Salvation by Faith

By John Wesley

Sermon 1

(text from the 1872 edition - Thomas Jackson, editor)

Preached at St. Mary's, Oxford, before the University, on June 18, 1738.

---

By grace are ye saved through faith. Ephesians 2:8

1. All the blessings which God hath bestowed upon man are of his mere grace, bounty, or favour; his free, undeserved favour; favour altogether undeserved; man having no claim to the least of his mercies. It was free grace that "formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into him a living soul," and stamped on that soul the image of God, and "put all things under his feet." The same free grace continues to us, at this day, life, and breath, and all things. For there is nothing we are, or have, or do, which can deserve the least thing at God's hand. "All our works, Thou, O God, hast wrought in us." These, therefore, are so many more instances of free mercy: and whatever righteousness may be found in man, this is also the gift of God.

2. Wherewithal then shall a sinful man atone for any the least of his sins? With his own works? No. Were they ever so many or holy, they are not his own, but God's. But indeed they are all unholy and sinful themselves, so that every one of them needs a fresh atonement. Only corrupt fruit grows on a corrupt tree. And his heart is altogether corrupt and abominable; being "come short of the glory of God," the glorious righteousness at first impressed on his soul, after the image of his great Creator. Therefore, having nothing, neither righteousness nor works, to plead, his mouth is utterly stopped before God.
3. If then sinful men find favour with God, it is "grace upon grace!" If God vouchsafe still to pour fresh blessings upon us, yea, the greatest of all blessings, salvation; what can we say to these things, but, "Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift!" And thus it is. Herein "God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died" to save us "By grace" then "are ye saved through faith." Grace is the source, faith the condition, of salvation.
Now, that we fall not short of the grace of God, it concerns us carefully to inquire, --
I. What faith it is through which we are saved?
II. What is the salvation which is through faith?
III. How we may answer some objections?

---

I.

1. What faith it is through which we are saved. And, first, it is not barely the faith of a heathen. Now, God requireth of a heathen to believe, "that God is; that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him;" and that he is to be sought by glorifying him as God, by giving him thanks for all things, and by a careful practice of moral virtue, of justice, mercy, and truth, toward their fellow creatures. A Greek or Roman, therefore, yea, a Scythian or Indian, was without excuse if he did not believe thus much: the being and attributes of God, a future state of reward and punishment, and the obligatory nature of moral virtue. For this is barely the faith of a heathen.
2. Nor, secondly, is it the faith of a devil, though this goes much farther than that of a heathen. For the devil believes, not only that there is a wise and powerful God, gracious to reward, and just to punish; but also, that Jesus is the Son of God, the Christ, the Saviour of the world. So we find him declaring, in express terms, "I know Thee who Thou art; the Holy One of God" (Luke 4:34). Nor can we doubt but that unhappy spirit believes all those words which came out of the mouth of the Holy One, yea, and whatsoever else was written by those holy men of old, of two of whom he was compelled to give that glorious testimony, "These men are the servants of the most high God, who show unto you the way of salvation." Thus much, then, the great enemy of God and man believes, and trembles in believing, --that God was made manifest in the flesh; that he will "tread all enemies under his feet;" and that "all Scripture was given by inspiration of God." Thus far goeth the faith of a devil.
3. Thirdly. The faith through which we are saved, in that sense of the word which will hereafter be explained, is not barely that which the Apostles themselves had while Christ was yet upon earth; though they so believed on him as to "leave all and follow him;" although they had then power to work miracles, to "heal all manner of sickness, and all manner of disease;" yea, they had then "power and authority over all devils;" and, which is beyond all this, were sent by their Master to "preach the kingdom of God."
4. What faith is it then through which we are saved? It may be answered, first, in general, it is a faith in Christ: Christ, and God through Christ, are the proper objects of it. Herein, therefore, it is sufficiently, absolutely distinguished from the faith either of ancient or modern heathens. And from the faith of a devil it is fully distinguished by this: it is not barely a speculative, rational thing, a cold, lifeless assent, a train of ideas in the head; but also a disposition of the heart. For thus saith the Scripture, "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness;" and, "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
5. And herein does it differ from that faith which the Apostles themselves had while our Lord was on earth, that it acknowledges the necessity and merit of his death, and the power of his resurrection. It acknowledges his death as the only sufficient means of redeeming man from death eternal, and his resurrection as the restoration of us all to life and immortality; inasmuch as he "was delivered for our sins, and rose again for our justification." Christian faith is then, not only an assent to the whole gospel of Christ, but also a full reliance on the blood of Christ; a trust in the merits of his life, death, and resurrection; a recumbency upon him as our atonement and our life, as given for us, and living in us; and, in consequence hereof, a closing with him, and cleaving to him, as our "wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption," or, in one word, our salvation.

---

II.

1. What salvation it is, which is through this faith, is the Second thing to be considered. And, First, whatsoever else it imply, it is a present salvation. It is something attainable, yea, actually attained, on earth, by those who are partakers of this faith. For thus saith the Apostle to the believers at Ephesus, and in them to the believers of all ages, not, Ye shall be (though that also is true), but, "Ye are saved through faith."
2. Ye are saved (to comprise all in one word) from sin. This is the salvation which is through faith. This is that great salvation foretold by the angel, before God brought his First-begotten into the world: "Thou shalt call his name Jesus; for he shall save his people from their sins." And neither here, nor in other parts of holy writ, is there any limitation or restriction. All his people, or, as it is elsewhere expressed, "all that believe in him," he will save from all their sins; from original and actual, past and present sin, "of the flesh and of the spirit." Through faith that is in him, they are saved both from the guilt and from the power of it.
3. First. From the guilt of all past sin: for, whereas all the world is guilty before God, insomuch that should he "be extreme to mark what is done amiss, there is none that could abide it;" and whereas, "by the law is" only "the knowledge of sin," but no deliverance from it, so that, "by" fulfilling "the deeds of the law, no flesh can be justified in his sight": now, "the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, is manifested unto all that believe." Now, "they are justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ." "Him God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for (or by) the remission of the sins that are past." Now hath Christ taken away "the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." He hath "blotted out the handwriting that was against us, taking it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." "There is therefore no condemnation now to them which" believe "in Christ Jesus."
4. And being saved from guilt, they are saved from fear. Not indeed from a filial fear of offending; but from all servile fear; from that fear which hath torment; from fear of punishment; from fear of the wrath of God, whom they now no longer regard as a severe Master, but as an indulgent Father. "They have not received again the spirit of bondage, but the Spirit of adoption, whereby they cry, Abba, Father: the Spirit itself also bearing witness with their spirits, that they are the children of God." They are also saved from the fear, though not from the possibility, of falling away from the grace of God, and coming short of the great and precious promises. Thus have they "peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. They rejoice in hope of the glory of God. And the love of God is shed abroad in their hearts, through the Holy Ghost, which is given unto them." And hereby they are persuaded (though perhaps not at all times, nor with the same fullness of persuasion), that "neither death, nor life, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate them from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
5. Again: through this faith they are saved from the power of sin, as well as from the guilt of it. So the Apostle declares, "Ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not" (1 John 3:5ff.). Again, "Little children, let no man deceive you. he that committeth sin is of the devil. Whosoever believeth is born of God. And whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." Once more: "We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not" (1 John 5:18).
6. he that is, by faith, born of God sinneth not (1.) by any habitual sin; for all habitual sin is sin reigning: But sin cannot reign in any that believeth. Nor (2.) by any wilful sin: for his will, while he abideth in the faith, is utterly set against all sin, and abhorreth it as deadly poison. Nor (3.) By any sinful desire; for he continually desireth the holy and perfect will of God. and any tendency to an unholy desire, he by the grace of God, stifleth in the birth. Nor (4.) Doth he sin by infirmities, whether in act, word, or thought; for his infirmities have no concurrence of his will; and without this they are not properly sins. Thus, "he that is born of God doth not commit sin": and though he cannot say he hath not sinned, yet now "he sinneth not."
7. This then is the salvation which is through faith, even in the present world: a salvation from sin, and the consequences of sin, both often expressed in the word justification; which, taken in the largest sense, implies a deliverance from guilt and punishment, by the atonement of Christ actually applied to the soul of the sinner now believing on him, and a deliverance from the power of sin, through Christ formed in his heart. So that he who is thus justified, or saved by faith, is indeed born again. He is born again of the Spirit unto a new life, which "is hid with Christ in God." And as a new-born babe he gladly receives the adolon, "sincere milk of the word, and grows thereby;" going on in the might of the Lord his God, from faith to faith, from grace to grace, until at length, he come unto "a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ."

---

III.

1. The first usual objection to this is, that to preach salvation or justification, by faith only, is to preach against holiness and good works. To which a short answer might be given: "It would be so, if we spake, as some do, of a faith which was separate from these; but we speak of a faith which is not so, but productive of all good works, and all holiness."
2. But it may be of use to consider it more at large; especially since it is no new objection, but as old as St. Paul's time. For even then it was asked, "Do we not make void the law through faith?" We answer, First, all who preach not faith do manifestly make void the law; either directly and grossly, by limitations and comments that eat out all the spirit of the text; or indirectly, by not pointing out the only means whereby it is possible to perform it. Whereas, Secondly, "we establish the law," both by showing its full extent and spiritual meaning; and by calling all to that living way, whereby "the righteousness of the law may be fulfilled in them." These, while they trust in the blood of Christ alone, use all the ordinances which he hath appointed, do all the "good works which he had before prepared that they should walk therein," and enjoy and manifest all holy and heavenly tempers, even the same mind that was in Christ Jesus.
3. But does not preaching this faith lead men into pride? We answer, Accidentally it may: therefore ought every believer to be earnestly cautioned, in the words of the great Apostle. "Because of unbelief," the first branches "were broken off: and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear. If God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God! On them which fell, severity; but towards thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness; otherwise thou also shalt be cut off." And while he continues therein, he will remember those words of St. Paul, foreseeing and answering this very objection (Rom. 3:27), "Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? Nay: but by the law of faith." If a man were justified by his works, he would have whereof to glory. But there is no glorying for him "that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly" (Rom. 4:5). To the same effect are the words both preceding and following the text (Eph. 2:4ff.): "God, who is rich in mercy, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ (by grace ye are saved), that he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves." Of yourselves cometh neither your faith nor your salvation: "it is the gift of God;" the free, undeserved gift; the faith through which ye are saved, as well as the salvation which he of his own good pleasure, his mere favour, annexes thereto. That ye believe, is one instance of his grace; that believing ye are saved, another. "Not of works, lest any man should boast." For all our works, all our righteousness, which were before our believing, merited nothing of God but condemnation; so far were they from deserving faith, which therefore, whenever given, is not of works. Neither is salvation of the works we do when we believe, for it is then God that worketh in us: and, therefore, that he giveth us a reward for what he himself worketh, only commendeth the riches of his mercy, but leaveth us nothing whereof to glory.
4. "However, may not the speaking thus of the mercy of God, as saving or justifying freely by faith only, encourage men in sin?" Indeed, it may and will: Many will "continue in sin that grace may abound:" But their blood is upon their own head. The goodness of God ought to lead them to repentance; and so it will those who are sincere of heart. When they know there is yet forgiveness with him, they will cry aloud that he would blot out their sins also, through faith which is in Jesus. And if they earnestly cry, and faint not, if they seek him in all the means he hath appointed; if they refuse to be comforted till he come; "he will come, and will not tarry." And he can do much work in a short time. Many are the examples, in the Acts of the Apostles, of God's working this faith in men's hearts, even like lightning falling from heaven. So in the same hour that Paul and Silas began to preach, the jailer repented, believed, and was baptized; as were three thousand, by St. Peter, on the day of Pentecost, who all repented and believed at his first preaching And, blessed be God, there are now many living proofs that he is still "mighty to save."
5. Yet to the same truth, placed in another view, a quite contrary objection is made: "If a man cannot be saved by all that he can do, this will drive men to despair." True, to despair of being saved by their own works, their own merits, or righteousness. And so it ought; for none can trust in the merits of Christ, till he has utterly renounced his own. He that "goeth about to stablish his own righteousness" cannot receive the righteousness of God. The righteousness which is of faith cannot be given him while he trusteth in that which is of the law.
6. But this, it is said, is an uncomfortable doctrine. The devil spoke like himself, that is, without either truth or shame, when he dared to suggest to men that it is such. It is the only comfortable one, it is "very full of comfort," to all self-destroyed, self-condemned sinners. That "whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed that the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him": here is comfort, high as heaven, stronger than death! What! Mercy for all? For Zacchaeus, a public robber? For Mary Magdalene, a common harlot? Methinks I hear one say "Then I, even I, may hope for mercy!" And so thou mayest, thou afflicted one, whom none hath comforted! God will not cast out thy prayer. Nay, perhaps he may say the next hour, "Be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven thee;" so forgiven, that they shall reign over thee no more; yea, and that "the Holy Spirit shall bear witness with thy spirit that thou art a child of God." O glad tidings! tidings of great joy, which are sent unto all people! "Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters: Come ye, and buy, without money and without price." Whatsoever your sins be, "though red like crimson," though more than the hairs of your head, "return ye unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon you, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon."
7. When no more objections occur, then we are simply told that salvation by faith only ought not to be preached as the first doctrine, or, at least, not to be preached at all. But what saith the Holy Ghost? "Other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, even Jesus Christ." So then, that "whosoever believeth on him shall be saved," is, and must be, the foundation of all our preaching; that is, must be preached first. "Well, but not to all." To whom, then are we not to preach it? Whom shall we except? The poor? Nay; they have a peculiar right to have the gospel preached unto them. The unlearned? No. God hath revealed these things unto unlearned and ignorant men from the beginning. The young? By no means. "Suffer these," in any wise, "to come unto Christ, and forbid them not." The sinners? Least of all. "He came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Why then, if any, we are to except the rich, the learned, the reputable, the moral men. And, it is true, they too often except themselves from hearing; yet we must speak the words of our Lord. For thus the tenor of our commission runs, "Go and preach the gospel to every creature." If any man wrest it, or any part of it, to his destruction, he must bear his own burden. But still, "as the Lord liveth, whatsoever the Lord saith unto us, that we will speak."
8. At this time, more especially, will we speak, that "by grace are ye saved through faith": because, never was the maintaining this doctrine more seasonable than it is at this day. Nothing but this can effectually prevent the increase of the Romish delusion among us. It is endless to attack, one by one, all the errors of that Church. But salvation by faith strikes at the root, and all fall at once where this is established. It was this doctrine, which our Church justly calls the strong rock and foundation of the Christian religion, that first drove Popery out of these kingdoms; and it is this alone can keep it out. Nothing but this can give a check to that immorality which hath "overspread the land as a flood." Can you empty the great deep, drop by drop? Then you may reform us by dissuasives from particular vices. But let the "righteousness which is of God by faith be brought in, and so shall its proud waves be stayed. Nothing but this can stop the mouths of those who "glory in their shame, and openly deny the Lord that bought them." They can talk as sublimely of the law, as he that hath it written by God in his heart. To hear them speak on this head might incline one to think they were not far from the kingdom of God: but take them out of the law into the gospel; begin with the righteousness of faith; with Christ, "the end of the law to every one that believeth;" and those who but now appeared almost, if not altogether, Christians, stand confessed the sons of perdition; as far from life and salvation (God be merciful unto them!) as the depth of hell from the height of heaven.
9. For this reason the adversary so rages whenever "salvation by faith" is declared to the world: for this reason did he stir up earth and hell, to destroy those who first preached it. And for the same reason, knowing that faith alone could overturn the foundations of his kingdom, did he call forth all his forces, and employ all his arts of lies and calumny, to affright Martin Luther from reviving it. Nor can we wonder threat; for, as that man of God observes, "How would it enrage a proud, strong man armed, to be stopped and set at nought by a little child coming against him with a reed in his hand!" especially when he knew that little child would surely overthrow him, and tread him under foot. Even so, Lord Jesus! Thus hath Thy strength been ever "made perfect in weakness!" Go forth then, thou little child that believest in him, and his "right hand shall teach thee terrible things!" Though thou art helpless and weak as an infant of days, the strong man shall not be able to stand before thee. Thou shalt prevail over him, and subdue him, and overthrow him and trample him under thy feet. Thou shalt march on, under the great Captain of thy salvation, "conquering and to conquer," until all thine enemies are destroyed, and "death is swallowed up in victory."
Now, thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ; to whom, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, be blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, for ever and ever. Amen.

---

Acknowledgements
[Edited anonymously at the Memorial University of Newfoundland, with corrections by George Lyons of Northwest Nazarene College for the Wesley Center for Applied Theology.] The text for John Wesley's sermons originally came from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

Early Church

Tim Stanyon

How adequately did Athanasius make sense of the need for Jesus to die on the cross?  Discuss with reference to his On the Incarnation of the Word and in light of the engagement of Christian writers with pagan objections to Christianity.

Adequacy is a fairly loose term, in that it is not so easy to measure.  However, concerning how Athanasius makes sense of the need for Jesus to die on the cross one will have to understand how the term adequacy might be applied and measured in order to answer the question.  Williams (2004, 158) writes, “Few if any intellectual crises are precipitated by purely intellectual factors.”  Though Williams comment may not translate so smoothly onto Athanasius position at the time he was writing ‘De Incarnatione’ it highlights the importance of understanding the patristic works from a point of view that takes into account the origins of those works and for what purposes they were produced.  The adequacy, then, of Athanasius’ understanding of Jesus’ need to die on the cross cannot or at least should not be measured on a purely intellectual level.  Thus, in trying to come to a conclusion regarding the question one will need to investigate the context in which Athanasius was writing (particularly in ‘De Incarnatione’).  Following this, the grounds will be laid for understanding how well Athanasius meets intellectual factors and how well he meets other factors specific to the context in light of Christian engagement with pagan objections to Christianity.  Therefore, once all of this has been taken into account, a balanced conclusion can be drawn regarding Athanasius’ explanation of Jesus’ death and in light of Christian engagement with pagan objections to Christianity.

           

Context

Context is of great importance, indeed anyone wishing to do any remotely accurate patristic study should be conscious of it at all times.  One must get into the shoes of Athanasius and attempt to understand the world in which he lived.  On entering into a discussion of context in regards to patristic study we should not be expecting anything like the complex theological treatises and heavy hard-back volumes we might expect from modern theology.  Aulen (1965, 47) acknowledges that, “many features in the patristic teaching should awaken disgust…” and of the “naïve simplicity…” associated with early Christian theological documents.  But he rightly says that on this basis it is still not justifiable, “to cast this teaching summarily aside.” (Aulen, 1965, 47).  Thus the intellectual adequacy of Athanasius’ time cannot and must not be confused with a modern intellectual adequacy. 

The intellectual arena and the primary intellectual objections of the time came from the pagan philosophers, the majority of which were Platonists (Drobner, 2008, 681).  Neo-Platonists and their conception of an unchanging God disallowed any form of incarnation; to them rituals like the practice of sacrifice were “utterly illogical” (Young, 1975, 39).    In order for Athanasius to adequately make sense of Jesus’ death on the cross it was these philosophical objections that he had to meet if he was to make any intellectual headway.

            Concerning Christian theology, the period of church councils was in full swing (Behr, 2004, 21).  Though these various councils were devised to reach some sort of theological agreement on controversial issues, vehement theological conflict and widely divergent theological standpoints were unavoidable (Behr, 2004, 21).  Thus, theologically, although Athanasius would have had a small library of Christian material devoted to understanding Christ’s death (Young, 2010, 53) theology was in a fragile and somewhat volatile state.

 But, as was noted in the introduction, intellectual factors are also accompanied by further factors specific to context.  If one is to comprehend the adequacy of Athanasius’ understanding of the cross, one must understand the nature and the purpose of the documents in which this understanding is manifest.  The majority of this essay will therefore be devoted to his most relevant work, ‘De Incarnatione’.  As Behr (2004, 168) makes clear, ‘De Incarnatione’ along with its preceding volume ‘Contra Gentes’ “is not a treatise on disputed points of abstract theology”.  As Athanasius himself writes, to Macarius to whom the works are written, “come let us as we may be able set forth a few points of the faith of Christ” (Robinson, 1892, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2801.htm), and to answer those who think “faith in Christ unreasonable” (Robinson, 1892, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2801.htm). ‘De Incarnatione’ as well as ‘Contra Gentes’, is therefore written in order to outline the basics of the Christian faith clearly.  It is not supposed to be a dry, philosophical or theological decree but a document “capable of inspiring faith in real men and women.”(Behr, 2004, 168), but also supplying a practical apologetic for defending and communicating the Christian faith in a largely pagan setting, thus we might identify the work as missional.  How well Athanasius meets all of the areas highlighted by the context in which he was writing will be the core areas upon which adequacy shall be defined in this essay.

Intellectual Engagement

Athanasius’ intellectual engagement with the issue of Jesus’ death and its adequacy can now properly be investigated.  This is to be demonstrated through his engagement with the two fields of philosophy and theology.   Philosophically, Athanasius is nothing less than thorough in paving the way for his section on the meaning of Jesus’ death midway through ‘De Incarnatione’.  Throughout the whole of ‘Contra Gentes’ his objective is to provide “a sufficient account of the error of the heathen concerning idols” (Robinson, 1892, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm cf. Weinandy, 2007, 13) and it is from this that he announces the alternative, that being the Gospel.  Thus Athanasius can be said to have engaged intellectually with pagan philosophy throughout his two volume work.  Indeed in explaining Jesus’ death he does not retreat in meeting with pagan objections, including those of the Neo-Platonists as seen in chapter 41 of ‘De Incarnatione’ (Robinson, 1892, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm. Cf. Anatolios, 1998, 68-69) Common objections from the likes of Celsus, even though they were initially voiced a number of years before Athanasius’ birth have been taken into account.  Celsus writes in relation to Jesus withdrawal to Egypt with Mary and Joseph that, “it was not fit that God should be afraid of death.” (Taylor, 2011, www.gutenberg.org/files/37696/37696-h/37696-h.htm) Athanasius, to combat such objections, reveals that Christ had to die in a certain way, that way being on the cross (Robinson, 1892, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm).  The reason Celsus’ objection fails, then, is that he has misinterpreted the very reason for Jesus’ incarnation in the first place, that being his death in the place of the rest of humanity (see ch. 22.).  Indeed, Athanasius spends four chapters (21-24) anticipating pagan objections to the nature of Christ’s death.  Young (2010, 54) points out that Athanasius’ interpretation and supposed refutation of pagan philosophy in ‘Contra Gentes’ gives rise to his two main concerns, these being 1) human irrationality, and 2) human mortality.  For Athanasius the incarnation of Jesus and the cross upon which he died were inextricably linked in the solution to these problems.  God’s image was renewed in the incarnation revealing the inadequacy of pagan idol worship and in his death Jesus died the death deserved by humanity, thus solving the problem of mortality (Young, 2010, 54).  Athanasius can therefore write that, “death is no longer terrible; for all who believe in Christ tread him under as nought, and choose rather to die than to deny their faith in Christ.” (Robinson, 1892, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm).   Athanasius’ understanding of why Jesus needed to die as regards his explanation in ‘De Incarnatione’ is directly linked to the points he makes in ‘Contra Gentes’ the main concerns mentioned and their solution.  The problems that he discusses in this earlier volume are the main concerns that needed to be answered through soteriology, thus he shapes his soteriology in and around answering these problems.

            On a theological level, Athanasius can be said to have engaged with a developing tradition concerning atonement. Although his work is somewhat dated, Aulen (1965, 38) shows that the majority of early church fathers adopt very similar views of the atonement.  What is significant and peculiar to Athanasius is his emphasis on death in contrast with the likes of Chrysostom who spends much of his time concerned to communicate Jesus’ defeating of the Devil by the cross (Aulen, 1965, 43, 51).  Many have thought this to be a deficiency in Athanasius’ work as concentrating on death’s defeat at the expense of leaving out any detailed articulation concerning the defeat of sin (Young, 55, 2010) and they may seem to have a point.  However, though Athanasius spends much of ‘De Incarnatione’ concerned with the subject of death he does, at points, refer briefly to ideas relating to the redeeming of sinners and in engagement with Christ’s death in relation to the effect of this death upon the Devil (Robinson, 1892, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm).  Young (2010, 65) points out that death, in Athanasius’ understanding is indeed the consequence of sin and so Athanasius should not be misrepresented as having divorced redemption or salvation from sin in trying to make sense of Jesus’ death on the cross.  This emphasis on death is highly important as it highlights how important the role of death is in Athanasius’ theology of atonement and atonement theory in general, in contrast with the earlier theologians who never managed to articulate this aspect of theology in the same way (McIntyre, 1992, 5). 

Despite all this, however, there are clearly theological discrepancies.  Christological ambiguity is a continuing problem (Weinandy, 2007, 47).  Furthermore, mention of the Holy Spirit and the role it plays in the death of Christ is severely lacking (Weinandy, 2007, 48), though we know from his other works that Athanasius’ understanding of the role of the Spirit would develop in much more detail later on in his life.  Even so, though it can be understood why there are certain theological deficiencies due to the state of the period’s theological development, this does not excuse the fact that Athanasius has left significant chunks of integral theology out of his understanding of Jesus’ death. Thus Athanasius has made an effort to engage with contemporary philosophy and theological tradition but he has missed out, or at least not emphasised enough, important aspects of theology concerning Jesus’ death.

Achieving his purpose

As was laid out initially, adequacy should not be measured on a purely intellectual level as seen in Athanasius’ engagement with philosophy and theology.  His purposes are to lay out the core elements of the Christian faith within an anti-pagan apologetic to encourage Macarius.  It has been seen clearly that Athanasius has spent a good amount of time dealing with pagan intellectualism for equipping Macarius missionally in a pagan context and his avoidance of complex abstract debates within the theology of his period has been noted.  This avoidance can be explained in that Athanasius has helped Macarius by simplifying things in order to equip him more efficiently.  If Athanasius had really meant ‘De Incarnatione’ to engage deeply with the whole concept of the incarnation on more of a theoretical level we would expect to see a document more similar to his ‘Discourses Against the Arians’ (Newman and Robertson, 1892, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28161.htm).  Therefore Athanasius has a good reason for avoiding the problems of the work highlighted earlier, in that he has purposefully avoided troublesome areas of controversial theology. Of course, in refuting pagan objections to Christianity Athanasius will have encouraged Macarius already.  Behr (2004, 203) points out that in his understanding of Jesus’ death; Athanasius takes two approaches in his explanation of the event, these being the refutation of pagans and the encouraging of Christians.  Having dealt with the death of Christ within an apologetic aimed at the refutation of pagans in chapters 21-24 Athanasius then moves on to look at Christian inquiries into the meaning of Jesus’ death.  Athanasius writes, 

“But if any of our own people also inquire, not from love of debate, but from love of learning, why He suffered death in none other way save on the Cross, let him also be told that no other way than this was good for us, and that it was well that the Lord suffered this for our sakes.” (Robinson, 1892, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm)

 He clearly outlines the importance of responding to believers.  In chapter 25 of ‘De Incarnatione’ Athanasius explains the death of Jesus in relation to scripture and its relevance to those who already believe (Robinson, 1892, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm).  Thus we see that not only is Athanasius seeking to disprove the objections of the pagans but to encourage his Christian brothers and sisters in their faith.  The fact that he spends a good chapter interpreting the death of Christ within a scriptural context consciously for their benefit gives evidence of his yearning to care for and encourage other Christians.  Although, as was noted earlier, Athanasius does indeed leave out certain theological details in his explanation of the death of Jesus, he intends not to overwhelm the reader with jargon but to outline the faith.  

It has been acknowledged then, that in answering the question of how adequately Athanasius makes sense of the need for Jesus to die on the cross, adequacy must be understood from the perspective of Athanasius’ period.  In realising this it has been seen that Athanasius meets the intellectualism of his day without hesitation.  He makes use of the philosophical and theological tradition before him and in attempting to refute pagan objections towards the Christian faith he has sought not only to counter these attacks but to simultaneously encourage his fellow Christians.  However, noting the practical purposes of ‘De Incarnatione’ it has been seen that there is an avoidance of more abstract theological ideas in relation to the death of Christ. Thus there are certain important theological deficiencies that still need to be addressed for Athanasius.  Nevertheless, one can still be sure, despite these negative points regarding Athanasius understanding of Jesus’ death, that he has done as well as he can in keeping with the purpose of ‘De Incarnatione’.  Indeed, had he not been successful in some sense regarding this matter he should not have had the “legendary” impact that has been accorded to him (Behr, 2004, 163).

Word Count: 2199

Bibliography

Anatolios, K. (1998). Athanasius: The Coherence of his Thought. London: Routledge.

Aulen, G. (1965). Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of the Atonement.  London: SPCK.

Behr, J. (2004). Formation of Christian Theology, Volume 2: The Nicene Faith, Part 1. New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

Drobner, H.R. (2008). Christian Philosophy. In S.A. Harvey and D.G. Hunter (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies (pp 672-690). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McIntyre, J. (1992). The Shape of Soteriology. Edinburgh: T&T Clarke.

Newman, J. H. and Robinson, A. (1892).  Discourse 1 Against the Arians.  Retrieved February 27, 2012, from http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28161.htm

Taylor, T. (2011). Arguments Of Celsus, Porphyry, And The Emperor Julian, Against The Christians Also Extracts from Diodorus Siculus, Josephus, and Tacitus, Relating to the Jews, Together with an Appendix. Retrieved February 17, 2012, from www.gutenberg.org/files/37696/37696-h/37696-h.htm  Robinson, A. (1892). On the Incarnation of the Word. Buffalo. Retrieved February 17, 2012, from http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm  

Robinson, A. (1892). Against the Heathen. Buffalo. Retrieved February 17, 2012, from

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2801.htm  

Weinandy, T.G. (2007). Athanasius: A Theological Introduction. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Williams, R. (2004). Athanasius and the Arian Crisis. In G.R. Evans (Ed.), The First Christian Theologians (pp 157-167).Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Young, F.M. (2010). From Nicaea to Chalcedon. (2^nded). London: SCM Press.

Young, F.M. (1975). Sacrifice and the Death of Christ. London: SCM Press.

Pastoral Care Essay

Tim Stanyon

How important is the humanity of Jesus in your theology and practice of pastoral care?

Pastoral theology is in many ways quite a bewildering field of study.  Pastoral theologians come across with wildly varying ideals and approaches, in the words of Hiltner (2000, 33), “Some common shepherds [pastoral theologians], it is true, may be quacks, consciously or otherwise.”  Thus a degree of caution must be exercised in approaching such a complex area of theology.  To answer this question accurately it would be wise to follow a logical and methodical process.  First, a coherent understanding of pastoral care must be attained, for an incoherent and poorly thought out understanding would prompt an inconsistent and fluctuating answer as regarding the importance of the humanity of Jesus.  After securing an apt understanding of the nature of pastoral care from which a more detailed theology might be based, the relevance of Jesus’ humanity for pastoral theology will be assessed.  Finally after having assessed the importance of Jesus’ humanity concerning theology we will be in a place to give examples of how it might be applied in practice.  Reference to practical approaches should offer some insight into the application of pastoral theology and Christology but also highlight the relevance of the sciences to pastoral practice.  This will give grounds for a conclusion concerning the importance of Jesus’ humanity in Pastoral theology and practice; whether it is so unimportant that it might be totally discarded or so integral as to support pastoral theology and practice itself.  When speaking of ‘pastoral care’ in this essay it will generally be conceived of as ‘Christian’ pastoral care as opposed to secular forms unless otherwise stated. 

What is the nature of pastoral care?  As was stressed above one has to be very careful when approaching such a question.  It is clear that when trying to understand the nature of pastoral care one must avoid being so narrow as to neglect certain aspects of the subject such as communal and political expressions of pastoral care ( Campbell, 2000, 81), but also avoid being so broad as to render ‘pastoral care’ a meaningless concept, and its nature indescribable and incoherent.  Perhaps it would be wise to begin with some sort of comparison between secular and Christian pastoral care.  Pattison notes in ‘A critique of Pastoral Care’ (2000, 9) that in secular interpretations “there is no necessary reference to any religious dimension at all”.  This highlights how the two conceptions of pastoral care are emphatically different.  But then this is to be expected.  For Christian pastoral care to be ‘Christian’ one would expect it to be affirmed within some sort of Christian context, indeed one would expect it to be in some sense dependent on the Christian worldview and to take this into account for practice.  Therefore where secular pastoral care might be concerned with educational goals (Pattison, 2000, 9) Christian pastoral care will be concerned with goals that transcend material reality as defined by Christian doctrine.  Christian theology and an understanding of how God has designed humanity and what purposes humanity is intended to fulfil, will be of the upmost importance (Lyall, 2001, 26).  This is not to say that secular and Christian approaches to pastoral care will not overlap, to deny this could be considered oxymoronic.  What is clear is that Christian pastoral care cannot be merely grounded in non-biblical methodology and neither should it always be approaching situations with the same intentions as secular psychology (Thurneysen, 1962, 201).  The exhortation of Romans 12:2 testifies to this, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God…” (Rom. 12.2).  The nature of pastoral care is therefore dependent on the purposes of God and articulating them in a way that seeks to attain the fulfilment of these purposes in pastoral conversation.  Indeed, Clebsh and Jaeckle (1994, 7) make allowance for this in their definition of pastoral care, in that it,“…consists of helping acts, done by representative Christian persons, directed towards the healing, sustaining, guiding, and reconciling of troubled persons whose troubles arise in the context of ultimate meanings and concerns.” These ultimate meanings and concerns are definitive of pastoral care, “Pastoral care is care for the soul of man” (Lyall, 2001, 26) in that it seeks to help humans understand, grow towards and achieve their purpose as defined by Christian doctrine.

What it means to be human therefore defines the direction in which a pastoral theology ought to be heading.  Doctrines of anthropology are entirely relevant to such a discussion.  Thus the Christian community should be seeking to attain a doctrine of humanity.  Here, problems are encountered. There is debate as to how humans should be understood within the Christian worldview, which is doubtless down to the varying approaches used in trying to attain such a doctrine.  For example the Tillichian will deny the possibility of elaborating a doctrine of man without an understanding of depth psychology (Tillich, 1961, 19).  In opposition a Barthian, like Thurneysen (1962, 205), will claim that we will, “understand man only when we understand him from the Bible.”  Both approaches, in their fullness, have their merits, but they also have their drawbacks.  Tillich is right when he challenges “neo-orthodox Biblicism” (Tillich, 1953, 39) in that the bible cannot be the only source when articulating a systematic theology.  Indeed the quote from Thurneysen (1962, 205) seems so concentrated on the bible as a source of understanding that it does little if any justice to other methods of understanding humanity, through our own human experience for example.  A harmonization of approaches is appropriate here.  It would be better to say that the bible provides the grounds for understanding humanity, as Thurneysen (1962, 206) says, “it is not one source among others…”  But the bible, having laid the boundaries and foundations of doctrine, can then be understood and applied more efficiently through an understanding of other relevant, albeit ‘auxiliary’ sources  (Thurneysen, 1962, 202).  The concept of boundaries and foundations for theology seem somewhat abominable on Tillich’s view (Tillich, 1953, 41), nevertheless they are required for forming an accurate understanding of pastoral care.  This is not to say that the Tillichian emphasis on psychology for understanding humanity is irrelevant (cf. Rogers, 1985, 102-118).  No, an understanding of psychology is important so as to be able to apply a doctrine of humanity with the greatest positive effect within pastoral practice.  Of importance now is how our humanity is understood, which is where the humanity of Jesus is of great importance.  Thus the Bible plays an important role in how we should approach our understanding of humanity.  So we can now understand and investigate how Jesus might become relevant for a biblical doctrine of anthropology.

Here, Jesus’ humanity is so relevant to our own that it cannot be ignored.  What it means to be human is encapsulated in the person of Jesus.  Indeed, to quote Mackintosh (1978, 383) “Jesus is the Man par excellence.”  (cf. Moltmann, 1974, 116,) According to Christian doctrine Jesus did not sin (1 Pet. 2.22).  In this sense where the first man (Adam) failed, Jesus allegedly did not.  Thus Jesus revealed God’s true intentions for humanity in himself.  “He [Jesus] is sinless man and thus shows us who and what real man is.” (Berkouwer, 1962, 92).  Thus “anthropology is based on Christology…” (Berkouwer, 1962, 91).  If this is the case then the principle concern of a pastoral theology, that of an understanding of the purpose of man, is directly dependent on the humanity of Christ.

 Further it is clear that Christian tradition, the patristic councils and the creeds reveal that for Christian theology and Christology to be coherent Jesus’ humanity must be affirmed (The Archbishops’ Council, 2000, 139).  In recalling the nature of Christian pastoral care and understanding that it sets itself within the Christian worldview and in some sense attempts to achieve Christian goals, the idea of a coherent Christology is indispensable.  It would be an incoherent, confusing and potentially damaging pastoral theology that got rid of the humanity of Christ. 

Having assessed the importance of Jesus’ humanity within a theological context, one can now move on to investigate its practical application. Why would Jesus’ humanity be of any importance beyond supplying theological foundations for pastoral care?  At this point secular psychological and counselling theory is somewhat important (cf. McGrath and McGrath, 1992, 125).  Pastoral care is at its base a relational activity.  Indeed pastoral care will involve at the very least a carer and a client (client is perhaps an inappropriately cold term), thus listening skills, therapy and counselling skills are all needed, to some degree, to efficiently and positively help the client.  Carl Rogers (1961, 50) notes certain characteristics of a helping relationship, for example, being “dependably real” is important in affirming trust between the pastoral carer and the client.  Likewise, Long (1990, 39-45) identifies similar characteristics for good listening on the part of the carer.  She highlights the importance of: respect, genuineness, confrontation, immediacy and concreteness.  The question which should be asked of these characteristics should be; are they fulfilled in the humanity of Jesus?  Can Jesus relate to humanity in this way, or is the charge of him being “Wonderful Counsellor” (Isaiah 9.6) redundant?  If Jesus shared humanity then the Christian can be sure that Jesus experienced similar if not greater suffering.  The Christian can be sure that Jesus is trustworthy in that he “became obedient to the point of death…” (Phil. 2.8), for the sake of the world.  If this is the case, then Jesus, following from his faithfulness to humanity, can be considered genuine and thus steadfast.  In his humanity he confronts people with the challenge of God incarnate, which requires response at the very deepest level and arrests the client with appropriate immediacy.  Jesus’ humanity fulfils the requirements of a good listener and meets the needs of ‘clients’ for a helping relationship.  Jesus, then, in his humanity can be helpful relationally.  Furthermore the pastoral carer can comfort a client on the grounds that Jesus shared in suffering and thus can understand emotional and physical pain, that his humanity is a sign of love and that the example he offers should encourage spiritual growth. 

Despite all these positives, without applying these examples in a way that is psychologically and relationally appropriate the pastoral carer runs the risk of being unhelpful (Higton, 2008, 116-117).  Indeed, those that see God as an authoritarian, power-crazed police man will find the prospect of Jesus’ example as more of a call to rebellion than a call to spiritual growth, or an indication of solution to their problems.  Thus, these preconceptions of what God is like must be revealed and investigated.  This exercise in psychology can be incredibly useful in enabling a deeper understanding of the person and of how God might relate to them in their current position (Watts, Nye and Savage, 2002, 188-189).  Therefore an adequate understanding of psychological theory and practice will be needed in order to fully understand the basis for these preconceptions and how they might be addressed.  Tillich’s acknowledgement of psychology should be praised because it offers a bountiful source of material which will help in facilitating an efficient, modern, pastoral care. Moreover Jesus’ humanity alone would prove to be deficient in applying aspects of his person in pastoral care.  If Jesus was human and not divine then the hope provided by his humanity would be invalidated, indeed there will undoubtedly be many pastoral cases in which his divinity may be of particular help.  One must put Jesus in an eschatological context in order to fully grasp the magnitude of what it means for him to be human.  There is love and comfort provided in his humanity and eschatological and eternal hope provided in his deity, both of which will undoubtedly prove important within a Christian pastoral care.

How important is the humanity of Jesus in your theology and practice of pastoral care?  It seems clear that the nature of pastoral care, as we have seen, is concerned with the concept, highlighted by Clebsh and Jaekle (1994, 7) of “ultimate meanings and concerns”.  Ultimate meanings and concerns for human persons depend on how God has created them to be.  According to Christology, Jesus revealed what it means to be truly human.  Thus in his humanity Jesus is of direct importance for pastoral theology.  Furthermore, without his humanity, theology itself would be lacking in coherence.  If someone is trying to help someone within a theological framework, then incoherence within that framework is of great concern.  Therefore Jesus’ humanity is of integral importance to my theology of pastoral care.  In addition, it has been acknowledged that Jesus’ humanity is important on a practical level.  Relationally Jesus humanity fulfils all of the appropriate characteristics required for positive, helping, pastoral relationships.  Aspects of his humanity can also be applied practically by a pastoral carer in that Jesus provides an example, an acknowledgement and understanding of suffering, and love demonstrated through his death and resurrection.  But one must not forget the importance of psychology and neither should one ignore Jesus divinity for both of these are also required to effectively conduct pastoral care.  Thus Jesus’ humanity cannot be dispensed with theologically or practically regarding pastoral care, but neither can one stress it pastorally at the expense of forgetting the importance of related sciences or wider theological context.

Word Count: 2132

Bibliography

The Archbishops’ Council. (2000). Common Worship: Services and Prayer’s for the Church of England.  London: Church House Publishing.

Berkouwer, G. C. (1962). Man: The Image of God. Kampen: Wm.  B.  Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Campbell, A. (2000). The Nature of Practical Theology.  In J. Woodward and S. Pattison (Ed.), The Blackwell Reader in Pastoral and Practical Theology (pp 77-88). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Clebsh, W. A., and Jaekle, C. R. (1994). Pastoral Care in Historical Perspective. New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc.

Higton, M. (2008). Christian Doctrine. London: SCM Press.

Hiltner, S. (2000). The Meaning and Importance of Pastoral Theology. In J. Woodward and S. Pattison (Ed.), The Blackwell Reader in Pastoral and Practical Theology (pp 27-48). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Long, A. (1990). Listening. London: Daybreak.

Lyall, D. (2001). The Integrity of Pastoral Care. SPCK

Mackintosh, H. R. (1978). The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.

McGrath, A., and McGrath, J. (1992). The Dilemma of Self-Esteem. Cambridge: Crossway Books.

Moltmann, J. (1974). Man. London: SPCK.

Pattison, S. (2000). A Critique of Pastoral Care. (3^rd ed.) SCM Press.

Rogers, C. R. (1961). On Becoming a Person. London: Constable and Company Ltd.

Rogers, W.R. (1985). Tillich and Depth Psychology. In J. L. Adams, W. Pauk and R.L. Shinn (Ed,), The Thought of Paul Tillich (pp 102-118). San Francisco, Harper & rom Publishers.

Thurneysen, E. (1962). A Theology of Pastoral Care. Richmond: John Knox Press.

Tillich, P. (1953). Systematic Theology: Volume 1. London: Nisbet & Co., Ltd.

Tillich, P. (1952). Autobiographical Reflections.  In Charles W. Kegley and Robert W. Bretall (Ed.), The Theology of Paul Tillich (pp. 3-21). New York: The Macmillan Company.

Watts, F., Nye, R., and Savage, S. (2002). Psychology for Christian Ministry. London: Routledge.

All Biblical citations are taken from the NRSV.

Tough issues

Ravi looks at the consequences of suicide and shares his thoughts with sensitivity.  Check out this video.  If I remember correctly we talked about it briefly in Deeper the other week.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ_DOd2dReg&feature=related

Evolution

Evolution briefly came up (and i mean briefly) in a short conversation at Deeper on monday.  So here's a link to a short video from a Christian perspective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9h-hmlMz5c&feature=g-user&context=G2595762UCGXQYbcTJ33Zeu-lR-ZfQAd-an3LFZneb7iBAOxo7P08