Thomas Torrance provides good coverage on the distinction between a classical Calvinist (Latin) theory of the atonement, juxtaposed with an Evangelical Calvinist theory which Torrance often calls the Ontological Atonement — pressing into the Vicarious Humanity of Christ, which appeals also to Calvin’s triplex munus (or understanding Jesus’ vocation as Prophet, Priest, King). Thomas Torrance says of these disparate approaches:
The difference between the two approaches is considerable. In the Latin view the atoning sacrifice on the cross deals only with actual sin, so that in addition to the expiatory sacrifice offered on the cross, although on the ground of what it accomplished, infusions of grace are provided to deal with original sin. In the Greek view, however, it is the whole incarnate life of Christ vicariously and triumphantly lived out from his birth to his crucifixion and resurrection in perfect obedience to the Father within the ontological depths of his oneness with us in our actual fallen existence, that redeems and saves us and converts our disobedient alienated sonship back to filial union with the Father. That is the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. The cardinal issue here, then, is the all-important truth of the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour of mankind. This carries with it a rejection of any idea that the humanity of Christ played a merely instrumental role in some kind of external legal transaction in the hands of Almighty God, and gives it an essential and integral place in indivisible oneness of agency with that of the Father and the Holy Spirit. In this way the atonement, downright act of God though it was, is to be regarded not as something done over our head but as something made to issue out of the depths of our actual existence through the incredible oneness which Christ forged with us in his vicarious humanity. [Thomas F. Torrance, “The Atonement. The Singularity of Christ and the Finality of the Cross: The Atonement and the Moral Order,” edited by Nigel M. de S. Cameron, Universalism And The Doctrine Of Hell, 238-39]
This is significant, and is integral to understanding an approach to an Evangelical Calvinist framing of the atonement. It’s not that “EC” rejects the forensic component of the atonement, but that we reject it as the proper “frame” for understanding the atonement. We want to avoid the problem with the “Latin” view, as TFT calls it, that sees Jesus as an instrument of God for accomplishing atonement, versus the Person of God that he is. Secondly, we want to affirm what Scripture does, that Christ in the atonement deals with man’s real problem; viz. his heart, not primarily his behavior. Yet, the forensically framed view (Latin) only deals with making “payment” for “Law-breaking,” and thus external behavior. This is a fundamental point of departure between classic Calvinism and Evangelical Calvinism.
To me anyway, this is a wrong dichotomy, simply! Note both Tertullian’s paradox and his Antithesis in God, as too the theology of Augustine. We need both the forensic and the ontological truth of God! And again, for me anyway.. this is the theology of the Reformation and the Reformed.
PS..Sadly, I am amazed how little Evangelical’s still know and appreciate Luther’s profound: Simul Iustus et Peccator – Simultaneously Sinner & Saint! Historically here also Calvin and the Reformed stand.
Fr Rob,
Read what I said a little closer. I put “frame” in quotes, and I also said “Itβs not that βECβ rejects the forensic component of the atonement, but that we reject it as the proper βframeβ for understanding the atonement. . . .” But I’d prefer you actually deal with the critique instead of just registering that you disagree with the idea of the ontological atonement. The Bible talks about our need for a new heart. If we only follow an forensic model, how would you suggest that that deals with the “being” of a person? Sin even under the Mosaic code is deeper than “Law-breaking.” God wanted, even then, a “circumcised heart,” not just obedient feet.
Bobby,
I am not attacking your EC, but simply somewhat not in full agreement, as it is not really historical Reformation or Reformed. It is not an either or here, but the forensic must come first…as to the nature of God, and God’s holiness, etc. Here is the Death of Christ first toward God…”My God my God, why have You forsaken me, (Ps. 22:1). And the nature of the our ontological sanctification follows the forensic work of Christ. Again, it is something of Law & Gospel! (Gal. 4:1-6)
It is also here, that you completely forget Luther and Lutheran doctrine, and somewhat even Zwingli! > And note too later Heinrich Bullinger here. As a Reformed Anglican myself, I simply must include the whole Reformation family! π
Fr. Rob,
Have you read any of the Finnish Lutheran interpretations? It is contrary to what you are positing about Luther and it has made headway in the States with various important Luther interpreters. This interpretation is much closer to TFT on the atonement than traditional Lutheran views and I find it at least gives me pause in reading Luther as generally sketched.
That’s not true, it’s just not the strand of historic Reformed theology that you consider “historic Reformed.” Check Scottish theology, check what I noted before “The Spiritual Brethren. I could just as easily say that what you hold to is not historic reformed theology, if I were to use the same logic that you’re using to assert that “EC” is not rooted in historic reformed theology. Beyond that, as Barth so adequately notes in his “The Theology of the Reformed Confessions,” the Reformed Faith, is always Reforming in light of its adherence to Scripture (not a collection — three forms of unity for example — of particular confessions that particular theologians today claim to be the standard for what counts as touchstone for the Reformed Faith). I know you’re “old school,” but so am I; check how Muller characterizes even TFT and Barth (he calls them the “old scholarship” etc.). The “historic Reformed faith” is much deeper and wider than you want to allow Fr Robert. True, EC is a more constructive work in some ways; but it is historically grounded in the Scottish Theology that TFT, HR Macintosh, Erskines, Binning, James Fraser of Brea, John McLeod Campbell, PT Forsyth and so many other Scots represent (people like David Ferguson and Alisdair Heron represent today as well).
I’m not referring to Luther or Zwingli because they aren’t the topic of this post. They certainly have something to add to this whole heritage (and I highly appreciate Luther), but they aren’t what I’m referring to here.
You’re not willing to allow other instantiations and developments within the Reformed faith, historically, Fr Robert? This is Muller’s thesis, but then unfortunately he collapses them all into the Westminster stream (which is not helpful).
Have you guys seen the book “Ten Myths About Calvinism?” It focuses mostly on conservative Calvinism, but it is relevant because it shows that there is tremendous diversity in the Reformed faith and that and undue dependence on Calvin is just wrong according to his place in the stream before the 19th centuries obsession with his theology. At that time his work took on an importance it never had in the stream and drowned out the other important voices, especially in English language Reformed theology. Point here is that we have to be careful not to have too much of a primeval focus with our theology and further we must allow for thelogical development to continue or we are in essence placing tradition above Scripture.
Sorry for the errors above. I’m trying to type on my iPhone!
@Randy,
Yeah, I read the review at Olson’s, and then of course saw it referenced at McKnight’s (one of my former profs was going to contribute a chptr to that volume, but then it didn’t happen . . . I wish he would’ve, oh well). Yeah, what you’re saying echoes Muller’s critique of the older scholarship as well (like TFT, Barth and the so called “centraldogmatists”). Ironically, Muller actually ends up repeating the older scholarship and thus engages in the error of his own critique; i.e. by creating a central dogma of his own — viz. he elevates the Westminster standards as the culmination of ALL of the developing streams of Calvinism, and thus lifts of Westminster (and the three forms) as THE standard of what it means to be Reformed (and interprets all other “Calvinist streams” through that lens — thus undercutting his own critique, i.e. that Calvinism is a multi-valent reality vs. monolithic).
But we do need to be in the “spirit” of the Reformed faith (vs. the “letter”); semper reformanda!
Randy,
Yes, I sure have.. this certainly had an affect on me for awhile. I also have read some of the early 20th century Anglicans here: A. G. Hebert, Bishop Gore, etc. And the Swed’s, Yngve Brilioth, Nathan Soderblom and too Gustaf Aulen. For a few years I was active in an Anglican and Orthodox fellowship, mostly fellow priests and theolog’s. I can come very close to the Orthodox in of course the Ecumenical Councils, at least the first five. And I really follow the Orthodox in their position of the Father’s monarchy in the Godhead. No Filoque for me! But it is through the Son, in incarnational time.
But, I am convinced of the older Reformational and Reformed positions, now myself. I am just an Anglican Reformed. π
Bobby,
I certainly have read many of these Scot’s! I like P.T. Forsyth the best, and too Macintosch. But, I just again don’t see them as most “definite” Reformed theolog’s! Sorry, that’s my opinion. π
*I have read most everything by Muller, but I don’t agree with everything he says either. But he is certainly a good man and Reformed Calvinist also. I would make a difference between some modern Reformed, and also classic Calvinism myself. This is not always easy to see, but I think it is there, etc. Again, my opinion..
Fr Rob,
I’m not saying there is no distinction amongs trad Calv on that particular continuum, but instead; that they are all on a “particular” continuum, certainly with an array of shades and hues.
I don’t want to claim the Scots as the most “definite” Refomred theologs, just that they along with the pantheon of Reformed theologs are just as much Reformed theologs as any of them are. In the end I don’t care about that moniker (i.e. “Reformed”) as much as I do about the fiduciary nature of concepts articulated vis-a-vis the Gospel and Scripture.
In re. to your response to Randy, that’s where you and I agree most (I think); on the significance of the ecumenical coucils and even rejection of the filioque (I’m Torrancean, I’m not allowed to believe in the filioque π ).
Bobby, Randy..
Note, I always seek to write biblically & theologically as a pastor & shepherd! For me anyway, there can be no other approach! We must beware of talking about mere theory, even in theology! π
Fr Rob,
Yes, yet theory and practice are often inter-linked; and that’s what I try to highlight with a lot of my blogging. Doctrine impacts practice and vice versa.
Bobby,
Of course we need “theory”, but theory that is pressed by the tension and mystery of God’s Word! Rather than just mental and mere human theory. This was my point. π
Fr Rob,
It’s one thing to assert that point, the “mystery” point relative to God’s Word; then it’s another point to address what in fact you mean π . Saying “mystery” doesn’t really provide any ground for furthering the discussion in a meaningful way.
Bobby,
Indeed, note St. Paul’s use of the word “Musterion”, it is not the mysterious, as what can be known only by Divine relevation, thus it is truth revealed. Here we get the triune “dispensation” of God Himself! (Col. 1: 25-26-27, etc.) And Christ is the image of the invisible God!
Absolutely, yet that didn’t seem to be the way you were using it. More like we’re up against an ultimate, so discussion over; but the problem is is that we still have room to talk, I think. I’m not happy with just appealing to “mystery” in a general way. That’s not to deny that God’s ineffable, but to say that there are some things, implications, etc. that can still be discussed.
Bobby,
Theologically, both the East & West see the doctrine of God, God in his essence.. as totally other! And it is also here that the West teaches The Immutability of God. So I am always coming too from this place of God’s own essence. (1 Tim. 1: 17) This is a biblical presupposition for me!
And it is this presupposition that makes for some challenging discussions amongst all Christians at points π .
peace Fr Rob (I think this thread has finally tailed off to where all threads ought, in the life of God π ).
Amen Bobby…that reminds me of an old classic book: The Life Of God in the Soul of Man, by Henry Scougal.