Doctrine of Salvation - Applied and Objective Soteriology
Doctrine
of Objective Soteriology
An essential part of theology is finding the best way to
articulate in words the paradoxical truths about God. In the study of
soteriology there are a myriad of different words the Bible uses to speak on
the basic truth that Christ’s death saves us. Aspects of salvation are
described using words such as: sacrifice, victory, satisfaction, example, ransom,
redemption, reconciliation, forgiveness, propitiation, adoption, and justification.
Some of these concepts find their origin in the Old Testament sacrificial
system, while others are revealed by the New Testament writers. The English
word atonement was created to describe the reconciliation between God
and humankind and the new ‘at-one’ relationship that is accomplished in
Christ’s work. For me, salvation is best described as the restoration of our
relationship with God.
Creating
personal views on doctrinal issues requires that we assemble the scriptural
references and answer questions of how they fit together in a cohesive way. My
approach to theology is to take a generous look at diverse ideas and theories
and balance between perspectives gently without forcing myself to land on a
permanent conclusion that neatly avoids the challenges to that view. It is too
easy to dismiss opposing ideas as heretical if I am so firmly settled on
something that I see differing theories as threats. I keep in mind that God
alone is certain on these issues, and it is scripture that is inerrant, not me.
That said, in issues such as salvation it is of the utmost importance to come
to conclusions that have the highest degree of certainty since the eternal destinies
of people’s souls are in play. We can have faith that God would not leave us
with questions that would render us unable to reach him.
Regarding
soteriology it seems there are more questions than answers as each answer leads
to additional questions. Finding the best solution requires that we ask the
right questions. The end point we reach depends on what kind of questions we
ask. As we explore the doctrine of salvation we must look back on our doctrine
of God and doctrine of sin to ask what exactly are we being saved from, saved
for, and saved to? We must ask, “What is justice? What is punishment?
Restoration? Reconciliation? Is it right to ask whom we are saved from, or should
we ask from what?”
Exploring
the different metaphors that the Bible gives regarding salvation will reveal
that any one of them is insufficient by itself. They must be held in tension
with the other images in order to develop the fullest understanding. As there
are many scriptures on this concept, each theory tends to use one as its
foundation. Throughout history, various theories have arisen to create a
framework for understanding atonement.
One of the earliest models of the atonement to gain a
following was the Ransom Theory. Developed by Origen and Gregory of Nyssa in
the early church period, and later supported by Augustine, the principal text
they highlight is Jesus’s statement that he came to give his life as a ransom
for many (Matt 20:28; Mark 10:45). They were also influenced by Paul’s assertion
that we have been bought with a price (1 Cor. 6:20). From there Origen asks an
important question, “from whom have we been bought?” His answer was from Satan
for he understood sin as a type of bondage to which humans were enslaved. After
the fall Satan gained governing control over the world and humanity, and thus
he would name the price for their redemption. In Origen’s view Satan named the
price as the soul of Jesus and accepted a trade. Gregory of Nyssa later
explained that Satan did not know that Christ’s deity was concealed and there
was a ‘Divine Trickery’ on God’s part. He explains that God maintains his
justice in this act because God’s aim was motivated by his love for humanity.
Augustine later likens Christ’s blood as the bait in a trap. Though this theory
answers some questions, we must consider if it was asking the right ones to
begin with.
Is it enough to speak about our salvation only in terms
of a ransom being paid? How can we say Christ’s death achieved a victory
without explaining what that entails? Instead of asking the question of from
whom are we set free, the Satisfaction Theory seeks to answer the question from
what are we set free? Anslem was the leader in developing this model of
the atonement in the Middle Ages. He lived in a feudal system and his theory
reflects that influence, particularly regarding the honor due to a lord within
the hierarchy. He thought of sin as a failure to remit the honor due to God and
therefore we have accrued guilt. God could not just overlook this failure, or
the systems of the world would implode. Either he had to punish us or find
another way to satisfy the demands of payment on that honor. In his theory of
atonement Jesus’s death satisfied the requirements of that lost honor and there
is an infinite surplus that is transferred to us as satisfaction for sins (Rom
3:25, 5:9). However, in Anslem’s system we receive the merit and maintain it by
our obedience. Our ability to partake in God’s grace is related to the degree
in which we live under it. The critiques of this method are immediate because
it has no assurance of salvation and is not grounded biblically. The weaknesses
of the Ransom Theory are that it is outside of us and doesn’t reckon with our
personal sin, but the Satisfaction Theory also falls short in explaining how
Jesus’s life and ministry are connected to our forgiveness.
Reacting against Anslem, Pierre Abelard constructed his
theory around God’s freedom. Though he acknowledges the need for humanity to be
saved, he says the love of God is the means and the motive for salvation. For
Abelard, Christ’s divine love repairs something within us and dispels fear. His
theory, and others who hold subjective models of atonement, have trouble
explaining how salvation is conveyed to the believer. Moral Influence Theories
like Abelard in the medieval times or Moral Example theories like Socinius’s
during the Reformation, along with the soteriology of modern liberation
theologies tend to presume that ignorance is the foundation of our problem. In
these views it is the responsibility of humanity to change rather than a
changed attitude of God. However, they have a low view of the nature of sin and
do not address the essential problem of humanity’s will and lack of desire for
God. The Bible has too much to say on how Jesus’s death accomplished a new
situation between us and God that these theories ignore (Rom. 5:10; Matt. 26:28).
These
theories lack unification on other important aspects of salvation. In the Penal
Substitution model of the atonement, it builds on the Satisfaction Theory but
addresses some of the issues from a biblical framework. Instead of the medieval
concept of honor, it is structured on a violation of Biblical law. The basic
themes within this model explain Christ’s death as an eternal fulfilment of the
requirements of the Old Testament law. Christ is the sacrificial Passover lamb
that provides propitiation as an offering that appeases God’s wrath. His death
is considered substitutionary; he died in our place to bring an end to the
hostility and separation between God and mankind. Though this model is easy to distort
as a sort of divine child abuse, it is important to note that because God is
trinitarian he is not inflicting punishment on someone outside of himself. He
takes on our punishment in the death of Christ. This is the most developed and
comprehensive theory of the atonement and is highly compelling to me. It accounts
for the total depravity of the human condition and explains the concept of the
sacrificial system as a foreshadowing of Christ’s ultimate satisfaction. It
holds in tension God’s justice and love and explains how his triumph over evil
can also be seen as an example of self-sacrifice we can model.
However,
in my study I am increasingly understanding the Christus Victor model. Aulén posits
that this model originated from the early church theologians. The foundational
theme of this theory is one of conflict and victory over the evil powers in the
world and the oppressors that keep people in captivity. While Penal
Substitutionary atonement accounts for the payment and covering of sin, the
Christus Victor model establishes a victory over sin itself (Aulén 165). The
critique of this framework is in asking the question of justifying why the
forces of evil are defeated through the cross instead of some other way. Rather
than the cross as a challenge to this view it is instead convincing to me that
the image of victory through the cross reflects the biblical theme of reversal
(last becoming first, younger usurping the older, leaders as servants). Perhaps
this framework can fit together with substitutionary atonement instead of
competing with it.
Certain
views of the atonement have gained and lost popularity in different time
periods in history. Currently there are arguments that Penal Substitution is
linked to a modern view and does not connect well to a postmodern audience when
it is caricatured as a God seeking vengeance. The rising influence of Christus
Victor may be in part because of a deeper understanding of the impacts of
oppression as studied in liberal theologies. Though all models of atonement can
fall prey to aspects of cultural conditioning, this further highlights the need
for doing theology in community and in dialogue with theologians of the past.
Doctrine
of Applied Soteriology
Here we echo the question of the Philippian jailor, “What
must I do to be saved” (Acts 16:30)? The seemingly straightforward response of
“believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” is a comfort to our hearts because
of its simplicity. However, it also raises questions we must wrestle with even
as we couch our concerns in an assurance of salvation. The main tension in this
area of doctrine is with balancing what role God and man play in salvation. It
seems in some texts and perspectives it is fully a work of God - no one can
attain salvation without God’s intervention and a person effectively has no
choice in the matter (John 6:44, 65). In other texts it seems there is
responsibility on behalf of humans to respond in some way, but does this
participation cause our justification to rest ultimately in our hands? Can we
then take credit for our response? Balancing both God and man’s role in
salvation is the fundamental tension. How does God’s grace interact with man’s
repentance?
To help answer these questions different traditions have
varying understandings of the order in which salvation takes place. When we
look at Romans 8:29-30 we come across terms we must explore in order to
understand how salvation works. From here we learn that God foreknew, predestined,
called, justified and glorified. To explore these terms, we ask what role the
Holy Spirit plays in bringing salvation. As from my previous doctrinal statement
the Spirit carries out the ministry of the Father and Son. An important work
the Spirit accomplishes is to convict unbelievers of their sin (John 16:8). The
Spirit also illuminates, reveals, and provides discernment in understanding God
and his word (John 14:26, 16:13-16; 1 Cor 2:9-15). We are born of the Spirit
(John 3:8) and I find the idea of birth a helpful metaphor in understanding the
process of regeneration and our role in it. As a baby’s birth marks the
beginning of a new life outside the womb, the labor is not initiated or
controlled by the fetus’s work or effort. The child certainly is a participant
in the process but is ultimately at the mercy of outside actors to bring it
into the world. It is possible that the child can stall the delivery but is not
powerful enough to stop it or bring it about on their own. So, it is with our spiritual
birth. We are participants in the process, but God is the one who is bringing
us into new life. Our involvement in the process of conversion (repentance and
faith) is important but it is a response to our regeneration, not the source. We
cannot take credit for the result any more than a baby can take credit for
being born.
For
me this seems to line up closest with the Reformed/Calvinist understanding of
the order of salvation. I find it relatively uncomplicated to hold to a
doctrine of total depravity, but the debates on limited versus unlimited
atonement are difficult to find the right balance. On the one hand we see
Jesus’s prayer for his disciples as limited in scope (John 17). If his
intercession is limited in extent must the atonement also be limited to the
elect? However, there are also many scriptures that specifically mention that
Christ’s sacrifice was for all people, or for the world (John 1:29, 3:16; 2 Cor
5:14-15; 1 Tim 2:6). I wonder if the balance can be found best in understanding
that Christ has offered a way to salvation for all but that not all have
accepted it. 1 Timothy 4:10 is interesting to note here as Paul says the living
God, “is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.” Even
stronger evidence is found in 2 Peter 2:1, “But there were also false prophets
among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will
secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who
bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.” Is salvation a
possibility for all but a reality just for a more limited number? I lean more
toward a universal atonement.
Here
we turn to whether God’s call to salvation can ultimately be resisted and if
election is unconditional. We must balance the scriptures that speak to God’s
desire for all to be saved (1 Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9; 1 Jn 4:8) with those that prove
people do resist God (Acts 7:51). We also know from experience there are those
who do not heed God’s call to salvation. How are we to understand the texts
that say God wants all to be saved? Does God merely not get what he wants? Some
of the Calvinist interpretations of these passages seems to evade the meaning
by saying that the ‘all’ refers to ‘all kinds’ or ‘all orders’ of people.
Others have described the ‘all passages’ as conversationally speaking of ‘all
the elect’ instead a literal interpretation of every single person in the
world. Armenians would argue against that to emphasize for a person to truly be
human, not a robot, they must have the free will to reject God’s offer of
salvation. I wonder if a way to reconcile these thoughts is to say he has
created all people with the potential to accept a relationship with him, but
because of the fall we lost the ability and now we require a special act of his
grace to apply Christ’s sacrifice to our souls. Perhaps our freedom to choose
was lost in the fall when Adam chose wrongly.
Ultimately
these two positions are attempting to strike the balance between human freedom
and God’s will. Neither can fully account for the scriptural witness. In a
Calvinist position the danger is that we will defame God’s character and lack a
proper understanding of human freedom. In the Arminian perspective we risk
taking credit for our action and deny justification by faith. Salvation is a mystery,
and it is a challenge to know how we can talk about the evidence that we cooperate
with God without leaving room to boast of our work.
After
the initial work of regeneration, I continue to follow the Protestant track in
my understanding of Justification. In the fall we lost our fellowship with God
and the Imago Dei in humanity was marred. Through Jesus’s work on the cross, people
have a right relationship with God when they trust in him for righteousness
instead of their own (Rom 5:10-11). This is received by faith, which is itself
a gift (Eph 2:8-9). Our faith is not simply an intellectual assent but a fully
participatory trust that evidences itself in works (Jas 2:18-19). Because of
these things it is not unjust that Jesus’s righteousness is credited to us (Rom
4:3-5).
Once
we have been justified but not yet taken up in glorification, how do we
understand the restoration of our fellowship with God? I disagree with those who
would argue that we can achieve a perfect sinless life here on earth. That
vastly underestimates the extent to which our natures were impacted by the fall
(Rom 8:18). I do believe God will complete the work he started in us, but that
will not ultimately be possible in this life (Phil 1:6). Our current status as
already justified but not yet glorified gives us the opportunity to grow in our
love for and develop more into the likeness of our Savior. Some call this
process sanctification, but I am not fully convinced that our growth and
maturity in Christ should be labeled as such. Many of the verses speaking directly
about sanctification deal with a positional change (Heb 10:10, 13:12; John
17:17-19; Eph 5:26). Additionally, the places that discuss our growth, maturity,
and becoming more like Christ do not explicitly link it with the word
sanctification (Rom 6; 2 Pet 3:18). It is possible sanctification may include
both positional and practical elements. Even if it is not specifically
described as sanctification there is certainly a reality that participation in
the Spirit leads to fruit of maturity.
The
idea of submission has frequently arisen in my mind regarding this topic. I
posit the question, “is submission an action and if so, is it active or
passive?” My conclusion is that submission is an active choice to yield one’s
own actions to another. It is active in a way that is also passive. It is
possible for us work out our salvation in ways that require our active
participation to yield to the Holy Spirit’s work. Even the different ways the
word ‘yield’ can be defined help to illustrate this paradox. To yield can mean
‘produce and cultivate’ as well as ‘give way’. Though it is often a challenge
for theologians to find words that capture the heart of an issue, here the
language helps us understand how our faith is both performed in works, but that
it is the Spirit working in us (Ez 36:25-27; Gal 3:2-5, 5:22-25). The more that
we yield ourselves to the work of the Holy Spirit, the more our lives will
resemble and be Christ working through us.
The
Biblical teaching on deification is closely connected with how I understand a
practical relationship with God to function. One of the main themes of the
Bible is a reunification of God’s presence with his people. With the Spirit
indwelling us, we are God’s temple to the world revealing who he is. Likewise,
the moon does not shine of itself, but rather reflects the Sun’s rays to a
darkened world. Gregory Palamas’s concept of deification as participating in
the divine energies of God without fusing with God’s nature is an exciting
hypothesis to consider. It is an area I want to explore more but it seems to
fit well with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. As our relationship with God
has now been restored, we now have the choice to continue to yield to his work
in our lives to make us better reflections of his image. Though the Imago Dei
has been damaged in the fall it was not destroyed. God has enabled us to now
choose each day whether we will keep in step with the Spirit in our thoughts,
words, and actions, or if we will choose to gratify the desires of the flesh
(Gal 5:13-25).
The
issues of soteriology produce a lot of hard questions. It is tempting to land
on easy answers that ignore those issues. I cannot call myself a Calvinist or
Arminian since there are elements of both that are convincing to me and neither
seems to account for the whole of the Biblical teaching. Our doctrinal
conclusions on any subject will certainly impact the practice of our faith, but
which conclusions will impact our eternal destiny? This is the most important
question to answer. In faith we can hold together the facts that God has not
left himself without a witness (Acts 14:17) and these things were written so
that we would know and have assurance that for those of us who believe in the
name of the Son of God we have eternal life (1 Jn 5:13).
Comments