Aloha. Episcopal priest here. I applaud your valiant efforts at evangelism in this corner of the fediverse. It takes a degree of courage to be so open about your faith in a place that can be consistently hostile to the Christian religion. Thank God for people like you.

Now, I want to offer a little push-back on your soteriology (fancy term for the theology of salvation for those who don’t know). You’re espousing a version of substitutionary atonement theology as though it is the universally held view of Christianity in regards to the “mechanics” of salvation. It is not. Not only are there multiple views within substitutionary atonement itself, there are a plethora of ideas, stretching all the way back to the earliest days of Christianity, to try and make sense of how Jesus’ death on a cross and resurrection from that death serve to “save” humanity. So let me, humbly, offer my view (which, the more I read it, seems to be the most supported biblically), which I call the Expository view of the Atonement:

The death of Jesus is meant by God, primarily, to lay bare (that is, to expose) the true nature of sin. God, incarnate, chooses to become the “conclusion” of what sin is all about. Every sin, then, is defined by the murder of God, the murder of Jesus. This helps us better understand how wicked human sinfulness can be. Kids in Gaza being systematically starved? That’s being done to Jesus. Trans people being ostracized or driven to suicide? Being done to Jesus. Supporting a regime that kidnaps people off the street? Wealth-addicts who exploit entire societies and make a mockery of the Christian religion? You get the idea. Even “small” sins like lying and cheating are covered here because doing these goes against what is universally understood as “good” and all goodness originates in God. Therefore this is tantamount to telling God His expectations for us don’t matter and that He may as well be dead. Matthew 25 more or less lays this all out when it talks about what happens when we do things “to the least of these.”

This all needs to be exposed so that we can see the fullness of what we’ve done, that there is a theological dimension to our actions. God takes our evil actions personally. Jesus on a cross is a visceral symbol of all this. But it’s also a powerful thing because it is on the cross that Jesus declares that we are all forgiven. This is the literal sense of us being saved “from our sins” (which is the actual good news that is preached all throughout the book of Acts).

Salvation is not about Jesus saving us from God’s wrath. It’s Him saving us from our worst impulses. If Hell is a factor in any of this, then Hell is a thing of our own making and somewhere we effectively place ourselves.

The resurrection of Jesus goes beyond all of this to demonstrate that even our worst mistakes are not beyond God’s ability to overcome. This is why Saint Paul can declare in Romans that “nothing can separate us from the love of God.” And him also saying that “grace abounds” in inverse proportion to our sinfulness.

Now, this forgiveness is not equal to being “let off the hook” or “getting off scot free.” Rather it becomes an open space where the contrite heart can begin to find healing. And healing can be a painful experience—and it’s proportional; the more serious the disease, the more painful the healing process. So, there are those of us who will suffer even after death. But that suffering is in service of our healing and restoration, not so much our punishment. It’s consequential (in a literal sense), but not because God hates us or whatever. But because we need healing.

I would argue that the more conventional views of substitutionary atonement are logically inconsistent (at best) and/or outright heretical.

You’re in my prayers as a fellow servant of God. Keep the faith and test the spirits!