Thesis (Th. M.)--Grace Theological Seminary, 1986. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 73-89).

Thesis (Th. M.)--Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, 1986. / Abstract. Typescript. Bibliography: leaves 148-156.

Thesis (S.T.M.)--Dallas Theological Seminary, 1985. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves [57]-61).

This thesis examines and compares the theological views of Dr. John Owen (1616-1683), the Puritan pastor and theologian, and John Wesley (1703-1791), the evangelist and founder of Methodism. The area of enquiry is confined to the subjects of Atonement and Justification, matters which occasioned protracted doctrinal debate during the period under review. Since Owen and Wesley represent the Calvinist and Arminian interpretations of the controversy, their viewpoints express what became a permanent religious rift within British evangelical Protestantism. The analysis will also consider the viability of the theological via media represented by Richard Baxter (1615- 1691) and Archbishop Tillotson (1630-1694). The discussion also takes account of the theology of the Protestant Reformers, in an attempt to assess the doctrinal modifications which took place during the 17th and 18th centuries, and the factors, both theological and philosophical, which brought them about. The analysis 'seeks both to assess the various aspects of the debate within the context of historical theology, and to evaluate them according to the criteria of Biblical exegesis. By adopting such a method, an attempt is made to present a coherent alternative to the conflicting judgements of John Owen and John Wesley.

This first section endeavours briefly to set out the problem, seeing it ln its proper context against the need it fulfils and its historical setting. It attempts to show something of the nature of sin and the need which sin creates; and asks the question Why Atonement? This question can only be answered by an appreciation of the meaning and power of sinfulness. Atonement is necessarily from God's side, and it is costly to God. An important factor in this section is the attempt to see the wholeness of Christ's work; to set the atonement in its true context within the life of Christ. An attempt is made to relate the atonement to the incarnation, The Word made flesh and dwelling among us; to the resurrection, which is not to be misunderstood as a mere evidential appendage to the cross, but to be seen as an essential factor in the salvation of men; and also to the ascension, to the problem of time and eternity, in that while Christ's work was once-for-all, it is nevertheless continued - it was in history, but is not bound within history. When this conception of the unity of Christ's work is grasped then we can turn to a consideration of the cross, always regarded by Faith as the very centre of the atonement. A brief survey is made of the Biblical teaching concerning salvation and the cross; and the centrality of the cross is interpreted sacrificially. Summary, p. x-xi.

The Church has never formulated an official doctrine of the atonement. Unlike the Trinitarian and Christological doctrines, the atonement was never a major issue in the early ecumenical councils. This central mystery of the faith, which speaks of the restoring of the relationship between God and man through Jesus Christ, has resisted every attempt at 'a formulation or statement in a nutshell'. Tillich has suggested that the Church's refusal to state the doctrine in definite dogmatic terms, is the instinctive recognition of the indefiniteness which is introduced by the human element. This element means that the doctrine has a subjective as well as an objective element. Since in his view the subjective element depends on the incalculable reaction of men to God's provision of a Saviour the formulation of the doctrine must remain uncertain. While we will agree with Tillich that the atonement has an objective as well as a subjective side, we cannot agree that the failure to formulate a doctrine has only to do with the uncertainty implied by the will of men. Intro. p, 1.

<p> Kaleidoscope theory inspires the beliefs and practices of the church in a variety of ways. The atonement is God's action on behalf of humanity to remove the barrier and repercussions of sin. The works of Joel Green and Mark Baker have been instrumental in advancing the kaleidoscopic perspective. These works have called into question the current articulation and practices of the atonement within the western church. Kaleidoscope theory inspires a church that encourages a diversity of views on the atonement. Furthermore, the church continues the work of interpreting the scriptural account of the atonement in a culturally sensitive manner. Yet, every interpretation of the atonement must account for the creative purpose of God, Jesus' life and death, and the propulsion towards community. The church embraces the tensions within competing reflections upon the atonement. Kaleidoscope theory encourages the church towards atonement-filled teaching and practice.</p> / Thesis / Master of Arts (MA)

Thesis advisor: Stephen Brown / The <italic>Cur Deus Homo</italic> (CDH) of Anselm of Canterbury is one of the most well-known and yet controversial works in the Anselmian corpus. Anselm's audacious effort to prove the necessity of the Incarnation has been met with varying levels of skepticism and critique in the intervening centuries. Critics of Anselm have taken aim particularly at the language that Anselm used in the CDH, commonly asserting that the key terms of the argument were derived primarily from the feudal society that surrounded Anselm as he wrote. The contention is then usually made that Anselm's usage of such terminology betrays a mindset so entangled in feudalism as to render the whole work ineffective as a work of Christian theology. Only in recent years have serious efforts been made to examine the theological roots of Anselm's thought process in the CDH. In this work, I examine the language that has been so maligned in recent years and I build on recent trends in Anselm scholarship to argue that his language is not so much feudal as it is scriptural and patristic. By analyzing Anselm's use of &ldquo;honor,&rdquo; &ldquo;justice,&rdquo; &ldquo;debt&rdquo; and &ldquo;satisfaction,&rdquo; I argue that Anselm was more concerned with maintaining consistency with his own work and with scriptural and patristic sources than with the feudal or juridical nature of his social context. I conclude by highlighting the ways in which Anselm accomplished his stated purpose in the CDH and provided a unique perspective on the Incarnation and Atonement that stands on its own as a turning point in the history of Christian theology. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2011. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Theology.

The proliferation of alternative models of atonement in recent academic literature, many of which stand in complete contrast to the traditional teachings of the Church, raises the question of how to determine faithfulness to the Christian doctrine of redemption. This thesis contends that such determination can be made when the alternative model proposed is able to demonstrate sufficient continuity with the meaning that Jesus of Nazareth constituted for his death. To argue this point requires a five stage investigation. Firstly the recent rejection, both academic and popular, of the so-called ‘myth’ of redemptive suffering, insists that it be demonstrated that God can create meaning out of the contingent – and evil – event of the cross without becoming responsible for, or the transcendent cause of, Jesus’ death. Taking a firm classical theistic stance it is argued that God can in no way will the death of Jesus because, as an evil contingent event, the cross falls outside the intelligibility of the divine providential order. Therefore, God is freely able to create meaning (ex nihilo) out of the event without validating and justifying the violence of the event itself. In addition, the upholding of a Chalcedonian Christology requires that the meaning which Jesus of Nazareth constituted for his death be understood to have divine significance, and thus should be investigated for what it reveals to a theological understanding of the cross. This leads to the second stage of the investigation which is to defend the theological right to engage in matters of history. Arguing for the value of critical realism, the point is made that a faith perspective does not negate the possibility of objective historical knowledge since, contrary to postmodernism, such knowledge does arise out of a spiralling dialogue between the knower and the object known. The third stage then follows, which is to argue how historical investigation into the Jesus of history might be done. Building upon James Dunn’s conception of impact, this study appropriates Bernard Lonergan’s understanding of constitutive meaning in order to highlight how the world of meaning that Jesus constituted for his death might actually function to impact the world of meaning of his followers. It is argued that what takes place is the constitution of a new world of meaning in which authentic existence is redefined. This redefinition challenges the disciples’ existing world of meaning and requires that they make an existential judgement of their own. But if such an impact is to occur then the challenge to the existing world of meaning must also be carried and it is here that historical investigation has its place. Drawing once more on the work of Bernard Lonergan, five carriers of meaning are identified, three of which (incarnate, linguistic and symbolic) are highlighted as the most relevant. The fourth stage of the investigation ensues, which is an engagement with recent historical Jesus research particularly that associated with N.T. Wright, James Dunn, Scot McKnight and Ben Meyer. The purpose here is not to develop a portrait of the historical Jesus for ourselves but to engage with existing research in a theologically fruitful way. Here then, we ask what can be known about Jesus’ intention for the cross by means of the incarnate, linguistic and symbolic carriers of meaning. Completing the examination yields the conclusion that Jesus intended his death to have redemptive significance but such significance must be understood within the framework of Jesus’ mission to inaugurate the kingdom of God. The fifth and final stage is to address how a contemporary understanding of that redemptive judgement should be appropriated for a modern atonement motif. Primarily this is a movement from judgement to understanding, the contention being that a ‘faithful’ motif will be one that takes due consideration of the judgement of faith, which seeks fuller understanding.

Thesis (Th. M.)--Dallas Theological Seminary, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves [48]-52).