The Doctrine of Justification and the Atonement

Is it necessary to believe in forensic/legal justification and the penal/vicarious atonement?

  • Definitely

    Votes: 8 40.0%
  • Yes, I think so

    Votes: 5 25.0%
  • Not Sure

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No, I don't think so

    Votes: 2 10.0%
  • Definitely Not

    Votes: 5 25.0%

  • Total voters
    20

Jonaitis

Soli Deo Gloria
Jan 4, 2019
5,191
4,204
Wyoming
✟122,609.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
I believe that before the church really figured out the Trinity and the Hypostatic union, that it was possible to be confused about these issues and still be saved.

C.S. Lewis seems to be on your side, he didn't think it was necessary to believe in particulars. I must disagree with him by my own conviction, brother...
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
C.S. Lewis seems to be on your side, he didn't think it was necessary to believe in particulars. I must disagree with him by my own conviction, brother...

Would you bring a church member up on discipline charges if they rejected PSA in favor of the satisfaction theory?
 
Upvote 0

Jonaitis

Soli Deo Gloria
Jan 4, 2019
5,191
4,204
Wyoming
✟122,609.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Keep in mind that there are two different things:

1. Confusion or lack of understanding concerning a doctrine.
2. Understanding and rejection of a doctrine.

It is much more troubling for someone to understanding the Trinity, Hypostatic Union, or PSA and then to reject it than for someone to simply lack a proper understanding of the doctrine. In both cases the person does not properly believe the doctrine, but situation (2) is worse than situation (1).

There is nothing difficult in PSA, and I see it as nothing other than the gospel. If there are people who believe a gospel without it, what do they believe? Some here have mentioned CV theory, but this leaves so much room for them to build a works-based doctrine of justification.

It is simple enough for a child to understand it: We are sinners, who have broken God's law, deserve punishment according, but Christ bore it on the cross for believing sinners.
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
There is nothing difficult in PSA, and I see it as nothing other than the gospel. If there are people who believe a gospel without it, what do they believe? Some here have mentioned CV theory, but this leaves so much room for them to build a works-based doctrine of justification.

It is simple enough for a child to understand it: We are sinners, who have broken God's law, deserve punishment according, but Christ bore it on the cross for believing sinners.

Many people have simply never been exposed to the terminology and theological implications. PSA also implies double imputation. I would argue that if you don't understand double imputation, you don't understand PSA. But these are ideas that many people have never been exposed to.
 
Upvote 0

Butch5

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 7, 2012
8,932
767
62
Homer Georgia
Visit site
✟308,497.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, that's like saying the Trinity didn't come into existence until Nicene Council. The penal atonement was better articulated in light of its being attacked and obscured by the RCC in the middle ages. It didn't seem like a necessity prior to defend it.

It wasn't obscured, it wasn't there. For about the first thousand years the church held to the Ransom theory. Around 1100 AD. a Catholic theologian named Anselm of Canterbury decided that that wasn't good enough and devised the Satisfaction theory. The Reformers then reworked Anselm's theory into the Penal model. The Penal model is a relatively modern doctrine.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You do realize Biblehub.com is from a Reformed perspective?

No it most definitely is not. Scroll the Biblehub library list of resources HERE. I see nothing distinctly Reformed about it, yes there are Reformed resources among many non-Reformed resources. The same goes for the commentaries on Biblehub. It would be nice if the resources were organized by tradition along with brief biographical information to help people sift and sort. But I am just thankful for the wide selection of free resources tbh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jonaitis
Upvote 0

Jonaitis

Soli Deo Gloria
Jan 4, 2019
5,191
4,204
Wyoming
✟122,609.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
They are actually very different. Satisfaction theory denies that Jesus suffered God's wrath or that he assumed the guilt of our sins in a literal sense.

Satisfaction theory falls within PSA.
 
Upvote 0

Jonaitis

Soli Deo Gloria
Jan 4, 2019
5,191
4,204
Wyoming
✟122,609.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
It wasn't obscured, it wasn't there. For about the first thousand years the church held to the Ransom theory. Around 1100 AD. a Catholic theologian named Anselm of Canterbury decided that that wasn't good enough and devised the Satisfaction theory. The Reformers then reworked Anselm's theory into the Penal model. The Penal model is a relatively modern doctrine.

How about we actually look at Scripture for once??
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jonaitis

Soli Deo Gloria
Jan 4, 2019
5,191
4,204
Wyoming
✟122,609.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
I don't believe that's true. Satisfaction theory denies very important tenants of PSA.

I'm tired of debating words, it does no good to the hearer. How about we find it in Scripture, does it speak of the necessity of it?
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
I'm tired of debating words, it does no good to the hearer. How about we find it in Scripture, does it speak of the necessity of it?

You haven't answered my question. Would you bring up a church member on charges if they rejected PSA in favor of a different model like satisfaction or even Christus Victor?

Does the Bible teach PSA? Yes it does. Does the Bible teach that a denial of PSA amounts to a denial of the gospel? I think that would depend on a lot of stuff and a general answer is not easy.
 
Upvote 0

Jonaitis

Soli Deo Gloria
Jan 4, 2019
5,191
4,204
Wyoming
✟122,609.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
You haven't answered my question. Would you bring up a church member on charges if they rejected PSA in favor of a different model like satisfaction or even Christus Victor?

Does the Bible teach PSA? Yes it does. Does the Bible teach that a denial of PSA amounts to a denial of the gospel? I think that would depend on a lot of stuff and a general answer is not easy.

Yes, if it gave room for works-based justification, which Christus Victor does.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Yes, if it gave room for works-based justification, which Christus Victor does.

What about the satisfaction theory? What if a member said that Jesus died to remove God's wrath for their sins but they don't believe that Jesus literally suffered God's wrath or that their sins were imputed to Christ in a forensic sense. Likewise they do not believe that Christ's righteousness or suffering is imputed to them in a forensic sense. Would you bring them up on charges?
 
Upvote 0

Jonaitis

Soli Deo Gloria
Jan 4, 2019
5,191
4,204
Wyoming
✟122,609.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
What about the satisfaction theory? What if a member said that Jesus died to remove God's wrath for their sins but they don't believe that Jesus literally suffered God's wrath or that their sins were imputed to Christ in a forensic sense. Likewise they do not believe that Christ's righteousness or suffering is imputed to them in a forensic sense. Would you bring them up on charges?

I suppose any sort of satisfaction theories that lead to a forensic form of justification may not be an issue. My issue is how that person is justified, and a consistent view(s) of the atonement would be necessary for it. This is a serious issue in New Testament.
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
I suppose any sort of satisfaction theories that lead to a forensic form of justification may not be an issue.

Then you have answered your question. Since there are theories of the atonement which do hold to forensic justification but are not PSA, belief in PSA (in your view) is not necessary for salvation.
 
Upvote 0

Jonaitis

Soli Deo Gloria
Jan 4, 2019
5,191
4,204
Wyoming
✟122,609.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Then you have answered your question. Since there are theories of the atonement which do hold to forensic justification but are not PSA, belief in PSA (in your view) is not necessary for salvation.

I suppose you're right, Tree of Life.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I don't believe that's true. Satisfaction theory denies very important tenants of PSA.

I don't get it, I mean it seems to me [select] atonement theories can be revised per Scripture in a way which would make them not only compatible but harmonious. Maybe I'm missing something though (probably am), but I cannot help but think no one theory compartmentalized as such within narrow definition does the atonement of Christ full justice. *shrug*

"The Bible explains the cross in terms of both propitiation and expiation, the twin accomplishments of Christ in our behalf. Propitiation refers specifically to Christ’s work of satisfaction of God’s righteousness. He pays the penalty for us that is due our sins. We are debtors who cannot possibly pay the moral debt that we have incurred by our offense against the righteousness of God, and God’s wrath is satisfied and propitiated by the perfect sacrifice that Christ makes on our behalf. But that’s only one aspect of the work. The second is expiation. In expiation, our sins are removed from us, remitted by having our sins transferred or imputed to Christ, who vicariously suffers in our stead. God is satisfied, and our sin is removed for us in the perfect atonement of Jesus. This fulfills the dual sense in which sin was atoned for on the old-covenant Day of Atonement, both by the sacrifice of one animal and the symbolic transfer of the sins of the people to the back of the scapegoat, who was then sent into the wilderness, removing the sins from the people." - R.C. Sproul

PROPITIATION — Romans 3:24-25
"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation." The basic meaning of propitiation is "appease" or "satisfy." What did the death of Christ appease or satisfy in the nature of God? In his very nature, God is holy and righteous. He can have no fellowship with anything that is sinful, including sinful men. Thus, God's wrath burns hot against sin and sinners because he must judge all sin. If he does not do this, he is not acting according to his perfect character. But, in love, God sent his Son Jesus Christ to be the perfect sacrifice for sin. No mere human being could have atoned for the sins of men because all are sinners. But Christ, who was a perfect human as well as truly divine, became the perfect sacrifice for sin. God poured out his wrath against sin on the person of Jesus Christ. Thus, the death of Christ appeased God's wrath and satisfied his holy, righteous demands against sin." - Jack Arnold
 
  • Agree
Reactions: HatGuy
Upvote 0