Create A Thread Of At Least 300 Words Discussing One Of ✓ Solved

Create a thread of at least 300 words that discusses: One of

Create a thread of at least 300 words that discusses: One of the major theological tensions within the study of Christology is its connection to soteriology. Discuss the proper order of study in approaching the person and work of Christ. Does one have a priority over the other? How does your answer help you evaluate the numerous inadequate "theories of atonement" that have been suggested over the years? Lastly, give a working definition of the atonement theory that seems to rise to the top of the options. Use only the following textbooks for citations: 1) Christian Theology, 3rd ed., Millard J. Erickson (2013). 2) Can You Be Gay and Christian, Michael L. Brown (2014). 3) Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, Schreiner & Wright (2006). Include at least two citations.

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction

The intersection of Christology (who Christ is) and soteriology (what Christ accomplishes) lies at the heart of Christian theological reflection. Determining whether the study of Christ’s person or his saving work has priority is not merely academic: it shapes how one theorizes about the atonement and how one judges competing atonement models. This paper argues that a Christology-first approach—grounding soteriological claims in a robust doctrine of the person of Christ—provides the most coherent framework for evaluating atonement theories and yields a balanced working definition of atonement that integrates classical categories (Erickson, 2013; Schreiner & Wright, 2006).

Proper Order of Study: Person First, Work Second

Studying the person of Christ prior to his work is epistemologically and theologically sound. Epistemologically, identity grounds action: who an agent is determines what that agent can do and why that action matters. Theologically, the biblical narrative and confessional tradition present the Incarnation—Jesus as fully God and fully human—as the ontological basis for redemption. Erickson emphasizes that proper Christology supplies the metaphysical and relational categories necessary to explain how divine and human natures unite in the one person of Christ, which in turn explains how his actions (life, death, resurrection) can mediate reconciliation between God and humanity (Erickson, 2013).

Priority: Why Person Grounds Work

Giving priority to Christ’s person guards against distorting his work by imposing an external framework that misunderstands who he is. For instance, emphasizing only functional descriptions of redemption (what Christ does) without attending to the ontological reality of the Word made flesh risks reducing atonement to moral influence, exemplary teaching, or merely juridical transactions that do not adequately account for the unity of divine and human action in salvation. Schreiner and Wright stress that soteriological claims (baptismal identity, covenantal participation) depend on who Christ is for the covenantal order to be coherently reconstituted (Schreiner & Wright, 2006).

Evaluating Inadequate Theories of Atonement

When Christology is primary, many inadequate or partial atonement theories reveal their limits. The moral influence theory, for example, highlights the ethical transformation that follows Christ’s life and death but fails to explain how moral transformation answers the problem of estrangement between a holy God and sinful creatures. Similarly, reductive models that emphasize only forensic or penal aspects (punishment transferred, legal satisfaction) can neglect the cosmic and restorative dimensions present in Scripture—dimensions that presuppose a reconciliatory action rooted in the divine person acting as mediator. Erickson argues for a multi-faceted understanding that recognizes juridical, sacrificial, and victorious motifs without collapsing them into a single metaphor (Erickson, 2013).

Moreover, reading atonement theories through a robust Christology reveals that some models implicitly assume a deficient view of Christ’s natures. If one treats Christ’s humanity as merely nominal or his divinity as merely functional, any theory constructed will distort how his death and resurrection effect reconciliation. By contrast, a high Christology affirms that the incarnate Son, acting as true God and true man, accomplishes salvation in ways that are simultaneously representative, substitutionary, victorious, and transformative (Schreiner & Wright, 2006).

Working Definition of Atonement

Integrating Christology-first insights leads to a composite, biblically faithful definition: the atonement is the redemptive work of the incarnate Son by which, through his obedient life, sacrificial death, and risen Lordship, he reconciles sinners to God, defeats the powers of sin and death, and inaugurates the covenantal renewal of God’s people. This definition preserves multiple biblical emphases—substitution (Christ dies in our place), reconciliation (enmity removed), victory (Christ defeats evil), and transformation (new life in union with Christ)—without reducing the mystery of redemption to a single metaphor (Erickson, 2013; Schreiner & Wright, 2006).

Practical and Theological Advantages

Adopting this approach has practical benefits for theology and pastoral ministry. It prevents theological reductions that either sentimentalize the cross or legalize salvation; it supports preaching that presents Christ as both Savior and Lord; and it grounds sacraments (including believer's baptism) in the person and work of Christ as covenantal signs of union with him (Schreiner & Wright, 2006). Michael Brown’s work, while focused on other topics, underscores the need for careful fidelity to Scripture and doctrinal clarity when addressing contested moral and theological questions, which applies equally to debates about atonement theory (Brown, 2014).

Conclusion

Prioritizing Christology provides a secure foundation for soteriology. Understanding who Christ is clarifies what he does and why it accomplishes salvation. By evaluating atonement theories against a robust doctrine of the person of Christ, theologians can discern partial truths in various models while rejecting those that collapse the biblical narrative into one inadequate picture. The atonement, properly defined, is the comprehensive redemptive action of the incarnate Son that reconciles, defeats, and renews—an integrated vision consistent with careful Christological reflection (Erickson, 2013; Schreiner & Wright, 2006).

References

• Erickson, Millard J. (2013). Christian Theology. 3rd ed. Baker Academic.
• Brown, Michael L. (2014). Can You Be Gay and Christian? Confronting the Bible's Truths. Tyndale House Publishers.
• Schreiner, R. Thomas & Wright, D. Shawn (2006). Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ. B&H Academic.
• Aulén, Gustaf (2004). Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement. Fortress Press.
• Anselm of Canterbury (1980). Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man). Translated edition.
• Barth, Karl (1961-1968). Church Dogmatics. T&T Clark.
• Stott, John R. W. (1986). The Cross of Christ. InterVarsity Press.
• Torrance, Thomas F. (1983). The Atonement: The Person and Work of Christ. IVP Academic.
• Wright, N. T. (2012). How God Became King: The Forgotten Story of the Gospels. HarperOne.
• Packer, J. I. (1973). Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. InterVarsity Press.