The following is my very early, brainstorming, just jotting my initial thoughts down, towards drafting a proposal I am working on with reference to Thomas Torrance’s soteriology. Like I said, this is just a first draft (or brainstorm) that I wrote off the top. But hey, I thought I’d share it, because I’m still a blogger and any feedback I might garner from sharing it might be helpful. Just know that the way I have ordered things in this first draft, are not properly ordered, per se. Also, I can already see where I need to spell things out with more clairvoyance. I’m also thinking 
that I might survey the doctrine of human agency in salvation within the context of Christian Universalism with special reference to TF Torrance. So I will take the focus, a bit, off of TFT, only to bring him into the mix after we have adequately engaged with the issue of human agency in salvation and Christian Universalism. A comparative analysis of Origen and TFT might also be fruitful. But these are my early thoughts.
Summary of Topic. Thomas F. Torrance’s account of salvation raises a unique problem. He sees salvation tied into an ontological humanity which is universally efficacious and implicating for all humanity, and yet he rejects what would seem to be the logical conclusion: i.e. universalism. If the Incarnation is ontologically and soteriologically actual for all of humanity in Christ’s vicarious humanity, then how canTorrance reject the seemingly logical conclusion of universalism? Torrance maintains that salvation is realized through the faith of Christ, but he remains unclear in regard to why not all ultimately have saving faith. If the saving conditions are fully actualized in the humanity of Christ for all of humanity, then how can Torrance maintain that particular humans will not ultimately be saved? Torrance appeals to the inexplicable nature of sin, he notes the surd reality of sin and the inexplicable darkness of evil, the irrationality of humanity’s darkened heart as his response to this question; in other words, Torrance doesn’t offer a reasoned response to the question of why some people reject their election in the humanity of Jesus Christ. Torrance’s proposal of a universal atonement, grounded in the ontological humanity of Jesus Christ for all seems to make his account of salvation suspect and vulnerable for many scholars and churchman seeking to engage with his offering. As a result of these seemingly competitive trajectories in Torrance’s theology two loci emerge most prominently: 1) Christian Universalism, and 2) Human Agency in the Particularity of Personal Salvation.
Proposal. This thesis will attempt to interrogate how human agency functions within Torrance’s soteriology by probing and developing the informing and latent theological anthropological categories that give formative shape to his understanding of what it means to be both human before and reconciled with (i.e. ‘saved’) God. We will attempt to scrutinize whether or not Torrance has the conceptual tools required to offer a consistent response to those who would charge his soteriology, particularly with reference to human agency, with theological incoherence (as so many do). We will appeal, in particular, to critiques offered by Robert Letham, Kevin Vanhoozer, Donald McLeod, and Roger Olsen in order to place Torrance’s soteriology under the necessary pressures to see if his theology can offer the type of compelling response that one would expect if there is to be a coherent response to such criticisms. Furthermore, we will survey the history of the doctrine of Christian Universalism with particular focus on how human agency in salvation has operated within the various schemata of the universalisms under consideration and use the theological developments therein as foils in comparison with Torrance’s own understanding of human agency vis-à-vis Christian Universalism, and his ostensible avoidance of giving into this doctrine within his own soteriological schematizing.
Duncan Rankin’s Edinburgh PhD thesis (1997) entitled “Carnal Union with Christ in the Theology of T.F. Torrance” addresses this very issue. He asked how everyone could be ‘in Christ’ ontologically by dint of the incarnation while, at the same time, not all will be saved. He concluded that TF had two different concepts of ‘Union with Christ’. It is worth a read.
I’m aware of Rankin’s work. I’m aware of Rankin’s conclusion. One of my pet peeves is anonymous commenters, but I have ways of figuring out who anonymous commenters are; Someone.
Of course, as I looked up your ip address I saw your email address; I don’t have to resort to my conniving ways now to figure out who you are 🙂 . Some of my first blog posts I ever wrote for The Evangelical Calvinist have to do with the two unions in TFT’s theology. This doesn’t do the work that I think needs to be done in and from TFT’s theology. That said, I’m still thinking about my proposal. I may well go another way, and focus on Evangelical Calvinism itself for a proposal. Thank you though for bringing up Rankin. I don’t find his observation ultimately satisfactory though; even though I do agree that these two unions are obviously present for TFT. Thank you for taking the time to comment, I’m honored.
Looks great to me my as-yet unmet brother! I wonder if you have seen this work which I helped (a very little) to review and learned through: Check out this book on the iBooks Store: “T. F. Torrance in Plain English” by Stephen D Morrison https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/t-f-torrance-in-plain-english/id1329999039?mt=11
Looking forward to learning with you, Gary
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 11:32 PM The Evangelical Calvinist wrote:
> Bobby Grow posted: “The following is my very early, brainstorming, just > jotting my initial thoughts down, towards drafting a proposal I am working > on with reference to Thomas Torrance’s soteriology. Like I said, this is > just a first draft (or brainstorm) that I wrote off the” >
I’ll be following this with great interest. Couple of questions, will you only be exploring the horizons of TFT’s theology regarding Christian Universalism or offering a critique and possible areas for future exploration? I process things on more of an intuitive/aesthetic level, so I’m not necessarily one to iron these questions out in a rational/logical manner. But, my sense is, whether or not TFT held to universalism, his model of atonement and election dovetails more naturally with at least some forms of universalism – maybe along the lines of Gregory of Nyssa, or David Bentley Hart’s more recent treatment of the subject.
As always, great stuff Bobby.
No, Torrance called Universalism and Limited Atonement the Twin Heresies. I’m not sure this is the route I’m going to go, we’ll see. Thank you, Jed.
Yeah, I’m aware of Stephen’s book.
Thanks Bobby. I’ll be very interested to read the results of your work. I met Torrance through your blog about a year ago and have found his theology to be wonderfully positive and encouraging. I confess though I haven’t really shared a lot of the shifts in my thinking with my more traditionally minded reformed and evangelical friends, and this is exactly the issue that I know will come up repeatedly in any discussions. Keep us posted on your progress. Thanks for all the hard work, it’s worth it!
Thanks for clarifying TFT’s position. I’ve picked this up somewhat in his writings already. I think it will be interesting to see where you go with this. I’m not saying I’m a thorough-going universalist, but as I have interacted with Nyssa and Hart on the matter, I can at least say I hope they’re right. Whatever might be said of this strand of Christian universalism, I don’t think that these positions should be brushed off. Even if a robust rebuttal is in order, I’d love to hear it.
Jed, we’ll see where I go. I have written more on my views on universalism here at the blog. I’ll try to dig up a post and link that reveals more.
Thank you, John, I appreciate it. Glad you’re willing and open to learn things from TFT; he’s a worthy teacher.
Have been reading your, “Evangelical Calvinism Vol_1” with great interest and have a similar question I think which arises out of the relationship between the election via the “ontological” union wrought in Christ between God and humanity and the election of individuals via an “ontic” participation and noetic affirmation (Colwell & Habets in ibid p188 electronic version). This is not fully explored (although i am only 50% though your book at the moment). It seems vitally important to understand this difference and that doing so will shape the way in which the gospel is understood and presented. It seems to me that if there is no change “ontologically” within the individual human being (sharing in the Son via the Spirit, being born from above, Christ who lives in me, etc) then we are back to a more forensic concept of justification and sanctification.
This also is why i find TFT’s summary of the gospel (in your side column) as a bit confusing.
A question might be ” What to TFT constitutes a rejection of Christ’s universal atoning work ?”
If you are examining TFT’s soteriology then I would like to get more clarity on the way in which he views individuals in that framework and the change that takes place uniquely in them when Christ comes to dwell.
The challenge there may be that he is really deliberately and necessarily getting away from individuals and is focussed on Christ’s saving work and its relation to all humanity. In this event i would guess there may be a paucity of discussion on this particular topic. This is all just conjecture for me given i have not finished either work and am just wading in.
These may be things which would help others too and worth considering how your work will filter down and affect the man in the street and how he walks with Jesus. It’s the question i am holding in my mind as i read your first volume anyway.
Blessings all in Jesus Bobby.
Hi Bobby – I see you have covered off the question elsewhere in your blog contra KJV. Why i still feel I need clarification is because the arguments you present are more to counter the view that since Christ died for all therefore all must be saved. This is not my concern. I’m more interested in seeing how the theology arises out of an exegetical treatment of the biblical material which seems to be rather thin in the first volume. It seems that in order to defend the position you will need to deal with the difficult texts exegetically whereas most of the arguments in the EC vol 1 arise from a systematic theological position which is robust and satisfying in many ways but not clear to as to how this position jives or even arises out of all the texts on election. I have probably jumped the gun again and will reserve all future questions until i have finished both volumes, TFT’s Incarnation and maybe should read Barth and Calvin as well. So I guess I’ll speak to you in three years! Sorry for chewing up your time prematurely.
I am putting together my PhD proposal right now. It will be dealing with the exegetical foundations of Evangelical Calvinism in a response to the types of things Vanhoozer argues in his against us. It’s prudent to remember that everyone brings systematic theological frameworks to the text, which then impinge upon their exegetical conclusions; KJV is not immune. As such people move too quickly to simply place the burden on us, Barth, Torrance et al; they ought to also place such burden upon themselves and be more up front about their own informing voices. KJV in his essay doesn’t give is this type of transparency either, and instead simply places the burden on us as if he is the one simply and purely reading the Apostle Paul and Calvin; that’s too facile.
Bobby my name is Andrew McGowan (the Scottish one not the Australian One) and I left the comment about Rankin. I had no idea that my comment was anonymous! I am not a regular commentator or blogger.
Hi Andrew, I figured out who you were because I can see your email — which you had to provide in order to comment. I appreciate that you took the time to comment, and am honored by it! Please forgive my initial snarkiness. Although I do have a pet peeve w/ anonymous commenters, going forward I’ll make sure they actually are intending on being anonymous 🙂 . Are you still connected with Highland Theological College?
Bobby, I am minister of a Church of Scotland parish in Inverness but still supervise PhDs for HTC. I also try to publish and am chair of the World Reformed Fellowship Theological Commission.
I’ve followed your work, Andrew. I contacted you years ago (2003), inquiring about doing a PhD at HTC. Since, Ive had a few friends and former profs earn their PhDs through HTC (Mike Gurney, Dan Christiansen, and Corey Miller). The thing keeping me from that back then was funding, this remains an issue. I’m considering doing a PhD through Union School of Theology with Letham. We’ll see how that unfolds. I’ve changed the focus of my proposal to having to do with elucidating the exegetical foundations of what Myk and I are calling Evangelical Calvinism a la TFT’s language. Maybe I’ll have to look at HTC again as well.