'Pactum Salutis', Covenant of Redemption, its Got Problems

Posted on by

Here’s how TF Torrance thought of Federal Calvinism’s so called ‘pactum salutis’ or ‘Covenant of Redemption’, as summarized by Myk Habets:

Federal theology, in Torrance’s estimation, works on the premise of a contract or bargain made between the Father and the Son in eternity past,and interpreted in necessary, causal, and forensic terms, rather than grounding election in the incarnate person of Christ, as it was with Calvin and Knox. Torrance rejects a strictly causative relation between God’s eternal decrees and their end because they eclipse any real meaning to such passages as John 3:16 on the one hand, and as a result, on the other hand, they tended to restrict the proclamation of the Gospel to the β€˜heathen’ due to a β€˜forensically predetermined covenant-structure.’ (Myk Habets in β€œThe Doctrine of Election in Evangelical Calvinism: T. F. Torrance as a Case Study,” Irish Theological Quarterly, Vol. 73, No. 3-4, 334-354 (2008)

There is certainly more to Torrance’s critique of Federal Calvinism, but this is what he thought of the Covenant of Redemption. Torrance sees election christologically conditioned, and thus grounded in Christ; not in decrees grounded upon the ‘salvation of humanity’.Β  In other words, the atonement wasn’t a situation wherein Christ ‘purchased’ a ‘particular’ group of humanity unto salvation; instead it is an instance where salvation for humanityΒ was lovingly ‘united’ to God in Christ (as the eternal free decision of God’s life of love). I’m leaving this a little vague in order to prompt points or questions in the comment meta; if you have any, let’m fly . . .

5 thoughts on “'Pactum Salutis', Covenant of Redemption, its Got Problems”

  1. I think I’m tracking this.

    But probably only because I already saw scriptural evidence that the “purchase” was for “the whole field” in which the treasure also was buried.

    I guess my only question would be whether Torrance totally rejected the concept of a legal framework concerning the way God deals with us.

    It is interesting to me the Proverb that says:
    If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink; for you will heap coals of fire on his head, and the LORD will reward you.

    When I started reading Proverbs as primarily THE Father’s loving instruction to THE Son, it changed the way I viewed some things.
    If Christ’s sacrifice and giving up of Himself is sufficient to cover all sin, and He’s willing to forgive any who come to Him…yet there are those who still refuse to reconcile (for whatever reason), then the evidence of His spurned generosity is solid, irrefutable testimony that a person wants no part of Him. At the final accounting, there will be no question as to whether God’s judgment against unrighteousness is just.

    It seems to me that there is a forensic aspect that still may fit within the overall picture. Did I miss something?

  2. No, you are right Heather. There has to be some forensic element otherwise we would have to ct a lot of Paul’s theology out of our own! So you are right. TFT and others retain the forensic element but make it a part of a much larger affective theology. Federal Calvinism tends to make the forensic almost the whole picture, certainly the dominating concept, and that is what EC rejects.

  3. Federal Calvinism tends to make the forensic almost the whole picture, certainly the dominating concept, and that is what EC rejects.

    Thank you for the clarification, Myk.
    EC includes forensic as a necessary component of the whole rather than the primary focus. Got it!

  4. Hi Bobby,

    Not sure this makes sense but:

    What then of the decision of election (albeit Christological), is that not just framing the pactum salutis slightly differently? Unless of course we want to say that God’s being is his decision… I wonder whether Barth’s reluctance to accept the pact colours TFT here… Barth’s concern was more over the implication that there were multiple centers of consciousness in operation though – the idea that a bargain could be struck. But it seems that we need to have some kind of theology of the pact, or decision, or whatever language is appropriate? Something takes place between Father and Son in eternity where the Father elects and the Son ‘agrees’ to become incarnate and so bear the sinful man away…

    I guess I’m a bit more sympathetic to the notion of the pactum salutis, if the language we use around it is more carefully defined.

  5. Scott,

    I don’t have a problem with th pactum as long as its defined atypically either. But my beef is with the “classical” framing of it — of course πŸ˜‰ .

Comments are closed.