Here is Thomas Torrance commenting on rationalist thinking in regards to trying to articulate issues particular to the extent of the atonement. And then we have Torrance commenting on the inescapable reality of the universal range of the atonement, but not the universal salvation that 
a rationalist approach must reduce to; which Torrance is, of course, as am I, against! Torrance says:
The rationalism of both universalism and limited atonement
Here we see that man’s proud reason insists in pushing through its own partial insight into the death of the cross to its logical conclusion, and so the great mystery of the atonement is subjected to the rationalism of human thought. That is just as true of the universalist as it is of those who hold limited atonement for in both cases they have not yet bowed their reason before the cross of Christ. (Atonement, 187-88)
This was his concluding remark, he had just finished, previous to this, effectively arguing against both limited atonement and universalism (whether that be of Classic Calvinist or Arminian [or even Barthian] varieties). Now we get into his initial thoughts on the fact that Christ’s death had to be for all; according to both Scripture’s witness, and the ‘inner-logic’ scripture presupposes upon:
(i) Christ’s death for all is an inescapable reality
We must affirm resolutely that Christ died for all humanity — that is a fact that cannot be undone. All men and women were represented by Christ in life and death, in his advocacy and substitution in their place. That is a finished work and not a mere possibility. It is an accomplished reality, for in Christ, in the incarnation and in his death on the cross, God has once and for all poured himself out in love for all mankind, has taken the cause of all mankind therefore upon himself. And that love has once and for all been enacted in the subsitutionary work on the cross, and has become fact — nothing can undo it. That means that God has taken the great positive decision for man, the decision of love translated into fact. But because the work and the person of Christ are one, that finished work is identical with the self-giving of God to all humanity which he extends to everyone in the living Christ. God does not withhold himself from any one, but he gives himself to all whether they will or not — even if they will not have him, he gives himself to them, for he has once and for all given himself, and therefore the giving of himself in the cross when opposed by the will of man inevitably opposes that will of man and is its judgement. As we saw, it is the positive will of God in loving humanity that becomes humanity’s judgement when they refuse it. (Thomas F. Torrance, Atonement, 188-89)
It is really hard for people to cope with what Torrance is saying, I think. It kicks against the way that we have been “trained” and “conditioned” to think. All I can say, is that folks should try to imagine a world where doing math for Theology does not exist; and then we’ll all be fine π .
Bobby,
‘Doing math for theology’ great line! This certainly is one way to describe Federal Calvinism.
Fr Robert,
Unfortunately, yes, I think it is a way to describe both Federal Calvinism and even Classical Arminianism.
Bobby,
Yes the latter works on the same subset.
Amen, and death to maths. never liked it at school anyway. I guess the best example is seeing theology as a kind of euclidean science, where everything is derived from first principles, and then make the phenomena fit the structure. How tempting that is can be found in much ‘if…then…’ apologetics too. but logical argumentation never convinced me of God’s existence, or his love for me in christ. imagine trying to use logic to prove my wife loves me!!
In reading Barth I catch myself thinking, that sounds calvinist, and that sounds arminian, perhaps he’s an amyraldian. But he, and TFT, are outside that whole arena. It’s so refreshing to be away from WWF theology!!
Yeah Barth’s doctrine of election will keep ya thinking..and thinking some more! π
“We must affirm resolutely that Christ died for all humanity β that is a fact that cannot be undone. All men and women were represented by Christ in life and death, in his advocacy and substitution in their place.” Isn’t this just the proposition that is in contention though, to just affirm the proposition and build from there seems to be a non starter for those of us who affirm limited Atonement.
“so the great mystery of the atonement is subjected to the rationalism of human thought. That is just as true of the universalist as it is of those who hold limited atonement for in both cases they have not yet bowed their reason before the cross of Christ.” What does this sentence even mean, I just think it is really funny, when somebody uses the “MYSTERY” card, to NOT explain what they think is correct, against a position they think is incorrect. It is even funnier when a tool such as math is demoted and unable to be used for the doctrine of the atonement, but when the cogency of the Trinity is called into question it is used, i.e 1 in 3 and 3 in 1 ( 1 essence, 3 persons = 3 persons, 1 essence).
@SG,
I agree with you on every point. And I sucked at math as well π ; maybe that’s why Torrance and Barth’s style is so appealing π .
@Fr Robert,
What do you think about Barth’s “election,” or Torrance’s?
@Kenny,
1) It’s not to start from the same place, if so, only in equivocal ways; since TFT speaks of an ontological atonement, and “apparently” your approach (the “L”) thinks forensically and juridically.
2) What Torrance is speaking of is the so called “analogy of faith” vs. your “apparent” method the “analogy of being.” His method (his “stratified” approach) seeks to speak from within the boundaries set by the Revelation of God’s life in Christ; and as corollary our union with Him and thus into the homoousial reality that He shares with the Father by the Spirit. This is the starting point for knowledge of God (movement from economic/evangelical to finally ontological/theological). It’s not “mystery” sui generis, as some sort of generic etheral mode of non-knowing; but recognition of the fact that we are pushed up against the Ultimate or ineffable reality of the profundity of a Triune God. How one supposes to “push up” is under question in TFT’s account, and I’m persuaded that the “way” and the “grammar” he attempts to do this through is much more careful and less sloppy than you seem to imply.
a. As far as “math,” you’ve missed the point. It goes back, really, as I just suggested to an issue of prolegomena. Using numbers isn’t what’s I’m getting at when I say “math,” instead I’m speaking to the issue of method and approach. Post-Reformed orthodoxy and their agricolan/ramist/aristotelian infused scholasticism with a rabid need to fill in the gaps with logicalised coherence at every point (thus preserving a preconceived notion of what constitutes “Sovereignty” so the “analogy of being” etc.) is what the math point is all about.
‘Mystery’ isn’t about a ‘god of the gaps’ approach, in which we fill in a blank with a word that means whatever we are trying to say. Mystery as a theological concept is the recognition that we are epistemologically unable to see everything in relation to God, since we are dependent upon God’s revelation to see anything anyway. Seeing mystery is like looking into the sea. In some parts of the world, like here in the UK, you can see a few inches, or a few feet. In other parts of the world, you can see much deeper. But no one can see to the bottom of the ocean. God is a bit like that, by analogy ;). Sometimes the water is clearer than other times, but in his case, it is by his decision, his revelation. The failings of philosophically minded theology are in trying to fill in the gaps, to plumb the depths, to go beyond the revelation, based on ‘reason’ alone, and following the method of other sciences such as logic, math, etc. Often theology can say such a thing is the case, but can’t explain why; too often some want to say why as well, down to every jot and tittle. the atonement is a classic case.
Bobby,
Indeed Barth’s doctrine of Christ as both the elect man & the reprobate man (on the Cross), is simply the closest to the great mystery of both God’s love & judgment. Thus as C.S. Lewis said, in essence each man chooses heaven or hell…Christ, God’s “election” of love, grace & mercy; or the rejection of the Christ Who bore the “wrath” of God against sin. And Christ is the “expiation” for sin & sinners. Here is the free grace of God! To lose this…is to lose everything! Sufficient for all sin, is the death of Christ.. but only efficient for those who will believe and follow Christ! The choice is with the gift of each man’s freedom. Itself in Christ! (John 1:4-5) Light or darkness?
*loose
Fr Robert, it interests me how often I think of Lewis when reading Barth. Do you know if anyone has compared them, in writing?
Bobby, a question.
1.What is a “ontological atonement” ? Is this a
A Jewish idea? A Greek? A Pauline ? I don’t really recognize this “ontological atonement” idea from the reading of the texts. I would argue “ontological” is not a concept in use for these writers in their dealings with the atonement. Anyway, could you explain this concept and try to give Biblical textual support.
“His method (his βstratifiedβ approach) seeks to speak from within the boundaries set by the Revelation of Godβs life in Christ; and as corollary our union with Him and thus into the homoousial reality that He shares with the Father by the Spirit.” Say What? I have read a lot of theology and philosophy over the years, but as I try to understand this it just gets more and more vague. please clarify.
Your mystery comment is nice, but leaves the unknown still unknown, while still saying what someone else is saying is known, is wrong, and that based on a unknown or as you say a “recognition of the fact that we are pushed up against the Ultimate or ineffable reality of the profundity of a Triune God.” Seems to be the same thing I was saying about mystery. Here’s a clear definition.
mystery 1 |Λmist(Ι)rΔ|
noun ( pl. -teries)
1 something that is difficult or impossible to understand or explain : the mysteries of outer space | hoping that the inquest would solve the mystery. See note at riddle .
β’ the condition or quality of being secret, strange, or difficult to explain : much of her past is shrouded in mystery.
β’ a person or thing whose identity or nature is puzzling or unknown : βHe’s a bit of a mystery,β said Nina | [as adj. ] a mystery guest.
2 a novel, play, or movie dealing with a puzzling crime, esp. a murder.
3 ( mysteries) the secret rites of Greek and Roman pagan religion, or of any ancient or tribal religion, to which only initiates are admitted.
β’ the practices, skills, or lore peculiar to a particular trade or activity and regarded as baffling to those without specialized knowledge : the mysteries of analytical psychology.
β’ the Christian Eucharist.
4 chiefly Christian Theology a religious belief based on divine revelation, esp. one regarded as beyond human understanding : the mystery of Christ.
β’ an incident in the life of Jesus or of a saint as a focus of devotion in the Roman Catholic Church, esp. each of those commemorated during recitation of successive decades of the rosary.
ORIGIN Middle English (in the sense [mystic presence, hidden religious symbolism] ): from Old French mistere or Latin mysterium, from Greek mustΔrion; related to mystic .
mystery 2
noun ( pl. -teries) archaic
a handicraft or trade.
ORIGIN late Middle English : from medieval Latin misterium, contraction of ministerium βministry,β by association with mysterium (see mystery 1 ).
I don’t have an “analogy of being” method for theology. I could careless about theological references to “being” or starting from a supposed analogy of being between god and humans. My idea is simple: in the text of scripture the good characters have arrested me and caused me to want to imitate them and do what they command their followers to do. All the rest is dust in the wind.
Solly Gratia,
Yes, Lewis and Barth are on the same page in many theological places to my mind also. However, I have not seen the comparsion you ask about. But it still could be out there? One cannot read everything. lol Of course Lewis was a lay theologian, and Barth more in the academy. Do you have Barth’s CD?
@Kenny,
Here’s a post on the ontological atonement: http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2009/12/26/forensicism-versus-ontologism-in-the-atonement/
Here’s a post on TFT’s knowledge: http://recreatedinchrist.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/christ-conditioned-knowledge-through-stratification/
On mystery. It’s just a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, I think, with the material issues at hand. I’m inclined to agree with both Torrance’s approach and material and you’re inclined another way. But, I would still contend along with TFT that the method you “seem” to appropriate is more akin to “math” . You did say that you hold to “limited atonement,” which comes from a particular style of theologizing; that’s not “just” scripture. If you don’t hold to a classical construal of “limited atonement,” then strike what I just said from the record π .
@Kenny,
Oh, I’ll try to provide more scriptural support for ontological atonement at a later date (I have a bunch of posts though describing at least what TFT thinks that is). It has to do with Paul’s “in Christ” or “union with Christ” theology. And it is attempting to tease out the theo-logic of the “inner-logic” that scripture presupposes when it discloses the fact that God became man in Christ, or the Incarnation. Much like the Trinity has been “laid bare” by the theologians in order to better understand the theo-logic that the occasional nature of scripture presupposes upon in its communique.
“As we saw, it is the positive will of God in loving humanity that becomes humanityβs judgement when they refuse it.”
Torrance has not really escaped from the pietism of Beza and the early calvinists here. Both he and the early calvinists can resolutely refer to Christ’s work on the cross as a “finished work” on our behalf. And yet somehow “finish” does not mean “finish”, because we only enter into the “finished” nature of the work if we “respond to God’s love”. In other words, Jesus’ work on behalf of the world is not finished, but requires the final step of our subjective appropriation of it. This appropriation is also subjective on another count; here being the sense that we can never truly be certain whether we have adequately “responded” to God’s love.
Thanks bobby you’re a good dude.
Btw, Bobby, I have been reading Irenaeus “On the Apostolic Preaching”; here he certainly teaches that the Incarnation is itself, salvific in God in/thru Christ. Christ is the salvation of God “bodily”. (Col.2:9) And we see this fully on the Cross…Col. 2:14-15.
Bobby,
As a broad stroke I can agree with much of what Torrance says. But as a corollay, How is it that some are elect and others are not? The extent of the atonement of Christ must be factored in here. But, oh no! That’s catering to rationalism. I see how he’s got me trap. What’s the way out then? π
I don’t really think I need the system you say I need to see Limited Atonement in the text. It is really in one’s understanding of the concept of “world.” I know you have heard this before so I won’t rehash it here. But basically I see the world not as every person but simply others outside of Jews i.e Gentiles. Even more basic is that God seems to be extremely particular/exclusive with whom he wants for what he wants them for. I don’t believe this because I’m a student of federal theology or even Calvinism, I came to these views before I ever cracked the institutes. Seriously, I just see YHWH being super particular and it is this belief that shapes my view of the language of the atonement, not the supposed post Reformation scholasticism you see lurking behind every non “EC” Christian who happens to be Reformed. Reformed for me is a very loose idea (as it probably is for many), not the well oiled straw man constructed here on this blog.
Now that I have had so much prodding (due to some of the ideas on this blog) I am making it a goal to read Torrance two works “Atonement” and “Incarnation” to see what is going on with this Dude. Primary source time Bobby! Thanks for the digital tussle.
@Kenny,
Apparently you missed the post where I quoted this:
And said this: http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2010/12/17/reformed-ecumenism/ , then.
The reality is, is that “EC” has to fight to be considered “Reformed,” so maybe I’ve swung the pendulum too far the other way; so sue me π . In all reality I don’t care that much about the label or name or anything; I’m really more concerned with concepts. And btw, maybe your version of “Reformed” theology isn’t well-oiled; but don’t tell Westminster Theological Seminary faculty and students that (esp. the ones at the California campus). Oh Kenny . . . π (you’re a good dude, too, bro π ).
@Hey Emerson,
I’m not sure I’m tracking with you. What you’re saying almost sounds like (on the “not finished” part) like you’re talking about an incipient universalism or something. Torrance’s Doctrine of God is much different than Beza’s, as is his doctrine of “election” etc. So I have a hard time accepting what you’re saying in that regard w/o further qualification from you. Also, the issue of “assurance” you bring up seems foreign to what TFT says; since he sees salvation grounded both objectively/subjectively grounded in Christ, and our response of faith comes from Jesus’ vicarious response of ‘Yes’ to the Father for us as our Mediator. I will say though that I’m not uncritical of TFT at points. I still am thinking about how “sin” works within Torrance’s thought, as well as TFT’s ideas of “active obedience.” I’m not quite as “covenantal” as TFT. But that’s stuff I need to continue to hash out π .
@Fr Robert,
Absolutely! This is something I p/u from Julie Canlis’ book on Calvin’s theology ascent and how Calvin adapted these kinds of themes from Irenaeus. Thanks.
@TCR,
Torrance doesn’t start with the question you do though; that’s the point here. His understanding of election resists ever trying to answer (so a non-starter) the question the way you’re framing it. Christ for TFT is both elect/reprobate. The confusion definitely comes in because he and Barth, for example use the same “traditional” language as classic Calvinism; but of course it is completely recast, reified and reshaped so that it really becomes an equivocal usage relative to its traditional semantic range. So it’s not just the “rationalist” card that TFT would show, it’s the fact that he’s playing at the Staples Center (where my beloved Lakers play ;-); and you’re playing at Dodgers stadium — two different games, with different conceptual grammars.
Bobby, Amen that Barth and Torrance see Christ as both the elect & reprobate (on the cross), is nothing but the great mystery of God. We might see it in some human dialectic, but in the end only God can fully answer this mystery, if He ever doees? I think I sought to hang onto the Calvinist doctrine, simply because of my love of Calvin.. thinking this was his way, but in the end Calvin must be seen in the doctrine of God’s great grace, mercy and love. For in reality, only here is God’s holiness met. And this was by both Christ the Son and God the Father, and the Spirit brought forth the great sanctification of God (1 Peter 1:2 / Heb. 9:14, etc.)
We can see the Atonement, which is really always connected to the Incarnation and Christ, for Christ never ceases to be both God and Man in One, even on the Cross especially. And the Atonement is seen in “light” and “darkness”, but we miss it if we look at the death of Christ in some numeral fashion. And so both the person of Christ and His Atonement place the great mystery of election in the inscrutable decision of every man and person (John 1:4-5); but the mystery is always God In Christ! (Rom. 11:30)
And this is not just a mental decision, but a life and a spiritual one! (Again, note John 1: 9) In verse 12 (John 1:12) we can see that this is a gift and a right, or better an “authority” to those that receive and believe “in His name”. Christ God’s Word, Son, Messiah , and Savior. But the whole process is given up to the power of God! (John 1:13) Again, the power of God’s own divine mystery & majesty!
|Christ for TFT is both elect/reprobate. The confusion definitely comes in because he and Barth, for example use the same βtraditionalβ language as classic Calvinism; but of course it is completely recast, reified and reshaped so that it really becomes an equivocal usage relative to its traditional semantic range.|
Bobby,
Perhaps it’s only me, but I find more rhetoric that scriptural content in all this. Scripture speaks of individuals being elected.
(Don’t tell me you’re down with the Lakers?!)
TC,
Barth & Torrance mere “rhetoric”? Oh my for shame (lol), I can see you have not read either much? But seriously, this is more towards dialectical theology! Idea, event and antithesis.
@Fr Robert,
Great thoughts, thanks for sharing them! Way to articulate these issues in very nice summarizing ways π . I think we need to get TCR to read a bit of Torrance and Barth π . I mean we’ve both read his mate, NT Wright π .
@TCR,
Well I grew up in L.A. county (Long Beach, CA), so what do you expect π ?
On rhetoric. It should be clear, I’m not denying that individuals are elect in Christ; what I’m saying is that the reprobate (and why) are an enigma. So EC is “positive” in approach focusing on elect thus sees an asymmetrical relation between the elect/reprobate (which classics do too). But we aren’t trying to think this through the matrix of logico-causal categories; so it’s different. Sure this rubs scholastics wrong, but at the end of the day; there’s not much to say, except that’s just how it is π .
Bobby,
Indeed the doctrine of God’s divine election is always going to be a mystery in Holy Scripture! As I have said before on the blogs, every pastor-teacher should find a copy of H.H. Rowley’s book: The Biblical Doctrine of Election. It is a fine book on the subject!
I quote from a few places…
“Throughout the New Testament the term “elect” is found many times for the Church, testiying to the belief that the Church was the elect of God, and in the Epistle to the Ephesians it is declared that election belongs to the eternal purpose of God, and yet it was made before the foundation of the world. (Eph. 1:14) Yet never is this election thought of as a rival to that of Israel, but as the continuation of that election, to which the Church had become heir. It was in this belief that the Church continued to use the Jewish Scriptures. They were a part of its heritage, and thankfully accepted them and all the enrichment they brought. Never does it become the Christian to speak slightingly of Judaism, for out of the womb of Judaism was Christianity born, and into that its heritage the Church entered. This is not to make Christianity just a natural developement out of Judaism. Far from it, indeed! There was continuity; but there was also a new element. Neither must be emphasized to the exclusion of the other. The mission and message of Jesus can never be understood without relation to the background of Judaism out of which it came; but it can still less be understood only as the issue of that background. The work of Moses can never be understood without relation to the experience of this call in the wilderness, through which it embraked on something new and creative in religious history. Merely to regard him as the mediator to Israel of Kenite Yahwism is to miss his real significance. And as little can we ignore the new and creative element that was in Christ. The heritage that is ours in Christ, and the creative element in His message, and still more the dynamtic element that was in His Cross and Resurrection, must be both cherished and preserved.
That the Church claimed that it was the spiritual Israel and the heir of the election, the Remnant that alone could claim the promises reinforced by those of the Gentiles who shared its faith, is hardly to be gainsaid. And that faith has continued in the Church until the present day. The Church is not a society of like-minded people who meet for mutual edification, or even worship. It is the Israel of God (Gal. 6:16), chosen and called by Him, and responding in a covenant that is both individual and corporate, chosen to receive of His grace, indeed, but also to feel the constraint of the grace and to render a service that is absolute and unconditional.
All this is a particular application of the Old Testament principles to which the New Testament appeals. So long as it is merely stated that not all Israel is Israel, and that they who are not Irael may yet be of Israel, appeal may be made to the Old Testament.” (Pages 147-148)
Here we can see in Rowley’s work, that the Church of God is the place of God’s election and grace.. but only as it is connected to both the OT and Christ. This is the Salvation History and Covenant of God fulfilled in the NT, and even in the People of God “Themselves”! (Heb. 13:20-21)
Fr. Robert and Bobby,
Okay, so I’ll read both Barth and Torrance in due time – later this year, in fact. π
|So EC is βpositiveβ in approach focusing on elect thus sees an asymmetrical relation between the elect/reprobate (which classics do too).|
So it’s that “positive” spin on the matter that is the decider? Since you do not deny the election of individuals, then I can live with the “enigma.” π
TC,
The whole doctrine of God’s elective grace is always going to be a mystery to me, not that I am seeking to jump there, but certainly the more I live in grace, the more I realize for example that God has made man part of that mystery, not outright works of course, but most certainly a synergism. God’s grace is a synergy, a cooperative action together with man. Certainly God is sovereign, but He is also in that place of immanence within His own creation. So we can never run away from being responsible before God! And being “In Christ” is always a grace that changes nature. We must press to the goal in and with Christ always! (Phil. 3, etc.) The ‘New Man in Christ’ is a changed man, certainly also. Yes, ‘grace & glory’!
Fr Robert,
Nice quote. Stuff to think about. I’m really re-thinking covenantal stuff, I’ve kind of taken on some of that de facto since I’ve been thinking through TFT. I’m not really covenental, but Torrance is unique enough that it has made it more acceptable for me π .
@TCR,
Oh good, enigma is good π .
Bobby,
Just a thought, but have you read Colin Gunton’s books on the Trinity? I have a few on-line.
http://www.google.com/books?id=8NuMl9UhKHkC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Fr Robert,
Yes, I have read Gunton’s books and yes his one on the Trinity; thank you. In fact he came to my seminary back in 02 to give the Staley scholarly lectureship; he was one of my seminary profs, Paul Metzger’s, doctoral supervisor, which was the connection and why he ever came to my wee little seminary π . Thanks for the link too.
I guess my hang up with what I am reading is the anti-logic that seems to color your position. Using logical deductions is not synonymous with rationalism. It seems if we carried out Torrence’s position there would be no systematizing of theology at all, when you came to one passage you would say the atonement is X but at another you would say the atonement is Y without harmonizing them (that would be using logic) and just call it “mystery”.
It seems to me that we need to answer the following two questions: in what sense is the atonement universal (extent)? In what sense it is effective (what has it accomplished)?
Being a historical Calvinist, I answer that the atonement is universal in that Christ died for the elect which are from every tribe and nation, He fully accomplished their salvation and they will be saved. It is also universal in that there is a new humanity, and I expect great gospel prosperity in the future, the knowledge of the Lord will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea, all nations will be Christian and put under His feet.
I can cite a flurry of texts to support each sentence above, which I am sure you know, but my point is that this is all very biblical, it’s not either Biblical or rational, we need reason after all just to read the Bible.
I guess my other primary question then would then be what role does election have in your theology? It seems clear scripturally that there is a group of people “chosen by God” to be the recipients of Christ’s blessing. Historical Calvinism holds that it is for these whom Christ has died and saved to the uttermost. Given your position what distinction is there between the elect and non elect if any? Or is everyone elect? If everyone is elect how does this not lead to universalism based upon Rom 8:28-30?
I’ll probably have more questions as I read more on this, but I am interested to understand this position, how it differs really from Arminianism or just throwing up your hands and saying “mystery!” every 5 seconds.
On this Good Friday, I will be participating in our community ecumenical service. We will confess and profess that Jesus died for all. Now what is your response? Math with theology only create hardening of the arteries in one’s soul
Blessed Good Friday and Resurrection joy to all on the Evangelical Calvinist Blog
Ken Macari
Btw, “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.” (1 Tim.1:15,KJV)
This is my “math”! π
@Kenneth,
Blessings to you too! He is risen!! Well in a couple more days π . Yes, the good news, He died for all . . . at least that’s what Scripture says π !
@Fr Rob,
How can you be chief, when I am π ! Amen, I like your math!!!