Here T. F. Torrance (uber-Evangelical Calvinist) is commenting on John Knox’s understanding of the atonement. You’ll notice that the Federal (*forensic*) understanding is being implicitly critiqued throughout the unfolding of the comment:
. . . Several comments on this understanding of Christ’s sacrifice may be in place. While traditional forensic language is used, the atoning sacrifice is not to be understood as fulfilled by Christ merely as man (which would imply a Nestorian Christology), but of Christ as the one Mediator between God and man who is himself God and man in one Person. This means that ‘the joyful atonement made between God and man by Christ Jesus, by his death, resurrection and ascension’, is not to be understood in any sense as the act of the man Jesus placating God the Father, but as a propitiatory sacrifice in which God himself through the death of his dear Son draws near to man and draws man near to himself. It is along these lines also that we must interpret the statement of the Scots Confession that Christ ‘suffered in body and soul to make the full satisfication for the sins of the people’, for in the Cross God accepts the sacrifice made by Christ, whom he did not spare but delievered him up for us all, as satisfication, thereby acknowledging his own bearing of the world’s sin guilt and judgment as the atonement. As Calvin pointed out in a very important passage, God does not love us because of what Christ has done, but it is because he first loved us that he came in Christ in order through atoning sacrifice in which God himself does not hold himself aloof but suffers in and with Christ to reconcile us to himself. Nor is there any suggestion that this atoning sacrifice was offered only for some people and not for all, for that would imply that he who became incarnate was not God the Creator in whom all men and women live and move and have their being, and that Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour was not God and man in the one Person, but only an instrument in the hands of the Father for the salvation of a chosen few. In other words, a notion of limited atonement implies a Nestorian heresy in which Jesus Christ is not really God and man united in one Person. It must be added that the perfect response offered by Jesus Christ in life and death to God in our place and on our behalf, contains and is the pledge of our response. Just as the union of God and man in Christ holds good in spite of all the contradiction of our sin under divine judgment, so his vicarious response holds good for us in spite of our unworthiness: ‘not I but Christ’. . . . (T. F. Torrance: From John Knox to John McLeod Campbell,” 18-19)
Lots going on here, primary of which is a robust, trinitarian Doctrine of God. Indeed, I would suggest that this is the key from whence Federal and Scottish Theology (or “Evangelical Calvinism”) depart, one from the other.
One of the subsequent points of departure between Federal and Evangelical Calvinism is how the “atonement” is framed. The former frames it forensically, per the covenant of works/grace (as shaped by the ‘decree’); while the latter frames the shape of the atonement ontologically (per the one ‘covenant of grace’ as shaped within the free predeterminations in the life of God).
There is more to be said. I will try and come back later and provide more reflection, especially for those of you for whom this is new (even “strange teaching”).
Having read this (and the link within it) I'll ask you a quick question that will get to the heart of the matter (pun intended): do you believe individuals are regenerated by the Word and the Spirit?
In this post:http://theevangelicalcalvinist.blogspot.com/2009/08/set-free-from-classic-calvinism.htmlYou are posing a legalist with no understanding as a 'classical Calvinist' and then you are holding up a classical Calvinist – Richard Sibbes – as something he was not. Federal Theology (Reformed Theology, Classical Covenant Theology, Calvinism) is not *legalism.* It's not legalism any more than it is antinomianism (it's historically accused of being the latter just as the apostle Paul was accused of the latter). What kind of haircut you have? That reminds me of independent fundamentalist Baptists who are as anti-Calvinist as the Vatican is anti-Calvinist.
In other words, the passage you quote in that link (in my comment directly above) is of a person who belonged to a church, or was taught a system of doctrine, that was unbiblical, and it was discovering classical Calvinism – the truth – that lifted the burden off of him.
Barthians, Reconstructionists, Federal Visionists, many schools and groups try to appropriate the mantle of 'true Calvinism.'Many a straw man is constructed ("classical Calvinism is legalism" — "classical Calvinism is antinomianism") many a demand that there be recognized different yet equal traditions within historical Calvinism, or Reformed Theology.Ultimately these claims are put to the tribunal of Scripture.And the orthodox river rolls on.Seeing this take place over and over we have now groups like Federal Vision who doggedly refuse to give ground on Scripture, but to do that they have to redefine terminology and major on the minors and pretty much do everything every false teaching has had to do in the past. Barthians never really attempted to defend themselves from Scripture. They didn't have much competition from orthodox, or classical Reformed Theology, when they started. They were, and are, content to remain a school within the halls of academia. Liberal academia. Discernment for truth, doctrinal truth in this case, comes from the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth. Individual regeneration by the Word and the Spirit is denied or attacked or not recognized by these various schools and groups for this reason. To buy what they're selling one has to be in the pre-born again hall of mirrors that is the devil's kingdom where sophistry and language games are seen to have value and to be a pursuit in and of itself worthy and not vain (empty).
Puritan,I am trying to figure out what you are saying through all your posts but I must say I am having trouble with the way you are responding. What is being proposed, as I understand it, is that for regeneration to actually occur in such a way as to not lead us into legalism we must have an ontological understanding of the atonement alongside any kind of legal metaphor. So I don't think that your question really does get to the 'heart' of the matter. What reason do you have to reject an ontological understanding of the atonement? That is of course if you do reject it. Have you read much of T.F. Torrance's work? Scott
Whoa! "Barthians never really attempted to defend themselves from Scripture. They didn't have much competition from orthodox, or classical Reformed Theology, when they started. They were, and are, content to remain a school within the halls of academia. Liberal academia." I think you may want to check your history out a bit there. You are aware of the opposition Barth received from Van Till and co? Also T.F. Torrance's work in dialog between the eastern and refomed alliance, how is that left in the halls of academia? Despite not really appreciating the term 'Barthians' (as Barth himself despised the term) I think that perhaps a more charitable examination of their contribution is possible. And you may want to check out the scripture index in the Church Dogmatics to see how Barth defended himself with scripture, and his even his commentaries on Philippians and Romans.
An interesting read is Barth's letter to Geoffery Bromiley after a request from Christianity Today to interview Barth in light of Van Till's criticism. I think it reveals something of the way in which Barth approached these issues (accusations of liberalism, heretical teaching etc).
Yeah good posts Scott. Puritan, you have every right to respond to the blog but frankly those of us who are reading this and interacting with it find you to be schismatic, illinformed, irrational, and wasteing our precious time. Would it possible at all for you to refrain from posting stuff like this and perhaps go back to your usual 'Puritan' blogs that may welcome this sort of stuff? Sorry to be so harsh but Bobby who runs this site may not feel the liberty to be so. When you can get your head around the posts and interaction then wade in with a short comment or critique that may further the conversation. Your posts are making you look something of an idiot and a laughing stock and I am sure that is not what you are really after. I am also sure that the position you are attempting to represent is not being done any service by your rantings. Now, to put this in context, I have just finished the chapter by Gamble in the Cambridge Companion to John Calvin on 'Calvin's Controversies.' π
Seems you've gone from evangelical to why are you bothering our club?And it's really been my posts that have been not responded to. When one says Federal Theology is about fulfilling the Covenant of Works and an actual Calvinist comes on and says that's a bit not accurate, and the response is either 1) no response, or 2) that's what I said (no, what you said and what I said are not the same thing) then one shouldn't be making accusations that one can't their their mind around posts and hence answer them in, I suppose, some correct manner.
Barthians punt on Scripture before they even open their Bibles.
Why in the responses thus far is this simple question avoided?>do you believe individuals are regenerated by the Word and the Spirit?
Yes of course we do – as anyone familiar with Protestantism, Evangelicalism, or Calvinism (not to mention the Bible!) can attest to. Stupid question – that is why we ignore you. Why don't yopu read more of Muller, Trueman, Lillback et al and clue yourself up on the Tradition and then join the discussion. Why don't you read some Barth instead of North American fundamentalist, rectionary accounts/caricatures of his theology and then join in the discussion. Then people may take you seriously. Really, you are letting all good Puritans down by taking that title and mangling it. This is not what Owen or Sibes, or Baxter or Edwards would contribute to this sort of theological discussion. Sorry to be blunt but come on, there are plenty of other mindless blogs you can play on, why this one?
Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.Election is individual. Regeneration (which precedes faith) effects the being of an individual: intellect, will, and emotions.
I asked:>do you believe individuals are regenerated by the Word and the Spirit?You responded:>Yes of course we doYet this blog has stated that election is not individual. Sorry to drag your intellect back to the basics, but with Christianity really the basics are everything.
OK – one more reply then I bow out as this is beginning to ilustrate what is wrong with blogs. If you had read any Torrance, or MacLeod Campbell, or the works of contributors to this blog or the many other good resources out there you will know that this is not a debate over general election of people groups vs individual election. It is locating individual election in Jesus Christ (not a hard thing to support biblically) and then see our election in his. May we encourage you to read a little of the literture first before you attempt these little theological 'tricks'? Please. Thanks. It would have been much better to just ask particpants if they only beleived in a general election and then in good Socratic fashion aksed more pertinent questions followed by good observations and some useful critique.
You're retreating into a definition of this blog that doesn't match it's title, nor does it match the author's obvious intent (to convince something other than an 'in' group). What has happened is despite your reading list it has been demonstrated that the understanding of Federal Theology this blog has been operating from is just simply dead off-the-mark.
Gidday Myk & Scott, Thanks for the feedback ;-).Puritan,I see you've met my Kiwi friends, what ya think?You know, Puritan, what amazes me, is that you haven't provided one shred of evidence that I've misrepresented the *Federal tradition*; you haven't answered my questions on certain salient points (like the "2 Adams", I think you said that the 2nd was greater than the 1st because he is God; when I pick my 5yr old up from children's church, and ask him what he learned about, he answers the same thing every week: "Jesus" — I think that's cute and sincere . . . but he's 5), and you continue to demonstrate you really haven't a clue of what you speak. I realize you're an internent apologist, but what is required to be an apologist, is that you study the *material*; just yelling over and again, isn't a persuasive way to argue, and that's all you've been doing here.You obviously don't know the significance of "Scottish Theology," you don't apparently grasp that Calvinism is not a monolith, and you clearly don't understand what semper reformanda is all about.As far as *my* reading list, I could provide you with quotes (but it would be a waste of time, I'm sure), that illustrate time and again my rather *stream of consciousness* articulation on what Federal Theology entails (the one you continue to draw us back to).If you want to be a good Puritan, Puritan, then you need to know your history; a good place to start is Janice Knight's: Orthodoxies in Massachusetts: Rereading American Puritanism and then after that you'll want to read: Theodore Dwight Bozeman's,: The Precisianist Strain: Disciplinary Religion and Antinomian Backlash in Puritanism to 1638. She'll open your mind to new Puritan horizons unbeknownst to you in times past. She won't let you ignore what you've been ignoring here; your history. And he'll address, your concerns about the moralistic "precianist strain of religion" known as "Federal Theology" in the 17th century (that's the era my quote from Humphrey Mills came from, bear that in mind). Puritan, you really don't need to comment here, any further; that is, unless you are going to be a genuine guy. This really isn't intended to be a "debate-blog" which your ilk live for; it is intended to be a place where Christian dialogue can take place, where suggestions can be made, and hopefully some learning. P. S.,Puritan Since Dr Myk Habets is too modest, I'm sure, let me just inform you that he was recently awarded the Calvin award: here's the blurb,(Geneva, Switzerland) β July 8, 2009 β Calvin 500, the international Quincentenary celebration of the 500th anniversary of John Calvinβs birth (July 10, 1509), recognized several promising prize-winning Young Scholars as part of its commemoration of John Calvin.As its own symposium within the Quincentenary of John Calvinβs birth, Calvin500 is pleased to announce that the following will be recognized at the Young Calvin Scholars Symposium at the Auditoire in Geneva on July 8 at 15h00. The public is cordially invited to hear synopses of these award-winning papers below.The Calvin Prize will be awarded to Michael Habets of New Zealand for his essay, βCalvinβs Reformed Doctrine of Theosis,β at 15h10. And no, just because he uses the word Theosis doesn't mean he's a "Federal Visionist." Just google his name, show some respect.
Puritan,To be clear, I still stand by my response that 'election' isn't per "individuals," it is instead all on one person's shoulders as He is the elect One 'for us'. And as Myk notes, it is His vicarious life, wherein we find our election, in Him (by the Spirit, union with Him I Cor 6:17, etc.). Remember what Paul says:15Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed,"[g] meaning one person, who is Christ. 17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. 20A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.It's not "seeds," it's SEED (singular) . . . you know that song, "It's all about Jesus," exactly!!!
Classical Federal Theology states:"The Ground of Justification. There was a very important difference of opinion between the Church of Rome and the Reformer's respecting the ground of justification. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the sinner is justified on the basis of his own inherent righteousness, which is infused into his heart in regeneration. But it is impossible that the intrinisic righteousness of the believer or his good works should ever constitute the ground of his justification, since it is itself the fruit of the renewing grace of God, and always remains imperfect in the present life. Moreover, Scripture teaches that man is justified freely by the grace of God, Rom. 3:24, and cannot possibly be justified by the works of the law, Rom. 3:28; Gal. 2:16; 3:11. The real ground of justification can be found only in the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ, which is imputed to the sinner in justification. This is plainly taught in several passages of Scripture, Rom. 3:24; 5:9, 19; 8:1; 10:4; I Cor. 1:30; 6:11; II Cor. 5:21; Phil. 3:9." – Louis Berkhof, Manual of Christian DoctrineBerkhof is valuable as a systematic Reformed theologian in that he also gives one the history of doctrine. I havn't been here challenging awareds and credentials, nor have I been here to debate the work of Janice Knight or any of the others you mention. I have been pointing out the basic of Federal Theology and where you are off-the-mark regarding it. Does that passage from Berkhof mean anything to you? Do you grant that he is giving the classic teaching of classical Covenant/Federal Theology there? Do you question him as a source?
No. Berkhof is certainly a valued resource, and champion of much of contemporary understanding relative to Federal theology.The thing is, he makes my point. The infusio gratiae that he references per Roman Catholics (inherent righteousness); is taken over by the Federalists (i.e. Perkins) via the notion of grace known as creatia gratiae ('created grace' or 'operative grace'). Both offer a cooperative understaning of salvation; while EC is offering a "responsive" one, wherein we 'respond' by the Spirit out of Christ's response for us (vicarious).Of course, it is the perfect righteousnes of Christ that is salvific; but it cannot be primarily construed juridically/forensically, this does nothing for the "heart." And, in fact, Federal Theology is completely 'Law-based'. If you're willing to admit that, Puritan, then we can talk . . . I'm here to talk about Janice Knight's thesis, it is substantial and highly pertinent to our discussion; as is Bozemans, Bierma's, Muller's, et al. All Berkhof is going to give us is prescriptives; what we first need is to deal in description so that we can better understand from whence and who is informing Berkhof's interpretive work. Are you willing to engage in some descriptive work, Puritan? It is quite boring sometimes, but well worth the work (although I find it intriguing, almost always ;-).
Hey, Bobby.I'm trying to understand exegetically how "propitiation" has nothing to do with placation. That's clearly part of the cultural meaning of the word (as it was commonly used in Greco-Roman days), and it's clearly used in some sense in that fashion during the Day of Atonement sacrifice in the Holy of Holies described in the Old Testament.To be sure, through this process "God himself through the death of his dear Son draws near to man and draws man near to himself." But are these two concepts not inextricably bound together?At least Torrance rightly alludes to the vicarious nature of the atonement (while that admittedly does not come close to exhausting atonement theology). Any atonement theology worth its salt will include the notion of substitution. What I'm curious about here is how can Torrance downplay penal substitutionary atonement, when Calvin himself was one of the major promulgators of this theory during the Reformation era? Maybe Torrance is critiquing Calvin through Knox here (out of deference or something)?
Hi Chris,Well TF Torrance's book Atonement is coming out in November, which should placate all of your fears here ;-). His theology actually pivots on vicariousness and of course mediation. This quote may give the impression that TFT downplays the Penal Substitution, but he doesn't in general, all he's about is reorienting it; or reframing it, so that it is seen through the 'ontology' of God's life in Christ. He's concerned about framing the atonement through Moses instead of the New Covenant, to try and be more biblical π (realizing that Moses is certainly a presupposition of the NC). Have you read any of TFT's stuff?
Nice work Bobby. One critique of Torrance and his tradition is that the juridical aspects of the atonement are downlplayed, or they are silent on this when one would most expect to hear them say something. I think that is a fair criticisism to a point as long as it is understood that Torrnace et al were reacting to their own context which had all but sidelined anything other than a juridical approach to the atonement so that penal substitution was the only way to understand the atonement. While Torrnace did not reject forensic elements he certainly did not speak a lot about it (but when he did it was useful and traditional), favouring to work out a more affective atonement theology. In our own day I think we face different challenges and we can try to achieve a greater balance in our atonement theology and part of that will be to say a bit more, pehaps, than Torrance did about the forensic elements. My own work centres on themes like theosis etc but not to the neglect of forensic themes. I guess we are each trying to find the right balance in our soteriology.
I'm all about affective atonement theology, and this is one of the reasons TFT has so resonated with me. Thanks for the good word, Myk! Yeah balance, and not overstatement or under, is certainly the ideal . . . come quickly, Lord!
Btw, Myk,I agree, the forensic is there; if not Paul is not there. So I agree that the forensic needs to be spoken through, but I also think that the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath ;-).
Bobby, not much. But it so happens that TFT's lectures on the incarnation and the atonement I downloaded from somewhere online a couple of years ago, and they're just wonderful. Besides longish excerpts from time to time, that's about it.