"Regenerate" to "Natural Man" in 1 year!!!

[strengthinweakness]

I don't really understand the excitement that you have in this theory that God killed God to satisfy the so-called justice of God. I don't really get what it is about this theory that would encourage you to pore through the Bible for citations to it and then present it to others who have told you that they find it disturbing. It doesn't make sense that you would find it a joyful exercise to tell others these macabre and ghoulish theories of God-man relations. Is it some kind of pleasure to quote Bible verses to others that they wish they did not have to believe?

Now you came from a theological tradition that tempered this theology, and I don't know what would attract you to the Reformed church, having known something different. I, on the other hand, grew up in the Reformed tradition and only recently discovered that Christianity does not necessarily require belief in a God whom it is a horror to imagine. I am not so eager to reenter an iron cage of false metaphysics. Not when I know that there is something different.

Sad, indeed, would the whole matter be if the Bible had told us everything God meant us to believe. But herein is the Bible greatly wronged. It nowhere lays claim to be regarded as the Word, the Way, the Truth. The Bible leads us to Jesus, the inexhaustible, the ever-unfolding Revelation of God. It is Christ "in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge", not the Bible, save as leading to Him.

Zurich, you wrote that you don't know what would have attracted me to the Reformed church, having known a different theological tradition. What attracted me to the Reformed church is that after being, first, a Catholic, and then, an Arminian Christian, I decided (by the sovereign will and grace of God!), finally, just to study the Bible for what it itself said, and then to submit to it. As a Catholic, I cared more about what the Pope, the Magesterium, and church fathers said than about what the Bible said. As an Arminian Christian, I cared, to a much greater extent, about what the Bible said, but I still tried to read into it my own pilosophical presuppositions and cherished preferences for the concept of man's morally "free" will. Finally, though, before I embraced Reformed Christianity, I studied the Bible for what it itself said-- not what church fathers opined that it said, and not what I wanted it to say. When I studied the Bible in this spirit of openness to whatever it actually said, I ultimately embraced Reformed Christianity. From studying the Bible alone, without outside influences, I have found Reformed Christianity to be more representative of what the Bible actually teaches about God, man, and the nature of Christ's death on the cross, than Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or Arminian, "free-will" Christianity.

 

[Zurich]

The problem is that the theology that people adduce when they try to look at "the Bible alone" (penalty for sin, penal substitution atonement, justification by faith) is not good and is not right.

It is not true. It is morose, depressing, demoralizing. It has folded in a cloud through which many cannot see the stars of heaven, so that some of them even doubt if there be any stars of heaven. It takes all the glow, all the hope, all the colour, all the worth, out of life on earth, and offers instead what they call eternal bliss-a pale, tearless hell.

IT yields the idea of the Ancient of Days, 'the glad creator,' and puts in its stead a miserable, puritanical martinet of a God, caring not for righteousness, but for his rights; not for the eternal purities, but the goody proprieties.

It is as unworthy of man's belief, as it is dishonouring to God. Of all things, turn from a mean, poverty stricken faith.

That is why we need holy tradition -- to open up the document and to get rid of nasty theology. Holy tradition provides us with a beautiful, wonderful, hopeful alternative: transfiguration by judgment soteriology and Christus Victor.

 

[seekingpurity047]

That is why we need holy tradition -- to open up the document and to get rid of nasty theology. Holy tradition provides us with a beautiful, wonderful, hopeful alternative: transfiguration by judgment soteriology and Christus Victor.

And by tradition you mean falsehood, right? This whole thing is foolishness. These are all man-made theological theories that hold no water. Repent and believe the gospel.

To the glory of God,

Randy

 

[Zurich]

And by tradition you mean falsehood, right? This whole thing is foolishness. These are all man-made theological theories that hold no water. Repent and believe the gospel.

To the glory of God,

Randy

I honestly believe that St. Gregory of Nyssa's theology of God-man relations is true and the Reformed theories are false.

As for your call for repentance, I am repenting and shall be forever. Repentance is a process of moral transformation guided by God's punishment -- metanoia -- rather than assent to certain theories of God-man relations.

As for your call to "believe the gospel," in what you call the Gospel, in what you mean by the word, what I have already written must make it plain enough I do not believe. God forbid I should, for it would be to believe a lie.

But I do believe the Good News. Jesus sacrificed himself to his father and the children to bring them together-all the love on the side of the Father and the Son, all the selfishness on the side of the children.

 

[Erinwilcox]

The problem is that the theology that people adduce when they try to look at "the Bible alone" (penalty for sin, penal substitution atonement, justification by faith) is not good and is not right.

It is not true. It is morose, depressing, demoralizing. It has folded in a cloud through which many cannot see the stars of heaven, so that some of them even doubt if there be any stars of heaven. It takes all the glow, all the hope, all the colour, all the worth, out of life on earth, and offers instead what they call eternal bliss-a pale, tearless hell.

IT yields the idea of the Ancient of Days, 'the glad creator,' and puts in its stead a miserable, puritanical martinet of a God, caring not for righteousness, but for his rights; not for the eternal purities, but the goody proprieties.

It is as unworthy of man's belief, as it is dishonouring to God. Of all things, turn from a mean, poverty stricken faith.

That is why we need holy tradition -- to open up the document and to get rid of nasty theology. Holy tradition provides us with a beautiful, wonderful, hopeful alternative: transfiguration by judgment soteriology and Christus Victor.

Thus, in your mind, the "holy traditions" of men have more credibility than the Holy Bible. Religion is not about man, making man more comfortable, exalting the feelings of man above God. Christianity is about God, His holiness, His attributes, His honor, His glory. What you say dishonors God and His Word by shoving aside all that is sacred and holy for traditions made by man.
1Pe 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, [as] silver and gold, from your vain conversation [received] by tradition from your fathers;
Mar 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, [as] the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

You, my friend, are following after the vain traditions of man and making the word of God of no effect in your life. This is wrong and dangerous. Beware lest you follow after the tradition of men and thus fail to follow after Christ.

 

[Zurich]

Beware lest you follow after the tradition of men and thus fail to follow after Christ.

There is a big difference between following Christ and cogitating through various theories that people have constructed surrounding his name.

I believe in Jesus Christ. Nowhere am I requested to believe in any thing, or in any statement, but everywhere to believe in God and in Jesus Christ.

We trust Christ himself and should not have false trust in what Christ did. Paul glories in the cross of Christ, but he does not trust in the cross: he trusts in the living Christ and his living father.

 

[seekingpurity047]

But I do believe the Good News. Jesus sacrificed himself to his father and the children to bring them together-all the love on the side of the Father and the Son, all the selfishness on the side of the children.

Please tell me then, from your theories of tradition and such, what is this so called "Good News"? If it involves salvation, then what are we possibly saved from? If you are correct, we are technically saved from... frankly, nothing. That would make it all pretty pointless, ya think?

I think many people put so much emphasis on God's love that we forget His wrath as well. Go read the Old Testament again, then read the New Testament, and make some connections. God is both a God of love and a God of wrath. Please read scripture for yourself, I think it's pretty clear.

To the glory of God,

Randy

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

Please explain this! Why would the theory that God's punishments are for the purpose of correction be considered insane or evil?

Because they were not modern Westerners. Their cultures had an honor/shame paradigm, quite different from our own. Basically, honor was like a precious commodity, and if someone's (or some group's) honor was to be damaged, they would find it necessary to save face. There must be some retribution somewhere. They would have found your suggestion morally repulsive. Of course, they thought the same way about Christ's atonement, but this only serves to show that God cannot be judged by what makes sense to man. Obviously, men cannot even agree on what is plausible.

As I said in my original post, I do not accept the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement. What thoughtful and reflective man can believe that blood can appease a God? And yet the penal substitution theory is based upon that belief. The Jews gave Jehovah the blood of animals, and according to the penal substitution theory, the blood of Jesus rendered possible the pardon of a fortunate few.

So do you think that the Jews were wrong?

It is hard to conceive how the human mind can give assent to such a terrible idea.

And herein is the problem. You seem to have set the human mind as autonomous, above the law of God. I seem to recall something in Scripture about replying back against God.

I acknowledge no authority calling upon me to believe a thing of God, which I could not be a man and believe right in my fellow-man. I will accept no explanation of any way of God which explanation involves what I should scorn as false and unfair in a man. God may do what seems to a man not right, but it must so seem to him because God works on higher, on divine, on perfect principles, too right for a selfish, unfair, or unloving man to understand. To say on the authority of the Bible that God does a thing no honourable man would do, is to lie against God. But least of all must we accept some low notion of justice in a man, and argue that God is just in doing after that notion.

Good luck tearing all that unfair, unbelievable stuff out of your Bible. Perhaps you can consult the great Tommy Jefferson for some tips on that.

One thing is for certain, it is God who judges men, and it cannot be the other way 'round.

 

[Zurich]

What is this so called "Good News"? If it involves salvation, then what are we possibly saved from? If you are correct, we are technically saved from... frankly, nothing. That would make it all pretty pointless, ya think?

I think many people put so much emphasis on God's love that we forget His wrath as well. Go read the Old Testament again, then read the New Testament, and make some connections. God is both a God of love and a God of wrath. Please read scripture for yourself, I think it's pretty clear.

To the glory of God,

Randy

What if, God's wrath is his love? In this thread I have neither downplayed his wrath or his love, but have brought them together as Byzantine theology does.

God may inflict suffering upon us, both in this life and after our death; but always He does this out of tender love and with a positive purpose, so as to cleanse us from our sins, to purge and heal us. In Origen's words, "The fury of God's vengeance avails to the purging of our souls." (On First Principles 2.10.6).

"The love of God," writes Vladimir Lossky, "will be an intolerable torment to those who have not acquired it within themselves." Or, as George MacDonald put it, "The terror of God is but the other side of his love; it is love outside, that would be love inside."

This, then, is the good news: Divine judgment is transfiguring for the person who yields himself to its operation. God is such as Christ. God is just like Jesus, only greater yet, for Jesus said so.

As for the work of Christ, we can say: "Christ foiled and slayed evil by letting all the waves and billows of its horrid sea break upon him, go over him, and die without rebound-spend their rage, fall defeated, and cease." (Christus Victor).

The Good News is that Calvin's Institutes is not true.

As for what it is we're saved from if we are not saved from the operation of an infinite divine penalty for sin -- perhaps we're saved from sin itself? The salvation of Christ is salvation from the smallest tendency or leaning to sin. It is a deliverance into the pure air of God's ways of thinking and feeling. It is a salvation that makes the heart pure, with the will and choice of the heart to be pure.

 

[AndOne]

God is just like Jesus, only greater yet, for Jesus said so.

When and where? So is it safe to see you do not believe in the Trinity either?

 

[Zurich]

Their cultures had an honor/shame paradigm, quite different from our own. Basically, honor was like a precious commodity, and if someone's (or some group's) honor was to be damaged, they would find it necessary to save face. There must be some retribution somewhere.

And there is a God, too, who operates according to this purely human scheme of vendettas and vain, wasted cruelty? Is this the Good News?

Like a medeival lord, God imagines his honor to be tarnished by human evil and imagines it to be recovered by bringing the wronger to grief?

Is this portrait of your God an evil caricature of the face of Christ? Is it possible to say that to represent the living God as a party to such a style of action, is to veil with a mask of cruelty and hypocrisy the face whose glory can he seen only in the face of Jesus?

 

[Zurich]

I it safe to see you do not believe in the Trinity either?

Please don't play the "gotcha" game with me. I have already assented to Trinitarian Theism of the Nicene Creed -- a theology which, as I said before, was developed by the Cappadocian fathers, Byzantine theologians who shared my understanding of God-man relations.

 

[Zurich]

One thing is for certain, it is God who judges men, and it cannot be the other way 'round.

Fine -- let him judge, let him enforce his law. I believe that the operation of his judgment and punishment is pedagogical, and therefore I welcome it; although I recognize that the joy that God brings is a gift and is not deserved.

 

[AndOne]

Please don't play the "gotcha" game with me. I have already assented to Trinitarian Theism of the Nicene Creed -- a theology which, as I said before, was developed by the Cappadocian fathers, Byzantine theologians who shared my understanding of God-man relations.

Well - I'm not so sure - and it was a bonifide honest-to-goodness question. I'm not here to play games. However - I'm not so sure about someone who can't answer a simple question - such as the one I asked you in regards to when and where Jesus said God was greater than He.

 

[Zurich]

Jesus says God is like me—humble, lowly, meek. Matthew 11:29, John 14:9

 

[AndOne]

Jesus says God is like me—humble, lowly, meek. Matthew 11:29, John 14:9

Okay thanks - but that is really not the same thing as saying that God is greater than He is.

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

And there is a God, too, who operates according to this purely human scheme of vendettas and vain, wasted cruelty? Is this the Good News?

Like a medeival lord, God imagines his honor to be tarnished by human evil and imagines it to be recovered by bringing the wronger to grief?

Is this portrait of your God an evil caricature of the face of Christ? Is it possible to say that to represent the living God as a party to such a style of action, is to veil with a mask of cruelty and hypocrisy the face whose glory can he seen only in the face of Jesus?

Careful. I didn't say it was a view I espoused. What I am saying is that different cultures produce different men with different presuppositions, and therefore different standards of plausibility. Yours appears to be a very modern one.

 

[strengthinweakness]

The problem is that the theology that people adduce when they try to look at "the Bible alone" (penalty for sin, penal substitution atonement, justification by faith) is not good and is not right.

It is not true. It is morose, depressing, demoralizing. It has folded in a cloud through which many cannot see the stars of heaven, so that some of them even doubt if there be any stars of heaven. It takes all the glow, all the hope, all the colour, all the worth, out of life on earth, and offers instead what they call eternal bliss-a pale, tearless hell.

IT yields the idea of the Ancient of Days, 'the glad creator,' and puts in its stead a miserable, puritanical martinet of a God, caring not for righteousness, but for his rights; not for the eternal purities, but the goody proprieties.

It is as unworthy of man's belief, as it is dishonouring to God. Of all things, turn from a mean, poverty stricken faith.

That is why we need holy tradition -- to open up the document and to get rid of nasty theology. Holy tradition provides us with a beautiful, wonderful, hopeful alternative: transfiguration by judgment soteriology and Christus Victor.

Zurich, you say that there is a problem with "the theology that people adduce when they try to look at the Bible alone." Furthermore, you say that "we need holy tradition-- to open up the document and get rid of nasty theology." Please understand that I mean this question in love, not in a spirit of attack-- but do you really realize what it is that you are actually saying with your statements? Please, I ask you in love, look at them again, and think about their implications. Whether it is intentional on your part or not, you are saying that the infallible word of God, alone, is either not sufficient, or that it takes believers in a bad direction theologically. Therefore, we need the fallible words of men (words which were not "God-breathed" as Scripture claims itself to be in 2 Timothy 3:16) to be a corrective to the theology that results when we read the Bible alone. The "non-God-breathed" thoughts of fallible men, added to the Bible (and often contradicting it, I have to say, in honesty) make up a theology which is "more true," in your reasoning, than the word of God is, when simply read alone, on its own terms! Do you see how dangerous this way of thinking is? It leads us further and further away from the actual words of the Bible, and more and more towards the words of theologians and church fathers.

Now, having said that, there is nothing wrong with studying theology and church fathers-- but one must do so with a Biblically discerning spirit, always remembering that the words of fallible theologians and yes, even fallible church fathers, must be read and evaluated in light of what the Bible already says. This is true for me, as a Reformed Christian, and it is true for all believers. If a theologian or church father contradicts what the Bible teaches, then the Bible is right, and he is wrong. The Bible teaches (again, in the entire 53rd chapter of Isaiah, Romans 5:9, and 2 Corinthians 5:21, as a start) that Christ, as God the Son, endured God the Father's wrath on the cross for sinners. The Biblical texts are very clear. Romans 5:9 states that we, as Christians, have been"justified by His blood" and "saved from God's wrath through him." Isaiah 53:5 states that "he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds, we are healed." This is the Gospel. Jesus Christ, the perfect son of God, was punished by God the Father for sinners, in their rightful, deserved place, and sinners may have a restored relationship with the one true holy God, true fellowship with Him, by repenting (turning away from) their sins, and trusting in Christ as Lord over their lives and Savior from their sins. This is the Biblical "Good News." We, as sinners, deserve God's wrath, but Jesus suffered God's wrath in the place of sinners. The very word that you so strongly object to, "punishment," is right there in the text of Isaiah 53:5, applied to Jesus, and ascribed to God the Father! No matter how much you, or I, or anyone else, "likes" the thought, in terms of our natural (fallen) understanding, it is clear from the text of Isaiah 53:5, and from other texts of the Bible, that Jesus was punished by God the Father in the place of sinners. Are you going to believe the Bible, the inspired, "God-breathed" word of God, as 2 Timothy 3:16 states, or are you going to believe the words of fallible theologians and church fathers? As a Reformed Christian, the ultimate reason that I subscribe to Reformed theology at all is because the Bible, the infallible, God-breathed word of God, has brought me there. To God alone be the glory!

 

[Zurich]

C.S. Lewis, who also believed in a soteriology of transfiguration by wrath -- that God punishes for amendment purposes only -- contrary to Reformed theology, answered the question this way:

"If "good" means "what God wills" then to say "God is good" can mean only "God wills what he wills." Which is equally true of you or me or Judas or Satan."

"If God’s moral judgement differs from ours so that our “black” may be His “white,” we can mean nothing by calling Him good; for to say “God is good,” while asserting that His goodness is wholly other than ours, is really only to say “God is we know not what.”

"The ultimate question is whether the doctrine of the goodness of God or that of the inerrancy of Scriptures is to prevail when they conflict. I think the doctrine of the goodness of God is the more certain of the two indeed, only that doctrine renders this worship of Him obligatory or even permissible."
​

The Bible says that God is virtuous. Once that has been said, you have the opportunity to believe that he enforces his law by (a) teaching, or by (b) penalizing. But do not claim that your interpretive choice of (b) was overdetermined by the Biblical witness, because it is not.

You yourself have decided that it is a virtuous thing for God to enforce his law by rendering infinite penalties upon the non-believing sinner or Christ as his substitute, and you cannot then blame the Bible for your theories.

 

[mlqurgw]

A Defense of Penal Substitution​

To say that the death of the Lord Jesus Christ was anything other than a penal substitution, Christ dieing in the place of sinners, is to say that there is really no value in His death. To say that His death was not an act of justice is to deny that God is just. It is my intention to prove that the death of Christ was both a substitution and an act of divine justice. More than that, it was an act of sovereign mercy on the part of God. I will begin by showing that it was an act of justice.
It is certainly true that there is no parallel in natural or civil justice to compare the death of Christ against. No just court in any land would even consider punishing an innocent in the place of the guilty. God Himself declares that to be an abomination: Pro 17:15 He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD. Natural Law dictates that guilt cannot be transferred to an innocent. Neither the judge or the innocent have the right or authority of themselves to allow such a notion. The judge because he is subject to a higher authority and the innocent because he also is subject to a higher authority and has no right over his own life to give it in the place of another. This is not in dispute, but it must be remembered that God is not bound by natural Law. He alone has both the right and authority to dictate what is right and just. There is no higher authority than God. As the Sovereign of all creation He can in perfect justice and sovereign mercy accept the substitution of another in the place of the guilty. Christ, as the God-man, has every right and authority to give His life in the place of another because that right and authority was given to him by the Father. John 10:18
Sin incurs guilt and places the guilty under a curse or penalty. Guilt is not derived by the act of sin but by the greatness of the one against whom it is committed. The Supreme Sovereign of the universe has every right to demand of His subjects obedience. He too has the right to punish those who are disobedient. That cannot be questioned. To consider what God may have done is moot because it is clear from the Scriptures that God has decreed that the soul that sins shall die.
Eze 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. Divine justice demands satisfaction for the offense. We need not read very far into the Book of God to find this truth. God told Adam that he would die in the day that he was disobedient. God’s destruction of the world by flood clearly shows His Divine displeasure and righteous punishment of those who oppose Him. The Scriptures are full of examples that God does punish according to justice and wrath. The writer to the Hebrews put it well when he said it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Heb. 10:31
The death of Christ was substitutionary in design. Again we need not go far into the Bible to find the first instance of substitution. In Gen. 3:21 we are told that God clothed our first parents with the skin of an animal. From that point sacrifices were brought because of sin and pointed to and pictured the one great sacrifice of Christ.
God did act in a sovereign manner to be merciful to sinners. To be sure, it flows from His great love, mercy and goodness but not from necessity. The wondrous divine attribute of mercy does not obligate God to show mercy. The act of mercy is from the sovereign will and pleasure of God. Eph. 1:3-12 make that abundantly clear. God has purposed, according to His good pleasure, to be merciful to chosen sinners and had acted in all wisdom and prudence to accomplish His perfect will and pleasure. In the
most wise and perfect councils of God He has made a way for ungodly sinners to be at peace with Him and He at peace with them. That is why the writer of the 85th Psalm can say that things which oppose each other have both met and kissed each other. Psa 85:10 Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other.
God did also act in a sovereign manner towards Christ. He was under no obligation to accept the substitution of Christ in the place of chosen sinners. Praise be to God that He did, according to the good pleasure of His will, accept Christ as the substitute for elect sinners. It is an act of justice for God to punish sins but an act of sovereign mercy to place upon Christ the penalty incurred by sin. God, in sovereignty, determined to make Christ, who knew no sin, sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. 2Cor. 5:21
Moreover, the suffering of Christ show us that His death was penal. A simple cursory reading of Isa. 53 is enough to show that Christ bore sin and suffered because of it. He was bruised for our iniquities and by His stripes we are healed. The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all. For the transgression of my people was He stricken. It pleased to Lord to bruise Him; He hath put Him to grief. He shall see of the travail of His soul and shall be satisfied; by His knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many for He shall bear their iniquities. He bare the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors. This is good news indeed. But we need not stop there. Paul writing to the Galatians tells us that Christ was made a curse for us. Gal. 3:13 And again in Col. 2:14 we are told that Christ has blotted out the handwriting of ordinances which were against us nailing them to His cross. Peter tells us that He bore our sin in His own body on the tree, the just for the unjust. 1Pet. 2:24, 3:18 What more needs to be said? Still I will add this, the church is said to be the body of Christ and Him the head. If the head suffers the body suffers in Him. Even more we are told in Heb. 9:26 that He put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. The sin of chosen. elect sinners was the meritorious cause of the death of Christ.
The value of the death of Christ in the place of chosen sinners is next in consideration. No one supposes that the death of Christ was to make God merciful. The death of Christ is because of God’s mercy. The value of the death of Christ springs from the infinite dignity of His person and His sufferings. He who is both God and man had no sin of his own which would have incurred a penalty. More than that His perfect righteousness deserved to be rewarded by all the blessings of God. But, as has been clearly shown, He did die and suffer because of sin. Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice for sin. Heb.7:27, 9:14,25 He was not compelled to do it by any agreement but freely offered Himself in the place of chosen sinners. He is said to be the servant of God and He was. Isa. 42:1 He even says that He is the servant of men. Lk. 22:27 , Matt. 20:28 Christ made Himself the Surety of sinners. He says that he came to do the will of God. John 6:38, Heb. 10:7-9 He also says that He gives His life. John 10:11 As has been already seen He had power to lay it down and power to take it up again. John 10:18 He who is God gave Himself the substitute for elect sinners and by his death accomplished eternal redemption for them. Heb. 1:3, 9:11,12 Because of who He is salvation is sure to all that come to God by Him.
Much more can be said concerning this matter but this should suffice to show that the death of Christ was both penal and substitutionary for chosen sinners. I gratefully acknowledge the immense help of John Brine in “ The true sense of the atonement of for sin in the death of Christ” and John Murray in “ Redemption Accomplished and Applied” for putting me on the right path and for showing me what Christ has actually done on my behalf.