T.F. Torrance: The Communion of the Spirit, pt. 1

Reference

Torrance, T.F. 1959. The School of Faith: The Catechisms of the Reformed Church. London: James Clark & Co. 298 pp.

For Torrance, the Reformed doctrine of “communion of the Spirit” is better understood as “union with Christ through the Communion of the Spirit.” The combination of “union with Christ” and “the communion of the Spirit” lies at the foundation of the Church’s hope and forms the heart of its eschatology (p. cvi).

According to Torrance, the communion of the Spirit is a correlate of the union of God and humanity wrought out in the life and work of Jesus Christ. The Spirit actualizes subjectively in the life of God’s people what has been accomplished objectively for them once and for all in the incarnation of Jesus Christ. As Torrance notes, “Because the Communion of the Spirit is correlative to the incarnational union in Christ, we have to think of it as two-fold in relation to the human life and the work of Christ” (p. cvi). In keeping with his resistance to dualisms, Torrance describes a “unity-in-distinction,” where “union with Christ” and “communion of the Spirit” are not two, separate realities but, rather, distinct aspects of a single reality.

Torrance interacts with 16^th-Century theologian John Craig to explicate the correlation between union with Christ and the communion of the Spirit. In his Catechism of 1581, Craig asserts both a carnal union and a spiritual union with Christ. “Carnal union” refers to “Christ’s union with us and our union with Christ which He wrought out in his birth of the Spirit and in His human life through which He sanctifies us is worked out for us.”  Craig’s carnal union appears to be equivalent to the hypostatic union of the Eternal Word and humanity (i.e., the incarnation), as worked out in the obedient life of Jesus Christ. Because Christ was “made man like us,” notes Craig, “life and righteousness are placed in our flesh.” Craig argues that “those who are joined with Him spiritually” are sure of this life (School of Faith, pp. cvi, cvii).

Craig’s assertion of what appears to be two unions, “carnal” and “spiritual,” raises an important question for Torrance:

Is the spiritual union another union, a union in addition to our carnal union with Christ, or is it a sharing in the one and only union between God and man wrought out in Jesus Christ? That is a very important question, for if the spiritual union is an additional union, then our salvation depends not only  upon the finished work of Christ but upon something else as well which has later to be added on to it before it is real for us (p. cvii).

Torrance argues that in both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism “something else,” in fact, is added to the union with Christ accomplished in the incarnation. In Catholicism, union with Christ is effected through baptismal generation and participation in the sacraments (including penance). In Protestantism, notes Torrance, “union with Christ … is effected by faith or by conversion through which alone what Christ has done becomes real for us.” For example, in the Westminster tradition of Federal Calvinism, man is said to acquire “a saving interest” in Christ through entering into a personal covenant with him. As Torrance notes, “Both these forms of the same error lead to a doctrine of man’s co-operation in his own salvation; and so involve a doctrine of conditional grace.” Therefore, argues Torrance, “[I]t must be insisted that there is only one union with Christ, that which He has wrought out with us in His birth and life and death and resurrection and in which He gives us to share through the gift of His Spirit” (p. cvii; emphasis added).

Comment: For Torrance, there is one union of Christ constituted in two relations: ontological and pneumatological.

For Torrance, “carnal union,” as described by Craig, includes Christ’s entire “life and work of saving obedience, so that when we speak of a spiritual union with Christ, that means that through the Spirit we are given to share in the covenanted obedience of Christ …” In this view, the Spirit’s work is not additional to the work of Christ but rather is the means by which we participate, or share, in the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ. Torrance argues:

In his obedient human life, Jesus Christ was not only the Son of God drawing near to us in the flesh, but in and out of our flesh he lived a life of perfect obedience and trust and confidence toward God the Father, a perfectly faithful life, in which his obedience and faith toward God were part of his vicarious and atoning life, part of his sanctified human nature. It is in that very human nature, with its faith and obedience, that we are given to participate through the Communion of the Spirit, and that is the very foundation of our faith in Him and the ground of our obedience to the Father” (pp. cviii, cix).

For Torrance, in view of Christ’s vicarious faith, we are not saved “by the act of believing.” Rather, it is Christ’s own act of believing that saves us. In other words, contra evangelicalism, it is not faith “in” Christ that saves us; rather, it is the faith “of” Christ that saves us. For Torrance, we cannot talk seriously about “justifying faith” as a condition of our salvation, for we rely “wholly upon the vicarious faith of Christ and not upon ourselves even in the act of faith.” It is only as we rely on the vicarious faith of Christ that we are truly free to believe without the “ulterior motive of using faith to secure our salvation” (p. cix). This last point is important, for if faith is exercised solely to avoid punishment, or even “hell,” then personal faith is not an outwardly turned assent to the Father’s love, as revealed in Jesus, but merely an inwardly turned attempt at self-preservation. For Torrance, faith must rest on “thanksgiving” for all that Christ has done for us, both from the side of God and from the side of man.

Jesus is Justification

There are a number of implications of Torrance’s view of union with Christ as a fait accompli effected in the incarnation. First, it is through participating in Christ that we partake of his benefits, “for unless He gives Himself to us first [in the incarnation], His blessings are not ours,” notes Torrance (p. cx). In simpler terms, this means that we cannot separate the work of Christ from his person. Thus, justification is fully accomplished in the union between God and humanity actualized in the incarnation of Jesus Christ. As Torrance argues, “[I]t was through his becoming one with us first in his Incarnation that Christ wrought our justification for us.” In other words, Jesus is our justification. Since all are included in the humanity assumed by the Eternal Word in the incarnation, all are justified (i.e., “made right”) with God in Jesus. Justification is not effected by a subsequent act of personal faith “in” Jesus, but by the vicarious faith “of” Jesus, as lived throughout the whole course of his incarnate life. Thus, we can confidently assert that all humanity was “made right” (i.e., “justified”) with God “in Jesus” two thousand years ago.

As Torrance notes, however, the Westminster theology (of conservative Calvinism) reverses matters by insisting first on justification and “justifying faith” prior to entering into union with Christ. Torrance insists that this changes the meaning of both justification and faith (so that justification is conceived in strict legal terms of “imputed” righteousness, rather than in ontological terms of being “made righteous”), while making the existential (personal) decision of faith uppermost. In this view, a judicial (legal) and cognitive relation displaces the Communion of the Spirit. Torrance notes that the priority given to justification as a “forensic” (legal) act displaced the central importance of the doctrine of union with Christ in post-Reformation Protestantism (p. cxi)

The Range of the Spirit’s Ministry

Another important implication of Torrance’s doctrine of union with Christ concerns the “range” or “scope” of the Spirit’s ministry. Does union with Christ include all people, or only the “elect” (narrowly defined)? As Torrance notes, this is of fundamental importance to the doctrine of the Spirit. The matter at stake concerns the biblical teaching that the Spirit has been “poured out on all flesh” (Acts 2:17). The interpretation of this passage depends upon how one understands the doctrine of union with Christ. If all are included in the union established between God and humanity in the incarnate Jesus, then we must conclude that the range of the Spirit’s ministry is universal; that is, it includes all humanity. On the other hand, if only the “elect,” or only those who have  made a personal decision of faith “in” Christ, are in union with God, then the range or scope of the Spirit’s activity is limited rather than universal. Our understanding of the range of the Spirit’s ministry depends upon our understanding of the incarnation. Did the Eternal Word enter into a generic relationship with humanity simply by becoming one particular man (so that his humanity has no transforming relation with our humanity), or did the Eternal Word enter into an ontological relation with all humanity in the assumption of our human flesh?

To answer these questions, Torrance reminds us that the Eternal Word who assumed human flesh from the Virgin Mary is “he in whom all men cohere for He is the Creator who gives them being and through His Spirit holds them in being.” Thus, there is an ontological relation between the Eternal Word and all humanity As Torrance argues, “[T]he Son and Word of God became man by becoming one particular man, but because He is the Creator Word who became Man, even as the incarnate Word He still holds all men in an ontological relation to Himself. That relation was not broken off with the Incarnation” (p. cxii). The New Living Translation sums this up nicely: “in him we live and move and exist” (Acts 17:28). Torrance writes:

The Biblical teaching is quite explicit that in Christ all things are really involved in reconciliation, that He is not only the Head of believers but the Head of all creation and that all things visible and invisible are gathered up and cohere in him—from which we cannot exclude a relation in being between all men and Christ. … [A]s the Head of all men [Christ] died for all men, so that all men are involved already objectively in His human life and in His work in life and death, i.e. not 0nly on judicial and transactional grounds, but on the ground of the constitution of His Person as Mediator (p. cxiii).

Thus, human beings have no being apart from Christ as man. If Christ had not come, notes Torrance, that is, if the incarnation had not taken place, so that man’s estrangement with God were allowed to stand, humanity would disappear into nothing (cf. Barth’s das Nichtige, or the “not-ness.”). The incarnation, including the cross, affects all humanity, even the entire creation, so that creation itself  is set on a new basis with God, “the basis of a Love that does not withhold itself but only overflows in pure unending Love” (p. cxiv).

There is a sense, therefore, in which we must think of all humanity as “ingrafted” into Christ by virtue of his incarnation and atoning work (p. cxvii). It is in correlation to the universal inclusion of all humanity in Christ that we are to think of the range of the Spirit’s ministry. The hypostatic union, or what Craig’s Catechism calls the “carnal” union of God and humanity in Christ, establishes the “field” of the Spirit’s activity. Thus, we must take seriously the biblical assertion that the Spirit has been “poured out on all flesh” and operates on “all flesh.” In short, the hypostatic union of God and humanity in Jesus Christ establishes the field of the Spirit’s ministry, a field that is universal in scope.

A.S. Radcliff: The Claim of Humanity in Christ (in the Torrance tradition), Post 6

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.”

***

For more on ontological vs traditional views of atonement, see my post here.

For more on the “Latin Heresy,” see my post here.

Please enter your email to subscribe to this blog (see right hand column).

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

T.F. Torrance: The Womb of the Incarnation, pt. 1

Greetings everyone. Sorry to have been away so long, but I am going through a rough patch on my doctoral dissertation and will post as I can. I think you will really enjoy the following material. No doubt, it contains quite a few sermons waiting to be preached.

Introduction

The goal of Torrance’s scientific approach to theology is to investigate and to articulate the essential interrelations (i.e., “onto-relations”) embodied in our knowledge of God through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit. To that end, the mediation of Jesus Christ must be viewed, not in isolation, but within the dynamic field of interrelations that disclose his identity and mission, that is, within the context of his relationship to historical Israel and also within the context of the elemental forms that arise from his consubstantial relation with both God and humanity.

Axiomatic to Torrance’s interactionist, critical realist epistemology is the foundational tenet, grounded in faith in the authenticity of scripture, that God has acted in time and space, not only in the incarnation and the sending of the Spirit, but also in historical dialogue with ancient Israel, as recorded in the Old Testament. God’s historical interaction with Israel is the preparatory background for understanding the mediation of Jesus Christ. Torrance refers to the preparatory background of the mediation of Jesus Christ as the “womb” of the incarnation.

Old Testament Background

The incarnation of Jesus Christ did not occur in a historical or cultural vacuum; rather, the incarnation of the Son of God has a “prehistory” or background, traceable to the early chapters of Scripture, which must be considered if we are to understand the mediation of revelation and reconciliation in Jesus Christ (Torrance, 2008:37; cf. 1982:84).

In order to give a theological account of the divine purpose of creation and redemption, as fully revealed in Jesus Christ, Torrance turns to the Book of Genesis in order to develop a “prelude” to Heilsgeschichte (i.e., “salvation history”). As Torrance notes, God made human beings and placed them in an idyllic environment (Gen 2:7ff). As social creatures, male and female “in the unity of man,” created in the image of God, they were made for communion with God and fellowship with one another. The bond of fellowship between them and God, however, was broken by sin, for it is the nature of sin to disrupt and destroy relationship. In lieu of fellowship and communion, they now stood before God in “guilty fear.” Moreover, the man-woman relationship was implicated in the broken relationship with God. The fellowship between man and woman was impaired by guilt and shame, as symbolized in the mutual “hiddenness” of wearing clothes. With the bond of fellowship between them broken, argues Torrance, man and woman were “individualised,” so that each turned inward upon himself or herself.

Comment: Torrance’s insight here is of far-reaching significance. Note that sin has disrupted fellowship or community. If we rightly follow the Cappadocian fathers in asserting that to be a “person” is to be a “person-in-relation,” then Adam and Eve are no longer persons, for sin has disrupted the “communion”” between them and reduced them to isolated “individuals,” cut off from God, from each other, and as we shall see, from the earth. The contemporary western notion of the “individual” is fraught with problems, for it is devoid of the being-constituting (i.e., onto-relational) quality of “community.” Just as God is a community of persons, each distinct from the other yet existing in eternal unity, to be truly human means to live in relationship to God and other. In short, I cannot be truly who I am without you!

In addition, the integrity of the human self was broken in the knowledge of good and evil, creating an intrapsychic rupture between what the person is and what he or she ought to be. Once the “constitutive bond” between God and humanity was broken, notes Torrance, all other relationships suffered irreparable damage. When Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden, their relationship with the environment was impaired, and the way back to Eden was blocked by divine judgement. The man now existed in a state of tension with nature, earning his bread by the sweat of his brow among thorns and thistles, while the woman suffered in childbirth. In addition, broken fellowship with God extended into familial relationships, so that Cain slew his brother Abel (Torrance, 2008:38, 39).

According to Torrance, the theological narrative recorded in the Book of Genesis is not only a story of disrupted relationships and the “atomisation” of humanity, however; it is also the story of human attempts at “re-socialisation,” that is, heroic attempts to mend broken relations and heal the internal rupture that has produced the individualisation of humankind. The story of Babel (Gen 11:1ff) is the story of divided humanity’s attempt to bind itself together again by its own strength and power. But since all human attempts at self-healing involve fallen human nature, they merely provide a new orientation of sin to the broken relationship with God and foster the further disintegration of the self. As Torrance notes, “Mankind is unable to re-socialise itself, unable to heal its internal rupture for that which really makes man man is the bond between man and God” (Torrance, 2008:39).

In addition, Torrance describes a second “prelude” to Heilsgeschichte: that is, the story of God’s personal intervention in the plight of humanity. From the beginning the promise was made that the seed of the woman would bruise the serpent’s head (Gen 3:15), indicating that the solution to humanity’s predicament is the destruction of the power of evil and the recreation of the bond between God and humankind. “But,” as Torrance (2008:39, 40) argues,

if the first creation was the creation of man in the image of God, the recreation is through an act in which God condescends to take on himself the image of man. The whole movement of redemption adumbrated [foreshadowed, sketchily indicated] from the start is a movement of God coming to man in order to restore man to God, of God taking man’s place in order to give man God’s place—the principle of substitution and the principle of incarnation.

As is made clear in the story of Cain and Abel (Gen 4:1ff) and the story of Abraham’s offering of Isaac (Gen 22:1ff), the movement of redemption is entirely the way of grace. As Torrance (2008:40) argues, there are two ways by which humanity can be reconciled to God. The first is the way of Cain, wherein humanity offers to God the fruits of its own labour. This is “the way of man from man to God”: humanity provides its own offering, its own personal sacrifice.

Comment: The “first way” is the way of “religion,” that is, humanity’s attempt to please or appease God. Human efforts to please God vary as widely as sacrificing maidens in volcanos to ritual forms of penance.

The second is the way of Abel, wherein God provides the offering, the sacrifice of another. In sacrificing an animal to cover or atone for sin, as God did when he clothed Adam and Eve, Abel offered that which God himself had provided. Such is the case with Abraham, who offered his very best to God: his only son. Yet Abraham’s offering was displaced by God, who provided in place of Isaac a lamb for sacrifice. As Torrance notes, “Substitution and free grace are identical.” Cain’s way of approaching God ran counter to grace; his sacrifice was rejected even though it used the gifts provided by God. Abel’s way was accepted because it used God’s gracious provision. Torrance continues:

That adumbration of God’s way of redemption is worked out more fully with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It is the way in which God comes in pure grace to gather frail humanity into covenant and communion with himself, and even provides for man a covenanted way of response to God’s grace. Man responds by faith, but in faith relies upon a divinely provided way of approach and response to God in the covenant.

The “covenanted way of response” was the sacrificial system of law and liturgy that God unilaterally provided to Israel, so that it could respond to him as covenant partner and come before him forgiven, sanctified, and consecrated in its priestly mission to the world as mediator of revelation and reconciliation. The Old Testament goes on to unfold the way in which God’s reconciling purpose for all humanity began to be worked out in Israel, “in and through whom that purpose began to assume flesh and blood in history” (Torrance, 2008:40).

Comment: The second way of reconciliation is the way of grace, wherein God freely, sovereignly, and graciously provides on our behalf and in our place all that is needed for divine-human reconciliation. This is the way of grace, a way that is diametrically opposed to the way of “religion.”

References

Torrance, T.F. 1982. Reality and Evangelical Theology: The Realism of Christian Revelation. (Forward by K.A. Richardson, 1999). Downers Grove, IL: IVP. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster. 174 pp.

Torrance, T.F. 2008. Incarnation: The Person and Life of Christ (edited by R. Walker). Downers Grove: IVP. 371 pp.

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.”