Did Jesus save us from God?

[Clare73]

"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"

Why do they question? Is the Scripture not clear?

He saved us from God's wrath on our sin (Romans 5:9).

 

[Clare73]

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.

What they "feel" plus a buck-50 will get them a cup of coffee.

For what they "feel" is contra-Biblical (Romans 5:9).

 

[Clare73]

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.

And that is a basis for rejecting the revelation of the God-breathed Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16)?

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??

 

[Hmm]

What they "feel" plus a buck-50 will get them a cup of coffee.

For what they "feel" is contra-Biblical (Romans 5:9).

Trust your feelings, they are from God. Don't trust intellectual doctrines that tell you God would torture someone forever, He won't.

 

[Clare73]

That seems to be inconsistent though??

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

Why not? Who made that rule.

The only thing required and owed to us in the entire Universe is justice.
Our sin (law breaking) is justly subject to penalty.
Justice requires simply that the penalty be paid, just like up at the Courthouse.
If you have a debt on the books, the Court cares not who pays it, only that it gets paid.

It's no more complicated than that.
As the death of the (sacrificial) animal in the OT paid the Israelite's debt for sin,
so the sacrificial atoning death of Jesus pays the believer's (Israelite's) debt for sin.

 

[Saint Steven]

Trust your feelings, they are from God.

Yes. I wonder why emotions have been so looked down upon in Christianity? As if dry knowledge is more important. As if to say, "None of this irrational emotional stuff."

In fact the fruit of the Spirit is rather emotional in nature.
(fruit = ripe harvested produce)

Galatians 5:22-23 NIV
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

 

[Clare73]

Trust your feelings, they are from God. Don't trust intellectual doctrines that tell you God would torture someone forever, He won't.

Interesting. . .your "feelings" are from God, but the teaching of Scripture (Romans 5:9) is not.

What could possibly go wrong with that?

 

[Clare73]

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. ???

See post #65, above.

 

[Hmm]

Interesting. . .your "feelings" are from God, but the teaching of Scripture (Romans 5:9) is not.

What could possibly go wrong with that?

Even more interesting is why you excluded the word "intellectual" from your highlighting.

Following the intellectual Augustine instead of the early church, what could go wrong?

 

[Clare73]

That doesn't explain how this all fits together.

Because you are using fallen human reasoning to try to understand infinite and divine holiness and justice.

It's not for nothing that Jesus said no one can even see the kingdom of God until he is born again.
(John 3:3)
One cannot see the things of God (1 Corinthians 2:14), they are foolishness (inconsistency, etc.) to him and He cannot understand them without the Holy Spirit.

 

[Sparagmos]

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.

But God created imperfect beings.

 

[Saint Steven]

Even more interesting is why you excluded the word "intellectual" from your highlighting.

Following the intellectual Augustine instead of the early church, what could go wrong?

I wonder if John 3:16 is too mushy for them? "God so loved the world..." XOXO

 

[Clare73]

No I don't think that is it.

I am not in a "non-spiritual condition". I have been "born-again".

How do you know this?

 

[Clare73]

This reply is not answering the question.
The topic in question is:

God's righteous punishment for our sins is death. Some say Jesus took that punishment. That doesn't sound right. God ought not accept another's innocence replacement. The punishment is for us - that is right and it should be carried out on us.

It's called mercy and forgiveness.

You don't think those are good things?

There seems to be an inconsistency here - that God allowed an innocent replacement.

Are you trying to state an inconsistency between love/mercy to the sinner
and the justice/punishment the sinner deserves?

God's goodness in his love/mercy is subject to and in accordance with justice, like everything else is.
He cannot forgive and have mercy contrary to his justice.

So God has provided his own Son (Romans 3:25) to pay the penalty his own justice requires,
that he may then justly remit our sin and admit us into fellowship with him, all through faith (without/apart from faith's works) in the person and atoning sacrifice (blood--Romans 3:15) of Jesus.

 

[Hmm]

I wonder if John 3:16 is too mushy for them? "God so loved the world..." XOXO

It does makes you wonder!

 

[Clare73]

In an earlier topic, the majority of Christian posters said they would not follow Jesus if there was no afterlife. What do you make of that?

I'm in it for knowing and fellowshipping with him now. . .everything else is just icing on the cake.

 

[Clare73]

Trust your feelings, they are from God. Don't trust intellectual doctrines that tell you God would torture someone forever, He won't.

Interesting. . .your "feelings" are from God, but the teaching of Scripture (Romans 5:9) is not.

What could possibly go wrong with that?

 

[Clare73]

Yes. I wonder why emotions have been so looked down upon in Christianity? As if dry knowledge is more important. As if to say, "None of this irrational emotional stuff."

Another misrepresentation of the truth.

 

[Saint Steven]

"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 suppose we should introduce anyone that is not familiar with this conference series.

Brad Jersak - 'A More Christlike God' Conference (Part 1) - Altona, Manitoba, Canada (20.02.2015) A seminar presented at Seeds Church Altona, Canada on February 19-21, 2016

 

[Clare73]

Even more interesting is why you excluded the word "intellectual" from your highlighting.

Following the intellectual Augustine instead of the early church, what could go wrong?

Because the faith which believes doctrine is not just intellectual assent--it is also trusting on.

That's another of the many misrepresentations by that poster.