'EC' Salvation in Christ

Here is a great summary of how Thomas Torrance understood the biblical realities of: justification, reconciliation, and redemption. This summary is provided by Robert Walker, TFT’s nephew and editor of Torrance’s book Atonement. Of note is the vicarious nature of all three concepts, all grounded in Jesus Christ as our priest and mediator:

Again throughout his theology, Torrance emphasises that in Jesus Christ we have the act of God and of man, of God as man in his one person. Justification, reconciliation and redemption therefore must be thought of not simply as the act of God for our salvation, but also as the real act of man, of God as man for us. the importance of this for Torrance’s theology and for understanding it cannot be overstated. Justification is not simply the act of God judging sin, atoning for it himself and declaring us righteous in his beloved Son, it is man saying amen to the righteous judgement of God and at the same time fulfilling all righteousness in his own perfect life and humanity. Reconciliation is thus not simply God reconciling the world to himself in Christ, but reconciliation worked out, achieved and realised by Christ as man within his own person, in his own mind, life, heart and soul. Redemption is the mighty act of God in which mankind is liberated from bondage and decay into the new creation through the resurrection of the man Jesus Christ from the dead in the fullness of physical existence. (T. F. Torrance, ed. Robert T. Walker, “Atonement,” xlv)

This is the stuff (the guts) of Evangelical Calvinist thought on salvation. If you fail to grasp this, then you will fail to see how EC is indeed distinguishable from Classic Calvinism, in general; and most Christian soteriological understandings, in particular. Furthermore, if you fail to engage the material here, then at the same time, you’ll also fail to realize ‘how’ Calvinist this actually is.

First, there is a grounding of all salvation in God’s life alone, in Christ; thus the reason EC stresses the vicarious humanity of Christ for us. We press this, because if we don’t, we leave open the possibility for man to have some objective part in salvation (i.e. cooperate with God kind of soteriology). If Christ truly assumed humanity — and He did — and if He truly is our priest and mediator — and He is — then He, as the first-fruits from the dead, accomplished every aspect of salvation (in Himself). He trusted the Father for us, He first loved the Father, that we might love Him; He repented in our stead, He resurrected that we might resurrect, etc. etc. How this is appropriated is through the Holy Spirit’s creativity and otherness (who brings us into communion with the Father and the Son, just as sure as He is the bond of communion and union between the Son’s divine and human natures) — Myk Habets alerts us to the language of theosis and theopoieses in the theology of Torrance [fodder for another post] — the Spirit provides the space (as He did in the Son) for humanity to ‘respond’ out of Christ’s faith on our behalf.

Second, I say you’ll realize how Calvinist this is because it places a genuine primacy on Christ’s life. It places a supremacy on God’s life as salvation and grace, as the origination of all that is. That without God’s unilateral activity in salvation, there, indeed, is no salvation; after all, God’s life is salvation. I say these markers are benchmarks of Calvinism because of Calvinism’s goal, historically, to speak of salvation in terms that magnify Jesus alone. Now, just because all Calvinists would say these are the touchstones, does not mean all versions or instantiations of Calvinism reach these marks.

4 thoughts on “'EC' Salvation in Christ

  1. “He repented in our stead”
    That’s the only phrase I have trouble with. Where do we find scriptural support for this?
    Craig

  2. Craig,

    There isn’t an “explicit” verse that says this (just as there isn’t an explicit verse that gives us the “Trinity” in the form we articulate it today). In other words, there is “theological exegesis” at play here; meaning that we are trying to discern the “inner-logic,” the “theo-logic,” implicit in the Text itself. In particular, we are trying to take the incarnation seriously with all of its implications available. To argue analogically, if it is required that man “repent,” in order to be saved; then if Jesus was “fully man,” and is our mediator and representative in salvation, it would require that he first (as the firstborn from the dead Col 1) “repent” in his humanity for us first (if we take Ps. 51 for example to be directly Messianic then we have a prayer of Jesus with “repentance” in it). The “support” can’t just be read straight off of the pages of Scripture, but then again, neither can the support for the Trinity or the hypostatic union. I think this is an implication of the incarnation, and Christ’s mediatorship (cf. I Tim. 2:5-6; Heb. 7:25) for us.

    So this involves a hermeneutical shift that gets away from what is called the Literal, Grammatical, Historical approach (but it does not negate that approach fully either). I can explain more on that if you want me to.

  3. His repentance is vicarious though, not as a result (obviously) of his “own” sin (which he didn’t have of course!).

  4. Then Jesus came to John to be baptized by him.
    John protested, saying “I need to be baptized by you, and you come to me?
    Jesus answered “Let it be so for now, for it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.”
    Was not John’s, the “baptism of repentence”?

Comments are closed.