Best christian salvation books according to redditors
We found 142 Reddit comments discussing the best christian salvation books. We ranked the 58 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 142 Reddit comments discussing the best christian salvation books. We ranked the 58 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
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.
If you're interested in a book, I wrote this to answer that very question.
If you'd just like to peruse some blogposts about it, try this and this. There are a few other posts on the blog that also deal with it.
Not exactly what you asked for, but whenever this conversation comes up, I want to post about a book that really helped me out.
Perspectives on Election: Five Views is my favorite book on the subject. Five authors, from five different views, write about 25-30 pages detailing why their view is correct, and afterwards, each other author spends a few pages critiquing it. It is a phenomenal book. You have a Superlapsarian Calvinist [double predestination], Infralapsarian Calvinst [single predestination], Arminian [predestination based on foreknowledge], Christian Universalist, as well as an Open Theist. Each back up their conceptions of election with scripture, and rigorous argument. It is a must read if you want to get a good in-depth view of each different perspective.
/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.
Some say,fr Alexander Schmemann in particular, that Christ blessed all of the waters of the earth with His baptism into them and that holy water is the recognition of the work Christ did on the Epiphany 2,000 years ago and invoking God's blessing onto it.
I haven't read his book on baptism yet, but he might address this in it. None the less I have heard very good things about it.
https://www.amazon.com/Water-Spirit-Liturgical-Study-Baptism/dp/0913836109
Children of the Promise by Robert Booth was helpful to me on this issue.
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.
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.
It shows consistency throughout scripture starting with the protoevangelium through the New Testament. It unifies scripture instead of breaking it apart and highlights God's invariance.
Covenant theology presents and overarching covenant within the Godhead between the Father and the Son in relation to creation (covenant of redemption). It is by nature Christ centered.
God has sovereignly and graciously established a covenant relationship with sinful men through his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, the mediator of the covenant. Covenant theology is involved in every doctrine the church holds, either explicitly or implicitly.
For a pretty brief explanation of Covenant Theology I recommend Covenant Theology: Sovereign and Gracious
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.
> The whole world will worship the One God of Israel.
1 Cor 15
> Knowledge of God will fill the world.
Rom 1
> All Israelites will be returned to their homeland
The entire New Testament. Luke-Acts; Rev 21; Rom 9-11 etc.
> The Jewish people will experience eternal joy and gladness
Rom 2
> Nations will recognize the wrongs they did to Israel
Nations will recognize the wrongs they did to ~Israel~ Jesus, the true Israel. Gal 6; John 1
> The peoples of the world will turn to the Jews for spiritual guidance
Rom 2
> Weapons of war will be destroyed
1 Cor 15; Eph 1
> A person’s genealogical/tribal membership are transmitted exclusively through one’s physical father
The verses cited don't actually say that. And extrabiblical evidence/Paul's treatment of Timothy (circumcision) suggest the opposite.
> The Temple will be rebuilt
John 1-2; 1 Cor 5; 2 Cor 5; Rev 21
> World Peace
Col 1; Rom 1
> Christianity claims that Jesus "Fulfilled the law," i.e. the law is abrogated and need not any longer be observed.
No it doesn't.
> All Jews will embrace Torah observance
Rom 2; Rom 9; Heb 8
> Jesus cannot be a part of God, not him, anybody or anything
John 1
> The law is eternal.
Yes it is.
> In the future, the Messianic king will arise and renew the Davidic dynasty, restoring it to its initial sovereignty. He will
buildbe the Temple and gather the dispersed of the true Israel. Then, in his days, the observance of all the statutes willreturn to their previous statebe practiced in light of Him.We will offerHe was the perfect sacrifices,observeHe is the Sabbathicaland Jubilee years according to all their particulars as described by the Torah...> If a king will arise from the House of David who diligently contemplates the Torah and observes its mitzvot as prescribed by the Written Law and the Oral Law as David, his ancestor, will compel all of Israel to walk in (the way of the Torah) and rectify the breaches in its observance, and fight the wars of God, we may, with assurance, consider him Moshiah. If he succeeds in the above, builds the Temple in its place, and gathers the dispersed of Israel, he is definitely the Moshiah. He will then improve the entire world, motivating all the nations to serve God together, as Tzephaniah 3:9 states: 'I will transform the peoples to a purer language that they all will call upon the name of God and serve Him with one purpose.' If he did not succeed to this degree or was killed, he surely is not the redeemer promised by the Torah.
Luckily for us, Jesus did fulfill all of these things, and in a way that includes us Gentiles as full members of His covenant family. Many Jews may not interpret the OT in the same way as the NT authors did, but to say that they were ignorant of what the Messiah would look like is silly, and they spend a great deal of their time attempting to prove He was.
EDIT: Maybe it's the Reformed blood, but does no one read Calvin? Sheesh, skimming his commentaries would clear most of this silliness up.
EDIT 2: The literal hermeneutic is getting old. Also, John Murray and Geerhardus Vos (and again) have plenty to say too.
Paging /u/Im_just_saying. We have another case of disagreement with Penal Substitutionary Atonement!
He wrote a book on this sort of thing.
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&
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.
Hi Greg - I wanted to humbly offer my opinion as to an answer to a question you brought up, and I do this as a fan of sorts (I love your work). You asked:
> If a free agent has the power to reject grace today, why think they suddenly won’t have it tomorrow
There is a book called "God's Final Victory: A Comparative Philosophical Case for Universalism" that is most likely the most thorough argument for Universalism out there, although it is a bit difficult to read (lots of Philosophic terms, and it's very dense). In this book, the authors present an argument to answer this question which I will try to summarize. The idea is that the choice between "heaven" (which I would like to note that I do not think of this as a place, but rather a state of being in union with the Father - which is the wish Jesus expressed in the Garden of Gethsemane in the Gospel of John) and "hell" (again - I define this not so much in terms of a place as a state), when thought of in completely rational terms, there is no rational reason why anyone would choose hell. If hell is truly as awful as theology says it is, why would anyone in their right mind choose it? To choose hell would imply that it is not a free choice - either the person is ignorant, deceived, or they are irrational as a result of physical or psychological damage. And why would a loving God hold this against anyone? On the contrary, if God is love, God would continually extend his mercy towards this individual in an effort to remove the barriers of ignorance, deception, physical or psychological damage. And if God's salvific will is in any way effective, given an infinite amount of time, salvation is mathematically guaranteed. Now, I realize that you are a Conditionalist (or at least you were at the time that you wrote "Letters From A Skeptic" as well as your contribution to "Across the Spectrum"). So this makes things a bit trickier - in this case, the argument is that God allows some to cease to exist when they reject Him completely. This is a bit more difficult to argue with, but I would still question - if we believe God creates, why couldn't God guarantee the continuation of the existence of these souls, and if God is love, why wouldn't He continue to seek their salvation? Combine this with the argument that those who love the lost would not be able to experience bliss due to their sorrow over the lost, and I would argue that God would never cease to strive for the salvation of the lost.
You've probably read Thomas Talbott before (?), but in case you haven't read this article, one of my saved links is a similar argument made by him which can be found here.
> 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.
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
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.
It kind of depends on the individual, but making sure they have a good understanding of the Gospel is a wonderful place to start. "What is the Gospel," is a really clear, short, overall excellent Gospel primer.
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...
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.
Bruh a Bishop from the Anglican Church of NA wrote a great book on this.
https://www.amazon.com/Salvation-How-We-Got-Wrong/dp/1483904873
Also just to call him. /u/im_just_saying
> 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"?
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.
This is the healthiest view I think. It really saddens me that people dismiss the salvation of others based solely on their soteriological views. Molinism is very interesting--Kenneth Kealey has a great book on it:
https://www.amazon.com/Salvation-Sovereignty-Kenneth-Keathley-ebook/dp/B00RYGEPPY/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?keywords=Salvation+and+sovereignty+kealey&qid=1565811729&s=digital-text&sr=1-1-fkmr0
Leighton Flowers has good resources on this from a traditionalist perspective (fundamental Baptist/free will):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwVFauQeuK4&t=2223s
Mike Winger shares his view:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UO92L11L9jc
The reformed perspective is described in Calvin's classic Institutes of the Christian Religion, which is $1 on Kindle (can be read on the cloud app on your PC, phone or tablet):
https://www.amazon.com/Institutes-Christian-Religion-John-Calvin-ebook/dp/B06XWYJQP1/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1565811861&sr=1-1
I have come around strongly to Leighton Flowers' view after reading both sides of the argument, but I think it's well worth reading (biblical) scholars and pastors from the other side of the soteriological debate (I still aim to read the Institutes and enjoy Spurgeon's writings).
I'll put forward three more that I have read several times.
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.
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 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
You clearly need to read this book!
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.
There are many conflicting parts of the bible.
And some commandments are more important than others. The emphasis that people put on some verses says a lot about them.
Many parts of the bible don't support what mainstream churches say about hell.
Early Christian theology thought we would all be reconciled with God. Somewhere along the line organised religion seems to have found that an emphasis on hell and punishment is a great recruitment drive.
Have a look at Universal Reconcilliation:
> in the first 600 years of Christian history there were 6 main theological schools. Four of them were Universalists, one taught "conditional immortality" and the last taught Eternal hell. Many early church fathers have been quoted as either embracing or hoping for the ultimate reconciliation of God with His creation. Those that did not embrace the teaching, such as Augustine, acknowledged that it was a common enough belief among Christians of the day. The concept of a final restoration of all souls particularly had large appeal in the East during the fourth and fifth centuries.
There's a great book Good Goats if you're interested in reading further.
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#
This is a good book
You might want to check out Death of the Custodian by Ketcherside. It explains exactly what you're wondering about in simple, non theological language.
Here's one from a favorite pastor of mine. Frank Walker
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).
Join a church that you think Jesus founded and find out.
Try to learn a little more about why sin and salvation are important in context of the Old Testament: creation, communion with God, God's covenant with man, prophesies of Jesus. Jesus taught heavily about his relationship with us and how that impacts our eternity. If he's wrong, he's probably crazy and his teachings could be harmful. However his resurrection gives us assurance that he is who he says he is. Follow your attraction to Christianity if you believe it to be true and continue to find out more answers.
Lastly, don't let your faith depend heavily on your feelings. Feelings change but truth does not. Follow where Christ is leading you and continue to pursue your questions and be open to the answers. Be confident in that many wise Christians have travelled this road before us and can offer help through their holy example, writings, or prayers.
These might help:
http://www.catholic.com/video/what-do-catholics-believe-about-salvation
> "I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
> We are faced, then, with a frightening alternative. This man we are talking about either was (and is) just what He said or else a lunatic, or something worse. Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God. God has landed on this enemy-occupied world in human form."
>Quotes from Mere Christianity, Part 20
http://merecslewis.blogspot.com/2011/09/jesus-is-not-just-great-moral-teacher.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis's_trilemma
http://www.amazon.com/The-Salvation-Controversy-James-Akin/dp/1888992182
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".
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
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"
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
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.
Here's the episode in a nutshell, with corresponding footnotes for further exploration:
Well sit it out. Don't get over-emotional about what happens in the Church. People are people, and unfortunately the Church is in a sucky phase. And the Pope may be a crappy person, too. We'll see.
​
To counter our Dutch Reformed friend above... here are some books from ex-Reformed folks. They all became Catholic - one is a website:
The Salvation Controversy - A tutorial through TULIP (5 points of Calvinism from an ex-Calvinist, turned Catholic)
The Mystery of Predestination According to Scripture, the Church and Aquinas -
Rome Sweet Home - From a Reformed professor at Westminster, turned Catholic -
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/ - - all Reformed guys who became Catholic
Reformed High Church Anglican Pastor who became Catholic The Crucified Rabbi https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q2HSJ6cbMY -
​
If I was religious, I would be Catholic.
David's references take you through everything you basically read and rejected before - just more sophisticated Sola Scriptura. "It's not 'me' saying it - it's Calvin and me saying it! Every church father before Calvin knows better than me insofar as they agree with Calvin. "
For David: in all of their own words. This book is nothing but quotes - starting literally from those ordained by the apostles themselves: https://www.amazon.com/Teachings-Church-Fathers-John-Willis/dp/0898708931
I hope you stay honest with your pursuit of truth. You can eliminate all presuppositions and trust your mind.