What’s wrong with framing salvation and the atonement on “forensic” or “juridical” models alone? This is the typical way to talk about salvation, and rightly so, Paul is very clear about the ‘legal’ aspect of salvation; but that’s not all he has to say, or even the most that he has to articulate. Paul’s “in Christ,” or “union with Christ” theology has, or should have a profound impact upon how we understand the ‘framing’ of salvation or the atonement. Here is how T. F. Torrance understands this:
For Torrance, if we have no doctrine of the risen righteousness of Christ and of our union with him through the Spirit then we have mutilated and gravely emptied the doctrine of justification of much of its content. For him therefore a ‘purely legal’ or a ‘purely forensic’ understanding of justification (that our status as sinners is purely one of having righteousness ‘reckoned’ to us, i.e. that through Christ we are treated as righteous in terms of the law while still sinners in ourselves) overlooks the positive righteousness of the risen Jesus and the fact that we are brought into real union with him through the Spirit. We are still sinners and have no righteousness of our own, but through real union with Christ and his righteousness we do have a real righteousness in him and are made righteous in him, not simply declared to be righteous. (Thomas F. Torrance, ed. Robert T. Walker, “Atonement,” xlix)
This is Robert Walker’s summary of Torrance’s view of the forensic model.
So we don’t see TFT rejecting the ‘forensic’ model, he just wants to say more than that, not less. I think he is right, how about you? Maybe his understanding challenges you a bit, does it?
So, is this real righteousness perhaps what Paul is referencing in Philippians 3?… I also count all things to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them to be dung, so that I may win Christand be found in Him; not having my own righteousness, which is of the Law, but through the faith of Christ, the righteousness of God by faith, that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being made conformable to His death; if by any means I might attain to the resurrection of the dead.Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect, but I am pressing on, if I may lay hold of that for which I also was taken hold of by Christ Jesus.I've been wondering whether he's saying that because we have been counted righteous, and are alive in Christ, we also can experience a tangible (although imperfect) measure of real victory over sin in our lives as proof of that reality.And, Paul is enthusiastically urging readers to grab onto the steady hand that's holding us up with everything we've got?
I agree that the forensic understanding is only one biblcal picture. Clearly, being 'in Christ' and 'union' with Christ' includes imputation but goes beyond it. For example, we share in the Resurrection of Christ [1 Corinthians 15]. But I find it difficult to pin down exactly what is the nature of this βmore thanβ forensic righteousness. For example, what is the exact nature of the righteousness Torrance describes in this statement:'We are still sinners and have no righteousness of our own, but through real union with Christ and his righteousness we do have a real righteousness in him and are made righteous in him, not simply declared to be righteous.' What is βreal righteousnessβ? What does it mean to be βmade righteous in himβ? Is this something over and above regeneration, being given a new heart, being made a new man and given a new nature?I would be very grateful if you clarify this.
Donald Furguson poses an interesting question concerning the definition of real righteousness. I hadn't thought of that before.Once, I heard a pastor say that believers are not only saved positionally, but are also in the process of being saved. I understand that to mean that since the process of regeneration and the renewing of our minds is on ongoing thing, we begin as baby believers and grow to become more mature. And I kind of connected it with the sanctification process by which our hearts become less enamoured with the world and more in love with Christ.I dunno, though. My brain seems to be seizing up lately.Heather
Hi everyone, If you take seriously and literally, Torrance's new humanity as of the vicarious humanity of Christ, then, as i understand it, all has already been made new in us. Frankly, I would not use the term righteousness, santification or regeneration , nor imputation as they are all effectively theologically and culturally laden (multiple-author-usuage)terms, however biblical they may be. As, personally speaking, I press ahead without fear of the law, i think we believers still have to grasp our real freedom which comes in Christ and for which the only perogative is his Love which he gives us totally by way of the Father's Self-offering. Surely we have to re-emphasise that the offering by the Father of the Son, is a total self-offering worked out for us, the bounty of which can hardly be grasped?
Heather,I would say Phil. is a great example of righteousness 'real righteousness'. Donald,I don't think TFT is making a 'qualitative' difference between 'forensic/declarative righteousness' and 'real righteousness'; instead I see him correlating the objective side of righteousness to the experiential/subjective — in other words, both sides are embodied in Christ, and it is by the Spirit that we now participate in 'more than' just being declared righteousness, just as we are 'more than' declared to be in union with Him. So instead of grounding our standing in a 'legal' or framework (impersonal), it is grounded in a relational standing (personal and intimate); wherein we are participants and partakers of the "divine nature" now. From my own perspective, or a way to think about this, I think the language of 'now and not yet' relative to the kingdom might be helpful. We aren't waiting for the kingdom, it has been inaugurated (for real) — we experience that by faith — it will be, of course fully realized at the consummation (not yet). So we have the telos (the purpose of salvation history) moving towards the eschaton (the shape of salvation history) moving towards eachother (both realized now in Christ), and the space we live in is the tension between those two. So that the 'real righteousness we live in (from within the life of God in Christ, not without [i.e. the declarative])is an already reality because it is fully grounded in Christ's life (cf. I Cor 1:28ff) for us (I think the point of Torrance is to frame this whole thing ontologically and not decretavley, so that there is an immediate connection to God instead of one mediated by second causes and decrees).Tim,I'm curious, the language of righteousness, sanctification are quite biblical terms; even if they've been 'copted' I still think we need to still use this language. What we should be seeking is reorientate the 'theological' usage to it's contextual usage and single meaning in scripture — if in fact its theological usage has hybrided it. The Law is an important aspect of NC teaching; but I think we want to make sure its framed correctly. TFT isn't jettisoning the legal stuff, completely; instead he is reframing it to its proper center which is grounded in God's life and a relational/trinitarian frame vs. the 'Federal Calvinistic' frame provided by the 'conditions' of the Covenants (i.e. God's love for us is depedendent upon the 'covenant of works' being met, not until Christ purchases or meets the standards of the CW, then God is not free to love us).
My problem with law and righteousness is the words have been co-opted into westernised understanding of them in an alien system of thought which has done great damage when modern understanding is read back into scripture. I wonder what a Jewish perspective on these terms whould be? I thought Western Christendom had suffered , post-Augustine, for the last 1500yrs. or so, with legal framework? Also why I am reticent about law is that I thought biblical law was about deliverance, yet often, law is equated with moral law, hence Christ is thought of in moral terms. So i just find all this very unhelpful and that a Torrance view of the atonement is streets ahead of a penal view with which, surely, the legal view is often associated? But who am i, to say……
Tim,I see your concern, but I don't think we can give up using those terms just because they've been abused. They are biblical terms, and they have their own context of meaning within the text as you note. I also don't have a problem with noting the moral connations of the "Law," those are clearly there (see II Tim 1); it's all about framework, to me. If we frame things through a purely 'moral' or 'legal' framework then surely we misconstrue the emphasis of scripture (that all the law and prophets hang on loving the Lord our God and our neighbor as ourself). But God's holiness is certainly apart of what the Law is all about (the fact that it's too high for us, even the Pharisees couldn't attain it Mt 5:20). One critique of Torrance, that might be a fair one, is that in His zeal to reframe the atonement (as it should be); he failed to give due place to the language of law in Scripture.
Thanks Bobby.timothya3 said I wonder what a Jewish perspective on these terms whould be? Well, the Jewish leaders of Jesus' day knew the original language and had firsthand knowledge of the culture….Did it help them better grasp the true meaning of the Scriptures?The problem isn't so much "western culture" but ignorant and stubborn people who won't ask God what He's talking about. law is equated with moral lawThere is an inherent aspect of morality to the Law. It's a picture of God's standard by which we are able to measure our own behavior. And, by way of Holy Spirit enlightened vision, it shows us just how immoral we really are, and where we need to turn away from wrong thought and behavior. But "morality" is not the main focus nor the end purpose of the Law, because we can never be truly moral in a way that would please God. So, God came down and not only lived, but died the Law for us–and He triumphed over the curse which the Law brings when He rose from the dead.Morality certainly is a facet…it's just not the entire gem.Heather
Heather,I think the Jewish culture, saturated as it was with Torah, sets the assumptions and context for how we should be reading the NT. In other words, if we assume that Matthew, when he wrote, was drawing off of His knowledge of the OT (in re. to promise/fulfillment motifs and such); then I think this can have a very fruitful impact upon the way we interpret the scriptures as well. Although I see your point. The Pharisees problem was certainly that they were seeking the approval of man rather than God (Jn 5).On the Law. I would say that it's primary focus was to point to Christ (cf. Gal 3). When its set within the frame of the Covenant of Works, it becomes something it was never intended to be (i.e. the ground of salvation).
Bobby, I wasn't arguing against an understanding of the culture. Certainly it is helpful, with all of the imagery that God gave.Personally, I'm more of a "picturesque" learner, and have come to appreciate looking at the portrait that the OT paints. To me, the NT kind of offers a more "left-brain" look at the same information for the more western-thinking gentiles. And Jesus' appearance ties the two together. The three "witnesses" taken together provide an amazingly strong testimony to the reliability of Scripture.In Paul's epistles especially, it seems as though he is just reiterating the OT and Jesus' teachings so non-Jewish readers could better understand. When I realized that Romans 1 parallels Genesis 3, I nearly fell over. It shouldn't be surprising, but somehow I'd had a mental disconnect that the two were inter-related. Because I'm a dork, I suppose.Glad you got my point though.I agree about the primary point of the Law. I recently read a post on the ark/mercy seat connection. It was a really beautiful reminder of the fact that the Law was always meant to magnify the merciful, forgiving nature of our God. Just an awesome concept!Heather
Hi , I went back to reading bits of Torrance's 'Mediation of Christ' and I still feel that none of the respondees have gone far enough, at least for those of us who subscribe to much in that book, written by Torrance. It comes down to that radical revisionning of the 'theory' of the atonement which Torrance gives us, which has so much more to do with Father-Son relations and the bringing of our corrupt humanity into , participation in the very life and love of God. (p.77 lst ed.) Attenuated views on the atonment, and the 'shadows' i sense on display here, are dealt with in the chapter, 'The Person of the Mediator', esp. p.77 (1st. edition). Why i get so passionate about this topic is that I feel , not only do we get to the heart of the Christian faith, but here too Torrance was at his most 'concentrated' when dealing with the interaction (not the best word) of incarnation and atonement, and i will continue to persue and learn a lot from this book, esp. 2nd and the inclusion of the extra chapter on the atonement.
Heather,I know you weren't arguing, I was just "coming back" a little ;-).There is a reason why much of the NT is more "left brain," it is discourse literature whose primary intent is didactic or teaching (through "linear or logical arguements"). Of course you know the other "types" (of the main 3 in the Bible) are what primarily makes up the OT (Narrative and Hebrew Poetry). The unity of the message is amazing, and the LORD's wisdom is certainly on display in the crafting of his Word! Although, I might want to argue with you on the "left-brain" and Gentile readers; since as you read the "material assumptions" of the epistles, you quickly realize they are steeped in the OT landscape.Tim,I think, though, that you're kind've missing my point. I don't think someone needs to throw out the 'legal' aspect of the atonement — and I don't think TFT does either — instead we need to reframe it through a Trinitarian lense (the one that you are wanting to press, as am I). We have to deal with the "language of scripture," and scripture is replete with legal language (all the way through, the courtroom for example in Isaiah, or even in Genesis for that matter — e.g. "Heaven and Earth" as the two witnesses of the Mosaic requirement). I agree that what you are emphasizing is what TFT was emphasizing; because of a terrible underemphasis through Federal Calvinism (or no emphasis). But, at least for me, I don't think we need to create a false dilemma between the "heart of the Christian faith" (meaning the relational), and all of the 'parts' that make up that whole. Again, to me, and I think for TFT, it is about what the "frame" is.
Bobby,No worries. You've always been pretty easy on me here.Okay, we can argue about the "left-brain" gentile readers. But maybe later, as I'm still busy eating sacrament pie.My battle axe is in the shop, but we could do pistols at 20 paces…or just lob grenades at each other. H
RGPs would work ;-).
This is bang on, I reckon. Union with Christ is the key to a biblical understanding of justification, and imputation in particular.I believe that what Torrance is saying here is essentially the mainstream 'reformed orthodoxy' view. Calvin was certainly very keen that justification be seen as based on union with Christ. Justification is forensic, but it is based upon an ontological reality – our union with Christ.Jonathan Edwards (or 'Jedwards' as I like to call him now, let the British reader understand) even said that Jesus' resurrection was like his own justification, which he shares with all those united with him.
Hi Pete,Really good to hear from you, I whish I could get more of you Brits, from the "Christ The Truth" circle over here π . . . I really appreciate you guys — even if we might disagree at points.Yes, I totally agree "union with Christ" is where the foundation of salvation 'for us' is at; w/o his vicarious humanity we'd be shot through (cf. Rom 6). And I agree that this served as the way that Calvin approached this, as well as TFT. But I would not agree that this represents mainstream 'reformed orthodoxy' of today. It just cannot, given "their" doctrine of God.If you could clarify for me who you are referring to when you say "Reformed Orthodoxy" that would be helpful.Thanks Pete, and welcome . . .
Hi Bobby,I'd really need to go check out something like Muller's Post-reformation reformed dogmatics or something to check that I'm not speaking incorrectly. My comment is part based on assumption and largely based on the way I've been taught about justification in (relatively) reformed circles here.But, off the top of my head I'm pretty sure that I've read of Calvin, Owen, Turretin (would need to double-check him), Jonathan Edwards all rooting the forensic in union with Christ. Modern-day Westminster-philly people would do the same, Gaffin is an obvious example, as would Frame, as did people like John Murray, Ed Clowney. Even 'popular' reformed figures today like Piper would do the same. Differences you might have with their doctrine of God, and you might even feel there are big holes in their being able to hold forensic and union together as a result, but I think it's fairly standard to root justification in union with Christ.