How can a blood-sacrifice renew our Nature?

[po18guy]

But the problem with that is Paul sees a direct causal connection between his sacrifice and our justification. Romans 5:9

If we stumble along verse by verse, we fall into a pit. Without Christ’s atonement, no justification would be possible. Remember that animal sacrifice never atoned for sin, even though it was blood (Hebrews 7:27, 10:11-12). But, Christ’s bloody atonement opened the door. We must still cooperate with God;s grace and enter through that door. It is not automatic. Cooperation with God;s grace is in the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30). The servants could not provide an increase for the master until the master graced them with talents. Yet, faith in those talents would gain them nothing - they had to trade with those talents (active cooperation with grace) before they were pleasing to the master - and before they could enter into his joy.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

If we stumble along verse by verse, we fall into a pit. Without Christ’s atonement, no justification would be possible. Remember that animal sacrifice never atoned for sin, even though it was blood (Hebrews 7:27, 10:11-12). But, Christ’s bloody atonement opened the door. We must still cooperate with God;s grace and enter through that door. It is not automatic. Cooperation with God;s grace is in the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30). The servants could not provide an increase for the master until the master graced them with talents. Yet, faith in those talents would gain them nothing - they had to trade with those talents (active cooperation with grace) before they were pleasing to the master - and before they could enter into his joy.

Remember, I have not here endorsed a faith alone schema. All I am saying is that the initiatory gift of justification seems to be one of entering a state of divine acquittal with God based upon the death of Jesus. This is the remission of sins that is lauded in the preaching of the apostles in acts. It is abstate of being guilt free.

Now, we must remember this grace is couched in together with other saving graces such as the internal holiness and sanctification, without which there is no justification.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

The Greek construction here is rather odd. The Greek word for ‘‘because of’’ or ‘‘on account’’ makes it seem like our justification caused his resurrection. For it says ''he was delivered up because of our offenses (cause), and was raised because of our justification (cause). It seems that because He was the sinless Lamb of God, the incarnate God, his resurrection was caused by our justification being accomplished. In other words, his resurrection marks the completion of what was needed to justify sinners, and therefore he no longer needed to remain dead.

This might be dissatisfying, but it would be more difficult to try and say that his resurrection was caused by us becoming righteous. Or that his resurrection causes us to be righteous, which despite being true doesn’t fit the Greek construction or the context.

Also, since Abraham’s faith was imputed for righteousness was a paradigm of chrisitian justification because it was faith in God giving life to what is dead, that Christs resurrection tion gives us the faith which God imputes as righteousness.

 

[Veedar]

If we stumble along verse by verse, we fall into a pit. Without Christ’s atonement, no justification would be possible. Remember that animal sacrifice never atoned for sin, even though it was blood (Hebrews 7:27, 10:11-12). But, Christ’s bloody atonement opened the door. We must still cooperate with God;s grace and enter through that door. It is not automatic. Cooperation with God;s grace is in the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30). The servants could not provide an increase for the master until the master graced them with talents. Yet, faith in those talents would gain them nothing - they had to trade with those talents (active cooperation with grace) before they were pleasing to the master - and before they could enter into his joy.

It is my view that this idea of a God who need to see his son punished in order to pay some legal ranhsom, in order to be able to justify/forgive humans is deeply misguided. And I do not think that is what Paul is saying.

Instead, I think what Paul is saying is as follows:

All humans have committed sins and the just consequence of this is death. In order to free us from death, death must be conquered. Jesus wishes to conquer death in cooperation with his Father. And so he willingly accepts our fate. We deserve to die as a penalty for sin. He does not deserve to die, but he willingly allows himself to be killed anyway. So he willingly takes upon himself the kind of punishment that we deserve, but that he does not. He does not do this to pay a legal penalty so his Father will be able to forgive us, if that were the case he could remain stone dead, and the price would still be paid, and we would never have to die. He takes upon himself the kind of punishment we deserve so that God might raise him from the dead (you cannot raise a living being from the dead). The Father is just in raising Jesus from the dead, since he was in fact quite innocent. When Jesus is raised from the dead, death has been conquered. So in a sense, Jesus had to take the penalty we deserved in order to free us from it. And now that he is living, we can be made alive in him, and raised from the dead in him. Which is why we are symbolically buried with him in baptism and raised to a new life.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

It is my view that this idea of a God who need to see his son punished in order to pay some legal fee, in order to be able to justify/forgive humans is deeply misguided. And I do not think that is what Paul is saying.

Instead, I think what Paul is saying is as follows:

All humans have committed sins and the just consequence of this is death. In order to free us from death, death must be conquered. Jesus wishes to conquer death in cooperation with his Father. And so he willingly accepts our fate. We deserve to die as a penalty for sin. He does not deserve to die, but he willingly allows himself to be killed anyway. So he willingly takes upon himself the kind of punishment that we deserve, but that he does not. He does not do this to pay a legal penalty so his Father will be able to forgive us, if that were the case he could remain stone dead, and the price would still be paid, and we would never have to die. He takes upon himself the kind of punishment we deserve so that God might raise him from the dead (you cannot raise a living being from the dead). The Father is just in raising Jesus from the dead, since he was in fact quite innocent. When Jesus is raised from the dead, death has been conquered. So in a sense, Jesus had to take the penalty we deserved in order to free us from it. And now that he is living, we can be made alive in him, and raised from the dead in him. Which is why we are symbolically buried with him in baptism and raised to a new life.

Yes I agree. But it would be unfair to read this into the particular arguments of Paul. For instance, Paul does not, as much as I would like him to, say that we are justified by being joined to Christs resurrection life. He says, rather, that his sacrifice has justified sinners (Romans 3:24; 5:9). Romans 5 parallels Adams sin with Christ’s death as the one single act which defines the fate of all man who are in their respects.

 

[Veedar]

Yes I agree. But it would be unfair to read this into the particular arguments of Paul. For instance, Paul does not, as much as I would like him to, say that we are justified by being joined to Christs resurrection life. He says, rather, that his sacrifice has justified sinners (Romans 3:24; 5:9). Romans 5 parallels Adams sin with Christ’s death as the one single act which defines the fate of all man who are in their respects.

This is because you pick a few verses to emphasize while ignoring others. A few points. If Jesus was struck by God with your punishment, so that you would not have to be punished, why will you still die? You will still die because of your sin, and death is still the just punishment for sin, but thanks to Jesus conquering it, it has lost it’s power:

“if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. (…) But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive(…) When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory. Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting? The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1Cor 15:17,20-22,54-56).

Justification is intimately connected with the resurrection of Jesus. It is not that Jesus is the scapegoat that takes our legal punishment so God doesn’t have to punish us (what a warped kind of justice that would be) Instead Jesus accepts death to conquer it. And so even though we as mortal creatures still must die, death does not have the power to keep us when we are in Him.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Veedar,

Be mindful of the argument of the other side. What does it mean for a human being to become accursed of God? To suffer the just sentence of death for sin. How does someone become accursed of God? By sinning. Did Jesus become accursed for us? If He did, how did he become accursed for us? Was His death really not a curse? Was His death feigning the curse, or did he really experience the curse?

If you try to separate Jesus’ sacrifice from the curse, then His death does not remove the curse from us, only imitates the punishment, without really taking it. The wages of sin is death, and this is the divine principle, chosen by God Himself. Death is not a gift of grace, it is a just reward for disobedience. Jesus suffered death as a sinless man, so that we could have life.

Now, this does not mean that the Father and Son were at war with each other…or that the Father hated the Son, or that the Son became detestable before the Father, or that the Father was angry with the Son…it simply means that Christ gave Himself to be killed, so that is can be a sacrifice for our sin, by taking the curse for us, so that we can have life.

As far are your trying to mingle the resurrection with justification, I cannot agree with you. I use to have a nice construction of how Jesus’ resurrection justifies us, but I was forced by the words of Paul to remain consistent to his own language. Jesus’ sacrifice is the basis upon which sinners are justified. His resurrection marks the beginning of the new creation, of which we participate with Him through baptismal regeneration. Justification and the Forigveness of sin is couched in that broader single structure, but it is not identical in anyway. I am sorry.

 

[po18guy]

It is my view that this idea of a God who need to see his son punished in order to pay some legal ranhsom, in order to be able to justify/forgive humans is deeply misguided. And I do not think that is what Paul is saying.

Whoa! This is not what I am saying in the slightest! We seem to be having two different conversations.

This entire conversation stems from what strikes me as protestant obsession/fear/loathing over the issue of justification. Since no two denominations can agree on what it is, or how it is achieved, or even if it is achievable, there is much consternation, uncertainty and even fear amongst their members. Partially for this reason, we have seen many non-Catholics arrive here at CAF in the hope of finding some comfort in doctrine. Many converts tell of denomination hopping in search of comforting doctrines.

I really do not care about this denomination’s doctrine or that denomination’s doctrine or any of the other thousands of theories out there. We have the Sacraments. God made it simple, so that even the simplest among us have a sure hope of heaven. Baptism, Confirmation, Reconciliation, the Holy Eucharist. Repeat as needed.

Simple. Confidence inspiring.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

But at the same time, no one has tended to the question at hand. How does a blood-sacrifice renew our nature? “Now having been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him” (Romans 5:9).

 

[po18guy]

But at the same time, no one has tended to the question at hand. How does a blood-sacrifice renew our nature? “Now having been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him” (Romans 5:9).

Catechism section 1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life:40

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.41

41 Romans 3:21-26

What do you not understand about this?

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Even Scripture has more to say than that. Are you setting the question aside?

Are you saying that there is no way to articulate the causal relationship between Jesus’ sacrifice and the infusion of righteousness (by the Holy Spirit)?

 

[po18guy]

Even Scripture has more to say than that. Are you setting the question aside?

Are you saying that there is no way to articulate the causal relationship between Jesus’ sacrifice and the infusion of righteousness (by the Holy Spirit)?

What is your agenda, since it is becoming increasingly clear that only your pre-set answer will suffice? Just be honest. We are adults here.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

What is your agenda, since it is becoming increasingly clear that only your pre-set answer will suffice? Just be honest. We are adults here.

My agenda is to be able to respond to the Protestant argument, which is grammatically strong, as well as logically, that Paul never really does present a causal connection between the transformation of the inner man and being justified, but rather than Jesus’ sacrifice for sin is the cause of justification (Rom 3:21-26).

The Protestant seeks to read the Scripture, and be able to interpret the Scripture as it is written in the most logical way. Of course, they have some twisted ideas of salvation, but the 3rd chapter to the Romans makes a pretty strong case that sinners are justified because of a blood-sacrifice, which would communicate the idea of forgiveness and reconciliation in the mind of a Jew. Of course, repentance would be a condition, but nonetheless justification is the act of divine acquittal.

All I want to know is how to argue, instead of justification being a mere external covering that justification is truly what Trent said it was while at the same time being faithful to Paul’s causal connection between the blood of Jesus and our justification

 

[po18guy]

My agenda is to be able to respond to the Protestant argument, which is grammatically strong, as well as logically, that Paul never really does present a causal connection between the transformation of the inner man and being justified, but rather than Jesus’ sacrifice for sin is the cause of justification (Rom 3:21-26).

The Protestant seeks to read the Scripture, and be able to interpret the Scripture as it is written in the most logical way. Of course, they have some twisted ideas of salvation, but the 3rd chapter to the Romans makes a pretty strong case that sinners are justified because of a blood-sacrifice, which would communicate the idea of forgiveness and reconciliation in the mind of a Jew. Of course, repentance would be a condition, but nonetheless justification is the act of divine acquittal.

All I want to know is how to argue, instead of justification being a mere external covering that justification is truly what Trent said it was while at the same time being faithful to Paul’s causal connection between the blood of Jesus and our justification

OK. much better! Pardon me if I came across as accusatory. The protestant view, of course, is considered to be theological error, inasmuch as it is made via the private interpretation of scripture alone. As well, aside from those who still practice baptism, they have no Sacraments. This is the tragedy of the reformation. But, which of the thousands of varieties of protestant are you dealing with? There are almost innumerable variations on the theme of justification. Many groups must obsess over this, as they have discarded all valid sacraments that restore our justified state. Their pastors have no authority over sin. They confess, if they even do that, directly to the sky, hoping that Jesus will grant their sought-after forgiveness. Yet, they NEVER hear Jesus’ words of absolution, as Catholics do from the Priest at Reconciliation. Thus, they are concerned - as well they should be. Dealing with post-baptismal sin is a huge problem for many schools of protestantism.

It sounds like the school you are dealing with teaches a form of universal atonement for sin. But, this is contradicted by Christ at the last supper. His blood was shed for “many” but certainly not for all. His atoning sacrifice is valid for all - but only if all choose to accept it. He knew that not all (scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees) would accept it. This is what confounds protestants, as they know not, from the limited scriptures, what to do regarding sin after baptism - assuming they even baptize! See their problem?

In Acts, you see many examples relating to justification, beginning with Pentecost. “Repent and be baptized, each one of you” was the exhortation. Paul was immediately baptized by Ananias. The Ethiopian eunuch was baptized by Philip. The Gentiles at Joppa were immediately baptized by Peter. All were baptized, as this is the regeneration of our souls. Peter says 'Baptism, which now saves you." We must be born from above by water and the Spirit (John 3:3-5). This was shown to the world by Jesus at His own baptism. When He emerged from the water, the Spirit rested upon Him. Water and the Spirit. That is our initial justification. Paul believed this, as he also baptized, although his helpers did most of the baptizing.

But, Paul went on to urge that baptized Christians be reconciled with God. Paul’s ministry to Christians was one of reconciliation. How can this be, if they are justified solely by faith? Read 2 Corinthians 2:10. Paul forgve sins in the person of Christ. The Sacrament of Reconciliation! Protestants have discarded this. They lost so much - much more than they will ever know - in the reformation. That act of rebellion turned Christinaity upside down, and confusion and division have reigned ever since.

This is why Catholics do not obsess over justification, while nearly all protestants simply must obsess over it. I pray for them daily, as theirs is not an easy spiritual road to travel.

 

[Veedar]

Veedar,

Be mindful of the argument of the other side. What does it mean for a human being to become accursed of God? To suffer the just sentence of death for sin. How does someone become accursed of God? By sinning. Did Jesus become accursed for us? If He did, how did he become accursed for us? Was His death really not a curse? Was His death feigning the curse, or did he really experience the curse? (…)

As far are your trying to mingle the resurrection with justification, I cannot agree with you. (…)

It is ok if we do not agree on the mingling of the resurrection with justification, but it is not merely I who does this, but Paul (Romans 4:25, 1 Cor 15:17). But I will try to explain the whole thing by an analogy. As I understand Paul:

All of humanity has been sentenced to a prison camp. They are in Paul’s view accursed because of the fall in the garden. The prison camp is called death, and unfortunately for us, it is eternal. God and Jesus have a plan to rescue us from this terrible fate, and so Jesus becomes human. Urighteous humans sentence Jesus to the prison camp for crimes he did not commit. But God and Jesus actually wants this to happen, so that Jesus can enter the camp and free the prisoners, and that Jesus does. Because Jesus was unjustly sent to the camp, God is quite justified in breaking open the gates and letting Jesus out, and Jesus will take anyone who places his faith in him with him.

Since Paul views the prison camp as our punishment for sin, it could be said that Jesus became a prisoner for our sake, he took our punishment upon himself. Indeed that the “wrath of God” (death) was poured out on him etc… But all this language means is that Jesus had to enter the prison camp in order to free us from it. He did not have to do it to satisfy some strange kind of justice where someone has to pay for the crimes, no matter who it is…

Reading Paul that way makes a lot of sense to me, it makes sense of all of your verses and also the ones you choose not to emphasize, such as Romans 4:25, all of chapter 6 and 1 Corinthians 15. The classic protestant interpretation does not fit well with all of what scripture says, and it makes divine justice quite inexplicable.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

OK. much better! Pardon me if I came across as accusatory. The protestant view, of course, is considered to be theological error, inasmuch as it is made via the private interpretation of scripture alone. As well, aside from those who still practice baptism, they have no Sacraments. This is the tragedy of the reformation. But, which of the thousands of varieties of protestant are you dealing with? There are almost innumerable variations on the theme of justification. Many groups must obsess over this, as they have discarded all valid sacraments that restore our justified state. Their pastors have no authority over sin. They confess, if they even do that, directly to the sky, hoping that Jesus will grant their sought-after forgiveness. Yet, they NEVER hear Jesus’ words of absolution, as Catholics do from the Priest at Reconciliation. Thus, they are concerned - as well they should be. Dealing with post-baptismal sin is a huge problem for many schools of protestantism.

It sounds like the school you are dealing with teaches a form of universal atonement for sin. But, this is contradicted by Christ at the last supper. His blood was shed for “many” but certainly not for all. His atoning sacrifice is valid for all - but only if all choose to accept it. He knew that not all (scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees) would accept it. This is what confounds protestants, as they know not, from the limited scriptures, what to do regarding sin after baptism - assuming they even baptize! See their problem?

In Acts, you see many examples relating to justification, beginning with Pentecost. “Repent and be baptized, each one of you” was the exhortation. Paul was immediately baptized by Ananias. The Ethiopian eunuch was baptized by Philip. The Gentiles at Joppa were immediately baptized by Peter. All were baptized, as this is the regeneration of our souls. Peter says 'Baptism, which now saves you." We must be born from above by water and the Spirit (John 3:3-5). This was shown to the world by Jesus at His own baptism. When He emerged from the water, the Spirit rested upon Him. Water and the Spirit. That is our initial justification. Paul believed this, as he also baptized, although his helpers did most of the baptizing.

But, Paul went on to urge that baptized Christians be reconciled with God. Paul’s ministry to Christians was one of reconciliation. How can this be, if they are justified solely by faith? Read 2 Corinthians 2:10. Paul forgve sins in the person of Christ. The Sacrament of Reconciliation! Protestants have discarded this. They lost so much - much more than they will ever know - in the reformation. That act of rebellion turned Christinaity upside down, and confusion and division have reigned ever since.

This is why Catholics do not obsess over justification, while nearly all protestants simply must obsess over it. I pray for them daily, as theirs is not an easy spiritual road to travel.

Understandable, but faith alone has not been supported by me. What I am saying is his dies Jesus sacrifice for sin justify us? If we say justify means ‘‘make holy and good’’, how does an atoning sacrifice change our behavior. It has to be tied together somehow

 

[po18guy]

Understandable, but faith alone has not been supported by me. What I am saying is his dies Jesus sacrifice for sin justify us? If we say justify means ‘‘make holy and good’’, how does an atoning sacrifice change our behavior. It has to be tied together somehow

I had written this:

Not claiming that it has - that is the domain of the multifarious denominations. I am not completely understanding your question or your difficulty in understanding. If you are asking to probe the mind of God, we will not fully know in this life - if ever - the reasons why things are the way they are. The Church teaches what has been revealed about God’s truth, while seeking to understand, through faith, the Lord’s reasoning behind that truth. Oftentimes, the Church simply does not know, and tells us as much. If Jesus’ sacrifice is an atonement, somehow, it is acceptable before God as the atonement for sin. As a practical matter, the atonement, while satisfying the Father, opens up a possibility for mankind, not an actuality. This is somewhat difficult to convey, and may not satisfy, but I used the analogy of the door to heaven being opened as the effect of the atonement. Yet, that door being opened results in no salvation unless someone accepts the conditions for salvation and cooperates with God;s grace so as to pass through that door. It is all a matter of God’s grace.

I think you are looking for the exact reason, in God’s mind, that Christ’s blood atones for our sins. I am afraid that no one on earth knows this, or will ever know this, as God’s ways are unsearchable. We might as well inquire about the reasons that matter came into existence at the command of God. It is sufficient for us to know that matter was, indeed, created and that God saw that it was good. He is the Potter and we are the clay - we cannot understand divine reasoning - only that such reasoning exists, its effects have been revealed to us, and it has been applied to bring certain changes about in creation.

This is the substance of God - mystery. For us men, it is ineffable - simply beyond our capacity to know or to understand. Thus, we must simply ponder that mystery, and not attempt to dissect or understand it. The atonement has been revealed to mankind, and we are grateful for it. That, by itself, is enough.

But, re-reading your question, what ties Jesus’ death and our justification together is our act of the human will in repentance. Read the teaching on the Galileans whose blood Herod mixed with their sacrifices in the temple; the teaching on the tower of Siloam falling on the eighteen (both in Luke 13). Jesus taught that those victims were no more guilty than any others - but if we do not repent, we will likewise perish. By our act of our human will in repentance, we make the connection between the atonement and our justification. It is God’s offer, but it remains unfulfilled until we accept it and amend our lives by repentance. The ball is in our court.

Help or not?

 

[FightingFat]

I have been having great difficulty with the Catholic interpretation of Romans 3:21-26. I believe the most straightforward explanation of “justification” in this passage is that sinful human beings are graciously "justified"by means of the blood-sacrifice of Jesus Christ. This much is clear by the words of Paul “…being justified by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forth as an expiation by His blood to be received through faith…” (Rom 3:24-25). Any Jew would understand what sacrifices effect. They effect atonement and remission of sin, not the re-creation of the soul and heart of man. Therefore, when Paul says that we are “justified” by His grace, he most likely has in mind the idea of having our sins washed away, forgiven, in the blood of Jesus Christ.

Now when it comes to “salvation”, one is “saved” through Holy Baptism, which is a sacrament of regeneration, right? So in baptism we die to sin, are washed clean from guilt, and are reborn as righteous sons and daughters of God. We are raised unto good works, righteousness, and our minds are renewed. So through this one act of initiation, our persons are forgiven and renewed in righteousness. Protestants have stressed that “justification” is divine acquittal and pardon in God’s judgement and that “sanctification”, which happens alongside justification is the renewal of our hearts and mind in the image and likeness of God. To me, Romans 3:21-26 highly favors the protestant definition. For Paul makes a “direct” connection between the “justification of sinners” and the “blood-sacrifice of Jesus”. Any Jew would have remembered those times of bringing an animal to be sacrifice to atone for his/her sins. Why should we shove into this portion of Paul’s writings the internal sanctification of the heart and mind of man? Of course, no one would rightly say that this is not required for salvation…but to squeeze it into the definition of justification seems to be a difficult endeavor.

I wanted to challenge anyone on how they could explain Romans 3:21-26 from a Catholic perspective. I would also ask that anyone who wishes to argue that the “righteousness of God” here is His covenant faithfulness to not post any comments in pursuit to argue for this.

You might find this addresses your concerns marklambert.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-outrage-of-cross.html

 

[God_Seeker_1]

The article lacks the very thing that we are searching for. Namely, how to understand a sinner being justified by the blood of Jesus Christ. If this justification is the sanctification of man turning him into a good and holy person, then we are forced to explain how a blood sacrifice does this.

 

[FightingFat]

The article lacks the very thing that we are searching for. Namely, how to understand a sinner being justified by the blood of Jesus Christ. If this justification is the sanctification of man turning him into a good and holy person, then we are forced to explain how a blood sacrifice does this.

The sacrifice question is dealt with here: marklambert.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/how-does-jesus-save-us.html any use?