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.
Bobby, it appears you are starting with a sense of monergistic reach from God to us, but I know in another post you rejected both the classic formulations of monergism and synergism. I am wondering how we might further understand this statement, “the Spirit provides the space (as He did in the Son) for humanity to βrespondβ out of Christβs faith on our behalf.”
Have you worked out how this relates to man’s will, response, belief, faith, etc in terms of the obvious interplay between God who in Christ reveals himself in the gospel. Christ is the gospel and as such is the Word of His revelation and the content of His revelation. I am wondering in the subjective human experience of this encounter how we might relate this to the issues raised in the classic monergism/synergism polarity?
I can’t seem to find that other post where you recently talked about the monergism/synergism debate. Don’t remember the title and search didn’t produce it.
Jon,
I am a ‘Calvinist’ after all. But monergism classically construed, as you know, is grounded in God’s impersonal reach through decrees. TFT’s approach was to ‘personalise’ classic theology, and so in a sense there is still going to be that kind of thrust. But as far as the ‘interplay’ and the ‘personalist’ implications; I should know more in 3 years or so (when I finish the dissertation π ).
I don’t recall the post you’re referring to; I’ll have to think about that a little.
Bobby, the post I was referring to was “the βclassicβ Order of Salvation and its Pastoral Implications”. In it you said, “The real problem with this view is that it makes salvation a predicate (or dependent) upon βmanβs determinationβ/’manβs cooperationβ; instead of vice versa.”
I took this to refer to the classic monergism/synergism debate. I agree with your post about the problem of seeing grace as a causal force. For me grace is not a force, a power, or a thing. Grace is how God is toward us. Grace comes through Jesus Christ. Why? Because Christ is God’s love for us expressed in His very Person.
I really appreciate you keeping the focus on the person of God in Christ and free of all this causal confusion. God’s act toward us is “personalized”. I have to spread that word around….
God’s being is in his act and his act in his being π .