Torrance is describing an “Old School Evangelical Calvinist’s” — John Craig’s — understanding of election and union with Christ. Of note is that, like Calvin, Craig (according to Torrance) emphasizes union with Christ as a ‘centraldogma’ (of sorts) in regards to understanding the mechanics of salvation and our relation with Christ through His relation with us in the Incarnation. This emphasis, ‘union with Christ’, I believe is something 
that sets us apart from Federal/Westminster Calvinism; indeed is something of a hallmark or touchstone for us in respect to both our theological construction as well as our linkage into the theology of John Calvin, and more so, into the theology of ‘union with Christ’ in the Apostle Paul’s ‘in Christ’ paradigm. In the following quote you will notice something that has been mentioned here before, the idea of ‘carnal union’ and ‘spiritual union’ with Christ. Let’s hear from Torrance on Craig:
. . . Distinctive also is the fact that Craig regarded election as bound up more with adoption into Christ, with union with him, and with the communion of the Spirit, than with an eternal decree. The union of people with Christ exists only within the communion of the redeemed and in the union they conjointly have with Christ the Head of the Church. ‘All who are united with Christ are joined with the Church. Which of these two unions is the first and cause of the other? The mystical and spiritual union with Jesus Christ. For we are all saints of God, because we are joined first with Christ in God.’
Union with Christ and faith are correlative, for it is through faith that we enter into union with Christ, and yet it is upon this corporate union with Christ that faith and our participation in the saving benefits or ‘graces’ of Christ rest. John Craig held that there was a twofold union which he spoke of as a ‘carnal union’ and a ‘spiritual union’. By ‘carnal union’ he referred to Christ’s union with us and our union with Christ which took place in his birth of the Spirit and in his human life through which he sanctifies us. The foundation of our union with Christ, then, is that which Christ has made with us when in his Incarnation he became bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh; but through the might power of the Spirit all who have faith in Christ are made flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone. It is only through this union, through ingrafting into Christ by faith and through communion with him in his Body and Blood, that we may share in all Christ’s benefits — outside of this union and communion there is no salvation, for Christ himself is the ground of salvation. . . . (Thomas F. Torrance, “Scottish Theology: From John Knox to John McLeod Campbell, 51-52)
Does anything stand out to you, in contrast to how you typically hear ‘Calvinism’ explained? I think the primary point of departure for EC from Federal Calvinism is highlighted here, and that is the point where ‘Christ himself is the ground of salvation’. For EC things are deeply ‘personal’ and quite intimate. Union with Christ (Pauline ‘marriage language’ cf. Eph. 5) is at the core of EC salvation, this is the nexus wherein Christ takes our wrags and we take His riches. Everything turns on this one point for EC. Christ’s Incarnation and Atonement are inseparably linked, since the moment He ‘carnally’ takes on our humanity; He begins, by the Holy Spirit, to set us apart for communion with Himself and the Father. This consummates, as it were, in ‘mystical’ or ‘spiritual’ union whereby we enter into the full union with Christ through faith by the Spirit. Interestingly, as Torrance notes for Craig, there is a correlation between union with Christ and faith; union with Christ (‘carnally’) is the prerequisite wherein faith assumes its gusto. It is through Christ’s penetration into our sinful states, that He, as our mediator (Priest) makes a move we would never make for ourselves (grace) — left to ourselves — He say’s ‘Yes’ to the Father by the Spirit. As we are confronted with this ‘Yes’ by the Spirit from the Son for us, we then become ‘respondents’ to God’s love showered upon us in His Son (cf. Eph. 1:3; Rom. 5:5), and cry out “Abba Father, Yes!” In short, election, union with Christ are inextricably united for Craig — and for Evangelical Calvinists — the logic of grace that stands behind this is, again, the idea that salvation and all of its attendant relations are profoundly, personally, and Triunally grounded in Jesus Christ! What could be better than that?
Let me mention one more point that should be clarified for those who read here regularly, and are still befuddled by aspects of EC, sorry π . As we just surveyed, EC follows this idea of ‘carnal and spiritual union’ respectively. What you will notice, even in the quote above, is that ‘carnal union’ is universal — that is, Christ ‘carnally’ assumes all of humanity, real humanity (into its sinful depths); the assumption then, for EC, is that ‘spiritual union’ will follow. EC only really speaks in this positive vein when constructing her soteriology, the fact that people, who are now oriented to God in Christ through ‘carnal union’ with Him (who even go to the cross with Him — cf. the ontological atonement), reject the ‘ground of this union’ (Christ) for themselves makes absolutely no sense for the EC . . . this presents a true dilemma, one that we cannot explain, nor try to. The fact that certain folks stay on the ‘shadow-side’ of Calvary is a deep mystery, but the point should be made: they are now oriented to God in Christ (later Evangelical Calvinists say that these folks, for some strange reason — because of unbelief — experience ‘Gospel-wrath’). It is at this point that the non-logico-causal approach of EC shows up, once again; we don’t refer to a set of impersonal ‘absolute decrees’ when speaking about salvation. Which means that we don’t have a ‘decree for the Fall’ to repose upon; which further means that any discussion about ‘why’ or ‘where’ sin (rejection of God) enters the picture is a non-starter (to ask an EC’r why someone would reject their ‘recreation in Christ’ should expect the same answer to the question “why did the Fall happen in the first place?” or “why did Adam and Eve reject their original ‘creation’ in Christ [cf. imago dei]?”).
Hi Bobby,
Coupla questions, hope you don’t mind.
So, is anyone still ‘in Adam’ or is that all just BC?
Also, on the parallel between those who reject the gospel and their ‘recreation in Christ’ (to use your lingo), and Adam and Eve in the original fall, would you not agree there is a significant degree of assymetry? Scripture never tries to offer a reason for the original fall, it is inexplicable, irrational, etc. etc. etc. – but I don’t get that same impression when it comes to those who reject the gospel. They do so because they are blind, they are following their father the devil, they aren’t Jesus’ sheep etc. The bible seems to think it can at least offer a little bit of explanation for it, don’t you think?
Pete
Good morning, Pete.
1) No, all are “in the 2nd Adam,” even the 1st Adam — why Paul says the 2nd Adam is greater than the 1st.
2) Absolutely, they remain in the state that the 1st Adam left them in — even though, objectively, that state has been reversed. The love the darkness rather than the light. But in lieu of what the 2nd Adam has done for them, this remains just as inexplicable as the 1st Adam’s rejection. There is no doubt an asymmetry in response, but as Calvin says, this asymmetry represents is per ‘accidens’ (or a mystery).
I can’t squeeze much further, Pete. That’s about as good as I can do. And it’s as far as I want to go . . . that’s just how it is for EC π .
It’s quite liberating to realise that there IS asymmetry. Too often theology, esp Reformed theology, has tried to ‘balance the equation’ with a double entry bookkeeping approach to doctrines. Think of Perkins’ and Bunyan’s charts on salvation and reprobation. It’s almost as if one can say – i stress almost, at this point – that no one needs to be reprobated, lost, etc by necessity (another damaging theological notion that, ‘necessity), but some are. Just as Christ is elected and reprobated, so it works out that some are elected and some reprobated. There is an inner freedom to this though that cannot be particularised, we must just leave it to God, such as the fate of the ‘unevangelised’. Barth likes to stress Paul’s thought from Romans 1, about God passing over, giving them up, etc., yet he would as equally quote from Paul on Mars Hill (rather than Rob Bell, he he).
Bobby, I have to say that I love the conceptual language used in this Theology: To speak of union “spiritual union” and communion with Christ, and base it upon carnal union of Christ with us. This is really beautiful, and reveals the Love that He has for us: for all of us. Why anyone would reject so great a salvation is a mystery to me, but to blame the God of that salvation, is, in my mind, is to deface it.
Thanks!
Thank you, Duane! Obviously, I agree with you π .
Great points, Solly. There are somethings we weren’t obviously meant to understand. If we are going to do a positive theology, we will focus on what we know from Christ’s revelation; not what we don’t know creating systems from ‘our expierience, filling the “gaps” so to speak.
Thanks for the reply Bobby.
Re. 1) :
Not sure I’m tracking your exegesis there? Romans 5 or 1 Corinthians 15 or elsewhere I’m not thinking of?
Also, in response to your answer – why are people who have been born since the cross (or incarnation?) sinners if they’re not in the 1st Adam but in the 2nd?
Re. 2):
I guess I’m just questioning how adequate it is to draw a parallel between the inexplicability of Adam’s fall and the inexplicability of rejecting the gospel. Scripture has more to say to account for the latter than the former, even if we want to still say there’s some inexplicability in there. I’d say that’s got to be important – those who reject the gospel don’t do so from the same position Adam was in when he fell. Even in your paradigm, it’d have to be said that their subjective condition is different to Adam’s even if you want to argue there’s big parallel’s in their objective state, wouldn’t it? If so, that feels pretty important, ‘specially since it brings us back to issues of why that is the case …
Thanks for your time! If you’ve better stuff to be doing then feel free to ignore these questions.
1) I don’t ever think I said they aren’t “sinners.” Nobody is denying that we aren’t sinners because of the objective work of Christ, and our objective union with Him. You don’t think that once someone is “justified” that they aren’t sinners anymore do you? Even so, the framing for EC is really a step behind justification; it has more to do with God’s life first (by way of order). That’s where this question should be framed, not through the justification/sanctification/glorification matrix . . . that to me is a separate but relate issue to this particular point.
What do you mean that you’re not following my exegeis on Rom 5? What part of it?
2) What you’re missing in your question is that EC believes that Christ is the “recreation”, supreme over all creation both death and life because of the whole act of Incarntion, death, burial, resurrection, ascension. As you note there is asymmetry between the conditions surrounding the 1st and 2nd Adam. But the point is to analogously use the “Fall” to respond to the question of why people would reject Christ again (once they’ve objectively or carnally been united to Him). What is it that stands in the way of them becoming Spiritually united? I don’t know. EC operates out of a paradigm that does not NEED to answer that question. I don’t know what else to tell you, Pete. I’m laying it all out there. I appreciate your prodding and push-back, but I really don’t think I’ll be able to answer you any better on this than I already have. I don’t think this response is inadequate per the implications of Christ’s life, the logic of grace, or what Scripture says.
Sorry, maybe I’ll do a vid, and try to clarify this point that way.
Hi Bobby,
Bot trying to peck your head. This is all genuine. I’ll have another try at making it clear what I’m asking:
1) On ‘sinners’ – I never accused you of saying anyone wasn’t a sinner. Far from it, I’m assuming the opposite – that you’d say they are, and I’m asking on what basis in EC they are, since Romans 5 makes being a sinner something that comes from being in Adam, and yet you say above that post-Christ no-one is in Adam.
On the exegesis thing I’m simply asking where it is you’re saying Paul teaches the 2nd Adam is greater than the first because the first Adam is in the second?
2) I guess I just think scripture isn’t so reluctant to ‘go there’ as EC is on this question. Yes to some mystery, but it’s not as shrouded in mystery as the original fall imho. The perishing reject the gospel because their minds are blinded, and there is only one solution to that – the work of the Spirit. At the end of the day, that’s really important to the classic calvinist position, and I believe it’s in the scriptures.
That should say ‘not’ and not ‘bot’
Not sure what happened. Typo. π
Pete,
Let me go have a late breakfast, then I’ll be back to clear it all up for you π .