Jason Goroncy on the ‘Vicarious Humanity of Christ’ and its Role as Centrum for evangelical Calvinism

Posted on by

As time permits I am going to try and post from our (Myk Habets’ and my) edited book, Evangelical Calvinism: Essays Resourcing Continuing the Reformation of the Church. I am going to kick this off by referencing one of our excellent PICKWICK_Templateauthors (they all are!), Jason Goroncy, and his chapter 10 entitled: “Tha mi a’ toirt fainear dur gearan” (Galeic: “I note your objection”): J. McLeod Campbell and P. T. Forsyth on the Extent of Christ’s Vicarious Ministry. Jason offers a sweet development of how ‘vicariousness’ functions in the theology of evangelical Calvinism, and how there is even disagreement among its own adherents, as to the details; but also how there is over all principled agreement as to the role this doctrine plays within the broader schema of evangelical Calvinism. The following quote from Jason represents his first two opening paragraphs to his essay, and my intent in quoting this is to introduce you to what is at stake in regard to the variance represented between classical Calvinism (or Federal theology), and evangelical Calvinists (or Scottish theology). Here is what Jason writes:

The notion that in the gracious act of election God enters into the very conflict that has erupted between God’s own covenant faithfulness and the unfaithfulness of humanity as God’s covenant partner (and there in full solidarity with humanity—standing with and among sinners—has borne human infidelity and recalcitrance to its deathly end in order to heal and restore humanity to participation through the koinonia of the Spirit in the eternal and triune life and love) lies at the very heart of the recovery of that stream of Reformed thought identified as “Evangelical Calvinism,” and which has been most clearly articulated in recent decades in the work of T. F. Torrance and J. B. Torrance. With seemingly tireless energy, these two brothers (and many of their students) maintained the view that a bifurcation of streams emerged early on in Reformed thought, one which ran from John Calvin through John Knox, James Fraser of Brae, Robert Leighton, and the Marrow men, and found fresh articulation in the nineteenth century in a parish minister of the Kirk in Row on the Gareloch in Dunbartonshire; namely, John McLeod Campbell. This stream, in Torrance parlance, represents, “Evangelical Calvinism.” The other stream, associated with names such as Theodore Beza, William Perkins, John Owen, Thomas Watson, George and Patrick Gillespie, and Samuel Rutherford, among others, represents, in Torrance parlance, “Federal Calvinism.”

At the heart of so-called “Evangelical Calvinism” lies belief in the vicarious nature of Jesus Christ’s ministry, i.e., that “Christ was anointed by the Spirit in our humanity to fulfil his ministry for us,” or “on our behalf.” Among those who wish to highlight the ministry secured in and by Christ’s vicarious humanity, however, there remains some debate over the extent to which Jesus’ work “on our behalf” reaches, and the implications of such for human participation in that work by the Spirit. This essay shall attend to this debate, and will do so by bringing John McLeod Campbell into conversation with a compatriot of his—albeit of a later generation—the Aberdeenshire-born Congregationalist minister, Peter Taylor Forsyth. – Jason Goroncy, “Tha mi a’ toirt fainear dur gearan,” J. McLeod Campbell and P. T. Forsyth on the Extent of Christ’s Vicarious Ministry,” in Evangelical Calvinism. Essays Resourcing the Continuing Reformation of the Church, ed. Myk Habets and Bobby Grow (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2012), 253-54.

Jason goes on and develops this kind of internal struggle relative to the extent of the vicarious humanity of Christ and its function in faith and repentance in an individual’s life toward appropriating and living out the Christian life.

I hope in the days to come, to be able to spend more time with this theme of vicariousness, and get further into Goroncy’s offering. A few things that are notable, even in these opening paragraphs from Jason are this:

  1. That the vicarious humanity of Christ functions as a central theme for Evangelical Calvinists. And it does so, because Evangelical Calvinists see this, and sees Jesus as both the form and material reality of the Gospel itself; and thus this up-points the personalist reality with which we see the Gospel centered in the personal and dynamic life of God who is Triune love and gracious act towards us.
  2. What Goroncy’s indexing illustrates is that there is an obvious and discernable distinction between the stream and mood of Calvinist thought that we are identifying and highlighting V. its alternative and more well known and popular cousin, classical Calvinism[1] or Federal (Covenantal Theology). And this disparity between the two is able to be identified not just with abstract ideas, but with actual people with names in places who advocated and developed these ideas and disparate trajectories.

So these are a couple of things that Jason’s introductory paragraphs reveal. Something that concerns me, and this really has nothing to do with Jason’ particular points, is my fear that some people could be turned off to the material points we are trying to highlight, simply because of the volatile and politically charged language of “Evangelical” and “Calvinist.” I hope that you have the fortitude to push beyond your normal expectations that you have associated with such language, and actually engage with the kind of theological places that we are offering. How in the world could you ever find another theological offering that is more centered in and from God’s Triune life of love? And why would you want to?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1] When I refer to ‘classical’ Calvinism, I am not really referring to its historical place per se (if I were, I would consider evangelical Calvinism as ‘classical’ since it has its original moorings in the historical development of Reformed theology in general), what I am referring to is its heavy reliance upon classical Thesim and substance metaphysics.

4 thoughts on “Jason Goroncy on the ‘Vicarious Humanity of Christ’ and its Role as Centrum for evangelical Calvinism”

  1. I find this post interesting, and, given lots of discretionary time (which I don’t have), I might look further into the resources you reference and follow the history, the thinking, etc. That kind of thing does fascinate me. However, I work mostly with “big picture” issues now, and am clearly not orthodox under any typical definitions. I refer to paradigm/worldview issues primarily on the nature of God, reality, spiritual cosmology and such, as these interface with human psychology, sociology, culture and anthropology (esp. human antiquity re. the latter… I lean heavily toward an “extreme antiquity” view, based on various though not mainstream evidence lines). Thus, “churches” and religion are a good part of my interest and HOW theology is created, sustained, modified, etc.

    The main thing that continues to interest me in Barth’s work, which is well-reflected in the Torrance quote above, right, is his views of grace and that particularly in relation to election, and esp. Christ as the elect of God. To many, myself included this implied universalism, tho I understand that Barth apparently refused to be pinned down to such a term (and/or concept?). The Torrance quote also seems to imply universalism, taken in itself anyway. I realize he may have said more elsewhere ruling it out. My question is whether you also read this quote as indicating universal salvation? If not, how do you deal with the seemingly unsolvable problem of unconditional, “no respect of persons” election by God of only some, not others?

  3. Thanks Bobby, I read your post linked above. Although I think I’m typically pretty good at fine distinctions (often insisting on them myself, if they are important), I’m still not seeing any real difference or new insight in Torrance’s explanation re. “limited atonement” and God’s grace/judgment. It’s looking to me like the “standard” Evangelical (and/or “biblical”) theology I studied from various angles over many years…. AND certainly participated in “relationship” with God from a non-rational (or trans-rational) standpoint many years as well… not keeping it all “in my head.”

    I frankly, am not puzzled or concerned personally as my trust in God now exists on another “level” or “basis” (if there even IS a proper word for it). However, I AM quite concerned for others, including several family members and many I know, millions more I only know OF. Just one reason it’s serious that Evangelical Calvinism and its orthodox cousins have it “wrong”, in my view, is this: there really IS no basis for the “assurance of salvation” that psychologically is a natural, normal kind of need within an orthodox framework. I realize not all Christians personally struggle with that, but a great many do… and in the orthodox paradigm, there is no solution that I can see. For those who don’t personally struggle, much of THEIR time is spent trying to help those who do, and, to me, reassure themselves in relation to SUBCONSCIOUS doubts as well.

    I read the comments following that post and understand the shift away from “ticket to heaven” is some help. It IS closer to the biblical emphasis. But that doesn’t solve the problems still inherent. There still is just no way of knowing, at any given time, if one has “received” or “accepted”, or whatever, the grace of God in Christ. As in myself as example (again, just for making a point, not because of personal concern for many years now), when might I have started resisting or refusing the will of God that I had submitted to as fully as I was able, and without serious doubts (if any for quite a number of years)? I focused a LOT on relationship with God as well as on Bible study, etc. I evangelized, etc. But as I later went far enough with biblical study (and other inputs, granted), my understanding changed radically. I can’t say for sure that Jesus was NOT God incarnate, in a unique way, but I see more indicators that he was not than that he was. But if he WAS, I’m not resisting it. Is it only more stubborn folks, or more certain of their DISbelief that are “judged” as refusing? Etc… I think you catch where I see this one (among many others) angle of problem existing.

    And I find a more satisfactory but still open and “spiritual” perspective on God and the Bible in Process theology.

  4. Howard,

    I obviously am going to disagree with you. I don’t believe stability in relation to God is just an pastoral, psychological, existential crises; indeed, I see at in relation to the homoousion itself and the consubstantial life of God in Christ that we participate in by the Holy Spirit. And so I see “stability-in-relation” for us, grounded in the exact same kind of stability-in-relation that coinheres in the Father-Son relation–which is utterly and eternally stable … a life of secure love (self-given) for the other wherein the divine identity is given shape.

    I think we have more fundamental points of departure, Howard, which I don’t want to engage with here on this thread.

    I see the vicarious humanity of Christ as key to multitudinous things; assurance is one of those realities.

    pax

Comments are closed.