This is to provide clarification for how TF Torrance thinks of universal atonement — and not universal salvation — and ‘limited atonement’; this, again, is distillation provided by Paul Molnar:
. . . Without any constraint at all, God took the initiative and justified us by his free grace. Because of that everyone is put on the same level and that includes everyone: good and bad, those within the church and those outside the church, those who are religious and those who are 
secular. All “come under the total judgement of grace” because all that they are is called into question by the simple fact “that they are saved by grace alone”. That applies to every single aspect of human existence: human knowledge, human ethics, religion, philosophy and science. It is in this sense that Torrance unequivocally rejects the twin errors of “universalism” and “limited atonement”, both of which ultimately are grounded in a “logical-causal” attempt to explain the atonement and both of which harbor elements of the Nestorian heresy. Logically, so the argument goes, if Jesus died for all, then both logically and causally all people must necessarily be saved. But if some in fact are not saved, then logically and causally Christ’s atoning death does not apply to them.
There are, for Torrance, two fatal errors espoused here. First, such thinking arises from an attempt to project our own views from within fallen humanity on to the unique action of God in Jesus Christ and thus redefine soteriology in terms of human logic operating in a fallen world. Second, the argument for universalism and for limited atonement “involves a rationalization of evil in attempting to say why some men are finally saved and why some men are finally not saved, by resorting to an explanation in terms of a logico-causal continuity”. In other words, such thinking ignores the costliness of God’s grace as evidenced in the cross of Christ. For Torrance, we simply cannot explain why some people do not believe in Christ and end up in hell — but even if they do, that does not mean that Christ did not die for them as well. (Paul D. Molnar, “Thomas F. Torrance: Theologian Of The Trinity,” 168-69)
This is hard teaching, who can hear it? Right, that’s what some of you are thinking as you read it. You’re thinking “there’s got to be more to this, that’s Torrance’s answer?” It is. And that is the tension that ‘EC’ is happy to live with in regards to understanding the typical dilemma that obtains in the ‘Classical’ thinking on the issue of ‘Limited Atonement’ (or whatever you want to call that), and also on the ‘modern’ outcome that issues from misconstruing the infinite worth of grace. We aren’t concerned with assuaging our intellectual “numbers system,” and at the same time, we aren’t interested in cognitive dissonance; instead, we want to submit our thinking (I’m sure this is like everyone else) to the constraints that the “logic of grace” (as Torrance calls it) requires. That means there is no “grand narrative of necessity” that must accrue in our theological cash registers; the “balance” is left to the ‘free determinative grace’ of God’s life. Which means that we must think through the “logic” that the cross provides in Christ, not demand that Jesus meet some sort of foreign criteria not imposed or qualified by ‘who’ He is in Himself.
Hi Bobby,
A minor quibble, though it’s one that keeps re-surfacing. I don’t think CC’ism is attempting to give ‘a rationalization of evil’ – it is trying to incorporate within its system the biblical teaching that, despite its irrationality and incomprehensibility, its status as an unwarranted alien intruder, God remains sovereign over it, as we see very clearly in the cross of Christ. I don’t sense a desire to ‘explain evil away’ but rather a desire to do justice to those scriptures that teach God is somehow mysteriously the governor even of the evil that happens within his world. You might feel they put the texts together wrong, but that’s not the same as the accusation of needing to explain evil away – CCists feel they are trying to answer questions that the data of scripture presents to us.
On which subject, I’m guessing somewhere along the way in all this that Torrance deals with texts, does some exegesis etc.? Is there going to be some exegetical stuff in the forthcoming EC book? There’s only so far that stating the paradigm can go in being persuasive on these matters, imho.
Thanks for listenin’
🙂
“. . . Without any constraint at all, God took the initiative and justified us by his free grace.”
Maybe it is just a poor word choice or more likely, I dont understand it, but he used the word ‘justified’ above. I wouldnt have blinked if he used ‘reconciled’, for example. It raises this obvious question: can a person be justified and not glorified?
What am I forgetting?
Peace
W
Yeah, the “rationalization of evil” is where I lost you, Bobby. That may describe what some third-rate theologian, like Lorraine Boettner, is doing, but the majority tradition has emphasized the inscrutability of both the decrees and the synchronic agencies of God and man (in compatibility schemes, which is the mainstream of classic Reformed thought). This inscrutability theme is actually where both the older Reformed and the newer Reformed (Barth and Torrance) are in agreement, against Arminianism and Molinism. The difference is where the tensions are emphasized: for Barth and Torrance, the universality of Christ’s atonement (condemnation by the law no longer exists) is clear, whereas this point was obscure and held in dialectical tension (the “two wills of God” problem) for the federal theologians.
There really isn’t any “exegesis” in the book, per se. That’s not to say that the thinking isn’t based on exegesis or biblical theology. But its really a “systematic” theology book (with history and pastoral sections as you can see).
I don’t think Torrance means to say that anyone is trying to explain evil away; it’s trying to quantify it (up or down) that he is speaking to.
W,
That he is doing a “positive theology” and that when He speaks, it’s almost as if the “non-believer” is left out of his consideration.
Kevin,
Lets be clear, I didn’t use the language of “rationalization of evil,” Torrance did; I might happen to agree with him though 😉 . There is no doubt that the majority of the “tradition” has done exactly what you’ve said, but exactly in the wrong way according to Torrance (hiding things in the “secret will of God” for example. You know that Torrance is dealing with the best of the dogmatic categories in the Reformed trad. not the dung heap. I’m not sure where you picked up that I or Torrance, in the quote, were implying anything different.
You’re exactly right on the “tensions” and emphasis. Barth and Torrance are even different at this point. The fact that TF explicitly rejected universalism demonstrates the level of ‘balance’ that he had in his approach vs. Barth’s own reflection (cut short, I realize). But you’re right to identify the biggest difference between TF and the Trad Calv, its the issue of two wills (which Muller argues that many of the trad. don’t follow either).
But what I’m not understanding is the assumption that you operating with. The inscrutable point is indeed where the tension lies. But it’s exactly at this point where folks go their separate ways, and its decisively different. This is all this post is recognizing and highlighting, I’m curious as to why or how you saw anything different?
“For Torrance, we simply cannot explain why some people do not believe in Christ and end up in hell — but even if they do, that does not mean that Christ did not die for them as well.”
EC could not explain why, even if not some but ALL people end up in hell even though Christ died for all.
For the ECs, it would be possible that the heaven is empty while hell is full. Can the ECs deny this possibility based on their theology that even though Christ died for all, ALL might end up in hell?
What do you think?
SH,
Who are you?
EC isn’t a “negative” approach, as I said to my friend and brother “W” above. I think your question is a ‘non-starter’.
Let me, just say — and I know that this is the same arguement given by ‘Classics’ against Arminians [which EC ain’t] — that EC affirms that those who are “saved” or go full way ‘spiritual union’ do so because of the choice God first took for them in Christ. The fact that Christ came ‘for us’ (and that’s exactly why He came) presupposes that at least a ‘remnant’ WILL be ‘saved’.
But beyond that, there really is no room for rationalizing; which ironically then, the logic your question comes from is exactly the kind of ratio that TFT is trying to address (through Molnar’s take in this instance).
But I hear ya, SH . . . you’re not as sneaky as you might think 😉 . I catch your drift . . .
Oh, yes, I should have recognized that it was Torrance’s point…maybe I do just lump you and Torrance together in my head. 🙂
Anyway, my point is that I don’t see the classical tradition as trying to “explain” or “rationalize” evil according to a logico-causal scheme. Yes, there is a causal scheme, but this is not presented as some insight into the “why” of a theodicy, precisely because the “why” is unknown. In federal theology, the ultimate “who” is known (God) but not the “why” — that’s an important distinction. So, I don’t see the point of saying that Torrance recognized that we don’t know why some people believe and others do not, when (in their own way) the classical Reformed recognized the same point.
So, once again, just because the federal theologians emphasized that God is the ultimate reason behind election and reprobation, this only answers the question of “who” as to the ultimate cause, not “why.” There is no “explaining” or “rationalizing” going on — at least, not any more so than Torrance is doing. Torrance rejects that God is the ultimate cause behind reprobation, and, thereby, relocates the unknown “why” at the subjective level of the individual. This is an important difference, but, in either case, there is no attempt to answer “why.”
Bobby,
I’m not sure if Torrance thinks in this way or not, but I do 🙂 So I thought I’d throw out a couple of shots.
Do you find anywhere in your thinking room for the “already”, “not yet” as you contemplate the atonement? Does it play a significant role?
In other words, does Torrance (or do you) see justification, reconciliation, etc, as words which can apply to the entire world, something which God has already accomplished, though has not yet consumated, through the cross?
This would mean that the tension would be more in the justified/reconciled language, while the entire world is technically both, not every individual necessarily applies these truths to him/herself.
God’s purpose will not be thwarted (that is, purpose to save the world, not purpose to save some and damn others), though individuals, for some unknown reason, still resist the free grace of God from time to time?
I just didn’t know if you thought in these categories or not. Thanks.
Brian
Well, if I must be “lumped,” then thank you 😉 .
I think Torrance’s point on evil on the “ratio” should be seen in the context that the Cov of Works works out of. That “evil” is seen to be some’thing’ that needs to be paid for, forensically; and once this is paid for (for the ‘elect’) then it is taken care of. He is arguing against the particualrizing of evil and sin, when in fact it is universal. It’s not enough for Torrance, or me, to say that evil/sin has been placated by a transaction for a group of people based upon an impersonal decree that may or may not reflect who God is (in se).
Kevin, you know that this is what’s at stake here. Torrance rejects that God is the ultimate cause of reprobation “behind the back of Jesus,” He doesn’t avoid reprobation at all— in fact, that’s His whole point behind his ‘Christ-conditioned’ election. I know you know this . . . so I’m a little baffled 🙂 . In reality, He doesn’t deal with the ‘why’ of the reprobation. At least not under the constraints that you’re framing him through; which again is the point on “logical-causal”. In other words, Torrance does not not deal with “why” someone doesn’t respond; it’s just that the “way” he deals with it is unacceptable to the Federal.
And I don’t agree that there is no attempt to answer “why” in the federals. That’s the whole point of the “two wills” (well one of the points). The decree does the heavy lifting, the ‘why’ as you note is relegated to God’s decree of reprobation. But then again, for Torrance reprobation is grounded in His very life in Christ (which personalises it). For the Federal it is grounded in a particular number of people, which implies that there is a “ratio” of evil in the world.
So I really diagree with the way you’re reading Torrance. All in Christian love, of course, Kevin 🙂 .
I hear you on the book being a ‘systematic’ rather than an exegetical work per se.
That said, I must admit, there’d need to be a lot of exegetical work for me to be convinced that EC does more than simply show CC where it needs to systematise itself better (and I’m yet to be convinced that the best of the tradition hasn’t actually sought to do this anyway). [E.g. Calvinists like Peter Leithart would seem to agree with some of the critique of folks like Torrance on federal theology but don’t think this means having to let go of the basic tenets of classical calvinism when it comes to certain specific questions.] Without knowing what an ‘EC’ reading of a whole bunch of texts might be, it’s difficult to really assess it, imho.
Brian,
Absolutely. Already/Not-yet is where it’s at. The not-yet is constantly breaking in on the already shaping it until its fully realized in its consummate form (when Jesus comes).
I think you summarize, pretty well, what EC would be after in this regard.
Nope, I think you’re spot on, Brian. It’s this “tension” that I feel comfortable living with, in this way, because I think it is demanded by the kind of life that God’s is.
Pete,
I hear ya. I think it’s smart and wise to be careful with all of this, which is what you’re doing . . . so you’re smart and wise 🙂 . I also understand your points on exegesis. Unfortunately I cannot distill all that is available within the corpus of Torrance (since I don’t know it, even if I did, I wouldn’t or couldn’t do that here); and EC is still a ‘developing’ project (thus the book, which is part of the development). I am trying to give some of the basic tenents, as I see them, and also just burping up things as I develop myself, in the area of what in fact EC is. I’m afraid sometimes — and I fault myself on this, given my overstatements at points (but this is a blog, and I attempt to be provocative, not just informative) — people have to high of expectations, and expect there to be answers beyond what EC is capable of. In other words, I think I’ve been pretty forth right about the brute beliefs of EC; in a sense I’m saying take it or leave it (with the caveat, again, that it’s still developing as well), live with the tensions and emphases of EC, or don’t.
What is required, since everything on this blog [usually], is really only suggestive and thesis statement oriented (again the nature of a blog), is that you and anyone else who seriously wants to test the claims of EC is to read some of the things that Torrance has said (like in his book: Scottish Theology, it’s expensive [ask T&T for a review copy for your blog, that’s how I got my copy, and will be doing the review, shortly]). Read Richard Muller, Letham, Leithart — compare and contrast, look for strengths and weaknesses. Get a good descriptive understanding of the various systems (from a historic and contemporary perspective), and their implications. This is all stuff I’m continuing to work on, and I’m sure you are too. In light of where I’m at, EC (over the years) makes the most sense, and most appelaing to me.
Pete, I should add one more thing. Leithart, as I understand him, is Federal Vision; EC is not Federal Vision. FV operates out of a doctrine of God and predestination and election that is on par with Classic. To me, there’s no difference, but emphasis. Which, I think is what Kevin is saying about Barth and Torrance contra classic — it’s a matter of emphasis, but it’s really not, it’s a matter of a Doctrine of God. Everything else, like this discussion, takes on a different hue, in light of the ‘back’ discussion on who God is. That’s what drives this discussion (from either side, granted), and each side has disparate incompatible doctrines of God. So maybe future posts will be to make clear how there is a difference, I think a big one.
Bobby,
Thanks for taking the time to do these exchanges in this thread. I’m sure you have other things to do; as do I, but I have the day off, so I’m being lazy!
I should have clarified that I’m only arguing against a particular characterization (“rationalizing”), not against the point that Torrance is making about a Christ-conditioned election and reprobation. On that, I agree. I suppose that I’m just trying to find as much of a bridge as I can between Torrance and the classical tradition. Such bridges are quickly burned when the other side is characterized as rationalizing, in the pejorative sense (Is there any other sense?). I wish that Torrance was more irenic in his engagement with confessional theology.
As for the two wills, I still don’t see how the “why” is being answered, when “the good pleasure of God” is given as the only reason. Once again, this is more about “who,” not “why.” God has his reasons, to which we are not privy — that’s the Reformed answer that I’ve repeatedly encountered. The only exceptions are those that say, “God must manifest his attribute of justice by not saving some,” as if the passion of Christ did not sufficiently manifest his justice. However, I think most Reformed theologians would say that God “does” (not “must”) manifest his justice in this particular group of people, the reprobate. Why he does this, instead of saving everyone, is not known.
Kevin,
Thank you for the engagement. This is good stuff!
That’s probably the difference between yuo and me, I don’t want to unnecessarily divide or be devisive; but I’m not as concerned as maintaining a bridge, only because I want to make sure to present the dogma that I think EC offers w/o “compromise” or feeling that “need.” That is not to say that I’m not willing to learn and listen to Classic guys/gals, or that I don’t consider them bros sis’s etc. Or that I think they’re “sub” Christian (well 😉 ). But I think EC is unique, different, and better off than the Classic “system” (although not perfect, of course not).
You’re right, it is about “who”, but “why” is involved. And I would argue that the “why” in the classic system has give more place to determine the “who” than it should.
To split God in two, no matter the emphasis, and not ground that in Jesus (as the elect/reprobate) seems is truly the fundamental problem to me. I’m very unsatisfied with the hubris that classic offers. How do you try and bridge that, dogmatically, Kevin? To me we can’t just say its a matter of emphasis, it’s not! It’s a matter of a personal triune God, and thinking that way; or a matter of God who relates to humanity through impersonal decrees and created grace that are ontological abstracted from God as if He has “accidents” or something. HOw do you bridge that?
I think I am more accepting of EC every day, but I have to throw in all that New Perspective as well, which in all honesty, meshes superbly!:)
Thanks for your help.
Brian
Great.
We can talk about the NPP another time, eh 😉 .
To me we can’t just say its a matter of emphasis, it’s not! It’s a matter of a personal triune God, and thinking that way; or a matter of God who relates to humanity through impersonal decrees and created grace that are ontological abstracted from God as if He has “accidents” or something. HOw do you bridge that?
The bridge is found in the better half of the federal division of God’s will: the half that affirms God’s unconditional love and desire to save, as manifest for the elect. In confessional doctrine and piety, the decree is intensely personal and real, if you are among the elect. For the elect, the triune God is manifestly present and active, in direct communications of love. The problem, of course, is the dualism where the doctrine becomes abstract, non-personal, and non-Trinitarian. This is the contradiction in federal theology, yet the true side of the contradiction (the economy of God for the elect) is where we can find common ground and a place from which to challenge the false side of the contradiction (an economy where God doesn’t desire the salvation of all).
As you know, it’s the true side of the contradiction that attracts people to confessional Reformed theology: the benefits are seen as far outweighing the negative — the price you pay to avoid Arminianism and/or Liberalism. I knew a Calvinist who said, in relation to this topic, “Pick your poison.” For him, it’s either the poison of Arminianism or the poison of a Calvinism that cannot affirm God’s love for all — he chose the latter. Of course, I think he’s wrong, but I can still highlight the positive side of his motivations to affirm Calvinism, namely the peace with God that comes from an unconditional and perfected salvation, in Jesus Christ.
Kevin,
That’s an interesting way to think about it. But I think for our purposes, at least for what this blog revolves around, I’m trying to carve out something that will only be obscured if there aren’t some “lines” drawn between the two.
I’ll admit that my approach is probably more polemic than necessary. But I think making the leap from the positive to the negative side of the “contradiction” could only be exacerbated if we don’t also communicate our own positive approach.
I know there are well meaning and Christ-loving folks who are Classic Calv. I don’t really have a sectarian part in me; if someone claims the name of Christ, then I consider them brother/sister and will fellowship with them. Nevertheless, for praxis, I think establishing a healthy orthodoxy is necessary — which is really what I think EC offers as a corrective to Federalism.
I speak in broad generalisations here at the blog, usually, which can make the “bridge” greater than necessary. That’s something I will have to work on 🙂 .
Also, I should add, even within the current resurgence of scholarship on Reformed Orthodoxy, there is an increasing awareness of the open contours of the confessions. So, for example, Muller, Leithart, and Jonathan Moore have recognized “hypothetical universalism” as a valid option within the Reformed faith. Or, another example, Leithart (in his book on the Westminster Assembly) recognizes the development of both the covenant of works and the federal “imputation of Adam’s guilt” — both of which, especially the latter, were later developments and not essential to Reformed faith. Or, another example, the recent book, Reformed Thought on Freedom (ed., Van Asselt, et al.), demonstrates the mainstream compatibility schemes in Reformed scholasticism, which is rather similar to Barth’s own presentation of “omnicausality” (in, e.g., Barth’s rejection of Molinism).
All of these examples point the way toward a more fruitful engagement between confessional orthodoxy and (so-called) neo-orthodoxy, even despite Muller and Leithart’s often shallow readings of the latter.
sorry, I meant “Letham,’ not “Leithart.” I’m sure that was confusing!
Kevin,
I knew Muller was open to the hypothetical universalism as a valid form within ‘Orthodoxy’ (he highlights that in his “After Calvin” — where he also notes that Letham identifies that as well — but of course Muller doesn’t like Letham either).
We have an excellent chapter on the Federal/Realist imputation etc. in our forthcoming book — it’s quite good, stay tuned.
Maybe at some point I’ll have to check out “Reformed Thought on Freedom,” sounds interesting.
Yes Letham, who I will be reading next 🙂 . Thanks, Kevin!
Thank you, Bobby, for your answer. I appreciate it.
You said to me, “EC affirms that those who are “saved” or go full way ‘spiritual union’ do so because of the choice God first took for them in Christ. The fact that Christ came ‘for us’ (and that’s exactly why He came) presupposes that at least a ‘remnant’ WILL be ‘saved’.”
You seem to say that those who God chose in Christ are saved. You also seem to say that they are the ‘remnant’ or the elect. They cannot fail to be saved because of God’s election in Christ.
But I wonder: for EC, what is the extent of God’s election for salvation? Is it universal or not?
You seem to say that the extent of the atonement is universal, don’t you? But is the extent of God’s election also universal for EC?
Yes, SH,
The extent of the atonement is universal, precisely because the extent of election is universal . . . although it is “limited” to Christ. So EC believes in a ‘limited atonement’, in one sense, but it is limited only insofar as Christ is its object and subject — thus our view on a ‘Christ-conditioned election’.
To find out more go to the “page” (in the sidebar) EC themes, I address this way more fully there 🙂 . .. thanks, SH.
SH: Can EC rule out the possibility that all can end up in hell?
EC: No because the “remnant” was chosen. Some will be (surely) saved.
SH: Then, is the extent of election is limited to the remnant (in Christ)?
EC: No, the extent of election is universal. All humans are elected in Christ as Christ is elected.
SH: Then, even though ALL are elected and atoned for, some might end up in hell. Then, even though ALL are elected and Christ died for all, can ALL end up in hell? (the same question)
EC: No, because the remnant are chosen.
SH: Then, is there a group of people (the non-remnant) which God has NOT REALLY chosen, even though God has chosen all people?
EC: No, All are chosen (really).
SH: Then, why do some people end up in hell?
EC: It is not because of God. He is love. But it is because of people’s sin. Sin is a mystery that has no ground in God or God’s plan.
SH: Yeah, I hear you. Then, I ask again. Can EC rule out the possibility that ALL end up in hell?
EC: No, because the remnant are chosen. They are surely and really chosen and predestined for salvation.
SH: But the non-remnant are not? The non-remnant are not really chosen and not predestined for salvation and so possibly can fall into hell?
EC: Well… the extent of election is universal.
SH: But for EC, or in your understanding, there are an inner circle and an outer circle in God’s election. The inner circle of the remnant who MUST be saved and the outer of the non-remnant who might end up in hell.
Then, in your understanding, the extent of election is NOT GENUINELY universal.
Or if it is genuinely universal, if there is NO inner or outer circle of election, how can you avoid universalism or rule out the possibility that ALL might end up in hell?
Would you spot and pinpoint specifically where I went wrong?
EC: …
For EC, is it not possible that ALL might sin seriously enough (and mysteriously according to the nature of sin since even though God has not decreed it and so it has no ontological ground in God[‘s decree], it appeared mysteriously and ‘drags’ people to hell)to fall into hell?
According to the EC’s view of sin, that is, the mystery (or mysterious power) of sin, couldn’t it be possible that ALL in hell?
SH,
I’m trying to figure out you’re intent. Since you’re anonymous, I’m only going to give an anonymous worthy response.
You’ve gone wrong by ignoring the premise of EC to begin with; it’s what is outlined or highlighted in the original post here. You’re doing math, when we in EC are interested in theology.
Did you read the piece in the “Themes of Evangelical Calvinism” section; it seems like you missed that, like you didn’t engage the idea of ‘Christ conditioned election’. Election is universal, because Christ’s assuming of humanity involved the assumption of humanity (real humanity) not some elect special individuals. You’re pressing the remnant language into some sort of technical stuff that was never intended. All that was for was heurism, to satisfy your curiosity.
The burden of proof, though, is on you, not me, to describe a God who does not have to submit to the absolute decrees which cause Him to collapse into His creation (by way of submitting to those decrees in Christ), and thus be predicated by His creation.
As soon as you deal with that issue, then maybe I’ll talk to you more about math.
And I’m not sure I’ll be responding to you any further, anyway, if you don’t let me know a little bit more about yourself. So at least I can have an idea about your intentions and what is informing your questions (relative to a particular theological flavor).
Either way, I’ve already laid it out there for you. Really, I’m saying you can take it or leave it. I’m not really interested in jousting with you — even though I’ll win 😉 — or persuading you (your mind seems made up). But I will say, that you appear to be in the “classic” error (as I mentioned above); you’ve got some ‘splain’ to do 🙂 .
Thank you, Bobby, for your response.
EC: EC avoids a logico-causal approach (the classic error): there is no logical necessary (or cause and effect) between God’s election and one’s destiny. Even though God has chosen him, he might not be saved and end up in hell. But it is not because of God but because of sin.
SH: If EC avoids the “cause and effect” relation between election and one’s non-salvation, one ends up in hell, regardless of God’s loving election and atonement. If there is no logico-causal relation between election and one’s non-salvation, how can there be a necessary (logic-causal) relation between election and one’s salvation? There can’t be.
Then, one cannot be sure of his salvation. I know it is a quite opposite result. I know that EC wants to give all people (at least all church goers) assurance of salvation.
If there is no logico-causal relation between election and one’s salvation, then what can prevent ALL going down to hell?
EC: Who are you?
SH: I hope that you take my questions more important than who I am. Who I am seems not important here. But I don’t mind to tell you who I am. I am studying theology. I did MTh by Research in systematic theology at Edinburgh Univ. on Barth. My PhD proposal is Barth and the WCF, which is closely related to your blog. For the last year, I’ve read almost all of James Torrance’s works and some of T. F. Torrance and also major articles and essays on Barth as well as Westminster theologians. But as you can see I don’t find myself persuaded by them. But you said you can persuade me and I’ll expect that.
EC: the burden of proof is on you….
SH: the one who wants to persuade has to have a burden of proof. Not on the person (me) who wants to be persuaded.
Sometimes I have tried to be an EC. But some questions like the ones I asked you above make me very very hesitant to be an EC. Even though it seems that I have made up my mind already, I am still willing to hear you 😉 I want you to help me how one or I can answer to the questions I asked before.
SH,
Thanks. Let me start in reverse.
1)The burden of proof is not on me, I just said above:
And I’m serious about that, I really don’t care if you are persuaded or not (I wish you would be of course, but I don’t feel the pressure to answer questions that take shape from outside of the parameters that the answers I’m going to give find their origin).
The burden of proof I set before you wasn’t the one you’re asking me to meet, but the one behind that. The one you understand, clearly (given your background); viz. not collapsing God into His creation (clearly you don’t have to Barthian/Torrancean to avoid that, but I don’t see how you could be Classic “anything” and not). That’s the burden I’m talking about (I shifted it back to you).
2)This is always a curious thing to me. When I first started this blog I had to characters show up. They were rather antagonistic (to say the least) toward Torrance, toward “Scottish Theology,” etc. They, like you, seemed to drop out of thin air with their questions — albeit they were obviously informed and pointed in their approach. One of them would never tell me who he was (I was able to figure that out through my stat tracker and his name), he turned out to be a PhD and prof at Yale Divinity who taught in the area of Calvinism and its development (and he loved Muller). The other guy finally emailed me, he turned out to be a PhD from the Sorbonne in France who did his PhD on Calvin’s Humanism. Now you’re telling me that you have all the requisite context and background in the very area we are dealing with here at the blog. And what I don’t understand is why you don’t think that matters? Are you saying to me that when you go and meet with your doctoral supervisor, that you don’t have a different set of communicative expectations from when you might talk to your mom (not to be too presumptuous) — or someone who hasn’t had special training in the aproppriate areas of consideration? You can see who I am, a bit, you can see what I am studying, you can read some of my posts and get a sense of what I am about. Are you saying that hasn’t shaped the way that you chose to approach me, and hasn’t tensed the probing (but apparently decided) nature of your questions? I don’t buy that, SH. In short, thanks for filling me in on who you are, that does make a difference (which is a central premise of EC, that the ‘Person’ precedes his/her ‘works’ 😉 ).
3)Knowing where you’re coming from,then, really leaves me in a quandry, SH. You understand, then, what TFT is about, what Barth’s ideas on election/predestination are about (not that EC follows him lock-step), what the critique of the absolutum decretum is about, etc. You understand how central a doctrine of God is, and that w/o dealing with those in a primary fashion, by way of ordo, that our discussion on election/salvation become secondary . . . which is why I shifted the burden back to you, btw (where did I say I could persuade you by the way?).
You said:
I never said there was no relation between election and one’s salvation. In fact there is, just not logico-causal. You understand, I’m sure, when TF uses that language logico-causal He’s referring to the kind of God who is subserviant to His decrees in nature, right?
So, then, are you in limbo, agnostic, still a Westminster Calvinist?
Thank you, Bobby.
1) I know just pushing the burden to the other is a very convenient way of “arguing.” But I will think about why you say the burden is on Classical Calvinists, not on EC.
2) Yeah.. I appreciate what you said, resonating TF’s idea. The person precedes his work. (or TF: the person is his work.) Then, please know that I am a person who wished you recovered soon and prayed for you when your health wasn’t good. And I am happy that you’ve got better.
3) Now I would not press the question I asked above here. Frankly speaking, I haven’t got what I wanted or expected from you. But I appreciate what you said in our “discussion”. And probably one would say I am “in limbo, agnostic, still a Westminster Calvinist.” But if I am “in limbo,” it is because I have considered the EC seriously and been willing to listen to it, not just ignoring it. But as I said, I don’t find myself persuaded by it. And you said, you don’t have to persuade me.
Cheers,
SH
SH,
First, thank you for praying for me, I really appreciate that; and I still covet your prayers, my next CT scan is right after Christmas. Really, I appreciate your prayers and support that way!!!
Second, When I speak of burden (and I realize that my tone and temper is coming off very triumphalistic, and that’s not really good . . . sorry) I have become convinced that Barth’s general critique (which you know of well) of the classic approach in re. to election is substantial (even if I don’t follow him whole-way). How do you overcome that critique? That’s the “burden” I’m speaking of, I don’t know how to overcome that.
Third, what did you want and expect? This is what sucks about blogging. The audience is broad, deep, and wide. When you started commenting here I had no idea of your background (which is significant in re. to expectations in discussion). I had no idea that you were ensconced in both Barth and Torrance[s]. The way you were questioning me, in the beginning, sounded like the “polemic” that I have been approached with previously. Given your background, what did you think that I might “fill in” that you don’t already know about Torrance and/or EC (I’m assuming you’ve read TF’s “Scottish Theology”). You understand that TF, at least, does not feel, in the least, constrained by what he calls “logical-causal.” I realize this may come off as merely dismissive and “head-in-the-sand” prolegomena, but that’s not the way I read it. You know that when he speaks of this kind of approach that he is referencing a certain metaphysic of causality that he deems incoherent with the grammar of the Gospel, precisely because it seeks to capture a Triune God who will not be captured by anything or any ratio that seeks to codify who He is outside of the lines of His own self-determined freedom of love. I find this convincing.
I think questions, like the one you’ve initially posed here, presume the very metaphysic that TF’s approach won’t be chained by. That’s why I’ve said “take it or leave it,” in rather terse form; although, and I’m sorry about the way that probably came off, I don’t mean, “take a hike.” I just mean, that it is really hard for me to try and answer a question like yours, when the expectations that inform that question are the very expectations that Torrance’s approach seeks to move away from (e.g. not just reify or something). I guess another way to say it, is that it seems that TF’s approach is (along with Barth) is more Athanasian (from above); and the your expectations come from more of an Augustinian (from below) style of theology. These don’t need to necessarily be framed dualisitically, rather they can complement, probably, more than is often presented. But, I still think, in general, this helps, maybe, to clarify our disparity . . . I don’t know. I feel like if I try and answer your question, the way you expect, or have framed it; then I am betraying the very precepts I am trying to advocate. It’s not that I don’t want to be “critical,” I guess I like to think that it’s because I’ve been “critical” that I’ve come to accept Torrance’s general trajectory (as I understand it thus far).
I really don’t want you to leave the blog like this. I want to continue to engage with you. I’ll take off my “polemical” mantle, and try to meet what you were looking for or expected. Let me know what that is, and I really would like to further interact, SH; you are a helpful interloctur for me, and obviously, a good brother.
pax,
Bobby
PS. I emailed you yesterday, don’t know if you got that.
Yes I’ve got your email. Thank you, brother.