Journal: Journal for Baptist Theology & Ministry
Volume: JBTM 19:1 (Spring 2022)
Article: Retrieving Diversity And Unity On The Work Of Christ In The Apostolic Fathers
Author: Thomas G. Doughty, Jr.

Retrieving Diversity And Unity On The Work Of Christ In The Apostolic Fathers

Thomas G. Doughty, Jr.

Thomas G. Doughty, Jr. serves as assistant professor of theology and Christian worldview; associate dean of Leavell College in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Introduction: Heresy Regarding The Work Of Christ

In an often-cited essay reflecting on the work of Christ, systematic theologian Robert W. Jenson critiqued several characteristic tendencies of manifest atonement theories. Jenson pointed out the variability of the theological topic by lamenting the lack of dogmatic establishment:

It is a commonplace to observe that there is no dogma of atonement. Although, in Christology there is dogma established at all seven ecumenical councils, no council—or pope or other plausibly ecumenical authority—has ever laid down a dogma of atonement. If you deny that Christ is “of one being with the Father,” or that the Son and Jesus are but one hypostasis, you are formally a heretic. But you can deny any offered construal of how the atonement works, or all of them together, or even deny that any construal is possible, and be a perfectly orthodox believer. To be sure, if you simply deny that Jesus’ death does in fact somehow reunite us with God, you are no Christian at all, but that is a different sort of deficiency.1

According to Jenson, the absence of fixed dogma on the atonement led to a proliferation of theories meant to explain how the crucifixion of Jesus reunites humanity with God. Jenson rebuked theologians who “make a virtue of this proliferation of proposals

JBTM 19:1 (Spring 2022) 22

and the absence of formal or informal consensus around any one of them.”2 Instead, Jenson argued that the church simply has not yet formulated a clear, authoritative account of atonement.3 In short, with no boundaries to distinguish orthodoxy and heresy regarding the work of Christ, the church is doomed to produce partial, competing theories of how God and humanity are united in Christ.

With no creedal guidance on crafting a clear account of Christ’s work on the cross, how does the church proceed to teach and preach the work of Christ? Are there, as Jenson implied, no necessary components of an orthodox model of the atonement? Or should Christians adopt an “anything goes” mentality which allows for adaptation of Christ’s work based on the theologian’s context?4 Jenson was correct that no dogmatic statement explicating the atonement was drafted in the early church, but he was unclear on the topic of heresy. Throu...