First, since when did the Pope take his directives on soteriology from the ECT documents, as significant or meaningful as they might be? ❋ Unknown (2009)
Thus our soteriology, which is not rooted in "saving" the world, becomes indistinguishable from the soteriology that puts that burden precisely at its heart. ❋ Unknown (2009)
So, again, the Pauline Christology ends in Docetism, and his teaching that we are saved by the Spirit is a soteriology which is at once physical and magical, while the evolution of his eschatology consists in the denial of the resurrection of the body. ❋ 1872-1939 (1904)
4. What is our implicit theology of "soteriology"? ❋ Unknown (2005)
This word (Greek soter, from which is derived our theological term "soteriology," the study of salvation) occurs 24 times in the New Testament and is applied only to Christ, "for there is none other name under heaven given Acts 4: 12). ❋ Institute For Creation Research (2010)
• A soteriology: "If we win this game, I'll be in seventh heaven!" ❋ Unknown (2009)
After all, it is an essential part of Catholic soteriology. ❋ Unknown (2009)
Exactly *how* that atonement works — “soteriology” — is a surprisingly gray area in Christian theology; the prevailing theory in the Western churches, that of Anselm, came along about 1,000 years later. ❋ Unknown (2010)
The final journey in this world with God is a description of human psychology focusing on soteriology and eschatology and reveals most clearly the significance of Twelver Shi˜ism to his thought. ❋ Rizvi, Sajjad (2009)
It's also possible to develop a soteriology in which justification by faith through grace plays little or no role. ❋ James F. McGrath (2009)
They tied Christology to cosmology and could not tie it to soteriology. ❋ James F. McGrath (2009)
In the event there is a need for a little transformative soteriology, I recommend Matthew Aaron Tennant at the University of Oxford who seems to grasp the redemptive possibilities of of mugged libertarians. ❋ Unknown (2009)
In the centuries since, perhaps Paul has won out in defining Christian soteriology, but Pelagius, too, could cite scripture to good effect. ❋ James F. McGrath (2009)
Ultimately though, its likely the pervasiveness of works based soteriology that ripples through most everything, thats a major contributor. ❋ James F. McGrath (2008)
I'm really not that concerned about christology but I am concerned about practical soteriology. ❋ Steve Caldwell (2007)
Dr. Rebecca Parker has a very short and concise explanation of what Unitarian Universalist soteriology that she presented at the Liberal Religious Educator Association Fall Conference back in 2002. ❋ Steve Caldwell (2007)
A recent summary of the origins of modern-day Unitarian Universalist soteriology theology of salvation can be found in "Unitarian Universalist Identity" curriculum for young adults by Katie Tweedie Erslev: ❋ Steve Caldwell (2007)
Throughout the history of the church a number of different views regarding the nature of the [atonement] (i.e., the theological significance of Christ’s death) have been advanced. The Recapitulation view was advanced by Irenaeus (ca. 120-ca. 200). In this view Christ sums up all humanity in himself in that he went through all the stages of human life, without succumbing to temptation in any way, died, and then rose from the dead. The benefits of his life, death, and resurrection are then available to all who participate in Him through faith.
The Example or Moral Influence (or “subjective”) view has been advanced by theologians such as Pelagius (ca. 400), [Faustus] and Laelius Socinus ([sixteenth] century), and [Abelard] (1079-114233). Though there are certainly different moral example views,34 their essential agreement consists in arguing that the cross demonstrates how much God loves us and this, then, awakens a response of love in our hearts; we then live as [Jesus himself] lived. While there is biblical support for this idea (e.g., Phil 2: 6-11; 1 Pet [2:21]), it is incomplete as it stands and fails to recognize the more crucial aspects of [scriptural] teaching on the issue.
Another theory of the atonement advanced in the early church—and really maintained as the standard view in the early church until [Anselm]—is the [Ransom] to Satan view. [Origen] (185-254) was one of the chief proponents of this understanding which asserts that Christ’s death was a [ransom] paid to Satan to secure the release of his hostages, i.e., sinful men and women. While ransom language is used in [Scripture] to refer to the atonement (e.g., Mark [10:45]), it is probably incorrect to include in this the idea that a “price” was paid to Satan, for nowhere in Scripture is such an idea suggested.
In his work [Christus Victor], the Swedish [theologian] Gustav [Aul]én (1879-1977) argued for a Divine Triumph or Dramatic view of the atonement, similar to the ransom theories of Origen and the early church. In the dramatic view God overcame all the powers of hell and death through the cross and in doing so made visible his reconciling love to men. This too has some biblical support, but it is unlikely that it adequately summarizes all of scriptural revelation on this issue.
The Satisfaction or [Commercial view] of Anselm (1033-1109) argues that man has [dishonored] God by his sin and that through the death of the perfect, [sinless] God-man, Jesus Christ, that honor and more—including Satan’s defeat—has been restored to God. This theory also finds support in [scripture], but more than God’s honor was restored through the death of his son.
The Governmental view of the atonement, advanced by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), places a high value on the justice of God and the demand of his holy law. In this view, the death of Christ upholds God’s moral government in that it demonstrates His utter commitment to His holy law. He could have forgiven men, however, without the death of Christ, but this would have left men without the true knowledge of His commitment to His Law. The death of Christ, then, is not as a substitute for us, but rather God’s statement about what he thinks about his moral government of the universe. This view has much to [commend] it, but as a global theory it simply cannot account for the tight connection between three important facts in Scripture: (1) the [reconciliation] of the believing sinner; (2) the forgiveness of sin; and (3) the death of Christ. Peter says that “Christ died for sins, once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring us to God” (1 Peter 3:18; cf. Rom 5:8).
The Penal Substitution view of the atonement35—the view most often associated with the [Reformers], in particular, Calvin—argues that Christ died in the sinner’s place and appeased the [wrath of God] toward sin. Thus there are a cluster of ideas in this view including redemption (ransom), sacrifice, substitution, propitiation, and reconciliation, Though there are tensions in this view, and though the other views each contribute important insights to the idea of Christ’s atonement in the NT, this one perhaps rests on the best scriptural support, and brings together the holiness and love of God, the nature and sacrifice of Christ, and the sinfulness of man in a way that all are properly maintained. It is important, however, that the valid insights from the other views not be lost or [eclipsed] by this model. ❋ Theologist (2005)
