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...
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.
Would you bring a church member up on discipline charges if they rejected PSA in favor of the satisfaction theory?
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.
You do realize Biblehub.com is from a Reformed perspective?
I'm sorry, but satisfaction theory falls within PSA...
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.
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.
Satisfaction theory falls within PSA.
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?
I'm not sure you're going to find Scripture that talks about the doctrines of the Church that came later.How about we actually look at Scripture for once??
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.
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.
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 don't believe that's true. Satisfaction theory denies very important tenants of PSA.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?