**Here is a repost, I have been struggling, somewhat, with Greg MacDonald’s ‘Evangelical Universalism’, yet it is the sentiment voiced by T.F. Torrance below that I find more persuasive than the “a prioris” that drive the exegetical decisions of MacDonald (and others like him). To be honest, I am tempted by MacDonald’s suggestion; but in the end, not enough. TFT, below, does not deal in detail with fine exegetical points; instead with an attitude and approach that carries each one of us one way or the other — relative to personal epistemological denouement.
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 substitutionary 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,
It seems to me this is the only way to perceive God βasβ rational (consistent/not self opposing). I suspect those that hold to a limited atonement or Universalism prioritize a rational soteriology. I find it ironic to rationalize God’s great love. How can I honestly say that it somehow made sense for God to save me?
Hey Kc,
Yeah, love is based on trust of and in the other. I think that both universalism and limited atonement try to get beyond this too quickly.
Both universalism and limited atonement are fair game in the area of logic and thinking. And we really must seek to “prioritize” soteriology! As Bultmann saw and believed, the Death of Christ was both historical, but only really theological for those who are drawn existentially. And only here is true faith found!
Fr Robert,
Yep, I agree, as far as logic. I don’t think TFT is denying that (in fact he assumes the reality of both in order to make his points, contra).
Bobby,
But the classic Calvinist (Calvin & Beza, etc.), would say that true or right logic should lead one to God In Christ, the covenant, etc. And also for the classic Calvinist only the elect will press through and “existentially” see the gift of faith in the Death and Person of Christ. There is certainly no universalism here at all, save the entire intrinsic value of Christ Himself, in both His life (the Law of God) and His death, freely given (the Lamb of God).
Fr Robert,
I know, of course that’s what they’d say; and an Evangelical Calvinist would say the same thing differently π .
Bobby,
I am somewhat relying on Beza historically (to make a point) of course Calvin’s successor. Who only ten years Calvin’s junior, yet lived into the 17th century. Three decades after Calvin’s death. Without Beza to a degree, we really don’t have Calvin, or Calvinism. He was also like Melanchthon for Luther, etc.
We should also note the close relationship between Zwingli and H. Bullinger. The Reformers and their chosen deputy’s were close in doctrine, to their leader. I am not so sure about Barth, and his? @irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert
My point in this is, would Calvin recognise Calvinism today? And of course what version? The Reformers and their deputy’s were in a life struggle biblically and theologically. So Barth and Co. perhaps don’t matter so much in this historical point. They were not Reformers, but then what are we today? Are we really followers of the Reformation and the Reformed? Just historical questions to think about!
Hi Bobby,
How do you view trust with regard to the basis of God’s love for us?
Hello Fr. Robert,
To be clear; I believe if I fail to prioritize the love of God in Christ and instead seek first to establish a rational for βmyβ salvation then I will likely fall into the Determinist trap (a limited atonement or Universalism).
@Fr Robert,
I don’t think Calvin would recognize “Calvinism” today or even in the so called scholastics. I do think the scholastics would feel quite comfortable at, esp., Westminster Theological Seminary, California. I think a helpful designitaion, actually, is Calvinian versus Calvinist. That’s not to say that Calvinists don’t have plenty of themes from Calvin; it’s just that I think because of Calvin’s situadedness, his thoughts were different than folks who followed and tried to develop some of his thoughts (which is why we end up with different strands of Calvinism).
@Kc,
I see the best frame of reference for understanding that by looking at how Jesus related to the Father in His whole life (Jn 17 is a beautiful picture). I think the Heb 12.2 is a good picture too; in the sense that the Son/Jesus knew that what He was doing was accomplishing something great, and He knew this because of His relationship to the Father (He trusted that all that He was doing in the Incarnation would take place because of the initimate relationship He has with the Father). Also I think in Luke when Jesus says that he commits Himself into the Father’s hands; that this too serves as a beautiful picture of the trust Jesus had (has) in the Father. I think we need to look at the Father-Son relations.
Thanks Bobby,
I think those are beautiful illustrations of trust within the perfect intimate relationship but do you think they establish that trust is the basis of that love?
Kc,
Yes, I think so. But not in a human sense, per se; nevertheless there is an interdependence in being amongst the persons of the God-head that in fact constitutes the inner-life of God. I think in that sense there is an absolute need for the other, in order for the other to be who He is within the triune life. I think this requires an ineffable/indescribable sense of dependence upon the other which John says “God is love.” I think love is other-centered, and as the Father looks to the Son, His person as the Father is provided shape (likewise the Son and the Holy Spirit). So there is a mutual co-indwelling, a consubstantiting relating amongst the persons that reflects an unwavering trust in the other (or dependence), which is called love or God’s life. Quit asking me these deep theological questions, Kc; you’re making me think too much π .
I will continue to ponder this for awhile though. I think though, the best example of trust is the Son’s commitment of His life into the Father’s hands. This is when the economic nature of God and the ontological as one becomes an important reality. The trust reflected by Jesus on the cross comes from a Holy Spirit anointed humanity; and is grounded in His divine person. In other words, the consubstantial relation that inheres in Christ in the hypostatic union reflects a unity of person. And in that unity of person we see a deep trust by the Son in the Father by the Holy Spirit. It is His ontological realtion with the Father and Holy Spirit, in love (which is God’s self-giveneness) that provides the expression of trust (where He finds His loving life) voiced by Jesus on the cross.
Sorry Bro. π
I would appreciate anything further you might add on this. At present I see submission as the ultimate expression of trust. I see sacrifice as the ultimate expression of love when it is unconditional.
Bobby, kc,
This is an academic issue somewhat, but one that seeks to assess the question of natural theology, in the traditional Christian sense. Since I was raised and early educated Roman Catholic, I am very aware of Thomism. I think we all know that this is Aristotelian, etc. But following both Calvin, Luther, and really all the classic Reformers. We simply must acknowledge their use here, as also Augustine. And as I have made reference also, it is here too that Theodore Beza was pressed and educated. So whatever, we may say about later theology and philosophy, we simply must keep our mind close to this history, at least for the Refomation and the Reformers. Though I myself like and am drawn to Van Til’s presuppositionalism, I still must see the history of the 16th century Reformers.
With this in mind, I am drawn more toward Brunner in the Barth/Brunner debate on this subject. So even as an Anglican, and a Calvinist somewhat, I am more toward a kind of Augustinian Thomism. And here I would note some of the work of the Anglican E.L. (Eric Lionel) Mascall (1905-93). His life long work was in natural theology, see some of classic works: He Who Is, A Study in Traditional Theism. The sort of sequel: Existence and Analogy. He followed what he called the existenial approach to God as seen in the metaphysics of Thomas Aquinas. Btw Bobby, I have almost all of Mascal’s works. He also wrote as an Anglo-Catholic, and toward the recovery of basic Christian unity. But he also wrote a fine book on the defense of the deity of Christ: Theology and the Gospel of Christ: And Essay in Reorientation (London 1977). It was against the onslaughts of liberal NT scholarship at that time.
So the reality and need of Christian Thomism, are still quite alive, even with some Reformational and Reformed people today. And I would be one of those! π@Bobby Grow
@Kc,
Just trying to avoid the dividing of God up into a bunch of categories/attributes. I see love (per I Jn) as God’s defining component within the Triune nature.
@Fr Robert,
Yeah, Thomism is alive and well; I of course don’t see its need. But it is a fact, its part of our history. I’m not seeing there aren’t things from Thomas that I don’t appreciate.
@Bobby: Indeed for me Thomism is part of that relation of the philosophical and scriptual theology, indeed the light of revelation calls for the light of reason to some degree, of course always presupposed by faith. But again, first given by God, as we read scripture and think. God calls us to reason always, but most often transcends it also! @Bobby Grow
Fr Robert,
Yes, I just think that all of our reasoning must be limited and conditioned by God’s revelation in Christ and Scripture; so that we are reasoning from a center in ourselves, but Christ.
Bobby,
Yes, that’s the ideal, but somehow we must use our mental reasoning in God’s grace and power too. Note, Calvin’s view of the Church as our Mother, etc. I will always be myself something of a Reformed Churchman.@Bobby Grow
A Reformed Anglican that is, for me this is both parts of low church and high church, etc. π@irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert
I’m an idealist π (not metaphysically)