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).

Ontological Healing vs. Traditional Views of Atonement

Important words: 
Hypostatic union: the union of divne and human natures in the one Person of Jesus.

Ontological: having to do with “being,” “essence,” “nature”; having to do with what something “is.”

Instrumental: used as a means to an end; used as a “tool” to accomplish a purpose 

When I began to study T.F. Torrance’s doctrine of the atonement, I was confused by his critique of traditional “theories” of atonement. For Torrance, the models of atonement that developed in the history of the Western Latin church portray the atonement as an “external,” “instrumental” transaction between Jesus and God. Following Barth, Torrance groups these models of atonement under the rubric, the “Latin heresy.” Only after I had gained some understanding of Torrance’s own view of the atonement, was I able to fully appreciate his critique of traditional models of atonement. 

In order to understand Torrance’s critique of the “Latin heresy” and what he means by “external,” “instrumental” approaches to the atonement, we must first review his own view of atonement and then compare it to traditional Western views of the atoning “work” of Jesus Christ.

Hypostatic Union 

Torrance’s doctrine of the atonement arises directly from his understanding of the doctrine of the “hypostatic union,” formulated at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. This doctrine asserts that Jesus Christ is “fully God” and “fully human” “in” one Person. For Torrance, the union of divine and human natures in the one person of Jesus Christ is an “atoning” union, where the word “at-one-ment” means “reconciliation.” That is, the incarnation itself is redemptive. In his one incarnate person, Jesus Christ is the reconciliation of God and fallen humanity. 

Unity of Person and Work 

In Torrance’s holistic, unitary [non-dualist] doctrine of atonement, the “work” of Jesus Christ is never separated from the “person” of Jesus Christ. For Torrance, “how” Jesus Christ provides atoning reconciliation is a direct function of “who” he is as the incarnate Saviour, who is at once both God and man. As Scandrett (2006:71) rightly notes, the unity of the “person” and “work” of Jesus Christ is an important corollary of Torrance’s discussion of the hypostatic union of divine and human natures in Jesus Christ. For Torrance, atoning reconciliation takes place “within” [not “external to”] the incarnate constitution of Jesus Christ; that is, Jesus Christ “is” the Gospel, for he “embodies” [“internal”] reconciliation between God and humanity. 

Assumption of Fallen Flesh 

The sine qua non of Torrance’s doctrine of “incarnational redemption” or “atoning reconciliation” is the Patristic doctrine that the eternal Word of God assumed fallen, sinful, Adamic flesh in the incarnation. Following Athanasius, in his Contra Arianos (Torrance, 1988a:161 n. 52), Torrance argues that in taking upon himself “the form of a servant” (Phil 2:7), Jesus Christ assumed “fallen Adamic humanity” from the Virgin Mary, that is, “our perverted, corrupt, degenerate, diseased human nature enslaved to sin and subject to death under the condemnation of God” (Torrance, 1988a:161; cf. 1994a:58). In becoming flesh, the Son of God “became what we are as sinners alienated from God and existing down to the roots of our being in a state of disobedience against him” (Torrance,1990:203). Elsewhere (1992:39) Torrance writes:

[T]he Incarnation was the coming of God to save us in the heart of our fallen and depraved humanity, where humanity is at its wickedest in its enmity and violence against the reconciling love of God. That is to say, the Incarnation is to be understood as the coming of God to take upon himself our fallen human nature, our actual human existence laden with sin and guilt, our humanity diseased in mind and soul in its estrangement or alienation from the Creator.  

As Gill (2007:53) notes, in his reconciling revelation, God put himself on the side of the enemy (cf. Barth, 1957g:151). In becoming flesh, the Son of God “became what we are as sinners alienated from God and existing down to the roots of our being in a state of disobedience against him” (Torrance,1990:203). Torrance continues:

[I]n his incarnation the Son of God penetrated into the dark recesses of our human existence and condition where we are enslaved in original sin, in order to bring the redeeming love and holiness of God to bear upon us in the distorted ontological depths of our human being. 

According to Torrance, the assumption of fallen human flesh was “a doctrine found everywhere in the early Church in the first five centuries” (Torrance, 1992:39). The Greek fathers argued that in becoming flesh, the incarnate Son was not merely “externally” or “accidentally” related to us, for without being united with us in “our condition of sin, corruption and slavery,” he could not save us (Torrance, 1990:202). According to Gill (2007:53) and Ho (2008:70), Torrance is directly influenced by Barth in asserting the assumption of fallen flesh. For Barth, as Gill notes, the word translated “flesh” in John 1:14 (i.e., sarx) means “fallen” flesh (Barth, 1957g:151, 152). Moreover, Gunton (1992:52) supports the “fallenness” position by arguing that Christ assumed our actual fallen nature and not some “idealised” human nature. As Gill (2007:55) correctly argues, the assumption of fallen flesh is “central” to Torrance’s doctrine of incarnational redemption. 

Ontological healing and Atoning Reconciliation 

In distinction to “forensic” [i.e., “legal,” “penal”] categories of the atonement (see below), Torrance frames his discussion of the atonement in ontological terms (i.e., having to do with “being,” “essence,” “nature”]. For Torrance (1990:204), it is important to realise that “in the very act of taking our fallen nature upon himself Christ was at work healing, redeeming and sanctifying it.” Thus, Torrance (1988a:162) views the incarnate Son’s assumption of fallen Adamic flesh as a “reconciling, healing, sanctifying and recreating activity.” Cass (2008:169) rightly describes Torrance’s soteriology as one of “ontological healing.” As Scandrett (2006:85) notes, Torrance’s argument for the assumption of a fallen human nature follows from his understanding of both the incarnation and the atonement. If the goal of the atonement is to heal humanity of sin and death and bring us back into right relationship with God, then the eternal Word must assume our fallen Adamic flesh in order to cleanse and heal it.  

Torrance’s assertion of the assumption of fallen Adamic flesh in order to heal and cleanse it in the hypostatic union of divine and human natures in Jesus Christ is based on the soteriological principle given “its most epigrammatic expression” by Gregory Nazianzus: “the unassumed is the unhealed.” The early fathers understood that if the whole man was to be healed, the whole man had to be assumed in the incarnation, for that which is not taken up by Christ is not saved (Torrance, 1992:39).

Summary: For Torrance, the incarnation is no mere “static” union of God and human flesh; rather, it is a dynamic healing, cleansing, reconciling, sanctifying union of God and humanity. The incarnation itself is redemptive; the union of divine and human natures in Jesus is atoning reconciliation. Atonement is not something Jesus “does,” as in traditional models of the atonement (see below). Rather, Jesus is the atonement; he is God and fallen Adamic flesh joined in reconciling union. From “inside” the skin of Adam and throughout the “whole course” of his obedient life, Jesus bent the rebellious human will back to the Father, healed and cleansed our corrupt, diseased “flesh” and reconciled us to the Father.   

Traditional Theories of Atonement 

To better appreciate Torrance’s view of the atonement, let us briefly review three major models or “theories” of atonement that have arisen in the history of the Western-Latin church. These are: 1) Anselm’s “satisfaction” theory; 2) Abelard’s “moral influence” theory; and 3) Calvin’s “penal substitution” theory. (I am not including Luther’s Christus Victor theory because I believe that Torrance incorporates this view into his model of the atonement, while not limiting himself to it.) 

Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory 

In the Middle Ages, Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) developed a model of the atonement usually known as the “satisfaction” theory. Also known as the “Latin” or “juridical” view, this model of atonement has been prominent in Roman Catholic Scholasticism and Protestant orthodoxy. Rooted in the feudal societies of his time, Anselm’s theory of the atonement depicts God as a “feudal lord” whose honour has been violated by his “vassal,” that is, sinful humanity. In order to uphold justice in the cosmos, God must receive satisfaction for the affront to his honour occasioned by human disobedience. Humanity’s debt is so great, however, that it cannot pay it; hence, it is necessary that God assume human nature, so that, as a human being, God can pay the debt that humanity otherwise cannot pay. For Anselm, Christ’s death on the cross is a substitutionary payment of a debt owed by humanity to God. When Christ dies, atonement is complete; God’s honour is satisfied, his wrath assuaged, and humanity’s penalty of eternal death is set aside (Olson, 2002:257, 258; Bloesch, 2006:153).  

Note: In this model the eternal Word assumes human nature in order to pay a debt. Jesus offers his body on the cross, so that divine honour may be “satisfied.”  

            Abelard’s Moral Influence Theory    

Another medieval theologian, Peter Abelard (1079-1142), offered an alternative to Anselm’s satisfaction theory. For Abelard, God does not require payment of a penalty. Rather, God wants sinful humanity to repent and throw itself on God’s mercy. People do not repent, however, because they fear and hate God. In consequence, Christ lays down his life in atonement in order to demonstrate God’s great love for humanity. Abelard portrays the atonement in terms of a “moral influence” that changes the perspective of humanity, causing us to trust God and repent of our sins. In this model, Christ’s death on the cross is viewed as exemplary, rather than propitiatory (turning away wrath) or expiatory (expunging sin). Christ suffered in order to subdue the alienation of humanity by a supreme example of self-sacrificing love (Olson, 2002:258, 259; Bloesch, 2006:158). 

Note: In this model Jesus’ life (i.e., humanity) is merely exemplary; that is, Jesus sets us an “example” of self-sacrificing love. 

Calvin’s Penal Substitution Theory 

Another theory of the atonement arose during the Reformation as an adjustment to Anselm’s satisfaction theory. This is the “penal substitution” theory associated with John Calvin (1509-1564) and Reformed theology. In this view, Christ reconciles God and humanity by taking upon himself the punishment sinful humans deserve, thereby reconciling God’s righteous anger with his love for mankind. At the cross, human salvation is made possible and the Father can now regard mankind favourably. In this theory of atonement, the focus is on punishment. The penalty born by Christ for humanity is not the satisfaction of God’s wounded honour; rather, it is capital punishment as retribution deserved by sinful humanity’s disobedience.  

This theory has been rightly criticized because it introduces a disjunction between God the Father and the incarnate Son in which the Father is depicted as angry, wrathful, and punitive, while Jesus is regarded as loving, kind, and forgiving. Moreover, “womanist” theologians regard this theory as sanctioning child abuse and violence (Olson, 2002:259, 260, 262). 

Note: In this model the eternal Word assumes a human body so that it might be “punished” in order to exact the payment of a penalty. 

Dualist, External, Instrumental 

Recall that in Torrance’s model, the incarnation itself is a healing, sanctifying union between God and fallen humanity. Atonement occurs “within” the hypostatic union (the union of God and humanity in the one person of Jesus Christ). In other words, the atonement is “internal” or intrinsic to the person of Christ. Atonement is “Who” Jesus is, not merely what he “does.” In his incarnate constitution as God and humanity united in one Person, Jesus is that atonement. 

In the traditional Latin views, on the other hand, atonement is not regarded as “internal,” to the “person” of Jesus Christ. That is, atonement is not a function of “who” Jesus Christ is as God and humanity joined in reconciling union; rather, atonement is a “work” that Jesus does. As Torrance argues, traditional views of the atonement create a dualism (separation, division) between the “person” and “work” of Jesus. In all three views, atonement is “external” to the person of Jesus; he is merely an agent of atonement, for his humanity (i.e., “body”) is merely instrumental―that is, a “means to an end.” In Anselm’s view, and the “penal” view that arose from it, Jesus’ humanity is merely a vehicle or “instrument” supplied to satisfy divine honour or pay a penalty by enduring punishment. In Abelard’s view, Jesus’ life (humanity) is merely “exemplary”; that is, Jesus sets an “example” for us to emulate. All three models lack a real (ontological) connection between Jesus and us. Atonement is a “work” that Jesus does “for” humanity, not “in” humanity. 

Because there is no ontological connection between Jesus and us, traditional models require that the atonement be supplemented or complemented by a subsequent work of the Holy Spirit (i.e., “sanctification”). For Torrance, this creates a dualism between the atonement of Jesus Christ and the “work” of the Holy Spirit. 

Moreover, lacking a real ontological connection between the atonement and humanity, traditional views require that we be “declared” righteous (i.e., “justified”) upon a profession of faith. In Torrance's ontological approach to the atonement, however, humanity is actually made “righteous” in the vicarious humanity of Jesus. We participate in his righteousness through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. In Torrance’s view of the atonement, conversion, repentance, faith, justification and sanctification are all realized in our place and on our behalf “in” Jesus. 

ATONEMENT

	Traditional (Latin)	Torrance
locus	external-instrumental-dualist	internal-ontological-unitary
purpose	satisfaction (Anselm) example (Abelard) punishment (Calvin)	reconciliation ontological healing sanctification
Subsequent acts	Declared righteous by imputation (i.e., justification) Sanctified by the Holy spirit	Made righteous and sanctified in Jesus’ vicarious humanity

Next post (coming soon!): The Latin heresy revisited 

For 9 posts on Torrance’s doctrine of atonement, click:

http://martinmdavis.blogspot.com/2011/03/tf-torrance-atonement-pt-1.html 

 For 13 posts on the doctrine of the “vicarious humanity” of Jesus Christ, click:

http://martinmdavis.blogspot.com/2011/05/tf-torrance-vicarious-humanity-of-jesus.html