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.
CHAPTER 2: The Vicarious
Humanity of the Son
Ontological over External
Radcliff begins this chapter
as follows: “God’s unconditional covenantal claiming of humanity in Christ is
an ontological event for the Torrances. Salvation is worked out in the very
depths of Jesus’s own vicarious humanity and this transforms the very depths of
our own being.” This is a profound statement! Let’s unpack it.
According to the Torrance
tradition, the incarnation itself is transformative
for all humanity. Hence, the incarnation is an ontological (having to do with ‘being’ or ‘nature’) event; that is,
redemption is worked out within the
hypostatic union of God and humanity in the one person of Jesus Christ. We will
contrast that to “external” views of atonement in a moment.
The incarnation is also
“ontological” in the sense that it reaches to the depths of our “being,” as the
Eternal Word of God is united to our fallen humanity. As I understand it,
humanity is now changed and set on a new footing via the incarnation of Jesus
Christ. In other words, we are justified, or “made right” in the incarnation and
this good news applies not only to believers but to everyone!
Comment: It would be nice, at least for me, if the
Torrances were a little clearer in regard to how the union of divine and human natures
in Jesus reaches down to, and transforms, the depths of my being, that is, the being of your humble blogger. Somewhere,
along the line, we have to bring in the work of the Spirit. We will do that in
the next chapter. For now, suffice to say that the incarnation itself is
redemptive, not only for me, but for all humanity. In short, we can say that
Jesus is redemption. Note, I am not
referring to what Jesus does, I am referring to “Who he is,” giving priority to the “Who” over the “how.”
In the Torrance tradition, we
can say that Jesus is justification,
Jesus is sanctification, and everyone is included, both believers and
not-yet-believers. This is an extraordinary contrast to the ordo salutis (“order of salvation”) of
Protestant and evangelical theology, where believers
(only) are “declared” right or “justified” by the atonement and then
“sanctified” (made right) by a subsequent work of the Holy Spirit.
For this reason, the
Torrances refer to typical theories of atonement as “external,” because they do
not allow for the transformation of
humanity in the life and death of Jesus Christ. In Protestant theology, we
are declared right, not made right by the atonement. In other
words, righteousness is only “imputed” to believers
through the atonement (Roman Catholic critics have referred to this as a “legal
fiction”). We are “made right” (sanctified) by a subsequent work of the Spirit
(accompanied by a lot of moral effort on our parts). “For the Torrances,” as
Radcliff notes, “a judicial and eternal scheme disregards the prospective
aspect of the atonement whereby we are not only forgiven [i.e., “justified”]
but reborn to new life as sons and daughters of God [i.e., “sanctified,”
“adopted”] to share by the Spirit in Christ’s intimate relationship with the
Father” (p. 49).
TFT describes the western-Latin
tendency to conceptualize salvation in external terms as the “Latin Heresy.”
(Radcliff rightly notes that “heresy” is a rather strong word to use). Two
classic western-Latin versions of external theories of atonement are Abelard’s
“ethical” or “exemplary” theory and Anselm’s “satisfaction” theory (which later
gave rise to the “penal substitution” theory, and is not to be confused with
the song of the same name by the Rolling Stones. Just when you thought I was
getting too serious!).
In Abelard’s “ethical”
scheme, Jesus sets us an example of sacrificial love for us to follow. In
Anselm’s “”satisfaction” scheme, Jesus’ death “satisfies” God’s honor that is
offended by human sin. Notice that in either case, our humanity is not
transformed; that is, atonement is an “external” act that does not affect us at
the core of our beings. In addition, both forms throw us back upon ourselves, either
to follow Jesus’ example or to produce fruits of repentance via a subsequent
work of the Spirit.
Comment: We will get to the work of the Spirit in
the next Chapter, where we will see that the Torrances conceptualize the work
of the Spirit in a much different and encouraging way than do Protestants and
evangelicals.
Forensic
The Torrances are highly
critical of the “forensic” (legal, law, judicial) model of atonement that is
exemplified today by the “penal substitution” theory of atonement, prevalent
among Protestants and evangelicals. Radcliff quotes a conservative Calvinist
source to describe this theory: “The doctrine of penal substitution states that
God gave himself in the person of his Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment
and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty of sin.” In this theory, as
Baxter Kruger puts it, the Son takes a whippin’ from the Father! The Torrances
assert, however, that the New Testament never refers to the judgement Christ
bore for us as “punishment.” They note, rather, that Paul uses metaphors from
the law court, the Temple sacrifices, the slave market and adoption.
James Torrance often asserts
that the penal substitution theory suggests that God must be “changed” in order
to forgive. Here is a prime example from Theopedia:
Penal
substitutionary atonement refers to the doctrine that Christ
died on the cross as a substitute for sinners. God imputed the guilt of our
sins to Christ, and he, in our place, bore the punishment that we deserve. This
was a full payment for sins, which satisfied both the wrath and the
righteousness of God, so that He could forgive sinners without compromising His
own holy standard.
A close reading of this
definition reveals that God must be “conditioned” (“changed”) in order to
forgive. God forgives, perhaps reluctantly, because Jesus bears our
“punishment” on the cross. In this scheme, atonement is prior to forgiveness (which is exactly backwards). As the Torrances
often assert, penal substitution makes God’s relationship with us primarily
legal, not filial (having to do with ‘sonship’). Penal substitution makes us
objects of law, rather than sons and daughters, who are the subjects of the
Father’s love.
Comment: N.T. Wright’s book, The Day the Revolution Began, is a recent critique of the penal
substitution theory. I liked the book very much. I especially appreciated
Wright’s advocacy of a return to something like the Christus Victor view of the atonement, prevalent in the early
Church, where Jesus comes to defeat the power of sin, death and the devil. I
think the Torrances ontological, filial view of incarnation-atonement could
easily be harmonized with that view.
Ethical
Abelard’s “ethical” or
“exemplary theory is typically embraced by liberal theologians. I think you will
find a lot of this in The Episcopal Church. It’s definitely a feel good theory.
“Sweet Jesus” sets us an example of love and summons us to follow it. Obviously,
this theory throws us back upon ourselves, as we strive to follow Jesus’
example of self-giving love and bring in the brave new world.
Jesus did not come, however, notes
Radcliff, to restructure human systems of social, political, and economic
power. He came to transform humanity at the core of our beings, by [in my
words] assuming our fallen flesh in the incarnation, bringing his holiness to
bear upon it in healing, sanctifying union, and to bend the rebellious human
will back to God. Jesus did not come merely to set us an example; he came to
make us new creations in union with
God. For the Torrances, as Radcliff puts it, “[S]alvation comes not through our
identification with Jesus but rather his identification with us.” That is a
great line! Makes the propeller on my beanie spin!
In summary, the “Latin Heresy”
is TF’s term for external views of atonement that do not account for the
transformation of humanity in the incarnation itself. In “”external” views of
the atonement, whether “exemplary” or “penal,” Christ’s humanity is merely “instrumental”
(a means to and end). Jesus assumes a human body to set us an example or to
offer it in sacrifice to God. In these models, our humanity is not transformed
at the depths of our being; hence, the atonement is merely “external” to us.
These “instrumental’ views of the atonement focus on Christ’s work at the
expense of his person. (They focus on the “how,” not the “Who.”) As Radcliff
notes, “T.F. calls for the atonement to be understood not according to human
reasoning but according to God’s self-giving in Christ, whereby we see Christ’s
work inextricably bound up with his person.”
***
Please enter your email to subscribe to this
blog (see right hand column).
No comments:
Post a Comment