ALISTER McGRATH’S THEORY OF ATONEMENT AS A FORCE FOR UNITY:

IMAGES OF SALVATION EVANGELICALS SHOULD AGREE ON

A Paper Submitted to

Dr. Jeffrey Riley and Dr. Adam Harwood

of the

New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Ph.D. Seminar

THEO 9404 The Work of Christ

in the Division of Theological and Historical Studies

Jacob G. Milstead

B.A., William Carey University, 2007

M.Div., New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 2012

October 29, 2014

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1 ................................................

THE THEOLOGICAL METHOD OF ALISTER McGRATH 2 ....................

Critical Realism

Historical Theology

Christocentrism

THE INTELLECTUAL ORIGINS OF McGRATH’S CHRISTOLOGY 9 .............

Luther’s Theologia Crucis

Pannenberg’s Christology

McGRATH ON THE PERSON AND WORK OF CHRIST 14 .....................

Theology and Spirituality

Identity and Significance of Jesus

Images of Salvation

IMPLICATIONS FOR ECCLESIOLOGY 25 .................................

CONCLUSION 28 ..................................................

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 29........................................

!iii

INTRODUCTION

Alister McGrath’s dialogue with Daniel Dennett at the Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint

Forum in Faith and Culture in 2007 on the topic of “the future of atheism” began unexpectedly

with agreement between the avowed atheist, Dennett, and the former atheist, McGrath. In his

opening remarks, McGrath agrees with Dennett, “People sometimes feel very defensive about

religion. Religious people often get extremely defensive when challenged about the basis of their

beliefs, which hinders any serious debate about the nature of their faith. . . . The issue, I suspect,

is that a challenge to faith often threatens to pull the rug from under the values and beliefs that

have sustained someone’s life.” 1

The debate went on without much defensiveness, but such is seldom the case in real life.

Concerns about theology are not just barriers between atheists and Christians, but maybe even

more so between Christians of various groups. The question, then, is how can the defensiveness

that bars unity and cooperation be overcome between Christian individuals and their respective

groups? This question bears particular importance for those who, like Evangelicals within

varieties of denominations, already hold much in common.

There is no more contentious religious issue than any that is related closely to the person

Daniel Dennett and Alister McGrath, “The Future of Atheism: A Dialogue,” in The 1

Future of Atheism: Alister McGrath and Daniel Dennett in Dialogue, ed. Robert B.Stewart,(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), 28. The chapter referenced here is a transcript of the dialogue between Dennett and McGrath mentioned above.

1

!2

and work of Christ. Therefore, if needless barriers in Christology can be removed, there is great

hope for a deeper and broader unity within the church universal. Alister McGrath’s

understanding of the atonement as images of salvation is a potential force for uniting Christians,

particularly Evangelicals. Ecclesiological implications from McGrath’s work illustrate the

significance of this unifying force.

The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to show how images of salvation make up

McGrath’s theory of the atonement and demonstrate that this theory should serve to unite

Evangelicals around a broad view of Christ’s work, not limited by barriers such as historical

situation or denominational priorities. This object will be achieved by showing how his approach

to the the person and work of Christ highlights the historically situated nature of other atonement

theories and focuses instead on the timeless aspects of the biblical images of salvation. In turn,

ecclesiological implications will be drawn by linking McGrath’s atonement theory to his

positions on ecumenicism, Evangelicalism, and evangelism. These implications will show the

significance of uniting the body of Christ in understanding the atoning work of Christ through

biblical images of salvation.

THE THEOLOGICAL METHOD OF ALISTER McGRATH

Due to the influence of McGrath’s theological method on his Christological conclusions,

the images of salvation are best understood in light of his commitment to critical realism,

historical theological perspective, and explicit Christocentrism. His theological method is

directly shaped by the person and work of Christ itself, making his approach to theology is

explicitly Christocentric. Additionally, there are a few other elements that round out McGrath’s

!3

theological method and help to examine his conclusions concerning the work of Christ. His

exploration of “the relation between Christian Theology and the natural sciences” in his three-

volume A Scientific Theology is the key to understanding his methodology, but even his earliest 2

works bear the inchoate marks of this same consistent approach.

Critical Realism

Foundationalism was the overly optimistic epistemology of the Enlightenment that 3

claimed a universal foundation to knowledge that was accessible to anyone who would apply

their inherent powers of reason. According to McGrath, this form of foundationalism is all but

dead in the wake of the Enlightenment’s epistemological collapse. Even so, the idea of 4

foundational beliefs has been revived by eliminating the universal nature of the concept claimed

by Enlightenment thinkers and acknowledging the tentative nature of knowledge. The result is

realism within the beliefs of a system, whether natural science or theology, that can be self-

critical and adjust its conceptions of reality according to continuous revision. In other words, the 5

Alister McGrath, A Scientific Theology, vol. 1, Nature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 2

xi.

Foundationalism is one of any number of “philosophical or theological approaches 3

affirming specific truths as bases and criteria for all other truths.” Donald K. McKim, “foundationalism,” in Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996). Said truths being self-evident, they do not need further justification for belief. Thus “all knowledge and justified belief rest ultimately on a foundation of noninferential knowledge or justified belief.” Fumerton, Richard, “Foundationalist Theories of Epistemic Justification”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta, ed. <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2010/entries/justep-foundational/>.

Alister McGrath, A Scientific Theology, vol. 2, Reality (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 4

33.

Ibid., 35. 5

!4

foundations of a belief system are limited to that system’s own existence and provisional self-

understanding and need not apply to other systems. There is no universal foundation for

epistemology, but individual belief systems are justified in holding to their own foundational

beliefs that are held provisionally and modified as necessary to best explain the reality in

question. 6

Critical realism is the auxiliary principle that allows McGrath’s epistemological

perspective to function within his theological method without reverting to the naive realism of

the Enlightenment. For McGrath, critical realism navigates the tension between “naïve realism” 7

and “postmodern anti-realism.” This approach splits undesirable epistemological extremes 8

allowing McGrath to skirt the modernist pitfall of affirming unmediated interaction with reality

as well as the postmodernist pitfall of denying knowledge of reality altogether. Critical realism

acknowledges both independent outward reality and the mediated nature of personal experience. 9

An inherent part of a robust critical realism for McGrath is an understanding of

Ibid. McGrath offers the image of a boat on voyage that must be repaired and maintained 6

at sea. There is nothing outside the boat, no foundation on which to ground the work. Those who are doing the repairs and maintenance are in the boat themselves, so they make adjustments as they go along the best they can from within the boat.

Given that McGrath’s epistemology has suffered from disparate attempts at definition, 7

this section will focus on critical realism as a key principle of his epistemology.

McGrath, Reality, 195.8

See also Alister McGrath, The Open Secret: A New Vision for Natural Theology, 9

(Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008), 105-10. McGrath’s use of critical realism in his theological method enables him to avoid a disinterested perspective by involving the knower whose theoretical formulations of knowledge shape action and, in turn, reality; McGrath, Reality, 196. Theology then is not some dry theoretical formulation but an existential understanding of God’s self-revelation.

!5

“stratified” reality, which demands a variety of modes in “investigation and representation.” He 10

illustrates this stratification as “brute physical facts” overlaid with “social facts.” McGrath 11

argues that “each stratum is to be seen as ‘real’” and can be uniquely studied as long as the unity

of reality as a whole is maintained with inherent causal links recognized between each strata. 12

At the same time, no layer of reality can be reduced to another. 13

Critical realism is an aid to theology, allowing for the scientific study of theology on its

own terms. McGrath argues that theology should be considered the base strata rather than titular

“pinnacle” of science, because God is the creator and causer of existence. Thus each layer of 14

reality is affected by the researcher’s theology and faith. McGrath also maintains that this

approach holds the critical realist theologian accountable to the realities of all the other strata,

with the added bonus of enriching the doctrines that are consequently set forth. His brand of 15

Alister McGrath, A Scientific Theology, vol. 3, Theory (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 10

2003), 82. The concept of “representation” here is key for understanding his definition of “theory,” which will be explored below.

McGrath, Reality, 198. For example, the swamplands of Louisiana are a brute physical 11

fact, while being Cajun is an overlaid social fact that is linked to and yet separate from the swamp itself.

Ibid., 217.12

Ibid., 225. For example, though there are causal connections between them, chemistry 13

cannot simply be reduced to some sort of holistic form of physics. The fallacy of reductionism is that reality is determined by observability (226) so that the only thing that would be real about chemistry is what can be observed by physics. But real experiences in the science of chemistry affirm the ability of scientists to study it as its own discipline, though not totally disconnected from physics. By this logic, critical realism guards theology from being reduced to sociology or some other strata.

Ibid., 228. The implication here is that theology has ultimate explanatory power for all 14

of nature.

Ibid., 240.15

!6

critical realism lends itself well to historical theology, which is of great consequence to McGrath.

Historical Theology

Though his scientific work is notable, McGrath is primarily known as a historical

theologian. He defines historical theology as that which “aims to explore the historical

development of Christian doctrines, and identify the factors which were influential in their

formulation and adoption.” It “has both a pedagogic and a critical role, aiming to inform . . . 16

about what has been thought in the past (and why!), while identifying the factors that make some

form of restatement necessary.” Thus McGrath approaches theology with an understanding that 17

the past of a doctrine is essential for reformulating the truths contained therein for the present

situation. As a critical tool, historical theology “allows us to see” the relative importance of

certain doctrines at different points in history, the situations of their formulation, subsequent

mistakes, and the possibility of correcting those mistakes in contemporary reformulations. 18

Alister E. McGrath, Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian 16

Thought, 2d ed. (Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013), 8-9.

Ibid.; original emphasis and parentheses.17

Ibid., 12. McGrath also described historical theology as aiding systematic theology in 18

“critical reappropriation” of past theology for contemporary use (14). As an example, he tells of how doctrinal formulations about the impassibility of God fell out of favor. Through historical evaluation theologians came to realize that the ideas behind the formulations of impassibility as an attribute of God came not from Scripture but from the Greek milieu of ideas that were popular early in church history (13). See also Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 3d ed. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005). His seminal work on the justice of God is the prototypical example of how McGrath uses his historical approach to theology. He explains that “the development of the doctrine of justification is . . . a paradigm for the study of ideological interaction in the development of doctrine, illustrating how theological and secular concepts were related as theologians responded to the cultural situation of their period” (vii).

!7

As in his scientific theology, McGrath’s historical emphasis in theology is influenced by a

conviction concerning the provisional nature of contemporary theological assertions, which, in

turn, is tied to his critical realism. The study of past theological formulations impresses upon 19

the theologian how a particular understanding of a doctrine can quickly pass from being the

assumed understanding of the day to being rejected outright. Conversely, historical theology also

highlights the uninterrupted central characteristics of Christian theology that can be traced from

the beginning of the church to the present. McGrath even uses language that alludes to the work

of Christ to describe this dual ability of historical theology. Historical theology is concerned

“with the application of God’s saving action toward every period in history” as well as the

“experience of God’s saving work in particular cultures.” 20

Christocentrism

As seen above, the historical perspective of McGrath’s theology relates closely to the

central place of Jesus in history, which is another aspect of his method. He believes that “Jesus

McGrath, Nature, 37.19

McGrath, Historical Theology, 9. The full quotation bears reading: “Christian theology 20

can be regarded as an attempt to make sense of the foundational resources of faith in the light of what each day and age regards as first-rate methods. . . . Christian theology regards itself as universal, in that it is concerned with the application of God’s saving action toward every period in history. Yet it is also characterized by its particularity as an experience of God’s saving work in particular cultures, and is shaped by the insights and limitations of persons who were themselves seeking to live the gospel within a particular context. The universality of Christianity is thus complemented with – rather than contradicted by – its particular application.”

!8

Christ is the historical point of departure for Christianity.” Access to Jesus is through the 21

interpretation of historical events, but his significance is primarily theological since he “reveals

God,” “is the bearer of salvation,” and “defines the shape of the redeemed life.” McGrath 22

makes quite clear the position Jesus holds in all Christian theology: “Christian theology has

recognized that it is impossible to speak of ‘God’ within the parameters of the Christian tradition

without relating such statements to the person and work of Jesus Christ.” 23

More specifically than the person of Jesus, for McGrath, the cross itself is real history

that must be grappled with in theology. Rather than being an idea to be mulled over, the cross of

Christ defines what is authentically Christian and what is not. The Christocentric nature of 24

Christian doctrine seen in the cross is totally unique and cannot be compromised. In fact,

McGrath claims that the uniqueness of the salvation experience offered through Jesus Christ

requires that the gospel be freshly applied in each new context where it is proclaimed in order to

Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 5th ed. (Chichester, West 21

Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 266. Here McGrath echoes Wolfhart Pannenberg’s understanding of the place of history in Christian theology; Basic Questions in Theology: Collected Essays, vol. 1, trans. George H. Kehm (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970), 15. Pannenberg writes, “History is the most comprehensive horizon of Christian theology. All theological questions and answers have meaning only within the framework of the history which God has with humanity, and through humanity with the whole creation – the history moving forward toward a future still hidden from the world by already revealed in Jesus Christ.” McGrath quotes this passage from Pannenberg repeatedly. See, for example, McGrath, Nature, 301. See also Alister E. McGrath, The Making of Modern German Christology: From the Enlightenment to Pannenberg, (Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell, 1986), 164. McGrath explains, “For Pannenberg, revelation is essentially an historical event interpreted as an ‘act of God’” (165). More will be said on the relationship between McGrath, Pannenberg, and Christology below.

Ibid., 267-68. See also McGrath, Reality, 298-300. 22

Ibid., 267. 23

Alister E. McGrath, The Mystery of the Cross, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 24

17-18.

!9

preserve Jesus’ place in Christian theology. To state the matter simply, “The Christian story 25

cannot be told without the crucifixion and resurrection.” Further analysis of McGrath’s 26

understanding of the crucifixion and resurrection lies ahead, but an overview of some key

influences on his Christology will help to frame further discussion.

THE INTELLECTUAL ORIGINS OF McGRATH’S CHRISTOLOGY

There are two main influences on McGrath’s christology that are readily traced, and both

stem from his studies in historical theology: the Reformation and modern German Christology.

Specifically, the aspects of McGrath’s understanding of the person and work of Christ that are

pertinent to this project can be narrowed to two specific influences: Martin Luther’s theologia

crucis and Wolfhart Pannenberg’s conflation of the person and work of Christ.

Luther’s Theologia Crucis

McGrath’s earliest published works as a theologian deal extensively with Martin Luther’s

theological development in general and with the discovery of his theology of the cross in

particular. Luther’s hermeneutic increasingly emphasized the “work of Christ as it benefits the 27

Alister E. McGrath, “New Dimensions in Salvation,” in New Dimensions in 25

Evangelical Thought: Essays in Honor of Millard J. Erickson, ed. David S. Dockery, 317-29. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998), 318-29.

McGrath, The Mystery of the Cross, 26.26

Graham Tomlin notes that McGrath was a liberal Christian early on in his theological 27

education who became convinced of the emptiness of liberal theology while studying Luther’s discovery of theologia crucis; “Alister E. McGrath on the Cross of Jesus Christ,” in Alister E. McGrath & Evangelical Theology: A Dynamic Engagement, ed. Sun Wook Chung, 3-23 (Cumbria, UK: Paternoster, 2003) 7-10.

!10

Church and individual believers.” From this point, Luther shifted gradually toward the 28

realization that “the sole authentic locus of human knowledge of God is the cross of Christ, in

which God is to be found revealed, and yet paradoxically hidden in that very same revelation”

and that “revelation constitutes but a fleeting glimpse of God.” The shift McGrath describes 29

can be seen most clearly in theses 19 and 20 of the Heidelberg Disputation: “19. That person

does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the »invisible« things of God as

though they were clearly »perceptible in those things which have actually happened« (Rom.

1:20; cf. 1 Cor 1:21-25), 20. he deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends

the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.” Therefore, 30

Christian theology must begin with the cross, engaging in its mystery to deduce doctrine from

there, what McGrath calls the “map of meaning.” 31

The beginnings of McGrath’s own foundation for Christian theology may be glimpsed

Alister E. McGrath, Luther’s Theology of the Cross: Martin Luther’s Theological 28

Breakthrough, 2d ed. (Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 163. The first edition was published in 1985.

Ibid., 203; original emphasis.29

Martin Luther, “The Heidelberg Disputation,” http://bookofconcord.org, April 26 and 30

May, 1518, accessed October 29, 2014, http://bookofconcord.org/heidelberg.php; original punctuation and symbols. McGrath translates Luther’s theses to emphasize an allusion to Moses’ encounter with God in Exodus 32: “19. Anyone who observes the invisible things of God, understood through those things that are created, does not deserve to be called a theologian. . . . 20. But anyone who understands the visible rearward parts of God as observed in suffering and the cross does deserve to be called a theologian;” McGrath, Luther’s Theology of the Cross, 202-03.

McGrath, Luther’s Theology of the Cross, 205. McGrath later restates Luther’s idea this 31

way, “Theology begins at the foot of the cross of the crucified Christ; it does not begin somewhere else, and then proceed to assimilate the cross into its predetermined categories” (207).

!11

when he writes, “The cross, for Luther, is thus the foundation and criterion of an authentically

Christian theology.” All of theology for Luther must begin at the cross because God’s self-32

revelation is evidenced there primarily. 33

Furthermore, McGrath evidences an inchoate critical realism when he writes that

Luther’s “theologia crucis and the discovery of the ‘righteousness of God’ is thus a radical

critique of the analogical nature of theological language.” Analogical theology was evidenced 34

in Luther’s day by the attempts to understand God’s righteousness as somehow analogous to

human righteousness, but his discovery called in to question the assumptions that God could be

accurately described through analogies that he himself did not provide. The resultant 35

“theological twilight . . . world of half-light and half-truths” appears to have been very 36

influential on McGrath’s tenuous approach to the work of Christ, especially as concerns the

atonement in particular. McGrath’s view of the atonement will be discussed at some length

Ibid., 208. 32

Ibid., 213. See also the proof of thesis 20 of the Heidelberg Disputation; Luther, http://33

bookofconcord.org/heidelberg.php.

Ibid., 217-18. 34

Ibid., 218-19. 35

Ibid., 219. 36

!12

following a brief sketch of Pannenberg’s influence. 37

Pannenberg’s Christology

As noted above, Wolfhart Pannenberg seems to have had a unique influence on 38

McGrath’s understanding of Christology. One of the notable aspects of McGrath’s systematic

Christology is that he does not think the distinction between the person and work of Christ is

very helpful because “the person of Christ becomes known through his work.” He concludes 39

that “Christology and soteriology are thus seen as two sides of the same coin, rather than two

independent areas of thought.” The idea reflected in this statement, like the conflation of the 40

work of Christ with soteriology, has direct correlations to Pannenberg’s Christology.

In critiquing Christologies “from above,” Pannenberg found that there could be no

Another area of influence from Luther’s theologia crucis that is not necessarily 37

germane to the argument of this paper has to do with Luther's understanding of the communication of attributes between God the Father and Jesus and the question of whether or not God suffered on the cross. Luther connects the identity to the function of Jesus in a very similar way to McGrath. While not affirming Patripassionism, McGrath sees the Trinitarian understanding of this issue as indicating, contra the patristic view, that God did indeed suffer on the cross. See McGrath, Christian Theology, 281. Some allusions will be made to this in the discussion on the work of Christ below.

See fn. 19.38

McGrath, Christian Theology, 282-83.39

Ibid.; see also 316. Note that McGrath sees the work of Christ and soteriology as being 40

the same thing, or at least equally adequate explicators of the significance of the person of Christ. He does not clarify whether he sees Christ’s work as only related to salvation or whether salvation is simply central to all of Christ’s work.

!13

“separation between Christology and soteriology.” Here Pannenberg exemplifies both of the 41

characteristics of McGrath’s Christology mentioned previously: the inseparable unity of Christ to

his work and the identification of that work with soteriology. Despite Pannenberg’s perceptible

influence, McGrath is not uncritically receptive of his christological perspective.

As noted above, McGrath’s focus on history echoes Pannenberg’s historical emphasis,

but he is also critical of the height to which Pannenberg elevates history in relation to theology.

McGrath acknowledges that the sort of immediate access to Jesus in history that Pannenberg

envisions is ideal. Yet McGrath argues that, in reality, Jesus can only be accessed through the

kerygma. Even so, he recognizes some validity to Pannenberg’s critiques of Christology from 42

above and highlights two weaknesses of such Christologies: 1) they ignore Jesus as a person in

history and 2) disconnect the kerygma from the person of Christ. Gerardo Alfaro expresses a 43

similar understanding when he writes,

There exists beneath the diversity of the New Testament a profound coherence in which the pattern of the real Jesus is revealed as the Messiah-servant, in a tense paradox of cross and resurrection. The modern criticism, having abandoned this New Testament pattern and opting for a regrouping of disordered fragments, not only makes largely irrelevant

Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus—God and Man, trans. Lewis L. Wilkins and Duane A. 41

Priebe (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), 47. Christology “from above” begins with a priori knowledge about Jesus and works from a metaphysical perspective toward conclusions about Jesus’ person. Pannenberg engages in Christology “from below,” beginning with a posteriori historical evidence.

McGrath, The Making of Modern German Christology, 178. Here McGrath makes his 42

divergence from Pannenberg clear: “It is quite simply impossible to begin Christological speculation from the history of Jesus of Nazareth, precisely because the primitive Christian kerygma has influenced the interpretation placed upon that history, and hence upon the presentation of that history within the New Testament, by the first Christians.” This position reflects some Bultmannian concessions that Pannenberg was opposed to, but McGrath is not denying the historicity of the content of the kerygma like Bultmann did.

Ibid., 179-80. See also Pannenberg, Jesus—God and Man, 34-36. 43

!14

but also abandons the meaning of the Christian following. 44

In light of these dangers and in line with his commitment to critical realism, McGrath tries to

avoid approaching Christology strictly from above as well as strictly from below.

McGRATH ON THE PERSON AND WORK OF CHRIST

Having examined key influences on McGrath’s view of the work of Christ, this section

seeks to probe deeper into McGrath’s understanding of the atonement. Understanding McGrath’s

theological method and his historical theological perspective reveals influences that shed light on

his conclusions concerning Jesus’s identity and significance. Even though most of the works 45

dealt with below are popular in nature, they are helpful in that they exemplify views that

McGrath advocates in ways that his academic works in historical theology do not.

Theology and Spirituality

Bradley Nassif sees in the sort of Evangelicalism that McGrath embodies a shared

concern for “orthodox doctrine and vital spirituality” with Eastern Orthodoxy. Indeed, Larry 46

Gerardo A. Alfaro,“Historia y Theologia del Jesús Histórico,” Kairós, no. 33 (July-44

December 2003), 63.“Existe bajo la diversidad del Nuevo Testamento una coherencia profunda en la que el patrón del Jesús real se revela como el Mesías-siervo, en una tensa paradoja de cruz y resurrección. La crítica moderna, al abandonar este patrón nuevotestamentario y optar por una reagrupación de fragmentos desarticulados, no solo se hace, en gran parte, irrelevante, sino que, además, abandona el significado del seguimiento cristiano.”

Identity and significance are generally synonymous terms for the person and work of 45

Christ respectively. They used to keep the two areas of theological investigation concerning Jesus knit closely together. See, for example, Alister E. McGrath, Understanding Jesus: Who Jesus Christ Is and Why He Matters (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 174.

Bradley Nassif, “New Dimensions in Eastern Orthodox Theology,” in New Dimensions 46

in Evangelical Thought: Essays in Honor of Millard J. Erickson, ed. David S. Dockery, 92-117 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998), 114.

!15

McDonald examines this very connection between McGrath’s theology and a vibrant spirituality

at length and concludes in part that a “close connection between spirituality and theology

undergirds McGrath's views as he insists that spirituality must be built on a solid and reliable

foundation in the self-revelation of God. He sees the relationship between spirituality and

theology as preventing spirituality from degenerating into a human-centered quest for heightened

religiosity as well as preventing theology from becoming an abstract speculation about God.” 47

What about McGrath’s work evokes such high praise and how does it relate to his views

on the work of Christ? First of all, the link perceived by Nassif, McDonald, and others originates

not with the concept of spirituality in McGrath’s work, but with the cross: “it is the chief function

of Christian theology, ethics and spirituality to unfold the implications of the cross for Christian

existence.” As mentioned before, Jesus of Nazareth, and particularly his crucifixion as seen in 48

the light of the resurrection, is the centerpiece of the Christian faith to McGrath and so for his

theological method.

The result of this spiritual unfolding of the cross in much of McGrath’s popular work is a

deeply reflective and doxological approach to theology and doctrine. Even in his academic

works, McGrath makes a habit of presenting hymns and poetry related to the topic at hand. In

Larry S. McDonald, The Merging of Theology and Spirituality: An Examination of the 47

Life and Work of Alister E. McGrath (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2006), 125. See also Richard J. Mouw, “The Born-again identity: Alister McGrath's sober but hopeful vision for the future of evangelicalism,” Christianity Today 39, no. 5 (April 24, 1995), 23-24. For a brief example of this balance between spirituality and theory from McGrath, see Theory, 6-9.

McGrath, The Mystery of the Cross, 36. See also Theory, 3.48

!16

particular, his “Truth and the Christian Imagination Series” exemplifies his attempt to inspire 49

awe even as he communicates theological content to the readers. In addition, each chapter calls

for meditation on Christian art that corresponds to the topic being covered.

McGrath’s theological project might be compared to his own analysis of the theological

significance Gothic cathedral architecture. Summarizing Abbot Suger’s inscription on the

restored abbey church of Saint-Denis, McGrath writes, “The human mind is to be drawn upwards

through the light of the building to the true light, who is the enthroned Christ in heaven.” The 50

emphasis here on spirituality serves to highlight the practical and doxological purpose he

believes Christian theology must possess. The subsequent sections will deal more explicitly with

his discussion of the person and work of Christ, the identity and significance of Jesus of

Nazareth.

Identity and Significance of Jesus

For McGrath, “the identity and significance of Jesus Christ are fully disclosed through

the cross – first by his being crucified upon it, and then by his being raised from the death which

it brought.” This single statement draws together various aspects of McGrath’s Christology that 51

have been alluded to above. First of all, he uses the terms “identity” and “significance” to

highlight the fact that Christ is known only through what he has done so that there is no

Alister E. McGrath, Incarnation, Truth and the Christian Imagination Series, 49

(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005); Redemption, Truth and the Christian Imagination Series, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006); Resurrection, Truth and the Christian Imagination Series, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008).

McGrath, Theory, 6.50

McGrath, Understanding Jesus, 174.51

!17

understanding of the person of Christ to speak of without simultaneously addressing the work of

Christ. Second, what Christ has done consists of two inseparable historical events, the crucifixion

and the resurrection. Third, by claiming that the cross discloses something about Jesus he

emphasizes the revelatory purpose of the crucifixion.

In Understanding Jesus McGrath begins the discussion about the identity of Jesus with a

survey of the resurrection, arguing that the identity of Jesus as the Son of God is tied inextricably

to the resurrection. The main premise of his argument is that the historical reality of the 52

resurrection raises questions about Jesus’ identity, the best answer of which is that he is the Son

of God. The resurrection is also shown to have transformative power over people’s lives, thus 53

testifying to the identity of Jesus and connecting again the concepts of identity and significance.

Jesus is Savior and this aspect of his identity is known in works of salvation. McGrath 54

concludes that “to take the resurrection seriously is to realize that the living and risen Christ is –

to put it crudely – much bigger than any one generation’s apprehension of him, and that he will

be equally present to future generations, despite difference in culture or intellectual outlook.” 55

The resurrection completes the work of Christ and rounds out his identity. His death alone, apart

Ibid., 63. 52

Ibid., 63-80; cf. 145. Here again we see the influence of Pannenberg’s view of history as 53

McGrath compares him to Troeltsch in order to show the latter’s misuse of the principle of analogy to deny reasonableness of miracles such as the resurrection (74-75).

Ibid., 76. 54

Ibid., 80. Note again how McGrath’s reference to the excessive greatness of Jesus 55

negates the possibility of boxing him in. He goes on to say that what the New Testament community experienced in Jesus was so difficult to capture in words as to produce a wide variety of testimonies to the same reality (83). These points are important for the rest of the discussion because, for one thing, they show the outworking of a nascent critical realism in McGrath’s earliest Christological conclusions.

!18

from the resurrection, was an “erosion of faith and hope” that needed to be restored. 56

The identity of Christ established in the resurrection segues to the significance of Jesus

since only God can save and Jesus is God. The work of Christ is dependent on and reveals the 57

identity of Jesus. McGrath also clarifies that faith in the work of Christ is founded historically

and is itself the result of said work. Elsewhere he sounds a similar note when he claims that 58

“the basis for responsible Christian discussion of God is given to us – not chosen by us! – in the

crucified Christ.” The significance of Jesus, then, always grounds the theological reality for 59

Christianity in the crucifixion rather than the resurrection. McGrath insists that the crucifixion is

always seen in light of the resurrection, but the centrality of the crucifixion keeps the

significance of Christ in the here and now and protects theology from dangerous reductionistic

interpretations focused on the future of the resurrection. 60

Some may be frustrated that McGrath does not seem to be saying much about the work of

Christ beyond affirmations of its significance. One must realize that a key point for McGrath is

that the work of Christ on the cross as interpreted through the resurrection is too great a reality to

be grasped completely. He warns, therefore, that reducing the meaning of the cross to

McGrath, Resurrection, 3.56

McGrath, Understanding Jesus, 94, 107. 57

Ibid., 123, 134. 58

McGrath, The Mystery of the Cross, 41.59

Ibid., 32. According to McGrath, “To be a theologian of the cross is thus to remain 60

rooted in the specific historical situation in which we find ourselves, neither dismissing it as irrelevant in the light of the future resurrection nor treating it as if it alone constituted the bounds of our existence” (31). This statement is yet another example of how critical realism fits into McGrath’s commitment to navigate a via media in much of his theology.

!19

“theological statements runs the risk of…two serious mistakes.” First, theological statements 61

run the risk of becoming detached from history and the actual “event(s) which gave rise to”

them. Second, theological statements run the risk of leading people to believe that

“definitive statements of the meaning” of the event can be deduced from the event. To protect 62

the “complex witness of the New Testament to [Christ’s] impact on people” it is necessary to

recognize the limits of human ability to “do full justice to his identity and significance.” 63

In short, McGrath’s vision of Jesus’ identity and significance appears to be driven by a

distinction between comprehension and apprehension that complements a critical realist

approach to theology. He does not believe that the Christian community at any point in history

has or will be able to comprehend the mystery that has been revealed in Jesus Christ through the

crucifixion and resurrection (thus “critical”). McGrath nevertheless clearly affirms the ability of

the Christian community throughout history to apprehend very real truth about Christ (thus

“realist”). Truth about Christ is known through Scripture’s witness to his identity and

significance as reflected on by the church in history, but that depth of truth therein is never fully

sounded by any generation of believers.

Ibid., 81; original emphasis. 61

Ibid., 82; original emphasis. McGrath is not against theological statements. Rather, as 62

he writes in Incarnation, “Theology both helps faith and hinders faith, in about equal measures. At its best . . . it opens up new vistas of faith. . . . It brings a new intellectual depth to our faith, and helps us forge connections with other areas of life and thought. At its worst, however, it conveys the deeply misleading idea that Christianity is simply about ideas, and that spiritual growth is measured in the accumulation of those ideas” (50). See also McGrath, Theory, 6; “Theoretical accounts” of “the vision of God” are too limited to exactly represent it, but “some theoretical account of this vision of God must be offered” (original emphasis).

McGrath, Incarnation, vi. Counterintuitively, McGrath proposes to “limit our 63

understanding of [Jesus’] identity” in order to “expand our appreciation of Jesus in worship and prayer.”

!20

Images of Salvation

What then does McGrath propose for a theory of the atonement, if theological statements

are so risky? First of all, one must note that McGrath has at some point wished to abandon the

language of “theories of the atonement” because “atonement” sounds archaic and “theory”

sounds like something that details precisely how redemption was accomplished. The New 64

Testament itself, according to McGrath, does not offer such an analysis. Instead Scripture makes

six points: 1) “something new” has happened, 2) that has objective effects, 3) causes change, 4)

offers ways of understanding the new relationship with God, 5) tells what needs to be done, and

6) gives guidance. So instead of a theory of atonement, McGrath uses “images of salvation,” 65

which are “ways of picturing and understanding what God achieved for us through the cross and

resurrection of Christ.” 66

To clarify, McGrath is not denying the use of theories in theology, nor is he claiming that

atonement is incomprehensible in the contemporary discussion of the work of Christ. Rather,

given the popular audience the above comment was intended for, he is adjusting his language to

avoid contemporary misconceptions. Theory-building is actually essential to McGrath’s

theological project, so referring to his understanding of the atonement as a theory is appropriate

and even necessary in an academic discussion.

In his major work on the use of theory within theology, McGrath acknowledges that “a

Alister E. McGrath, What Was God Doing on the Cross? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 64

1992), 43.

Ibid., 43-44; original emphasis.65

Ibid., 44. 66

!21

complete view of a complex reality requires a series of analogies or models.” The analogy he 67

develops for this process is that of a prism taking a beam of white light and breaking it out into

each of its component colors, which illustrates his theory of atonement. Each color reflects a real

part of the original light but is not to be confused with the whole. He claims there are “four 68

controlling themes or images” for talking about the cross, which open further avenues for images

in potential overlap among the four. Each of the four major images will be presented below 69

along with other minor images that McGrath claims Scripture itself offers for thinking about the

work of Christ on the cross.

Sacrifice. Viewing the work of Christ as a sacrifice was popular in early Christian history

and then again in connection to the office of Christ as priest after the Protestant Reformation.

This view decreased in popularity, however, after cultural abuses of the term rendered it

“virtually unusable.” Yet McGrath claims “the cross is the unique and perfect sacrifice that 70

covers and shields us from the righteous anger of God against sin, reconciles us to God and

opens the way to the glorious freedom of the children of God.” Here other images of sacrifice 71

or images related to sacrifice by their effect are evidenced in McGrath’s thought. For example,

reconciliation implies the restoration of a broken relationship, “the end of hostility and the

McGrath, Theory, 126. 67

McGrath, What Was God Doing on the Cross?, 107. Notice the subtle affirmation that 68

the images of salvation, like the colors from the white beam, “haven’t been imposed upon the cross; they have been discerned within it.”

McGrath, Christian Theology, 319-35. 69

Ibid., 320-22. 70

Alister E. McGrath, Evangelicalism & the Future of Christianity (Downers Grove, IL: 71

InterVarsity, 1995), 66.

!22

beginning of peace.” Similarly, his mention of covering and shielding evokes further images of 72

protection, and the idea of freedom implies liberation.

Victory. In some sense, McGrath claims that victory is “not a ‘theory of atonement’” but

maybe the basis for one if it serves as an “expression of confidence in the difference that Christ’s

death and resurrection have made.” As a note of caution, McGrath shares how the “popular 73

appeal” of victory inherent in the ransom theory of atonement ended with Enlightenment

skepticisms about the resurrection, the Devil, and hell. Even so, victory regained appeal for 74

describing the atonement after Gustaf Aulén reintroduced the theory in the wake of World War I

and the consequent resurgent belief in the reality of evil. The image of victory has been open 75

repeatedly to abuses, but McGrath shows how even now recasting images of victory as

battleground images of the cross help to uncover true meanings in the work of Christ. 76

Forgiveness. McGrath traces the origins of Anselm’s satisfaction theory to dissatisfaction

with Christus victor. Anselm’s theory gained much popularity over the years until the “radical 77

McGrath, Understanding Jesus, 131-33. Note that the image of reconciliation also 72

implies a demonstration of the love of God, thus connecting to yet another image of salvation (134).

McGrath, Christian Theology, 322-23.73

Ibid., 323-24. The extra-biblical portrayal of ransom as a bated hook raised concerns 74

about the morality of God in such a theory; McGrath, Understanding Jesus, 155.

Ibid., 325. 75

McGrath, What Was God Doing on the Cross?, 49-55. 76

McGrath, Christian Theology, 326-27. For a more detailed discussion on the origins 77

Anselm’s view of the atonement see Alister McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 3d ed. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 78-81.

!23

critique” from the Enlightenment period rejected ideas of inherited guilt or transferable merit. 78

Other images related to forgiveness are of the law court and hospital. A court of law elicits

thoughts of guilt and punishment, but as an image of the cross it shows the seriousness of sin and

how forgiveness ends “enmity with God” by justification, which in turn implies the need for

humanity to be made right in relation to God. The image of a hospital, however, does not 79

initially make one think of forgiveness, but McGrath argues that forgiveness can also have the

sense of healing with such rich imagery as “putting us back together again,” “renewal and

restoration,” and “binding wounds.” 80

Love. Peter Abelard affirmed the subjective value of the cross in showing God’s love for

humanity, but Enlightenment ideas brought about a purely subjective rendering of Abelard’s

idea. Taken as the sole aspect of the cross by those who advocated exemplarist views of the 81

atonement, this purely subjective understanding of the image of love stemmed partially from a

poor understanding of human sin. Adoption and rehabilitation are both images that spring from 82

Ibid., 329. Similarly, McGrath notes how similar critiques of penal substitution have led 78

to other ideas of substitution (eg., confession in Campbell and Torrance; 330).

McGrath, What Was God Doing on the Cross?, 55-67.79

Alister E. McGrath, “Jesus the Lunatic: How do we show the world a reasonable case 80

for Christ?” from Unbelievable?: The Conference 2013, London, Premier Christian Radio, May 25, 2013, accessed October 24, 2014, http://youtu.be/CLxCUbTWIM4.

McGrath, Christian Theology, 332-33.81

Ibid., 335. See also McGrath, Understanding Jesus;140-48. McGrath is critical of 82

modern reductions of the work of Christ solely to demonstrating God’s love because they divorce love from the identity of Christ as God revealed in the incarnation and subsequently fail to demonstrate God’s love at all. If moral influence removes the uniqueness of Jesus to qualify as a symbol of God’s love, then his death on the cross could just as easily be a demonstration of human love. Even so, McGrath affirms in the strongest terms the essential reality of God’s love to any understanding of the work of Christ.

!24

the controlling image of God’s love. In fact, according to McGrath, God’s giving of himself in 83

the work of Christ is the greatest possible expression of love for humanity. 84

Though McGrath does not subscribe to a classical theory of atonement, the images of

salvation he draws from Scripture, along with the prism analogy he uses to describe them, serve

as a theory of atonement for him in that they address typical concerns related to the work of

Christ. Thus he rejects the limitations of traditional theories of atonement while embracing their

positive aspects within his own comprehensive theory.

McGrath notes that the moral influence theory and Christus victor are both inadequate

because the New Testament presents the cross as affecting both objective and subjective changes

of situation and perception. In fact, McGrath holds that the subjective perception of the effects of

the cross must necessarily reflect the objective situation so that if the objective situation changes

the subjective can follow. He speaks of salvation in terms of judgment and acquittal that echo 85

the penal substitutionary theory. McGrath also affirms that, whether in substitution, 86

representation, or participation, the sinner is “said to have been present at Christ’s crucifixion,

just as in some way, each of us may be said to share in his resurrection.” 87

McGrath never wholly embraces any of these theories nor does he reject them outright.

McGrath, Understanding Jesus, 134; McGrath, What Was God Doing on the Cross?, 83

67-72.

McGrath, Understanding Jesus, 139-40. Interestingly, McGrath avoids the typical 84

language of God giving his own son at the cross in favor of emphasizing God’s self-offering. See also The Mystery of the Cross, 97.

McGrath, What Was God Doing on the Cross?, 88-89.85

McGrath, Christian Theology, 319. 86

McGrath, Understanding Jesus, 169.87

!25

Rather, he sees atonement theories as attempts at describing what occurred in Christ’s work of

salvation through analogies. Accordingly, these “analogies interact. They qualify one another,

and allow each to be interpreted properly.” McGrath’s theory of salvation images allows for 88

this interpretive interaction in a way that no other theory does, because he portrays salvation as a

mystery that can be apprehended in human terms through the images offered in Scripture but

never comprehended within a single one. Each image relies on the others to be fleshed out; even

then, no individual image can be said to dominate the interpretation of the others.

A theory of atonement as images of salvation lends itself to critical realism in that the

reality of salvation is affirmed without appealing to a finality within the task of theorizing. The

theologian and the Christian community as a whole need not be locked into an understanding of

the atonement that is historically situated and at risk of needlessly running afoul of cultural

developments. Viewing the atonement through images of salvation allows Christ’s work to be

represented via whatever image is most impactful for the contemporary situation without

denying any of the other images, which necessarily complement each other. Also, the task of

studying the work of Christ has legitimate grounds for continued sharpening and revision since

no theory from a single image can be seen as dominant or final. The implications of McGrath’s

theory of atonement may indeed be quite vast. For the purposes of this project, three primary

implications for ecclesiology will be highlighted.

IMPLICATIONS FOR ECCLESIOLOGY

Ecumenicism. The first of the three implications is ecumenical. McGrath himself ties

McGrath, What Was God Doing on the Cross?, 77.88

!26

ecumenicism to the work of Christ when he says that “the unity of the church is grounded in the

saving work of God in Christ.” Proper understanding of the cross that allows for flexibility of 89

expressing the various images of salvation offered by Scripture according to cultural contexts is

ground for ecumenical stability. As stated earlier, the defensiveness that arises out of holding

tightly to specific forms of doctrinal expression is a persistent cause for division. If, however,

there is freedom to express the central themes of the cross according to multiple images of

salvation, defensiveness may be reduced since the images of salvation do not compete for control

but rather complement each other. 90

Evangelicalism. McGrath is a self-professed Evangelical with a firm grasp of the

complex nature of Evangelicalism and there are those who think he has described a plausible

future for the movement. Nevertheless, he is not calling for a laying down of arms that accepts 91

peace at the expense of integrity. As McGrath writes,

The “Christianity” that is declared to be homogeneous with all other “higher religions” would not be recognizable as such to most of its adherents. It would be a theologically, Christologically and soteriologically reduced version of the real thing. It is thus not Christianity that is being related to other world faiths; it is little more than a parody and caricature of this living faith, grounded in the presuppositions and agendas of western liberalism rather than in the self-revelation of God, which is being related to theologically-reduced and -homogenized versions of other living religions. Dialogue turns out to involve the sacrifice of integrity. The identity of Christianity is inextricably linked with the uniqueness of Christ. 92

McGrath, Christian Theology, 393.89

Tomlin, “Alister E. McGrath on the Cross of Jesus Christ,” 16. 90

Richard J. Mouw, “The Born-again identity: Alister McGrath's sober but hopeful vision 91

for the future of evangelicalism,” 24.

Alister E. McGrath, “The Christian church's response to pluralism,” Journal Of The 92

Evangelical Theological Society 35, no. 4 (December 1, 1992): 489.

!27

He sees the unique Christology and soteriology of Christianity as something indispensable to

true Christian theology. At the same time, the indispensable centrality of the cross, among a few

other things, might be enough to hold together an Evangelicalism that is already present in every

major Christian denomination. 93

Evangelism. McGrath demonstrates much dissatisfaction with “the liberal suggestion that

we defend Christianity by making its ideas acceptable to the secular world.” In his view the 94

liberal method “has been tried, and found wanting; we must now commend the Christian

proclamation of judgement and conversion through Christ with the invitation to stand within the

Christian tradition, as an alternative strategy. It is thus evangelism, rather than just apologetics,

which commends itself as of strategic importance in the present situation.” The central 95

importance of the cross requires communication of Jesus crucified to each new generation and

every unreached people group in clear and comprehensible ways. McGrath’s theory of images of

salvation has great potential as a prism that draws out the many truths hidden away in the gospel.

With these truths distilled the gospel can itself be apprehended, though not comprehended.

Though more implications may be drawn from McGrath’s view of the atonement, this

study focuses on the above implications in order to propose an understanding of the atonement

that may serve as a basis for unifying Christians around a broad understanding of the work of

Christ. Consequently, McGrath’s work in apologetics and his many projects in scientific and

McGrath, Christian Theology, 393.93

Alister E. McGrath, The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in Foundations of Doctrinal 94

Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 199.

Ibid. 95

!28

natural theology have hardly been touched on. There the centrality of the cross is surely also to

be found along with potential avenues of further research and implications to be drawn from

McGrath’s theory of the atonement. 96

CONCLUSION

The person and work of Christ are very personal areas of study precisely because they are

so much more than areas of study. They are personal experiences and cherished doctrines that

speak to Christians everywhere about their relationships to God in Christ. Surely, however,

contentiousness within the church is not the goal of God in revealing such rich imagery

regarding himself and his works in the cross of Christ. Could it be that the many images of

Scripture concerning the cross of Christ are actually intended to humble Christians who seek to

know God with the realization that there is more in him than will ever be known?

McGrath’s theological method allows him to treat the identity and significance of Jesus

of Nazareth with awe and reverence that refrains from going beyond the scope of Scripture while

still protecting the historical truths that the church has cherished concerning her Lord throughout

the ages. This project shows the potential of McGrath’s theory of atonement as a basis for

theological unity in Christianity and the significance of such potential for ecclesiology. Such a

theory commends itself to anyone who seeks both to know and worship Jesus in spirit and in

truth.

McGrath, Nature, 175; Reality, 298-301; Theory, 94, 284-84. For example, might not 96

the images of salvation offer a way of understanding Scripture’s allusions to universal and limited aspects of the atonement?

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alfaro, Gerardo A. “Historia y Theologia del Jesús Histórico.” Kairós, no. 33 (July-December 2003): 51-82. (accessed October 24, 2014).

Dennett, Daniel and Alister McGrath. “The Future of Atheism: A Dialogue.” In The Future of Atheism: Alister McGrath and Daniel Dennett in Dialogue, ed. Robert B.Stewart, 17-49. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008.

Luther, Martin. “The Heidelberg Disputation.” http://bookofconcord.org. April 26 and May, 1518. Accessed October 29, 2014. http://bookofconcord.org/heidelberg.php.

Mæland, Bård. “‘Invention’ in contemporary doctrinal theory: a discussion related to selected works of Alister McGrath, Wolfhart Pannenberg and Oswald Bayer.” Studia Theologica 58, no. 2 (January 1, 2004): 157-173. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed October 25, 2014).

McDonald, Larry S. The Merging of Theology and Spirituality: An Examination of the Life and Work of Alister E. McGrath. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2006. Kindle Edition.

McGrath, Alister E. “The Christian church's response to pluralism.” Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society 35, no. 4 (December 1, 1992): 487-501. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed October 25, 2014).

________. Christian Theology: An Introduction. 5th ed. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.

________. Christianity: An Introduction. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.

________. Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution—A History from the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-First. New York: HarperOne, 2007.

________. Evangelicalism & the Future of Christianity. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1995.

________. The Future of Christianity. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 2002.

________. The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in Foundations of Doctrinal Criticism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.

!29

!30

________. Heresy: A History of Defending the Truth. New York: HarperOne, 2009.

________. Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought. 2d ed. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013.

________. Incarnation. Truth and the Christian Imagination Series. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005.

________. Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. 3d ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

________. “Jesus the Lunatic: How do we show the world a reasonable case for Christ?” from Unbelievable?: The Conference 2013, London, Premier Christian Radio, May 25, 2013. Accessed October 24, 2014. Video. http://youtu.be/CLxCUbTWIM4.

________. “John Calvin and Roman Catholicism.” Catholic Historical Review 97, no. 1 (January 2011): 141-142. Art Full Text (H.W. Wilson), EBSCOhost (accessed October 24, 2014).

________. “Justification and christology: the axiomatic correlation between the historical Jesus and the proclaimed Christ.” Modern Theology 1, no. 1 (October 1, 1984): 45-54. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed October 25, 2014).

________. Luther’s Theology of the Cross: Martin Luther’s Theological Breakthrough. 2d ed. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.

________. The Making of Modern German Christology: From the Enlightenment to Pannenberg. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell, 1986.

________. The Mystery of the Cross. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988.

________. “New Dimensions in Salvation.” In New Dimensions in Evangelical Thought: Essays in Honor of Millard J. Erickson, ed. David S. Dockery, 317-29. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998.

________. A Passion for Truth: The Intellectual Coherence of Evangelicalism. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996.

________. Redemption. Truth and the Christian Imagination Series. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006.

________. Resurrection. Truth and the Christian Imagination Series. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008.

________. A Scientific Theology. Vol. 1, Nature. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2001.

________. A Scientific Theology. Vol. 2, Reality. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans,

!31

2002.

________. A Scientific Theology. Vol. 3, Theory. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2003.

________. “Theology and the Futures of Evangelicalism.” In The Futures of Evangelicalism: Issues and Prospects, eds. Craig Bartholomew, Robin Parry, and Andrew West, 15-39. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2003.

________. Understanding Doctrine: Its Relevance and Purpose for Today. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990.

________. Understanding Jesus: Who Jesus Christ Is and Why He Matters. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987.

________. What Was God Doing on the Cross? Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Moore, Andrew. “Not Explanation but Salvation: Scientific Theology, Christology, and Suffering.” Modern Theology 22, no. 1 (January 2006): 65-83. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed October 20, 2014).

Mouw, Richard J. “The Born-again identity: Alister McGrath's sober but hopeful vision for the future of evangelicalism.” Christianity Today 39, no. 5 (April 24, 1995): 23-24. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed October 24, 2014).

Nassif, Bradley. “New Dimensions in Eastern Orthodox Theology.” In New Dimensions in Evangelical Thought: Essays in Honor of Millard J. Erickson, ed. David S. Dockery, 92-117. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998.

Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Jesus—God and Man. Translated by Lewis L. Wilkins and Duane A. Priebe. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968.

________. Basic Questions in Theology: Collected Essays. Vol. 1. Translated by George H. Kehm. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970.

Tomlin, Graham. “Alister E. McGrath on the Cross of Jesus Christ.” In Alister E. McGrath & Evangelical Theology: A Dynamic Engagement, ed. Sun Wook Chung, 3-23. Cumbria, UK: Paternoster, 2003.

Vainio, Olli-Pekka. “Alister E. McGrath.” In Key Theological Thinkers: From Modern to Postmodern, eds. Svein Rise and Ståle Johannes Kristiansen, 559-66. Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate, 2013.