Did Jesus save us from God?

[Ceallaigh]

"Did Jesus save us from God?" seems to be a common question/saying among those who believe in universal salvation.

But Romans 5:9 seems to indicate that's exactly what happened:

"Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him"

 

[Jesus is my Superhero]

God is unyielding to sin, maintaining His perfection in all things. This is why He is the same today as He was yesterday, and will be tomorrow. Perfection cannot be improved upon.
The wages of sin is death and this is what Jesus saved us from. The wrath of God is what we deserve, mercy is what we receive.

 

[Aussie Pete]

"Did Jesus save us from God?" seems to be a common question/saying among those who believe in universal salvation.

But Romans 5:9 seems to indicate that's exactly what happened:

"Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him"

Not from God, but from God's wrath. It is a vital distinction. He also saved us to God. We are adopted into His family. So much focus is on the negatives and not nearly enough on the positives of salvation.

 

[Hmm]

"Did Jesus save us from God?" seems to be a common question/saying among those who believe in universal salvation.

But Romans 5:9 seems to indicate that's exactly what happened:

"Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him"

I agree that there is a common perception that universalists emphasise God's love and forget that He's also holy and just. But I don't think that's true. It's just that they think that God can't be divided up into opposing parts such that some of His actions are loving e.g. in salvation and some are about justice and wrathful.

They rather see all of God’s actions as motivated by "holy love". Everything God does is holy, completely just, and completely loving.

So whatever being wrathful and hell is about it must be compatible not only with justice but also with love. Which means that it must, in some way, have the good of those in hell as part of its rationale, which is obviously not possible with ECT.(Eternal Conscious Torment).

Universalists feel that the error with ECT or annihilationism is that while they make much of God justice and wrath they are incompatible with His love and, as a result, they divide up the unity of His nature.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Lots of Christianity is a mystery to me haha

Should God save us?

If we quite rightly deserve death and eternal hellfire, then we should get that.

It doesn't seem right for God to allow a replacement for our just punishment. Even if the replacement is a willing volunteer. It seems inconsistent. You'd expect mercy to be allowed where mercy is allowed and the penalty to be actioned where appropriate.
I'm certain I'm not the only person who has thought this, and so I'm sure there is a philosophy that accounts for this seeming inconsistency.???

Anyone know??

 

[Dave L]

"Did Jesus save us from God?" seems to be a common question/saying among those who believe in universal salvation.

But Romans 5:9 seems to indicate that's exactly what happened:

"Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him"

I believe so.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

I believe so.

Do you know why Jesus would do that?

At first it seems inconsistency between God and Jesus. Or between Jesus and what's right. You'd expect Love, Mercy, Jesus, God and our justly deserved penalty to all sing harmoniously together?

 

[Dave L]

Do you know why Jesus would do that?

At first it seems inconsistency between God and Jesus. Or between Jesus and what's right. You'd expect Love, Mercy, Jesus, God and our justly deserved penalty to all sing harmoniously together?

God provided Jesus (God in a human body) to save us from his righteousness which must punish sinners. By paying for the sins of the elect on the cross, He can now treat each for whom Christ died, as though they never sinned.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

God provided Jesus (God in a human body) to save us from his righteousness which must punish sinners. By paying for the sins of the elect on the cross, He can now treat each for whom Christ died, as though they never sinned.

That seems to be inconsistent though??

God shouldn't save anyone from His righteous wrath?? Jesus, doing the Father's will, shouldn't either??

 

[Dave L]

That seems to be inconsistent though??

God shouldn't save anyone from His righteous wrath?? Jesus, doing the Father's will, shouldn't either??

If someone pays your debt, you can be considered debt-free.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

If someone pays your debt, you can be considered debt-free.

I don't want to push you to explain it all. That would just make me come across as argumentative.

Thanks for your effort in replying.

 

[Dave L]

I don't want to push you to explain it all. That would just make me come across as argumentative.

Thanks for your effort in replying.

If you pray in Jesus' name asking God to answer your questions, and then look for answers in an approved Bible translation, it might help.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Has anyone got any ideas on how a seeming inconsistency is resolved?

The seeming inconsistency between a punishment we rightly deserve, being allowed to be absorbed by someone else?

Ought God accept a replacement sacrifice in our place?

I'm not so sure on first look. It sounds wrong. If the punishment is fair and right and for us to take as we are the guilty ones - only we should bear the punishment. ???

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

If you pray in Jesus' name asking God to answer your questions, and then look for answers in an approved Bible translation, it might help.

Thank you mate.

I enjoy a good search for knowledge.

 

[Dave L]

Has anyone got any ideas on how a seeming inconsistency is resolved?

The seeming inconsistency between a punishment we rightly deserve, being allowed to be absorbed by someone else?

Ought God accept a replacement sacrifice in our place?

I'm not so sure on first look. It sounds wrong. If the punishment is fair and right and for us to take as we are the guilty ones - only we should bear the punishment. ???

God's mercy is glorified when He takes our punishment in our place. His justice and wrath are glorified when he destroys the rest for their sins. How can we know God apart from sin?

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

God's mercy is glorified when He takes our punishment in our place. His justice and wrath are glorified when he destroys the rest for their sins. How can we know God apart from sin?

It sounds like an inconsistency to me.

Maybe an opportunity to get some things better worked out.

Space to grow in knowledge and faith.

(If people can figure out what happened on the cross exactly).

 

[Dave L]

It sounds like an inconsistency to me.

If you pay someone's debt, you are merciful for doing so. If you do not pay their debt, you are still good leaving them to their just deserts. But people do not know that you are also merciful.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

If you pay someone's debt, you are merciful for doing so. If you do not pay their debt, you are still good leaving them to their just deserts. But people do not know that you are also merciful.

God has declared our penalty is death?

And God allows another to pay it? That's not right. That's an inconsistency. I starting to think someone somewhere has misunderstood something.

Obviously I could be wrong - and I'm certain someone in the history of christianity has brought this up before and it's been discussed - I just don't know who.

Do you know of the Christian philosophers in history who first discussed this?

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

If you pay someone's debt, you are merciful for doing so.

I wouldn't say so. If someone deserves to be punished and you take their place and free the guilty - that's not good. Not at first sight.

 

[Dave L]

God has declared our penalty is death?

And God allows another to pay it? That's not right. That's an inconsistency. I starting to think someone somewhere has misunderstood something.

Obviously I could be wrong - and I'm certain someone in the history of christianity has brought this up before and it's been discussed - I just don't know who.

Do you know of the Christian philosophers in history who first discussed this?

“For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Romans 6:23 (KJV 1900)