How does salvation work, precisely?

[kw5kw]

Getting to Heaven is not the biblical definition of salvation, but anyway, how can we enter Heaven?

Mat 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:


Prepared for you ... - That is, "designed" for you, or appointed for you. The phrase "from the foundation of the world" is used to denote that this was appointed for them in the beginning; that God has no new plan; that the rewards which he will now confer on them he always intended to confer. Christ says to the righteous that the kingdom was prepared for "them." Of course, God meant to confer it on "them." They were individuals, and it follows that He intended to bestow His salvation on them as individuals. Accordingly, the salvation of His people is universally represented as the result of the free gift of God, according to His own pleasure, bestowed on individuals, and by a plan which is eternal, Rom_8:29-30; Eph_1:4-5, Eph_1:11-12; 2Th_2:13; 1Pe_1:2; Joh_6:37. This is right and consistent with justice; because:


1. All people are by nature equally undeserving.

2. Bestowing favors on one does not do injustice to another, where neither deserves favor. Pardoning one criminal is not injuring another. Bestowing great talents on Locke, Newton, or Paul did not injure me.

3. If it is right for God to give eternal life to his people, or to admit them to heaven, it was right to "determine" to do it, which is but another way of saying that God resolved from all eternity to "do right."

4. Those who perish choose the paths which lead to death, and will not be saved by the merits of Jesus. No blame can be charged on God if he does not save them against their will, Joh_5:40; Mar_16:15-16.

 

[kw5kw]

I still doubt this kind of forgiveness is just, especially because such verses as Hebrews 9:22.
"The law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness"
The shedding of blood refers to death. Without death there is no forgiveness!

We are no longer under the law but by Grace are we saved by faith.

 

[hedrick]

The question you mentioned is exactly what I'm asking. If you believe it's the wrong question to ask, it explains why you haven't answered it directly. What is the right question to ask?

The topic of the OT is "how does God redeem people who don't do what he tells them to?" How does this differ from "how do I propitiate an angry God so he'll accept me"?

The first question assumes that God continues to love us and wants us to be redeemed no matter what we do. Think of God using Hosea's unfaithful wife as a metaphor for God’s crazy love for Israel, and Jesus' many parables about God going after rebellious people to save them. None of this says "but someone has to die before I can accept you."

Jesus' death matters to us, but the question is whether it's aimed at us or at God. Penal substitution says that it's God whose mind needs to be changed. He's so committed to justice -- understood as making sure that someone pays -- that he can't accept us without someone dying for us. I say that the barrier is on our side, not God's. Jesus' death is aimed at us.

The NT treatments of Jesus' death often are brief references using metaphors such as sacrifice, the lamb, payment, etc. But the more detailed treatments such as Romans and Hebrews all say that the purpose of Jesus' death is to restore us by having us die and rise again with Christ, or by a new covenant that writes the law into our hearts.

But there are other implications behind the two questions as well. You’re seeing the major question as “what do I have to do to be saved.” That’s a natural question, but I think from a Biblical point of view it’s God that’s the active party. That is, he’s using Jesus and resurrection as a way to restore someone he has already decided to redeem.

The original Reformers’ answer to “what do I have to do to enter heaven” is “nothing; God has already done it.” They went further in this than you may want to go. They believed God elected us for salvation, created faith in us, and uses that faith as an instrument to unite us to Christ.

Most Protestants have backed off from that, to a position that allows for more of a role on our side. But even Arminius (the guy whose position most Protestants today would accept) said that God is the one who initiates salvation. We can refuse it, but we certainly don’t have to propitiate God. He’s already chosen us.

So the answer to how we enter heaven is: though the unmerited grace of God, who uses faith to unite us to Christ so that we can die to sin and rise to new life.

I still doubt this kind of forgiveness is just, especially because such verses as Hebrews 9:22.
"The law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness"
The shedding of blood refers to death. Without death there is no forgiveness!

This is precisely the kind of reaction Jesus got. People thought his preaching of God wanting to forgive everyone was unjust. His acceptance of “sinners” was scandalous to the people around him.

In my opinion Hebrews isn’t saying that death is needed before someone can be forgiven. Rather, it’s saying that forgiveness works through death and resurrection. Cleansing is something you do after you’ve decided to fix the thing you’re cleansing.

There is often a cost for forgiveness. The person doing the forgiveness has to give up their hurt, and accept what was done. I think it’s completely appropriate that God has to accept death as part of forgiving us. In order to redeem us, he chose to join us, so we could be renewed through his resurrection. In joining us, he had to accept the consequences of being human. But that’s a consequence of a decision he’s already made to forgive us. Penal substitution portrays death as needed before God is allowed to forgive us. There's a difference between saying death was the cost he had to pay to save us, and saying that someone had to be punished. Hence I have no problem at all with passages like "you were bought with a price."

Are you referring to Ezekiel 18:32 (For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so turn, and live.)?

Among other verses.

Jesus dying and rising to new life is different from us dying to sin and rising to new life, isn't it.

In some respects. Jesus didn’t have sin to die to. But still, look at Rom 6:

“ For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For whoever has died is freed from sin. 8 But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.”

Incidentally, there’s another whole question that I’m ignoring for the moment, which is whether the goal of Christianity is to go to heaven. There are some problems with setting that as a goal:

1) Our goal really should be to be followers of Jesus, and to help him bring the Kingdom. Jesus certainly warned people about judgement, but I don’t think the main thrust of his teaching was “here’s what you’ve got to do to save yourself.” Jesus focused on motivation and intent, and if your primary intent focuses on yourself, you’ve missed what Jesus wants. “For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel,i will save it.” (I admit that I may be taking that passage slightly out o context.) Note that in his story about the sheep and the goats, the sheep weren’t doing good to get credit. They didn’t even know they were serving him.

I would be a follower of Jesus even if I knew there was nothing after death. It’s a better way to live.

2) In Gen 3, the fall doesn’t just involve Adam and Eve. The whole world changes to an unfriendly place. I think it’s God’s intent to restore all of creation. In the Lord’s prayer, we’re supposed to pray for that to come. So our goal isn’t just our salvation. It’s restoration of the world.

3) “Going to heaven” is not the best summary of eternal life. The OT visions of the future are of a restored Jerusalem. The Revelation ends up with Jerusalem coming down from heaven to earth. Now I admit that eternal life may not exactly be on the current earth. But still, “going to heaven” reminds me of the Greek idea of our souls being freed from our bodies and going off to be with a God who has nothing to do with earth. Christianity teaches resurrection of the body, which is a different thing.

 

[Fish14]

The topic of the OT is "how does God redeem people who don't do what he tells them to?" How does this differ from "how do I propitiate an angry God so he'll accept me"?

The first question assumes that God continues to love us and wants us to be redeemed no matter what we do. Think of God using Hosea's unfaithful wife as a metaphor for God’s crazy love for Israel, and Jesus' many parables about God going after rebellious people to save them. None of this says "but someone has to die before I can accept you."

Jesus' death matters to us, but the question is whether it's aimed at us or at God. Penal substitution says that it's God whose mind needs to be changed. He's so committed to justice -- understood as making sure that someone pays -- that he can't accept us without someone dying for us. I say that the barrier is on our side, not God's. Jesus' death is aimed at us.

“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” John 3:36

God is angry to unbelievers. I suppose you believe He stops being angry at us when He saves us.

The NT treatments of Jesus' death often are brief references using metaphors such as sacrifice, the lamb, payment, etc. But the more detailed treatments such as Romans and Hebrews all say that the purpose of Jesus' death is to restore us by having us die and rise again with Christ, or by a new covenant that writes the law into our hearts.

So the answer to how we enter heaven is: though the unmerited grace of God, who uses faith to unite us to Christ so that we can die to sin and rise to new life.

Now this is the part I have absolutely no understanding about. I need at least one paragraph of explanation about "who uses faith to unite us to Christ so that we can die to sin and rise to new life" to comprehend it. If you answer to this post, please focus on that.

But there are other implications behind the two questions as well. You’re seeing the major question as “what do I have to do to be saved.” That’s a natural question, but I think from a Biblical point of view it’s God that’s the active party. That is, he’s using Jesus and resurrection as a way to restore someone he has already decided to redeem.

I think we need to believe that God has done something for us to be saved. Previously I believed this act was dying to pay the penalty for our sins. So I am really asking "what has God done to make me saved".

Most Protestants have backed off from that, to a position that allows for more of a role on our side. But even Arminius (the guy whose position most Protestants today would accept) said that God is the one who initiates salvation. We can refuse it, but we certainly don’t have to propitiate God. He’s already chosen us.

How do we accept the salvation God initiates?

In my opinion Hebrews isn’t saying that death is needed before someone can be forgiven. Rather, it’s saying that forgiveness works through death and resurrection. Cleansing is something you do after you’ve decided to fix the thing you’re cleansing.

There is often a cost for forgiveness. The person doing the forgiveness has to give up their hurt, and accept what was done. I think it’s completely appropriate that God has to accept death as part of forgiving us. In order to redeem us, he chose to join us, so we could be renewed through his resurrection. In joining us, he had to accept the consequences of being human. But that’s a consequence of a decision he’s already made to forgive us. Penal substitution portrays death as needed before God is allowed to forgive us. There's a difference between saying death was the cost he had to pay to save us, and saying that someone had to be punished. Hence I have no problem at all with passages like "you were bought with a price."

Ok, I agree with you.

In some respects. Jesus didn’t have sin to die to. But still, look at Rom 6:

“ For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For whoever has died is freed from sin. 8 But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.”

Again, this is something that I would like to know more about.

Incidentally, there’s another whole question that I’m ignoring for the moment, which is whether the goal of Christianity is to go to heaven. There are some problems with setting that as a goal:

1) Our goal really should be to be followers of Jesus, and to help him bring the Kingdom. Jesus certainly warned people about judgement, but I don’t think the main thrust of his teaching was “here’s what you’ve got to do to save yourself.” Jesus focused on motivation and intent, and if your primary intent focuses on yourself, you’ve missed what Jesus wants. “For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel,i will save it.” (I admit that I may be taking that passage slightly out o context.) Note that in his story about the sheep and the goats, the sheep weren’t doing good to get credit. They didn’t even know they were serving him.

I hope that verse doesn't mean that if I want God to save me, He won't. I think it means our earthly lives so that "wanting to save your life" means you want to keep living according to your flesh.

I would be a follower of Jesus even if I knew there was nothing after death. It’s a better way to live.

Of course, me too.

2) In Gen 3, the fall doesn’t just involve Adam and Eve. The whole world changes to an unfriendly place. I think it’s God’s intent to restore all of creation. In the Lord’s prayer, we’re supposed to pray for that to come. So our goal isn’t just our salvation. It’s restoration of the world.

3) “Going to heaven” is not the best summary of eternal life. The OT visions of the future are of a restored Jerusalem. The Revelation ends up with Jerusalem coming down from heaven to earth. Now I admit that eternal life may not exactly be on the current earth. But still, “going to heaven” reminds me of the Greek idea of our souls being freed from our bodies and going off to be with a God who has nothing to do with earth. Christianity teaches resurrection of the body, which is a different thing.

I know I shouldn't say "Heaven" when I refer to the restored New Earth and Jerusalem, where we will be in our physical bodies.

 

[hedrick]

God is angry to unbelievers. I suppose you believe He stops being angry at us when He saves us.

Look carefully at the kind of passages from John that you quote. John sees Jesus as a "crisis," a decision point that determines your future. It's not that God hates us until we meet Christ. The "wrath" is for those who meet Christ and reject him. He says elsewhere that accepting him is really about accepting his message.

Now this is the part I have absolutely no understanding about. I need at least one paragraph of explanation about "who uses faith to unite us to Christ so that we can die to sin and rise to new life" to comprehend it. If you answer to this post, please focus on that.

In both Jesus and Paul, forgiveness is not just a matter of God no longer punishing us. It frees us. Paul’s message is that being under the law is bondage. When we are driven by fear, and rules, we never get anything right. And this doesn’t just make us miserable. It makes us bad servants of Christ, because people who are driven by fear spend all their time worrying about not having too much fun, or not looking at a member of the opposite sex too much, and their idea of mission is to pull others into the same web of legalism. When we live Jesus' death and resurrection with him, it moves us from the law to grace.

Living in the new covenant and the resurrection says we don’t think about ourselves, not even our own salvation. We can trust God for that. The old system is nailed to the cross. It dies with Christ. The new life means looking at how Christ lived, and showing it in our own lives. Indeed Paul sees Jesus’ resurrection as a breaking into our lives of what the new creation will eventually be. So as Christians we should already be living — at least to some extent — in the new world.

For some people it means religious experience, actually feeling Christ’s presence. Not everyone will necessarily have that experience to the same extent, but everyone should pray and worship. Our Christian lives should be built on that. But whatever your level of experience, for everyone being in Christ means showing the same kind of love that he did to others.

To go beyond that we start having to look at more details of Christian living. I’m currently looking at the last chapter in N T Wright’s book “Simply Christian.” (If you’re interested in reading something, it’s a great introduction to what Christianity is really about.) Any listing of points if going to be arbitrary, but he picks three key points of living in the light of the cross and resurrection.

1) living out healing, restorative justice, not revenge. Remember that Jesus’ message of forgiving people isn’t intended just for their good but for ours. Holding grudges and being motivated by anger isn’t a good way to live

2) emphasizing positive relationships. “The command of kindness asks that we spend our time looking not at ourselves and our needs, our rights, our wrongs-that-need-righting, but at everyone else and their needs, pressures, pains, and joys. Kindness is a primary way of growing up as a human being, of establishing and maintaining the richest and deepest relationships.”

3) beauty. God created the world good, and will restore it. “It is central to Christian living that we should celebrate the goodness of creation, ponder its present brokenness, and, insofar as we can, celebrate in advance the healing of the world, the new creation itself. Art, music, literature, dance, theater, and many other expressions of human delight and wisdom, can all be explored in new ways.”

I read a fair number of posts on CF, not just in theology but more practical groups such as “Christian advice.” In my opinion many Christians aren’t living in the new world. They’ve turned Christianity into the same web of fear and legalism that is suppose to be nailed to the cross.

 

[hedrick]

Here are a couple of articles on what it means to be in Christ, both from a moderate evangelical perspective. (My own theology is more radical than this.)

From Alan Torrance:
https://www.gci.org/YI077

From the C S Lewis Institute:
“In Christ” The Meaning and Implications of the Gospel of Jesus Christ - page 1 | C.S. Lewis Institute

This one is a bit more abstract, but it explains the viewpoint I'm presenting:
N.T. Wright Explains How Easter Changed Everything

 

[Fish14]

Look carefully at the kind of passages from John that you quote. John sees Jesus as a "crisis," a decision point that determines your future. It's not that God hates us until we meet Christ. The "wrath" is for those who meet Christ and reject him. He says elsewhere that accepting him is really about accepting his message.

If I got it right, God hates only those who have rejected Christ, and for some reason only after they have rejected him.

In both Jesus and Paul, forgiveness is not just a matter of God no longer punishing us. It frees us. Paul’s message is that being under the law is bondage. When we are driven by fear, and rules, we never get anything right. And this doesn’t just make us miserable. It makes us bad servants of Christ, because people who are driven by fear spend all their time worrying about not having too much fun, or not looking at a member of the opposite sex too much, and their idea of mission is to pull others into the same web of legalism. When we live Jesus' death and resurrection with him, it moves us from the law to grace.

You said that worrying about sin is legalism. I think Christians should still take care of not sinning, and confess their sins.
Do you believe Christ's death and resurrection is only an example for us and a natural consequence of his humanity? In one of your previous posts you said it's the cost of forgiveness. I don't see any reason for that. Why did Jesus even have to incarnate? I know he had many things to teach etc., but I wonder if it's the only reason.

Living in the new covenant and the resurrection says we don’t think about ourselves, not even our own salvation. We can trust God for that. The old system is nailed to the cross. It dies with Christ. The new life means looking at how Christ lived, and showing it in our own lives. Indeed Paul sees Jesus’ resurrection as a breaking into our lives of what the new creation will eventually be. So as Christians we should already be living — at least to some extent — in the new world.

For some people it means religious experience, actually feeling Christ’s presence. Not everyone will necessarily have that experience to the same extent, but everyone should pray and worship. Our Christian lives should be built on that. But whatever your level of experience, for everyone being in Christ means showing the same kind of love that he did to others.

Don't I even have to accept or believe anything? I mean, if God just picks me to be saved, I have absolutely no part in it. Works and legalism aren't needed to be saved, but some sort of choice. Otherwise, all this sounds very wonderful compared to what I have thought.

 

[hedrick]

If I got it right, God hates only those who have rejected Christ, and only after they have rejected Christ.

Yes and no. I think God hates what people have done to each other and the world. John says that God loved the world enough that he wanted to redeem it. He hates those that reject his redemption. The question is whether anyone can be neutral. I think John’s answer is no.

But what about people who haven’t met Christ, or who meet him only through a church that misrepresents him? As I’m sure you know, Christians are divided on this. My estimate (based on surveys and what various groups say officially) is that a majority of Christians today believe that it is possible for the Holy Spirit to bring people in spiritual contact with Christ even if they haven’t heard of him, and that it is this contact that they either accept or reject.

I’ve looked through the NT on this topic, and I see why we’re divided. The NT is clear that people who reject Jesus are in trouble. But Jesus often says that it’s those who do what he teaches that are his, not those who say “Lord, Lord.”

If you don't think there's some way for people to be followers without explicitly knowing Christ, you end up with Abraham lost. Surely Paul wouldn't say that.

I agree with you, but have you made Christ's death and resurrection only an example for us? In one of your previous posts you said it's the cost of forgiveness. I don't see any reason for that. Why did Jesus even have to incarnate? I know he had many things to teach etc., but I wonder if it's the only reason.

Again, this is a disputed matter. See Atonement in Christianity - Wikipedia for a review of how Christians have understood Jesus’ atonement. As indicated there, many people think Christians in the 2nd and 3rd Century understood Jesus primarily as an example that inspires us.

But I think a lot depends upon what you think about spiritual matters. Can there be an actual relationship with Christ? Does the Holy Spirit actually work in us? Or is this a metaphor for what we think and feel. I would suggest to you that Christianity has generally said that there can be actual spiritual contact with Christ. In that case, we appropriate Christ’s death and resurrection through the activity of the Holy Spirit. When we believe in him and act as his follower, it’s not just like reading about a hero in a book and being inspired by what we read. The Holy Spirit actually brings us into a spiritual relationship with him, and lets us to a certain extent actually experience his new life. I’m reasonably sure that’s what Paul meant.

This is probably what the “moral influence” theory of the atonement actually meant. That is, it’s hard to believe that any Christian would say Jesus’ inspiration works just like reading about a hero in a book. Surely the early Christians understood the role of the Holy Spirit.

Don't I even have to accept or believe anything? I mean, does God just pick me to be saved, with me having no part in it? Otherwise, all this sounds very wonderful compared to what I have thought.

How much have you read of discussions in soteriology? The exact role of our will and God’s grace is just about the most heavily disputed question in Christian theology, with specific positions being taken by Reformed, Lutherans, Arminian, Catholics, etc. I’m going to give you my opinion, which is somewhere between Reformed, Lutheran, and Arminian.

I think God initiates the process of rescuing us. We don’t deserve his love, but we have it. We don’t have to believe anything before he accepts us. Rather, as we come to understand and experience what he has already done for us, through the activity of the Holy Spirit, we come to acknowledge Christ as savior and to be his follower. That is, our faith is a result of God’s activity. The whole substance of being a Christian is a result of the Holy Spirit’s action in us.

So far this is the classic Reformed view. However I also think people can refuse this, which is an Arminian position. There’s a deeper question, whether the fact that certain people reject his call is itself a part of God’s plan. Like Luther, I don’t think we’re in a position to know that.

 

[Fish14]

Yes and no. I think God hates what people have done to each other and the world. John says that God loved the world enough that he wanted to redeem it. He hates those that reject his redemption. The question is whether anyone can be neutral. I think John’s answer is no.

But what about people who haven’t met Christ, or who meet him only through a church that misrepresents him? As I’m sure you know, Christians are divided on this. My estimate (based on surveys and what various groups say officially) is that a majority of Christians today believe that it is possible for the Holy Spirit to bring people in spiritual contact with Christ even if they haven’t heard of him, and that it is this contact that they either accept or reject.

I’ve looked through the NT on this topic, and I see why we’re divided. The NT is clear that people who reject Jesus are in trouble. But Jesus often says that it’s those who do what he teaches that are his, not those who say “Lord, Lord.”

If you don't think there's some way for people to be followers without explicitly knowing Christ, you end up with Abraham lost. Surely Paul wouldn't say that.

Again, this is a disputed matter. See Atonement in Christianity - Wikipedia for a review of how Christians have understood Jesus’ atonement. As indicated there, many people think Christians in the 2nd and 3rd Century understood Jesus primarily as an example that inspires us.

But I think a lot depends upon what you think about spiritual matters. Can there be an actual relationship with Christ? Does the Holy Spirit actually work in us? Or is this a metaphor for what we think and feel. I would suggest to you that Christianity has generally said that there can be actual spiritual contact with Christ. In that case, we appropriate Christ’s death and resurrection through the activity of the Holy Spirit. When we believe in him and act as his follower, it’s not just like reading about a hero in a book and being inspired by what we read. The Holy Spirit actually brings us into a spiritual relationship with him, and lets us to a certain extent actually experience his new life. I’m reasonably sure that’s what Paul meant.

This is probably what the “moral influence” theory of the atonement actually meant. That is, it’s hard to believe that any Christian would say Jesus’ inspiration works just like reading about a hero in a book. Surely the early Christians understood the role of the Holy Spirit.

How much have you read of discussions in soteriology? The exact role of our will and God’s grace is just about the most heavily disputed question in Christian theology, with specific positions being taken by Reformed, Lutherans, Arminian, Catholics, etc. I’m going to give you my opinion, which is somewhere between Reformed, Lutheran, and Arminian.

I think God initiates the process of rescuing us. We don’t deserve his love, but we have it. We don’t have to believe anything before he accepts us. Rather, as we come to understand and experience what he has already done for us, through the activity of the Holy Spirit, we come to acknowledge Christ as savior and to be his follower. That is, our faith is a result of God’s activity. The whole substance of being a Christian is a result of the Holy Spirit’s action in us.

So far this is the classic Reformed view. However I also think people can refuse this, which is an Arminian position. There’s a deeper question, whether the fact that certain people reject his call is itself a part of God’s plan. Like Luther, I don’t think we’re in a position to know that.

What Bible books about Jesus' death and resurrection do you suggest for me? Romans and Hebrews? I would like to read some parts of the Bible to see if your teachings are biblical.

How do you believe we can get our sins forgiven? In the satisfactory theory of atonement they are already forgiven because Jesus died to pay the penalty. That brings complete assurance of salvation, so there is no need to examine yourself and fearfully speculate whether or not you are saved.

"God made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we would become the righteousness of God." 2 Cor 5:21
This verse teaches clearly that Jesus "was sin for us", or took our sins. Do you believe it has nothing to do with propitiation?

The Atonement of Christ

You was unable to say why Jesus had to come here to die, especially for us and as a ransom and a sacrifice.

 

[Ron Gurley]

OP: Back to BASICS:

Q1: "1. Why is the wages of sin death?"
A1: The sow-reap / cause-effect truth of God

READ ON IN Romans 6!

Romans 6 (NASB)...Believers Are Dead to Sin, Alive to God
20 For when you WERE slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.
21 Therefore what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed?
For the outcome of those things is death.
22 But NOW having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification,(BEING SET ASIDE FOR GOD)
and the (FINAL) outcome, eternal (SPIRIT) life.
23 For the wages of sin is death,
but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

God spiritually "wants/desires" all to be saved.

1 Timothy 2:1-6 (4-5) (NASB); 2 Peter 3:9

God spiritually calls/draws ALL MEN to a "free will" CHOICE: accept or reject Me and My gracious provisions/"free gift".
God knows each of Man's spirits who truly seek Him or forsake Him. He ignores no Man.

CALLS/DRAWS

John 6:44
No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me DRAWS him;
and I will raise him up on the last day.

John 14:6
Jesus said to him, (Doubtful Thomas)
“I am the way, and the truth, and the life;
no one comes to the Father but THROUGH Me.

Matthew 9:13
But go and learn what this means:
‘I desire compassion, and not sacrifice,’
for I did not come to CALL the righteous, but sinners.”

Mark 2:17
And hearing this, Jesus said to them,
“It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick;
I did not come to CALL the righteous, but sinners.”

Matthew 22:14
For many are CALLED, but few are chosen.” (who accept!)

Ephesians 2:5
even when we were dead in our transgressions,
MADE us (spiritually) ALIVE together with Christ
(by grace you HAVE BEEN saved),

2 Timothy 1: 8-14 (NASB)
... for the gospel according to the power of God,
who has saved us and CALLED us with a holy calling,
not according to our works,
but according to His own purpose and grace
which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity, (hidden)
BUT now has been REVEALED by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death
and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,
...Guard, through the Holy Spirit who DWELLS in us,
the treasure which has been entrusted to you.

Matthew 7:8
For everyone who asks receives,
and he who SEEKS finds,
and to him who knocks it will be opened.

Revelation 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door and knock;
if anyone hears My voice and opens the door,
I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.

CHOOSE

1 Chronicles 28:9...King David to his wise son upon passing his kingdom
“As for you, my son Solomon,
know the God of your father, and serve Him with a whole heart and a willing mind;
for the Lord searches all hearts, and understands every intent of the thoughts.
If you SEEK Him, He will let you find Him; BUT
if you forsake Him, He will reject you.

Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth to witness against you today,
that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So CHOOSE LIFE in order that you may live, you and your descendants,

John 3:36...John the Baptizer on Jesus: CHOOSE
1. He who believes in the Son has eternal life; (BELIEVER)
but
2.he who does not obey (TO BELIEVE IN!) the Son will not see life,
but the wrath of God abides on him.” (UN-BELIEVER)

John 1...CHOOSE!
11 He came to that which was His own, but His own did NOT receive Him.
12 Yet to all who DID receive him,
to those who BELIEVED in his name, he gave the right to become "children of God"
13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but "born of God"

 

[hedrick]

What Bible books about Jesus' death and resurrection do you suggest for me? Romans and Hebrews? I would like to read some parts of the Bible to see if your teachings are biblical.

Yes. But it's difficult to read the NT without reading our preconceptions into the text. E.g. in Heb 9 when we read that blood is necessary, unless we trace down the OT reference and realize that he's talking about a covenant sacrifice, we might read it as a reference to penal substitution.

The key reference from Jesus himself is the words of institution. Again, until you realize what "blood of the new covenant" refers to in the OT, you might read this in exactly the wrong way.

 

[Ron Gurley]

OP: ...Q2: " Why can't we (mankind) pay for our sins?"

Payment infers WORKS. You cannot work your way to heaven.

Sin is anything falling short of the perfect glory of God. God is perfectly JUST. God is also perfectly LOVING/MERCIFUL. He hates sin. He loves sinners.

Sin separates Mankind from God. Man is a sinner in need of a Savior.
He views Man's works/"payments" as filthy garments.

Isaiah!

 

[Ron Gurley]

OP: Q:3 "...Why was Jesus immune to death from natural causes?..."

A:3. He was not.
His Body/Soul combo bled to death on an unjust Cross FOR you. He committed His SPIRIT to heaven from whence it came.

Psalm 31:5
Into Your hand I commit my spirit; You have ransomed me, O Lord, God of truth.

Luke 23:46...Last saying of 7 of Jesus on the Cross
And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into Your hands I commit My SPIRIT.” Having said this, He breathed His last.(Body/Soul combo DIED!)

Jesus had a unique DUAL NATURE: TRUE MAN...TRUE DEITY.

The shed Holy blood of Jesus the God-Man on the cruel Cross was part of the TRI-UNE GOD's plan from eternity. Learn about "substitutionary atonement"!

 

[Ron Gurley]

OP: ..."Q4: Why is a sinless animal/person's death required?..."

A4: God's "economy" and methods of relating to man CHANGED from OT to NT. God did NOT change! He is unchanging and unchangeable...immutable.

OT: Yom Kippur. Once per year the blood of animals was placed on the altar of the Tabernacle to cover the sins of Israel/Abramic Nations, His "chosen people". SEE: Exodus 30 . Part of the Era of the Old Covenant with many conditional promises.

NT: The blood of Jesus covered the sins: FOR ALL Men, FOR ALL sins, FOR ALL time. His blood was the binding of the Era of the New Covenant, the age of Grace and the "CHURCH".

All true Christ-followers are covered by the "Blood of Christ"!

1 John 1:7
but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another,
and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.

Revelation 1:5 (NASB)
5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood.

1 Peter 1:2,19-21
2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,
by the sanctifying work of the Spirit,
to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood:...
19 but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.
20 For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you
21 who THROUGH Him are believers in God,
who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

1 John 5:6(NASB)
6 This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is (God) the (Holy) Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.

Ephesians 2:13(NASB)
13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

1 Corinthians 10:16(NASB)
16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

Hebrews 10....One Blood Sacrifice of Christ Is Sufficient
19 Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus,

The OLD Covenant between God and Man / His "chosen people" required a "blood" sacrifice
to cover annually the sins of the people Israel. E.g. See: Hebrews 9. EXODUS 30.

Under the NEW Covenant in Jesus' blood with all believers, ...>

Hebrews 9 (NASB) ...The Old and the New: Sacrifices and Covenants
....but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption....
...but now once at the consummation of the ages,
He has been manifested to put away sin by the (bloody) sacrifice of Himself.
27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,
28 so Christ (as self sacrifice) also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin,
to those who eagerly await Him.

Hebrews 10....One Blood Sacrifice of Christ Is Sufficient
...4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins....
10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.....
18 Now where there is forgiveness of these things (lawless deeds) , there is no longer any offering for sin...19 Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus,
20 by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh,
21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

 

[Ron Gurley]

OP: Q5: "... Why does Jesus' righteousness need to be credited to us?..."

A5: Because man's SELF righteousness (imperfect ATTEMPTS to live by WORKS and the Mosaic Law / Godly precepts) is unacceptable to God. Isaiah!

2 Corinthians 5:21...IMPUTED righteousness
He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf,
so that we might become the righteousness of God IN Him.

Romans 3:10...man's SELF righteousness
as it is written, “There is none righteous, not even one;

Romans 3:22
even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe;

1 Corinthians 1:30
But by His doing you are IN Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,

Genesis 15:6
Then he (Abraham) believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.(to his account)

Romans 4:3
For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

Romans 10:4
For Christ is the end of the (Mosaic) Law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Psalm 23:3
He restores my soul; He guides me in the paths of righteousness For His name’s sake.

Ezekiel 33:19
But when the wicked turns from his wickedness and practices justice and righteousness, he will live by them.

Matthew 5:6, 10, 33
“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied....
“Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven....
But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

 

[thecolorsblend]

If we speak of that satisfactory punishment, which one takes upon oneself voluntarily, one may bear another's punishment, in so far as they are, in some way, one, as stated above. If, however, we speak of punishment inflicted on account of sin, inasmuch as it is penal, then each one is punished for his own sin only, because the sinful act is something personal. But if we speak of a punishment that is medicinal, in this way it does happen that one is punished for another's sin. For it has been stated that ills sustained in bodily goods or even in the body itself, are medicinal punishments intended for the health of the soul. Wherefore there is no reason why one should not have such like punishments inflicted on one for another's sin, either by God or by man; e.g. on children for their parents, or on servants for their masters, inasmuch as they are their property so to speak; in such a way, however, that, if the children or the servants take part in the sin, this penal ill has the character of punishment in regard to both the one punished and the one he is punished for. But if they do not take part in the sin, it has the character of punishment in regard to the one for whom the punishment is borne, while, in regard to the one who is punished, it is merely medicinal (except accidentally, if he consent to the other's sin), since it is intended for the good of his soul, if he bears it patiently.
- Thomas Aquinas

In (very) brief, this is the satisfaction theory of atonement. Aquinas wrote a lot more on the subject than just that but Our Lord bears our punishment for our sin provided that our will is joined to His. It is possible for Him to take punishment for our sin for us.

The punishment Our Lord suffered is satisfactory rather than penal. He is not somehow presumed to be literally guilty for our sin in God's eyes. Rather, it's that He bore the punishment for our sins for us and the graces which ensue from that punishment are available to us by our identifying with Him.

 

[LastSeven]

To understand salvation you have to ask "why did Jesus have to die?" It's because of God's nature. Why God's nature is the way it is, we surely can't answer, but we can see His nature reflected in his creation all around us. (Maybe that's why we call it "nature").

See there are two sides to every transaction, and sin is just one side of a transaction. The other side is atonement. Every debit has a credit, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, every force has an opposing force, and every sin requires atonement. This concept can be seen in every detail of creation, and in its simplest term it's called balance. [insert your Star Wars reference here]. This is the nature of God (and the nature of our world).

Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 9:22) and this is because the blood is the life of the creature, which is the opposing force to sin which is the death of the creature. So once a sin is committed, the lifeblood must be shed in order to complete the transaction. Once that transaction is complete, balance is restored.

In other words, salvation is God's nature in perfect balance.

 

[Ron Gurley]

IMO: God does not "punish" saved believers, His children. He disciplines and trains them. Their sins are forgiven. 1 John 1

However, for UN-believers, He justly judges, and they are sentenced to suffer the eternal spiritual separation from and wrath of God.

 

[Almost there]

how does salvation work? - you have to work at it -
the bill has been paid but you have to show that you are worthy of it - showing appreciation for what has been done for you is a good start

Nobody is worthy except Christ. I am saved, but I most definitely am not worthy. This was a standard theme presented by Paul regarding his own life as well.

I'm not even trying to be worthy, for salvation's sake. I'm working to know Christ more and be conformed to His image because I love Him and want to do all I can to please Him. But it is never about "I had better get better or I'm not worthy and I won't be saved". That is more what Muslims do.

 

[Almost there]

IMO: God does not "punish" saved believers, His children. He disciplines and trains them. Their sins are forgiven. 1 John 1

However, for UN-believers, He justly judges, and they are sentenced to suffer the eternal spiritual separation from and wrath of God.

I tend to agree. And since nothing can exist outside the presence of God...