Dual Heresy - Torrance

[JonC]

Define “Latin Heresy”

I haven't gotten that far.

 

[JonC]

Doesn't his "if-then" statements arise from his flawed human logic?

They actually stem from Scripture, but are dependent on logic as all understanding is dependent on logic.

I'm not saying he is right. I'm only saying it'd be interesting to discuss his claims. Right now we are kinda dancing around his statements (doesn't he use logic, what passages support if and then statements, he sounds like a lawyer, etc.).

Reading through the work it seems that his major point (in this part) is that man is reconciled to God in the Incarnation. He takes "Emanuel" literally (that the Son is God and man).

Looking at the "Latin Heresy" so far, @Earth Wind and Fire , it appears he is talking about the western Church and how it handles the doctrine of the Trinity.

I hadn't thought about it, but he is right on that point. Reformed theology is a "heresy" if the standard is the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. I'm not sure yet if that's what he means by "heresy".

I told y'all I was just reading Torrance because of @DaveXR650 had discussed him at length. I'm not very familiar with the man or his writings (Im only familiar with his writings in passing). So I can't answer the questions you guys are asking. I only ran across those comments, found them interesting. And got distracted, skipped to another writing, went outside and had a cigar, came back and watched a movie.

 

[JD731]

Ok....been hanging around the house healing. I decided to read TF Torrance as @DaveXR650 mentioned him quite a few times recently (I am not very familiar with Torrance, only that he taught what he called "Total Atonement", believed the Atonement was accomplished at the Incarnation, and Christ - the Person of Christ - is this Atonement).


I ran across an interesting topic reading Torrance.

Torrance claimed that we often wrongly inject human logic into God’s grace, changing God's grace into an amalgamation of logical deduction that limits God’s freedom and ultimately results in the dual heresy of limited atonement or universalism.

I found it interesting because this "dual heresy" is often what is claimed on this board (that it is either universalism or limited Atonement). Torrance traces this error to what he calls the 'Latin Heresy" (apparently Torrance uses "heresy" quite freely).


"If in Jesus Christ the Word of God, by whom all things are made and in whom they have their creaturely being, became incarnate, died on the Cross and rose again, then we must think of the whole creation as having been redeemed. If in Jesus Chris the Creator himself became a human creature, without of course ceasing to be Creator, and if in him divine nature and human natures are not separable, as Nestorian heresy would have it, then we must think of the being of every man, whether he believes or not, as grounded in Christ and ontologically bound to his humanity. It is precisely in Jesus, as St Paul taught, that every human being (and indeed the whole creation) consists. . . If Christ died for all men, then, it is argued, all men must be saved, whether they believe or not; but if all men are not saved, and some, as seems very evident, do go to hell, then Christ did not die for all men. Behind both of these alternatives, however, there are two very serious mistakes. . .

Let me repeat, the problem of universalism versus limited atonement is itself a manifestation of the ‘latin heresy’ at work within Protestant and Evangelical thought. . .

However, of this we can be perfectly certain: the blood of Christ, the incarnate Son of God who is perfectly and inseparably one in being and act with God the Father, means that God will never act toward any one in mercy and judgement at any time or in any other way than he has already acted in the Lord Jesus. There is no God behind the back of Jesus Christ, and no God but he who has shown us his face in the face of Jesus Christ, for Jesus Christ and the Father are one. What the Father is and does, Jesus Christ is and does; what Jesus Christ is and does the Father is and does."


(Torrance, The Trinitarian Faith)

Anyway, putting it up for discussion or just to read.

It is pretty simple really. Men make it complex.

Hebrews 9:26
For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world (kosmos - planet): but now once in the end of the world (aion - age of the law for the Hebrews) hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

The question is; did he do this at the cross? if so, How?

21 For he (God, the Judge of all the earth) hath made him (Jesus Christ his Son) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Who is the "us?"

19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them;

What is the result for the world?

19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them;

Logic 101:

If God made Jesus Christ to be personified as sin to be punished and his justice against sin has been satisfied by this act of his pouring out his perscribed wrath on sin, it is only logical that he is not counting sin against men because of this and all men must do is to come to God to be reconciled to him. God has been reconciled to the world corporately but the world must be reconciled to God individually. This is the reason for the ambassador. It must be made known to sinners.

This grace of God has a limit. It is in effect until the day of the Lord. This is the time he he has appointed to judge sinners who will not be reconciled to him. The reason for this is that he intends to set up a kingdom on this earth over which Jesus Christ will reign and sin must be subjugated to his rule.

Acts 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Between this time of of seeking until the day of the Lord, sinners will be received in the name of Jesus Christ as the means of reconciliation.

31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is proof that God has dealt with sin and took it away. In the day of the Lord he will destroy the sinners out of the world and the kingdom can be established in righteousness.

The question is; does God impute sin to the world after he said he doesn't? Next question; isn't this universal atonement, and if not, who among sinners has been left out?

27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Sinners must be reconciled to God through Christ while they live. After death unreconciled sinners will be judged for their sins.

This dispensation has an end.

This is how I see it.

 

[JonC]

It is pretty simple really. Men make it complex.

Hebrews 9:26
For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world (kosmos - planet): but now once in the end of the world (aion - age of the law for the Hebrews) hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

The question is; did he do this at the cross? if so, How?

21 For he (God, the Judge of all the earth) hath made him (Jesus Christ his Son) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Who is the "us?"

19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them;

What is the result for the world?

19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them;

Logic 101:

If God made Jesus Christ to be personified as sin to be punished and his justice against sin has been satisfied by this act of his pouring out his perscribed wrath on sin, it is only logical that he is not counting sin against men because of this and all men must do is to come to God to be reconciled to him. God has been reconciled to the world corporately but the world must be reconciled to God individually. This is the reason for the ambassador. It must be made known to sinners.

This grace of God has a limit. It is in effect until the day of the Lord. This is the time he he has appointed to judge sinners who will not be reconciled to him. The reason for this is that he intends to set up a kingdom on this earth over which Jesus Christ will reign and sin must be subjugated to his rule.

Acts 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Between this time of of seeking until the day of the Lord, sinners will be received in the name of Jesus Christ as the means of reconciliation.

31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is proof that God has dealt with sin and took it away. In the day of the Lord he will destroy the sinners out of the world and the kingdom can be established in righteousness.

The question is; does God impute sin to the world after he said he doesn't? Next question; isn't this universal atonement, and if not, who among sinners has been left out?

27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Sinners must be reconciled to God through Christ while they live. After death unreconciled sinners will be judged for their sins.

This dispensation has an end.

This is how I see it.

I agree it is simple, but so is what Torrance suggests in the OP (that Emmanuel is actual).

The logic 101 statement is your "logic", but it is not Scripture.

What I like about Torrance is his insistence that we must first bow to Scripture, regardless of our understanding and even if it means we have to set aside passages as "mystery", at least for a moment.

Here is another "logic". Christ IS Emmanuel. He IS that reconciliation between God and man completed at the Cross as our sins are dealt with.

 

[DaveXR650]

Sinners must be reconciled to God through Christ while they live. After death unreconciled sinners will be judged for their sins.

Torrance seems to go even further. "The very nature of the gospel, as Calvin constantly expressed it, is to bring salvation, not destruction, and if anyone is reprobated that happens only accidentally - how else can we put it? The positive action of God in accepting their humanity and taking their rejection upon himself, is the is the action only of salvation and reconciliation. If therefore any person goes to hell, it is by downright refusal of the perfected work of reconciliation in which God in Christ has already chosen them in pure love and removed enmity between God and man entirely". (Pg. 157 T.F. Torrance, The Atonement)

In other words for Torrance, men start out reconciled to God in the truest and most complete sense of the word. Yet, as he says elsewhere, some do the inexplicable thing and reject this and this very reconciliation becomes their greatest judgment against them. Pg. 158 "That decision (because of the blood of Christ) is not altered if man refuses it, but if someone goes to hell, they go because they dash themselves in judgement against an unalterable positive act of divine reconciliation that offers to them only the divine love."

 

[JD731]

I agree it is simple, but so is what Torrance suggests in the OP (that Emmanuel is actual).

The logic 101 statement is your "logic", but it is not Scripture.

What I like about Torrance is his insistence that we must first bow to Scripture, regardless of our understanding and even if it means we have to set aside passages as "mystery", at least for a moment.

Here is another "logic". Christ IS Emmanuel. He IS that reconciliation between God and man completed at the Cross as our sins are dealt with.

I made a logical conclusion from the information given in the texts I quoted. Do you think I misunderstood it?

 

[JonC]

Torrance seems to go even further. "The very nature of the gospel, as Calvin constantly expressed it, is to bring salvation, not destruction, and if anyone is reprobated that happens only accidentally - how else can we put it? The positive action of God in accepting their humanity and taking their rejection upon himself, is the is the action only of salvation and reconciliation. If therefore any person goes to hell, it is by downright refusal of the perfected work of reconciliation in which God in Christ has already chosen them in pure love and removed enmity between God and man entirely". (Pg. 157 T.F. Torrance, The Atonement)

In other words for Torrance, men start out reconciled to God in the truest and most complete sense of the word. Yet, as he says elsewhere, some do the inexplicable thing and reject this and this very reconciliation becomes their greatest judgment against them. Pg. 158 "That decision (because of the blood of Christ) is not altered if man refuses it, but if someone goes to hell, they go because they dash themselves in judgement against an unalterable positive act of divine reconciliation that offers to them only the divine love."

Torrance is known for his dualistic approach. I don't agree with him in many areas (I don't fully agree with him on this area).

The thing about Torrance is his arguments are so involved and never "stand alone".

He affirms aspects of Penal Substitution, for example, but he does so in such a way as ultimately reject Penal Substitution Theory. He affirms Christus Victor, but he does so in such a way as to remove the Christus Victor approach to the Atonement.


That said, this does not mean aspects of his writing - especially in what he observed as errors within other positions (the first was a critique of Barth) - should simply be ignored.

His "Latin Heresy" , BTW... @Earth Wind and Fire , (finally got to it) is the distinction that started in the 5th Century of Christ's human nature separate from our nature. It is a "heresy" because it is something the Chalcedon Christology will not allow.

This is expressed in several ways - a perspective of the Father punishing the Son, Christ being of a neutral human nature (or having some "pre-fall human nature), for example. Those positions directly abandon the Orthodox Trinitarian formula.

In Atonement (Torrance's book) Christ takes upon Himself the judgment of God for human sin because He has our nature (although without having sinned). That is our sin. This reconciled mankind to God. And this solidarity therefore frees mankind from sin and death by virtue of the Resurrection.

I disagree with Torrance on several points. I disagree that his use of "substitution" is relevant, but concede it may be.

The two main points of agreement I have with Torrance (and Barth) is that man is reconciled to God in the Incarnation and that there is no God behind the back of Jesus.

 

[JonC]

I made a logical conclusion from the information given in the texts I quoted. Do you think I misunderstood it?

I didn't think you misunderstood it (I actually didn't think you understood or misunderstood it....I assumed you understood).

I agree with your "logical conclusion" (that's how I see it as well).

 

[kyredneck]

”…If therefore any person goes to hell, it is by downright refusal of the perfected work of reconciliation in which God in Christ has already chosen them in pure love and removed enmity between God and man entirely".

Sounds like trying to explain the ‘age of accountability’ from scripture as I posited in ‘Babies In Hell’ 1 & 2.
Babies In Hell 2

 

[DaveXR650]

Sounds like trying to explain the ‘age of accountability’ from scripture as I posited in ‘Babies In Hell’ 1 & 2.

Torrance views on the meaning of the reconciliation provided by the atonement bring up a lot of questions. Not only with infants who die but with those who never hear the gospel. In fairness to Torrance, he did say this,
"Because sin has to do with the heart of man, with the roots of the human person, an objective atonement as an act of God only upon man is not sufficient of itself if they are to be saved. It must be worked through the heart and mind of men and women, until they are brought to acquiesce in the divine judgement on sin and are restored in heart and mind to communion with God."
To me, this knocks out charges of near universalism and answers my questions about the many people I know who are "decent" folks who when asked though simply do not accept the fact that their sin needed to be judged by God and that Christ's death was penal and substitutionary. In the case of infants though, because they cannot do this on their own it would seem to me to be that they clearly are saved. For the record though, a lot of Calvinists believed that also.

 

[tyndale1946]

Torrance views on the meaning of the reconciliation provided by the atonement bring up a lot of questions. Not only with infants who die but with those who never hear the gospel. In fairness to Torrance, he did say this,
"Because sin has to do with the heart of man, with the roots of the human person, an objective atonement as an act of God only upon man is not sufficient of itself if they are to be saved. It must be worked through the heart and mind of men and women, until they are brought to acquiesce in the divine judgement on sin and are restored in heart and mind to communion with God."
To me, this knocks out charges of near universalism and answers my questions about the many people I know who are "decent" folks who when asked though simply do not accept the fact that their sin needed to be judged by God and that Christ's death was penal and substitutionary. In the case of infants though, because they cannot do this on their own it would seem to me to be that they clearly are saved. For the record though, a lot of Calvinists believed that also.

Matthew 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

You know about the goats!

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

One had the love of God in them, one did not... God changes the heart they didn't change their own... Those who show agape love are Gods people... If not from God who is LOVE!... Where did they get it?... Brother Glen

 

[DaveXR650]

One had the love of God in them, one did not... God changes the heart they didn't change their own... Those who show agape love are Gods people... If not from God who is LOVE!... Where did they get it?... Brother Glen

I agree. Torrance himself said that men have to respond to the fact that Christ has died for their sins and provided reconciliation. But the question that follows is what makes one man realize his need for Christ and another not. And what changes a man so that he now loves Christ and is attracted to him. And soon you are back at moderate reformed Baptist teaching - that without the work of the Holy Spirit you will not repent and believe the gospel, nor love your fellow man. Torrance rejects the limited atonement of Calvinism but he also rejects Arminianism. But so far I have not read anything of Torrance where he discusses the fact that it seems that so many men simply don't like Christ, don't think they are bad sinners, and don't want to be subject to God. So I really don't know how he handled that aspect of salvation, if he addressed it at all.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Torrance views on the meaning of the reconciliation provided by the atonement bring up a lot of questions. Not only with infants who die but with those who never hear the gospel. In fairness to Torrance, he did say this,
"Because sin has to do with the heart of man, with the roots of the human person, an objective atonement as an act of God only upon man is not sufficient of itself if they are to be saved. It must be worked through the heart and mind of men and women, until they are brought to acquiesce in the divine judgement on sin and are restored in heart and mind to communion with God."
To me, this knocks out charges of near universalism and answers my questions about the many people I know who are "decent" folks who when asked though simply do not accept the fact that their sin needed to be judged by God and that Christ's death was penal and substitutionary. In the case of infants though, because they cannot do this on their own it would seem to me to be that they clearly are saved. For the record though, a lot of Calvinists believed that also.

As do I

 

[JonC]

I agree. Torrance himself said that men have to respond to the fact that Christ has died for their sins and provided reconciliation. But the question that follows is what makes one man realize his need for Christ and another not. And what changes a man so that he now loves Christ and is attracted to him. And soon you are back at moderate reformed Baptist teaching - that without the work of the Holy Spirit you will not repent and believe the gospel, nor love your fellow man. Torrance rejects the limited atonement of Calvinism but he also rejects Arminianism. But so far I have not read anything of Torrance where he discusses the fact that it seems that so many men simply don't like Christ, don't think they are bad sinners, and don't want to be subject to God. So I really don't know how he handled that aspect of salvation, if he addressed it at all.

What you see is how all Christians (even many historic Calvinists) who reject Limited Atonement understand the issue.

Torrance insists that all of mankind is reconciled to God whether individuals like it or not. He states that Christ dying for all of humanity is an undeniable fact for to deny this is to deny Christ.

Torrance continues by stating that this reconciliation HAS BEEN accomplished once and for all in the Person of Christ.

BUT this does not equate to Universal Salvation (what Torrance calls the second part of this "dual heresy").

The question....or difference....is how we put those things together.

If Christ died for all mankind, and if all is f humanity has been reconciled to God in Christ, then why are not all saved.

 

[tyndale1946]

I agree. Torrance himself said that men have to respond to the fact that Christ has died for their sins and provided reconciliation. But the question that follows is what makes one man realize his need for Christ and another not. And what changes a man so that he now loves Christ and is attracted to him. And soon you are back at moderate reformed Baptist teaching - that without the work of the Holy Spirit you will not repent and believe the gospel, nor love your fellow man. Torrance rejects the limited atonement of Calvinism but he also rejects Arminianism. But so far I have not read anything of Torrance where he discusses the fact that it seems that so many men simply don't like Christ, don't think they are bad sinners, and don't want to be subject to God. So I really don't know how he handled that aspect of salvation, if he addressed it at all.

John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

30 I and my Father are one.

Until the man is changed by God, he cannot... Are they just church sheep that hear his voice and follow him or are there other that follow the golden rule because the golden rule resides in them... Decent folk are decent because God made them decent... LOVE defines God and as scripture state, without the LOVE of God in a man, he's none of his... Jesus told one, your of your father the devil, he didn't say now if you believe in me I can change that?... He told him flat out you never belonged to me, you're a goat... A sheep never changed to goat and a goat never became a sheep... And to follow the Lord is more than reading scripture, its life change to show what you are inside and how you show your agape and philo LOVE to your fellow man... Brother Glen

 

[tyndale1946]

What you see is how all Christians (even many historic Calvinists) who reject Limited Atonement understand the issue.

Torrance insists that all of mankind is reconciled to God whether individuals like it or not. He states that Christ dying for all of humanity is an undeniable fact for to deny this is to deny Christ.

Torrance continues by stating that this reconciliation HAS BEEN accomplished once and for all in the Person of Christ.

BUT this does not equate to Universal Salvation (what Torrance calls the second part of this "dual heresy").

The question....or difference....is how we put those things together.

If Christ died for all mankind, and if all is f humanity has been reconciled to God in Christ, then why are not all saved.

John 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?

47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

So if Universal Salvation is true and God saved ALL humanity, I guess this is true even though Jesus said ye are not of God?... Brother Glen

 

[JD731]

Here is another "logic". Christ IS Emmanuel. He IS that reconciliation between God and man completed at the Cross as our sins are dealt with.

One must look close.

Thou shalt call his name Jesus (Jehovah is salvation) for he will save his people from their sins.

He shall be called immanuel, meaning God with us.

He was not called Immanuel during his earthly ministry to Israel. This is a prophesy. He shall be called Immanel in the millennium.

John 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?

47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

So if Universal Salvation is true and God saved ALL humanity, I guess this is true even though Jesus said ye are not of God?... Brother Glen

Reacting to Tyndale 1946 reasoning in the last sentence

Universal atonement is true. Universal salvation is not true, learn the meaning of words and do not present yourself as ignorant.God gave his Son on the cross to take sin away. He reconciled himself to sinful humanity by removing the enmity. He made the first and necessary step. Now it is your turn and whether you make it is as much of a decision toward God as it was a decision for him to make his first step toward you. Anybody who can think knows that reconciliation between two warring parties requires a decision from both parties.


Ephesians 5:17
Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is. .

Do not negate a good education by dumb reasoning.

 

[JonC]

John 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?

47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

So if Universal Salvation is true and God saved ALL humanity, I guess this is true even though Jesus said ye are not of God?... Brother Glen

I would think so.

Torrance's point was that Universal Salvation is NOT true, so he didn't go into implications of if it were true. He called Universal Salvation a "heresy".

 

[DaveXR650]

Universal atonement is true. Universal salvation is not true,

Yes. It's confusing too when Owen, in arguing against the Arminians, calls them "universalists". He is referring to the extent of the atonement.

I don't know who is right on this but I have never been comfortable with limited atonement the way it is taught by a lot of hard core Calvinists today - that Christ, when he died, at that time saved some, no matter what, and damned others, as a matter of settled fact and divine decree. I have no problem with God determining who is to be saved, and I have no problem with God having in mind exactly who it is who will be saved. What I noticed, when I started seeing a lot of modern Calvinist theology in the late 90's, was that all the smart guys seemed to be Calvinists and believe in limited atonement. They would demolish the old fundamentalist and Arminian preachers in reasoning and logic. I just noticed in reading Torrance, who for me had more to say on the nature as opposed to the extent of the atonement, was that he had some formidable arguments against a limited atonement. And surprisingly, he is a solid advocate of penal, substitutionary, vicarious, propitious atonement at the same time. And, like him or not, no one can say he's not a smart guy.

I don't think it's all that important but some guys will come on any thread and interject the extent of the atonement so it's worth mentioning that there are some coherent arguments against limited atonement, from several different directions.

 

[JonC]

Yes. It's confusing too when Owen, in arguing against the Arminians, calls them "universalists". He is referring to the extent of the atonement.

I don't know who is right on this but I have never been comfortable with limited atonement the way it is taught by a lot of hard core Calvinists today - that Christ, when he died, at that time saved some, no matter what, and damned others, as a matter of settled fact and divine decree. I have no problem with God determining who is to be saved, and I have no problem with God having in mind exactly who it is who will be saved. What I noticed, when I started seeing a lot of modern Calvinist theology in the late 90's, was that all the smart guys seemed to be Calvinists and believe in limited atonement. They would demolish the old fundamentalist and Arminian preachers in reasoning and logic. I just noticed in reading Torrance, who for me had more to say on the nature as opposed to the extent of the atonement, was that he had some formidable arguments against a limited atonement. And surprisingly, he is a solid advocate of penal, substitutionary, vicarious, propitious atonement at the same time. And, like him or not, no one can say he's not a smart guy.

I don't think it's all that important but some guys will come on any thread and interject the extent of the atonement so it's worth mentioning that there are some coherent arguments against limited atonement, from several different directions.

Christians often make the mistake of believing the only smart guys are the ones who share their view (I suppose making that Christian the smartest of all as what makes a scholar dumb is when they disagree).

One example is NT Wright. He was one of the primary scholars evangelical Christian theologians (to include Baptists) looked to regarding Pauline theology (his expertise of study). But once he (the guy others considered a primary expert on Paul) disagreed with them he was dismissed (mostly by the laity, theologians still payed attention, just disagreed). But NT Wright is a very intelligent theologian.

Karl Barth is often dismissed (again, mostly by the laity) because of his theology. Yet he was also a very intelligent theologian. His systematic theology (volumes) were at one time required studies even among seminaries that did not advocate his conclusions.

Greg Boyd is a supporter of Open Theology. But he is also an intelligent theologian.

Jürgen Moltmann holds questionable views, but he is an intelligent theologian.

Gordon Fee is Pentecostal, and an intelligent scholar in Biblical languages.


Often when we discuss the diverse ideas these people have we are quick to dismiss ideas that do not agree with our already held views, so we really do not take the time to understand how that theologian arrived at his conclusion.

We are poorer for that.

Take Boyd, for example. Several times Open Theism has appeared on this board. But rarely, if ever, has it legitimately been discussed (it is dismissed in caricature). I disagree with Boyd on the topic, but he is not saying what people make him out to be saying.

When we take the time to understand different beliefs then we can evaluate our own beliefs - either correct our views or solidify our positions. These differing views start off as objections. We should always consider those objections.