A.S. Radcliff: The Claim of Humanity in Christ (in the Torrance tradition), Post 12

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.

With this post, we begin to explore Radcliff’s excellent contribution in regard to the place of personal response in the soteriology of the Torrance tradition, the ministry of the Spirit, and the nature of sanctification.

Radcliff cites several critics who argue that the Torrances’ assertion that all humanity is included in the vicarious humanity of Jesus undermines the subjective aspect of union by the Spirit. The critics insist that no one is justified accept by (personal) faith “in” Jesus. In other words, until a person believes, they are not justified. This is, of course, contrary to the Torrance tradition, where all are justified in the incarnation and life of Jesus Christ.

As she often does in this book, Radcliff counters that the insistence on “personal faith in Jesus” throws us back upon ourselves for salvation. Torrance sees this problem in the entire Westminster theology (of conservative Calvinism), where “the main focus of attention is upon man’s appropriation of salvation through justifying faith.” The Westminster tradition is concerned with man’s action, man’s faith, man’s duty toward God.

One Union in Two Relations

As Radcliff notes, there is only one “union” with Christ; that is, humanity is objectively united to Jesus via the incarnation (hypostatic union), wherein the eternal Word, who created all things and in whom “we live and move and exist” (NLT) assumes fallen humanity and unites it forever to his divinity (while purifying and cleansing our fallen flesh throughout his incarnate life).

Comment: The doctrine of the “hypostatic union,” formulated at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D., asserts that Jesus Christ is “one person in two natures” (divine and human). As the Torrances assert, the union of divinity and humanity in the incarnation of Jesus Christ is an atoning union, wherein all humanity is reconciled to God in Jesus. In short, all are included in the incarnation.

Now let’s go back and bring in some material from Chapter 1 of Radcliff’s book. Quoting TF Torrance:

“[T]here is only one union with Christ, that which he 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 the Holy Spirit.”

In other words, “union with Christ” is effected in the incarnation (hypostatic union), as lived out through the whole course of the Son’s obedience to the Father. For Torrance, any notion of “two” unions could present God’s grace as conditional and throw us back upon ourselves to accomplish the spiritual union. For Torrance, the spiritual union is not additional to the union with all humanity effected in the incarnation (hypostatic union). There is only one union, where the spiritual union is understood as a “participation” in the one union established in the incarnation. According to TFT, “If the spiritual union is an additional union, then our salvation depends not only on 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.”

Comment: In view of his persistent resistance to dualisms of all kinds, TF Torrance does not assert a separation between the work of the Son and the work of the Spirit. While the “work” of the persons of the Trinity can be distinguished, they cannot be separated. As Augustine argues, “the works of the Trinity in the history of salvation are undivided” (opera trinitatis ad extra indivisa sunt).

Nevertheless, the one objective union with Christ achieved in the incarnation has two aspects, expressed in two “relations.” There is an ontological “relation” to Christ and a pneumatological “relation” to Christ. Note that we are describing two “relations,” not two “unions.” Again, there is only one “union.” Our ontological union, accomplished for all humanity in the incarnation (hypostatic union) is a fait accompli. It cannot be undone. “However,” as Radcliff rightly notes, “we can live in ignorance or denial of this or we can live in agreement with it and enjoy its reality.” For the Torrances, it is the role of the Spirit to open us up within our subjectivities for Christ, so that we live out of ourselves and in him. Humanity’s objective union with Christ, established in the incarnate life of Jesus, is subjectively (“personally”) actualized in us by the Spirit.

Therefore, we must hold two things together, as J.B. Torrance argues:

First, he [Jesus] has already taken our humanity into the Holy of Holies, the presence of the Father in his own person. Second, he comes to us today by the Holy Spirit to take us with him into the Holiest of All.

JB may seem a little confusing here. What does he mean, Jesus has already taken humanity into the Most Holy Place, yet he comes today by the Spirit to take us in?

As Radcliff notes, JB Torrance (following Calvin) identifies three “moments” of the one work of salvation. First is the “eternal moment.” This is the moment in eternity past when the Father determined to include humanity in his love. Second is the “historical moment,” two thousand years ago when Christ lived and died and was raised again for us and for our salvation. Third is the “moment of [personal] experience,” when the Holy Spirit unites us to Christ and brings us to personal faith and repentance.

Trinitarian Pattern
(this is my chart, not Radcliff’s)

Father	Eternal moment	determines all for life and love
Son	Historical moment	objective relation of union: Jesus unites all humanity to himself in the incarnation.
Spirit	Experiential moment	Subjective relation of union: Spirit subjectively actualizes in us what has been objectively accomplished in Jesus.

While there are three “moments” of salvation, there is only one union with Christ. However, the one “union” is expressed in two “relations”: ontological and pneumatological. This “unity in distinction” (“one union in two relations”) allows for only one work of salvation, so that we are not thrown back upon ourselves to achieve salvation by a subsequent effort of sanctification. At the same time, this approach posits a distinction between ontological and pneumatological “relations,” so that union with Christ is not collapsed into the hypostatic union with no room left for the work of the Spirit in us personally.

Radcliff continues:

We are in ontological relation to Christ because of his incarnation [hypostatic union] and vicarious humanity. However, an ontological relation alone leads to universalism. J.B. believes that universalism is precluded by the New Testament call for a human response of faith in the Spirit.

In that regard, J.B. Torrance writes:

On the grounds of our ontological relation to Christ, our Second Adam, we are called through the Holy Spirit into union with Him. Without Pentecost and without the sealing of the Holy Spirit in faith, we cannot regard ourselves as members of Christ’s Body and partakers of His blessings.

Contra numerous critics, the Torrances are not universalists. TF Torrance’s assertion of one “union” expressed in two “relations” precludes universalism, for it leaves room for a distinct (not separate) pneumatological relation, wherein the objective union accomplished in Jesus (hypostatic union) is actualized in us personally by the Spirit. Thus, we can say all are objectively included in Jesus via the hypostatic union (“incarnation”) but not all participate until the objective union is subjectively actualized in the individual believer by the ministry of the Spirit.

Comment: Given the one union with Christ that is expressed in two relations (unity in distinction), we have included everyone in Jesus, via the incarnation, while allowing for the actualization of the personal response of faith by the Spirit in order to experience our inclusion. Thus, the spiritual union is  not  collapsed into the hypostatic union. At the same time, there is no dualism (“separation”) between the work of the Son and the work of the Spirit. Both the Son and the Spirit play distinct but not separate roles in the one unitary work of salvation. This is good Trinitarian theology. Union is birthed in the Father’s heart, historically actualized in Jesus and subjectively realized in us by the Spirit.

In regard to one union in two relations, Radcliff quotes Dearborn, who argues that salvation is onto-relational. This is a beautiful concept that we do well to understand. “Onto-relations” are what Torrance calls “being-constituting” relations. In other words, “onto-relations” make us “who we are.” Contra Newton, entities exist not as isolated particles but in webs of relationships, where the relations themselves constitute the “being” of the realities in question. In human terms, our identities as “persons” are determined not only by our existence as distinct individuals but also by the relationships in which we live and move. That is to say, our identity as persons is determined as much by our relationships as it is by our genetics. We are not created to exist as isolated “individuals.” We are created for relationship with God and neighbour. To be human is to be persons-in-relationship.

An onto-relational view of salvation ascribes significance both to the objective ontological transformation of our humanity in Jesus as well as the subjective participation in that transformation by the Spirit. In other words, salvation is not automatic and impersonal, as it would be if it were accomplished solely in the incarnation absent a distinct personalizing work of the Spirit. Nor is it solely relational, as if it were merely an extrinsic encounter through “personal faith” without an ontological transformation of our humanity. In short, salvation is onto-relational because it involves an ontological transformation of our humanity in the incarnation that is realized in each us personally through our relationship to Christ in the Spirit.

Comment: OK. Let me conclude this post with a brief discussion of an issue that troubled (past tense) me for many years. With the Torrances, and Reformed theology in general, I agree that an autonomous response of faith to Jesus is impossible for those who are dead in trespasses and sins. Thus, we can only participate in our salvation by the ministry of the Spirit. No one participates in the objective reality of our union with Christ apart from the work of the Spirit.

Here’s my dilemma, or, at least what used to be my dilemma. Why does the Spirit work in John but not in Mary? Why does the Spirit call John to participate but not Mary? According to the conservative Calvinists, it is because John is “elect” and Mary is toast. According to the Arminians, it is because God foreknew that John would believe and Mary would not. So God zaps John with the Spirit but not Mary. In either of these two scenarios, it ain’t lookin’ good for Mary!

After years of struggle with this issue, I have transcended both viewpoints and entered the happy hunting ground of trans-denominationalism. Today I believe that the Spirit has been poured out on all flesh, as the New Testament indicates. Of course, I do not know all the practical implications of that. I simply believe that the Spirit is drawing all to Jesus in a way that I do not understand and certainly do not see when I watch the evening news. But I firmly believe that God wants all to be saved and none to perish. Thus, in regard to Mary, who has not yet been properly zapped by the Spirit, so that she may experience and enjoy her inclusion, I can only conclude, that, in the eloquent words of fellow blogger, Ted Johnson, the Spirit will bring in Mary “in his own perfect time.” For now, that works for me, and it is markedly better than the Calvinist or Arminian positions.

***

For more on the hypostatic union, click here.

For a related post on the “wonderful exchange,” click here.

For more on Torrance’s critic of universalism, click here. 

T.F. Torrance: The Goodness and Dignity of Man, pt. 3

Summary and Critique

As Calvin famously argues at the beginning of his Institutes, in order to know ourselves, we must first know God. In arguing that the imago dei (“image of God”) is a “created correspondence” to the “uncreated relations” in the Holy Trinity, Torrance illumines our understanding of ourselves. Since the One God of the Christian faith is Father, Son and Holy Spirit―three distinct “persons-in-relation”―then to be a human being created in the image of God is to be a “person-in-relation.” Contrary to the Western spirit of individualism and self-reliance, to be a human person is to exist in nexuses of relations that are integral to our identities.[1] Our primary “being-constituting”[2] relation is our vertical relationship with God, realised and actualised in the spirit-Spirit relationship made possible by the vicarious humanity of Jesus, in and through whom the Holy Spirit has become “accustomed” to dwelling in humanity (Irenaeus). Our secondary “being-constituting” relation is our horizontal relation with neighbour. Hence, marriage, family, tribe, church and society form an ever-widening network of relationships that are constitutive aspects of our identities as persons. As the poet said, “No man is an island.” To be a “person” created in the image of God is to live and move and have our being in relationships. [3]

Torrance’s argument that the God-human relationship is the primary “being-constituting” relation in which humanity exists has important implications for the doctrine of sin. Given that the imago dei is constituted in relationship, “sin” cannot be construed merely in terms of the violation of a moral code. Rather, sin must be viewed primarily in terms of the breach of our vertical relationship with God[4] and secondarily in terms of a breach of our horizontal relationship with other. This view is supported by Christ’s great commandment to love God and neighbour (Matt 22:37-40). Hence, rather than view sin in “legal” terms, it must be viewed as “alienation” and “estrangement” from God and neighbour.[5]

            Finally, Torrance’s argument for the goodness and dignity of man is a welcome relief to the Augustinian-Calvinist emphasis on “total depravity.” Torrance’s develops his anthropology not from Adam but from the Second Adam; that is, he locates the goodness and dignity of man in the humanity of Jesus Christ. Torrance emphasises the biblical teaching that man is created “good”[6] and, given the price paid for his redemption, is of infinite worth in the sight of God. For Torrance, sin is not intrinsic to our nature; it is, rather, a “contradiction” of our good creation, whose origin is inexplicable.[7] In keeping with the Reformed tradition, Torrance upholds the importance of grace, articulated in terms of God’s steadfast refusal to let man go, regardless of the depth of the contradiction into which he has fallen.

---

[1] This is not to suggest that our individual identities and unique personalities are unimportant. In contrast to eastern religions, where individual identity is ultimately dissolved into union with the cosmic “One,” a trinitarian view of relationship acknowledges both the importance of the individual and the nexuses of relations in which he or she exists. Father, Son and Spirit are distinct (not identical) persons “in relationship.”

[2] Torrance refers to these “being-constituting” relations as “onto-relations.”

[3] While the “social” or “interpersonal” Being of the Holy Trinity may have innumerable implications for human relationships, care must be taken in making comparisons between the intradivine relations of the Trinity and human relationships. For example, the “mutual indwelling” of the Father, Son and Spirit has no analogue in human relations. God is God and we are not. Cf. Tanner, K. 2001. Jesus, Humanity and the Trinity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, pp. 82-3.

[4] Cf. Psalm 51:4: “Against You and You only have I sinned.”

[5] A corollary to this view of sin is an emphasis on atonement as reconciliation rather than penal substitution.

[6] Cf. Gen 1:31.

[7] Karl Barth described sin as an “impossible possibility.”

T.F. Torrance: The Goodness and Dignity of Man, pt. 2

The Christian Tradition

The decisive factor and controlling centre of the Christian tradition is Jesus Christ. In his incarnate constitution as God and humanity joined in reconciling union, “the ground and goal of the Covenant and of the whole creation have been embodied within actual human existence.” Thus, the real truth of human nature is to be found in Jesus Christ and in him alone. In Jesus, God’s affirmation of man as “good” is fully realized. Torrance writes:

Jesus Christ is the Word by whom, for whom, and in whom we have been created in the image of God, so that in his Incarnation as Immanuel, God with us and for us and in us, he is the secret of our creation and redemption―in him we may now penetrate through all the distortion, depravity and degradation of humanity to the true nature of man hidden beneath it all.[1]

At the cross, the truth of man’s sin and guilt is exposed and judged; at the same time, God’s infinite love for man is revealed, so that the true worth of humanity is disclosed as the object of God’s sacrificial love. In the humanity of the incarnate Son of God, we find the truth that for man to live in union with God is to become fully and perfectly human. Thus, the evil and wickedness of man has nothing to do with his creaturely nature as such, but rather is a “perversion” and “corruption” of his nature as a result of rebellion against the creative source of his being.[2]
              Torrance’s particular concern is to show what the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, along with God’s forgiveness of human sin, have to tell us about the real goodness and dignity of man.

(1). For Torrance, the cross is a window into the heart of God. Jesus Christ is God incarnate, God himself come to be one of us and make our lost cause his own. Against a neo-Platonic dualism that asserts that Christ suffered in his humanity but not in his divinity,[3] we must think of God as directly present in the suffering of Christ on the cross. We must look beyond the passion of Jesus all the way to the passion of the Father, who suffered alongside his Son. [4] As Torrance argues, “The self-abnegating Love of God the Father is surely the supreme truth that lies behind everything else in the Gospel, and gives it its decisive meaning and redemptive power.” Because God forgives our sin at infinite cost to himself in the sacrifice of his Son, the cross proves that God loves us more than he loves himself. The infinite price God has freely chosen to pay in order to share his life with humanity attests to the immeasurable worth and infinite value that God puts upon man. Hence, we are unable to set any limits on the worth of our fellow human beings.

(2). Jesus Christ, the Eternal Word of God, has become Man. In the incarnation, the creative ground and source of our human being has entered the actualities of human existence. By taking upon himself our fallen Adamic flesh, he has healed the dehumanising breach between God and humanity, for he is the perfect man in whom there is no ontological split between what he ought to be and what he is. If to be truly human is to live in fellowship with God, then Jesus, the obedient Son who lives in perfect filial relation with the Father, is the one human being who truly reflects the image and likeness of God. Moreover, because the fully divine Son of God has assumed our actual fallen human nature in the incarnation, notes Torrance, “it is in the human being and nature of Jesus that the true nature and dignity of man are ultimately disclosed and established.” Because he is the Creator Word in whom God and humanity are indivisibly united in his incarnate Person, “the humanity of every man, whether he knows it or not, whether he believes it or not, is ontologically bound up with the humanity of Jesus.” This is precisely how God makes good his original claim at creation that man is made “good,” notes Torrance, for Jesus himself is “the true secret of the nature of every human being.” Because he is both the image and the Reality of God, who has taken our fallen humanity to himself, it is by reference to Jesus that we must now think of man as created “in the image of God.” Even though it may be hidden or distorted by sin, the image of God in man nevertheless remains, sealed in place by virtue of our ontological bond with Jesus Christ. Even if we cannot see it, Jesus acknowledges it in teaching that in our relations with our fellow human beings, we have ultimately to do with him and, therefore, with God.[5]

Jesus Christ is “humanising Man” and “personalising Person.” He alone is fully and properly Man, “for in him the creative Source of human being and the perfect actualisation of human being are one.” He is the “fount” from which all that is truly human is derived. We, on the other hand, are “humanised” men and women, for we are not human by virtue of an innate “essence of humanity,” but only in virtue of what we receive from his humanity. Therefore, for us to be truly human is to be “in Christ.”

Likewise, Jesus Christ is “person” in the fullest sense, for, in him, the creative source of personal being and the one perfect human person are united. We, on the other hand, are “personalised persons,” for the source of our personhood lies not in ourselves but in union with Jesus Christ, through whom, by the power of the Holy Spirit, we participate in the communion of personal being of the Holy Trinity. Therefore, for us to be truly personal is to be “in Christ.”[6]

The humanising and personalising character of the incarnation must be understood in relation to the infinite self-abnegating love of God embodied in Jesus Christ, “who did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). In giving up his Son at infinite cost to himself, the Father has proven that he loves us unconditionally, without reserve, more than he loves himself. As Torrance argues, “That is the essential nature of his Divine Love which bears upon us in Jesus with all the compelling claims of God upon us and with the undiluted imperative that we love God …  [with all our heart, soul, mind] … and our neighbour as ourselves.” This is such a new kind of law, Torrance contends, that a new word, agape, had to be coined for it in the New Testament. As we reach out to the “objective other” in agape, we pass beyond ourselves to that place where the humanising and personalising power of Jesus Christ may be actualised in our daily lives. It is here, argues Torrance, that the real goodness and dignity of man is made manifest: in “loving others objectively for their sake, and being accounted as the object of such selfless love for our sake.”[7] 

The Communion of the Holy Spirit 

As already noted, the biblical tradition eschews a Platonic dualism in favour of a unitary anthropology, where man is body of his mind and mind of his body. Hence, the “spirit” in man, by which he is related to God, is not a “third” thing but rather a “dynamic correlate” to the Holy Spirit, by whose power man is sustained in his distinctive existence in relation to other human beings. While transcendent and wholly Other, the Holy Spirit is free to be present to man, in order to make him open to God and bring him into fellowship with his Creator. While man has no inherent “continuity” with God,[8] he does have a relationship with God that is unceasingly sustained by the Holy Spirit, who acts both from the side of God and from the side of man, undergirding and upholding him in reciprocal relation to God. Thus, man is not to be understood from a centre in himself, but from above and beyond himself in his transcendent relation to God, as well as within the nexus of his interrelations with neighbour.

In order to further develop his argument for the goodness and dignity of man, Torrance turns to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the trinitarian concept of “person.”  The doctrine of the Trinity asserts that God is three distinct “Persons,” who eternally coexist in a communion or fellowship of love. In the Triune Godhead, notes Torrance, the relations of love between Father, Son and Spirit are “personal relations subsisting in One Being.” That is, “the relations of Love between the Persons of the Holy Trinity belong essentially to what the Divine Persons are.” Noting that the trinitarian concept of “Persons” in the Godhead gave rise to the Western concept of “person,” Torrance argues that God created human beings to reflect on a creaturely level the inter-personal relations of God himself. As the interrelations between the divine Persons are essential to their distinct identities as Father, Son and Spirit, so also on the human level the relations between persons belong to what persons really are. In other words, to be a human “person” is not to be an isolated “individual” but is to be a “person-in-relation,” for relationship is integral to what a person is.

The trinitarian concept of “person” illumines our understanding of the humanising and personalising impact of Jesus on human nature. As the love that God is belongs to the inner personal relations of the Trinity, “love” belongs to the “essential equation of the personal” at the human level. Yet, this is love in a “profound ontological sense” that derives from the Holy Spirit―the love between persons that belongs to what personal beings actually are. According to Torrance, the Spirit dwells in our hearts and floods them with the love that God is; thus, as he is the “bond of Oneness” in the Trinity, he “may” also be the bond of unity, love and intensely personal relations among us.[9] “It is thus that in our frail contingent human nature,” argues Torrance, “we may even be ‘partakers of the Divine Nature’ as through the Communion of the Holy Spirit we are allowed to share in the very Love that God himself is.”

The intimate indwelling of the Holy Spirit is made possible only through Jesus Christ, the one Mediator between God and man. [10] In assuming our sinful human flesh, Jesus made himself one with us, taking our lost and damned condition to himself in atoning exchange, so that we might be restored to communion with the Father. By making himself the “dwelling place” of the Spirit, mediating within our fallen human existence the divine presence and power of God, Jesus has healed the “ontological tension” that sin has created between God and fallen humanity. The New Testament refers to this “new spiritual and ontological condition” as being “in Christ,” or “in the Spirit.” While this is true “in a distinctive and intimate way only of those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour,” notes Torrance, it has a wider application. As all humans are ontologically dependent upon Jesus Christ, so also all humans―regardless of whether they know it or believe it―are ontologically dependent upon the immanent presence of the Holy Spirit, who has been poured out on all flesh (cf. Acts 2:17). Torrance continues:

While we cannot understand all that this being-constituting relation of the Spirit of God to man involves for one who is “without Christ,” it certainly means for a man “in Christ” that his human nature as body of his mind and mind of his body is affirmed with a spiritual wholeness and a new ontological interrelation with others that transcends his original creation, for now he exists not just alongside of the Creator, but in such a way that his human being is anchored in the very Being of God.  

Torrance sums up his argument for the goodness and dignity of man by restating the pivotal importance of the incarnation, where the eternal purpose of God is gathered up in Jesus Christ. In the incarnation, notes Torrance, “our human nature has been taken up in Jesus to the top and summit of being, and that with him and in him man has been located in the very centre of all things!” In lieu of a dualism between the physical and spiritual realms, the incarnation shows that, despite the contradiction introduced by sin and evil, God and man are forever one in Jesus Christ and, through the cross, all things in heaven and earth are reconciled to God (2Cor 5:19). In the incarnation, creation and redemption are perfectly integrated; the original relation between the covenant and the creation has been reaffirmed by God, so that the entire universe is redeemed, sanctified and renewed in Jesus Christ. Man’s role is to serve the purpose of God’s love in the ongoing actualisation of redemption, sanctification and renewal in the universe, as a kind of “midwife” to creation, assisting nature out of its divinely given abundance to ever bring forth new forms of life and richer patterns of order. Torrance concludes:

Indeed as the covenant partner of Jesus Christ man may be regarded as the priest of creation, through whose service as a man of faith and a man of science the marvellous rationality, symmetry, harmony and beauty of God’s creation are being brought to light and given expression in such a way that the whole universe is found to be a glorious hymn to the Creator.

---

[1] Note that Torrance distinguishes between “depravity” and the “true nature” of man.

[2] For Torrance, sin and evil are “perversions” of our nature. Contrast this with the NIV translation of Romans 7:18, 25, as “sinful nature,” a translation that is subject to criticism.

[3] This particularly dualism, all too common in the Patristic era, was based on the radical separation of the divine and material in Platonic thought.

[4] Torrance does not fall into the heresy of patripassianism by asserting that the Father was crucified; rather, he refutes both a dualism between the divine and human natures of Jesus, as well as between the Father and the Son.

[5] Cf. Acts 9:4: “Saul, Saul; Why are you persecuting Me?”

[6] Torrance quotes John 1:16: “And from his fullness have we all received, grace upon grace.”

[7] According to Torrance, this is why John focuses so much attention in his Epistles on the “new” commandment, where we are to love others with the very love with which we ourselves are loved by God in his self-giving at the cross.

[8] Contra gnostic emanationism and “New Age” pantheism.

[9] Torrance’s description of the Spirit as the “bond of Oneness” in the Trinity is similar to Augustine’s description of the Spirit as the “bond of love” between the Father and the Son. Augustine’s description is useful so long as it is not taken to depersonalize the Spirit.

[10] In regard to the Spirit’s relation to man, Torrance notes that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son, and that he is mediated to humanity through the person and work of the incarnate Son. The Holy Spirit is the personal presence of God to man, actualising knowledge of God within him and creating in him the capacity to respond to God’s Word. Coming from the inner communion of love in the heart of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit brings man’s human relations to their true end through his “inter-personal” mode of presence to man, effecting a communion of love between God and humanity.

 

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