21 January 2009


I’m ruminating on a thought here and I’m not sure what to make of it yet – but it seems like something that I ought to write down for the sake of articulation and as defense against losing it. (loosing it?)

I’ve heard many people say something to this effect:
The miracle of restoring a person’s soul (AKA: salvation) is far greater than the miracle of restoring sight to the blind, seeing the lame walk or even raising someone from the dead.

I think that the statement is doctrinally true – salvation is an eternal event where a resurrection is merely temporal. I can really get behind that thought...but there is also something about it that bothers me. Because in some way that I can’t quite put my finger on, the statement feels somehow like an incomplete picture, like something really important is missing. As Morpheus says “like a sliver in your mind...you can feel it.”

Yesterday, a solution to this vague dilemma struck me and I’m honestly a little uncomfortable with the implications.

What if the reason even a relatively minor healing feels bigger than an alter call is because I’ve come to expect virtually nothing from salvation?

Like I don’t have any expectation that a person ‘dedicating their life to Christ’ will be at all noticeable. What if I’ve come to swallow a picture of salvation that is so watered down as to be virtually undetectable, so ‘private’ that any public indication of ‘dead to sin but alive to Christ’ is too much to ask, and so ‘progressive’ that thirty years of ‘wrestling’ with the same sin is accepted as appropriate sanctification?


Chris said...

I think you are on to something.

It also has to do - I think - with us not really believing in the seriousness of Hell, nor the glory that will be eternity with God.

Silverback said...

Yeah - as if we've moved salvation and damnation so completely into the great by an by that neither seems real in any earthly way.

Something is profoundly wrong with that!