A.S. Radcliff: The Claim of Humanity in Christ (in the Torrance tradition), Post 7

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.

Christ’s Person and Work (p. 53)

Western-Latin theories of the atonement focus on God’s act. Jesus sets an example; Jesus satisfies God’s honor, Jesus takes our punishment. In contrast, the Torrance tradition insists that the ‘act” of God in atonement must not be separated from the “person” of Jesus, for atonement is worked out through God’s self-giving in the person of Jesus. In order to hold together the person and work of Christ, TFT draws upon three Old Testament concepts:

• Paddah expresses God’s act of delivering Israel from bondage in Egypt.
• Kipper expresses God’s sacrificial offering (act) to blot out sin
• Goel expresses God’s person as a kinsman-redeemer, who restores those in need to their lost inheritance. For TF, this vitally important term captures the essential incarnational, ontological aspect of the atonement overlooked by western-Latin external theories.

Comment: First, notice that kipper is not a reference to turning away wrath; it is a reference to “washing” away sin” (I am not a Greek scholar, so correct me if I am wrong.) Second, all this fits in nicely with N.T. Wright’s work in The Day the Revolution Began. As Wright consistently asserts, Jesus intended for his sacrifice on the cross to be associated in the peoples’ mind with God’s mighty act of deliverance from Egypt (paddah), only now the deliverance is from the far greater powers of sin, death and the devil. For Jesus, per Wright, the cross is not a punishment imposed on Jesus by the Father. Far from it, the cross is a mighty act of rescue from bondage to sin, devil and the devil. (In other words, it’s the Exodus thing all over again, only now on a cosmic scale! Beautiful!) Again, this is a welcome return to a more Christus Victor view of the atonement, embraced for centuries by the early Church and currently advocated by N.T. Wright and Gregory A. Boyd. (Read ‘em both! They’re great.).

Now let’s look at Torrance’s notion of goel in light of the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16. When the High Priest went into the Most Holy Place (“Holy of Holies”) on the annual Day of Atonement, he wore a breastplate embedded with twelve precious stones, representing the twelve tribes of Israel. The names of the tribes were written on the mantle he wore. The High Priest was no longer a man performing a ritual act. The High Priest was Israel incarnate (my words). He stood in for the people as their kinsman-redeemer (goel). He was bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh. Everyone in Israel was included in his atoning act, because he was the Representative-Substitute of the nation. He acted in place of the people (substitute) and on their behalf (representative). As TFT notes, the people contributed nothing to the High Priest’s atoning act.

In a similar way, Jesus is our Kinsman-Redeemer (goel). As man, he is bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh. He is our Substitute and Representative. Yet, he is the Creator God incarnate. He is the Eternal Word through whom all things are made and in whom all things consist. Therefore, when he enters the Most Holy Place in heaven as our High Priest and Representative, he carries all creation with him. Get the idea! Contra the western-Latin tradition, atonement is not merely an external act. The atonement can only be properly understood in terms of the “being” or “nature” of the Person who atones.

Hypostatic Union

Back to Radcliff. She writes, “The Torrances believe that redemption is not an external act of God, but worked out ontologically within the incarnate constitution of the person of Christ” (p. 53). This is where concepts like the homoousion and the hypostatic union come in. Don’t let the fancy words bug you. I know from experience that some readers abandon ship at the mere mention of words like ontological, homoousios, etc. Stay with me. It’s not as weird as it sounds. But you can light a pipe and put on a tweed jacket if you wish.

These five-dollar terms are essential for the budding theologian. I wrote my doctoral thesis on TFT based on the idea that his entire doctrine of the mediation of Christ can be boiled down to four “elemental forms”: the homoousion, the hypostatic union, incarnational redemption and the vicarious humanity of Jesus, with the latter two being correlates of the former. (Click here to read a journal article I published on all this.) Now, let’s take a moment to get this terms under control.

• Homoouison: This is a reference to the all-important assertion in the Nicene Creed that Jesus is “of one being with the Father” (Greek, homoousios to Patri). In short, Jesus is the same ‘being,” or “God-stuff,” as the Father. The Father and Son are “one in being” (homoousios), while remaining distinct in personhood. In other words, Jesus is fully God but he ain’t the Father and vice versa. In practical terms, this means that the word and act of Jesus is not merely the word and act of a nice Jewish boy and a pretty fair country preacher (contra liberal theology). Rather, the word and act of Jesus is the word and act of God, for Jesus is homoousios to Patri. Share this with your spouses. They’ll like it (?).
• Hypostatic union: This doctrine was articulated at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. The Chalcedonian Definition says that Jesus is “one person in two natures,” “divine” and “human,” without separation, without division, without change and without confusion (the four “withouts” are called the “four fences” of Chalcedon, in case you were interested.) “Hypostatic union,” as I understand it, is a fancy way of referring to the “union of divine and human natures in the one person” we know as Jesus of Nazareth. So it boils down to this. Jesus is fully God and fully human. Of course, we have little recourse but refer to all this as “mystery.”

So, when I say Jesus is the Eternal Word incarnate, that is a reference to the homoousion. I am saying Jesus is God; he is “of one being with the Father.” When I say Jesus is bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh, I am saying Jesus is human, like us. That is a reference to the hypostatic union, where Jesus is not only God, he is also human; that is, he is “of one being with us.”

Now we are in a good position to understand Radcliff, as she addresses the hypostatic union (for those who weren’t already).

Jesus must be fully God and fully human (hypostatic union) if he is to save humanity. Humanity cannot save itself; only God can save (as the Church Fathers asserted). Thus, Jesus must be God in order to save us (i.e., homoousios to Patri). At the same time, humanity is incapable of offering the perfect response of faith and obedience. Therefore, the Eternal Word must become human in order to offer the response for us (in our place and on our behalf). Thus, Jesus is human. (He is ‘of one being” with us.) As TF notes, in his incarnate person, Jesus fulfills the covenant from both sides, that is, from the side of God and the side of humanity. Jesus is the Word of God bearing upon man and also man hearing and responding to the word. Thus, atonement must be understood in terms of the hypostatic union, or, more simply, in terms of who Jesus is (in his incarnate constitution as God and man eternally united in reconciling union).

Comment: When you see the term “hypostatic union,” don’t roll your eyes and give up. Say to yourself, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” Smokin’!!

Therefore, in the Torrance tradition, the incarnation, that is, the hypostatic union of divine and human natures in the one person we know as Jesus of Nazareth, as lived out through the whole course of his incarnate life, death resurrection and ascension, is itself a healing, redemptive, sanctifying union. So next time you see “Jesus saves” spray-painted on the Interstate bridge, you can take heart in knowing you probably understand that to a far greater degree than the would-be artist.

Let’s move on. According to Radcliff, “Jesus’ assumption of humanity means that, by the Holy Spirit, humanity is able to share in everything that is his, that is, perfect union and communion with God.” Notice two things about this sentence: First, she doesn’t merely say “we” share, leaving us to wonder if she is talking about believers only. She plainly says “humanity.” Second, she says in so many words that we participate by the Spirit. Coming from the charismatic-Pentecostal tradition, she’s gotta talk about the Spirit. And that’s what makes this book so good. While she is not ready to elaborate at this point in the book, she’ll get to it soon in a big way. Hang on! (I think I’ll be briefer in the next posts, so we can hurry up and get to the chapters on the Spirit and sanctification. I am looking forward to it, amigos! I got plenty o’ questions.

Knowledge of God and the Homoousion of the Spirit

Here is a great quote on knowledge of God, commensurate with Torrance tradition.

"If the Spirit is not God, without qualification, then God is not known in the biblical sense, where knowledge is not the mastery of information but transformation through engagement with, and surrender to, an “other” who is person. If the Spirit is not God, our knowledge of God is no more than a matter of “reading off” facts about God from the face of Jesus, confusing knowledge as the accumulation of information with that biblical “knowing” which is transmutation. Human knowledge of God, it must be remembered, is precisely the difference, the transformation, arising in the knower through her self abandonment to the Person of God. Where the homoousion of the Spirit is neglected, knowledge of God (so ­called) is a one­-sided cerebralism or “informationism” in which orthodox truths (abstractions by definition) are assimilated while the heart remains unaltered by the concrete Truth which is reality."

Victor A. Shepherd, Thomas F. Torrance and the Homoousion of the Holy Spirit.

http://www.tftorrance.org/meetings/Homoousion-of-the-Holy-Spirit.pdf

Kataphysical inquiry, onto-relationality and elemental forms in T.F. Torrance’s doctrine of the mediation of Jesus Christ

Greetings Everyone,

Click link below to read an academic article of I have written on Torrance’s theology. The article has just been published in In die Skriflig/In Luce Verbi, an accredited journal that serves as the official journal of the Reformed Theological Society (Gereformeerde Teologiese Vereniging). This theological journal aims to further Reformational Theology on a scientific basis, thus serving the Church and the kingdom of God.

http://www.indieskriflig.org.za/index.php/skriflig/article/view/100

Coming soon: Torrance: The Goodness and Dignity of Man

All Things Torrance: Final Post

For the past two and one-half years we have followed in this blog my exploration of the doctrine of the mediation of Jesus Christ in Torrance’s scientific theology. During that time, I have identified a basic order or progression of ideas that helps me to understand Torrance’s doctrine of mediation.

This basic order begins with the methodological axiom that is fundamental to Torrance’s scientific theology. As Torrance repeatedly argues, in any field of scientific inquiry, knowledge must be developed according to the nature (kata physin) of the object of study as it reveals itself in the course of scientific investigation. From this fundamental axiom, two other basic principles naturally emerge: these are the principles of “onto-relationality” and “theological holism.”

Because reality is interrelational, an inquiry into the nature of the object of study requires that it be investigated within the nexus of “being-constituting” interrelations, or “onto-relations,” that disclose its identity. In keeping with this principle, I have located Torrance’s doctrine of mediation within the three nexuses of “onto-relations” that, according to Torrance, disclose the identity of Jesus Christ as incarnate Saviour of the world. These are Christ’s interrelations with 1) Israel, 2) with God, and 3) with humanity.

I began by following Torrance in grounding the mediation of Christ in the nexus of his interrelations with historical Israel, a matrix of interrelations Torrance calls the “womb of the incarnation.” Then I followed another fundamental principle of Torrance’s scientific theology, one he adapted from Einstein: “logical simplicity.” In my work on Torrance, I have adapted this principle to reduce Torrance’s vast and seemingly disconnected material on the mediation of Jesus Christ to a minimal number of elemental forms. By organising the themes of revelation and reconciliation in the mediation of Jesus Christ around these basic constitutive concepts, I have intended to facilitate the understanding and appreciation of Torrance’s thought by non-professional theologians.

The elemental forms around which I have organised Torrance’s material on revelation and reconciliation in the mediation of Jesus Christ are the Nicene homoousion, the Chalcedonian doctrine of the hypostatic union, the doctrine of incarnational redemption, and the doctrine of the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ. Having examined Torrance’s doctrine of the mediation of Jesus Christ, it has become clear to me that Torrance’s thought on this subject could easily be reduced to only two overarching elemental forms: that is, the homoousion and the hypostatic union. Indeed, these two elemental forms are the primary “christological tools” of Torrance’s doctrine of the mediation of Christ. Torrance’s doctrine of incarnational redemption and the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ could easily be subsumed under his doctrine of the hypostatic union, for they are plainly corollaries of this doctrine.

In addition, the elemental forms of Torrance’s thought are related to another fundamental aspect of his scientific theology: theological holism. Each elemental form displays a unitary, non-dualist character. The homoousion precludes a dualism between Jesus and the Father, such as is found in adoptionist christologies, while the hypostatic union precludes a docetic dualism that separates Jesus from humanity. At the same time, Torrance’s doctrine of incarnational redemption guards against a dualism between the incarnation and the atonement, or between the person and work of Christ, by asserting that the incarnation is inherently redemptive while redemption is inherently incarnational. Finally, Torrance’s doctrine of vicarious humanity describes the intrinsic connection between the faith and obedience of Jesus Christ and our own salvation.

*******
I hope these posts on Torrance have been beneficial to many of you. I know that the work I have done, and continue to do, on this great theologian has greatly strengthened my relationship with Jesus Christ. I shall forever be grateful to T.F. Torrance for taking me deep into the loving heart of the Triune God.

At this point in my doctoral work, I am required to read many other dissertations-theses that have been written on Torrance in recent years. This itself is a vast undertaking. I will continue to write on subjects related to Trinitarian-incarnational theology as I am able, sharing with you what I am learning. No doubt, as time goes on, I will have much more to say about the greatest English-speaking theologian of our time.

T.F. Torrance: General summary

The following is a general summary of all the posts that have appeared in this blog, beginning October 2009, on the doctrine of the mediation of Christ in the scientific theology of T.F. Torrance.

General Summary

The doctrine of the mediation of Jesus Christ in the scientific theology of T.F. Torrance rests on the fundamental scientific axiom, derived from the natural sciences, that knowledge is developed in accordance with the nature (kata physin) of the object as revealed in the course of scientific inquiry. To know God through the incarnate Son, Jesus Christ, who is of “one nature with the Father” (homoousios to Patri), is to know God in strict accordance with God’s nature and, hence, in a scientific theological way. As Torrance argues, scientific theology will operate on a christological basis, for the incarnation of Jesus Christ is the “controlling centre” for the Christian doctrine of God.

A corollary to Torrance’s fundamental principle of kataphysical inquiry is the “interrelationality” of reality. As Clerk Maxwell argued in his “field theory” of electromagnetism, a theory in which Torrance invests significant theological capital, the “object” of scientific inquiry exists within a nexus or matrix of “being-constituting” interrelations, or “onto-relations,” that disclose its identity. Because the fundamental aspects of reality are relational rather than atomistic, the goal of Torrance’s scientific theology is to investigate and articulate the essential interrelations embodied in our knowledge of God as revealed in Jesus Christ. If being-constituting relations (i.e., “onto-relations”) are to be given their proper place in an inquiry into the mediation of revelation and reconciliation, then Jesus Christ must be viewed within three specific nexuses of “onto-relations” that disclose his identity: these are his interrelations 1) with historical Israel, 2) with God, and 3) with humanity.

Torrance’s doctrine of the mediation of Jesus Christ is rooted historically in the incarnate Son’s relationship with ancient Israel, a nexus of interrelations Torrance cogently describes as the “womb of the incarnation.” The cultic liturgy, particularly as enacted on the annual Day of Atonement, constituted the all-significant “middle term,” whereby a sinful, rebellious people could approach a holy God in appropriate worship. This “covenanted way of response,” which God graciously provided Israel, established permanent structures of thought and speech about God. Torrance describes these “conceptual tools” as the “essential furniture of our knowledge of God.” Apart from the pattern of divine revelation imparted in God’s historical dialogue with ancient Israel, particularly as enacted in the cultic liturgy, the mediation of Jesus Christ, as High Priest and sacrifice, Offerer and offering, would be quite incomprehensible.

The mediation of revelation and reconciliation in Jesus Christ must also be viewed within the nexus of Jesus’ interrelations with God. In developing his scientific theology according to the divine nature as revealed in Jesus Christ, Torrance adheres to his fundamental methodological principle of kataphysical inquiry, a methodology which requires him to develop his epistemology a posteriori, as he allows God’s self-disclosure in Jesus Christ to guide his thinking. Torrance follows Barth in rejecting natural theology as an a priori, antecedent conceptual system developed ‘independently’ of the divine self-disclosure in the incarnate Son, then offered as a preamble to faith. Torrance also rejects anthropological approaches to the knowledge of God, for example, Schleiermacher’s “feeling” of dependence, regarding these as mythological projections of the human psyche onto the heavens. For Torrance the Nicene homoousion, that is, the creedal assertion that Jesus Christ is “of one being (nature) with the Father,” is the epistemological linchpin in the knowledge of God and the sine qua non of his doctrine of the mediation of revelation and reconciliation in Jesus Christ. If Jesus Christ is not God in the same way the Father is God, then his mediation of revelation lacks divine content. Moreover, if Jesus Christ is not God, then his mediation of reconciliation lacks divine validity, for only God can save.

The mediation of Jesus Christ must also be viewed within the matrix of his interrelations with humanity. Torrance draws upon the Chalcedonian doctrine of the hypostatic union to argue that the humanity of Jesus Christ means that God has acted among us as man; at the same time, the deity of Jesus Christ means that God has acted among us as man. For Torrance, the humanity of Jesus Christ is essential for the mediation of revelation and is the guarantee that revelation is accessible to us within the limitations of our own creaturely existence. At the same time, the deity of Jesus Christ ensures that his human word is also the divine Word of God. To mediate divine revelation to us, therefore, Jesus Christ must be both God and human, yet he must be God and humanity joined in hypostatic union, so that his word and act are predicates of one divine person. Otherwise, his divine word is not human speech to us and his human speech is not the word of God. Because the words spoken by Jesus Christ are the words of very God, Torrance rightly identifies Jesus Christ, not the Holy Bible, as “The Word of God.” The humanity of Jesus Christ is the “real text” underlying the written word of God and by which scripture must be interpreted.

In addition to its epistemological implications, the hypostatic union has vital implications for human salvation. Because only God can save, Jesus Christ must be divine; yet, in order for his saving activity to reach us, he must also be human. Consistent with his non-dualist, unitary theology, Torrance asserts there are not two acts in the life and death of Jesus Christ, but only a single, unitary action that is simultaneously Godward and humanward. If atonement is to be real, it must take place from the side of humanity if we are to be reconciled to God; yet, it must also take place from the side of God if it is to be effectual. Thus, atonement must be the work of the one God-man, God and man in hypostatic union, not merely God “in” man but God “as” man. To be sure, Jesus Christ, who is both Son of God and son of Mary, fulfils the covenant, both from the side of God and from the side of humanity, in one unitary movement of atoning reconciliation.

A corollary to Torrance’s doctrine of the hypostatic union is his doctrine of incarnational redemption, that is, the Godward-humanward aspect of the unitary movement of atoning reconciliation. In keeping with his unitary, holistic theology, Torrance asserts an intrinsic, internal connection between the incarnation and the atonement. For Torrance, the incarnate Son is no mere agent of reconciliation; rather, Jesus Christ “embodies” atoning reconciliation in his incarnate constitution as God and humanity hypostatically united in reconciling, sanctifying union. Simply stated, atonement is not what Jesus “does”; it is what he “is.” For Torrance, there is an unbroken unity between the person and work of Jesus Christ; that is, the incarnation is inherently redemptive and redemption is inherently incarnational. The unitary connection Torrance sees between the incarnation and the atonement is heavily dependent upon his controversial assertion of the assumption of “fallen” human nature in the incarnation. In contradistinction to the “Latin heresy,” that is, the view that the eternal Word assumed “neutral” human flesh as it existed in its perfect state before the Fall in order to offer it as an instrument in an “external” juridical transaction with the Father, Torrance supports the Patristic assertion that the “unassumed is the unhealed,” arguing that Jesus Christ had to assume Adamic nature in order to penetrate to the ontological roots of our fallen humanity in order to bend the rebellious human mind and will back to God in reconciling union. For Torrance, the hypostatic union is not merely a static union; it is a dynamic atoning union, wherein the actual condition of human estrangement is brought into reconciling, sanctifying union with God.

Torrance further articulates the intrinsic connection between incarnation and atoning reconciliation in terms of Calvin’s “wonderful exchange,” wherein Christ takes our poverty in order to give us his riches, and in the Patristic doctrine of theopoiesis, wherein Christ becomes what we are that we might become what he is. For Torrance, the atoning exchange “is” incarnational redemption, and incarnational redemption “is” atoning exchange, all worked out in the one person of the incarnate Son of God within the ontological depths of fallen humanity. An important aspect of the wonderful exchange between Jesus Christ and humanity concerns the reception of the Holy Spirit. All who partake of the nature of Adam are implicated in the Spirit’s descent upon the incarnate Son in the Jordan River. This has profound implications for the “range” of the atoning exchange. The range of atoning reconciliation is anchored in the nature of God, whom scripture describes as “love.” Because the love of God is unlimited and inexhaustible, argues Torrance, to limit the range of atonement is to introduce a limitation in the nature of God. Because the incarnate Son, the eternal Logos, in whom all humanity coheres and the very one “by” whom and “through” whom all things are created and “in” whom all things consist, has united himself to creation, all things, including all human beings without exception, are ontologically bound up in the incarnate reality of Jesus Christ, and are, in a profound sense, already redeemed, resurrected, and consecrated for the glory of God.

The universal range of atoning reconciliation bears directly on Torrance’s doctrine of election. Torrance’s rejects the Calvinist predilection for locating predestination or election in an inscrutable decree of God hidden in eternity past. For Torrance, Jesus Christ “is” the eternal word or decree of God. To detach election from the incarnation makes election precede grace and implies a higher will in God than the grace revealed in Jesus Christ. While Torrance rejects the traditional Calvinist doctrine of predestination, with its logical corollary of limited atonement, Torrance is no universalist. Notwithstanding the boundless nature of the atoning exchange, Torrance develops a doctrine of reprobation. In contradistinction to a doctrine of double predestination, he argues that reprobation is not the result of a divine decree but, rather, of the reprobate’s free but inexplicable decision to reject the reconciliation Christ has already provided for all.

An additional corollary to Torrance’s doctrine of the hypostatic union is his doctrine of the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ. Emphasising the humanward-Godward aspect of the unitary movement of atoning reconciliation, this doctrine asserts that, as God and man joined in hypostatic union, Jesus acts from within the depths of the fallen humanity he assumed in the incarnation to offer to the Father the perfect response of faith and obedience on behalf of, and in place of, all. This vicarious response includes not only Jesus’ passive obedience on the cross but also the entirety of his active obedience offered to the Father throughout the whole course of his life. The key to this doctrine is found in Galatians 2:20, where Torrance translates pistis christou as a subjective genitive to assert that we live by the faith “of” Jesus Christ. This passage functions in a hermeneutical manner to provide a significant point of access for understanding Torrance’s theological vision of conversion, worship and prayer, the sacraments, and evangelism. In all these important aspects of discipleship, Jesus acts as both representative and substitute, offering to the Father perfect faith, obedience, worship, and prayer on behalf of, and in place of, all. Jesus’ response on our behalf, however, does not undermine our own response, but, rather, undergirds it as he takes our feeble efforts and unites them with his own self-offering to the Father. The sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist are visible forms of the Church’s participation in the self-offering and ongoing priesthood of Jesus Christ. Each sacrament finds its meaning, not in the rite itself, but in the objective reality underlying it, that is, the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ and his self-offering to the Father. When the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ is emphasised in preaching the Gospel, evangelism becomes an invitation for hearers to become what they are, that is, to participate actively in the reality of the salvation that is already theirs in Jesus Christ.

Finally, Torrance models his understanding of the “movement” of grace in redemption on the “logic” of grace in the anhypostasis-enhypostasis couplet. Transcending monergistic and synergistic views of the relationship between divine and human agency, Torrance asserts that “all of grace includes all of man.”