| Theological Studies: Christology and the Atonement
Alvin Shaul Theology, Oord Christology/Atonement December 7, 2005 Jesus Christ has been thought of by millions and even billions of people as the Son of the living God, who came incarnate, lived, suffered and died, and was three days later resurrected for the sake of �saving us from our sins.� The point of this work is to analyze John Wesley�s view on the Atonement of Christ and through it create my own view. There are many atonement theories in circulation among scholars and theologians alike. They include the scapegoat theory, in which sins are transferred to something or someone that is not sinful. The thing or person who had been pure is excommunicated or killed. There is the ransom theory of atonement which claims that we are captive to sin and Satan, but Jesus� death and resurrection paid a ransom that releases us from that sin. There are two satisfaction theories�honor and penal. The former says that sin violates God�s honor so Jesus� substitutionary death for sinners restores God�s honor. The latter says that we have broken certain moral laws and require punishment, but Jesus took that punishment for us so that God�s justice could be maintained. A fifth theory is the moral influence theory which states that �Jesus� words, actions, and death demonstrate divine love. Humans must turn from sin and respond to the love displayed in Jesus� (Lecture 12/2). Wesley had a model of atonement that included parts of many of these, but mainly focused on pardon and some liberation. The Western church during Wesley�s time had claimed that we could have no affect on our atonement from sin, but that Christ was the perfect atonement. The Eastern Church thought the goal of atonement was to recover the likeness of God. For the Eastern Church, it was the incarnation of Christ, not his death that freed us and allowed God to reclaim our human nature for its proper end. They believed that God became like us so that we might become like God (Maddox 95). While most would expect Wesley to follow the Eastern tradition as had been his custom, with the atonement Wesley sided with the Western church on the grounds that it was the death of Christ that provided atonement for our sins. He believed that Christ�s death absolved guilt and atoned for our sin. He even once declared atonement to be the most significant doctrine of all (96-97). The liberation theory has much in common with the ransom theory in that Christ�s death releases us from the power of sin and Satan. Wesley�s chief concern with this theory was that it denies that the purpose of the atonement involves the removal of guilt. So, while Wesley believed that liberation might result from atonement, he assumed the originating purpose was to absolve our guilt (98). Also important when discussing the atonement is to acknowledge the function of the law. According to Maddox and Wesley, the law�s function is to awaken a conviction of sin. It is meant to drive us to Christ for our pardon and conversion. It keeps Christians alive and growing in the renewal of their nature (101). With this in mind, Wesley adopts a pardon theory of atonement. For Wesley, the �central emphasis about atonement was that in Christ the issue of guilt due to our sins has been fully addressed; therefore God can mercifully offer us pardon without violating Divine justice (105). Maddox goes forward with Wesley�s purpose of atonement. Wesley states that our obedience to the Law should not be grounded in fear, but rather should come from our love of God and others. This love we have for others only exists when we recognize the immense power of the love God has for us. Therefore, �Christ�s sacrificial death was much more than the representative of humanity, but rather he was most fundamentally the representative of God�his pardoning and restoring love� (109). For this reason we should not think that our guilt stops us from right relationship with God. �Christ is the pardoning initiative of God�s responsible grace� (109). Finally, it is in responding to that pardon that we are liberated from sin and begin to be transformed into the image God has always longed for. Maddox also outlines the three positions of Christ as Priest, Prophet and King. It is Christ�s role as priest that reigns above those of Prophet and King. As Priest, Christ is constantly making intercession to God for sinners. �The forgiveness that Jesus� death made possible historically must be mediated presently to individual�s lives. It is this present mediatorial work that is at focus in most of Wesley�s considerations of Christ as Priest,� says Maddox (110). As Prophet, Christ gives back our knowledge of the Divine will lost in the Fall. That is, our awareness of the Law of God is renewed. As King Christ renews us and delivers us from the grip of sin. Perhaps one of the most controversial parts of John Wesley�s doctrine is his beliefs concerning the nature of Christ. Maddox calls Wesley a �practical Monophysite.� That is, he believed that Jesus was always fully divine and had only taken on the human nature, not actually become human. While Wesley had no intention of denying Christ�s humanity, his emphasis was on maintaining the deity of Christ. For Wesley, anyone who spoke against the deity of Christ was striking at the core of Christianity and removing the foundation of hope. I have, in the process of my study began to develop a theology of my own concerning the nature of God. I have managed to maintain both his full humanness and his whole divine nature in my theology. I almost reverse roles with Wesley on this issue, but not quite. I believe that Christ was always both fully divine and fully human, but that he was only fully divine through constant interaction and empowerment from God the Father. To me this explains why Christ felt the constant need to pray and remain in relationship with his Father. Christ�s full human nature allowed him to experience life in all the ways that his contemporaries did. He ate and drank and wept and sweat and slept. He was a man, plain and simple. Maybe not so plain after all, however, because it seems that there was more to this Jesus than just humanity. He performed miracles like never seen before and prophesied of himself and others. I believe Christ was always fully divine because God was always making him fully divine, not because he was naturally that way. If Christ was naturally divine simply because he had been in heaven before his incarnation, then it would seem to me that we could all be born fully divine somehow, before we are born. Rather, God chose to place the person and character of his son on earth through an untainted virgin and from the moment of his conception by the Holy Spirit, this boy was empowered by his heavenly Father to be fully divine. I understand that there may be flaws to such an understanding and expect that my understanding of Christ�s nature may be completely different in as little as four years from now. But for the time being, this seems most plausible. The interpretation of Christ�s nature allows for the atonement to have been wholly pardoning. If Jesus had been empowered by God to be wholly divine while here on Earth, then it would be by the power of God the Father also, that the death of Christ pardoned us from our guilt and sin. We should also conclude that Jesus� teachings, death, and resurrection have changed how we are able to live today. Existence today is different that it was before Christ. Because we now have an avenue to salvation through Christ, we can find that salvation by responding to God and his love appropriately (Lecture 12/2). Bibliography Oord, Dr. Thomas. Jay. Atonement. Lecture. Christian Theology I. December 2, 2005. Maddox, Randy. Responsible Grace: John Wesley�s Practical Theology. Abington Press, 1994. |