Christianese

You know Christianese, don't you? Yes, that's the language we speak as Christians. It has its own terminology that we understand. There are humorous parts and some serious parts. We'll toss around "atonement" and "backsliding", "antichrist" and "propitiation", the "Rapture" and "Shekinah glory" like nobody's business. Because we speak the language.

You also know me. I'm concerned about words. More importantly, I'm concerned about communication. So, it would be obvious, I think, that we should avoid using this nearly foreign language among those who don't speak it. But we do. "Are you saved?" is supposed to be a meaningful question to people who don't even know that they're not. Just an example.

More of a problem, though, is our own lackluster understanding of our own terminology. Here, a prime example. We all know what I meant by that question. "Are you saved?" Because we know that "saved" is a reference to "saved from the wrath of God" or something pretty near to it. It is, after all, biblical (e.g., Eph 2:8-9). So when we talk and read about "salvation", we know what we're talking about. And there would be times we'd be wrong. In Paul's first letter to Timothy, he speaks of the salvation of women. "But women will be saved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint." (1 Tim 2:15) You see, men are saved by faith, but women are saved by having babies. Oh, didn't know that? That's because it's not true. We know "There is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12) We know that Jesus said, "No one comes to the Father but through Me." (John 14:6) The Bible is clear that "by grace you have been saved through faith" (Eph 2:8). No equivocation. So, what is Paul talking about? Well, he's simply using the word "saved" in a sense it can be used. It can refer to "saved from wrath" or it can refer to "saved from enemies" (2 Sam 22:4) or it can refer to simply being preserved (Jer 33:16). And, of course, in this text a suitable translation would be "preserved", will have an inheritance, a legacy, a remembrance. Not a difficulty ... as long as you're not stuck in Christianese.

Another would be "justified". We know that one, too. It means "declared right by God". We know that "by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight" (Rom 3:20), but we are "justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus" (Rom 3:24). We glory in the idea that "a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law." (Rom 3:28) Paul makes a point that Abraham was not justified by works (Rom 4:2), but by faith. We know the term. We're aware of the stark break between works and justification. We get it. And then we come across this little gem.

You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:24)

Hey, now, hang on! Didn't we just agree that we are justified by faith apart from works? Doesn't Paul beat that horse to death? What's going on here? Reasonable question.

Remember ... context, context, context. James is not writing about salvation in his epistle. The context of this particular quote is in regards to the evidence of faith. "Faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself." (James 2:17) The question is not "How do we arrive at salvation?" The question is "What does living faith look like?" Here, then, James uses another standard usage for "justified". And it's not "declared right by God." It's more like when Jesus used the term in Luke. "Wisdom is justified by all her children." (Luke 7:35) No, wisdom is not declared right by God. Wisdom is demonstrated to be right by "her children", the results of wisdom. In this case as in the case of James 2, "justified" doesn't refer to "declared right by God", but simply "demonstrated to be right". Not a difficulty ... as long as you're not stuck in Christianese.

Christianese is a handy shortcut for many intra-Christian conversations. We know our terms. We understand each other. It's fine. We just need to be careful that 1) we actually know the term we're using, 2) we're using it correctly, and 3) the other person knows all that, too. Because the primary concern is communication. Perhaps we should try to be "an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity." (1 Tim 4:12) A worthy goal.

Christianese - Sola Scriptura

Okay, perhaps this doesn't fit under all the other "Christianese" terms I've been offering. Still, I think it deserves attention. It's somewhat different because, unlike the other Christianese terms which are common to all genuine Christianity, this one is certainly not part of Roman Catholicism. Since I believe that there are genuine Christians in the Roman Catholic Church (even though I think they're likely confused on theology), this one is not common to that particular group. Still, as I said, it's worth a look because, like the other terms, it is often misunderstood.

First, what does it mean? Sola scriptura is Latin for "Scripture alone" and refers to the position that the Scripture is the sole source of authority for Christians in matters of faith and practice. The Roman Catholic Church would argue that it is Scripture, Tradition, and the Church. The Anglican community might hold that it is Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. (I would differ from that in that Tradition and Reason are useful in understanding Scripture, but that Scripture alone has the authority.) The idea, then, first voiced by the Reformation, is thrown up against these other ideas. The Pope doesn't tell us what is true. The Church is not the authority. All of these derive authority from God's Word and His Word is alone the authority in these matters.

Seems pretty clear, doesn't it? I mean, why would anyone get confused? Well, it happens. So what does it not mean?

Well, in the 16th century as the Reformation was getting under way, a group known as the Anabaptists started their own Reformation. They were, in many ways, right there with the other Reformers. They thought the Roman Catholic Church was in error in many of the same ways the Reformers did. They agreed wholeheartedly with sola scriptura. But they had some differences as well. They disagreed with infant baptism and only allowed adult baptism (which was the cause of their name). They completely withdrew from conventional Christian practices such as marriage vows and refused to participate in government. Believing themselves solely "citizens of Heaven", they had a complete separation of Church and State, including absolute pacifism. But, as it turned out, while they agreed with sola scriptura, they disagreed with the Reformers' use of it. They believed the Reformers were simply substituting papal authority for theologian authority by suggesting that deep study of the Scriptures was the best way to incorporate sola scriptura. They argued that sola scriptura meant that anyone at all was a good, valid interpreter of Scripture by connecting directly to the Holy Spirit. They fostered this idea of "inner revelation" and favored personal revelation over study and "prophets" over careful, reasoned examination of the Scriptures. They, then, rejected sola scriptura for "Scripture and the Spirit" without offering any clarification on who had the Spirit or how two people, each "with the Spirit", could come to opposing conclusions on Scripture. (It was this devotion to "personal interpretation" and allegiance to "prophets" that caused the disaster at Munster.) They rejected sola scriptura "in favour of an understanding of revelation pregnant in Scripture" while denying the Protestant "quadrilateral of Scripture, tradition, reason and experience."

The result of this kind of split on the meaning of the term has had ripple effects today. The Reformers argued for careful, methodical, even group study of the Scriptures ("group" so that each could check the others, as opposed to individual interpretation). Today the primary argument is "Scripture means whatever I think it means, and that is authoritative for me." This isn't just the Anabaptists of today. It's much of Christendom. It is the cry of the Emergent Church. It is the voice of postmodernism. It is the song of the relativists. It is the cry of so many "independent Christians", those people who proudly hold themselves aloof from any denomination and demand that their interpretation of Scripture is just as valid as anyone else's interpretation and, therefore, authoritative. Some of those will argue that their interpretation is authoritative for them; others will argue that it's authoritative for everyone.

So, just to be clear, this is not the intent of the concept of sola scriptura. Peter wrote, "No prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20). The concept of sola scriptura is that a collective -- all those who are Christ's -- will commonly interpret Scripture. There is a single truth to Scripture, a proper interpretation. It is inherent in the Scripture, not a product of human evaluation. Jesus told His disciples, "When the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). So while we may stray in individual interpretation and while we may differ on what the correct interpretation is, there is a true interpretation and that interpretation is authoritative. Since we have this promise of Christ regarding the Holy Spirit, we should be able to find a common interpretation among believers (thus the value of tradition, Church history, orthodoxy, etc.). But it's not a matter of individual interpretation; it's a matter of a shared interpreter -- the Spirit. And it's not a matter of "inner light", "prophets", or "special revelation". This whole idea that "I figured it out after 2000 years of erroneous Christian interpretation" won't fly. That's not sola scriptura.

One other thing that sola scriptura is not. It is not the silly claim that "the Bible contains all truth." Indeed, the Bible is entirely true. However, truths like "gravity" or "2 + 2 = 4" are not contained therein, nor are they intended to be. The popular statement, "All truth is God's truth", simply says that truth is a product of God and can be found in a variety of places. Thus, sola scriptura does not reference "all truth", but quite clearly it references authority and only in matters of faith and practice. So let's not try to make it say more than is intended.

Christianese - Quick Terms 2

The Heart: No, not that organ beating in your chest. No, not even the seat of emotions. It's not like the fabled body part left in San Francisco or given to that wonderful man. The term refers in Christianese to the innermost self. It is that which ... produces the fruit.

Repentance: You would think I wouldn't have to explain this term, but I suppose I must. It doesn't mean "Sorry" either in word (often spoken to dodge consequences) or emotional response. It means to turn around. Without turning around, you may be sorry -- even deeply sorry -- but it isn't repentance.

The Trinity: Still argued about today, this is a fundamental position of Christianity. It is not the belief that the God of the Old Testament became the Christ of the New Testament and then the Spirit of today (modalism). It is not tri-theism -- three separate gods. It is not a host of heresies offered today by people who refuse to see. It is the biblical doctrine that God is three persons in one, the hypostatic union of Father and Son and Holy Spirit, distinct but not separate, One God in three personas. Without taking the time to explain fully, it is absolutely necessary to Christianity. Without it the Scriptures become unreliable and incoherent, salvation breaks down, and we are without hope.

Witnessing: We've used this one so poorly for so long that we don't even understand it ourselves. You know ... it means when we get together and go door to door with tracts and speeches to try to share the Gospel. You may have learned Evangelism Explosion or the Four Spiritual Laws or whatever other canned method (and I'm not suggesting they're bad). This, however, is not witnessing. Evangelizing, yes, but not witnessing. In the New Testament you see "witnessing" when John writes, "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word of Life ..." (1 John 1:1). It is the expression of what we have witnessed. It is the eyewitness accounts -- "This is what God has done." Can I get a witness?

Spirit-filled: Okay, here's an exception. When most Christians use the word "Spirit-filled", they are referring to the idea of the Charismatics or Pentecostals where there is some sort of "second filling", a special event, "something extra". No such thing. All Christians are "Spirit-filled". Period. The amount of that filling that works its way into your life may vary, but all Christians have the Holy Spirit and need nothing more.

Christianese - Quick Terms 1

Born Again: A biblical term (John 3:3-7) that references a person who has been given new life. It is predicated on the problem of Natural Man being "dead in sins" and, therefore, needing a spiritual birth. Someone once told me, "Born again? Yeah, I tried that ... it didn't work." It cannot not work, and you cannot "try it". This spiritual birth, this "born again" condition is mandatory for anyone who is a Christian. Without it ... you're not.

Christian: First used in Antioch (Acts 11:26), it means "follower of Christ". It does not mean "member of a church by that name or associated in some sense, no matter how remote, with what people think of as 'Christian'." Christian is not defined by whomever says they are any more than claiming to be a car makes me a car. It is simply a follower of Christ and any step away from following Christ is not "Christian". (Thus, something like the Crusades may have been perpetrated by people who labeled themselves as "Christian" was not Christian as it was incoherent with the idea of following Christ.)

Faith: Oo-oo! I got this one! It means believing in something that makes no sense!! Yeah, that's the common perception. It is neither the rational nor biblical perception. The biblical word means "to be convinced (by argument)". It includes evidence and argument, not opposing them. Rationally it says, "Based on the evidence this appears to be true and, given that, this other can be assumed to be true as well." That's faith. Beyond that, faith requires confidence. That is, not only must biblical faith be based on truth and agree to it, it must also lean on it. If I mentally assent that Christ died for my sins and don't place any confidence in it as my source of salvation, it isn't faith.

The Flesh: The term has a few biblical usages. It may simply mean the physical body. More often it is used to reference the sinful self. Normally when we use the term, we are using it to reference "the sinful self" in opposition to "the spirit" -- God's work within us.

Fruit: Borrowing from the field of husbandry, this term uses the imagery of trees bearing fruit to illustrate that we produce what we are. Filled with the Spirit, for instance, we will "bear fruit" that reflects the Spirit. It references the natural output of the heart. In the case of both the saved and the unsaved, "you shall know them by their fruits."

Christianese - Inspiration

We like to talk about "the inspiration of Scripture". We claim that the Bible is "inspired by God" and this, to us, makes it special. This, then, is more "Christianese" because lots of people use the term "inspired" without meaning at all what we mean. So ... what do we mean?

The English word is rooted in the concept of breath. That is, its root word means "to breath into". Indeed, at dictionary.reference.com, the 6th definition of the word is "the drawing of air into the lungs." We typically use it, of course, in a more metaphorical sense. That is, if "inspiration" means "to draw in air" and "draw in air" is to live, then "inspiration" is that which causes activity, action, vitality. The various dictionaries I looked at couldn't avoid the concept of "supernatural or divine influence". The idea is to go beyond the mundane to something higher.

This, of course, is often the understanding that people port in with them when we say, "Scripture is inspired by God." This, of course, is not the meaning of the term in this case. For us, the concept comes from 2 Tim 3:16 which begins with "All Scripture is inspired by God ..." The term in Greek is theopneustos, where theo references God and pneustos references breath. The literal translation (check just about any literal translation) is, then, "God-breathed" Paul's claim is not simply that the Scriptures were inspired writings, but that they were quite literally breathed by God into their authors.

This is meant in a few senses. There are, for instance, a large number of direct quotes from God. "And the Lord said" or something like it is quite common. The "Red Letter" Bibles have Jesus's words in red -- direct quotes from God Incarnate. The prophets quoted heavily from God. The author of Hebrews begins with the claim that "God spoke to our fathers by the prophets." Thus, in these large numbers of passages the claim is that they are actually the words of God. But what about the rest? Just inspired writing, right? No. Peter says that "men, moved by the Holy Spirit, spoke from God." That's not merely "inspired". It's directed. It's controlled. Beyond that, Peter says that none of these writings "was ever made by an act of human will". Scripture, then, is not a product of human will or human intellect. It is God-breathed, directed and controlled by God Himself. Using their words, their character, their personalities, their culture and circumstances, God breathed His word into their pens and the product we have today is inspired Scripture -- Scripture given directly by God at the hand of a secretary, so to speak.

Sometimes people confuse inspiration with inerrancy. It's an easy mistake to make. Inspiration simply says that God caused, breathed, and controlled the writing of Scripture. Of course, the only logical conclusion is that what God produced through these writers was without error, but that's a different concept, right?

Multiplicity

Part of the difficulty of Christianese is that different people mean different things using common terms. I'm trying to clear some of those up. At least I'm explaining what I mean and, in fact, the most common understanding. Another problem, though, is that these Christianese terms are shorthand. They are designed to say in a single word what is actually an entire concept. When the concept and the word are not linked, there is a disconnect. But one other problem occurs in Scripture itself. While these Christianese terms are often used to mean exactly what I'm explaining ... sometimes they're not in Scripture. That is, even in the Bible these terms can have varied meanings and uses.

Take the concept of "salvation". We all know what that means, right? It means "saved from damnation", "saved from the wrath of God", "saved from sin". Yes, fine, most of the time. Sometimes, though, it doesn't. The biblical concept of "salvation" is "salvation" -- saved from something. Often it is exactly what we mean by the shorthand, but sometimes it is not. Look around in Scripture. You'll find many references to "saved" that do not suggest the grand "saved from the wrath of God", but, instead, "saved from my current trouble". I'd even suggest that the word "saved" is used more often to mean "saved from my present troubles" than "saved from sin". (I would suggest further that a clear understanding of this idea of being saved from really bad things is essential to our appreciation of "salvation" in the sense that we're saved from damnation.) Context is important.

Take the word "justified". "Yeah! We know that one! 'Declared just by God!'" True ... usually. But don't conclude that this is always the case. Jesus said, "By your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." So, justification is found in what we say, not by faith, right? No, that's not what's being said here. If "justified" means "declared right" or "shown to be right", then your words will show if you're right or not. They don't declare you just in the eyes of God. That's not the context. Jesus said elsewhere, "Wisdom is justified by all her children." Oh, see that? So, wisdom is declared right in the sight of God by her children. No, that's not it at all. Wisdom is shown to be right by the results and consequences. Not the same "justified" even though it's the same concept. Context is important.

Christianese can be complex. These are just two examples of how the Bible uses the same term to mean different ideas. Sometimes they're related. Sometimes they're not. Context is the key. The truth is that despite our confidence of using Christianese terms to explain large concepts, we need to be careful to continually examine those concepts and not get lost in the words. These words have multiple meanings and we need to be aware of that in our thinking and in our communication.

Christianese - Salvation

Salvation is an easy word to figure out. It means simply being saved from something, presumably something bad. That's accurate. For a long time when I was young Christians would ask people, "Are you saved?" Assuming that "saved" simply means "being safe" or "being rescued from something bad", the question is mindless. So obviously it has a point in Christianese -- a particular "bad" from which you need to be rescued. When I was young, it was our "shibboleth", our code word for finding out if you were a genuine Christian or not. Before long, of course, it got to be old hat and we progressed from there, but what was the code?

In Christianese the term "salvation" is meant to represent a specific saving, a particular "bad" from which you are saved. It is death. Of course, to the Christian "death" is much more than simple "termination of this life". Far more important is eternal death and eternal life. Thus, in Christianese the term "salvation" is used to refer to the concept of being saved from eternal death to eternal life.

This idea carries several properties. For instance, why is there a threat of eternal death? Well, humans are sinners guilty of overthrowing God and deserve punishment. If treason is an offense punishable by death, Cosmic Treason would be an offense punishable by eternal death. All humans have that judgment hanging over their heads. Enter "the Gospel". Now we have Christ dying to pay for our Treason and rising again. In this Gospel, we have payment for offense and promise of life. So this salvation removes the penalty and replaces eternal death with eternal life. We are saved, quite literally, from God's wrath, from eternal damnation. A second aspect of this concept of salvation is that it carries with it implications for life. Not just eternal life, but life here and now. Jesus said that "he who is forgiven little, loves little." Being forgiven for Cosmic Treason produces great love. You can see that. Your gratitude for someone who saves you from tripping on the sidewalk is not the same as your gratitude for someone who pulls you out of the way of a speeding bus. The prime ethic of the Christian life is this gratitude, the natural response of someone who has been saved from ultimate disaster. Further, being saved from death to life includes (quite obviously) life. That is, the first step of salvation in this sense is the new life. We understand, for instance, that we will have life eternal -- in the future -- but there is a sure sense in which it is now. John wrote, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life" (John 3:36). There is a new spirit, a new life, a "new man" involved where before there was only spiritual death. So while "salvation" is essentially "saved from eternal death to eternal life", it includes a new kind of daily existence. In fact, according to Scripture salvation is for this purpose. "We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" (Eph 2:10). Paul wrote that Jesus "gave Himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession who are zealous for good works" (Titus 2:14). Of course, the ultimate purpose of those good works is "so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven", but "to be conformed to the image of His Son" is indeed a primary goal.

On one hand, salvation is a simple concept. Saved from bad things. We get that. In Christianese it takes up on one side a much narrower perspective -- saved from eternal death to eternal life -- and on the other side a much broader perspective with ramifications that effect everyday living. Too often we use the term "saved" lackadaisically. We forget to consider "Saved from what?" or "How?" or "Why?" In so doing we forget the abyss from which we are saved, the marvel of the Gospel by which we are saved, and the Christ-reflecting life to which we are saved. It's a big concept in a simple word.

Christianese - Sanctification

Sanctification, like the others, is a biblical term. Just some references for ... reference:

Just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification (Rom 6:19).

Now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life (Rom 6:22).

And because of [God] you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption (1 Cor 1:30).

To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with His blood (1 Peter 1:1-2)

³ For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; ⁴ that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, ⁵ not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; ⁶ that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. ⁷ For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness (1 Thess 4:3-7).

In the entry on Justification I said that it was not a synergy. Justification was not a product of cooperation between God and Man, but a divine declaration. That's it. Done. Sanctification isn't the same thing. It is, in fact, quite a bit more complicated.

First, in English, it means "to set apart; to make holy". Paul addresses his first epistle to the church at Corinth this way: "To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints ..." (1 Cor 1:2). That word translated "sanctified" is hagiazo in Greek and the word translated "saints" is hagios in Greek. In other words, they are the same concept. Hagios is the concept of "holy" and holy is not so much the concept of "separated from sin" as much as "set apart" (which would include sin, but so much more). Thus, "sanctification" is this process whereby we are set apart to God, declared holy, and move toward holy living.

As such, sanctification is both an event and a process. It is an event when we are justified. At the point of justification, we are declared perfectly righteous. That sets us apart. That makes us something new for God's use. That is an event. However, every practicing Christian knows that this event, while monumental, is just the start. Sanctification is the lifelong process of every believer. It is the process whereby we grow into the perfection that has already been declared. In Philippians 3 Paul says that he has not arrived at perfection (Phil 3:12). In the same chapter he also says, "Let those of us who are perfect think this way" (Phil 3:15). He puts these two thoughts together when he says, "Let us live up to that which we've already obtained" (Phil 3:16). That is, "We have been declared perfect; now let's live it."

So what is sanctification? Well, we can learn a lot from the references I referenced above. It is a process of cooperation whereby we present ourselves to righteousness and remove ourselves from sin (Rom 6:19). This produces sanctification. And sanctification ends with eternal life (Rom 6:22). This process is produced in us by the presence of Christ (1 Cor 1:30) and the Spirit (1 Peter 1:2). It is primarily visible in our obedience (although obedience is the product of a changed heart) (1 Peter 1:2). Sanctification is quite important to the Christian. It is, in fact, "the will of God" (1 Thess 4:3). It includes such trappings as avoiding sexual immorality, living holy and honorably, disengaging lust, treating others fairly, and arriving at holiness (1 Thess 4:4-7). It is, in fact, one of the main purposes for which God has called us.

Sanctification is, then, the process of becoming the genuinely holy person that you are declared to be when you are born again. It starts right at the beginning, goes on through your life in your work at becoming more and more conformed to the image of Christ, and culminates in eternal life and heaven's ultimate perfection. That, dear reader, is sanctification.

Christianese - Justification

Another term that we Christians toss about like it's nothing is this wonderful word, "justification". There, we said it. Now it's all clear, right? Not at all.

First, the term is pretty easy to define. Any dictionary will likely tell you that it means something like "The condition or fact of being justified." "Thanks. So 'justification' means 'being justified'. That's clear as mud." Okay, okay, it's pretty easy. It's simply being right. In Christianese, it is specifically being right in God's eyes. Or, in moral terms, being just in God's eyes. (Thus, "justification".) We're all actually pretty clear on this. However, how this occurs (and the standard use of the term includes its method) seems to be unclear.

To the Universalist, justification is a singular event that occurred at the Cross and affects all human beings for all time. Because "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2), quite clearly all have been made just in God's eyes ... end of story. Universalists cannot account, however, for the almost omnipresent warnings regarding faith and damnation. That's not what I mean when I use the term.

To the Roman Catholic theologians, justification is a process whereby people cooperate with God and, in time, become genuinely right with God. It starts with faith, then on to repentance -- genuine sorrow for sin. Next comes baptism (whereby the stain of Original Sin is removed). From there you move to the continual, repeated steps of obedience, repentance, and correction with the aim to arrive at perfect obedience, but with the remedy of repentance to keep moving when you don't obey perfectly. Justification is a cooperation between God and Man. That is, Roman Catholic theology requires the act of human will to be just. Now, rarely (if ever) does perfect justification actually occur in this life. Thus the need for Purgatory. (Get it? "Purge-atory".) Everyone (nearly everyone) needs to have some vestiges (or, perhaps, a lot) of sin purged before they can actually be allowed into heaven -- "justified" -- because, you see, in Roman Catholic theology, "justification" is something that is actually arrived at by the justified -- something that is a product of either performance or payment. And, in truth, this concept fits within the definition of "justification".

The alternative concept of "justification" comes from Luther and other Reformers. To be quite clear, they derive their position not from personal views, but from Scripture. And their view -- the "Protestant" view -- has been around for several hundred years since it was recovered from the Scriptures, so in many non-Catholic circles, it has become obscured ... again. So now it can be a hazy concept ... again. Just what is meant, then, by "justification" when I (or others like me) use the term? Justification is a divine act where God declares the sinner to be innocent of sin. It is what is called "forensic justification" in that it is a divine declaration as opposed to the Roman Catholic process. Some use the term "imputed righteousness". The concept is found, for instance, in Genesis when Abraham "believed the LORD, and He counted it to him as righteousness" (Gen 15:6). "Counted", "reckoned", that's the idea. Not "earned" or "attained". Paul uses this passage in Romans 4 in his argument for justification apart from works. "Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness" (Rom 4:4-5). Thus, this condition of being right in God's eyes is not a product of synergism -- the work of God and the person working together to actually become wholly perfect. It is the product of divine fiat. Christ took our sin so that we could receive His righteousness ... not our own.

Justification, then, is a single event. It occurs when a person places their faith -- their sole confidence -- in the Gospel, the payment of Christ on our behalf. When we believe God, it is reckoned to us as righteousness. That's justification.

Christianese - The Gospel

We Christians often share what we believe to be a common language. It carries with it words that we believe to hold common meaning. We don't, for instance, need to explain to one another who is "Christ". We know that it is a reference to Jesus, the son of Mary and Joseph and, more accurately, the Son of God. We know He died for us and rose again and all that. Good. Common language. All set. And then you find out that the "Christ" you are talking about is not the same "Christ" that he (or she) is talking about. You're talking about the only Son of God, the One who came as God in the flesh, the second part of the Trinity, who actually died and actually, physically rose again and actually paid for our sin. He (or she) is talking about one of many sons of God(s), a representative from God, a godly human, a mode of God, a good prophet who didn't actually die or didn't physically rise again and didn't really pay for sin (how barbaric!), but just modeled how we should live. Not the same person. So we suffer from this common language that I call "Christianese", thinking that we're speaking the same language when, in fact, we may not be. I thought, then, that it might be helpful to define terms. Maybe you'll find that when I say "x", it's not what you mean when you say "x". Maybe you'll think, "Hey! I always heard that term, but I was never quite clear on what it meant!" Maybe you'll just say, "Yep, that's what I thought as well." But a little clarity might go a long way. So I'll do this in a series and it will be available for future reference and future conversations.

The first term that I find so easily confused when we think we're talking about the same thing is "the Gospel". We throw that term out there and assume we're all talking the same thing. Unfortunately, this can be hazardous. "Gospel" may refer to a musical style. That's not what's in mind. Some may be thinking of what is currently called "the social gospel" -- feed the poor, care for the needy, heal the sick, that sort of thing. Now, the biblical command for Christians to "love your neighbor" would certainly be good news ("gospel") to people who need it, but when we speak of "the Gospel", that is not the good news of which we speak. It isn't "live a good life", "be a good person", or even the popular "trust God and you'll be healthy and wealthy" or some such. Not at all.

Paul lays out the Gospel clearly in his first letter to the church at Corinth.

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you -- unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:1-4).

This Gospel, according to Paul, is the only Gospel. Some like to argue that Paul's Gospel was different than other Gospels. Paul disagrees. "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel -- not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ" (Gal 1:6-7). There are other uses of the term, "gospel", but Paul's "Gospel" is the same as Jesus's "Gospel", is consistent with the entire New Testament "Gospel", and is what Paul describes here in 1 Corinthians.

Note that the text has some absolutely key components. First the bare facts: Christ lived, died, was buried, and rose again on the third day. Throw out all offerings whereby Christ did not live, did not actually die, or did not physically rise again. Second, an essential, obvious fact included: Christ died for our sins. He didn't die to be an example. Sin is not a non-problem. Sin is the problem for which Christ came, lived, and died. Another important point here is actually so important that Paul repeated it. Twice in this short explanation of "the Gospel" Paul uses the phrase "in accordance with the Scriptures". That is, however you define "the Gospel", it must be in accordance with the Scriptures. It must correspond to, align with, be in accord with the Scriptures.

That's it in short form. God's Son took on human form, lived a sinless life, and died because we, His creation, are sinners in Cosmic Treason against the Most High. We justly deserve Eternal Death for this crime, but the God-Man Christ came and took our punishment. Had it ended there, it would have ended there, but He rose again, completing the process and promise. By placing our confidence in this sole source of remedy for sin, we can share in the promise that we can be justified in God's eyes, be freed from the sin problem, and be guaranteed life ever after. That is the Gospel. It is the truth offered in the Scriptures. It is repeated throughout, actually from Old to New Testament. It is the consistent message of the Bible and the Church. It is the only hope, the only solution for Man's sin problem. Anything else is not the Gospel.