Radcliff describes Torrance
theology as filial rather than
judicial; ontological rather than
external and objective rather than
subjective. She will work this out as she goes.
In Chapter 1, “The Father as
Covenant Not Contract God,” Radcliff takes up the familiar assertion from James
Torrance that God is a covenant God, not a contract God.
In plain language, she
states, “Prior to any contribution that we could make, God chooses the whole of
humanity for salvation in Christ. This liberates us to offer ourselves back to
God whole-heartedly in freedom.” In contrast to the “horrible decree” (decretus
horribilis) of double predestination, where only a few are “elected”
for salvation and everyone else is
toast, Radcliff’s assertion that whole of humanity is chosen in Christ
makes me want to break out in song.
Radcliff identifies three
streams of Calvinism: conservative, liberal and evangelical, with the Torrances
in the latter, along with Thomas Erskine, Edward Irving, John McLeod Campbell
and Karl Barth. Evangelical Calvinism has the vicarious humanity of Christ and
union with Christ at its center, and claims continuity with John Knox and the
Scots Confession of 1560.
Evangelical Calvinism stands
in marked contrast to the Federal theology of conservative Calvinism dominant
in North America. According to Federal theology, God made a covenant with Adam.
If Adam obeys, he lives; if not he dies. As “federal head” of the human race,
Adam’s disobedience brings the curse of death upon everyone. (Here comes the
bad part) Subsequent to Adam’s disobedience, God makes a new covenant, wherein,
“out of his love,” God elects some to
be saved (leaving the vast majority of humanity to roast). In order to forgive humanity, God must
satisfy his righteousness and justice. Thus, Jesus becomes a penal
substitutionary sacrifice to atone for the sins of the elect.
If Radcliff (and my paraphrase) are correct,
then obviously this scheme means that God’s must be conditioned in order to
forgive. God must have his pound of flesh before he can spare at least a few. In
short, Jesus has to die before God can (reluctantly) forgive. Note that this
scheme makes atonement prior to forgiveness (which, of course, is the wrong
order).
The Torrances believe that
Federal theology is a distortion of Calvin’s theology. Federal theology
presents a covenant of works for all and a covenant of grace only for the
elect. In other words, God is related to all humanity in terms of law but only
to the elect in terms of grace. Per James Torrance, “In the federal scheme, the
focus moves away from what Christ has
done for us and for all humanity to what
we have to do IF we would be (or know that we are) in covenant with God.” Thus,
primacy is given to law over grace. Of course, this leads to a lack of
assurance, for the burden of salvation is thrown back upon our shoulders, as we
self-exam for fruits of repentance. (I am getting depressed just thinking about
all this! Pass the Prozac!)
The Torrances often assert
that this kind of theology privileges human logical constructs over revelation
and, hence, distorts the “how” of God’s ways with us. For the Torrances, the
“who” question takes priority over the “”how” question (following Bonhoeffer).
In order to understand how God works in salvation history, we must first
understand who God is. “Christ cannot
be known from his works; rather, we understand God’s work from knowing the
Person of Christ, who is the revelation of God the Father.” Hence, revelation
takes priority over logical constructs about the nature of God and salvation.
In short, we must look to “Who” God is, as revealed in Jesus, in order to
understand “how” God’s acts in salvation history.
Comment: RC Sproul is a prime example of a
theologian who privileges logical constructs over revelation (my opinion). I
read his book on the five points of Calvinism many years ago (I actually took a
seminary class on that subject!). Given the accuracy of his assumptions (?), he
constructs a perfectly logical system to support the tenants of TULIP, wherein unbiblical
notions like “limited atonement” are the logical consequence. The problem,
however, is that limited atonement does not align with the plain sense of
scripture, wherein God loves the world and wishes none to perish.
In contrast to Sproul (and
Aquinas), the Torrances assert that knowledge of God must be derived from God’s
self-revelation in Jesus, not by fallen human rationality (logical-causal
constructs). Knowledge of God must be developed “according to the nature” of
the Object of study. Since Jesus is “of one nature or being with the Father,” a
proper “scientific” theology will develop its knowledge of God according to his
self-revelation in Jesus.
Radcliff has a lovely section
on “Revelation through the Son.” She describes Jesus as “the very expression of
the Father’s heart,” noting that Jesus is not the kinder, gentler side of the
“angry god” of Jonathan Edwards’ infamous sermon. The mission of the Father and
Son are one, notes Radcliff. Jesus is not an intermediate who steps between us
and the Father, so that we are not instantly incinerated by a wrathful deity
who can’t stand the sight of us. Rather, the reconciliation that Jesus effects
is the expression of the Father’s heart. (You gotta love it!). In short, “There
is no God behind the back of Jesus Christ” (TFT).
Filial over Judicial
When we look to God through
the lens of Christ, we see that God’s ways with us are primarily filial (relational), not judicial (legal). Simply stated, in
Jesus we learn that God is “Father,” not the Unmoved Mover of Aristotle or
Aquinas (who constructs a logical system of thought about God derived from
creation, not from Jesus).
The Torrances believe that a
legal framework, as in the Westminster Confession of Faith, presents God
primarily as Judge and Lawgiver and only Father to those who satisfy the
pertinent legal requirements. Thus, God must be “conditioned” into being
gracious. In other words, God only likes you if you behave properly, and even
then, you can’t be sure! Radcliff brings in John McLeod Campbell’s assertion of
a filial, not legal, relationship
between God and humanity. Campbell observed that the legal framework of Federal
Calvinism left his parishioners unsure of their salvation, for they were
constantly compelled to self-exam for fruits of repentance. Do I have enough
faith? Is it “saving” faith? Did I repent correctly? Is God pleased with my
imperfect obedience? …. The results of this legal framework were a bunch of
unhappy, depressed Christians. (This was before the invention of Prozac. No
wonder the Puritans had such grim faces and dressed as if they were always
going to a funeral.)
For the Torrances, following
John McLeod Campbell, God’s primary relationship with us is not legal but filial (i.e. “noting or having the
relation of a child to a parent.” Definitions provided at no extra charge!) As
J.B. says, “God’s primary purpose for humanity is ‘filial,’ not just
‘judicial,’ where we have been created in the image of God to find our true
being-in-communion, in ‘sonship,’ in the mutual relations of love.” Substituting
a legal framework for a filial relationship, Federal theology (as in
Westminster Confession) yields an impersonal view of human beings as the
objects of justice. Humans are portrayed more as “workers,” driven by a “work
ethic.” (I think of Weber’s The
Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism). In contrast, the Torrances filial
understanding of God’s ways with us portrays us as objects of God’s love. We
are sons and daughters created for communion.
For those who
like charts:
Legal
|
Filial
|
We are objects of justice
|
We are objects of love
|
We are workers
|
We are sons and daughters
|
We are driven by a work
ethic
|
We enjoy communion
|
The legal framework of
Westminster Calvinism leads to legalism, depression and burnout, whereas the
filial framework of the Torrance tradition leads to communion, joy and
participation (the sentence is mine, not Radcliff’s, but she would agree). As
Radcliff notes, this comparison of legal and filial “resonates with the parable
of the prodigal son, in which the Father forgives his son before he has even
had a chance to repent, and does not wish for his son to relate to him in terms
of work and servanthood, but welcomes him back as family” (p. 21).
According to Radcliff, “The
Father’s purposes are primarily filial rather than judicial. His love sought
our salvation so that we might be adopted as sons and daughters in order to
live in loving communion with him. This is of the utmost importance for people
who lack joy, peace, and assurance in salvation” ((p. 22). Amen!
Reference
Radcliff, A.S. 2016. The Claim of Humanity in Christ: Salvation
and Sanctification in the Theology of T.F. and J.B. Torrance. (Princeton
Theological Monograph Series 222), Eugene, OR: Pickwick. 208 pp.
Please consider a small
tax-deductible donation to AsiAfrica
Ministries, Inc. We are working hard to bring incarnational-trinitarian theology
to east Africa and south Asia. We could use some help! Click here . (Put “God for Us” in message area).
No comments:
Post a Comment