No Recognizable Theory of Atonement
The personage of the the God-man Jesus cannot be separated from his work. His being and his action toward us are one and the same. This was the understanding of the Fathers. In this we see a honest and candid understanding of the “Christ of witness” to use Bauckham’s language.
The Fathers understood Jesus in light of the Gospels, the witness of the Spirit and the liturgy and life of the church. In other words, Jesus was understood in light of self-revelation (and self-witness).
This is set over against modern scholastic attempts to understanding Jesus in terms of either the “Christ of faith” (i.e. what the church, using Latin or Greek, ‘theological’, ‘philosophical’ or ‘scholastic’, categories, has to say about him) - or - the “Quest” for the “Historical Jesus”. Yet there cannot be a Christology from above or below. Equally, there cannot be an understanding of what he did, in his life, his passion and subsequent actions apart from who (not what!) Jesus is.
His incarnation, his actions of reconciliation, his conquering of sin and death, his eternal/continued manhood, his reign at the Father’s right hand and all inseparable. To put a finer point on it, they cannot be properly known, understood or experienced apart from each other.
So we see the fatherly love of God acting toward us, for us, in his son. God acts toward us in his son. So much so, he cannot be known apart from his son. Any prima facie readings of John’s witness show that Jesus’ claims to this are too numerous to enumerate.
An interesting thing though. While many of the ecumenical councils have profound theological insight they were by and large shaped by active Gospel ministers, those who ministered to people in everyday, real-life, concrete-relational contexts. Pastors and overseers who lived and experienced the reality of the risen (and ascended) Christ. We are not overstating our case here. Read their letters, the biographies etc of these men. They were on the front lines of mercy ministries, the emulated Christ’s self-emptying love. And while these councils speak of Christ (in great detail) it's amazing how actually pastoral how what they say (and do not say!) matters.
The most fascinating thing about the ecumenical creeds, or for that matter the Apostle’s Creed - none of them - formally canonized or spoke to any unifying theory of atonement. Or maybe at least not in a way that we are willing to see or acknowledge as coherent. Why is that?