Here is a quote from Robert T. Walker (T. F. Torrance’s nephew, and editor of Torrance’s posthmously published work Incarnation), he is unfolding, in an “editor’s introduction,” how his uncle understood the vicarious nature of faith through the humanity of Christ’s life. I think this is brilliant, and also think it dovetails nicely with Martin Luther’s understanding of the ‘vicarious’ nature of Christ’s life for us; which I have noted elsewhere. Here we go:
iv.) faith involves living by the faith of Christ — Torrance points out the significance of the Greek wording of Galatians 2.20, ‘I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.’ We have been brought to know God. Our old way of living in which we did not know God has been put to death with Christ. We now live, we have faith, we interpret the scriptures and do theology, and yet it is not us but Christ who lives in us. The real believer is Christ and we live by and out of the human faith of Christ.
v.) faith is living by the ‘vicarious humanity’ of Christ — a key part of Torrance’s theology is the fact that everything that Jesus did in his humanity he did for us and everything that Jesus is he is for us. It is all ours through union with him in faith. What we could not do for ourselves God has come to do for us as man. The person of Christ is not just God acting for salvation, it is God acting as man for us. Christ’s life of ‘passive obedience’, in which he suffered the judgment of God and atoned for our sins on the cross, means that we are freed from them. Christ’s life of ‘active obedience’, in which he positively fulfilled the Father’s will, means that his human righteousness is ours and is a fundamental part of our justification. Jesus has completed all the parts of our salvation in the whole course of his life. His human life he lived for us and in our place. The relation between our faith and Christ’s, our life now and his vicarious humanity for us, is exactly that described in Galatians 2.20 and described elsewhere in Paul as life in union with Christ.
vi.) faith is union with Christ through the Spirit — for Torrance, the Christian life is one of union with Christ in which in faith we live out of his faith and his righteousness. Having no righteousness in ourselves, we are united to him so that we may live out of his. Our faith is the knowledge, given to us in the Spirit, that he has accomplished our salvation in his person and work and that we are saved purely by his unconditional grace.
This does not mean that we do nothing although it does mean that we do nothing for our salvation. For Torrance, there is an analogy here with the person Christ. The fact that the humanity of Christ owes its being entirely to the action of God in the incarnation, does not mean it is not real. The fact that Christ is all God, or that all of God is in Christ, does not mean that there is nothing of man in him, but the opposite, that all of man is in him. Torrance used to explain that in the logic of grace, ‘All of grace does not mean nothing of man. All of grace means all of man.’ The knowledge that forgiveness and salvation is all of grace liberates us out of ourselves into union with Christ, freeing us to live fully and freely out of him. All of grace means all of man, just as the action of God in Christ means all of man in Christ. (Robert T. Walker, ed., “Incarnation: The Person and Life of Christ,” xlv-xlvii)
Do you catch the significance of union with Christ through his incarnation ‘for us’? Do you see the need for Christ to assume all of humanities’ brokenness, within His very life? Torrance assumes what scripture assumes, that we cannot add anything to salvation. He underscores the necessity for God, outside of us, to become God ‘inside of us’, through incarnating; and thus taking our sinfulness to its logical end (the cross), trusting (‘faithing’) the Father (on our behalf, as our mediator) to ‘redeem’ that which needs to be ‘healed’ — which Christ has become for us. Do you see how faith is ‘vicarious’ in this paradigm? We could never do the heavy lifting, thus Christ! We would never trust anybody, but ourselves (left to ourselves), to do what’s best for ‘me and mine’. Thus God, in Christ, had to take us to where only He could, as a ‘bahhing’ lamb. It is this ‘vicarious’, even substitutionary (biblically understood), notion that Torrance is pressing, and laying bare in the Apostle Paul’s letter to Galatia. Since we couldn’t die for ourselves (we would not), we cannot “trust for ourselves;” it is only then by the Spirit’s creative work, that we are able to ‘trust out of Christ’s trust’. And thus our union with Christ, or rather His union with us, becomes the basis from whence humanity can be said to be ‘saved by faith’ at all — not our own faith, but the faith of Christ poured abroad upon our heart’s through the Holy Spirit. Not an ‘alien’ (but indeed external, albeit ‘for us’) faith, but the ‘personal’ faith of Christ, as ‘man’ for us; finding its guiding shape through the divine life of the Son [anhypostasis] (begotten of the Father), through the creative ‘otherness’ of the Spirit, for us, in Christ, for us [enhypostasis].
Brilliance, upon brilliance . . . the life of God, known through Christ is staggering!
**P. S. the crazy thing is, is that this is only talking about Torrance’s thought, we haven’t even made it to Torrance himself yet! Do you like? If so, stay tuned for more meat from Torrance in the days to come — you can be sure I will be quoting and reflecting on him, profusely!**
Bobby, I keep coming to Ordo Salutis as important to understand the full implications of union with Christ. Am I off by thinking that if you reverse engineer the process of salvation you can end up with a correct doctrine of God? Not sure if this is getting me off target or if I need to refocus in another direction. What are your thoughts? Anyway this is what I have as far as the order: 1. Election (Foreknowledge / Predestination).2. Calling (Regeneration / Conviction).3. Union with Christ (Faith / Repentance).4. New Birth (Forgiveness / Justification).5. Eternal Security (Sanctification / Glorification). Clarify Terms:Foreknowledge: God knew before time that no one would respond to the Gospel on their own.Predestination: God elected to save some.Regeneration: God imparts spiritual life to the elect so they could respond to the Gospel.
Mike,The first problem is that you start with "5-points," kidding; actually I think what I am trying to communicate is quite "seismic."I think you're onto it with your ordo salutis point; and that is the vicarious nature of salvation.Let me go down your 5 points, and try to reframe and clarify where I'm coming from (a la people like T. F. Torrance):Election (Christ is the elect and reprobate, He elects our reprobation, and in turn we receive His elect status as the Son of God). So election has to do with God's life, and we are included in that by our participation with Him which is brought about by union with Him by the Spirt. Election in this case is not primarily concerned with who gets "saved" and who gets "damned relative to humanity in general.Actually instead of going down all your points (which really is quite good); I think what we need to ask is who is "true" humanity? Whose image were we originally created in? And who is the Image of God? And whose image are we "recreated" in, in redemption/reconciliation?If I were to pick one text out of scripture to answer all of the above questions, it would have to be Colossians 1. And I think that this is what TFT is on about, presupposing, in the little piece above (by Walker). Vicarious is the key here, when we talk about predestination, foreknowledge, regeneration then we must speak of Christ first. He is the image of God, He is "true" humanity, and thus "our humanity" is only derived from His. So if we are going to speak about "election," then we must first speak about God's election in Christ for us. If we are going to speak about foreknowledge, pre-destination, regeneration; then we need to speak about this through His union with us, in the Incarnation. Which means that we are no longer concerned with particular individuals, per se; but instead with the individual or particular human from Nazareth (who encapsulates in His life, what it means to be a true human; which can only find its "order" as it is rightly related to God's life as His creature both ontologically and epistemologically). Christ, the eternal Son, is the only one who is able to "bridge" this gap; and so when we speak about "our" faith, we must first speak about His (trust/faith) of the Father (remember the garden of Geth., "thy will be done;" or on the cross, "into thy hands I commit my spirit.") It is as we share in "His election" (as He has shared in 'our reprobation') vicariously; that we have all the liberty that He does towards the Father by the Spirit. So then, union with God is certainly key. This is first an objective reality (rooted in Christ's election for us in our reprobation, wherein He gives us His elect status in exchange for our reprobate II Cor 8:9); then our union with Christ is made subjective as we respond "in His response," in expressing the "same" love and trust that we see in Him first — "God first loved us, that we might love Him" (I Jn 4:19).This has kind of been a rambling, Mike; but I hope that you are starting to get the gist of where all of this is coming from a little bit more :-). When I get the time, I'll try to provide a more organized picture of these things.
I said:. . . then our union with Christ is made subjective as we respond "in His response," I wanted to underscore, and forgot, that this subjectivizing is where the Holy Spirit comes in; just as Christ was led as the God/Man by the Holy Spirit (see Mt 4:1ff; etc.), and just as Christ's union with the Father is realized by the Holy Spirit; we too by the Spirit "realize" our union with God by being made participants with the humanity we have "been given" through Christ (redeemed humanity, or "resurrection" "ascension" humanity). So the Holy Spirit is all important here; w/o His creative activity, what Christ did would've only remained an "objective" (and even true) reality; but there would be no way for us to become aware of it w/o the "convicting" creative work of the Holy Spirit who points us "into" Christ (and thus God's life).I realize this might be hard to hear, at the moment, maybe because it's "new;" but when I read the bible all of this has much greater explanatory power (to me) than the "classic" framing. Btw, one more point. Almost all that is being said here (by Torrance et al) actually is rooted just as "classically" in Church history as is what is considered "classic" today (Federal or Westminster calvinism). There are two informing "traditions" behind these two different "movements" of thought, they are: The Thomist (which is represented by the Westminster calvinism, what we know of today in America as calvinism) — this stream comes through Thomas Aquinas; the second is the Scotist tradition (which is where the Evangelical Calvinism stems from) — this tradition comes through John Duns Scotus . . . both different medieval voices . . . both still alive and well today. ;-)Hope all this helps.Dr Myk Habets has an excellent (albeit a bit technical) essay outlining and explaining the development of these two "traditions" (Thomism and Scotism) in re. to issues like Incarnation, Atonement, etc.; and then who are some of the best exemplars of the Scotist tradition today (TF Torrance being one of its best :-).If you want to take a look at that essay let me know; I don't think Myk would mind ;-).In Christ
Bobby,If I understand you correctly, I need to scratch the idea of God predestined who was to become elect as individuals and then sent Christ to save each of them as individuals from their sins. That it goes much deeper then that. That it would be more correct to say that Christ is God's Elect and through our Union with him we share in his election. That we benefit from the righteousness of Christ through faith in him and thus we receive justification. We don't lose our individuality but we who are in Christ take upon ourselves his righteousness and humanity.That the conviction of the Holy Spirit draws one into Union with Christ. If the above is correct, why is one person drawn to Christ and another is not?Thanks, Mike
Mike,. . . why is one person drawn to Christ and another is not?Why do you think we feel compelled to have an answer to that question?Is it a question that scripture intends to answer?I realize, that at least from Augustine, this is one of the questions that has dominated questions surrounding salvation; but I'm not convinced it's a question that we are supposed to know how to answer.Let me ask you this, beyond my first question; why did Adam and Eve sin in the first place?I'm not trying to play with you, Mike; these are the things I am working through as well — although I think I'm comfortable with living with some tension on these questions.
Bobby,So is it correct and am I heading in the right direction to state that "Christ is God's elect and through our Union with him we share in his election"?To me this is huge. Exciting to say the least.I realize that some things are just left to God, He is infinite, we are not. I suppose Adam sinned because he simply chose to disobey God out of free will? Same reason I have sinned knowing it was wrong but did it anyway. This is vantastic, I feel I can see election in a whole new light.
Mike,I'm glad that you are encouraged! And I think you are reading this right. Christ is both objectively elect and reprobate for us; and we "subjectively" realize this reality by the Holy Spirit pointing us to this already "finished" reality in Christ. And the Holy Spirit is actually the one who brings us into the union that He shares with the Son and the Father (Rom 8:10,11; I Cor 6:17).As far as "free-will," I would just want to say that this has always been grounded in Christ's "freedom," and that even Adam and Eve had this "freedom," because of their createdness in Christ's image. Why they "fell," for me remains inexplicable. Often times "free-will" is understood or framed through a Libertarian free agency model; wherein "true freedom" is conceived as the possibility to "deliberate."Let me try to get at the "free-will" thing another time.I'm just really glad that this is an edifying thing for you, Mike; I'm being edified by our "e-fellowship" too.
Bobby, maybe this is dealt with in another post, but how is it that you translate Gal. 2:20 different from most translations out there?
I should have said Torrance π why does his Greek translation differ and why didn’t anybody else pick up on this??
arghh.. ok I think I got it, I found it in the KJV, as well as the Net and the the Septuagint. Wuest and the New International Greek Testament Commentary explain the text.
“Having died with Christ in his death, the believer now lives with Christ in his lifeβi.e. his resurrection life. In fact, this new life in Christ is nothing less than the risen Christ living his life in the believer. The risen Christ is the operative power in the new order, as sin was in the old”
Bruce, F. F. (1982). The Epistle to the Galatians: A commentary on the Greek text. New International Greek Testament Commentary (144). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.
“Paul now yields to the indwelling Holy Spirit and cooperates with Him in the production of a life pleasing to God, energized by the divine life resident in him through the regenerating work of the Spirit. Instead of a sinner with a totally depraved nature attempting to find acceptance with God by attempted obedience to a set of outward laws, it is now the saint living his life on a new principle, that of the indwelling Holy Spirit manifesting forth the Lord Jesus. That is what Paul means when he says: And the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.”
Wuest, K. S. (1997). Wuest’s word studies from the Greek New Testament: For the English reader (Ga 2:20). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
(my greek is really rusty) π
Hi Steve,
It isn’t just me or Torrance who sees the subjective genetive as the way to go in Galatians and other places, but even conservative and authoritative Greek grammarians like Daniel Wallace (from Dallas Theological Seminary). See my post here: https://growrag.wordpress.com/2011/08/04/galatians-2-20-vicarious-humanity-and-faith-and-interpretive-tradition-in-evangelical-exegesis/
Plus, there has been all kinds of scholarship and debate around this, and the Greek construction pistis Christou and whether it should be read as an objective or subjective genetive. I would argue that the objective has dominated in the translations (for the most part) not because of the language itself, but because of an intentional and theological interpretation that has been made by a bias among the translators. Other people who have written on this issue are: N.T. Wright, J. Louis Martyn (see his commentary on Galatians), R. Michael Allen (see his PhD diss: http://www.amazon.com/Christs-Faith-Dogmatic-Systematic-Theology/dp/0567033996 — which I still need to read this). And many others.
But if Daniel Wallace, a very conservative Greek grammarian goes with the subjective genetive (as my post illustrates), then I would say it should give others, at least, pause.
Wuest is not a reliable source by the way :-). And that according to all of my Greek profs in undergraduate and graduate school.
Thanks Bobby
Steve,
Not a problem :-).
Let me also mention that I am sorry I haven’t time to keep up with my EC in Plain Language blog; I need to post there again very soon.