For a theo-blogger like myself, reading Torrance and blogging just don’t go well. Here’s why: I have the hardest time picking up one of his books, and not wanting to quote about every other paragraph (at least) that I’m reading from him. I must be strange, or a rare breed, because for the 
most part, from what I’ve experienced via interaction with quite a few and fellow theo-bloggers; most aren’t all that interested in him. Most don’t want to seem to give Torrance the time of day. If they’ve heard anything about him, he’s this guy who uses hard to follow language around hard to follow concepts that just aren’t all that “Biblical.” For me, it’s just the opposite (a strange bird, I am π ); Torrance is just a gem, who I am hoping more and more folks will be exposed to as the Lord tarries His return.
I am just beginning a re-read through (my third time) of his “Incarnation” (it’s the season and all); his first paragraph kicks things off just right, let’s read:
Our task in christology is to yield the obedience of our mind to what is given, which is God’s self-revelation in its objective reality, Jesus Christ. A primary and basic fact which we discover here is this: that the object of our knowledge gives itself to us to be apprehended. It does that within our mundane existence, within our worldly history and all its contingency, but it does that also beyond the limits of previous experience and ordinary thought, beyond the range of what is regarded by human standards as emperically possible. Thus when we encounter God in Jesus Christ, the truth comes to us in its own authority and self-sufficiency. It comes into our experience and into the midst of our knowledge as a novum, a new reality which we cannot incorporate into the series of other objects, or simply assimilate to what we already know. (Thomas F. Torrance, ed. Robert T. Walker, “Incarnation,” 1)
How can you not like this? This kind’ve encapsulates a few things for Torrance’s approach: 1) we see his critical realism, that Christ brings with Him His own categories of thought; 2) his theological science, related to #1, that Christ as the object/subject of enquiry determines His own shape and form as the ‘novum’ or ‘new-thing’ that breaks in on our normal human situation and rattles it all up toward Him; and 3) his stratified knowledge, which is alluded to when he speaks about experiential knowledge (you can read more about that here). This opening salvo from Torrance is revealing for where he is going to go, and, in fact, where he is coming from. Oh, and one more point, on Torrance; another reason why I like him, is because he is relatively traditional in his approach — in regard to his dependence upon the Patristics.
**Don’t worry, I’m still going to talk about Calvinism, just a little flurry of other stuff thrown in for good measure . . .
You are right, excellent stuff, and not difficult compared to JΓΌngel or Zizioulas!
Yeah, or even Gunton.
Hey Bobby,
Hopefully I’ll be able to join in more effectively in 2011. I have “Incarnation” already, but just haven’t got around to it yet. I plan on picking up “Atonement”, and possibly even “Scottish Theology” soon. I’m excited about this (just got a couple more books in line first).
I’ll also being beginning a 7 year plan to go through Barth’s “CD” starting in January that Daniel Kirk is putting together. Maybe by the end of next year, I will be able to translate you! π
Brian
That sounds really good, Brian. I’m excited for you π !
I saw that Kirk was doing that, that is also a great thing; maybe by time you’re done with that the Lord will have come back, and you can talk to Barth himself π .
I honestly believe that people are intimidated and scared by Torrance because he exposes the faulty approach of theologian and lay person alike….It is easier to try and write him off than for your approach to Scripture be proven faulty and have to start from scratch. π
I like your theory, Chris π .
I am just being honest π People get wrote off because of the insecurities of others. To admit that one could be mistaken in their approach to Scripture is to admit that they are somehow inferior, PRIDE. Christians in America are lumped in with Arminians or Classic Calvinists. Some Christians think that those 2 are the only theological approaches. The suggestion that either of these, let alone both, are wrong on their approach to Scripture is blasphemy to some, but we know that wisdom is vindicated by her children.
I agree, Chris; and that “dualism” or “binary” that you note, between either/or classic Arminianism or classic Calvinism is a faulty one that needs to be corrected. It’s not faulty in the sense that both of these do represent, historically, two competing positions; but in the sense that, as you’re noting, there’s more variance and more possible in re. to this discussion and the categories that those two aforementioned approaches provide.
That’s what turned me onto both Barth and Torrance; before I was confronted with their thought I never realized that there was a way to think around and outside of the straight-jackets provided by the “classics”. All I could do before I came across Barth and Torrance was hold to a sort of Evangelical tension of sorts; and it is this tension, really, that B & T gave legs too — a robust foundation in Christ (most importantly).
I was going to say something similar to Chris, but didn’t want to sound like I was ranting. Again. π
SG,
Rant away, this is a blog after-all π .
Great Post – I seriously love his work on the Incarnation. Good work at summarizing some key ideas of his method from the paragraph you quoted. I think it was that same paragraph that convinced me that he had something to say to believers in the 21st century.
Hey Kenny,
Great to hear from you, thanks! Amen, I really do think TFT has something to say; now all we need are people with ears to hear π . I’m glad you’re one of them.
I’ll have to get back to you on the “FB” still too π .