I think what I’m going to do with this blog is keep it dedicated to things oriented around Calvinism and Evangelical Calvinism in particular. Whenever I think about posting something else here, in regards to different topics, I always pause and feel like I am going to contaminate the pristine purity of all things ‘EC’ π . So what I’m going to do is slow down my posts here — probably to one post a week (probably on Fridays or Saturdays) — and then open my Christianly blog back up where I will post on an array of issues (and more frequently). I’ll still be here, but I’ll be posting regularly over at the other blog. See you here or there . . .
Come over to Christianly
Bob:
A question for your thoughts.
Torrance emphasizes our union with Christ as the foundation of our relationship with God. That is true of the new covenant presentation of salvation, but it may not be the perspective of the mosaic covenant. If the “Suzerain-Vassal treaty” model is a valid way to see Moses’ presentation of God’s covenant with Israel, then living with God through our union with Christ is a later development, not known to Israel. So there is development and union with Christ is possible only since Christ’s incarnation.
Does this sound true?
Hi Paul,
I would say that we have an “Incarnating God,” even before the Mosaic Cov.; think of the “I AM” with Moses, or even before that, how Yahweh comes to Adam and Even in the Garden. The “mystery” (Col 1.27) may have been just that in the NT; but I don’t think the “ground” of God’s salvation in Christ, that his mediatorship has ever been different (I Tim. 2.5-6) . . . it’s an always-already reality (as much so as the Lamb who was slain before the foundations of the World).
So what we see take place in the unfolding of salvation history is something that has always-already been a reality within God’s life for all eternity. This is what Torrance is famous for saying: “There is not a God behind the back of Jesus.” So what we see (Jn 1.18) is only the externalization of God’s life (economic) in eternity (which is the antecendent or immanent life of God).
The Suzerain-Vassal treaty is a provisional reality embedded within salvation history; intended to point people to their broken state w/o Christ (Gal. 3); it is this broken state that Christ — all along has taken for man (Rom. 3.25) which is only fully realized (penultimately) at His Incarnation with all of its attendant implications.
Let me know if that makes any sense.
I agree that God has not changed, that what Christ is God is, and that His presence was important and experienced by Israel. I am thinking more about the history of redemption. Christ in us, the hope of glory, was not available for us to experience until Christ’s incarnation. So our relationship with God has changed with Christ, even though the foundation for this has always been there,
Paul,
But if the history of salvation in fact is only the externalisation of God’s life in “historic-time,” then union with Christ has always been the way that man has related to God by faith.
EC looks at this stuff top down, instead of bottom up; so that when we see Jesus we see the Father, and when we view “salvation history” we see Jesus. This is not to deny the “progressive unfolding” of God’s plan in history; but it is to say that this “unfolding” finds its antecedent reality in God’s life (which is where Pre-destination and election come in). The reality of Christ’s mediatorship is an always-already reality . . . something that was before the foundation of the world (see TFT’s Mediation of Christ and Jn 1.1-18).
I think the “hope of glory” has always been there (even under the OT see Gen 18, Judg 14–16, etc.); what changed in the New Covenant wasn’t the experience, but the intensity and realization of what was always-already the reality. I think in the context of Pauline theology the “mystery” is in reference to the “Church” (Jew and Gentile one in Christ Eph 2); not a change in “how” man has always related to God (through Christ by the Spirit).
We may disagree here, Paul; not sure, let me know.
My concern is not about who is this God who was present with Israel then, as well as with us now. It is about our experience of Him and the progression in what we are called to trust in.
I think you are projecting the incarnation back into the OT, retelling the story, in a different way than the Biblical authors do. The NT authors do see Christ in the OT stories, which, in one sense, is a retelling of Israel’s story. So, Abraham, Moses, Paul, and we encounter the same God.
But Paul talks about “before faith came” (Gal. 3:23), which speaks of a change. There is a history to God’s presence. My trust now in God in light of the incarnation, crucifixion and resurection of Christ.
Torrance fights against a contractual relationship with God and points to a relational view of God’s salvation, which I deeply appreciate. But when I trust in Christ who lived life for me and suffered judgment for me, and in the Spirit’s ability to draw me into Christ, this is a much deeper object of trust than Moses’ call to Israel to trust in the God who chose them and redeemed them. God’s election, victory over evil, and personal presence among His people are common elements for Moses and Paul/John, but union with God changes the whole ball game. I move from imitating/obeying God to being drawn into, absorbing, His life. It changes my prayers and how I visualize the path I am on.
Thanks for the blog.
paul
Okay, Paul, quit it! You’re starting to press me too much, you’re making me think . . . I don’t like that π π hehe.
Seriously, you say of me:
This is certainly a serious charge, one I do not take lightly; and further, one that, of course I should hope to avoid with the utmost seriousness!
I think that we are both operating out of a set of unstated assumptions in re. to our, apparently disparate: hermeneutical constructs, dogmatic frameworks, etc. In order to move forward in a healthy way, let me attempt to state some of the basic assumptions I’m making; and in that process, I’ll also try to describe what I see behind your assumptions (and if I’m wrong there, then you can let me know).
1) My first assumption is that God in Christ is the center from whence we want to interpret all of scripture. So that the “reality of God shapes and determines how we actually interpret the Scriptures themselves; i.e. viz. that the “words” of Scripture don’t take God captive, but instead “bear witness” to Him (cf. Jn. 5.39). In other words, in the “order of knowing” we want to give precedence to God’s life in Christ by the Spirit; and allow this to be interpretive “center” from which we proceed. Let me quote Paul Molnar, at length on this as he presents Torrance’s approach and rationale here:
Which this all obviously means that I am assuming, accepting the norms just articulated, a theological exegetical approach to interpreting the Scriptures (vs. a strict LGH approach).
2) My next assumption or guiding theological principle is that I want to avoid any dualistic thinking about God; which in practice means, I want to jettison any thinking that would collapse God into “His creation,” or identify God so closely with His creation — in salvation history — that the creation actually determines and shapes who God is, and not God’s free and determinative choice.
3) In light of my last assumption I see a continuity to God’s life throughout salvation history which is grounded and shaped by who God is in His inner life (or His ontological nature in se); this is the ground upon which His life is revealed economically within and throughout salvation history.
a. So to get at the discontinuity/continuity points that you are highlighting relative to passages like Gal. 3 present us with; I would want to say that I agree there is an asymmetry between the ground and the act of God, but only soteriologically (or epistemically). That is to say, who we see and read off of the pages of Scripture is absolutely, univocally who we God is in Christ (in His internal relations). What I am saying in re. to your point here, is that my previous points were speaking about God’s ontological life (His inner life); and that how that life is revealed to us (economically) in salvation history is presupposed and shaped by His inner life (thus we can say that the God we see in Christ, is who God is in His inner life). This is why I don’t have a problem speaking about the Incarnation (Deus Incarnantus prior to the Incarnation (Deus Incarnandus) (since this is consonant with who God obviously chose to be prior to the Fall itself . . . He walked with Adam and Eve [is this to only be taken anthropomorphically?]).
All this to say, I don’t think it is wrong or a misstep at all to read God, within salvation history as the “Incarnating God” (there are too many examples in the OT Gen 18; Judg 14–16; even Gen 3; Ex. 3:15; etc.); yet, I do agree with you, that when Christ finally came in the manger that there is a shift from shadow to reality that takes place (and that the cruciform God of the OT finally climaxes His revelation at the cross, burial, resurrection, and ascension — but only penultimately (the ultimate will take place at the consummation of all things [the 2nd advent]).
My real point here is to dispel the idea that I’m reading or eisogeting something into the text that is not there. Relative to “who” God has always-already been in His choice for us (ontologically) I don’t see any discontinuity between the object of “faith” for Abraham (cf. Gen 15.6), David (Ps. 16), or Peter and Paul (Gal. 2.16) — I see continuity. Relative to the soteriological or unfolding understanding of this (epistemically) in salvation history, I agree with you there is a greater understanding because of the Incarnation and cross-work of Christ.
b. I don’t have a sub-point “b” π . But I’ll just add, in light of what I just said, that it may appear that what I’m saying makes the cross, really, of no effect. And I would say just the contrary. Federal Calvinism frames the cross-work in a way that presents it as “THE Transaction” that must happen in order for the condition of the “Covenant of Works” to be met (in other words the ground for God’s love for man becomes subverted by and contingent upon “contract being met”). What I am saying is that just the opposite, the cross is the ultimate revelation of God’s life in history; because it is grounded in and shaped by His love for us [I Jn 4.19] (and thus the ground for His free choice for us in salvation). The cross has always been “shadowed” in all of salvation history (which presupposes that the “Incarnation” has always been shadowed in salvation history). God’s life is a cruciform life for us in Christ; this is why I want to speak about the continuity or harmony between the faith (object) of Abraham, David, and Paul/Peter — even their faith was always grounded in and worked from the one mediator between God and man (while the OT’rs were a tertiary reality of this) and Peter/Paul’s/our’s is a penultimate reality of this (relative to salvation history) it has always been shaped by the reality of the hypostatic union of God and Man in Christ.
Is there some recapitulation in what I’m saying? Yes. But no more than is presented in passages like Rom. 3.25; Heb. 11.39-40; etc.
What I see in your approach, Paul, is more of an adherence to the LGH and even dispensationalism; would I be correct?
Okay, I could keep trying to ‘splain myself; but this will have to suffice for the moment. Let me know what you think.
Hmm, some stuff to chew on.
I am just learning what TFT means by focusing on the Word (Christ) over the words of Scripture, because Scripture points us to Christ. I come from a high inerrancy/LGH background. Thanks for the thoughts.
I am not so much clinging to a LGH or dispensationaly hermeneutic, as I am trying to let the history of God with us control and shape my faith. I am not comfortable with theologians who summarize their understanding of Scripture into a “reconstructed story” of salvation history and then, using this new story to re-interpret Scripture, they write a 5th gospel. I see NTWright doing this sometimes (I like him otherwise). If this “reconstructed story” is the essence of theological exegesis, I am not in favor of it. In the hands of Francis Watson, it can go in different directions than the apostles. However, if it is another way of saying what Irenaeus said about “the rule of faith”, preserving the big picture given to us by the apostles, them I am for it.
Thanks,
paul
Paul,
My background is the same as yours.
I am not comfortable with theologians who co-opt the story of Scripture with “their story” either. Obviously, I don’t think TFT is doing this; and interestingly I almost mentioned Irenaeus with my comment on recapitulation. I think TFT follows Irenaeus here; in fact, Molnar within the context I take his quote from above, similarly underscores TFT’s move here in contrast to following Tertullian.
I agree with you on NT Wright, and thus I can’t appreciate his reconstruction of salvation in general. I think Wright’s problem is that he does not attend to the Dogmatic concerns that we all must if we are going to allow, as you say: I am not so much clinging to a LGH or dispensationaly hermeneutic, as I am trying to let the history of God with us control and shape my faith. . . . I think the question that we must ask then, in light of your desire, is what I was getting at in my assumption #2 and #3 above; we should want to make sure that salvation history is not determinative of God’s history in Himself (yet at the same time maintain the univocal correlation between His “inner history” and “outer history”).
We aren’t going to resolve all of this in a blog combox, reading Torrance himself is what is most important in understanding him; and then some of his more significant commentators (which there really aren’t that many of).