The Primacy of God's Life as the Ground of Salvation and the Scotist Thesis

Posted on by

Here is Hugh Binning (1627-1653), young Scottish theologian, speaking of the primacy of God’s life as the ground of salvation; speaking of the primacy of God’s love as the foundation of salvation:

. . . our salvation is not the business of Christ alone but the whole Godhead is interested in it deeply, so deeply, that you cannot say, who loves it most, or likes it most. The Father is the very fountain of it, his love is the spring of all — “God so loved the world that he hath sent his Son”. Christ hath not purchased that eternal love to us, but it is rather the gift of eternal love . . . Whoever thou be that wouldst flee to God for mercy, do it in confidence. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are ready to welcome thee, all of one mind to shut out none, to cast out none. But to speak properly, it is but one love, one will, one council, and purpose in the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, for these Three are One, and not only agree in One, they are One, and what one loves and purposes, all love and purpose. (Thomas F. Torrance, quoting Hugh Binning, “Scottish Theology,” 79)

This understanding, historically is very Scotist in orientation, Myk Habets says:

The Scotistic thesis on the primacy of Christ essentially comes down to one word — love. The predestination of Christ is a completely gratuitous act of God. The corollary is that the incarnation is not conditioned by any creaturely factor such as sin. This utter independence from a creaturely factor is true in the case of all the elect. Therefore, a fortiori, it must be true of the predestination of Christ who, as head of the elect, was predestined to the greatest glory. The basic reason given by the Scotists for the works of God ad extra is the supreme love of God.

and,

. . . The sine quo non of the Scotistic thesis is that the predestination of Christ took place in an instant which was logically prior to the prevision of sin as absolutum futurum. That is, the existence of Christ was not contingent on the fall as foreseen through the scientia visionis. . . . (Myk Habets, “On Getting First Things First: Assessing Claims for the Primacy of Christ,” (Journal Compilation, Blackwell publishing 2008), 347, 349)

These are the premises which Evangelical Calvinism flows from. Hugh Binning clearly fits the Scotist thesis, the Evangelical Calvinist seeks to magnify the primacy of Christ through its theologizing; it seeks to be “Evangelical” by accepting the ‘evangelical’ implications that flow from the primacy of God’s life mediated to us in Christ. It is my belief, as an ‘Evangelical Calvinist’, that the Scotist thesis — here defined, and illustrated — best captures and articulates the truth of the Supremacy of God’s life in Christ. The alternative is the Thomist thesis — which Federal theology flows from, per its ‘Doctrine of God’ — this thesis has other implications . . . we’ll have to continue to talk about those in the days to come. Let’s close with one of “Evangelical Calvinism’s” favorite passages of scripture:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18. He is the head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. 19. For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, 20. and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. ~Colossians 1:15-20

P. S. Often times I speak in polarities, i.e. Evangelical Calvinism vs. Federal etc., this usually is for rhetorical purposes — in order to engender discussion, to provoke — what this post should illustrate though, is that there indeed is a distinct approach to Evangelical Calvinism that does differentiate it from Federal theology — The ‘Scotist thesis’. Everything we do in theology starts with how we conceive of God, so while I realize there is a continuum of belief represented within the ‘Reformed tradition’, depending on this defining point, one will end up on one trajectory or the other or the other. Not all is as nice and neat as I would prefer, but we at least need to define the “poles” in order to further nuance and understand where the various traditions flow from within the ‘Reformed tradition’.

10 thoughts on “The Primacy of God's Life as the Ground of Salvation and the Scotist Thesis”

  1. Hi Bobby!Trying to comprehend. Googling the Latin.It looks as though the point Myk is myking is that The Son was chosen before God foresaw the fall of man. Also "…the existence of Christ was not contingent upon…. I'm sure I'm not comprehending, because on the first point Omniscient God has always known every little thing. On the second, unless he is referring to the office of CHRIST (Anointed), the Person of The Son is eternal.So my best interpretation is that the Son was first elected to be incarnate, Emmanuel, to commune with man, regardless of the fall.Please elucidate? :>Duane

  2. Yup,You're reading him right, Duane.The goal is to make sure that God is not contingent on anything. If the 'Fall' determined that Jesus became man; then God's life, in some sense, is shaped by the Fall, instead of by His own self-determined and free life.That help?

  3. 1. It is a supralapsarian Christology, not necessarily a supralapsarian atonement – if that makes sense. So in terms of some logical order – which human minds are forced to think about but in God there may not be such – then God elects Christ first, not as a consequence of sin to remedy the fall. So think logical rather than simply chronological here, and also think analogically if possible. 2. Yes God does know all but Duane, you are not distinguishing here between the Person of the Son and the incarnate Son – Jesus Christ. Same peson, two different states – one is incarnate, the other is not. This is a Reformed staple but sadly one of the most misunderstood or least understood points. At Christmas time it is especially important – who is in the crib? What is he doing? Who is sustaining the universe? How can this baby who cannot look after itself look after the entire universe at the same time? Christmas blessings.

  5. Hi Bobby and Myk!Yes that helps alot. In fact just yesterday, writing a Christmas letter to my brothers, I was sharing a couple of things I've learned this year: The height of God's Omniscience: that He has never learned anything, therefore He would never make any decision based on new information. Any argument that He must be the cause of an event to foreknow it, fails logically in my opinion.The second is the depth of Jesus' incarnation. Just a seed someone put in my head, so correct me if I'm wrong:Incarnate God the Son, while still fully God, arrived here fully clothed in humanity (fully human);. His life in our place by necessity had to be carried out in all points tempted as are we, yet without sin. I'm thinking, to be vicarious for us, He must live out His incarnation just as the first man should have. He did not have omniscience nor omnipotence. I believe He was UTTERLY depedent upon the Holy Spirit and Father through prayer.He probably learned who He was by degrees through Scripture and gentle promptings of the Spirit, by an almost insatiable hunger to be in communion with Father and Spirit, and by His love for Israel and humanity. I hope that is not way off, because the thought of Him walking out his time completely dependent as we should be moves me in my core. Then he as vicarious man really has much more power than if He were superman.Please correct me if I'm out to lunch.BlessingsDuane

  6. Duanne, your thoughts about Jesus' dependence on God is close to my understanding, but I'm not an Evan, so I really my agreement or otherwise is not really that important on this blog :).Bobby, I have held to the election of the Son as the Christ apart from the Fall and the primacy of love for a number of years now, though seemingly for other reasons. In fact, given the make-up of the Trinity (at least in my understanding), the pre-fall make-up of man and how God set up the world and so on, I'm not sure how this conclusion could be avoided though I'm aware it has been. (Am I going to be asked to explain this? Because I'm not going to be around for about a week – unless by some stroke of God's blessing I get internet access).Perhaps I'm more of an Evangelical Calvinist than either of us realise!Oh, and Merry Christmas. I trust you enjoy yourself in the midst of your current trials.

  7. Duane,Let me get to your points, you bring up many, through some future posts!Ali,No, I won't ask you to explain; unless you want to. You have a merry Christmas, enjoy your time celebrating the birth of the Savior! Maybe you are more EC than we realize, I don't know :-).Merry Christmas, guys!!! And thanks for the continued prayers!

  8. Yes, still praying for you Bobby. You sound strong.Merry Green Christmas in So.Cal,Merry Christmas Ali and Myk and every one!

  10. Grace,peace and love be multiplied to you from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ.Hey Bobby I hope you are well.One thing that I have learned that so many people have unfortunately have missed when it comes to framework in theology is that God exists in relationship and that God is love so every act of God must be an act of love.For love is not merely an attribute of God but rather it is who He is as Father,Son,and Holy Spirit and love can never be understood outside of relationship.So if your theology is judicially framed and not relationally framed you completely miss the beauty and mystery of the Godhead.What I don’t understand is that we as Christians and rightly so,deny and disapprove and reject the doctrine of cults who have taken Scripture out of context but when it comes to the doctrines of Classic Calvinism,that is the 5 points,Christians will promote it as a superior theology?To be honest and if anyone is honest you have to willfully and malignantly take a whole lot of Scripture out of context to make that theology to begin to work.Anyone who doesn’t know the 5 points of TULIP and read the Bible would no way come out with that theology.When the Scripture makes plain sense don’t try and make any other sense out of it.It’s all about the blessed Trinity and His love demonstrated in reconciling all things,including us,to Himself.All glory to His name-Chris

Comments are closed.