You will have to quote the "Trinitarian Doctrine" you are referring to.
Would it be this?
What Is the Doctrine of the Trinity?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Dual Heresy - Torrance
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
Would it be this?
What Is the Doctrine of the Trinity?
On this point I was referring to the Chalcedonian doctrine.
But as a whole, the Nicene Creed.
I'm pretty sure that has already been stated several times.
Chalcedonian Doctrine
Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He was parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us.
Nicene Creed
We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made;
of the same essence as the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven;
he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
and was made human.
He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried.
The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again with glory
to judge the living and the dead.
His kingdom will never end.
And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life.
He proceeds from the Father and the Son,
and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.
He spoke through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look forward to the resurrection of the dead,
and to life in the world to come. Amen.
His point is that Limited Atonement and Universal Salvation are "dual heresies" because, regardless of what adherents think, Limited Atonement and Universalism deny both of those Christian doctrines.
In other words, the only way to believe Limited Atonement is to reject or redefine those teachings.
If Limited Atonement is correct then the Chalcedonian doctrine and the Nicene Creed is incorrect by necessity.
Many say that they affirm those two doctrines but only on condition of redefining both into different doctrines altogether. Torrance's point (one of them) is that most do this without recognizing that is what they are doing. It is related to the "Latin Heresy".
The statement:
"If Limited Atonement is correct then the Chalcedonian doctrine and the Nicene Creed is incorrect by necessity."
Again, why would this if/then be true should the two statements you provided also be true?
It's incumbent on Torrance to prove his assertion. So far, I have seen nothing that proves his assertion.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
@taisto. I just noticed that Torrance rejected the usual Arminian or hypothetical view of atonement where Christ's death made it universally possible for everyone to be saved but actually saved no one. He rejected that because he was Calvinist enough to believe that if that were true you would have salvation depending upon human weakness. And, he accepted the Calvinist argument that such a notion could be called "self salvation". Yet he still insisted on Christ's death actually being effective for people, while at the same time not being a universalist because he clearly said that not everyone will be saved.
He did agree with Owen that if the nature of God is absolute causality, and if the atonement flows out of that divine nature, then an atoning death for all would mean the necessary salvation of all. In other words, he accepted Owen's argument against the Arminians in "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ".
What he objected to was the idea of God loving all and Christ loving all, yet not having that translating into action in the atonement. Here's a quote. " This divorce of the action of Christ from his love really means the dismemberment of Christ, the separation of his person from his work - and that is to destroy the atonement as well as the incarnation".
He did agree with Owen that if the nature of God is absolute causality, and if the atonement flows out of that divine nature, then an atoning death for all would mean the necessary salvation of all. In other words, he accepted Owen's argument against the Arminians in "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ".
What he objected to was the idea of God loving all and Christ loving all, yet not having that translating into action in the atonement. Here's a quote. " This divorce of the action of Christ from his love really means the dismemberment of Christ, the separation of his person from his work - and that is to destroy the atonement as well as the incarnation".
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
To follow up. You won't find a clear argument regarding the extent of the atonement as to what it means in a rational sense by Torrance. Here he is again, "Here we see that man's proud reason insists in pushing through it's own partial insight into the death of the cross to it's logical conclusion, and so the great mystery of atonement is subject to the rationalism of human thought. That is just as true of the universalist as it is of those who hold limited atonement for in both cases they have not yet bowed their reason before the cross of Christ."
So instead, he lists some of his objections. Which are that it doesn't fit right with his view of the whole nature of the meaning of the atonement, some parts of it being cosmic in nature, representative, and clearly universal. And that it doesn't fit well with his view of the oneness of the Father and the Son, and also that it doesn't make sense to Torrance regarding the Calvinist claims of God's love to the world when it clearly comes short in terms of action. He seems to avoid the usual rational back and forth.
In fairness to Calvinists, most theologians I read have no problem admitting the limitations of human reasoning in this area and that includes Owen, Edwards, Spurgeon, and even MacArthur. I think Torrance is right in that there is a point where we all have to just give up figuring it out but like I said, he is not new in realizing that.
So instead, he lists some of his objections. Which are that it doesn't fit right with his view of the whole nature of the meaning of the atonement, some parts of it being cosmic in nature, representative, and clearly universal. And that it doesn't fit well with his view of the oneness of the Father and the Son, and also that it doesn't make sense to Torrance regarding the Calvinist claims of God's love to the world when it clearly comes short in terms of action. He seems to avoid the usual rational back and forth.
In fairness to Calvinists, most theologians I read have no problem admitting the limitations of human reasoning in this area and that includes Owen, Edwards, Spurgeon, and even MacArthur. I think Torrance is right in that there is a point where we all have to just give up figuring it out but like I said, he is not new in realizing that.
I think a quote from GK Chesterton is fitting.
"The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits."
G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
Oh.....that is my favorite G.K. Chesterton book. If you haven't read it you should. (That and Heretics ...they kinda go together).
I think one problem some here have with Torrance is that they are reading what he says here in the context of what he called "the Latin Heresy".
As Baptists we are all probably familiar with Barth. Torrance held the same view of Atonement.
That is why @taisto is kinda missing the point here. It isn't complicated at all, but you have to understand first what we are talking about.
The problem with simply giving answers is that the one getting the answers has not done the work (if they accept the answers they hold a belief, to borrow from Lewis, that is not really theirs).
In the OP quotes the Atonement is not Christ's death. Atonement is not salvation. Torrance (and Barth) take Atonement literally and historically (from a Hebrew perspective).
It is "at-one-memt" realized at the Incarnation and concluded at the Cross with the death of Christ. It is God be coming man (the reconciliation of God and mankind). This has to apply to all man or there is no real Atonement.
It also has to be a real Atonement (mankind has to be "us", not some ideal man but "fallen man", our nature. Christ had to be made sin for us, yet without having sinned).
Getting into the "Latin Heresy", one cannot view the Atonement as the Father punishing the Son for our sins. We can view Jesus as experiencing God's judgment of sin, but we cannot look to the Cross from the Father's perspective without committing a "heresy".
I am reading his "if/then" assertion and asking how he proves his assertion. How can one know if Torrance is right or wrong in his statement? In reading your response, how can we know that Torrance presupposition of the Atonement is correct? So, ultimately, Torrance has this massive "IF" that he is begging which then, somehow, gives credence to his "then." However, the "if" is never established in this thread, which makes the "then" pointless.
I believe I will bow out of this thread as it smacks of 1 Timothy 1:4.
Don’t let them waste their time in endless discussion of myths and spiritual pedigrees. These things only lead to meaningless speculations, which don’t help people live a life of faith in God.
That is your mistake.
I have posted a lot of how he defended his claim. But you can't get past the claim itself.
Think about it.
If the Atonement is literal and Christ is this Atonement then He has to be the Atonement for fallen mankind as a whole. If any are excluded then Christ is not truly man (He does not truly represent mankind).
His comment was defended very well, not only by Torrance but also by Barth.
Now, you can disagree with his defenc but just to say it does not exist reflects on you rather than his argument.
Did you take the time to even read how he proves that if/ then statement? Thus far you have not even mentioned his argument as you keep ignoring how he proves his statement to pretend it is merely an "if/ then" statement without evidence.
Dude.....his argument and proof is simplistic. It is right there. You don't have to agree with him but stop pretending he just offered an "if-then" statement. That is not how believers interact.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
You have a point. Torrance says that if Christ "represents" all men in the incarnation then he must represent all men in his death on the cross. But he doesn't say why. And, while he states that the Calvinistic doctrine of limited atonement damages the doctrine of the Trinity and of the atonement itself - without going on with "if then" logic it is meaningless. To me, if you destroy central Christian doctrines like the trinity and the atonement then you are a heretic and probably on your way to hell. Not so with Torrance because he believes that to be lost you must consciously and actively reject the salvation accomplished by Christ. In terms we would understand as Calvinists, he was very "monergistic" with the difference being that it is possible that a person can willfully reject what Christ has actually accomplished on our behalf. Only such as do that are lost therefore being a heretic does not put you in danger as there is only one sin that does that.
What I am trying to say is that Torrance himself used "if then" statements to argue the points he wanted to make but then critiques if then logic as rationalism when the Reformers use it.
The reason goes back to Orthodox Christianity. Torrance appeals to the Chalcedonian and Nicene Creeds. On this point he is absolutely correct and has adequately defended his statement.
The creeds consider Christ to have come as man (the Incarnation) without changing this at His death (no passage states Christ stopped being the "Son of Man" at the cross).
That said - those two creeds, while representing Christian orthodoxy, are not Scripture itself.
Torrance calls Limited Atonement and Universalism "dual heresies" for the same reason he refers to much of western Christianity as the "Latin Heresy", BUT this is based on the those creeds and Christian orthodoxy.
The problem is that too many want to claim those creeds while essentially rejecting them via redefining them.
It is the same with Open Theism as it's adherents insist that they believe in Divine Omniscience, but only because they redefine omniscience.
I personally have no objections to Christians rejecting creeds. Creeds should be reexamined on a constant basis against Scripture.
But given the context Torrence provides (his definition of heresy and adherence to the Orthodox definition of the Trinity and Christ's nature) he does make a very good case.
Either Jesus is the Son of Man or He isn't. We can't say He became the Son of Man at the Incarnation, remained the Son of Man during His ministry, and then stopped being the Son of Man on the cross.
You are right that Torrance does not address the objection that Christ's identity as Son of Man ended prior to the Cross....but that would be a "heresy" as well as it would depart from the creeds at the cross.
But it all goes back to presuppositions. Torrance, apparently, has accepted the Chalcedonian and Nicene Creeds as true and carries this as a presupposition in his view of "orthodox Christianity".
I don't know if he has defended those creeds. I am not sure he considered it necessary.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
Is there Calvinist theological literature that rejects the Nicene creed? What is the problem a reformed theologian would have with the Nicene creed?
Also, does Reformed literature say Jesus stopped being the Son of Man on the cross?
Yes. But as Open Theology denies divine omniscience.
You cannot find any true Open Theology that outright states it defines divine omniscience, in fact they claim up front that they believe in Divine omniscience. But in fact they reject the idea insofar as Orthodox Christianity goes.
Most of "western" Calvinism does the same. They will superficially affirm the two creeds mentioned but then turn around and say the Atonement itself was limited, God withdrew from Christ, and the like.
That was Torrance's point in speaking of the "Latin Heresy" which dominates Catholic and western Protestantism.
Insofar as Christ representing all man at the Incarnation meaning that Christ represented all men at the cross....well...YOU are the one that questioned why Torrance would make that assumption. The reason is he was speaking from the view point of orthodoxy.
Reformed theology (particularly here) would have problems with several aspects of both creeds. One cannot affirm the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement without rejecting the Chalcedonian Creed and Nicene Creed (even if rejecting them by redefinition). They do this by inserting a dichotomy (granted, one they say God was willing to insert) between the Father and Son. They do this when they devolve into limited Atonement (they deny the identity of Christ). They do this in examining redemption from the perspective of the Father, as if seeing Jesus would be for a moment not seeing the Father.
But like I said, Creeds are not necessarily Scripture. The dishonesty is when Reformed people claim to hold creeds they reject in doctrine and only accept via redefining those creeds.
Put it this way.....imagine you were watching the crucifixion and you saw Jesus. You looked into Jesus' face. Were you seeing the face of the Father or the Son? Jesus tells us that there is no distinction. When you see Him you see the Father. He is the exact representation of the Father.
You don't have to believe that and that is perfectly fine
But it does mean you can't claim to believe those two creeds.
This is what Torrance meant by no God behind the back of Jesus, and what Barth meant by his criticism of going around the Cross.
Last edited:
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
I don't remember taking a strong position on that which would require an all capital "YOU" but OK, I do question why one would make any assumption about the fact of the incarnation as meaning that Christ had to be a representative of anyone or everyone. Representation is not a requirement of the fact that Christ came into the world as a man and was fully God and fully man. That's not to say he wasn't, just to say that one's belief on the extent of representation does not require a deficiency in the understanding of the incarnation, unless, you also have already come with presuppositions about what this has to mean.
This also is puzzling. Torrance, while insisting penal substitution is not a stand alone total explanation of Christ's atoning work on Earth is fully on board with penal substitution as an aspect of the atonement. And rather than argue that again, I would simply point out that if that were not the case you simply could not have the level of respect for him that you have among Calvinists as for example on the Puritan Board. Because one thing Calvinists do is regard a rejection of penal substitution as a heresy.
The other thing in the above that puzzles me is the fact that Torrance seems to say two things at the same time. He says that those that believe in limited atonement do injustice to the Trinity by separating the Father and the Son, and he says that the part of the atonement involving propitiation of God's wrath is not represented properly by Calvinists because what you have in essence is really God himself taking the wrath and folding it in upon himself. This is opposed to God standing off so to speak while Jesus does this work. Well, I agree with that. But while I do think there is a danger of this in Calvinistic teaching, which can be illustrated by the famous instance where Sproul said it was almost like the Father said to the Son "God damn you" at that moment that is not standard Calvinistic doctrine. Calvinist teachers seem well aware of the connection of the Father to the Son at all times and we all admit there are difficulties in understanding the Trinity for our finite minds. Torrance himself said on one hand that God took his righteous wrath upon himself but also said this, "It is impossible to divide the deity and humanity of Christ, or Christ from the Father."
Now watch this in the very next sentence: "Now certainly we cannot speak of the Father as being crucified, the old error of so called patripassianism. At the same time we cannot but speak of God as descending to our condemned state and taking our state upon himself, so that God the judge made himself also the one judged in our place".
I don't mean to knock Torrance here but come on, you cannot make statements like that, which show the difficulty he himself is having in explaining the role of the Father and the Son in this and then turn around and say the Reformers had it wrong when they experience the same difficulty in understanding how this works.
The fact is, it is wrong if a "western" Christian makes it seem like the Father stood off to the side, angry, and the Son came forth and took the wrath on himself to try to fix things. It is also wrong, and slanderous, to make the case that this is standard Calvinist teaching. The Reformers were well aware of the unity between the Father and the Son and the Father's participation in our redemption and the unity of love by the Father to us, as well as that of the Son.
I didn't capitalize the "you" to mean you took a strong position, just to point out that you brought up Christ representing man at the Incarnation but this changing at the cross (you kinda laid that at my feet, when it came from you).
The issue isn't that Western Christianity has the Father standing off to the side but that it has the Son as not being the exact representation of the Father.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
I didn't mean to lay it at your feet. It was Torrance's argument. I was just pointing out that he was doing the same thing he thought the Calvinists were doing with rational arguments in that his argument - that if Christ represented all men in the incarnation then he had to represent all men at the cross, is not a logical necessity though he tried to make it so. I happen to agree with him that Christ did represent everyone in both places but so do a lot of Calvinists. Otherwise, Christ's sinless life and righteousness could not be imputed to us and all Calvinists say that is essential also. As far as the extent of this (whether all means all), all Christians have to deal with the fact that not everyone will be saved - we just come up with different ways of explaining it. Strict Calvinists say that the atoning work of Christ on the cross is absolutely effective so they limit it there. Low Calvinists and Arminians say it isn't applied to everyone. Torrance said that it is applied to everyone and those who consciously reject it dash themselves as it were on the atonement and it becomes their judgement.
For those on here who are not Calvinists, I was just pointing out that Torrance has a way of refuting limited atonement (and he strongly and clearly does that) which is different and was new to me at least. It is different that what the four point or "Amyraldians" did in that the cross for Torrance was just as effective as a Calvinist but it included everyone. Those lost actively reject Christ and so it's not that they didn't hear or weren't called in a special way. So he was not a universalist in the modern sense of universal salvation but he did not believe that everyone was walking around naturally an enemy of God and with a sentence of wrath on them as a default position. This I think is problematic but Torrance believes this is because of Christ's atoning work therefore the message we have is truly one of reconciliation.
Sorry to go on so long but Torrance said a lot, and he sometimes seemed to contradict himself. One reason may be that he didn't seem to be on a crusade for anything but he just loved looking into these things.