The Doctrine of Justification and the Atonement

[Tree of Life]

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
​

I believe that we can affirm the satisfaction theory. The satisfaction theory is simply an underdeveloped version of PSA. Its problem is that it does not go far enough and it ends up denying the important idea of imputation. So we can take the good of the satisfaction theory and say that there's more!

 

[Jonaitis]

I'm sorry, I take it back. I cannot in good conscience agree that it isn't necessary to believe in penal atonement. Sure, this may mean a lot of well-meaning "Christians" would fall out of what I would considered salvation, but I am bound by my convictions. I retract what I said in my last posts that affirmed that other theories can be held, it isn't consistent.

I haven't felt like this for quite a long time, but I really regret it.

If I am wrong, God may open my understanding in the future. Until then, I am bound by my own convictions...

 

[Tree of Life]

I'm sorry, I take it back. I cannot in good conscience agree that it isn't necessary to believe in penal atonement. Sure, this may mean a lot of well-meaning "Christians" would fall out of what I would considered salvation, but I am bound by my convictions. I retract what I said in my last posts that affirmed that other theories can be held, it isn't consistent.

I haven't felt like this for quite a long time, but I really regret it.

If I am wrong, God may open my understanding in the future. Until then, I am bound by my own convictions...

That's fine. You're allowed to struggle with the truth and still be saved. ;-)

 

[Jonaitis]

That's fine. You're allowed to struggle with the truth and still be saved. ;-)

You're ALL WRONG, I am right

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Is the belief in forensic/legal justification and of Christ's penal/vicarious atonement necessary? Please explain why if you want.

Edit: I am talking about both, not just one or the other.

The human legal system is used as a parable. Like with all parables, it breaks down at some point, because it is not like God in relation to those points.

 

[Jonaitis]

The human legal system is used as a parable. Like with all parables, it breaks down at some point, because it is not like God in relation to those points.

I don't see how God's law is a parable...

 

[Butch5]

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
​

I used to wonder how people came to these conclusions. However, you can see the influence of Anselm's Satisfaction theory all over this. One can see how they came to this conclusion having started with the wrong premise.

 

[Butch5]

I'm sorry, I take it back. I cannot in good conscience agree that it isn't necessary to believe in penal atonement. Sure, this may mean a lot of well-meaning "Christians" would fall out of what I would considered salvation, but I am bound by my convictions. I retract what I said in my last posts that affirmed that other theories can be held, it isn't consistent.

I haven't felt like this for quite a long time, but I really regret it.

If I am wrong, God may open my understanding in the future. Until then, I am bound by my own convictions...

A lot of Christians believe that one is saved by faith alone. Do you believe this? If so, requiring one to believe in Penal atonement would be adding to the faith alone doctrine. Not only that but it would be a human work.

 

[Jonaitis]

A lot of Christians believe that one is saved by faith alone. Do you believe this? If so, requiring one to believe in Penal atonement would be adding to the faith alone doctrine. Not only that but it would be a human work.

I don't understand what you are saying here...

Sola fide cannot be divorced from solus christus, because faith is the instrument, while Christ is the object, of our salvation. Penal atonement addresses what Christ actually did. Do you know what you are talking about?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I don't see how God's law is a parable...

I don't see how the Roman legal system is God's law.

 

[Jonaitis]

I don't see how the Roman legal system is God's law.

Where are you at?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Where are you at?

you do that quite often. Discuss theology, then ask a personal question outta nowhere.

 

[Jonaitis]

you do that quite often. Discuss theology, then ask a personal question outta nowhere.

Huh?

I'm talking about God's law, you're talking about Roman legal system out of nowhere.

 

[Butch5]

I don't understand what you are saying here...

Sola fide cannot be divorced from solus christus, because faith is the instrument, while Christ is the object, of our salvation. Penal atonement addresses what Christ actually did. Do you know what you are talking about?

Oh yeah, I've been having these discussions for years. What I'm asking is how do you reconcile faith alone if that's what you believe, with the idea that one must believe in the doctrine of Penal atonement. Jesus and the apostles didn't preach Penal atonement, they preached the kingdom of God. Penal atonement isn't in the Gospel message, the faith. If you're claiming that one needs to believe in Penal atonement in addition to faith, you no longer have faith alone.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Is the belief in forensic/legal justification and of Christ's penal/vicarious atonement necessary? Please explain why if you want.

Edit: I am talking about both, not just one or the other.

We should put our faith in Christ Himself, not a theory about how He saves us.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Huh?

I'm talking about God's law, you're talking about Roman legal system out of nowhere.

The survey topic is related to verses that use the legal system of the day as a parable, it's not related to God's principles, it's a metaphor.

It is also important to note that since God does not show favoritism, intellectual assents are not required for salvation, just being born again by the Holy Spirit.

 

[FireDragon76]

A lot of Christians believe that one is saved by faith alone. Do you believe this? If so, requiring one to believe in Penal atonement would be adding to the faith alone doctrine. Not only that but it would be a human work.

I don't think ToL at least believes one is not necessarily required to believe that, merely the true church, his church, teaches it, and it is considered good and right.

We (Lutherans) would have a similar sentiment about the doctrine of justification by faith alone apart from works. We don't damn all the Christians who lived before us who did not confess this doctrine.

 

[FireDragon76]

That's fine. You're allowed to struggle with the truth and still be saved. ;-)

I'm pretty sure getting to heaven is not about getting our theology all in order and firmly nailed down. I'm quite sure God's account of things is going to leave us scratching our head a bit.

 

[Butch5]

I don't think ToL at least believes one is not necessarily required to believe that, merely the true church, his church, teaches it, and it is considered good and right.

We (Lutherans) would have a similar sentiment about the doctrine of justification by faith alone apart from works. We don't damn all the Christians who lived before us who did not confess this doctrine.

I don't hold the faith alone doctrine myself. I know many do. I've had people in the past say they believed in faith alone, but when you talk with them you find out that they believe you have to believe in some other doctrine. So they don't really believe in faith alone even though they claim to. I don't hold to Penal atonement either as I've found it doesn't fit with Scripture. The Scriptures don't tell us that God's wrath was poured out on Christ. They also don't tell us that Christ's righteousness is imputed to the believer. These are concepts that people have inferred from certain passages of Scripture.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't hold the faith alone doctrine myself. I know many do. I've had people in the past say they believed in faith alone, but when you talk with them you find out that they believe you have to believe in some other doctrine.

I actually believe in faith alone because, much like Luther, I have experience with living without the doctrine, and it's not pretty. So for me it's more experiential based . But also understanding the historical theology that lead to the Reformation helped me to accept it intellectually, even if I understood it was true intuitively.