If we are being careful with portraying truth, then it will cause us to be careful with our language. It is not enough to be meticulous in our lifestyle, conforming all things to the image of our proclamation. Truth itself demands speech. That speech demands the use of language. While I’m not saying we need to embrace large vocabularies, what I am saying is that we need to be aware that words have meaning. To use a word or phrase because everyone before you has used that word or phrase, or to have the attitude of, “you know what I mean,” is sloppy theology.
What does sanctification mean? That question is not one of asking for a definition. That question is asking what the common consensus is. You can define it however you want, but if you can’t understand that others use the same word to mean something completely different, then you are not truly communicating. The way that others use the words that we choose should interest us just as much as our own definitions and connotations. If sanctification has a connotation that we disagree with, then let us not use the word. This is altogether difficult, because it not only means that we have to understand what the word actually means, but then also adopt a synonymous word or phrase that is not as popular.
Truth demands that we would be careful with the way we convey our message. If speaking of the culture of heaven is something that better suits what we’re describing, then let us toss aside the words and phrases we’ve previously used to describe our salvation and journey in the faith. Sanctification, putting to death the sin nature, carnality, and these other sorts of terms are absolutely useless if they don’t actually convey what we’re trying to say. On the other hand, if they convey perfectly what we’re trying to say, then let us embrace them with love and excitement. I am not opposed to using the classic terms; I am opposed to using the classic terms without thinking.
Leave a Reply