• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured The Doctrine of Justification and the Atonement

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by Jonaitis, Mar 18, 2019.

  1. Definitely

    8 vote(s)
    40.0%
  2. Yes, I think so

    5 vote(s)
    25.0%
  3. Not Sure

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. No, I don't think so

    2 vote(s)
    10.0%
  5. Definitely Not

    5 vote(s)
    25.0%
  1. Jonaitis

    Jonaitis Well-Known Member

    +1,620
    United States
    Reformed
    Single
    US-Republican
    I suppose I am weak in the argument of the Greek, but I found this helpful. Also, the only other place I see where it is used in the New Testament is Hebrew 9:5 for the English translation of "Mercy Seat." In the Old Testament, the mercy seat played an important role of atonement by the high priest over the whole nation of Israel before God...

    Regarding your statement about Jesus, what about 2 Corinthians 5:21?
     
  2. FireDragon76

    FireDragon76 Mystery Worshipper Supporter

    +8,975
    United States
    Lutheran
    Legal Union (Other)
    US-Democrat
    You do realize Biblehub.com is from a Reformed perspective? (most of American evangelicalism is steeped in Reformed categories to one degree or another). Of course they are going to understand hilasterion in terms of forensic categories.

    2 Corinthians 5:21 can have many possible meanings other than "God was so angry at sinners he had to hurt or punish Jesus in our place". Jesus did not literally become a sinner or become sinful, at any rate.

    Luther uses the metaphor of marriage, drawing from medieval and ancient Christian bridal mysticism that goes back to the New Testament itself. Jesus takes on our debts and is credited as being a sinner, without it properly being his own.
     
  3. Jonaitis

    Jonaitis Well-Known Member

    +1,620
    United States
    Reformed
    Single
    US-Republican
    Still, you cannot deny that this is the same word used in Hebrews 9:5 to refer to the Ark's mercy seat? What other purpose did the mercy seat have in the Old Covenant? What other events took place that is connected to it in Israel's earthly worship?

    Jesus didn't have to become a sinful person to do this. It is about him being punished on account of sinners, as though he was a sinner, without having to be a sinner himself. He was counted a transgressor as we read in Isaiah 53:

    "He was numbered with the transgressors" (v. 12).

    In the gospel accounts, this was quoted (Mark 15:28, Luke 22:37).
     
  4. Jonaitis

    Jonaitis Well-Known Member

    +1,620
    United States
    Reformed
    Single
    US-Republican
    I actually love Luther's imagery from Song of Songs, I use it all the time. If I am not wrong, Luther held to PSA?

    You don't have to throw out terms like "ransom" to believe in PSA, they are just another aspect to it...
     
  5. FireDragon76

    FireDragon76 Mystery Worshipper Supporter

    +8,975
    United States
    Lutheran
    Legal Union (Other)
    US-Democrat
    The Ark was used to expiate sin through animal blood. That is not a forensic concept necessarily.
     
  6. FireDragon76

    FireDragon76 Mystery Worshipper Supporter

    +8,975
    United States
    Lutheran
    Legal Union (Other)
    US-Democrat
    I don't think its proper to say Luther "held to PSA". Luther talks about the cross in many different ways, some are surprisingly premodern and ancient. PSA is something that could only come about with modernity and the rise of a modern understanding of the rule of law. Luther is far more interested in wondering in the paradox of God condescending to die as a human being through the death of a criminal, and what that reveals about God's love, than he is about speculating about how God's justice works. The Cross is for Luther, the real death of God, the death of the God that condemns, and instead, the revelation of the God that suffers with us.
     
  7. Jonaitis

    Jonaitis Well-Known Member

    +1,620
    United States
    Reformed
    Single
    US-Republican
    I don't think you know what PSA teaches. Scripture clearly has different descriptions of what happened at Calvary, but they are just aspects of the same concept. Marriage is one of them, ransom is one of them, redemption is one of them, they all imply what Christ did on behalf of sinners before God's righteous wrath toward sin. You're look at it more technical than Reformed folks do, honestly...
     
  8. FireDragon76

    FireDragon76 Mystery Worshipper Supporter

    +8,975
    United States
    Lutheran
    Legal Union (Other)
    US-Democrat
    I know what PSA is, it's the doctrine than God had to punish sin, so he chose Jesus in place of sinners, so that he could justly forgive the elect. It's dependent on speculating about divine justice through human categories of justice, like retribution.
     
  9. Jonaitis

    Jonaitis Well-Known Member

    +1,620
    United States
    Reformed
    Single
    US-Republican
    Can you agree, at least, with his statement here?

    "It is God's act of victory, when Christ goes in under the Divine wrath, and bears the burden of the punishment which on account of that wrath impends upon men. Thus the Love of God breaks through the Wrath; in the vicarious act of redemption the Wrath is overcome by the Love."
     
  10. Jonaitis

    Jonaitis Well-Known Member

    +1,620
    United States
    Reformed
    Single
    US-Republican
    This is a bit out of the discussion, but do you believe in the distinction of Law and Grace?
     
  11. FireDragon76

    FireDragon76 Mystery Worshipper Supporter

    +8,975
    United States
    Lutheran
    Legal Union (Other)
    US-Democrat
    In a metaphorical sense, perhaps. I don't believe God is so schizophrenic, in reality, that he can only make up his mind about sinners if he literally has a struggle within himself. I believe its more accurate to say humanity fears God and projects their passions onto God, such as anger and wrath, but I don't believe God has to actually get angry with anybody.
     
  12. FireDragon76

    FireDragon76 Mystery Worshipper Supporter

    +8,975
    United States
    Lutheran
    Legal Union (Other)
    US-Democrat
    Yes. Though we call it Law and Gospel, and I am not certain we are speaking of exactly the same things. We understand these two as a dialectic, not as opposites.
     
  13. Jonaitis

    Jonaitis Well-Known Member

    +1,620
    United States
    Reformed
    Single
    US-Republican
    I don't believe God "becomes" anything at all, he is constant (or properly "pure act"). God is perfect in wrath toward sin, and Jesus stood before that place of wrath as our "Redeemer" and "Ransom." Our union with him makes this transaction possible, exchanging what is his as ours and ours for his.
     
  14. FireDragon76

    FireDragon76 Mystery Worshipper Supporter

    +8,975
    United States
    Lutheran
    Legal Union (Other)
    US-Democrat
    OK, I get that. I just don't understand why when this is usually preached, it sounds like God has anger-management issues. It's not understanding how people actually relate to sin in this world, which is as often as a victim as a perpetrator. Both perspectives need to be addressed. I mean, what sort of sin could a little child have done who is dying of cancer, to deserve so much wrath? It boggles the mind. But if we understand sin as a curse, as something we are victimized by, then it puts it into perspective.
     
  15. Butch5

    Butch5 Newbie Supporter

    +492
    Christian
    Married
    No, the Penal model of the atonement didn't even come into existence until the 1500's via the Reformation.
     
  16. Jonaitis

    Jonaitis Well-Known Member

    +1,620
    United States
    Reformed
    Single
    US-Republican
    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.
     
  17. Tree of Life

    Tree of Life A Sinner

    +5,256
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    PSA is certainly taught in Scripture. But when asking: "Is believing PSA as it is fully developed necessary for salvation?", it is helpful to note that our understanding of the doctrine developed over time.
     
  18. Jonaitis

    Jonaitis Well-Known Member

    +1,620
    United States
    Reformed
    Single
    US-Republican
    Well, then the Trinity isn't as dogmatic for salvation either, since it needed to articulated into one of the early creeds? I don't buy that, brother. The doctrine "developed" because it was a surrounding issue of the day, just as the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union were in their day. But they are more than biblical, and necessary for someone to be in Christ...
     
  19. Tree of Life

    Tree of Life A Sinner

    +5,256
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    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.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  20. Tree of Life

    Tree of Life A Sinner

    +5,256
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    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 understand 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).
     
Loading...