Are the 'classical' and the 'moral influence' theories of the atonement two sides of the same coin (in Clement of A.)?
| Christ the teacher? Is this Clement's 'subjective' view of the atonement? |
Take Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-215). Emancipation or liberation is central in Clement’s theory of atonement. Christ is the good Samaritan that liberates us from the “rulers of darkness” (Clement of Alexandria, Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?, XXVIII). But! Even if a 'Christus Victor'-motif is present, all this, it seems, happens through 'teaching'.
Clement’s atonement theory is to a large degree ‘subjective’. At least he puts much weight on the moral perfection of the human subject. Christ is more than a moral teacher, to be sure, but this aspect is the one focussed most extensively on by Clement. Now is the reason for this Clement’s peculiar interest in the Gnostic, or are there more fundamental reasons for prioritizing the moral and subjective aspect of the atonement? (i.e. would he had focussed on other aspects if he had written to another audience, etc.?).
“The Word, who in the beginning bestowed on us life as Creator when He formed us, taught us to live well when He appeared as our Teacher; that as God He might afterwards conduct us to the life which never ends.” (Ex., p. 173)
Also, Christ is the “Saviour sent down - a teacher and leader in the acquisition of the good” (Str. V.I, p. 446). In a passage that has a striking similarity with the Irenaen-Athanasian motto “God became Man, so that man may become God”, Clement notes that:
“[...]the Word of God became man, that thou mayest learn from man how man may become God.” (Ex. p. 174).
Choufrine (2002) argues that Clement differs from Irenaeus in ascribing a revelatory function to incarnation as the primary.
"By construing Christian baptism as a spiritual resurrection, and baptismal illumination as both the deifying incarnation of the Light and the neophyte's generation with It "from above," Clement develops along Pauling and Johannine lines Irenaeus's trail-blazing answer to the question Cur Deus homo." (Choufrine 2002, p. 200)Hence ontology (the change of the ontological status of man) is closely tied to ethics. But though emphasizing human subjectivity, Clement does not forget the role of God’s will in the process of deification: “man becomes God, since God so wills”, and “the Word Himself is the manifest mystery: God in man, and man God” (this last phrase seems to imply a deeper ontological meaning of Christ’s presence, than mere ‘teaching’).
As instructor (paedagogus) God is not only a moral teacher. He also uses a range of measures to discipline those who he saves. Hence admonition, complaint, invective, reproof, visitation, denunciation, accusation, censure, objurgation, indignation etc. are all tools that God use to lead us to knowledge of the truth (Instr. I.IX, pp. 229-230).
If we deem Clement’s view to be a purely subjective or moral atonement theory, we should ask if not such distinctions are anachronistic? For Clement there is a narrow connection between epistemology, ontology and ethics. Hence moral perfection means a real ontological change, and vice versa. There is no doubt, however, that epistemology, teaching, knowledge is the locus where salvation takes place.
Now, the question is, is the 'moral' view not simply the subjective side of the story of which Christ's death and resurrection is the objective? If so, are there really only two incompatible theories of the atonement, the Anselmian and the classical?
Now, the question is, is the 'moral' view not simply the subjective side of the story of which Christ's death and resurrection is the objective? If so, are there really only two incompatible theories of the atonement, the Anselmian and the classical?
