It's exactly why I posted my question so I could be corrected where needs be, don't worry about it.
I actually agree with everything you've said so I am a little confused. This is what I intend to say in full, and I think it's appropriate to say that I want to focus on addressing a question many agnostics/atheists have proposed, "why can't God, if he exists, just forgive us, what does the cross or judgement have do do why anything if he's all loving"
I 100% agree that God doesn't owe us anything; in no way does he "need" us for his well being but God deciding to save a proportion of humanity for his good pleasure, not for any necessity. And as to the nature of salvation, yes I indeed say it's more than a "legal requirement meet". Romans 8:30, I don't affirm "easy believing" but all who are truly saved will show fruit of their salvation and are ever growing in this, in that sense salvation is a continuous process and healing all the way through to glorification. I simply wanted to state the beginning of this process, or what commonly referred to as "getting saved". That first someone born-again of the Holy Spirit (a work of God) responds to the gospel message in repentance and faith. Also on the son and the father having the same will, I 100% affirm, where did I hint otherwise? as I will need to change that if so
When trying to condense the message, it made sense to me, but I understand it can be perceived differently (especially if I haven't including some aspects). You could literally write a book on salvation, or what Jesus accomplished on the cross, or the wrath of God etc, but that's not what I want to do, the same way someone says "God is love" is true, although the statement doesn't imply other attributes of god, such as his Gods wrath, I am wanting to be true in what I'm addressing, that is "why the cross?". I hope this makes sense, I agree completely with what your saying and I will try and re-think how I phrase and mention things, but to keep it concise I may not be able to go into huge detail, which as long as what I say is still true, I think can be effective for people who may not have even heard the gospel, or the reasoning for it.
Thanks for your reply, again if I've said something wrong, don't be afraid to correct me
I agree with you. It is good to see what you've expanded here. And yes, the truth is that an entire book could (and has been) written and not say everything. I suspect we don't even quite grasp EVERYthing, but thankfully that is not necessary.
The only problem then, from my point of view (and many others who hold to the traditional teachings of the faith through the centuries since it was first delivered to us) is precisely the question you say the atheists ask. Why can't God just forgive us, if He is loving and merciful?
Actually, He can. He does not have a "wrath" that must be satisfied before He will allow Himself to forgive us. That's not actually true "forgiveness" is it? If somebody owes me a debt, and I say to them, "yes, I'll 'forgive' the debt, but somebody is going to have to give me my money first, even if it's not you!" then I'm not forgiving them. I'm just demanding/accepting payment from somebody else. Did Christ demand anything from the woman caught in adultery, the one who washed His feet with her tears, the man who was lowered on his bed through the roof, or anyone else He forgave? No, He simply forgave them. God can actually do that if He wants to. He really is the supreme authority of what can be and can't be done.
We look at the Scriptures and develop our understanding of God through Christ, Who is God revealed to us. The Gospels are our lens for viewing the rest of Scripture. As far as I can tell, it is looking at Christ (and God) through the lens of the Old Testament that has led to the penal substitution model of atonement (which is what you describe when you talk about God needing to pour out His wrath upon someone).
I grew up with that model myself, and I found it difficult answering atheists (or even myself) concerning why God couldn't just forgive, if He is loving, or why He felt the NEED to hurt someone first (which honestly seemed a petty desire for revenge).
I realize this may sound even like a blasphemous question to you, to speak of God in that way. But it IS a stumbling block for atheists. And I would never come out and admit it, since I had been Christian since childhood, but deep in my heart it had bothered me too.
But that is precisely why, now that I have learned that no such belief existed for centuries of Christianity, and now that I have finally learned to see God through Christ, truly, and KNOW Him as a good and loving God, Who desires to save mankind, so much so that He DID condescend to take on human flesh, living as one of us, and then dying a horrific death, JUST SO that we could be resurrected as well and have eternal life, which we lost through sin. Yes, ALL of this is Truth! It is just that it is not driven by some petty sense of wrath and revenge, but by love. Christ died because His death and Resurrection destroyed the curse of death, and opened the way for our ultimate resurrection too, joining Him as the Firstborn of many brethren.
So maybe you can seem the punitive revenge aspect has a particular bad taste it leaves in my mouth. To me, that is the blasphemy (please forgive me, I know that may sound harsh) but it truly does turn a loving, selfless act of ultimate sacrifice and love (no man hath greater love than this - that he lay down his life for his brethren) ... into something quite different. Namely an angry God who is bent on destroying us, only prevented by Christ stepping between and bearing the brunt of His supposed anger and getting torn to shreds in the process, which somehow "pleases" God the Father, we are told. Forgive me, but yes, I can see no other interpretation than this does pit God the Father against God the Son. I just never admitted it to myself for decades of my Christian life.
But atheists DO see this. They DO ask, and they are right to do so. Sometimes they are not far from the Kingdom.
But if that's all we have to offer them, this distorted Gospel that was not taught by the early Church - many conclude we are simply crazy and turn away. We refuse to acknowledge the inconsistency in our "Good News".
Anyway, that is my explanation. I realize it is probably surprising, may sound harsh in places, and might even sound like it ignores Scripture. I thought the same thing. I spent a great deal of time "examining to see if these things could be true" according to the Scriptures. In some places our Bibles were translated into English with these new ideas already in place, so prejudice was given to word choice. It is not something I could have found on my own. But I'm so very thankful there were 20 centuries of witness by the Christians who have gone before to help me understand.
God be with you, and please forgive me if I offend in any way.