Monthly Archives: November 2015

‘The Whole Life, Activity, and Passion of Jesus Christ’ as the Ground for Reading Scripture: With Reference to Thomas Forsyth Torrance

Posted on by

Reading Scripture and its practices continue to be very important to me. I am a Christian, as such I hold that the Scriptures have a certain and intended ontology; an order relative to its place within the economy of God and His Self-revelation in Jesus Christ. As such when I approach Scripture I approach it confessionally and Dogmatically; which means that I approach, as noted, as a Christian sciencebiblefrom within a frame of reference that logically understands that God precedes Scripture just as He does creation itself. Of course the difference between creation simpliciter and Scripture is that Scripture becomes Holy because it, as John Webster so elegantly develops, reposes upon its genesis as God’s triune speech-act for us as it is given for us, first and ontologically, in its real text, in the Logos ensarkos, the enfleshed Word, in the Incarnate son of God, Jesus Christ.

What I would like to do for the remainder of this post is to continue to highlight the impact that approaching Scripture this way has upon the way we read it as Christians; or the way it should impact the way we read it. As I noted, there is an order and thus ontology to Scripture. Scripture therefore is not the ultimate, but its reality is, Jesus is. Scripture from this frame of reference is subordinate to its reality found in Jesus Christ; once we recognize this we can appreciate Scripture and its ‘being’ in God’s economy the way we ought to, and as a result read Scripture the way it was intended to be read from within the Domain of God’s Triune life. Here’s how Thomas F. Torrance unfolds this:

The Holy Scripture is not Jesus Christ, the Word of God incarnate. We may express this differently by saying that Jesus Christ the incarnate Word of God is not merely a reflection of divine Light, a transparent medium through which that Light shines into the world, nor is he therefore merely a witness to the Light, for he is identical with the Light to which he bears witness. He is in fact “the real Light,” the Reality of the enlightening Light of God of which all created light is a reflection and to which it bears witness (John 1:9). In the same way we must say that the Holy Scriptures are not themselves the real Light that Christ is, but are what they are only as enlightened by him and as they therefore bear witness to him beyond themselves. In no way can the light of the Scriptures substitute for the Light of Christ, for they are entirely subordinate to his Light. Indeed it may be said that if the Scriptures are treated as having a light inherent in themselves, they are deprived of their true light which they have by reflecting the Light of Christ beyond themselves—and then the light that is in them is turned into a kind of darkness.[1]

Does that make sense? It seems quite self-evident to me that this is the way we ought to approach Holy Scripture. I.e. Scripture does not precede God in Christ, but God in Christ precedes Scripture; if we get this backwards Scripture’s ontology can only at that point be derived from the authority and reality we give it, and its meaning can only be reduced down to the sense that we make out of it as we analyze its literary structures, grammatical connections, syntactical arrangements, historical situations, its historical development, its traditioned sources etc. This is a concerning and profound thing; I think that largely this has become the frame through which modern Biblical Studies operates (whether that be in so called Liberal or Fundamentalist locations).

Torrance extrapolates further; he provides a way forward for how reading Scripture within its proper orientation and ontology in relation to Christ ought to look. He writes,

so far as the New Testament Scriptures are concerned, the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus Christ constituted the ground on which they were understood and validated, brought about a radically new conception of God and a complete transformation of man’s outlook in terms of a new divine order, and—thus bracketing within them the whole life, activity, and passion of Jesus Christ—gave rise to the basic framework within which the New Testament Scriptures are set and have to be interpreted. That is to say, the incarnation, passion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ gave the New Testament the comprehensive scope within which all its writings took shape and form. Thus these realities forced themselves upon the mind of the Christian community in sharp antithesis to what people had believed about God and in genuine conflict with the framework of secular thought or the prevailing world view; they took root in the church, which they had called into existence, only through a seismic restructuring of people’s religious and intellectual beliefs. Through the New Testament Scriptures the self-revelation and self-communication of God in the incarnation, passion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ continue to supply the objective framework within which the gospel is to be understood and the Scriptures are to be interpreted. But they are ultimates, carrying their own authority and calling for the intelligent commitment of faith, and they provide the irreducible ground upon which continuing theologico-scientific inquiry and formulation take place.[2]

This seems quite radical, I think, to typical North American evangelical and mainline Biblical Studies (i.e. the discipline) ears. It takes the Bible back from the naturalist approach that has come to dominate what it means to do Biblical exegesis (see Gabler [1787]), and places the Bible itself, again, back into its proper orientation and ontology relative to God. Torrance’s challenge is for Christian exegetes and students of Scripture to repent and come back to reading Scripture with Jesus Christ as its theological and real life center. As we can see from the prior quote, as Torrance develops it, the ground of Scripture’s meaning is particular to ‘the whole life, activity, and passion of Jesus Christ.’ If this is the case it is not possible nor advisable to attempt to roam over large areas of academic discipline when attempting to read Holy Scripture; it is important instead to attend to Scripture’s scope and reality grounded and conditioned by Jesus Christ Himself. If we do this we will be in a good place to actually hear from the Lord of Holy Scripture, and will be able to avoid our attempts to adoptionistically attach our readings and exegetical conclusions of Scripture onto God (this is what happens if we follow naturalistic or maybe we could say Ebionite readings of Scripture).

[1] T.F. Torrance, Reality and Evangelical Theology: A fresh and challenging approach to Christian revelation (Philadelphia, The Westminster Press, 1982), 95.

[2] Ibid., 105-06.

Karl Barth, Romans 1:18-21. No Genuine Knowledge of God Apart from Radical Grace Conditioned by the Life of God in Christ With Us

Posted on by

As we read Romans 1:18-21 it would appear that there is some possibility for, at least, an inchoate ‘natural’ knowledge of God; that God’s invisible attributes which can be clearly seen should be opaque to the point that ‘whosoever wills’ could have some semblance of the true and the living God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; some people, some Christians seem to think that this is the case. But before we get further let’s read this passage both in the Koine (New Testament) Greek, and in the English:

18Ἀποκαλύπτεται γὰρ ὀργὴ θεοῦ ἀπ’οὐρανοῦ ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ἀσέβειαν καὶ ἀδικίαν ἀνθρώπων τῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐν ἀδικίᾳ κατεχόντων, 19διότι τὸ γνωστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ φανερόν ἐστιν ἐν αὐτοῖς: ὁ θεὸς γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἐφανέρωσεν. 20τὰ γὰρ ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμουτοῖς ποιήμασιν νοούμενα καθορᾶται, ἥ τε ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ δύναμις καὶ θειότης, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀναπολογήτους: 21διότι γνόντες τὸν θεὸν οὐχ ὡς θεὸν ἐδόξασαν ἢ ηὐχαρίστησαν, ἀλλ’ ἐματαιώθησαν ἐν τοῖς διαλογισμοῖς αὐτῶν καὶἐσκοτίσθη ἡ ἀσύνετος αὐτῶν καρδία.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

So we have this to contend with, especially those of us who reject the idea of a ‘natural theology’ or ‘natural’ knowledge of God. But what those who argue for natural theology have to contend with is the reality of ‘sin’ and the impact that that has had upon our noetic capacity to apprehend these invisible attributes of God in nature; i.e. ‘his eternal power and Godhead’ (as the KJV translates it). Karl Barth, known famously for his rejection of natural theology must also engage with this passage of Scripture, which of course he does in his infamous der Romerbrief or commentary on Romans (the commentary that originally put him on the map so to speak). In commentary on this passage he writes:

romansbarth

Karl Barth, *The Epistle To The Romans* (London/New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), 48.

These are his closing words with particular focus on vs. 21. His conclusion is that even though, theoretically, God can be known or ‘clearly seen’ in nature, as Romans 1 asserts, that they have chosen the No-God, and as such have cut themselves off in any real sense from genuinely seeing what is right in front of them in nature. It isn’t that God is not actively and persistently present upholding the contingent verities of created reality, it is that humanity, cut off from this real God, do not have capacity in themselves to even apprehend let alone know God as Creator (so to speak). If we are cut-off from objective reality, and the One who sustains it by the word of His power, then all we are left with is a non-realist (versus realist) and idealist mode for conceiving of things, including God. All humanity can do is start from a center within themselves, and project our a conception of what Barth calls ‘No-God’, a negation of the negation; i.e. in other words, even humanity’s projection outward of godness, which is really a projection of themselves, is based upon an inaccurate perception of themselves, since as Barth notes, (in the spirit of Calvin I would say) there cannot even be an accurate knowledge of the self without a real and genuine knowledge of God. This paints a very dark and bleak picture for ‘lost humanity.’

Conclusion

If the Apostle Paul was attempting to paint a picture of the hopelessness of lost humanity in Romans 1–3, then as we read Barth, it becomes quickly evident that Paul has done a great job!

Within the Reformed tradition (from which I think along with Barth and TF Torrance, et al) there is an affirmation of ‘natural theology.’ But when we dig into what is meant by that I do not think that the language itself i.e. “natural theology” is wholly accurate to the intention of many of its Post-Reformed scholastic adherents. Most of these Post-Reformed proponents of ‘natural theology’ could fit in with Barth’s approach rather than what we might think of as a natural theology simpliciter. In other words, these Reformed proponents did not believe that natural theology was antecedent to nor a preamble of the Faith; instead, they like Barth believed that knowledge of God as Redeemer had to precede knowledge of God as Creator, that there isn’t a latent natural capacity within humanity post-lapsum ‘after the fall’ to genuinely know the real God. I think it would be better to avoid the language of natural theology and replace it with the language of theology of nature. Now, were these Post-Reformed orthodox thinkers fully in line with Barth then? No, Barth would be even more radical than many of them and restrict knowledge of God in nature to an absolute relation of faith in God grounded in the vicarious humanity of Christ for us. Barth believes that a genuine knowledge of God must fully be based upon the in-breaking reality of God’s grace, and that there is nothing present in nature whatsoever that allows for knowledge of God. In other words Barth would reject the prominent Post-Reformed orthodox Thomist conception of ‘grace perfecting nature;’ instead Barth would hold that grace recreates a new nature from the ground up in the resurrection of Christ.

Anyway, just some thoughts … I continue to find this intriguing and probably always will.

Allow God to Tell His Own Story. Albrecht Ritschl, Karl Barth, and Thomas Torrance: A Better Way to do Genuine Christian Theology

Posted on by

Karl Barth is famous for wanting to think theological thoughts strictly and only after Deus dixit (‘God has spoken’); he is famous for his desire to do Revelational Theology. Thomas F. Torrance, in his own way, but in the wake of Barth is likewise famous for his desire to do Revelational Theology. They were both very successful at this, and have left a great heritage for those of us who want ritschlto do theology After Barth&After Torrance. Neither Barth nor Torrance invented this approach; we could identify strains towards this type of approach strewn throughout church history. In this post I want to identify a more recent voice (relative to Barth’s location in history) that helped to foster the kind of trajectory that Barth, Torrance, and others picked up on later. I am sure for those who are Barth-haters that they would be tempted to use this as ammunition to tar-and-feather Barth (and Torrance) to the dump of theological Liberalism; be that as it may, I am going to risk it, and name this voice for you.

As you have been reading this post thus far you might wonder what the big deal is; you might be thinking “don’t all Christian theologians do revelational theology;” “don’t all Christian theologians attempt to avoid philosophical metaphysics in their theologizing and attempt to think God directly from Jesus Christ as God’s Self-exegesis and interpretation (Jn 1.18)?” Most would claim to do so, but most in Protestant theology have cozied up to the idea that some metaphysics (whether that be Thomist, Scotist, Nominalist, etc.) are inevitable; that some philosophical categories are necessary in order to attempt to think and communicate God in an intelligible coherent way. Barth and Torrance, and this voice I am going to identify don’t think this is the case, and they have not cozied up to this idea about using philosophy and metaphysics as the driver for the doing of Christian theology; like I noted they are committed principially to the idea that we can only do Christian theology after God has spoken (Deus dixit), and thus revelational theology.

The ‘voice’ that helped to pave the way for someone like Barth, at least in his emphasis on revelational theology was famed theologian Albrecht Ritschl (1822). Ritschl was anti-Hegel, and anti After Hegel theologians; if you know anything about Hegel you know that he wanted to supplant traditional Christian theology with his philosophically shaped pantheistic dialectically styled theologizing. Ristchl was responding to this style of philosophy and “metaphysics” (as it were); Barth similarly was responding to Hegel, but Kant even more. Nonetheless, it is interesting (at least to me) to see in Ritschl that in an de jure objective and principled way I can agree with; even if I cannot agree with probably anything else Ritschl stood for in his exegetical and theological conclusions.

In order to get an idea about all of this we will hear from H.R. Mackintosh (Thomas F. Torrance’s beloved teacher) as he develops Ritschl’s thinking on this, while at the same time offers a bit of critique.

Our study of this method may suitably begin with an allusion to two pernicious influences which, at every stage of his development except the first, Ritschl sought to drive from the field. One is Speculative Rationalism, with its claim that the true basis of theology is to be found in theoretical metaphysics. No doubt in a broad sense most of us are speculative rationalists in so far as we try to think out and think through the implications of Christian faith, in an effort to correlate each belief with all the rest. And in calling for the expulsion of metaphysics from theology, as I think we shall see Ritschl in form asked for more than could be conceded, and as it were drove the nail in so hard as to split the wood. Faith must always be metaphysical, for it rests upon convictions which, if true, must profoundly affect our whole view of the universe and the conduct befitting us within it. In this important sense, a metaphysical import belongs to every judgment concerning Ultimate Reality. Yet the belief or judgment in question need not have been reached by way of metaphysical argument, and in point of fact no essential Christian belief has ever been so reached, although metaphysical argument may later have been employed to defend it. And this, in the last resort, is the point Ritschl is bent on making. There is a Speculative Rationalism which comes to meet the Gospel with a ready-made framework of philosophical conceptions, insisting that faith is bound to use these conceptions, and no other, when it proceeds to formulate its own living content, and this in spite of the fact that its fundamental categories may have taken shape quite irrespectively of the experiences that make man a Christian. Philosophy as such is, even for the believer, the final court of appeal. This type of thought, of which Hegelianism is the classic instance, Ritschl strove not without success to dislodge from the seat of power. Anyone who knows more than the rudiments of his thought will acknowledge that his view of the living God, of revelation of Christ, of miracle, of the Church, is such as to lift the mind beyond the range of any metaphysic operating with general ideas. It becomes plain that, in spite of its great intellectual value, technical philosophy leaves on one side just those problems which possess a life-and-death interest for believing men. No books on metaphysics can be named which contain a serious handling of such matters as fellowship with God, the guilt of sin, the hearing of prayer, above all the redeeming Person of Jesus. By insisting that the Christian mind must at every point of religious belief be guided solely by revelation of God in Christ, Ritschl did his utmost to expel any and every presumptuous form of Speculative Rationalism; and it may well be that the future historian will reckon this to have been his best service to theology.[1]

And in case you were wondering how Ritschl fits with the trajectory of Barth/Torrance, or vice versa, here is what Torrance commentates in regard to Barth’s approach (which Torrance shared in this regard):

Because Jesus Christ is the Way, as well as the Truth and the Life, theological thought is limited and bounded and directed by this historical reality in whom we meet the Truth of God. That prohibits theological thought from wandering at will across open country, from straying over history in general or from occupying itself with some other history, rather than this concrete history in the centre of all history. Thus theological thought is distinguished from every empty conceptual thought, from every science of pure possibility, and from every kind of merely formal thinking, by being mastered and determined by the special history of Jesus Christ.[2]

Moral of the Story:

Allow God’s own Self-exegeis, His own Self-interpretation to impose Godself upon you and the way you think about God and all His works (without separation between His Person and Work). Allow the categories and conceptions supplied by God Himself in Christ to provide the way we think God, and repudiate any approach to theologizing that allows philosophy and foreign metaphysics to set the tone for how we think God. If you do this things will go better; because if we get God wrong everything else that follows will be wrong.

 

[1] Hugh Ross Mackintosh, Types of Modern Theology: Schleiermacher to Barth (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1937), 142-43.

[2] Thomas F. Torrance, Karl Barth: An Introduction to His Early Theology 1910-1931, 196.