Theological Outlines • by • Francis J. Hall

« Ch. XX. Q. 117. The Doctrine of the Passion | Main | Ch. XX. Q. 119. Survey of Effects »

August 22, 2005

Ch. XX. Q. 118. Theories

THE mystery of the passion is so complex that no theory concerning it can be really adequate or wholly satisfactory. Those which have been offered obtain what self-coherence they possess through disregard of some or other of the truths and problems involved. They are apt to result both in onesided caricature and in ascription to certain legitimate — even scriptural — figures of speech connected with the doctrine, more definite values than they really possess. Yet each influential theory has gained its influence because of some important aspect of the mystery which it retains. A discriminating and comprehensive study of the various theories of Christ's death is therefore helpful in attaining to a well balanced hold upon the doctrine.1

2. The so-called patristic theory fastened on the figure of redemption and ransom, applied to our deliverance from servitude to the devil. Although they realized that Christ's sacrifice was offered to God, certain of the ancients held that the ransom, or price of our redemption from Satan, was paid to the devil, the ransom consisting of Christ's life-blood. As the devil could not retain the price which he exacted — God-incarnate could not be holden of death — the price proved to be of no value to him. In brief, the devil was driven by judicial blindness to overreach himself. Deceived by our Lord's human guise, he undertook to master what lie could not retain, and in doing so forfeited the form of right over men which he had obtained by seducing them into sin. The fathers were not confined in their thought concerning the death of Christ to this theory, which indeed is merely an incidental speculation, having a context of fuller doctrine.2

3. St. Anselm's theory, called "commercial," treated the death of Christ as the payment of a debt due to God because of man's sin. Justice required that man should pay the debt, but divine power alone could accomplish such payment. The Incarnation constituted One who could fulfil both requirements. His obedience was due, but not His death, because He was sinless. By dying voluntarily He earned, and paid for us, the debt which He did not owe for Himself.3

4. By breaking away from the sacramental unity of the Church, Protestants and Reformers lost hold upon the doctrine of our sacramental union with Christ, and became inclined to regard His death as an external and past fact merely — His abiding priesthood being neglected. The idea of substitutionary penalty, borne by a just person that the unjust might go free, came to the fore, and gradually secured among many the authority of orthodoxy. According to this view, our justification consists simply in a forensic imputation of Christ's righteousness to us, no other cause or warrant being admitted than God's will to accept our faith in Christ's saving death.4

5. Modern "moral" theories — theories which deny any objective or transactional value to Christ's death — owe their powerful influence to reaction from the seemingly immoral aspects of the Protestant "orthodoxy," as above described. The Socinian theory is most typical, according to which the passion is merely an exemplary drama, challenging us to save ourselves by our own efforts. The sufficiency of our natural powers is here postulated.5 The moral theories contain truth, inasmuch as they emphasize, onesidedly no doubt, aspects of Christ's death which cannot rightly be either denied or overlooked. But their denial of the objective meaning and value of the passion, and their frequent revival of Pelagian denial of our need of supernatural grace in order to be saved, constitute errors of the most fundamental kind.6

6. Compromises have been attempted. Grotius regarded Christ's death as an exhibition of governmental justice, which cleared the way for the exercise of divine mercy. But such an exhibition cannot satisfy justice unless we are somehow involved in Christ's death, e. g. by sacramental and moral identification with Him. We ourselves must die and, through Christ's victory, overcome death.7

7. Dr. McLeod Campbell makes Christ's death a manifestation by our representative of perfect sympathy with the Father's condemnation of sin — a sort of confession of sin and a perfect
"Amen" in humanity to this condemnation.8 Dr. R.C. Moberly develops this theory into that of ideal penitence.9 Since we could not repent perfectly because of our sinfulness Christ repents for us. That Christ in our behalf condemned sin in the flesh is true, although not a comprehensive description. But that He was in any proper sense a penitent cannot be granted. A penitent is by definition a sinner turning away from sin, which found no lodgment whatever in Christ. Ideal penitence — penitence which does not presuppose imperfection in the penitent — is like perfect health in a sick patient, a contradiction of terms.10

8. Our Thirty-Nine Articles emphasize the objective value of Christ's death "to reconcile the Father to us, and to be a Sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men"; declaring again that "the offering of Christ, once made, is that perfect redemption, propitiation and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual."11

Posted by AKMA at August 22, 2005 01:20 PM

Comments