Christ with which he can save you simply by faith. It's says somewhere in Revelations that Jesus ;had "his book/" So Christian one way and sort of a saved person the other? dan b