Author: Jay Forrest

“My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:1- 2).

The Doctrine

At the heart of the Gospel is the atonement. The atonement is the teaching that through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we are made at one with God

The Nicene Creed only says this about it, “For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven” and “was crucified under Pontius Pilate.”

It was understood that Jesus died for our sins, but a full understanding of how he did it, was not handed down.

Redemption

The first theory was the Ransom Theory. Adam sold us into slavery to Satan and Jesus paid the ransom to free us. He redeemed, or bought us back.

A version of this is called Christus Victor. It is similar to the Ransom Theory, Satan held us in bondage in a spiritual prison, and Jesus came and conquered the devil. This is much more biblical.

But it doesn’t exhaust the depth of the atonement. The following theories I would put in addition to the Christus Victor view.

Moral Influence

The Moral Influence Theory says that the purpose of Christ’s death was to influence humankind toward moral improvement. I don’t know if was the purpose of Christ’s death, but it was one of the results.

Substitutionary Atonement

The Moral Government Theory holds that God publicly demonstrated his displeasure with sin by punishing his own sinless and obedient Son as a propitiation. As Charles Finney explains, “the atonement is the governmental substitution of the sufferings of Christ for the punishment of sinners.”

A Combination of the Theories

I believe that all of these played a role in the atonement. We were in fact slaves to sin, Satan and death, but Christ set us free from that slavery. And it was a substitution of the sufferings of Christ for our separation from God. And of course this resulted in a powerful, moral influence on Christ’s followers.

“You shall be holy, for I am holy” (1 Pet. 1:16).

Let’s be honest, many liberals forget this part of the Gospel. But so do many conservatives. God loves us just the way we are, but he loves us too much to leave us that way.

What is Sin?

In order to understand what holiness is, we need to understand what sin is. Sin is selfishness. It is living for yourself and it means putting our wants above God and the needs of others.

What is Holiness?

Holiness means to separate or be set apart. There are two aspects to it. The first is to separate from selfishness, the second is to consecrate our lives to God.

Holiness means to put God first and foremost in all our decisions, and other human beings equally with our own interests. This is spelled out by Jesus in the commandment to love God and love our neighbor (Matt. 22:37-40).

All Loving

So holiness means to be all loving. It is when we’re unloving, and ultimately selfish, that we are far from holiness. To be holy means to take on the nature of God, and “God is love” (1 John 4:8).

It seems that the people who talk the most about holiness, are the most unloving and hateful people. They look at the actions, and not the intention. They like to judge others, but don’t stop to judge themselves.

“You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye” (Matt. 7:5).

A quadrilateral is a four-sided figure. It is applied to a method of theological reflection that draws on four sources, namely Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Christian Experience.

It is called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral because it is credited to John Wesley. However, the Anglican Church already was using three of these: Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. John Wesley rightly added Christian Experience.

Forrest Quadrilateral

I accept these four sources as well, buty formulation is different. Unlike John Wesley, I do not place Scripture above the other three. Rather, in my view they all are of equal authority.

The truth is the goal of theological reflection. We are looking for claims that best correspond to reality. Reality is evidenced through Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Christian Experience.

By reason I am including not only logical reasoning, but science, history, and modern scholarship. Christian Experience includes mystical experiences as well as general experiences of living.

When Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Christian Experience agree, you have truth. The clearer the agreement the more confident we can be that we have discovered the truth.

No Absolute Certainty

However, just like Paul, we will always know in part and look through a mirror dimly. Absolute certainty can never be achieved. Only the ignorant and the arrogant will claim absolute certainty. The best we can hope for is feeling sure.

Feeling sure is not the same as philosophical certainty. Feeling sure is a mental state, philosophical certainty is a logical conclusion. We should not confuse the two. We can feel safe, secure and certain, without claiming absolute certainty. For we could always be wrong. That is a logical deduction based upon our finite and limited cognition.

I define Apostolic Tradition as, in the words of Vincent of Lérins, that “which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.” Let’s look at each of these three aspects.

Apostolic Tradition

Apostolic Tradition has been believed “everywhere.” That is, it has been believed no matter which country we find it in Every place helps protect it from cultural bias and local origination.

Apostolic Tradition has been believed “always.” Innovation is a sure sign of the tradition not being Apostolic. He must Trace its roots back to the apostles, and the disciples of the apostles.

Apostolic Tradition has been believed “by all.” By all it is speaking of consensus, not absolute agreement. It’s general consensus, meaning that there will be some few who do not accept it.

The problem obviously comes from the reality of heresy and different religious groups in the early church. In order to narrow the focus, we need to limit tradition to those who follow Apostolic succession.

Apostolic Tradition has a limited shelf life. I would say that by about 400 CE. Apostolic Tradition has either been written down or died out.

Ecumenical Tradition

Now related to Apostolic tradition, is Ecumenical Tradition. Tradition refers to the development and interpretation of Apostolic Tradition and biblical interpretation, in order to address modern problems and understandings. Apostolic Tradition does not change, Ecumenical Tradition does.

Ecumenical Tradition holds the same authority as Apostolic Tradition, except that it is interpretive authority, not originating authority. It offers the best understanding of Apostolic Tradition and the Bible in light of Reason and Christian Experience within our current situation.

As I’ve explained before, the church is the ultimate authority on Earth. It is not the Bible, or Tradition. The church gave us the Bible, the Bible did not give us the church. The church is the arbitrator of doctrine.

It is consensus that determines Ecumenical Tradition. As Thomas C. Oden explains, “Consensus is a work of the Spirit who came to dwell in the disciples after the resurrection.”

So in order for a tradition to be a Ecumenical Tradition, it has to have the general consensus of the church. With the understanding that by church I’m referring to the whole body of Christ as represented by The Roman Catholic church, the Eastern Orthodox church, the Anglican Church, the Lutheran Church, the Presbyterian Church, and other Protestant denominations.

Three Orders of Tradition

Tradition is usually limited to a particular denomination. And it is limited to the consensus of that denomination.

However, there are times when several denominations agree. Which means that Tradition has different levels of authority, based upon the different levels of consensus.

Now how to formulate this is difficult. We could say that there is first order Tradition, second order Tradition, and third order Tradition.

First order Tradition I call Ecumenical Tradition. Here the Tradition is accepted by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church Church, and many Protestant churches. They came out of councils. Would fall in this category. The authority is based upon ecumenical consensus. This is usually what I’m referring to when I say Tradition.

Second order Tradition would refer to when a few denominations agree. The Multi-Denominational Tradition only has authority in those denominations.

And third order Tradition would be limited to one denomination. These denominational traditions only hold authority in that denomination. But within that denomination there is a consensus. I never use Tradition to refer to this.

All of their teachings that do not reach the level of consensus, are not Tradition. That doesn’t mean that they’re wrong, it just means there’s no agreement on the teaching.

I offer this only as a suggestion, not as a dogma. It needs to be worked out and thought through. And I do not have the time or space to do it here.