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.
Universalism
The Torrance’s insistence on
the election of all in Christ and the universal range of atonement attracts the
criticism that this leads logically to universalism. Radcliff notes that some
have tried to avoid the notion of universalism by positing two “unions,” for
example, “carnal” union and “spiritual” union, as advocated centuries ago by
John Craig (see TFT’s “Introduction to The
School of Faith, pp. cvi ff.). In Craig’s view, everyone has a “carnal”
union with Christ by virtue of our common humanity, but only a few are united
by the Spirit to Christ and receive the benefits of this union.
TFT, however, perceives a
problem with distinguishing two “unions,” because this throws us back on our
own efforts to accomplish the spiritual union. Per 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.” Torrance insists 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 the Holy Spirit” (emphasis
mine). While this can cause confusion in relation to universalism, notes Radcliff,
for Torrance it is better to speak of one
union with Christ and not make distinctions that could lead to a misunderstanding
of conditional grace. (We will learn more about “distinctions” in the one “union
with Christ” in Chapter Three of Radcliff’s book.)
Comment: We see repeatedly in the Torrance
tradition an aversion to any doctrine that throws the burden of salvation back
upon our own shoulders. For the Torrances, salvation is a fait accompli in Jesus. There is nothing to add to the finished
work of Christ. Even our response, as already noted, contributes nothing to our salvation. (This is
definitely Reformed theology!)
Nevertheless, the Torrance’s reject
a doctrine of universalism in favor of a doctrine of “universal love.” For the
Torrances, notes Radcliff, “universal love” is the positive aspect of
universalism; it seeks to uphold the love of God in contrast to what TFT sees
in Federal theology to be a subordination of God’s universal love to an
over-arching rational, legal framework.
While asserting “universal
love, notes Radcliff, Torrance rejects universalism because it does not
recognize 1) the urgency of evangelism, 2) the reality of hell, 3) the
necessity of mission and 4) the irrational fact of sin. (This is good work on Radcliff’s
part.) For Torrance, universalism is flawed because of the awful and absurd
reality that the proclamation of the Gospel leads some to harden their hearts.
At the same time, TFT does not believe that God sends the “damned” to hell, nor
did God create the hell they experience.
In rejecting God’s love for all as revealed in Jesus, the “damned”
experience a hell of their own creation. According to TFT, “To say ‘No’ to
Jesus is to be held in a hell of one’s own choosing and making. It is not God
who makes hell, for hell is the contradiction of all that is God.”
For Torrance, the doctrine of
universalism attempts to rationalize the irrational mystery of sin and evil.
While we must uphold the doctrine of universal reconciliation, we cannot deny
“the terrible bottomless reality of sin.” Thus, “Whether all of humanity will
live reconciled with God is a mystery” (TFT).
Logico-causal categories
Critics of the Torrance
tradition, notes Radcliff, (usually conservative Calvinists), accuse the
Torrances of “logical incoherence,” “obfuscation,” and “irrationalism.” For
example, if the Torrance tradition “’logically” leads to universalism and, yet,
the Torrance’s deny universalism, are they not being “logically incoherent?”
For Letham, Torrance’s appeal to mystery appears to belittle the place of
logic. Radcliff quotes Letham in this regard:
It simply will not do to dismiss criticism on this
point by assertion that Torrance’s claims stem from a center in God and that
the critics have an uncrucified epistemology; this is to break down rational
discourse on the basis of a privileged and precious gnosis.
As Radcliff wisely notes,
this brings us to the crux of the debate. For the Torrance’s, the essential
problem with Federal theology is that human logical constructs are valued (no
doubt unwittingly, notes Radcliff) over God’s self-revelation in Christ. For
the Torrances, we cannot argue our way to truths about God; rather, we rely
wholly on God’s self-revelation in Christ. The Torrance tradition is guided by
the concern to look first to “Who” God is as revealed in Jesus and the Sprit in
order to understand “how” God acts in salvation history. That means, notes
Radcliff, that we must subordinate human rational discourse to what God reveals
of himself in Christ.
In the Torrance tradition,
the nature of the Object of study prescribes the manner in which it is known.
(This is a cardinal principle of TFT’s scientific theology). Therefore, contra
Letham and other critics, notes Radcliff, Torrance theology, controlled and
guided by its Object of study, is “profoundly internally coherent.”
***
Pleae enter your email to subscribe
to this blog (see right hand column).
For more on Torrance’s
scientific method of theology, where the method of study is controlled by the
nature of the Object of inquiry, see my journal article here.
For more on logical-causal
approaches to knowledge of God that have plagued Western Christianity, see my
post here.
Please consider a small
tax-deductible donation to AsiAfrica Ministries,
Inc. We are working hard to bring incarnational-trinitarian theology to
east Africa and south Asia. We could use some help! Click here . (Put “God for Us” in message area).
