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.”

New blog link

Greetings everyone,
I am adding another blog to the "links" in the right-hand column of this page. Bobby Grow, at "The Evangelical Calvinist," is writing his doctoral thesis (dissertation) on Torrance's doctrine of the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ. Bobby has been posting for years and has compiled a wealth of material on Torrance, Barth, and many important subjects related to Trinitarian-incarnational theology. Check him out at http://growrag.wordpress.com/. His work is well worth your time.

Martin

T.F. Torrance: The Vicarious Humanity of Jesus Christ, pt. 13

The Logic of Grace
As Torrance (1992:xii) notes, some may feel that his stress on the unconditional grace of God, particularly in regard to the vicarious word and act of Jesus Christ in our place and on our behalf, undermines the integrity of the personal response of faith and repentance we are called to make in acceptance of Jesus Christ as our Saviour. Yet, as Torrance rightly argues:

Part of the problem here is that unconditional grace is too costly, for it calls into question all that we are and do, so that even in our repenting and believing we cannot rely upon our own response but only upon the response Christ has offered to the Father in our place and on our behalf.

While Torrance’s doctrine of the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ radically undermines any Pelagian approach to redemption (i.e., the heretical teaching that we possess, at least in part, the resources to save ourselves), as Colyer (2001a:117, 118) rightly observes, Torrance’s doctrine of vicarious humanity includes the human response to the Gospel, yet in such a way that may require rethinking the relationship between divine and human agency.

Torrance’s view of the “inner logic of grace,” as it relates to divine and human agency, can be approached through the “theological couplet” of anhypostasis-enhypostasis, a technically precise expression that guards against certain heretical christologies. Though Torrance first learned it in interaction with Karl Barth, this concept is traceable through older Scots theology back to Cyril of Alexandria. Cyril conceived the terms to guard against a “schizoid” christology, such as Nestorianism, by asserting the “indivisible union of the divine and human natures in their undiminished reality in the one Person of Jesus Christ.” The negative term, anhypostasis, means that “apart from the incarnation of the Son of God Jesus would not have come into being.” Against adoptionist christologies, anhypostasis means that Jesus would not have existed apart from the incarnation of the Logos, for, in the incarnation, there was no “independent” human hypostasis (person) or reality which was “adopted” into union with the eternal Logos. On the other hand, the positive term, enhypostasis, asserts that “with the incarnation Jesus came into being and exists as a completely human person in the full hypostatic reality of the incarnate Son of God”; that is, the human nature of Jesus became enhypostatic “in” the pre-existent Son, so that the divine and human natures of Christ constitute “in their union one indivisible subsistent person.” In other words, against monophysitism, enhypostasis asserts that in the incarnation there is a real, fully human Jesus of Nazareth who exists in perfect “oneness” with the divine nature of Christ (Torrance, 1990:125, 199, 200; 1993:230; 1996c:71).

Comment: Anhypostasis: no incarnation, no Jesus. Apart from the incarnation, Jesus would not have existed. This rules out any “adoptionist” notion that the incarnation occurred when the Holy spirit came upon the man Jesus.

Enhypostasis: Jesus of Nazareth is fully human as well as fully divine. This rules out any Apollinarian notion that Jesus lacked a human mind or any monophysite notion that Jesus lacked a human will. Jesus was fully human just as we are.

Torrance (1993:230) applies the “logic of grace” embodied in the incarnation, as expressed in the anhypostasis-enhypostasis couplet, to the relationship between divine and human agency in the incarnation of Jesus Christ. He writes:

[T]he incarnation was brought about through the grace of God alone, without any human cooperation, yet in such a way that through the sheer act of divine grace the human nature of Christ, the incarnate Son, was given complete authentic reality as human nature in inseparable union with his divine nature. This gives expression to the singular “logic of grace” embodied in the incarnation: “all of grace” involves “all of man.” Instead of discounting human nature the downright act of God’s grace incarnate in Christ creates and uphold human nature.

Thus, while the human Jesus had no independent existence apart from the divine act of God in the incarnation (anhypostasis), at the same time, the human agency of Jesus is no less real because of its indivisible union with the divine nature (enhypostasis).

Comment: That last sentence is crucial for understanding Torrance’s articulation of the “logic” of grace.

Torrance (1990:190) applies the “logic of grace” embodied in the incarnation to the “movement” of grace by which we become children of God. He writes:

The theological couplet anhypostasia/enhypostasia expresses in succinct hypostatic terms the essential logic in the irreversible movement of God’s grace. It is by grace alone that man comes into being and by grace alone that he is saved and made a child of God, which he cannot achieve for himself. However, by grace alone does not in any way mean the diminishing far less the excluding of the human but on the contrary its full and complete establishment.

Hence, for Torrance (1992:xii), “all of grace” does not mean “nothing of man.” Rather “all of grace means all of man,” for God’s gracious act toward us in Jesus Christ “includes the fullness and completeness of our human response in the equation.” Thus, the anhypostasis-enhypostasis couplet expresses the logic of grace, wherein “all of grace” (i.e., full divine agency) includes “all of man” (i.e., full human agency).

Comment: All of grace=divine agency; all of man=human agency

As Torrance (1992:xii), argues, the relationship between divine and human agency cannot be understood logically, because logically, “all” of grace would mean “nothing” of man. As Colyer (2001a:120, 121) rightly notes, however, to assert that the relationship between divine and human agency cannot be understood logically does not imply that it is illogical. For Torrance, the complex, ineffable relationship between divine and human agency is sui generis, that is, unique or in a class by itself. It cannot be reduced to logico-causal categories of thought. The problem is similar to that faced in modern physics, with its lack of an adequate conceptuality to schematize the nature of light as both wave and particle.

Nevertheless, thinking in terms of logical, causal, or necessary relations has led to the development of classic, competing theological explanations for the relationship between divine and human agency: for example, “monergism,” in which God is the sole agent in salvation (Augustinianism, Calvinism) and “synergism,” wherein agency is apportioned both to God and man (Arminianism) (Colyer, 2001a:120; Olson 2002:276ff). Against those who would divide the responsibility for human redemption into that which God does for us and that which we must do for ourselves, Torrance (1992:xii) argues:

All of grace means all of man! We must remember that in all his healing and saving relations with us Jesus Christ is engaged in personalising and humanising (never depersonalising or dehumanising) activity, so that in all our relations with him we are made more truly and fully human in our personal response of faith than ever before. This takes place in us through the creative activity of the Holy Spirit as he unites us to the perfect humanity of the Lord Jesus conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary and raised again from the dead.

As Colyer (2001a:119) notes, just as there is full divine and human agency in Jesus Christ, there is an “analogous” fully divine and fully human agency in the human response to the Gospel. For Torrance (1990:125, 199), the relationship between divine and human agency is given “archetypal” or paradigmatic expression in the Virgin birth, an act that is at once fully divine and fully human.

The “inner logic of grace” embodied in the incarnation applies to “all the ways and works of God” in his dealings with humanity. Torrance’s emphasis on the gracious nature of Jesus’ vicarious acts in our place and on our behalf does not rule out human involvement in redemption; yet, our response to Christ is not under our own disposal, nor is it determined by the very human will we are called to renounce. Nevertheless, as noted above, human faith has its proper place in the “polar relationship” between God and humanity, wherein our weak and faltering faith is lifted up and undergirded by the faith “of” Jesus Christ. Our response of faith is a free participation in the faithful response of Jesus Christ already made on our behalf. Consequently, our faith, and human response to the Gospel in general, is not made redundant by the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ; rather, it is established, undergirded, and empowered.

Comment: Think about the Virgin birth for a moment. The incarnation came about when the Holy Spirit (“all of grace”) came upon the Virgin Mary (“all of man”). Thus, the incarnation is an event that is at once both fully divine and fully human.

While the incarnation of the Son of God remains an ineffable mystery, it is a mystery that has a wider application. We have already seen that the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ, who believes and obeys in our place and on our behalf (“all of grace”), does not negate, nullify, or render redundant our own faith (“all of man”). Rather, it undergirds and establishes it. Now apply this “logic” to the “inspiration” of Scripture. Is the Bible a divine product or a human product? It is both! Both fully divine, hence trustworthy and reliable, and fully human, thus containing differing human recollections (e.g., the details of the resurrection stories). Torrance’s conception of the logic of grace allows us to transcend centuries-old arguments, including the relationship between divine and human agency (monergism vs synergism) and the relationship between divine and human agency in the recording of Holy Scripture.

In terms of their “for us-ness,” the implications of Torrance’s doctrine of the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ for human response to the Gospel are astonishing, for his vicarious word and act includes “all of man.” In his faithful response to the Father, Jesus Christ believes “for us.” In regard to obedience, he offers the perfect human response to God “for us.” He justifies and sanctifies humanity in himself “for us.” Moreover, he worships “for us.” He even makes the “personal decision” of faith “for us.” Our faith, our obedience, our personal decision, our justification and sanctification are all implicated in the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ and his self-offering to the Father, so that we are fully and completely accepted by the Father in him. To be sure, the Gospel is truly “good news,” for Jesus Christ, in his vicarious humanity, is truly “God for us.”

References

Colyer, E.M. 2001a. How to Read T.F. Torrance: Understanding His Trinitarian & Scientific Theology. Downers Grove, IL: IVP. 393 pp.

Olson, R.E. 2002. The Mosaic of Christian Belief: Twenty Centuries of Unity & Diversity. Downers Grove, IL: IVP. 365 pp.

Torrance, T.F. 1990. Karl Barth: Biblical and Evangelical Theologian. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. 256 pp.

Torrance, T.F. 1993. The Atonement. The Singularity of Christ and the Finality of the Cross: The Atonement and the Moral Order. In N. Cameron, ed. Universalism and the Doctrine of Hell. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker House. Chapter 8.

Iron Sharpening Iron

Scripture tells us that “as iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.” (Prov 27:17). This is exactly what is happening on Tim Brassell’s Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/#!/tjbrassell in response to my latest post on “evangelism” and the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ. Tim graciously encouraged his readers to view my post and I thank him for that.

One of Tim’s readers and friends is rightly concerned with the place of individual repentance, discipleship, etc., in the light of Torrance’s doctrine of the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ. He used the all-too-real example of a meth-addict who shows up at church on Sunday morning. How is the community of faith to approach this suffering soul in the light of his inclusion in the Triune life of God?

Personal repentance is an important issue in Torrance’s theology. For Torrance, there is an “urgency” to the preaching of the Gospel because of the very real possibility that some may reject the love of God given for all in Jesus Christ. Because, the issue of reprobation and “hell” is real in this tradition, Torrance calls for a proclamation of repentance.

I do not know of a specific definition or description of repentance in Torrance’s writing, however (If any one does, please let me know). I am familiar with the descriptions of repentance offered by other students of Torrance, but I won’t attempt to repeat them here. For me, repentance involves both changing our thinking and behavior, changes related to the gospel proclamation that Jesus is Lord and Caesar is not (as NT Wright puts it). Therefore, get on board the Jesus train and become part of what he is doing here and now.

In regard to the preaching of repentance, however, there are two very different approaches, as I mentioned in the previous post. One approach is the “turn or burn” approach, particularly characteristic of older, and some, contemporary, evangelicalism. This approach regards repentance as a condition of salvation: If you repent, you will be saved. Inevitably, other conditions are added on: if you believe, if you obey, if you receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit, if you persevere, etc., you will be saved. This is the very form of “legal’ repentance which the Reformers fought against. This is NOT what I want to tell the meth-addict who comes to my church. More on him (or her) later.

In contradistinction to legal repentance is the good news proclaimed by the Reformers, what Calvin called “evangelical” repentance. “You are loved, you are chosen, you are saved: therefore, repent!” Here, repentance is a response to salvation, not a condition for it. This is what I want to tell the meth-addict.

I grew up in an alcoholic home. My parents divorced at a time when divorce was uncommon. Shame and guilt were my constant companions. A feeling of unworthiness has haunted me much of my life, especially in relation to all things “religious.” Moreover, the church has heaped enough shame, guilt, and condemnation on us poor sinners. We need some good news for a change. In this regard, Torrance’s approach to evangelism is vital and crucial.

When I was younger, if I came to your church and you told me I had better repent or God was going to send me to an eternity of hell-fire, I would have offered you the universal single-fingered gesture of contempt as I walked out the door. I’ve had enough condemnation; I don’t need any from you, thank you!

On the other, hand if you had told me:

God loves you so utterly and completely that he has given himself for you in Jesus Christ his beloved Son, and has thereby pledged his very Being as God for your salvation. In Jesus Christ God has actualised his unconditional love for you in your human nature in such a once for all way, that he cannot go back upon it without undoing the Incarnation and the Cross and thereby denying himself. Jesus Christ died for you precisely because you are sinful and utterly unworthy of him, and has thereby already made you his own before and apart from your ever believing in him. He has bound you to himself by his love in a way that he will never let you go, for even if you refuse him and damn yourself in hell his love will never cease. Therefore, repent and believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour. (TF Torrance)

then I might have been ready to listen. I might have even listened to your suggestions about getting help for my addiction.

In this regard, I want the meth-addict to come to my church. I want to tell him that God loves him unconditionally, that God has always loved him unconditionally, and that God will always love him unconditionally, no matter what. I’m telling you, brothers, this will preach!

Yet, this is not the end of it; this is only the beginning. I want to help the meth-addict get out of hell now and start living in the freedom of Jesus Christ. The meth-addict needs to repent, and I have a responsibility to tell him so. At the very least, his repentance would include abstinence from crystal meth and participation in a recovery program. If I am to mirror God’s unconditional love to this suffering soul, then I may need to direct him to a 12-Step meeting. I may need to get him into a treatment centre. There may be many things I need to do to minister to this suffering addict and in so doing, to minister to Jesus Christ (Mt 25). I will also need to assure him that God is with him in his brokenness, and will never let him go. Even if he relapses into active addiction, God will be there to pick him up out of the dirt and begin with him again on the road to recovery. And for the record, God will be there with him even in the hell of his using, but his addiction will blind him to the spiritual presence all around him.

Returning specifically to the doctrine of the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ, this doctrine does not negate the importance of personal faith, repentance, obedience and discipleship. To the contrary, it empowers it. As Torrance repeatedly argues, Jesus takes up our puny, feeble attempts at faith and obedience and unites them to his own, including them in his High-Priestly offering to the Father. Thus we are free to obey, knowing that our failures and shortcomings are made whole in the self-offering of Jesus Christ. Where we fall short, he hits the mark; where we stumble, he stands tall. This is good news. Now my faith and obedience can be offered in thanksgiving and gratitude to God. I can give God the gift of myself (the only thing God wants from me), not out of fear of punishment but out of loving gratitude for the riches that are mine in Christ.

To me, the difference between a “gospel” of repentance as a condition for salvation and repentance as a joyful response to salvation is immeasurable.

Thanks again to Tim Brassell and those participating in the conversation on his Facebook page. We need more of this to sharpen us all up!

Martin

If you find this blog helpful, please consider making a small online donation to AsiAfrica Ministries, Inc. We assist pastors, evangelists, missionaries and their families and churches in east Africa and south Asia. Please visit our website at www.AsiAfricaMinistries.org/ .

T.F. Torrance: The Vicarious Humanity of Jesus Christ, pt. 12

Evangelism

For Torrance (1992:92, 93), Jesus Christ must take centre stage when the Gospel is proclaimed. Noting Jesus’ teaching that we must deny ourselves to follow him, and that we must lose our own lives for his sake (Mt 16:24, 25), Torrance writes:

Face to face with Christ all would-be followers find themselves called into radical question, together with their preconceptions, self-centred desires and self-will, for to have him as Lord and Saviour means that he takes their place in order to give them his place.

Giving centre place to Jesus Christ is made difficult, however, by the “unevangelical” way in which the Gospel is often preached, for the call to repentance and faith seems to turn its hearers back upon their own faith and obedience rather than that of Jesus Christ. Torrance (1992:93) continues:

There is, then, an evangelical way to preach the Gospel and an unevangelical way to preach it. The Gospel is preached in an unevangelical way, as happens so often in modern evangelism, when the preacher announces: This is what Jesus Christ has done for you, but you will not be saved unless you make your own personal decision for Christ as your Saviour. Or: Jesus Christ loved you and gave his life for you on the Cross, but you will be saved only if you give your heart to him.

Torrance describes this “unless,” “if” form of evangelism as a doctrine of “conditional” grace which “belies the essential nature and content of the Gospel as it is in Jesus” by telling “poor sinners” that the final responsibility for their salvation is transferred from the shoulders of the Lamb of God to their own shoulders. This conditional or legalist proclamation may lead sinners to doubt their salvation, notes Torrance, for if the chain that binds them to God in Jesus Christ has for even one of its links their own weak faith, then the integrity of the entire chain is in question. Because they are aware that the very self that is being called upon to make a decision for Christ is in need of salvation, the Gospel is not really “good news” for them unless it is announced that Jesus Christ, in his unconditional love, has put the human self on an entirely different basis by replacing it with his own vicarious faith and obedience (Torrance, 1992:93).

Comment: Modern evangelicalism proclaims a conditional “gospel”: If you repent, you will be saved. To the contrary, the apostolic/Patristic kerygma (proclamation) is unconditional: You have been, are being, and will be saved by Jesus Christ; therefore, repent (2Cor 5:14-21). Repentance is not a requirement for salvation; it is a response to it. As the Apostle Paul argues, you are reconciled to God; therefore, be reconciled!

For Torrance (1992:94), the Gospel can only be preached in a genuinely evangelical way “when full and central place is given to the vicarious humanity of Jesus as the all-sufficient human response to the saving love of God which he has freely and unconditionally provided for us.” According to Torrance, the Gospel is preached evangelically as follows:

God loves you so utterly and completely that he has given himself for you in Jesus Christ his beloved Son, and has thereby pledged his very Being as God for your salvation. In Jesus Christ God has actualised his unconditional love for you in your human nature in such a once for all way, that he cannot go back upon it without undoing the Incarnation and the Cross and thereby denying himself. Jesus Christ died for you precisely because you are sinful and utterly unworthy of him, and has thereby already made you his own before and apart from your ever believing in him. He has bound you to himself by his love in a way that he will never let you go, for even if you refuse him and damn yourself in hell his love will never cease. Therefore, repent and believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour.

Comment: We need to hear the above quote in many sermons!

Torrance (1992:94) goes on to assure us that Jesus Christ, “as man,” has acted in our place, even in our personal response to the love of God and our acts of faith. He continues:

He has believed for you, fulfilled your human response to God, even made your personal decision for you, so that he acknowledges you before God as one who has already responded to God in him, who has already believed in God through him, and whose personal decision is already implicated in Christ’s self-offering to the Father, in all of which he has been fully and completely accepted by the Father, so that in Jesus Christ you are already accepted by him. Therefore, renounce yourself, take up your cross and follow Jesus as your Lord and Saviour.

Comment: Jesus Christ has already made a “personal decision of faith” in place of and on behalf of every one of us. We don’t “accept the Lord” in order to be saved; he has already “accepted” us and included us in his High-Priestly self-offering to the Father. That is what the doctrine of vicarious humanity is all about. Therefore, get off the fast track and get on board the Jesus’ train! All aboard!!

To preach the Gospel in this way, notes Torrance (1992:94, 95), is “to set before the people the astonishingly good news of what God has freely provided for us in the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ.” The evangelical proclamation frees us from doubts about the adequacy of our own faith, for it is not our faith, belief, and commitment that we rely on, but rather upon what Jesus Christ has done for us, in our place and on our behalf. Thus, we are liberated from all “ulterior motives” in following Christ on the ground of his vicarious response for us, so that we are “free for spontaneous joyful response and worship and service” in a way that we could not otherwise be.

Comment: Does Jesus set us free so that we can take up the chains of bondage and live again in the dark dungeon of sin, alienated from our Father? Of course not. He acts vicariously on our behalf, offering for us the perfect response of faith and obedience, so that we are free to worship and serve God. Thus, our service and obedience arise not from dreadful fear of awful punishment but as joyful, grateful responses to the salvation that is already ours in Jesus Christ.

References

Torrance, T.F. 1992. The Mediation of Christ (rev. ed.). Colorado Springs, CO: Helmers & Howard. 126 pp.