Chapter 1

       The New Covenant and New Creation: Western Soteriologies and the Fullness of the Gospel

      Daniel J. Treier

      Abstract

      The focus of this opening chapter is to provide an overview of Western soteriologies. This overview begins by complicating the term “Western” before sketching eight soteriological traditions: Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, Anabaptist, Arminian, Wesleyan/Holiness, and Pentecostal. Next the overview concludes with recent trends affecting Christ’s accomplishment of atonement and justification as well as the Spirit’s application of salvation in believers’ sanctification and glorification. After this overview comes possible critique, both internal and external, regarding Western soteriological tendencies.

      From liberationist and Majority World perspectives, the sociopolitical and cosmic dimensions of salvation are the chief lacunae in traditional dogmatic attempts to represent the gospel’s fullness. Such incomplete soteriologies focus too exclusively on the personal blessings of participation in the new covenant. Hence I conclude by suggesting that “new creation,” with which the Old Testament prophets surround the new covenant, might fill up what is lacking in the soteriologies surveyed here—without divorcing sociopolitical and cosmic concerns from the new covenant’s personal elements.

      My primary goal is to provide an overview of “Western” soteriologies (assuming the quotation marks around this label “Western” throughout). This overview indicates that sociopolitical and cosmic dimensions are the chief aspects of salvation neglected by traditional dogmatics. Such incomplete soteriologies focus too exclusively on the personal blessings of participation in the new covenant, which the end of this chapter addresses particularly in terms of Jeremiah 31. I conclude by suggesting that “new creation,” a theme of God’s saving action with which the Old Testament prophets surround the new covenant, might fill up what is lacking in the soteriologies surveyed here—without divorcing sociopolitical and cosmic concerns from the new covenant’s personal elements.

      “Western” Tendencies

      Western soteriological tendencies reflect both major historical traditions and influential recent trends. Of course, such an assignment requires a gargantuan level of generalization, beyond the usual oversimplification that all education requires.

      Such generalization begins with the very label “Western”: in one sense it really means Northern, as opposed to Majority World theologies located largely in the Global South. In another sense, soteriologically, “Western” references the Augustinian tradition, which has generated Catholic and Protestant socially embodied arguments over many centuries. Yet the contrast implied in the present context, concerning Majority World theologies, probably includes the Orthodox tradition as well, since its heritage of theosis (deification) overlaps considerably with the Catholic tradition and even some Protestant accounts. Finally, for all the differences between Augustinian and Eastern tendencies, together they present another complexity: Augustine and other classic figures were African or Middle Eastern, not European—however Latin or Greek their language and however Roman their context. Hence “Western” functions quite imprecisely, as an omnibus contrast term.

      Likewise, the boundaries of “soteriology” are fuzzy—overlapping with Christology, especially for atonement; pneumatology, especially for sanctification; and eschatology, especially for glorification. Systematic theology as modernity knows it, seeking an ordo salutis (order of salvation) that logically arranges the Spirit’s application of Christ’s saving benefits, is a comparatively recent invention. Its meandering development exacerbates the challenge of accurately characterizing Western soteriologies. Should Orthodox soteriology focus on creedal consensus, later theologians’ tendencies, or priestly and popular beliefs? Should Catholic soteriology focus on official dogma, catechetical material, historical eras, or geographical regions, let alone variety among priests, theologians, and the laity? For Protestant soteriologies, similarly, if their welter of systematic theologies reduces formal, printed variety to a somewhat manageable set of traditions and tendencies, then various denominations and popular trends quickly make such moments of apparent consensus less manageable. The following overview attempts to address both the gospel that is formally proclaimed and on occasion, however complex, what is apparently implied or actually practiced.

      Traditions

      The preceding qualifications notwithstanding, this overview of Western soteriologies begins with the major traditions they encompass. For all their variety, each somehow prioritizes salvation from sin and its consequences. Plus all of them ultimately focus on salvation’s personal dimensions.^[1] Yet each helpfully contributes an animating principle from which to learn.

      Orthodox: Theosis beyond Mortal Corruption The Orthodox tradition has its focus and limits tied to early creedal consensus. Neither the informal rule of faith nor its later creedal formulations canonized a particular atonement theory or soteriology.^[2] The first article of the Nicene Creed (“one God . . . maker of heaven and earth . . .”) implies that salvation involves the Creator’s establishing full and final lordship over the entire cosmos. Its second article (“one Lord . . . who for us and for our salvation . . .”) focuses on the Son’s incarnation for us and our salvation, rehearsing his divine identity and earthly pilgrimage. The “descent into hell” from the Apostles’ Creed only adds soteriological implications depending on debated interpretations. The second article’s closing reminder of divine judgment (“he will come again to judge the quick and the dead . . .”) and an eternal kingdom highlights the respective ends that soteriology puts at stake. The third article on the Holy Spirit, then, insists on baptism as the key soteriological entry point (“one baptism for the remission of sins . . .”) and implies a set of key end points: forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

      Orthodox theologies emphasize this soteriological entry point of baptism, consistent with liturgical Tradition. They emphasize the end point of theosis, consistent with the focus on resurrection: such “deification,” or “divinization,” does not make a human into God himself, but it does involve the saved human “participating in the divine nature” in a creaturely way. Broadly speaking, this soteriology centrally addresses mortal corruption. Each human imitates Adam’s sin after having inherited his fallen mortality, with fleshly desires misdirected and disproportionate due to fear of scarcity. Christians experience God’s forgiveness through the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Salvation remakes humanity in union with the resurrected Christ by the Holy Spirit. Ultimately people transcend mortal corruption and become full (albeit still human) “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4) in resurrected bodies. In the meantime, the church’s liturgy mediates union with the incarnate Christ so that once again humans can grow in virtue. Ascetic figures and groups underscore Orthodoxy’s emphasis on efforts to undergo such transformation of mortal desire.

      Catholic: