The Theological Views on Justification and Atonement - Research Paper Example

?Christ “For Us” and “In Us A Comparative Analysis of the Objective/ ive Theological Term of the Doctrine of Justification by Kenneth Griderand John Murray Introduction The theological views on justification and atonement comprise a major point of contention among subsequent scholars of the Reformation. The term ‘justification’ means ‘to be found just or righteous before God,’ while ‘atonement’ pertains to ‘how Christ accomplishes our justification through his sacrifice on the cross.’1 There is a distinction between the objective work of Christ vis-a-vis the subjective work of Christ for our salvation. The Objective work of Christ refers to the work Christ undertook on our behalf within the context of history (i.e., time and space). The fact that Christ’s work in this sense stands outside of us, we are able to appreciate how God is at the center of our salvation. The Subjective work of Christ, on the other hand, is done in us and to us through the work of the Holy Spirit. As a result, the faithful are called, leading to repentance and faith, sanctification, and finally assurance of salvation. The Calvinist teaching on justification by faith alone is at the center of the subjective theology. ‘Therefore we must now discuss these matters thoroughly. And we must so discuss them as to bear in mind that this is the main hinge (the doctrine of justification by faith) on which religion turns, so that we devote the greater attention and care to it. For unless you first of all grasp what your relationship to God is, and the nature of his judgment concerning you, you have neither a foundation on which to establish your salvation nor one on which to build piety toward God.’2 Christ “for us” refers to the doctrine that as long as an individual has faith in Christ and what he has done for us, then he is saved. The dilemma in this is that if one is saved by professing his belief in Christ, then that person is actually saved by his own act (man’s works), and not the saving grace of Christ’s sacrifice. This goes against the principle of sola fide, or justification by faith alone. John Murray writes: This truth that God justifies needs to be underlined. We do not justify ourselves. Justification is not our apology nor is it the effect in us of a process of self-excusation. It is not even our confession nor the good feeling that may be induced in us by confession. Justification is not any religious exercise in which we engage however noble and good that religious exercise may be. If we are to understand justification and appropriate its grace we must turn our thoughts to the action of God justifying the ungodly.3 Murray’s teaching is consistent with subjective atonement theology. Simply stated, under this theory, God is the subject of the reconciliation process, that is, God is the one who carries out the process of reconciliation in His infinite mercy. There is nothing that humans need to do in order to atone for his or her sins, and it is God’s infinite mercy that has done it all. On the other hand, Christ “in us” refers to the transformative grace dwelling in us which results from our faith; the good works performed by the faithful are not preconditions for justification, but rather effects that stand as proof or manifestation of internal transformation. J. Kenneth Grider states: “Many Arminians whose theology is not very precise say that Christ paid the penalty for our sins. Yet such a view is foreign to Arminianism, which teaches instead that Christ suffered for us….Arminianism teaches that Christ suffered for everyone so that the Father could forgive those who repent and believe; his death is such that all will see that forgiveness is costly and will strive to cease from anarchy in the world God governs. The view is called the governmental theory of the atonement.”4 In objective theology of atonement, God becomes the object or target of reconciliation. This means that the suffering of Christ was for people to repent and believe, so that by doing so God would forgive them their sins. As Grider stated, Christ did not pay the penalty for the sins of mankind, but He did suffer for us, to teach us repentance and to believe. Wesleyan theology also teaches that sanctification is an integral part of justification, and that a believer must arrive at perfection (or a type of perfection) before salvation can be completed.5 In support of the Wesleyan position, the unit of material would include Romans 5-8. Up until Romans 5:11, Paul discussed sin as guilt, but this changed from 5:12 to 8:10 where Paul dealt with sin as revolt. The sinfulness of man (5:12-21) is discussed in terms of crucifixion with Christ (chapter 6), death to the law (chapter 7), and life in the Spirit (chapter 8). Mankind stood under judgment through Adam (5:18), but the judgment was cancelled in Christ (8:1).6 Statement of the Problem The problem sought to be resolved is the comparison and reconciliation, if possible, of the Wesleyan school of thought on justification theology as espoused by J. Kenneth Grider, and the Calvinist position on the same topic as taught by John Murray. Both theories have their strong points as well as their inconsistencies, and both will need to be thoroughly defined and analyzed. Statement of the Purpose The aim of the paper is to demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses of the theological view on the subject of Justification/Atonement by Grider (a Wesleyan scholar) and Murray (a Calvinist scholar). The objective of the research is to deepen our understanding of the implications of both theories, and to formulate a judgment about which of them would be more consistent with our personal interpretation of the Scriptural teachings, according to our best lights. Comparisons shall be made to determine commonly held principles by the two schools of thought, as well as divergences in their teachings and the reasons thereof. Necessarily, the scriptural bases for the teachings shall be examined, and where the interpretations of these readings differ. Methodology In the course of this research, the methodology will employ a variety of approaches to arrive at an acceptable resolution to the research problem, that is, to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Grider’s theory of justification or atonement, and that of Murray’s. The study will begin by presenting the different theories of the Calvinists and the Wesleyan scholars, to highlight where they agree and where they differ. The study proceeds to a construction of the written teachings of Grider and Murray, employing the material (i.e. the identification of Scriptural verse), hermeneutical (i.e., relying on the interpretation of Biblical text) and the teleological (i.e., anchored on the purposeful development of theology towards an end) approaches to arrive at an eventual resolution of the conflicting theories, or alternatively, a choice of one over the other. Supporting writings by the principal scholars of both schools shall be included to gain an appreciation of the manner in which the varying interpretations were arrived at. Limitations Justification and atonement theories have developed through the years, from the Augustinian teachings to Martin Luther and subsequently to Wesley and Calvin. In order to focus the discussion, the historical development shall no longer be specifically treated on, except where the construction of text or comprehension of the tenets involved an inquiry into the past developments or comparison among theological positions. The assumption is made that the readers are informed on the history and development of justification and atonement theology. Bibliography Akin, Daniel L; Nelson, David P.; and Schemm, Peter Jr. A Theology for the Church. P. Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Publishing Group (2007) 755 Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3:11:2 Grider, J Kenneth, “Arminianism,” in EDT, 2nd ed. Walter Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 97-98. Long, D. Stephen. "Justification and atonement." The Cambridge Companion to Evangelical Theology. Eds. Timothy Larsen and Daniel J. Treier. Cambridge University Press, 2007. Cambridge Collections Online. Cambridge University Press. 29 January 2013 DOI:10.1017/CCOL0521846986.006 McCant, Jerry, ‘A Wesleyan Interpretation fo Romans 5-8,’ Wesleyan Theological Journal. (1976) 11:22-37 Murray, John. Redemption: Accomplished and Applied, 118. O’Meara, Thomas Franklin. ‘Toward a Subjective Theology of Revelation.’ Retrieved http://www.ts.mu.edu/readers/content/pdf/36/36.3/36.3.1.pdf Read More