Salvation without believing PSA

dizerner

Well-known member
I believe Christians with false doctrines can be saved. Many false doctrines, grievous false doctrines. And this is because the power and price of the atonement were so great, that the merest and barest acceptance of God's grace in Christ can cover a multitude of sins.

And so, as I have said elsewhere multiple times, although I don't consider PSA a salvifically necessary doctrine, I consider it very dangerously close to it—skirting the very edges of what is accepted as faith in Christ. However, I would still urge consideration that there will be judgment and discipline for deliberating embracing false doctrines, this will give ground to the enemy of our souls, and this will always hurt somebody and cost something.

Here is an interesting C. S. Lewis quote from Mere Christianity. Personally, I disagree with a lot of C. S. Lewis' ideas, but he is quite popular:

The central Christian belief is that Christ's death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. Theories as to how it did this are another matter. A good many different theories have been held as to how it works; what all Christians are agreed on is that it does work. I will tell you what I think it is like…. A man can eat his dinner without understanding exactly how food nourishes him. A man can accept what Christ has done without knowing how it works: indeed, he certainly would not know how it works until he has accepted it.
We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. That is the formula. That is Christianity. That is what has to be believed. Any theories we build up as to how Christ’s death did all this are, in my view, quite secondary: mere plans or diagrams to be left alone if they do not help us, and, even if they do help us, not to be confused with the thing itself. All the same, some of these theories are worth looking at.
I agree that one can be saved without PSA, but I don't agree that views on the atonement are "quite secondary" and not definitional of Christianity. Most false doctrines are demonic in origin and there is very often a sinful attitude somewhere that lets a false doctrine in. There is a case of ignorance or a person being misled. But when the truth is proclaimed, the Holy Spirit will always back it, and thus there has to be active resistance by a believer to stubbornly embrace their false doctrine and resist any and all correction. And that is not something I think the Lord will at all ignore or not take seriously.

So we can know: although a doctrine can be unnecessary for salvation, it is sinful stubbornness to consistently resist and belittle what the Spirit witnesses to, and it will bring harm to ourselves and others.

This is why I strongly exhort and encourage all deniers of PSA to pray the important prayer that any serious seeker would readily pray here:

 
What is a person to do when he believed that Jesus suffered the wrath of God for years and in a moment the Lord presented a glimpse of truth that it wasn’t about wrath but a rescue operation? And then to shake the person up, someone posted a thread two days later that challenged PSA. The person argued against the poster and then it came to mind what the Lord revealed, so the person stopped and listened to what was being presented and then the whole PSA belief crumbled as the Lord began opening his mind to the truth.

Of course, I am the person and civic is the poster, and the thread was on carm. The Lord prepped me for what was coming two days before the thread, so that I would repent and understand the truth.

Some facts
  • The punishment for sin is death. "For the wages of sin is death"
  • Our Lord laid down His life, no one took it from Him, and He raised His life back again, "For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.” (Joh 10:17-18)
  • The Father never left His own Son. Our Lord said to the disciples, "Behold, the hour is coming, indeed it has come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home, and will leave me alone. Yet I am not alone, for the Father is with me."
  • God was in our Lord on the cross and in His death, "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself". From Adam Clarke, "God was in him. The man Jesus was the temple and shrine of the eternal Divinity; for in him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, Col_2:9; and he made peace by the blood of his cross."
    • "For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him," (Col 1:19-22)
  • Do you know what is never mentioned even one time in the bible? That God poured wrath out upon His own Son.
  • Do you know what else is never mentioned one time in the bible? That Jesus Christ our Lord was punished By God.
  • Do you know what is mentioned in the bible? That Jesus Christ died for sins; thus reconciled us to God, put an end to sin, and brought in everlasting righteousness as prophesied.
  • Was His sufferings and death prophesied? Absolutely!
  • Was God pleased that He suffered and died? Absolutely!
  • Why was He so? "The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil". “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him." (Joh 3:16-17)
Jesus Christ was sent to rescue mankind from the power of the devil and the condemnation that is his because God loves us.

PSA is a blasphemous false doctrine that began from the reformation in the 1500's, and was polished up by Charles Hodge in the 1800's. It is the central theme of another blasphemous false doctrine from John Calvin. They go hand and hand. And I agree with what you posted, "Most false doctrines are demonic in origin". Welcome to PSA and Calvinism.

God Bless
 
I believe Christians with false doctrines can be saved. Many false doctrines, grievous false doctrines. And this is because the power and price of the atonement were so great, that the merest and barest acceptance of God's grace in Christ can cover a multitude of sins.

And so, as I have said elsewhere multiple times, although I don't consider PSA a salvifically necessary doctrine, I consider it very dangerously close to it—skirting the very edges of what is accepted as faith in Christ. However, I would still urge consideration that there will be judgment and discipline for deliberating embracing false doctrines, this will give ground to the enemy of our souls, and this will always hurt somebody and cost something.

Here is an interesting C. S. Lewis quote from Mere Christianity. Personally, I disagree with a lot of C. S. Lewis' ideas, but he is quite popular:

The central Christian belief is that Christ's death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. Theories as to how it did this are another matter. A good many different theories have been held as to how it works; what all Christians are agreed on is that it does work. I will tell you what I think it is like…. A man can eat his dinner without understanding exactly how food nourishes him. A man can accept what Christ has done without knowing how it works: indeed, he certainly would not know how it works until he has accepted it.
We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. That is the formula. That is Christianity. That is what has to be believed. Any theories we build up as to how Christ’s death did all this are, in my view, quite secondary: mere plans or diagrams to be left alone if they do not help us, and, even if they do help us, not to be confused with the thing itself. All the same, some of these theories are worth looking at.
I agree that one can be saved without PSA, but I don't agree that views on the atonement are "quite secondary" and not definitional of Christianity. Most false doctrines are demonic in origin and there is very often a sinful attitude somewhere that lets a false doctrine in. There is a case of ignorance or a person being misled. But when the truth is proclaimed, the Holy Spirit will always back it, and thus there has to be active resistance by a believer to stubbornly embrace their false doctrine and resist any and all correction. And that is not something I think the Lord will at all ignore or not take seriously.

So we can know: although a doctrine can be unnecessary for salvation, it is sinful stubbornness to consistently resist and belittle what the Spirit witnesses to, and it will bring harm to ourselves and others.

This is why I strongly exhort and encourage all deniers of PSA to pray the important prayer that any serious seeker would readily pray here:


I agree that a individual's view of the Atonement significantly "flavor/seasons" their overall theology. I wouldn't say it was secondary either.

This world must see themselves guilty. This is essential to the Gospel. There is no Gospel with the individual guilty of all of humanity. PSA establishes this. Dare I say "almost to a fault".

I do believe others views do as well. I'm personally fine with alternate views of the Atonement as long as they include a clear indication of guilt of all humanity. There are view of the Atonement that seek to avoid this fact.
 
What is a person to do when he believed that Jesus suffered the wrath of God for years and in a moment the Lord presented a glimpse of truth that it wasn’t about wrath but a rescue operation? And then to shake the person up, someone posted a thread two days later that challenged PSA. The person argued against the poster and then it came to mind what the Lord revealed, so the person stopped and listened to what was being presented and then the whole PSA belief crumbled as the Lord began opening his mind to the truth.

Of course, I am the person and civic is the poster, and the thread was on carm. The Lord prepped me for what was coming two days before the thread, so that I would repent and understand the truth.

Some facts
  • The punishment for sin is death. "For the wages of sin is death"
  • Our Lord laid down His life, no one took it from Him, and He raised His life back again, "For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.” (Joh 10:17-18)
  • The Father never left His own Son. Our Lord said to the disciples, "Behold, the hour is coming, indeed it has come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home, and will leave me alone. Yet I am not alone, for the Father is with me."
  • God was in our Lord on the cross and in His death, "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself". From Adam Clarke, "God was in him. The man Jesus was the temple and shrine of the eternal Divinity; for in him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, Col_2:9; and he made peace by the blood of his cross."
    • "For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him," (Col 1:19-22)
  • Do you know what is never mentioned even one time in the bible? That God poured wrath out upon His own Son.
  • Do you know what else is never mentioned one time in the bible? That Jesus Christ our Lord was punished By God.
  • Do you know what is mentioned in the bible? That Jesus Christ died for sins; thus reconciled us to God, put an end to sin, and brought in everlasting righteousness as prophesied.
  • Was His sufferings and death prophesied? Absolutely!
  • Was God pleased that He suffered and died? Absolutely!
  • Why was He so? "The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil". “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him." (Joh 3:16-17)
Jesus Christ was sent to rescue mankind from the power of the devil and the condemnation that is his because God loves us.

PSA is a blasphemous false doctrine that began from the reformation in the 1500's, and was polished up by Charles Hodge in the 1800's. It is the central theme of another blasphemous false doctrine from John Calvin. They go hand and hand. And I agree with what you posted, "Most false doctrines are demonic in origin". Welcome to PSA and Calvinism.

God Bless
Amen Joe
 
I believe Christians with false doctrines can be saved.
1 Timothy 1:9 "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers," 1 Timothy 1:10 "For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"

so a false doctrine is not accepted.
 
1 Timothy 1:9 "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers," 1 Timothy 1:10 "For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"

so a false doctrine is not accepted.

Where does it say that list is about salvation?

That list is who the Law is made for.
 
I believe Christians with false doctrines can be saved. Many false doctrines, grievous false doctrines. And this is because the power and price of the atonement were so great, that the merest and barest acceptance of God's grace in Christ can cover a multitude of sins.

And so, as I have said elsewhere multiple times, although I don't consider PSA a salvifically necessary doctrine, I consider it very dangerously close to it—skirting the very edges of what is accepted as faith in Christ. However, I would still urge consideration that there will be judgment and discipline for deliberating embracing false doctrines, this will give ground to the enemy of our souls, and this will always hurt somebody and cost something.

Here is an interesting C. S. Lewis quote from Mere Christianity. Personally, I disagree with a lot of C. S. Lewis' ideas, but he is quite popular:

The central Christian belief is that Christ's death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. Theories as to how it did this are another matter. A good many different theories have been held as to how it works; what all Christians are agreed on is that it does work. I will tell you what I think it is like…. A man can eat his dinner without understanding exactly how food nourishes him. A man can accept what Christ has done without knowing how it works: indeed, he certainly would not know how it works until he has accepted it.
We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. That is the formula. That is Christianity. That is what has to be believed. Any theories we build up as to how Christ’s death did all this are, in my view, quite secondary: mere plans or diagrams to be left alone if they do not help us, and, even if they do help us, not to be confused with the thing itself. All the same, some of these theories are worth looking at.
I agree that one can be saved without PSA, but I don't agree that views on the atonement are "quite secondary" and not definitional of Christianity. Most false doctrines are demonic in origin and there is very often a sinful attitude somewhere that lets a false doctrine in. There is a case of ignorance or a person being misled. But when the truth is proclaimed, the Holy Spirit will always back it, and thus there has to be active resistance by a believer to stubbornly embrace their false doctrine and resist any and all correction. And that is not something I think the Lord will at all ignore or not take seriously.

So we can know: although a doctrine can be unnecessary for salvation, it is sinful stubbornness to consistently resist and belittle what the Spirit witnesses to, and it will bring harm to ourselves and others.

This is why I strongly exhort and encourage all deniers of PSA to pray the important prayer that any serious seeker would readily pray here:

The atonement for sin is primary/necessary for salvation- but the various differing views are secondary and not salvific. If they were salvific then anyone with one of the other 6 views cannot be saved and only the right 1/7 are salvific. Then the question is which one saves while all the others condemn.

This becomes a slippery slope. The atonement of Christ is salvific, not the views.

Thats the equivalent of saying only a certain denomination can save you with their belief system. But we know many of them contain truth and error. No single denomination has all the truth just the same as no single theory of the atonement has all the truth contained in that doctrine. They all have some truth in them.

hope this helps !!!
 
This becomes a slippery slope. The atonement of Christ is salvific, not the views.

What if I believe the atonement of Christ means Jesus ate a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

Just because I call it "atonement" no matter how I define it, it still saves?

The argument from the fallacy of consequences is just stating something can't be true because one does like the result.
 
What if I believe the atonement of Christ means Jesus ate a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

Just because I call it "atonement" no matter how I define it, it still saves?

The argument from the fallacy of consequences is just stating something can't be true because one does like the result.
Do you agree with the below definition of atonement from bible study tools ?

The New Testament
The so-called ransom saying, found in the Gospel of Mark ( 10:45 ; cf. the parallel saying at Matt 20:28 ), has been much disputed as to its authenticity, but its theological content is clear. Speaking in the context of the apostles' dispute over which of them is the greatest, Jesus relates his mission to two things: serving all and giving his life as a ransom for many. Like many of the teachings of Jesus, the saying dramatically extends the answer to an immediate question or problem (that of the selfishness and pride of the apostles) to include something that no one would have linked to that problem (the ransom nature of the cross). The saying of course primarily relates the death of Christ to the metaphor of service; giving his life is the greatest example of servanthood that can be imagined. The fact that his death is also a ransom links the idea of atonement to the servant spirit of the Christ, probably in the light of the famous servant song of Isaiah 53.

The second Gospel passage relating to atonement appears in the eucharistic words of Jesus recorded in all three Gospels ( Matt 26:26-29 ; = Mark 14:22-25 ; = Luke 22:15-20 ). At Luke 22:19-20, Jesus asserts that both the bread and the wine symbolize the fact that his death would be "for you" (huper humon [uJpevruJmw'n]), a phrase not found in the other Gospels (though the notion of the blood of Christ being "poured out for many" is found in both Matthew and Mark). The key element linking the passage in all three Gospels to atonement is the sacrificial nature of the language; the poured-out blood is the blood of the lamb of Leviticus 16, sacrificed "for the forgiveness of sins" (Matt 26:28).

To discuss Paul on atonement is, again, to make a choice between a thorough discussion of Paul's soteriology and limiting oneself to a discussion of the meaning of hilasterion [iJlasthvrion] in Romans 3:25. Space does not even allow for a full evaluation of the latter in this article. The preponderance of the evidence weighs in favor of a translation that recognizes the background of Leviticus 16 in the crucial passage. Some now argue that Paul intends a quite specific reference to the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant and that hilasterion [iJlasthvrion] should be translated "mercy seat."

In any case the passage occurs in a clear context of God's righteous, wrathful judgment against the sins of humankind (Rom 1:18-3:31; cf. esp. 1:18; 2:5) and declares God's merciful action of atonement on behalf of his people. He takes an action that is rightly called "substitutionary, " putting his Son in our place and so remaining just but also demonstrating his mercy (3:25-26). This shuts out any possibility for humankind to boast of its having saved itself (3:27). Thus the themes of sovereignty, mercy, and comprehensiveness that we saw present in Leviticus 16 are paramount in the mind of Paul too.

The same applies to the rest of the references to hilasterion and its cognates (hilaskomai [iJlasmov"], hilasmos [iJlasmov"]) in the New Testament. Hebrews 2:17 points squarely at Jesus as the high priests of Leviticus 16 who offers a sacrifice of atonement (hilaskomai [iJlavskomai]) for his brothers and is therefore a merciful and faithful high priest, but who is of course also the very sacrifice he offers, suffering so that he is able to help those who are tempted in their time of need. The oneness both between Jesus and the redeemed and between God and humanity is emphasized by the family metaphor used throughout the context of the passage (Heb 2:10-17). Similarly, in 1 John 2:2 Jesus' sacrifice of atonement (hilasmos [iJlasmov"]) is powerful enough to heal the sins of the whole world and unite it to God, but it is only "Jesus Christ, the Righteous One" (1 John 2:1) who can accomplish this. God's sovereignty and love in atonement are clearly seen in 1jo 4:10 and cap the New Testament teaching on this essential doctrine: our love for God is not the issue, but rather his for us and it is this love that has both motivated and produced the sacrifice of atonement (hilasmos [iJlasmov"]) necessary for healing the relationship of God to man. So the biblical teaching about atonement is summed up: "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins" (1 Jo 4:10).
 
Good.

Well, I don't know anything can truly bear sins when there is no legality, no punishment, no transfer, and no substitution involved.

There's nothing left being "borne" at that point.
Jesus forgave sins by His word and authority while walking this earth with numerous people on numerous occasions without any sacrifices on the law on their part. It infuriated the legalists , the law keepers , the self righteous of His day.
 
It doesn't really describe the function or mechanism of atonement, which is sin bearing.

It includes bearing sin but there is greater importance.

Joh 10:10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.
Joh 10:11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

Jesus came to establish the right to Eternal life.

Do you believe Adam had the "right" to Eternal life?
 
Yes, I think God granted him that right.

I don't see any evidence that happened.

What do you make of

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
 
What do you make of

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Who is the "one" among the Trinity who knew good and evil both?

Only Jesus experientially knew evil.

Thus Jesus had prepared the way to remedy Adam's sin.
 
Back
Top Bottom