by The work of Christ and the person of Christ are entangled together in connection with soteriology (Doctrine of Salvation). Erickson states, “In theory, however, the person of Christ and his work are inseparable, and Christology can be approached from either angle.”[1] The challenge is that neither of them can lead the other completely without referring to the other at certain points. One of the functions of soteriology is Christology (Study of Christ) and that is where the problem of soteriology forces the Christological question and forces direction to the Christological answer.[2]
Approaching the person of Christ through the work of Christ is the proper order of study but there must be special attention to not allowing human self-perception of needs dictate the construction of what Christ’s nature or person is. The other danger is that the needs dictate the questions for the person of Christ and there is not a holistic view of the person of Christ as it was only constructed from certain “works”. One benefit for prioritizing the work of Christ include the integration and necessity between Christology and soteriology. Another benefit is to gain attention of what Christ does for the Christian which creates curiosity on who He is.[3] Erickson provides a reminder, “We should be aware that if we are to build a complete Christology, we must look at considerations in each area to find answers to questions in the other.”[4]
Using this order of study, work of Christ first, helps identify the inadequate “theories of atonement” that have been suggested over the years. The different atonement theories come from the authors, theologians, that emphasize certain Scripture over others. This comes from inadequate study of the works of Christ and the person of Christ together with soteriology. The first example is the Socinian theory where the person of Christ was established and then the work of Christ was reasoned to be an example of what should be done (love for God) and that filled the need they were looking for. The second example is similar, Moral-Influence theory sees Christ’s death as a demonstration of God’s love; it emphasizes Christ’s divine dimension.[5] This theory believed that Jesus came to heal souls as the number one priority. This was another theory that required a person to be restored to God’s favor by doing or responding to God’s love.
The Governmental theory emphasizes the seriousness of sin and how God provided atonement of those sins. Erickson explains, “In Grotius’s view Christ’s offering of himself was a satisfaction sufficient to uphold moral government, and thus God was enabled to remit sin in such a way that there were no adverse consequences for humanity.”[6] The challenge with this theory is the lack of supporting Scripture as the ones presented were inferences and general references.
The Substitutionary theory is the top option for atonement as it correctly contains several critical implications that satisfy the meaning of salvation. Erickson states, “The penal substitution theory likewise affirms that victory over evil was won by Christ’s giving of himself as a ransom—but to the requirements of God’s justice, not to Satan.”[7] This conclusion aligns with looking at the work of Christ before focusing only on the person of Christ first.
Travis, a classmate, states, “Evaluating atonement theories must be done through the lens of revelation that God has given us through his Word.” It is sometimes easy to add presuppositions into Scripture, but doing accurate hermeneutics is important. One example is trying to answer the question of whom Jesus died for. The difference between particular atonement for only those predestined versus universal atonement for all needs to be answered through His word. Erickson states, “Christ died for all persons, but his atoning death becomes effective only when accepted by the individual. While this is the view of all Arminians, it is also the position of some Calvinists. Those who hold this theory also appeal to Scripture for support.”[8]
In response to a classmate’s post: You mention that the Government Theory stands out to you. I also noticed this theory but the lack of Scripture support kept me looking and that is where I found the commercial or satisfaction theory. This touches on the doctrine of sin and repayment. Erickson states, “A good comparison is modern judicial rulings that stipulate that a thief, in addition to restoring the victim’s property, must pay punitive damages or serve a prison sentence.”[9] The penalty for sin is death and human death is not enough. Therefore, the satisfaction had to be given by someone who is both fully God and fully human.
Bibliography
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013.
[1] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 617.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid., 618.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid., 717.
[6] Ibid., 722.
[7] Ibid., 750.
[8] Ibid., 757.
[9] Ibid., 728.