At the core of Christianity is the idea of salvation: how we are spared from eternal darkness and torment and reconciled to God. As such, there exists theology surrounding the idea of salvation (or justification). This is known as soteriology.
Biblical Basis
Naturally, there is a lot of evidence in the Bible surrounding soteriology seeing as the entire story of the Bible is how we were reconciled to God through Christ. Despite this, there are different views among denominations on how the process of salvation works. Essentially, the two extremes on the spectrum are Calvinism (predestination) vs Arminiansim (complete free will), which I will cover in depth in another post. Most denominations and schools of thought fall somewhere in between these two ideals.
The non-negotiable aspects of soteriology are the life, death and resurrection of Christ. Christians universally agree that these are the proverbial cog in the salvation machine. This can best be summarized in 1 John 3:23: "And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us."
The main points of contention between denominations is 1) The nature of our atonement and 2) the role of works.
Plenty of Paradigms
Atonement in Old English meant to be "at one with" or "in harmony" with someone else. Thus, Christian atonement is how we come to be in harmony with God. Theories/paradigms around the nature on mankind's atonement with God are divided into 3 categories: classic, objective and subjective.
Classic atonement theory was the understanding of justification by the early Church. The most prominent version of this paradigm was ransom atonement or the idea that Jesus's death served as a ransom to Satan to free humanity from sin. Critics point out that this theory makes out Satan as a rival to God rather than a subject beneath God. This is because it is assumed Jesus paid the ransom to Satan, NOT God.
Objective atonement (also known as penal substitution), on the other hand, rejected that Jesus's death served as a ransom but rather as a propitiation to satisfy God's impending punishment. The creator of this theory, Anslem of Bec, theorized that God sought to punish mankind as their continued sin was an offense to God's honor. This draws parallels to the displeasure God had with Israel on several occasions throughout the Old Testament.
This view has been central to most of American and Western Protestantism for centuries, though there is criticism. Many will claim that this line of thinking is inconsistent with the love of God that is purported by Paul's writings and in the other epistles. As Richard Rohr put it, "these theories are based on retributive justice rather than the restorative justice that the prophets and Jesus taught." In other words, critics suppose this theory assumes that God did not have a plan to save humanity from sin, but rather Jesus stepped in on his own accord and stopped God's wrath that would have destroyed some, most or potentially all of humanity. They also suggest that God can't change his mind on punishment as he is a unchanging God.
Subjective atonement (or moral transformation in some circles) is the direct answer by those who oppose objective atonement. The theologian Abelard, who is credited for this theory, proposed that Jesus's death served the purpose of changing mankind's perception of God (loving rather than wrathful or offended) and that would lead to sinners turning back to God and devoting themselves.
Modern churches either adhere to objective or subjective atonement, with more conservative churches choosing penal substitution while more liberal churches gravitate towards subjective moral transformation (NOTE: Conservative and liberal thinking in Christianity is NOT the same as conservative and liberal politics. Rather, it refers to how churches interpret their relationship with God and their community.)
However, many modern theologians, like the late, great J.I. Packer, suggested that it's possible to accept some aspects of different paradigms. Additionally, there are more theories that fit in between these 3 broad categories. Thus, it's possible to agree with penal substitution yet accept aspects of moral transformation and ransom theory as true. Most Christians and churches will adopt such a mixture of soteriological views.
Working 9 to Eternity
For centuries, Christians have been split over the role of works within the faith. Despite Paul affirming our salvation is through "faith; not our own doing" in Ephesians 2:8-9, many believers and cultures still hold on to the ideology of salvation through works. Most Protestants do not follow these thoughts. They believe in "unconditional salvation" as there is no things we need to do beyond believing to attain it.
Methodism, teaches salvation through faith alone, but with a small twist: "faith cannot subsist without works" according to Methodist evangelist Phoebe Palmer. So in a roundabout way, works are required for salvation. However, this is consistent with James 2:18: "But someone will say, 'You have faith and I have works.' Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." The Methodists (and similarly the Baptists, Presbyterians and most other Protestants) are admitting that salvation is an unconditional event as a result of faith alone in Christ alone (sola fide, solo Christo), but that faith also compels us to do works that glorify God.
However, there are a few Protestant denominations that purport that salvation is not a no-strings-attached bargain. For example, Pentecostal (Churches of Christ/God) theology proposes that a confession of faith is only the first step in becoming a Christian. To them, baptism is what incorporates one into the body of Christ and then they "become Children of God."
Several other non-Protestant views differ from this idea of sola fide, solo Christo. Catholicism teaches that grace can be lost if one commits what they call a "mortal sin." They also teach that justification has levels, so to speak. Catholics can increase their level of justification and attain eternal life by works, or as the put it: "cooperating with God's grace." Furthermore, they believe in divinization, or the idea that humans can become more like God, literally. In Catholic theology, a divinized Christian can see God's essence (beatific vision). The Eastern Orthodox church holds a similar belief, but think that divinized become God in "energies and operations." Yeah, I'm confused too.
Anabaptist, Amish and Mennonites all see works as a means of salvation. Per a Mennonite Church, "Mennonites tend to agree that salvation is not merely a personal relationship with God, but a communal relationship with each other." This includes works and keeping the Ten Commandments for a lifetime to make salvation a "true reality."
Mormons and the Church of Latter-Day Saints teach that salvation is dependent on adherence to the Ten Commandments and Gospel principles. Those that keep them well will inherent what they call a "higher Heaven." Conversely, the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that works is required for salvation. They believe that no one can become a Christian without "preaching the good news of the Gospel." Other required works for salvation in this theology include baptism, confession of sins, evangelism and promoting the Kingdom of Heaven.
Conclusion
As we've seen, every church sees the process of justification differently. Differences can be present in how we obtain it or the very nature of justification itself. Regardless, we can all agree that our hope after death lies with the life, death and resurrection of Christ. As Christians, this should strengthen all of us, knowing that Christ's sacrifice was so powerful that it cuts through all theological and cultural borders. Even though you may not exactly agree with your family member, co-worker or friend, you can be assured that God's grace and mercy can still reach both of you through Christ.
Comments
Post a Comment