Reddit mentions: The best christian salvation books

> Which passage are you talking about? I do believe there are benefits to being where the Word is preached, but they are not saving

The end of Romans 2 and the beginning of Romans 3 discusses this exact thing. Paul says that just being a Jew isn't enough, that they all broke the law, and that the important thing is having a circumcised heart. Then in Romans 3 he says "So since just being a Jew and a physical heir to that covenant doesn't actually save you, what's the point?" (Which seems to be exactly your question.) Then he says the have "much (advantage) in every way!" although he doesn't elaborate a whole lot.

In other words, Paul says that being in the external covenant isn't salvific per se, but it is still beneficial.

> I still can't grasp what the difference is between my kids (or, your kids, if they have to be baptized!) and my neighbor's kids.

IMO this is the weakest part of the Covenant Theology argument. I am not fully satisfied with our answer.

But let's lay that aside for a minute. The question is if they are in the covenant, not if they get any benefit from it.

I think it's manifest that the Abrahamic covenant had a dual nature, and that this carried over to the NT. There are different ways of expressing it; Berkhof says that it's a "legal relationship" (the external or visible part) and a "communion of life" (the internal, spiritual, invisible, salvific aspect).

Here's Berkhof again, he's clearer than I am.

> The covenant in that sense may exist even when nothing is done to realize its purpose, namely the condition to which it points and for which it calls as the real ideal. The parties that live under this agreement are in the covenant, since they are subject to the mutual stipulations agreed upon. In the legal sphere everything is considered and regulated in a purely objective way. The determining factor in that sphere is simply the relation which has been established, and not the attitude which one assumes to that relation. The relation exists independently of one’s inclination or disinclination, one’s likes and dislikes, in connection with it. It would seem to be in the light of this distinction that the question should be answered, Who are in the covenant of grace? If the question is asked with the legal relationship, and that only, in mind, and really amounts to the query, Who are in duty bound to live in the covenant, and of whom may it be expected that they will do this? —the answer is, believers and their children. But if the question is asked with a view to the covenant as a communion of life, and assumes the quite different form, In whom does this legal relationship issue in a living communion with Christ? — the answer can only be, only in the regenerate, who are endowed with the principle of faith, that is, in the elect.

So my claim is that children are under the legal obligations, or the administration, of the covenant of grace, whether or not they fulfill their end of the bargain, and regardless of what benefits this brings. They grow up as Christians. They learn the faith. They worship with the saints, here the gospel preached, are prayed for and loved, and have access to the means of grace. Scripturally, we would say they "have ... been enlightened, ... have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come" (Hebrews 6:4-6). If they betray that covenant, well, it is possible to be worse than an unbeliever. (1 Tim 5:8). It would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them (1 Peter 2:21). They are like the man who swept his house clean and when an unclean spirit returns it brings seven more, and the last condition is worse than the first. (Luke 11).

But that's not really satisfying. There are benefits. Berkhof again:

> With respect to the children of believers ... in their case there must be a reasonable assurance that the covenant is not or will not remain a mere legal relationship, with external duties and privileges, pointing to that which ought to be, but is also or will in time become a living reality. This assurance is based on the promise of God, which is absolutely reliable, that He will work in the hearts of the covenant youth with His saving grace and transform them into living members of the covenant. The covenant is more than the mere offer of salvation, more even than the offer of salvation plus the promise to believe the gospel. It also carries with it the assurance, based on the promises of God, who works in the children of the covenant “when, where, and how He pleaseth,” that saving faith will be wrought in their hearts. As long as the children of the covenant do not reveal the contrary, we shall have to proceed on the assumption that they are in possession of the covenant life. ... It may be said therefore that the legal relationship in which the children of believers stand, precedes the covenant as a communion of life and is a means to its realization. But in emphasizing the significance of the covenant as a means to an end, we should not stress exclusively, nor even primarily, the demands of God and the resulting duty of man, but especially the promise of the effectual operation of the grace of God in the hearts of covenant children.

So being under the legal relationship of the covenant (or whatever language you want to use there) gives the children not only external access to the means of grace and all that stuff I mentioned above, but also carries a general assurance and assumption that the children will be regenerated (although Berkhof points out that's given collectively, not individually, so not all will necessarily be saved).

The covenant is not strictly "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved". The covenant is more like "I will be your God and you will be My people... All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. I will lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day." It's the offer of salvation, the call of faith, and the promise that God will effectually call us and bring us to faith. And so much more. Monergistic regeneration. Our sanctification. Answered prayer. The presence of the Holy Spirit. That is what our children are born into.

This understanding makes passages like Matthew 19:14 ("Allow the little children to come to Me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven") and 1 Cor 7:14 ("your children ... are holy") actually make sense. If the unregenerate children of believers are actually no different than the unregenerate children of pagans, then those passages are kind of nonsensical. Just 1 Cor 7:14 demonstrates that God looks at the children of 1 believing parent as "holy" in some sense, differently than he'd look at the children of two unbelievers!

> I think physical circumcision (which indicates nothing) was replaced with inward circumcision (which indicates everything)

The hole in that argument IMO is that circumcision was spoken of as having both a physical and a spiritual significance ("circumcise your heart") from almost the very beginning of the establishment of that sign. The Jews would have understood this, since Moses and others kind of straight up told them. So it can't be a replacement but a fulfillment.

> How that really works with Genesis 17

One covenant, two "levels". Those truly fulfilling the covenant - those in the "communion of life" - understood this. See Hebrews 11:13-16.

> I appreciate the conversation very much, though; thank you.

I have enjoyed this as well.

I went through a similar process a few years ago. Frankly I wanted to be Presbyterian but I couldn't reconcile my understanding of the covenant with paedobaptism. I listened to several podcasts, some debates, read a couple of books, etc. It was finally that chapter in Berkhof I linked to earlier, as well as Children of the Promise, that helped me understand it. I think that this view:

• Reconciles the plural reading of "offspring" that is both natural and found in the OT and NT with Paul's interpretation of it as singular
  
• Explains the role of ethnic Israel and the way we Gentiles are grafted in
  
• Explains why Abraham circumcised Ishmael and why Isaac circumcised Esau
  
• Explains Hebrews 11:13-16
  
• Explains the passages that warn against falling away
  
• Explains why Jesus and Paul both treat the children of believers in a special way
  
• Explains the lack of clear instruction to the Jews to stop giving the sign of the covenant to their children
  
• Explains the household baptisms in the NT
  
• Connects baptism and circumcision very naturally
  
• Justifies the historic practice of paedobaptism
  
• Is consistent with the more gracious character of the New Covenant
  
• Fits with a Christian parent's natural feelings towards her children
  
• Fits with the way the church actually treats the children of believers, even Baptist churches
  
  So it seems to have a lot going for it, and not any insurmountable difficulties in my opinion.
  

Congrats man! I was baptized as an infant, and then again in my mid-twenties. It was a sweet deal. It sounds like there are already a ton of great suggestions in this thread. I'll add my two cents...

• Get on a Bible reading plan. It doesn't much matter what plan it is, but get on one, and stick with it. I like the One Year Bible. You read an OT passage, a NT passage, a Psalm and a Proverb every day. There are other good plans too, this is just what I like.
  
  
• Read. Read good authors that can help you. People on this subreddit can probably offer many good suggestions. What is the Gospel is a great one. I know it sounds basic, but hey, we all need to remind ourselves of the Gospel, and this book is straight to the point and really encouraging. Future Grace is another great one. I personally love Piper as an author. I could list a million books that would be cool to read if you want some other suggestions. Feel free to ask :)
  
  
• Find a good church and get involved. Do your research to find a good church, but try to get started quickly. Put yourself out of your comfort zone to meet people, and go to stuff. Get involved. Know people and get them to know you. 9marks is a wonderful ministry that is all about building healthy churches. They have a corner of their site (linked) that is a church finder for any churches that affirm the same basic principles that 9marks does (this is a great tool...)
  
  Best of luck. It is a joy to see people excited for Christ. Congratulations on your baptism!

Could all religions be talking about the same thing? Perhaps. Anything's possible. I'll give you my personal take on that question in a bit, as interfaith relations was the focus of one of my majors back in my college days and remains a hobby of mine today. If you're really interested in exploring this topic, let me offer you a few books with differing perspectives on the matter first:

• God is Not One: Eight Rival Religions that Run the World and Why Their Differences Matter, written by Stephen Prothero: This book advocates that religious differences really do matter. From my reading of various theologians from across a number of traditions, this acceptance of differences and that we're not all talking about the same thing (often called the "exclusivist" position) is probably the most common position across religious traditions (at least in my experience).
  
• The Myth of Religious Superiority: A Multifaith Exploration, edited by Paul Knitter: This book is a collection of essays by theologians across a number of world religions who argue that we really are all talking about the same thing after all. Hick (one of the essayists in this book) is a pioneer writer on this subject in particular and comes out of the Christian tradition, but I recommend this collection rather than one of his books so you can get a wider variety of perspectives.
  
• Salvations: Truth and Difference in Religion, written by Mark Heim: This book takes a sort of middle ground between the other two, arguing that each religion really is distinct from the others and pursues a different spiritual path but that perhaps multiple paths can still be right, with say Buddhists working towards nirvana and detachment and Muslims drawing towards a heaven with Allah.
  
  There are plenty more books on this topic than just these three. I merely list these three as decent introductions to their particular points of view as you explore this question yourself. As for my own opinion on the matter, I don't think all religions are talking about the same thing, no. To list just a few of my reasons for thinking that:
  
  

1. Claiming we're all really talking about the same thing in the end is just as exclusive a claim as saying that only one religion is right. In either case, you're insisting a similarly large number of people have all fundamentally misunderstood reality.
   
2. Most religions are addressing fundamentally different problems, even if there are overlaps in a few places. In most strands of Buddhism, the central problem with existence is suffering, which according to Buddhism is caused by attachment: this leads Buddhists to practice meditation in order to cultivate detachment so they can escape suffering and help others. In contrast, the central problem in existence according to my Reformed Christian faith is that we humans were all created good and in the image of God Almighty but now are so infected with evil that we can't help but go awry (whether morally, intellectually, emotionally, etc). Therefore, we need an Almighty Creator to step into our story to love us despite our sins, forgive us our trespasses, reveal the truth of the gospel, save us from evil, and teach us how to live as we were originally created to live, so even when we are weak or overcome by guilt, we can have hope that God will remain faithful to us even so and save us once again. Both Buddhism and my own faith have beauty and power to them, but they're both dealing with very different understandings of the problems facing humanity, the solutions to those problems, and how to live life having experienced such a solution.
   
3. While it's nice to say that all religions are talking about the same thing, clearly we don't think every religion qualifies. It's one thing to say, "Christians, Buddhists, Wiccans, Muslims: we're really all just talking about the same in the end." But it's quite another to lump all those people in with cults like Scientology or the Mansons, with white supremacist neo-pagan groups whose religion is mostly an extension of their bigotry, with ancient religions that held the killing of others in war or human sacrifice as essential rituals, etc. If we draw dividing lines in some instances but not among the major religions, by what standard do we so divide various religions as true or false? How can we say some don't count as "in" while others do while still being philosophically consistent? This is a problem not faced by exclusivists who just assert that they are right and all other religions, while at best perhaps helpful to living well, are not ultimately true.
   
4. Just because we disagree about foundational truths of reality doesn't mean we can't respect each other, treat each other well, etc. I firmly believe that Jesus Christ--as revealed in the Bible and attested to by the creeds of my Presbyterian denomination--is Lord God and the only means of salvation. My Muslim friends in college believed quite differently, as did my Buddhist and Wiccan friends in high school, as do all my atheists and agnostic friends to this day. Our disagreements are serious, which means it's important to discuss them civilly and with compassion for each other, because we are talking about the very fabric and truths of existence. But to just hand-wave away all that tension because it's uncomfortable, rather than to dig into those differences, to see how our disagreements highlight the unique power and beliefs of our own traditions, to learn where each of us is weak in our thinking and needs to reevaluate long-held beliefs... that's a gift I wouldn't give away lightly.
   
5. So to deal with this disagreement, I treat the conflict between me and people who hold other religious beliefs as a sort of "gentlemen's bet with higher stakes" (for lack of a better term). We disagree with each other. That disagreement matters and is rather important. Whoever is wrong is likely in some trouble, depending on how everything plays out. We can't know for sure until we die, if ever. So we each claim our beliefs, and we make our wager with our lives. Until we die, it's wise to civilly talk with each other, explore these questions, etc., because the stakes really do matter. But we can do so civilly, because acting otherwise would just cause more harm and make our attempts to understand the truths of reality all the harder. I personally am a Christian in the Reformed tradition, and my evangelism to others (and listening to them evangelize to me in turn) falls under this civil disagreement, gentlemen's bet lens. After all, with the stakes so high, it's important to share what I believe is true as best I can, while at the same time listening to others share what they think is true. Why? Because first, I might be wrong. Second, if I'm right, knowing what others think will help me explain the truth even better. And third, being civil and at peace with each other provides the best setting for discussing these ideas.
   
   That's just a few of my reasons, anyways. I'm sure I have more, but I'm trying to type this quickly as I'm writing this while on a work break.

> Again, to me you seem to be describing an example where scholars are taking into account theological influences in the thought of Marx

No, they're constructive Marxist theorists. That means they aren't just (or even primarily) trying to figure out what Marx thought and why he thought it, but are instead focused on extending and developing the Marxist tradition, and they're using theological material to do that: for instance, several of these figures have written commentaries on St. Paul.

> What are political theologians doing that makes their word distinct from political science or religious studies or any other secular discipline?

As I've already said, they're not doing religious studies because they're doing constructive work. They're also not political scientists because political science is, as the name suggests, mostly about the "science" of actual politics. These folk are engaged in political theory/philosophy, which is a deeper critical study of the nature politics. They don't care about how to run a campaign, they'd be more interested in what modern campaign methods tell us about people's understanding of themselves in a media-saturated late-capitalist culture or something like that. And then they'd want to critique that understanding and pose revisions/alternatives.

In this sense, they're doing the work of political theorists, but with more attention to the religious dimensions of the questions they deal with (again, religion in a "secularized" sense whose object is not a real transcendent deity). Admittedly there are no hard-and-fast divisions between the disciplines here, because there's tremendous overlap between several humanities disciplines. Whether someone gets called a "philosopher" or a "theologian" or a "political theorist" mostly has to do with their training, even if they venture into other disciplines in their work. But those who engage in "political theology," whatever their disciplinary background, are focused on the constructive relationship between political and theological thought.

Because of their focus on the theological in the political and the political in the theological, political theologians of all stripes (orthodox or heterodox or atheistic) have been responsible for drawing attention to dimensions of political life that had been ignored by other political thinkers: concepts like sovereignty, glory, liturgy, messianism, faith, and all sorts of others that are operative in political life even if they remain invisible to normal eyes.

> Maybe it's just me but I don't see how "theologized atheism" even means anything.

Then read somebody like Feuerbach, and you can see how different his atheism is from that of someone like Dawkins and get a clearer sense of what's going on. The only way to really get a solid sense of what's going on is to encounter it firsthand.

> Whatever distinction you think there is either doesn't exist or you haven't made it plain.

I've made it pretty plain, I think. Atheist theologians are doing theology. The things that theologians do are what atheist theologians do. The main difference is that they immanentize the object of their study, so they're not talking about something that really exists outside of the anymore, but human experience.

Take a book like this one. This is a constructive work on the Christian theology of redemption (no descriptive, but focused on actually developing Christian thought), and most of it could easily have been written by an Christian theist (and has been favorably reviewed by Christian theists). But it's written by an atheist doing theology from a secularized Christian perspective.

Yes, salvation isn't lost due to suicide, this is never taught in scripture. God's love is unconditional, nobody can earn it. Even the best Christian didn't earn God's love, it just is. It also goes against an all-loving God whose mercy endures forever. It is taught by people that hold a classical doctrine of hell, which is a very indefensible doctrine in many ways. These people live in fear, even though Perfect love casts out fear. Love is a much more powerful motivator to do/be good than fear of punishment. The Doctrine of Univeralism would say that all will eventually be reconciled to God, and it is biblically sound - though not the majority view.

I'm also reading a book called God's Final Victory: A Comparative Philosophical Case for Universalism (Continuum Studies in Philosophy of Religion) that makes a compelling case for Universalism vs eternal hell, and also annihilationism. It goes into pretty good depth, though it claims to be still introductory.

With all that said, I hope things improve for you. I'm sorry that you have to go through this, and I wish I could help you (I also am poor, and sometimes struggle with a lack of hope for this life). I hope my words have been encouraging and helpful.

I pray that God will be with you and that He will comfort you and give you his peace. I pray that He will lift up your spirit and fill it with love and that you will be strengthened by Him. I pray that, no matter what happens, you will find peace in this life or the next. I pray this all in Jesus name, Amen.

God bless you.

Great that you’re learning a lot more about an important religion! I’ll give you some resources down below. If you want, you can always ask me a question you have personally. It would also be a good idea to maybe hang out with a mature Christian who knows a fair bit about his or her faith.

Judging from the questions you posed, I think it would be unwise to jump straight into the “in-depth” literature. It seems you’re pretty new to the subject so it‘s better to get an overview first.

Also be aware that there are many perspectives so don’t always believe everything you read. Personally, I am coming from a position of a Protestant Christian within Christianity. Some resources exist to convince people that Christianity is true. Others may exist to convince you it’s false. Yet others are there to describe Christianity as a historical phenomenon or are trying to figure out other aspects about it. You can also find books that exist to make clear what Christians believe God has to say to them or wants them to do. Talking about religion can get political so please identify what a text is trying to do and don’t swallow everything as “the truth” from any side really. Always use your brain.

Free Christian resources:
The Bible (www.biblegateway.com)
Bible question website (www.gotquestions.org)
Crucial Questions (https://www.ligonier.org/blog/rc-sprouls-crucial-questions-ebooks-now-free/ )
Books that are in the Bible ( https://overviewbible.com/books-of-the-bible/ )
Youtube The Bible Project, great videos (https://www.youtube.com/user/jointhebibleproject )

Free Sermons (what Christian leaders tell Christians to believe, pointing them to Jesus and giving them practical advice)
https://www.tvcresources.net/resource-library/sermons/recently-added

https://downtown.redeemer.com/learn/sermons/

Paid in depth resources:
New Testament overview: https://www.amazon.com/Survey-New-Testament-5th/dp/0310494745/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_img_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=Z0DNWE4W91G69M6G91W7

Old Testament overview: https://www.amazon.com/Survey-Old-Testament-Andrew-Hill/dp/0310280958/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1536771017&sr=1-2&keywords=Old+Testament+survey+of

What is the Gospel?: https://www.amazon.com/What-Gospel-Foreword-Carson-9Marks-ebook/dp/B003DQK77E

Let us know how your journey will go and feel free to ask questions! If you’re up for it we can even do a Skype question answer thingy or a bible study or whatever. I myself am a theology student so I really love explaining things like the ones you’re asking.

I can recommend a few things.

First, there's this blog that attempts to show that libertarian free will is consistent with perfect divine foreknowledge.

http://philochristos.blogspot.com/2005/04/is-free-will-compatible-with-gods.html

Then there's this book by Jonathan Edwards on The Freedom of the Will. There's a chapter in this book where Edwards agues the libertarian freedom is not consistent with divine foreknowledge.

http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/Jonathan%20Edwards%20Freedom%20of%20the%20Will.pdf

Check out Section XII on page 73.

There's this book by William Lane Craig called The Only Wise God where he uses Molinism to show that free will and perfect foreknowledge are compatible.

https://www.amazon.com/Only-Wise-God-Compatibility-Foreknowledge/dp/1579103162/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1543020991&sr=8-1

Then there's this book by Gregory Boyd called God of the Possible, where he argues that God does not know the future perfectly because there is no truth value to future tensed statements about people's free choices.

https://www.amazon.com/God-Possible-Biblical-Introduction-Open/dp/080106290X/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&qid=1543021053&sr=8-14

Finally, there's this book called Four Views On Divine Providence where people with various opinions explain their point of view and why they disagree with each other.

https://www.amazon.com/Four-Views-Divine-Providence-Counterpoints/dp/0310325129/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1543021516&sr=8-1&

For solid exegesis of this commonly mis-interpreted passage as well as many others, I HIGHLY commend the following:

"Must Faith Endure for Salvation to Be Sure?: A Biblical Study of the Perseverance versus PRESERVATION of the Saints"

• Thomas L. Stegall
  
  Christians who follow the Bible readily acknowledge that faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for eternal salvation. But if faith is necessary to be saved in the first place, then what happens when a person stops believing? What if a person's faith falters, fails, or is unfruitful? Will that person be lost?
  
  Must Faith Endure for Salvation to Be Sure? answers these questions in detail by examining the key biblical passages on perseverance in faith and the believer's preservation in Christ. This book shows through its thorough exegesis of Scripture that all who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ alone, rather than their own good works, will be kept safe and eternally secure by God's grace and power.
  
  Rather than the traditional Reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, the Bible teaches that a person's eternal salvation rests solely upon the perseverance of the Savior in keeping His own secure. While perseverance will be the result of the believer's ongoing fellowship with the Lord and spiritual fruitfulness in service to Him, it is not a requirement to possess eternal life. Believers in Christ can be personally assured that they will never perish forever because their salvation rests solely upon the faithfulness and finished work of the Savior on their behalf.
  
  https://www.amazon.com/Must-Faith-Endure-Salvation-Sure-ebook/dp/B01NBK8IDH/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1519785117&sr=1-1

While this may sound great on the surface and while much of what Maxwell and Jennings say have some validity to things, an overly reductionistic approach ultimately deprives justice of the legal/rights dimension. So much so that they inadvertently call the Bible into question when judgment comes into play. This is because judgement-focused passages in scripture undergo forced reinterpretation to fit the reduced framework. From a systematic theology perspective, this can do harm to a traditional understanding of the Sanctuary message, along with all other instances of judgment in the Old and New Testaments.

​

It is totally true that salvation is entirely through Christ and trusting in Him. As we behold Him and His love, we change. I.e. 2 Cor. 5:14; 3:18; Eph. 2:8-9; Jn. 3:16; etc.

​

It is also true that God is working through a legal process in the Great Controversy. I.e. 2 Cor. 5:8-10; Rom. 14:10, 2:6ff; 12:16-19 (cf. Heb. 10:30); Acts 23:2-3; Luke 12:45-48; Matt. 7:1-2; 12:36-42; 16:27; Rev. 22:12; Etc.

​

Dr. John Peckham at Andrews Theological Seminary has an absolutely superb book related to this topic, entitled Theodicy of Love. The first couple chapters are a bit slow, but the rest of it is incredible, and probably the best explanation we have in Adventism for the Great Controversy and suffering from the perspective of love. His earlier book, The Love of God is also one of the deepest explanations of God's love that I've read. I've taken every course I could from him at AU.

Here's the episode in a nutshell, with corresponding footnotes for further exploration:

1. We are called at to union with each other and God (ex: John 17:20-211).
   
   
2. Yet we are confronted with the basic divisions between people, among humans and the rest of creation, and between God and His creation (see here for a brief summary of St. Maximus the Confessor's Ambiguum 41).
   
   
3. We are also confronted with our own internal divisions, which are addressed by, for instance, the Orthodox ascetic tradition and hesychastic prayer -- eliminating distractions, descending the mind into the heart, etc. (see here for instance).
   
   
4. God invites us to overcome these divisions, and achieve true union, through forgiveness.
   
   
5. In Greek, the word used for "forgiveness" is "συγχώρησις" which literally means "occupying the same place or space." This is the union that overcomes the divisions in 2 and 3 above.
   
   
6. The act of creation is itself an invitation to share existence with God, and continues with God's sanctification of creation (seen in, for instance, the themes of "procession and return" in the writing of St. Dionysios the Areopagite).
   
   
7. This is the mystery of Holy Communion, the greatest example of God's forgiveness, whereby we are invited to share in Christ's Body and Blood in a way that surpasses other examples of intimacy and union (articulated very nicely in St. Nicholas Cabasilas' "The Life in Christ").
   
   
8. It's all summarized in Abba Dorotheos's metaphor of the wheel: in drawing closer to God we draw closer to each other, and vice versa. God invites us to the center of the wheel, to share the same space with Him.

For a good textbook overview, McGrath has a great book called Historical Theology

He also has a book exclusively about justification, since you mentioned that above. I read these as a teenager, and they proved to be great starting points.

Otherwise, check out the sidebar to r/christianity for online reading of classic authors. Read some basic treatises like Augustine's Nature and Grace, Luther's on the Freedom of a Christian, and Introduction to Romans.

I'll always plug my man Gerhard Forde, too :) Books like Where God Meets Man and On Being a Theologian of the Cross are short, accessible books with a perspective that I think is very helpful in approaching the "problems" of God and faith. Justification is his main theme.

Also, just curious, what's your username about?

Haha, the reason I didn't give a reason for Sproul being wrong is that I don't think he is. I think if you look at the usages of dikaioo and the Hebrew equivalent phrases, the Protestant understanding of what they connote is born out. But, as was pointed out elsewhere (I think by you actually), for myself as a Protestant, the Bible is the beginning and ending of my understanding of justification (or, at least, that's the goal!), so usages within it dictate what is meant by the word itself. Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox are totally legitimate in their own right to say that the intra-textual usages aren't the whole story, and that's fine. We just differ on a core issue about interpretation, and so talking about the results of differing methods ends up being rather fruitless, so I tried to explain the differences in methodology instead of saying whether I agree or disagree.

By that first paragraph, I was only trying to say that, strictly speaking, dikaioo doesn't really mean either one or the other. It won't work to include either 'make righteous' or 'declare righteous' in its strict semantic range because they aren't included. They are connotations and not denotations. We don't really have an English equivalent, so it's difficult to translate without those connotations, and that's why it's such a difficult issue to debate.

Lastly, I just want to point out that Paul can speak legally about justification while also talking about new creation. Many, many Protestants hold the two ideas together, because they go together. Herman Ridderbos (Dutch Reformed), for example, finds that the center of Paul's theology is the resurrection of Jesus. So new creation is a huge part of that, but so is justification, because righteousness imputed could be seen as being part of the new creation. Several others connect both concepts to union with Christ and so it all fits nicely together. You might want to read Herman Bavinck (particularly Vol. 2) if you want to hear it from a Protestant who you might be able to stomach a little better. Another good idea would be to read Richard Gaffin's dissertation to get more at the specific issues. If you go to a Protestant church, the best idea would probably be to avoid using the phrase 'legal fiction.' If your pastor hears it, he or she may get upset and it would cause more trouble than it's worth. Instead, the best thing would probably be to talk more about EO than about agreeing with Catholicism. Most Protestants will immediately shut you out if you mention agreeing with it, and it sounds like you're more in tune with EO than Catholicism anyway.

Another thing to consider - one of the more interesting (to me) arguments used in "God's Final Victory: A Comparative Philosophical Case for Universalism to counteract the typical argument of "God won't undermine or violate man's free will" was to consider it from the other angle - say that someone is in "heaven" with a loved one in "hell" (and no matter who is in hell, they will always have someone who loves them and wishes they weren't hell - and it could be argued that part of the effects of being in "heaven" would be that its inhabitants would be more empathetic anyways). For God to keep these inhabitants in heaven, unable to do anything to help those in hell, this would be a violation of the free will of the inhabitants of heaven. So God would have to violate free will to keep the inhabitants of heaven from doing anything to help the inhabitants of hell.

Now, you're arguing that because of the strength of man's (who is a "god") free will, God would be unable to save. But what about God plus the inhabitants of heaven - this would not balance the scale in such a way that the inhabitants could be saved, given infinite time?

I started out Arminian, as I always was taught that God wanted to save every person equally, for any person, God wanted to save that person as much as any other person.

When I was in college, I learned about Calvinism, and how it viewed God to be the primary [sole] agent in Salvation. This seemed to be an inescapable conclusion, and I became convinced that it was true.

I now had a dilemma, God wants to save everyone, and God is in charge of who gets saved and who doesn't, but God doesn't save everyone. It was quite the trilemma.

A friend told me about Christian Universalism, and gave me a book called the Inescapable Love of God. It resolved the problems of consistency between Arminianism and Calvinism.

If you're wanting a good book that discusses all three, I'd recommend Five Views of Election. It deals with five different perspectives, and after each author writes his article, the other 4 respond, it goes like that throughout the book.

Calvin inspired what today is known as Calvinism, which is a staple of Reformed churches. A lot of popular pastors & apologists are Calvinists (John Piper, R. C. Sproul, James White, Tim Keller, etc.). There are also many apologists & Christian leaders of other persuasions concerning God's providence (William Lane Craig, Nabeel Qureshi, & others).

Everyone accepts predestination, but the issue is whether we are determined or not. Are our actions fully determined by God? Do humans have libertarian free will? Or are the two not mutually exclusive (compatibilism)?

This has been a hot topic for centuries, & it seems to have a bit of influence on your present concerns. So, if you'd like to look more into it, I highly recommend "Four Views on Divine Providence".

Preface

Unfortunately I don't think there's a "one stop shop" book on the atonement. The atonement has a biblical/exegetical basis as well as philosophical and theological ramifications. Hence, to do justice to the atonement as a full-orbed topic in a single book, you'd have to find a scholar who is well versed and up-to-date in the relevant biblical scholarship as well as philosophical theology. That's exceedingly rare, and in fact I'm not sure if there is such a scholar today.

What's more, the atonement can be framed in terms of additional categories or sub-categories like biblical theology, Pauline theology, Johannine theology, and so on. (By the way, Tom Schreiner, Simon Gathercole, and Jarvis Williams are good in discussing the atonement in Pauline theology.)

In short, the atonement is a massive topic.

One book

However, if I had to pick a single book on the atonement that gets as close as possible to this ideal (but ultimately falling short of it), I think I'd recommend Pierced for Our Transgressions. The book has decent biblical/exegetical and theological (including historical theology) foundations. Not stellar in these categories, but not bad, solid. However, it significantly lacks in philosophical theology. In any case, I think you'd have to supplement this book with other books. I'd recommend:

Biblical/Exegetical

• Beilby, James and Eddy, Paul (eds.). The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views. This book is a debate between four scholars arguing for four different views on the atonement: Gregory Boyd argues for the Christus Victor view; Tom Schreiner argues for the penal substitutionary view; Bruce Reichenbach argues for the healing view; and Joel Green argues for a kaleidescopic view. In my view, Schreiner makes the best case, but read it for yourself to decide.
  
  
• Morris, Leon. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. Either this book or its less technical and more popular but still strong treatment The Atonement: Its Meaning and Significance. This is an older text, but it was and remains a landmark text. D.A. Carson still tells seminarians and ministers to "sell your shirt and buy" Morris' book if they have to. Likewise see Morris' brief essay "Theories of the Atonement".
  
  Theological
  
  
• Murray, John. Redemption Accomplished and Applied. A classic Reformed text from a stalwart Reformed theologian.
  
  
• Nicole, Roger. Our Sovereign Savior. A good chapter on the atonement by a world class theologian. Nicole was a Swiss Reformed theologian.
  
  
• Nicole, Roger. Standing Forth: Collected Writings of Roger Nicole. Includes essays on the atonement and related matters.
  
  
• Packer, J.I., Dever, Mark, and Duncan, Ligon. In My Place Condemned He Stood: Celebrating the Glory of the Atonement. This book contains several essays on the atonement from J.I. Packer including Packer's classic introduction to John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.
  
  
• Warfield, B.B. "Atonement". A brief article that gives an overview of five possible theories about the atonement. Warfield has other good material on the atonement, but I thought this would be a decent representative.
  
  Philosophical
  
  
• Craig, William Lane. The Atonement (in the University of Cambridge's Elements in the Philosophy of Religion series). A short book. An overview of the philosophical issues. Cambridge Press did offer it for free as a downloadable pdf, which is how I obtained it, but I don't know if that's still the case now.
  
  
• Helm, Paul. "John Calvin's Position on the Atonement". Free article from an astute Reformed philosopher. Helm has discussed the atonement in published books too.
  
  
• Helm, Paul. "The Logic of Limited Atonement". Another free article.

That book is a classic. It's old, and some of the translations show that age, but it's still one of the most comprehensive liturgical books available in English.

In addition to a liturgical book like that one, you might want to get a commentary that explains what everything going on liturgically means. I would recommend Nicholas Cabasilas' The Life in Christ, his Commentary on the Divine Liturgy, and Hieromonk Gregorios of Koutloumousiou's The Divine Liturgy: A Commentary in the Light of the Fathers.

I'm not offended, I was just a little frustrated because I felt like I was having to repeat myself too much. I'm sorry if I got short with you.

>The question is can our God and Judge forgo the payment for sins and remain just?

Yes. It is perfectly just to forgive someone that has wronged you because you are the one wronged, and if you do not wish to have someone punished for the wrong doing, it ought to be your call to make.

The rest of this is going to take me going through and reading the scriptures you quoted and then responding, which will take a while, but I'm about to go to sleep. I'll hopefully be able to get back to you tomorrow though. And as for a book, I'm glad you asked! Our own /u/im_just_saying wrote this book a little while back on this exact topic. It's a short and easy read, but a good read, and I'm sure he'd be open to answer some questions for you that I haven't covered.

I have a completely different take on Jesus' sacrifice, which we can get into if you'd like, or if you're really interested, you can read in my book Salvation and How We Got It Wrong.

Do you know Dylan's Highway 61 Revisited? Here's a cover of it from Karen O and the Million Dollar Bashers. And here are the lyrics from the first verse:

Oh God said to Abraham, “Kill me a son”

Abe says, “Man, you must be puttin’ me on”

God say, “No.” Abe say, “What?”

God say, “You can do what you want Abe, but

The next time you see me comin’ you better run”

Well Abe says, “Where do you want this killin’ done?”

God says, “Out on Highway 61”

Dylan's father's name was Abe, by the way, and he grew up in Hibbings, MN...on Hwy 61.

If you're at all interested in giving universalism another chance, I can't recommend this book highly enough. There's a whole chapter devoted to justice, and another on free will.

I'll put forward three more that I have read several times.

1. "Redemption, Accomplished and Applied" -- Great treatment of the Ordo.
   
2. "The Reason for God" -- Great manual on how to effectively speak with skeptics about Christianity. I have personally seen the HS use this book to bring two of the closest people in my life to Christ.
   
3. "The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification" -- Puritan work, brought into modern English. Imagine, 300 years ago the Justification/Sanctification debate was ended by a Puritan.

hey mate, great question:

http://www.amazon.com/What-Gospel-9Marks-Greg-Gilbert/dp/1433515008

I found this book by Greg Gilbert to be extremely helpful. It's quite basic, and not only teaches what the bible says, but helps people to communicate the foundations of the Christian faith.

This was one of the first book I read after becoming a Christian and would have recommended it several times.

Forgive me as I have not read this, but this book by father Alexander Schmemann might give the best answer from a modern Orthodox perspective as I've heard very good reviews.

https://www.amazon.com/Water-Spirit-Liturgical-Study-Baptism/dp/0913836109

Yeah, see I think your experience with Christianity left you bitter and I can understand that. There are lots of churches that are not so good.

I'm pretty sure I do understand the reality of being filled with the holy spirit, since I have studied it for over 10 years, and am part of a church which believes in the gifts of the Spirit. But we're also friends with people like John MacArthur who wrote "Charismatic Chaos", which is a welcome criticism of what was happening in many of the charismatic movements. BTW - John MacArthur, who is not charismatic at all would say that he is filled with the Spirit.

In Christianity, you can read whatever you want, there are no restrictions placed upon you by the church (or at least there shouldn't be).

Not quite what you asked, but Salvation and how we got it wrong may be of interest to you.

It explains what's wrong with Penal Substitutionary Atonement, and gives a much more loving (and ancient) concept of salvation.

I hope I'm not breaking the proselytizing rule of this sub...

Have you ever tried to make a deal with her where you read a book about the Charismatic church and spiritual warfare etc. and promise you will really consider it. Look for where it's true, and where it's false, and then she read a book like Charismatic Chaos, or something and promise to really consider whether it's biblical. Just a thought. You probably need to consider what is in Charismaticism that is profitable and what isn't.

I read it, not a big fan of Craig and like I said, I passionately disagree with PSA so there's little point in trying to convince me of it's validity. But on a different note, if you are interested in learning more about non-PSA views of the cross, I highly recommend this book that I just read the other day:

http://www.amazon.com/Salvation-And-How-Got-Wrong/dp/1483904873/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398025817&sr=8-1&keywords=salvation+and+how+we+got+it+wrong

I don't know what kind of spare money you have, but I highly recommend you read Salvation (And How We Got It Wrong) from /u/im_just_saying. He does a really good job of talking about where the idea of PSA came from, and what the predominant theory of atonement was in early Christianity. For a brief overview of it read about the Christus Victor wiki

I'd recommend Roger Olsen (a Baptist theologian) who is a self-proclaimed Arminian and wrote Against Calvinism as an easy jumping-off point for the Calvinist-Arminian argument in evangelical circles (it's supposed to be paired with a book by a different author, appropriately named For Calvinism). I like Roger Olsen (he has a blog at Patheos) and view him as a sensible voice to be listened to in evangelical circles. Maybe it's what you're looking for! Zondervan also has the helpful "____ views" series on various topics in evangelicalism, with a volume on Divine Providence from four figures.

Penal substitution isn't an idea that's present in the OT. Jewish animal sacrifices were never about God punishing an innocent animal in order to forgive the people of Israel.

To quote /u/Rrrrrrr777:

>"Forgiveness is obtained in Judaism by admitting that you've done something wrong, working to correct it, and deciding not to do it anymore. The sacrifices were an integral part of daily life, but they were an outward symbolic representation that helped to bring people closer to God by being forced to confront death head-on in the hopes that the realization would reaffirm their commitment to keeping the commandments to the best of their ability."

Also, if you're questioning PSA, I highly recommend reading Salvation (And How We Got It Wrong) by our very own /u/im_just_saying. It's a very short and accessible book, and really helped me to grasp the flaws inherent in penal substitution.

> Even in the Old Testament individual sins needed atonement and covering.

Yet the place for dealing with that was wholly communal.

> Jesus' blood covers our sins on an individual level

I've just read this book which notes, when we talk of Jesus's sacrifice, he is referred to as our Mercy Seat – again, the place of communal appeal to God for forgiveness of the nation's sin(s). No doubt those sins are committed by individuals, but God relates his forgiveness to the whole.

I don't doubt we are on some level saved individually, though. Rather, is our experience as one who is already "washed in the blood" one that approximates a "personal relationship with Jesus"?

Many Christians agree with you. Here is a good book about the topic http://www.amazon.com/Salvation-And-How-Got-Wrong/dp/1483904873

I haven't read it yet (been on the "to read" list for a couple years now...), so I'm not sure if it'll be exactly what you're looking for, but you might find Adam Kotsko's The Politics of Redemption: The Social Logic of Salvation interesting.

/u/Im_just_saying is an Anglican bishop and poster here who's written a fantastic book that I think would answer some of the questions you have, especially about the nature of sin and how exactly Jesus saved us.

If you want the general gist of it, check out this sermon he did.

This book on various views of election including comments by universalist Thomas Talbott may be of interest:

https://www.amazon.com/Perspectives-Election-Chad-Brand/dp/0805427295

-

-


https://books.google.ca/books?id=RKW4AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT235&lpg=PT235&dq=thomas+talbott+election&source=bl&ots=dG82Az8q72&sig=Ko7shJ5EYoBJQxnm4UgwtQHvWtQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj0t57qwcjZAhVN7WMKHY2LALM4ChDoAQgxMAI#v=onepage&q=thomas%20talbott%20election&f=false

You clearly need to read this book!

This is a good book

Sorry I guess I should have been more clear, it does show up if you go to this link, but it says that it is not in stock, I don't buy things if they are not in stock because who knows if they will ever get more stock in.

This is based on a common lay formulation of what happened on the cross. However it is not an actual doctrine that (most) denominations officially believe. There are a variety of other interpretations that are too numerous and complicated to get into here. There is a very good and short book on this
If your interested. Written by a redditor no less. If not that is also your prerogative.

Looking quickly at one resource (Robert Booth's Children of the Promise), the only comment that is made on this passage is to see this verse in its context. Baptism is being compared with the deliverance of Noah...in particular, to the deliverance of Noah and his family. So, a household context for this verse was noted.

In light of that household context, the appeal could be made by the head of the household, not by the individual member.

Paging /u/Im_just_saying. We have another case of disagreement with Penal Substitutionary Atonement!

He wrote a book on this sort of thing.

Yoy have the wrong link. http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0805427295/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1419921040&sr=8-1&dpPl=1&dpID=41cvV9vXK%2BL&ref=plSrch&pi=AC_SY200_QL40#