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.
Torrance soteriology is “radically
Christocentric,” notes Radcliff. Everything necessary for our salvation is
complete in Jesus. But as Radcliff notes, this claim does not go uncontested. The
Torrances are criticized for what some perceive as insufficient attention to
the role of the Spirit in salvation, as well as the place of the subjective
(personal) response to Jesus. Some accuse the Torrances of “christomonism,”
which I assume means that they think the Torrances give insufficient attention
to the role of the Father and Spirit in their theology. As Radcliff notes,
however, this is unfair, for “the Torrances present an unmistakably Trinitarian
scheme of salvation, whereby humanity is drawn by the Spirit to participate in
Christ’s intimate relationship with the Father” (p. 85).
Yet, while the Spirit’s role
in Torrance theology is “pervasive,” it is “elusive.” Jesus lived a vicarious
life “by the Spirit.” We are included in the Father-Son relationship “by the
Spirit.” But there is not much explanation of what “by the Spirit” means. Of
course, this may properly have to do with the “’self-effacing” nature of the
Spirit, whose primary role is to testify about Jesus. It also has to do with
the mystery of salvation, for we are not privileged to peek into the modus operandus of the Spirit.
For the Torrances, Jesus is the “appropriate axis” of
theology, for the fundamental axiom of TF Torrance’s scientific theology is
that the Object of study must be known “in accordance with its nature”” (kata physin). Hence, Jesus, who is of “one
nature with the Father” (homoousios to
Patri),”is the controlling center of a proper scientific theology. Of
course, the Spirit is also “of one nature with thee Father,” but the Spirit did
not become incarnate and speak the word of God as man within the limits of human understanding.. Therefore, the
incarnate Word, Jesus Christ, is the starting point for a scientific theology.
Alas, I digress. Moving on!
Radcliff goes on to discuss
the mutual mediation of Christ and
the Spirit in Torrance theology. Jesus mediates the Spirit to us by vicariously
receiving the Spirit for us, in his humanity, at his baptism, then subsequently
pouring out the Spirit on us at Pentecost. On the other hand, the Spirit
mediates Jesus, because it is by the Spirit that Jesus takes on our humanity in
the womb of Mary, and it is by the Spirt that Jesus lives a vicarious life of
perfect faith and obedience, is resurrected and ascends to the Father. This
last point needs clarification, for it brings us to a troublesome aspect of
Torrance’s radically Christocentric theology.
In the Torrance tradition (in
harmony with Chalcedonian Christology), the Eternal Word is the “subject’ of
the incarnation. As I think of, if we could look into the eyes of Jesus of
Nazareth, we would look directly into the eyes of the Eternal Word (Logos) made flesh. The Eternal Word (Logos) assumes our humanity at the
incarnation and bringshis holiness to bear upon the sinful flesh assumed in
order to heal and cleanse it.
Here’s the problem. It sounds
like Jesus can reach deep down inside and draw on his divinity whenever he
needs to resist temptation or perform a miracle. If that is the case, then Jesus
is not human like you and me, because
we have no reserve of divinity to draw on when we are tempted or when we lay
hands on the sick, for example. (Thus, we do not have a High Priest who can
identify with our weakness.) On the other hand, if we say that Jesus resisted
temptation and performed miracles “by power the Spirit,” then we have something
we can all grab hold of, because the same Spirit indwells us. Do you see the
problem? Critics argue, and I agree, that it would have been great if the Torrances
had been clearer as to what the Spirit’s role is in regard to the vicarious
humanity of Jesus. Perhaps this would have facilitated a greater understanding
of the Spirit’s role in our lives. This is a weakness (one of a very few, in my
opinion) in the Torrance tradition, and an area where more work is needed.
While many have noted this
weakness, others, like Gary Deddo, argue that to attempt to explain the “how”
of the Spirit’s work is incoherent in the Torrance tradition, where the “Who”
question takes precedence. I agree with Deddo to the extent that TFT would
eschew any attempt to look into the modus
operandus of the Spirit. At the same time, I would like a clearer
articulation of the Spirit’s role in salvation, although that may not be
possible at present.
***
As a prelude to Radcliff’s upcoming discussion of the role of the Spirit in the Torrance tradition, I will follow
this post with one on “the communion of the Spirit,” as articulated in T.F.
Torrance's book, The School of Faith.
Radcliff cites this material frequently in her book.
No comments:
Post a Comment