Systematic Theology 1

In the beginning of McCabe’s argument he states by way of quoting some ideas of Adorno and Horkheimer. Adorno believed that “There can be no justice without a resurrection of the dead” (McCabe 42). This idea was brought up because in order for there to be complete justice the people who have already died would have to have a chance too. If there was resurrection of the dead then we would be able have true justice for forth. Otherwise we would find ourselves with an unfair unjust God, letting some people go, and others he made them still accept the “just” reward coming to them, good or bad. When Jesus died we find that Jesus really did make a way for the resurrection of the dead! He died himself and rose again. It is possible. McCabe even hits on this here as we can read: “This innocent sufferer has attained the certitude of hope: there is a God, and God can create justice in a way that we cannot conceive, yet we can begin to grasp it through faith. Yes, there is a resurrection of the flesh” (McCabe 43). Again Jesus has, as long as we are grasping it through faith made a way to have a resurrection of the flesh. The relationship between his death and the forgiveness of our sins lies within true justice and grace such as, “the inter-relation between justice and grace also becomes clear: the way we live our lives is not immaterial, but our defilement does not stain us forever if we have at least continued to reach out towards Christ, towards truth and towards love” (McCabe 47). Here we see that yes our foul works do burn up in His presence, but because of the grace given to us as our foundation we are still able to make it in. Jesus death created a possibility for a true foundation of grace in the midst of a loving fiery justice that is in the eyes of Christ.
Now Williams view is more one of God’s love prevailing through so much misery and crucifixion that his love is shown to go beyond any sin we could have ever committed, and we see McCabe’s view as more of a fiery burning of all of our terrible building, and yet a remaining of a foundation of Christ’s grace. These two views are a bit different but in the end I believe they accomplish the same thing. Gunton’s view was of Jesus obedience to death on the cross as a victory gaining authority and power, ending in a complete project to perfect all of creation. Definitely a different view, but also gets the job done. Lastly, I do believe that Jenson is arguing that Jesus was relating to humanity as much as possible through his death, therefore in relating to us he is now able to forgive us of our sins by faith because he is the one that ultimately overcame death. This is yet another different perspective other than McCabe’s, not necessarily wrong, but another great perspective.

Jesus’ death is the remedy for this—for people having to believe in themselves because they do not believe in God’s love—because he doesn’t necessarily divide their sin from them but by bringing it within his their acceptance. “In his death, God forgives, not by changing his mind about us, but out of this manifestation of his unconditional, unchanging, eternal love, he changes our minds about him. It is because of God’s gift that we begin to think of repenting for our sin and of asking for his mercy” (61); therefore, we are not forgiven and healed because we repent, but because God shows us his love in forgiving and healing us. Without using the theological term that Jenson does, McCabe supports the concept of reconciliation in the two main aspects: “that the death is not suffered on his own account, but for others; and that it restores broken community—i.e. overcomes sin (forgiveness).” More explicitly in line with McCabe, Jenson supports that “the New Testament speaks of God’s action to reconcile us to himself, and nowhere of God’s being reconciled to us (186). Gunton also affirms McCabe’s view that “death is where man meets God’s judgment, that death itself is a form of destroying judgment” (104), supporting that God forgives us by allowing every part of us to be brought into himself—into ultimate love. Finally, Williams uses almost verbatim language to describe “Jesus as the human event (death) that reverses the flow of human self-absorption because it unconditionally opens to divine freedom” (84). All the views claim that God undid what occurred with humans, their separating themselves by changing our minds and allowing us to believe and respond. 281

Mcabe believes that there is a wholeness that comes through Jesus Christ. This had been a plan that was established by God. Mcabe also lets us know that there is a great freedom that comes about that delivers humanity from the oppression of evil powers and demonic dictatorship in the world. There are two aspects of reconciliation that is described by Mcabe. The death of Jesus Christ was not suffered on His account, but for others. The second is that there is a restoration to the brokenness of community. The death of Jesus also shows God’s mercy. God had giving humanity a chance and opportunity to receive forgiveness and be made whole. This would ultimately triumph over judgment. Mcabe also believes that Jesus was and is the only way out of sin. This had been God’s mercy seat for humanity. Ultimately, God has unconditional love that had been manifested to us through Jesus Christ. Williams had some similarities but there are more differences. Williams stated that the purpose of the death of Jesus was for praise, peace and reconciliation. Also, a re-establishing of the whole world was seen through Jesus’ death. Gunter stated that Jesus was obedient all the way unto death. This also was to perfect humanity, and to destroy death. Mcabe’s statements were similar to that of Gunter’s. Jenson stated that Jesus’ death was to relate to humanity. In relating to humanity, Jesus defeated death by His divinity. This enabled humanity to be able to live above death. This was similar to Mcabe’s statements, but different. -256 words

It’s likely that I’m just misunderstanding the complex infrastructure of McCabe’s mind, but something that stuck out to me about his chapter “Possession and Forgiveness” was the complete lack of what might be called “abstract” cause and effect. There is no metaphysical explanation as to how the specific blood spilt or death experienced pays a ransom or thwarts a foe. (That’s not to say that either of these can’t be concretized with more deliberate semantics). Instead, from what I can gather, McCabe indicates that the Cross is a message from God to the world, not necessarily accomplishing a victory or enabling forgiveness, but demonstrating love and forgiveness in such a way that allows people’s repressed (or suppressed) fear of themselves to dragged into light. That is, God’s love as expressed by Christ’s death on the cross says to an individual that He loves them in full knowledge of their sins. These can therefore be addressed before God and the community around the individual liberated. Sanctification and love in proper relation before God and man are therefore possible for that individual.

McCabe’s view is more concentrated on the individual than the arguments of Williams, Jenson, and Gunton. The latter theologians are focusing on the grander, communal eschatological vision of reconciliation, while McCabe is speaking specifically to the liberation of the individual from fear and “possession” and becoming “true sinners.” What is well implied in McCabe is the sanctification of Christ’s action and life for those who believe on Him. The sanctification of creation—men included—is spoken of in each of the other works as part of the reconciliation that occurs through Christ and that is bringing brought about. McCabe’s view is much more concentrated on the psychological redemption of people and their self-revelation in the midst of Christ.

WC: 298

He echoes Pauline thought which claims God reconciling everything in creation to himself. Firstly, he argues against the mistake o thinking that peace or salvation is first a matter for each individual. Here he quotes Paul’s use of koinonia meaning “fellowship” or “sharing” to reaffirm that on one level, Jesus’ death breaks down the barriers that are placed between people, and thus, allow them to live with a common unifying factor. Secondly, in relation to God’s purpose for creation is that “this new human nature that we have in common in this new creation is a nature always in movement from one to the other and back again, bestowing life on each other . . . one that is not just an absence of rivalry and conflict; it is an active condition of loving and nurturing, giving and receiving, mutuality” (102).