How did Jesus Christ save us?

[francisdesales]

Several of us have been having a long discussion on the subject of "how did Jesus save us" in several other threads, and thought it might be interesting to expound on it a little.

It seems that many people believe that Jesus had to die because God required blood - and by this blood of the Perfect Servant, the Law could be fulfilled and God could grant salvation/redemption to mankind, undoing what Adam did.

Some of this is based upon St. Anselm's Theory of Atonement. He was a child of his time. During the Middle Ages, it was thought that God, like a king of the era, would REQUIRE that He receive satisfaction if He was affronted. Thus, the idea of satisfaction. But careful analysis brings up a few questions on that idea, which has largely been dismissed more recently.

And so, to simplify, how about some feedback on this?

How did Jesus save us?

By making us part of Himself...

This is the concept of "divinization", being REALLY MADE part of the Body of Christ. Those in Christ are saved. By becoming man and the death and resurrection, Jesus enabled the "rest of us men" to become part of Him, as well.
In addition, it goes beyond the "legal imputation" and forensic justification" of other salvation theologies, more accurately describing God as a God of Love who desires union, not a legal judge Who is more concerned with legal status.

Think of Jesus' response to Paul - "Why do you persecute ME", and Paul's subsequent writings on the Body of Christ and his numerous "in Christ" statements...

Any comments?

Regards

 

[childeye]

As I understand it, Origen believed that there were elements in heaven that did demand satisfaction and as such, the Old Testament being administered by angels was a means of keeping men righteous through fear of death. Hence Paul writes that the Laws and ordinances were nailed to the cross making a spectacle of principalities and powers in high places. That is why Origen felt Satan was paid the blood so to speak. Also that is why Christ's blood is the cost of his Love, and those who recognize this Love as Godly are his whom he died for. So who or what does the wolf represent in the following parable?

John 10:9-15

King James Version (KJV)



9I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
10The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
11I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
12But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.
13The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
14I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. 15As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

 

[jasoncran]

simply put he was the lamb that came to be the sin sacrifise. man needed a high priest to intercede for him. god sent the son to be that sacrifice. i wont go into the whole deal but here it is.
leviticus 16
10But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness

hmm and theres this.

for ye a peculiar nation and a royal priesthood and also what did that priest do? make reconcilation for the sinners. but in the ot there had to a cleansing of the priests first.

i hope you all see where i am going.

 

[francisdesales]

As I understand it, Origen believed that there were elements in heaven that did demand satisfaction and as such, the Old Testament being administered by angels was a means of keeping men righteous through fear of death. Hence Paul writes that the Laws and ordinances were nailed to the cross making a spectacle of principalities and powers in high places. That is why Origen felt Satan was paid the blood so to speak. Also that is why Christ's blood is the cost of his Love, and those who recognize this Love as Godly are his whom he died for. So who or what does the wolf represent in the following parable?

John 10:9-15

King James Version (KJV)



9I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
10The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
11I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
12But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.
13The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
14I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. 15As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Interesting. I know some of the ideas of the Fathers were not well accepted by the rest of the Church or other Fathers. Origen, for example, wondered if at the end, God would empty hell, for which, I believe among something else, his doctrine was condemned.

As to the wolf, could it be demons sent by Satan? Or perhaps the ways of the world that snare the "sheep" and fall away from the faith?

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

simply put he was the lamb that came to be the sin sacrifise. man needed a high priest to intercede for him. god sent the son to be that sacrifice. i wont go into the whole deal but here it is.
leviticus 16
10But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness

hmm and theres this.

for ye a peculiar nation and a royal priesthood and also what did that priest do? make reconcilation for the sinners. but in the ot there had to a cleansing of the priests first.

i hope you all see where i am going.

It does seem that God offers forgiveness to those who repent, and the priest offers prayers for repentance for the whole community. Jesus continues to intercede for us, according to Hebrews, so this would appear to be one of His primary works that continues.

I am wondering what you think about "divinization" and how it relates to sanctification and being MADE holy by God's presence within us.

Regards

 

[childeye]

Interesting. I know some of the ideas of the Fathers were not well accepted by the rest of the Church or other Fathers. Origen, for example, wondered if at the end, God would empty hell, for which, I believe among something else, his doctrine was condemned.

As to the wolf, could it be demons sent by Satan? Or perhaps the ways of the world that snare the "sheep" and fall away from the faith?

Regards

It was written on another thread I think about how God tested Abraham by asking him to sacrifice his son. Then God stopped Abraham because he did not need prove it and then God provided the Ram. The bitter sweet sorrow of the Holy Spirit is that Jesus died for those he never would have had to prove anything to. That is why they can believe in him.

I point you to the description of the wolf, that the wolf scatters and so the ways of the world could only apply to the enemy of Love working in man. I hope you read some of Jasoncrans and my own correspondence. It will help see what I'm getting at. To know what Jesus saved us from will help to understand how Jesus saved us.

 

[Danus]

Several of us have been having a long discussion on the subject of "how did Jesus save us" in several other threads, and thought it might be interesting to expound on it a little.

It seems that many people believe that Jesus had to die because God required blood - and by this blood of the Perfect Servant, the Law could be fulfilled and God could grant salvation/redemption to mankind, undoing what Adam did.

Some of this is based upon St. Anselm's Theory of Atonement. He was a child of his time. During the Middle Ages, it was thought that God, like a king of the era, would REQUIRE that He receive satisfaction if He was affronted. Thus, the idea of satisfaction. But careful analysis brings up a few questions on that idea, which has largely been dismissed more recently.

And so, to simplify, how about some feedback on this?

How did Jesus save us?

By making us part of Himself...

This is the concept of "divinization", being REALLY MADE part of the Body of Christ. Those in Christ are saved. By becoming man and the death and resurrection, Jesus enabled the "rest of us men" to become part of Him, as well.
In addition, it goes beyond the "legal imputation" and forensic justification" of other salvation theologies, more accurately describing God as a God of Love who desires union, not a legal judge Who is more concerned with legal status.

Think of Jesus' response to Paul - "Why do you persecute ME", and Paul's subsequent writings on the Body of Christ and his numerous "in Christ" statements...

Any comments?

Regards

I guess I've never asked the question how did Jesus save us?

For me the question has been more; Why did Jesus die? Not; why did Jesus have to die?, Just why did he die.

I say this because I've never felt that God required a blood sacrifice, but that he did this as an act of mercy towards us. To me the death of Christ is a fitting and brilliant plan from God, but I suppose I only contemplated this after I accepted my salvation, and never before.

divinization? I'll have to study up on that, but feel free to expand on it. History of this concept, major figures and such. What can you say more of it? Don't recall stumbling on this term within the Protestant movement. Does it fit the Reformation? Accepted, rejected ,or do you know?

 

[Grubal Muruch]

I guess I've never asked the question how did Jesus save us?

For me the question has been more; Why did Jesus die? Not; why did Jesus have to die?, Just why did he die.

I say this because I've never felt that God required a blood sacrifice, but that he did this as an act of mercy towards us. To me the death of Christ is a fitting and brilliant plan from God, but I suppose I only contemplated this after I accepted my salvation, and never before.

divinization? I'll have to study up on that, but feel free to expand on it. History of this concept, major figures and such. What can you say more of it? Don't recall stumbling on this term within the Protestant movement. Does it fit the Reformation? Accepted, rejected ,or do you know?

Danus---You just made a "Freudian" slip. you said, "but I suppose I only contemplated this after (I accepted my salvation,) and never before. I thought you didn't believe in works for salvation. and here you said, "I accepted my salvation." Do you wish to rephrase that error??

 

[jasoncran]

It does seem that God offers forgiveness to those who repent, and the priest offers prayers for repentance for the whole community. Jesus continues to intercede for us, according to Hebrews, so this would appear to be one of His primary works that continues.

I am wondering what you think about "divinization" and how it relates to sanctification and being MADE holy by God's presence within us.

Regards

are you talking about divining as pyschics or prophetic utterance? etc.

 

[francisdesales]

are you talking about divining as pyschics or prophetic utterance? etc.

Neither.

Divinization or Theosis (as it is called in the East) is being made in the image of God. Sharing/partaking in the divine nature. Not ontologically, but taking on a new nature where we follow a different principle, that of the Holy Spirit. As we share in the divine nature, we are able to unconditionally love, forgive others without demands, grant mercy to others, and so forth.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I guess I've never asked the question how did Jesus save us?

For me the question has been more; Why did Jesus die? Not; why did Jesus have to die?, Just why did he die.

I say this because I've never felt that God required a blood sacrifice, but that he did this as an act of mercy towards us. To me the death of Christ is a fitting and brilliant plan from God, but I suppose I only contemplated this after I accepted my salvation, and never before.

divinization? I'll have to study up on that, but feel free to expand on it. History of this concept, major figures and such. What can you say more of it? Don't recall stumbling on this term within the Protestant movement. Does it fit the Reformation? Accepted, rejected ,or do you know?

The term is from the ancient Fathers. Say, Second Century...

"God became man so that man could become gods" (by adoption, not ontologically!) Irenaeus

I think classical Reformers either rejected the idea, going with a "forensic justificastion" as opposed to "infused" or they misunderstood the concept because Catholicism in the 16th century had lost some focus on such things as being made into the image of God via our new nature. It is unfortunate, because forensic justification loses a lot when we look at the actual relationship that has been forged by Christ in the New Covenant, a familial one, rather than merely a legal one. (such as Christ died to satisfy the Law, not to share His Love with us)

As we are drawn into the Body of Christ (which we take much more literally than a mere 'status'), we are being made into the Divine Nature. As we are drawn into Christ, we become more sanctified, made holy. It is not a "legal status", but an act of God drawing us to Himself.

Regards

 

[jasoncran]

Neither.

Divinization or Theosis (as it is called in the East) is being made in the image of God. Sharing/partaking in the divine nature. Not ontologically, but taking on a new nature where we follow a different principle, that of the Holy Spirit. As we share in the divine nature, we are able to unconditionally love, forgive others without demands, grant mercy to others, and so forth.

Regards

ah that is taught when they say when god see us he see christ as his blood cover us and we are transformed from a dead human into a man wholly restored to the image of god that adam once enjoyed.

that is what christ came to restore.for by one man death did enter and by the second adam(who btw had to be perfect) did life enter.


wow that is awesome.

 

[jasoncran]

ah that is taught when they say when god see us he see christ as his blood cover us and we are transformed from a dead human into a man wholly restored to the image of god that adam once enjoyed.

that is what christ came to restore.for by one man death did enter and by the second adam(who btw had to be perfect) did life enter.


wow that is awesome.

i see it now. adam was challenged by satan and fell the second adam didnt fall and was allowed to be restorer of man to god.

man that just came to me.

 

[francisdesales]

ah that is taught when they say when god see us he see christ as his blood cover us and we are transformed from a dead human into a man wholly restored to the image of god that adam once enjoyed.

Not quite, Jason.

Forensic justification states that there is no actual change, but that Jesus' righteousness covers our own in this new status. Infused justification states that we REALLY ARE being made in the image of Christ by that union. We really ARE being made holy, not just covered by someone else's holiness.

Luther's image of a pile of dung covered with new snow is not what we have in mind when viewing the "new creation". It still stinks!

This is why I state above "HOW did Jesus save us" - by making us part of Him - is not merely a "covering" or "hiding". Perhaps another analogy is taking a drop of black liquid (us) in a large container and pouring ten gallons of white liquid (Jesus) into it. That is sort of what happens -

Love falls into us. We don't fall in love!

Think about it!

that is what christ came to restore.for by one man death did enter and by the second adam(who btw had to be perfect) did life enter.

wow that is awesome.

Indeed. What a happy fault, that has brought us this wonderful Savior!

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

i see it now. adam was challenged by satan and fell the second adam didnt fall and was allowed to be restorer of man to god.

man that just came to me.

!!!

Jesus is the Mediator between God and mankind. As our representative, he replaces the former representative, Adam (thus, called the Second Adam by Paul). How could the Father reject the Son after such humble obedience to His Will? He "couldn't"!

All we need to do is remove "requirement" from our vocabulary when discussing what God did. Love has no such "requirements". Only the Law requires. But love trumps the law. Love is the fulfillment of the Law!

Regards

 

[Grubal Muruch]

!!!

Jesus is the Mediator between God and mankind. As our representative, he replaces the former representative, Adam (thus, called the Second Adam by Paul). How could the Father reject the Son after such humble obedience to His Will? He "couldn't"!

All we need to do is remove "requirement" from our vocabulary when discussing what God did. Love has no such "requirements". Only the Law requires. But love trumps the law. Love is the fulfillment of the Law!

Regards

Christ saved us by paying the price for our sins on the cross and by being resurrected...

 

[francisdesales]

Christ saved us by paying the price for our sins on the cross and by being resurrected...

Well, let's put aside the idea of buying salvation for a minute and consider how Christ's work benefits us in the realm of salvation.

Regards

 

[childeye]

i see it now. adam was challenged by satan and fell the second adam didnt fall and was allowed to be restorer of man to god.

man that just came to me.

Right on Jasoncran, you go boy.

 

[Danus]

The term is from the ancient Fathers. Say, Second Century...

"God became man so that man could become gods" (by adoption, not ontologically!) Irenaeus

I think classical Reformers either rejected the idea, going with a "forensic justificastion" as opposed to "infused" or they misunderstood the concept because Catholicism in the 16th century had lost some focus on such things as being made into the image of God via our new nature. It is unfortunate, because forensic justification loses a lot when we look at the actual relationship that has been forged by Christ in the New Covenant, a familial one, rather than merely a legal one. (such as Christ died to satisfy the Law, not to share His Love with us)

As we are drawn into the Body of Christ (which we take much more literally than a mere 'status'), we are being made into the Divine Nature. As we are drawn into Christ, we become more sanctified, made holy. It is not a "legal status", but an act of God drawing us to Himself.

Regards

This crossed my mind on my drive into work this morning. The subject of justification.

To be fair, I make a big distinction between the Catholic church of today and the Catholic church of during the 16th century at the time of the reformation. I leave some room for the idea of a type of "cooperation" between us and Christ as so far as our relationship with him, and the work being done within us, but I give far more credence to the ideology of Christ imputed righteousness to us, rather than a "tangible" righteousness existing within us, as if there is some effort in tandem with Christ, which is how I view infused righteousness.

Now, I know I've set myself up for argument in saying this, but I don't mean to say that we do not display, express, or exercise in some way, the righteousness of Christ. I only mean that any righteousness we do express, or display, or offer in some way, either publicly or privately, is not of us, but of Christ only.

What I am expressing here may seem to be getting away from the main topic of justification, but I think you would agree that it runs concurrent, in so much as our Christian life is very much tied to our initial salvation and how we conceptualize that salvation.

So for me, If I am not initially justified by my own abilities to be so, then I am no more worthy ((((on my own))) after justification to be righteous, and that any righteousness within me is ONLY the righteousness of Christ Jesus, not of myself in any way. I don't see a difference between forensic justification and Infused righteousness. I am open to the idea that I may be making a mistake within my own understanding. This may be a difference in definition of infused vs Imputed righteousness, but I offer it for the purpose of definition, my definition, and I would like to hear more about yours and Catholicism today as it relates to infused vs imputed.

To save space thought I'd double up on one post

Danus---You just made a "Freudian" slip. you said, "but I suppose I only contemplated this after (I accepted my salvation,) and never before. I thought you didn't believe in works for salvation. and here you said, "I accepted my salvation." Do you wish to rephrase that error??

Yes Grubal. I would like to correct this error, and I think you for the opportunity.

Rather than rephrase what I've said; "I accepted my salvation." Allow me to make the correction with an explanation, because I can see how you would think this being a slip on my part, based on what I've said of salvation vs what you've expressed of your own understanding of salvation in other threads. You deserve an explanation.

So here is another explanation of the difference between those who feel they have somehow earned their salvation by making all the right choices, and those, such as my self, who feel we are chosen by God by accepting our salvation which is available to all.

Rather than have chosen to be saved on my own by God for fear of Hell, I gave no thought, and still don't, to the idea that I am being saved from anything more destructive than my own self which I relate to Hell. In other words for me, Hell is no worse than my own nature. I see myself as no good in me, of my own self.

This is not to say that I was a "bad person" by man's definition, but that my nature, the nature of every man, is no good. So in that, I knew Satin well before I ever knew Christ, but I did not know that until I meet Christ, and only after accepting my salvation did I know the difference. After all, how can one who is not saved know what it's like to be separated from God, when they are already separated from God? No one can know this separation until they are first in relationship with God.

Some people see themselves in the middle with God on one end and Satin on the other and they decide to walk towards God because they fear the other. One is better than the other from what they have "heard" from the word.

Although we can both say our hope lies in Christ, their initial hope lies in their ability to make the right decision to accept and be accepted by Christ so that they don't end up in Hell. My initial hope lies in Christ ability to accept me regardless of me, which is not something up to me, but only him.

Where others searched for Christ, I was found by Christ. Where others work to be more like Christ, I allow Christ to do with me as he will. Where others ask Christ to do for them, I ask Christ for what he'd have of me. My trust in Christ is completely of Christ. Some others trust in Christ is also shared in their ability to make the right moves for Christ.

So the error in the phrase, "I accepted my salvation.", lies in the understanding of the difference between working by effort for ones salvation and what is simply accepting salvation by pure faith alone, when in fact one realizes there is no choice because one was already dead before salvation.

Here are phrases I can relate to my salvation; I was lost and now I'm found. I was blind and now I see. These statements leave no alternative to the faith found in the reality of the end result of being saved. It's real, It happened, on solid ground. It's tangible.

Here are the same phrases rewritten to match a meritorious, or earned view of salvation. : I was lost and wondering which way to go.I saw this sign pointing this way. It looked good to me and so that's the way I went, and I hope it ends well. I trust it will based on my ability to make the right decision on my direction, because I'm told it leads to being found and when I get there I'll be found.

*** OR ***

I was blind, so I did something by choice to have a procedure and now I can see.......... These statements leave alternatives to the faith not found in the end result, because there is yet to be an end result, but to hope in the means to an end.

I don't hope to be saved, I am. I don't hope for eternal life with Christ. I already have it. I'm just physically living out my time here until God brings me home, and I care not when that is, because whenever it is it will be the right time for him to do so. I have no choice, and I do not want the choice.

*** One last illustration to make a point about salvation by faith only.

life guards are often trained not to go in after a flailing victim. Why? because they will place themselves at risk of drowning as well, because the flailing victim is so fearful of the water and of drowning that he will cling to anything, including the one who is trying to save his life.

Rather, life guards, are trained to wait until the victim has worn themselves down. CPR is very affective and you can bring someone into shore a lot easier when they have given up trying to save themselves.

That person only has real hope once they realize they have been saved. They only have real faith in the life guard once they have been revived.

Before actually being saved, when they where flailing in the water fearful for their life, worried and frightened, we can say they had hope and faith in the life guard, but if they truly did they would have just relaxed. What they think was hope and faith in the life guard was nothing more at the time than a strong desire to be saved. However, once a drowning victim has been saved, there is no more fear of the condition, the situation they where once in.

Many people hold a thought that they can willfully choose to be saved, by choosing God. Some of those people, maybe many, I've no idea, will take their "choice" even further and waddle in their own worry, always asking themselves "I'm I actually saved"? The reason I think this often comes up is because these people are still holding on to their own will for their own life, which they value far more than they are willing to trust in the salvation God provides.

In their doubt they will often set up their own rules and use scripture to back up their "goodness". They will make clear distinctions of what is sin and what is not in hope and determination that they will follow the rules so that they may be found blameless in the eyes of God when it comes to the judgement of God.

What they fail to realize is that in this schema, they are not trusting in God at all, but rather in their own abilities. In the end they will often saying things like; we can't really know we are saved until the end when we know for sure. They are trusting in a means to an end, rather than the end which provides the means.

I can't ask "I'm I really saved?" I know for a fact, and I know for me it has nothing what so ever to do with me. How do I know this? because I was blind and now I see. I was lost and now I'm found. I did nothing to heal myself, or find myself. If Jesus wants to say it was my faith, then let him say that, but it was no faith in me that he did not provide me. Just as the blind man did not say he had anything to do with his own recovery of sight.

I think at this point I've been as honest with my belief and understanding as I can be. I've tried to use all of my own words here, no religious saying's, no flowery speeches. I am unarmed.

On thing I noticed that I don't think I mentioned to you in regards to your testimony is that I found it very much like that of Martin Luther, your story that is.

He was also terrified of Hell and he did all he could to be the man he thought he needed to be to be truly saved. He finally accepted his salvation, that was there all along, the moment he realized that his salvation had nothing to do with his effort to be saved , and if I can quote Martin Luther; "my conscience lies in the word of God. Here I stand. I can do no other." This is a quote from what some might say was his darkest hour.

Hope that clears it up.

 

[glorydaz]

This crossed my mind on my drive into work this morning. The subject of justification.

Now, I know I've set myself up for argument in saying this, but I don't mean to say that we do not display, express, or exercise in some way, the righteousness of Christ. I only mean that any righteousness we do express, or display, or offer in some way, either publicly or privately, is not of us, but of Christ only.

So for me, If I am not initially justified by my own abilities to be so, then I am no more worthy ((((on my own))) after justification to be righteous, and that any righteousness within me is ONLY the righteousness of Christ Jesus, not of myself in any way. I don't see a difference between forensic justification and Infused righteousness. I am open to the idea that I may be making a mistake within my own understanding.

I would agree that we're justified by faith and it's the righteousness of Christ that is counted as ours. It's His righteousness that allows us to come before the throne of God. Then the process of our being made holy, sanctification, begins. We're being transformed into the image of Christ by the renewing of our mind.

And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

As we grow in the Lord, we will become more like Him. Just as children grow up to be like their fathers, we grow to be more like ours...we're children of a Holy God.