systematic II exam 1

atonement

* At-one-ment: the restoration of the broken relationship between God and estranged humanity accomplished by Jesus Christ: “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.” (2 Cor 5: 19). 

greek words for atonement

hilasterion

hilasmos

katallage

hilasterion

propitiation

hilasmos

expiation

katallage

reconciliation

hebrew word for atonement

kaphar

kaphar

cover

what are the 6 models of the atonement

JC as Teacher of True Knowledge

JC as moral example and influence

JC as victorious champion and liberator

JC as our satisfaction

JC as our penal substitute

JC as the final scapegoat

JC as Teacher of true knowledge explanation

An early model of the meaning of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection for humanity is found in the saving ability of Jesus as Teacher of Knowledge that will bring heavenly truth to humans.

JC as Teacher of true knowledge problem

We live in darkness and cannot see the truth. We need someone from heaven to teach us the way (by words and example)

JC as Teacher of true knowledge solution

salvation, divine knowledge of the way to live. We experience oneness with God through knowing his truth.

JC as Teacher of true knowledge subjective/objective

subjective atonement: humans participate in their salvation. Atonement is directed toward humans (not God).

JC as Teacher of true knowledge supported by:

* Modern Protestant liberals (1880s-present)
* Early Greek apologists (2nd century AD)
* Nestorian soteriology (400s AD)
* Gnosticism (2nd century AD and beyond)

New Age spirituality (present)

Jesus as Moral Example and Influence explanation

* Jesus teaches us LOVE.
* Jesus also showed us an example of love so that we should follow his example. 
* However, Abelard did not just state Jesus was an example, but that he was an __*influence*__ on our own morality.
* Jesus’ death provides us with a compelling example to follow. In his obedience to the cross, Jesus embodies God’s sacrificial love.
* So powerful is Jesus’ example that it influences us to give us power to re-embody that same sacrificial love in our lives

Jesus as Moral Example and Influence problem

ignorance of love

Jesus as Moral Example and Influence solution

* Salvation =  When we copy Jesus and love others sacrificially, we are participating in the love of God and establishing God’s kingdom on earth.

Jesus as Moral Example and Influence subjective/objective

* subjective atonement: humans participate in their salvation
* Atonement is directed toward humans (not God)

Jesus as Moral Example and Influence supported by:

* Abelard
* Kant
* Schleiermacher
* Horace Bushnell
* Protestant liberal tradition

Jesus as Victorious Champion and Liberator (also known as Christus Victor) explanation

* Also known as Christus Victor (Latin)
* Resurrected by Swedish theologian, Gustaf Aulén (1879-1977) in book Christus Victor: A Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of the Atonement\[1930/ ET 1931\]
* Also, the Ransom model is sometimes used to describe this: God paid the devil a ransom (Jesus’ life) in order to retrieve sinful humans back to God.

Jesus as Victorious Champion and Liberator God at War (1997) explaination

1. Christ defeated the devil.
2. Jesus is depicted as a warrior—a soldier who is triumphant in battle over the enemies of sin, death, and the devil.
3. Jesus’ victory is when he rises from the dead and thereby wins eternal life for humans, overcoming the curse of death.
4. Every aspect of Christ’s life, teachings, death, and resurrection reveal something about the atoning work of Christ.
5. First prophecy: Gen 3:15
6. Christ is Lord b/c he has defeated his enemies.
Thus, humans can be free from the enslavement to sin and the devil. This is salvation!
7. Christ is the Pantocrator or Ruler of all.
“The Son of God was revealed for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil” (I John 3:8).

Jesus as Victorious Champion and Liberator (also known as Christus Victor) God at War problem

Humans are enslaved by the enemies of God (after the Fall of Adam), namely, sin, death, & the devil. We are born curved in on ourselves with abnormal self-centeredness and need deliverance.

Jesus as Victorious Champion and Liberator (also known as Christus Victor) God at War solution

* Salvation = Deliverance from death and Satan’s grasp. It is redemption—a ransom paid by Jesus’ life and death and resurrection.

Jesus as Victorious Champion and Liberator (also known as Christus Victor) God at War subjective/objective

* Mostly objective—God and the devil are affected by the work of Christ.
*  Atonement is directed mostly toward God and the devil. God is the chief actor in the drama of salvation and therefore redemption is achieved apart from human contribution.
* Gustavo Gutierrez (1928 -     )
* Christ is the liberator from socio-political oppression.
* Liberation theology (esp. in South America) advocates siding with the poor and against forces of oppression.

Jesus as Victorious Champion and Liberator (also known as Christus Victor) God at War supported by:

* Irenaeus
* Luther (among other models)
* Gustav Aulén
* Liberation theology
* Anabaptists
* Some Pentecostals

 Jesus as Our Satisfaction basic facts

Anselm (1033-1109) was an Italian-born, French educated monk who later became Archbishop of Canterbury (England).

Cur Deus Homo? (Why the God-Man?)

* *Because Anselm is so misunderstood today, it is important to rehearse his approach carefully.*
* God created humans out of infinite love, intending us to enjoy blessedness (happiness).
* This blessedness requires harmony of human wills with God’s will.
* Choosing disobedience, humans used their will in defiance against God, thereby fracturing the harmony of the universe.
* Deviation of human wills with God’s will creates a disharmony that must be balanced with a lessening of blessedness for us.
* The imbalance can be remedied only by two means:
* a. by punishment and denial of blessedness
* b. by an act of satisfaction that offers up something greater than the act of disobedience.

the primary dilemma of cur deus homo?

* God cannot simply grant unconditional forgiveness b/c such an act would bring further disharmony into the universe.
* Yet no human can offer satisfaction to God b/c each person is already under obligation for total obedience and hence there is no “extra moral capital available” to redeem ourselves.

what is the secondary dilemma of cur deus homo?

* The offering should be made from the human side but cannot be made by us. 
* God is capable, but not a human.

conclusion of cur deus homo?

* Therefore, Anselm concludes, the incarnation was necessary—it is why God became human, in order to remedy the dilemma of redemption.

the incarnate son of God intro

* The incarnate Son of God offers up himself with a sinless life in honor of God.
* Death is a punishment for sin. Since the Son did not need any reward for a sinless life and self-sacrifice, the reward is held “in escrow” for humans.

the incarnate SoG explanation

* The blood of Christ atones for our sins and renders us forgiven or justified by satisfying God’s judgment against us.
* However, this does not mean God is angry and needs to be appeased through sacrifice (frequently how Anselm—and even the NT—is misunderstood).

the incarnate SoG problem

*disorder in the cosmos brought about by human sin*

* God must act so that just order is satisfied.
*  However, God alone cannot resolve the debt to satisfy what is required by God’s own order of justice. 
* Humans alone cannot satisfy this debt either, even though we owe it. 
* The incarnation is necessary to have divine and human contributions together in order to achieve salvation.

the incarnate SoG solution

* Salvation = God is satisfied with the sacrifice of Jesus’ death and offers us salvation that brings the cosmos into right relationship (order) with God. \[Rom 3:25\]

the incarnate SoG subjective/objective

* Objective atonement (entirely outside of human operation). 
* The work of atonement is directed toward God and the cosmos.

the incarnate SoG supported by:

* Anselm
* AND with some revision, the Reformers:
* Luther
* Calvin
* Bullinger

 Jesus as Our Penal Substitute intro

* An extension of Anselm’s satisfaction model, this model of the atonement speaks of an __***exchange***__ both of the divine nature and the benefits that come with that to make us more like Christ. Our ***union*** with Christ brings benefits as a result of salvation.
* The Reformers liked this version of atonement since all the action is initiated and fulfilled by GOD. 
* “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” 2 Cor 5: 21.
* “For God has destined us not for wrath but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us.” 1 Thess 5: 9

 Jesus as Our Penal Substitute explanation

* Christ assumes the penalty of our sin and in exchange offers us righteousness and resurrection life.
* **Christ becomes a substitute for our penalty (Isa 53)**
* Since iniquity must be punished before a righteous God, Christ bears our iniquities for us along with the penalty of our sin—even to the point of death. 
* Through our faith in Christ’s work, we receive the exchanged benefit of Christ’s righteousness, which is IMPUTED to us.

 Jesus as Our Penal Substitute calvin

* Union with Christ is the crucial point: we receive not only benefits from the external transaction resulting from Christ’s work, but also internal benefits of being united to Christ.

 Jesus as Our Penal Substitute luther 

* Luther calls this a “happy exchange” and likens it unto marriage

 Jesus as Our Penal Substitute KEY

* the communication of attributes takes place in Christ AND in our own faith.
* In Christology there is something called the communicatio idiomatum \[communication or sharing of attributes\].

So, due to our union with Christ, a sharing of divine attributes takes place in Jesus and in _____

us

sharing of divine attributes problem

* We are weakened and marred by sin. 
* We need forgiveness of our sin and God’s help to overcome sin.

sharing of divine attributes solution

* Salvation: Christ takes our sins, guilt, suffering, and death; then shares with us forgiveness and power of resurrection life.
* Union with Christ brings salvation

sharing of divine attributes subjective/objective

This model is an objective atonement directed toward God. Humans do nothing toward their salvation.

sharing of divine attributes supported by:

* The Reformers
* Luther
* Calvin
* Bullinger
* Martin Bucer
* Peter Martyr Vermigli
* Modern Evangelicals
* James I. Packer
* Leon Morris
* And almost anyone who calls themselves “evangelical” in the US today

Jesus as the Final Scapegoat explanation

* Sacrifice in Christianity was meant to be a metaphor, not taken as a literal sacrifice.
* The “scapegoat” mechanism (Lev 16:22) is meant to offer symbolic background.
* Epistle to Hebrews
* Jesus, a final priest who offers himself ‘once for all’

Jesus as the Final Scapegoat problem

* There is a lie in this sacrificial motif. Sacrifice is a form of violence—of sin—that took Jesus’ life. Scapegoating allows us to blame others instead of seeing the lie (and ourselves) for what it is.
* “To scapegoat is to sacrifice someone else for our own self-preservation and self-justification,” \[Peters, p. 16\]

According to this model, God accepts NO SACRIFICE from humans—and desires none.

Israel misunderstood God’s intentions in the OT.

Jesus as the Final Scapegoat solution

* Salvation has nothing to do with sacrifices we offer. God in Christ has performed the work of salvation by offering the final sacrifice—a sacrifice to end all sacrifices as well as by unmasking the lie about scapegoats.

\

Jesus as the Final Scapegoat supported by: (Girard)

* René Girard (1923- 2015) A French-born philosopher/sociologist who lived and taught in US at Stanford University.
* In the 1980s, Girard put forward the following idea:
* People in all societies are threatened with unleashing of uncontrollable violence.
* Each society engages in some form of sacrifice to stem the tide of violence and establish order
* The potential destructive force of pent-up violence can be averted by a controlled act of ritual violence, namely, by killing (or blaming) a scapegoat.
* In the ancient world, this was frequently done by a sacrificial shedding of blood of an animal—an innocent victim.
* Today’s judicial system in a democracy replaces the past sacrificial system. 
* Girard uses this schema to understand the ‘madness of collective violence’ in our era. He calls this the “scapegoat mechanism” that can be triggered into action when cultural crises (like war or plagues) confront humans. Humans may also select “victims” whom they consider to be part of the moral or cultural breakdown (eg, Nazis accusing Jews for all evil).
* Girard says Christ’s self-sacrifice reveals how oppressive the scapegoat system was and is. The Son of God exposes the hypocrisy of the scapegoat mechanism.

Jesus as the Final Scapegoat supported by: (Heim)

* Mark Heim (American Baptist Theologian) uses Girard’s analysis to call the sacrifice of Christ the “final” sacrifice needed—one to end all scapegoating.
* Jesus’ death is the “liberation from scapegoating sacrifice” \[Heim, 134\].
* “The book of Hebrews turns sacrifice inside out” \[Heim, 160\]. If you believe in sacrifice, you can’t practice it any more since Christ’s sacrifice was perfect—once for all!
* “This was the sacrifice to end sacrifice” \[Heim, 160\].

Jesus as the Final Scapegoat subjective/objective:

* Subjective/objective: This model blends the objective and subjective sides almost equally. God initiates action to end sacrifices and to expose the “lie” that sacrifices were actually needed; Jesus becomes the FINAL sacrifice; humans must believe the truth and no longer have scapegoats.

theodotus the leatherman/leather currier

* that Christ came into existence as the man Jesus, who was born of the virgin, and who became very pious towards God.
* that God tested Jesus and found him pious and so descended upon him at baptism.
* that there is no “heavenly being” that enters the human Jesus.
* that the anointing of the Spirit is similar to that which occurred with the OT prophets.
* therefore , this man could not be called “God.”
* Theodotus was expelled from Rome about AD 199.

theodotus the banker

* taught that Melchizedek was to be held in higher esteem than Christ!
* rejected the Gospel of John and its “Logos Christology.”
* Dynamic monarchians were among the first “biblical critics.” The compared the Synoptic Gospels with John and rejected the latter because of its variations from the three.

paul samosata (Bishop of Antioch). Paul’s teachings on the Logos and their influence on Lucian and then on Arius.

* Best representative of dynamic monarchianism.
* Paul S. taught Lucian of Antioch, who in turn taught Arius.
* Denied any distinction of a personal nature within the Godhead.
* There is a Logos who inspires Christ, but does not indwell him because the Logos exists within the Father ***as an impersonal attribute***.
* There is a divine power that rests on Jesus Christ, but this is a union of will, “not of essence.”
* Paul S. maintained the oneness of God while opening the door to some distinction within the nature of God—although never a separate hypostasis or independent entity.
* The Logos and the Spirit are “in God” but not as “persons” (hypostasies).  So there is a Trinity of sorts—one God, one person.
* The Logos, then, remains “in God” and can never be identified with the man Jesus.  
* Indeed, Mary did not give birth to the Logos, but to a human being.  (In later language, Mary is not Theotokos: “Mother of God”).
* Jesus has been honored with a special grace from God and therefore is unique in that he can be called “Son of God.”

* Why is the modalistic monarchianism view also called “patripassianism”?

These modalists solved the ‘polytheistic tendency’ by identifying the Father and Son as the one and same God.

Father was born, suffered and died on the cross:

* because there is One Father God who comes in different forms in history.

The Father and Son are one and the same.

* The Father was born, suffered, and died on the Cross was the conclusion of this approach.  Hence, it was also called “patripassianism” (which means a belief that the Father God suffered).  This was hugely problematic for most Christians because the Greek metaphysical model required God to be without passion—impassible, unable to suffer.

Noëtus of Smyrna was a modalistic Patripassianist in the early 200s at Rome

* Christ is the Father and the Father himself suffered and died.
* What he wanted to say was that it was truly God himself who suffered for us by becoming the Christ to redeem us.
* There is no adoptionism here!
* There is no question about the full divinity of Christ on earth since there is no difference between the Father’s substance and the Son’s.
* Christians who claim a distinction between Father and Son, especially through some Logos Christology, have given in to “di-theism.”

* **Sabellius** came from Libya in North Africa and made his way to Rome about AD 200.  He quickly became a leader of the Monarchians there.  

* He taught that the “forms of appearance” \[prosōpa\] of the One God (whom he call the Son-Father, or huiopatēr) were threefold:
* Father as Creator & Lawgiver
* Son as Redeemer from the incarnation to ascension
* Spirit as the prosōpon of God since the ascension.
* huiopater

**Lucian of Antioch:**

* Disciples:  Eusebius of Caesarea and Arius of Alexandria
* Taught:  God was one.  Opposed the pluralistic tendencies of trinitarians.
* Inner Logos vs. external Logos
* Everything outside of the Father is created from nothing (seemed to include the Logos in this view). Only the Father is unbegotten or ungenerated.

**The views of Arius, presbyter (priest) from Alexandria**

* Jesus was god-like in some sense but not fully divine like the Father; Jesus was human, but not fully human b/c the Logos entered and took the place of the human rational soul.
* Christ was created by God the Father.  Christ is a creation—a special creature.
* Compound vs. simple nature of God and how this plays into Arius’ thinking.
* Arius’ *Thalia*
* “There was a time when the Son was not…”
* Son is the intermediary between Father God and creation.
* Son participates in the Father’s deity by grace.

* **Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria:**  response

* Is there really “moral development” (prokope) in Christ?
* The Son proceeds out of the Father, but not in the manner of human generation!

**Deacon, priest, and then Bishop of Alexandria** (exiled 5 times!)

* Starting point is not Greek Metaphysics, but soteriology and Scripture.
* If Christ is not fully divine…then _____________

* *Orations Against the Arians or Four Discourses Against the Arians On the Incarnation*

* The Arians worship a creature, which is a sign of paganism
* No Logos-intermediary necessary for God to create or relate to the world.
* God is unity with distinctions
* Arians insisted on “similar substance” of divinity of the Son with the Father; Athanasius insisted (later, after Nicaea) on the “same substance”
* *Homoousios vs. homoiousios*
* *Theosis* (What is it and how does it play into the doctrine of Christ for Athanasius?)

**The Council of Nicaea, 325 C.E.**

* The role of the Emperor Constantine
* The story of the Council of Nicaea and its aftermath
* Parties at the Council
* Story of St. Nicholas

\-What does the Nicene Creed of 325 say about Christ?

**How do the two natures of Christ relate?**

* The Antiochian School
* The Alexandrian School
* Apollinaris & Gregory
* Nestorius (theotokos, Christotokos & anthropotokos) also synapheia or conjunction (association):  & Cyril:  Hypostatic union
* Chalcedon (451 CE)

lessing’s ditch

* Lessing 1729-1781
* No particular Christology. The doctrine of Christ is rooted in the belief that the ideas are rooted. French thinkers of faith had to be totally reasoned out. The knowledge of history depended on the testimony of historical people. We cannot prove what written documents are saying with our current knowledge. Problematic because any line of reasoning that hinges on a historical fact cannot be 100% believed in because we cannot prove the historical fact.
* Faith isn't based on probably. Lessing's ditch, faith cannot jump over this broad ditch, no certitude of making it over the ditch.
* Divided who historical JC was, the way the church viewed it, it divides
* Is there any line of reasoning that does not require any faith? Also assuming that the truth is something that must be provable. Perhaps, it's not the exact case.

herrmann

1846-1922

* Hermann: certainty of faith. JC is christ does not come solely from a history of JC. This comes from the testimonies of His life and the character of his personality
* History does not have to repel or disconnect. History can be used as a learning tool.

kahler

* 1835-1912
* Kahler: faith is less about the events and more is about the who/how. The gospel is a character sketch which should be in JC's person.
* Kahler Influenced paul tillich. They knew JC by testimony and experience instead of the historical JC.

19th century kenotic christologies

* 1st quest: 1787-1906 (fredrich strauss/schweitzer (a medical doctor))
* Strauss - the rational and supernatural he creates the argument that much of his life is mythical. What we read about JC is phantasmagorical. Creates a HUGE earthquake. What do we have left of JC? Schweitzer adds the mystic-ness of eschatology. When it is all removed, JC was just a end times preacher
* It does not leave room for him to be divine. A deluded man of great teaching. Takes away the miracles and focuses heavily
* 2nd quest: 1896-1954 (boltmann)
* The christ that we believe in is sufficient. There is no connection in our faith in christ and our salvation.
* Removes aspects of our humanity.
* 3rd quest: 1959-1980s (kasemann)
* There is something important about
* There was a greater connection about the historical JC and the community
* Focuses more with the community of Christ and us than anything else
* 4th quest: 1980s-
* Many theologians
* 1 historical knowledge
* Then turns to many different views
* It does recognize the NT
* There are too many 'Christs'
* Representing 2 extremes, once removed divinity of JC and poses threat to our faith. Or there is no substance and all faith. Very hard to critique because of the versions of Christ.

tillich

* 1886-1965
* Image or a picture for our view of Christ
* 3 dimensions
* Historical
* There is no certainty behind this picture. Looking for an idea. Only by a soteriological experience ordained by the Spirit can we know God.
* Not about the person of Christ, but God cannot become man, but God reveals Godself to reveal the Christ as others
* Historical JC existed
* If JC never lived, our salvation is in peril
* Theology must be based on facts
* We know Christ because of experience
* Legendary


* Mythical


* Historical view goes a liiiiittle far. It might have been any person

barf

* Middle point christology (1886-1968)
* Views JC as Emmanuel, JC is an incarnation, a shared history between us and God. Everything we want to know must begin and end with JC. JC does not ignite himself to any flesh but jewish flesh and God does so out of his own divine freedom. Represents christology as a mystery. His very existence as God-Man as atonement, his very being is reconciliation and atonement.
* Holds the middle view between antioch and alexandrian views.
* Hold the diletical tension of the
* Satisfaction view of atonement, objective in stance, something greater must be sacrificed because of our disobedience.
* He claims one must end and begin with JC, had christocentrism.

thomasius

* 1800s
* First written work as 1845
* Incarnation was a penetration into the natural from the divine. He is limiting His divinity. God can fit Himself into the needed context of humans. There is a need of divine and human. God is limiting Himself to the Son for human nature.
* Description of divine and humanity was done well. JC avoids the hereditary
* Limiting the divinity of God. Becoming less God to become fully human.
* What does it mean to hear that Christ humbled Himself to become fully God and fully human? Had to put divine attributes on a shelf to feel humanness

luther

* 15th-16th (1483-1546)
* JC is fully God in all aspects, even in childhood. JC died, God died. JC has the power of God. JC is God. JC chooses to limit this power and perform miracles instead.
* 'Right hand of God', not a particular place, God is spirit. Wherever the hand of God is the Spirit is there also. The right hand of God is a place of authority. Eucharist - God's presence is in the Eucharist. Christ being omnipresent, He embodies the Eucharist. As JC ascends to heaven, he is in a body. Odd: body of JC is omnipresent. The humanity and divinity of Christ are blended.
* Did the fulness of the Godhead die on the Cross?

calvin

* 1509-1564 (2nd era/gen of reformation)
* Calvin believed that due to our sin nature, we could not enter into community with God. For His holiness made so that His very presence would kill us. The SoG had to become human so that JC would mediate for us. This saving work is by JC alone. Christology is very close to his Soteriology.
* Calvin emphasizes the depth of sin and the separation of God. JC as savior is the most important aspect.
* Emphasizing JC as mediator, He neglects the relationship and person of Christ.