Dual Heresy - Torrance

[DaveXR650]

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.

I don't agree with that as Owen himself said the opposite.

 

[JonC]

I don't agree with that as Owen himself said the opposite.

Not all Reformed believe that. Torrance and Barth, for example, were Reformed theologians.

I cannot recall Owen stating that on the cross we see the Father in Christ suffering for our sins, but I take your word for it.

I think you mistook my comment to mean all Reformed theologians (forgetting that Torrance himself was a reformed theologian).

 

[JonC]

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.

No problem. I probably read more into your post than you meant. Sorry.

I have not seen a contradiction with Torrance, but there are places I see him as inconsistent with Scripture (at least my interpretation). His arguments here are more about a popular "heresy" against those creeds and orthodoxy rather than Scripture itself.

 

[kyredneck]

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.

As with eschatology I see some merit in all the views, I agree that there's some merit in all the atonement theories.

"When a single ray of light shines into a prism, it refracts into the colors of the rainbow. No one color is more prominent than the others, but each contributes to the beauty of light.

We might liken the doctrine of the atonement in the early church to a single ray that enters a prism and refracts into many colors of doctrine. These fathers and mothers of the church appreciated and exhausted the various ways Scripture speaks of Christ’s work on the cross. Penal substitutionary atonement—the idea that Jesus was punished in our place—is certainly one of those colors, even if it’s no brighter than the other colors in their writings...."
Christ being made sin Volume 2 | Page 6 | Baptist Christian Forums (baptistboard.com)

 

[DaveXR650]

I cannot recall Owen stating that on the cross we see the Father in Christ suffering for our sins, but I take your word for it.

No. I didn't say that he did. What I am saying is that Owen was careful to differentiate the differences in functions of the Father and the Son while at the same time showing how the love shown us was not a matter exhibited by the Son but by both because they are indeed one. You can read that in detail in Owens "On the Satisfaction of Christ". What I was saying that makes Torrance confusing is that he will on one hand criticize the Reformers for carefully making the above distinctions, then turn around and say you must avoid the heresy that God the Father himself suffered on the cross.

 

[JonC]

No. I didn't say that he did. What I am saying is that Owen was careful to differentiate the differences in functions of the Father and the Son while at the same time showing how the love shown us was not a matter exhibited by the Son but by both because they are indeed one. You can read that in detail in Owens "On the Satisfaction of Christ". What I was saying that makes Torrance confusing is that he will on one hand criticize the Reformers for carefully making the above distinctions, then turn around and say you must avoid the heresy that God the Father himself suffered on the cross.

Oh....I agree with that (that Owen was careful). But reading Torrance his observation is that they overstep in that differentiation.

I think we see this in Torrance handling Christ experiencing the condemnation of sin on the cross. He described this as Jesus experiencing God's judgment on sin. But he does not go to the extent to say that Jesus experienced the Father's punishment of sin.

In reality, Christ suffered God's judgment on sin which is Jesus' own judgment on sin and the Father's judgment on sin.

The real "heresy" comes in, however, when people present the Father's role as causing the Son's suffering (that denies both creeds). But that is from me, not Torrance.

 

[DaveXR650]

We might liken the doctrine of the atonement in the early church to a single ray that enters a prism and refracts into many colors of doctrine. These fathers and mothers of the church appreciated and exhausted the various ways Scripture speaks of Christ’s work on the cross. Penal substitutionary atonement—the idea that Jesus was punished in our place—is certainly one of those colors, even if it’s no brighter than the other colors in their writings...."

I agree and Torrance brings out in a beautiful and comprehensive way those many aspects. I would just say that Reformed theologians do too though. Martyn Lloyd Jones has at least 10 sermons on line about the various aspects of the atonement. Calvinists also bring out things Torrance includes in the atonement but they don't put them as part of the atonement. There is a time where the Lamb is actually slain and Calvinists dwell on that because it is central and the core of the atonement. But that does not mean that teachings about the essential nature of the incarnation, the resurrection, the sinless life lived on our behalf by Christ, and of being unified with Christ are not also important. It's just that in Calvinistic literature, usually you find it taught separately.

 

[JonC]

I agree and Torrance brings out in a beautiful and comprehensive way those many aspects. I would just say that Reformed theologians do too though. Martyn Lloyd Jones has at least 10 sermons on line about the various aspects of the atonement. Calvinists also bring out things Torrance includes in the atonement but they don't put them as part of the atonement. There is a time where the Lamb is actually slain and Calvinists dwell on that because it is central and the core of the atonement. But that does not mean that teachings about the essential nature of the incarnation, the resurrection, the sinless life lived on our behalf by Christ, and of being unified with Christ are not also important. It's just that in Calvinistic literature, usually you find it taught separately.

I'd add this......Torrance, Barth, Calvin, Wright, Edwards.....these are not writings we can simply pick up and reference.

 

[DaveXR650]

The real "heresy" comes in, however, when people present the Father's role as causing the Son's suffering (that denies both creeds). But that is from me, not Torrance.

True. Here is Torrance again: "Or to use more juridical terms, the wrath of God is removed only when his righteous will has punished sin and judged it. Now it is import here to see that we cannot talk here of his mercy triumphing over his wrath, or as his love over his judgement - that would be to introduce a schizophrenia into God which is impossible, and to misunderstand the wrath of God and the meaning of the penalty or righteous infliction that is due sin. Punishment and wrath are terms speaking of the wholly godly resistance of God to sin, the fact that the holy love of God excludes all that is not holy love. Sin must be judged, guilt must be expiated by it's judgement and complete condemnation, else God is not God, and God is not love." From Torrance's "Atonement: The Person and Work of Christ" page 154.

Those reading this can make of it what they will. But the fact is, the standard idea that your Calvinist or Arminian or semi-Pelagian preacher had when he said Christ was punished for our sins is sound and is what Torrance was talking about above. I thank Torrance for cautioning us on having a mistaken image in our minds that has Christ attempting to placate an unloving, vengeful Father - but anyone who tries to remove the idea of Jesus being punished for our sins is guilty of huge error in my opinion.

 

[JonC]

True. Here is Torrance again: "Or to use more juridical terms, the wrath of God is removed only when his righteous will has punished sin and judged it. Now it is import here to see that we cannot talk here of his mercy triumphing over his wrath, or as his love over his judgement - that would be to introduce a schizophrenia into God which is impossible, and to misunderstand the wrath of God and the meaning of the penalty or righteous infliction that is due sin. Punishment and wrath are terms speaking of the wholly godly resistance of God to sin, the fact that the holy love of God excludes all that is not holy love. Sin must be judged, guilt must be expiated by it's judgement and complete condemnation, else God is not God, and God is not love." From Torrance's "Atonement: The Person and Work of Christ" page 154.

Those reading this can make of it what they will. But the fact is, the standard idea that your Calvinist or Arminian or semi-Pelagian preacher had when he said Christ was punished for our sins is sound and is what Torrance was talking about above. I thank Torrance for cautioning us on having a mistaken image in our minds that has Christ attempting to placate an unloving, vengeful Father - but anyone who tries to remove the idea of Jesus being punished for our sins is guilty of huge error in my opinion.

People can make of that what they want.

Often people use others words, not necessarily meaning the same thing, but because those word when isolated explain their view.

We see this when people reach back to the ECFs.

With Torrance, if we dismiss some of his comments and objections to Calvinism, we can certainly use them (but it isn't exactly a legitimate way to quite people).

We do this when we say "let them eat cake". We make the comment negative.

And I am not saying that this is entirely wrong. I don't hold Torrance's theology as a whole. But there are aspects that fit into my view.


Now, regarding sin (to illustrate what I mean):

I believe that Christ experienced the consequences (or wages) of sin. Sin itself produces death. Christ died under the power of Satan. BUT this is also God's judgment on sin.

At the same time I reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. The reason is I come to a different conclusion than you here (I do not view Scripture in any way as presenting the Father punishing sin on Christ).


Here's a funny story about a horrible father (me). When my son was a toddler he poured out the pepper on the counter. Then he asked "can I smell it?". I said "yes, you can.". A moment later he's yelling "why'd you make me do that??". I told him I didn't.

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650

I've been thinking about a critique you made concerning Torrance insisting "human logic" should not be injected into Scripture.

I am not sure that Torrance is doing this on the surface. But you have a good point.

Torrance is relying on two creeds, but the doctrines in those two creeds were developed via human logic (working out precisely what is meant by separate, by nature's, by persons).

So even if Torrance is not personally introducing logic, he is relying on the human reasoning already in what forms his view of orthodoxy.

 

[DaveXR650]

So even if Torrance is not personally introducing logic, he is relying on the human reasoning already in what forms his view of orthodoxy.

I guess in a way it's really all we have if we want to try to do theology. What I like about Torrance is that he seems to stay in his lane of being an academic theologian. A lot of the older theologians we use were church leaders operating in an official capacity and they were quick to curse everyone who didn't accept everything they said - even though it was to an extent, human logic too.

The truth is, as soon as I make a theological statement it becomes a matter of "well if that's the case then this has to be true also". So we then go down a trail of human logic. And we will always end up appealing to "mystery", or "paradox", or we insist on a dogmatic statement adhered to to the letter (which I sometimes wonder if those who do that are really just trying to solidify their position in their chosen camp). Of course, my mystery or paradox is to someone else a contradiction or an evasion and so it goes.

 

[JonC]

I guess in a way it's really all we have if we want to try to do theology. What I like about Torrance is that he seems to stay in his lane of being an academic theologian. A lot of the older theologians we use were church leaders operating in an official capacity and they were quick to curse everyone who didn't accept everything they said - even though it was to an extent, human logic too.

The truth is, as soon as I make a theological statement it becomes a matter of "well if that's the case then this has to be true also". So we then go down a trail of human logic. And we will always end up appealing to "mystery", or "paradox", or we insist on a dogmatic statement adhered to to the letter (which I sometimes wonder if those who do that are really just trying to solidify their position in their chosen camp). Of course, my mystery or paradox is to someone else a contradiction or an evasion and so it goes.

I agree.

You can see that in my own theology (I am convinced that a common understanding of forgiveness and justice is an error....that has far reaching implications when it comes to other theological issues).

And we are all that way (I have said before that I believe limited atonement, for example, is the logical conclusion of Penal Substitution Theory).

The scary part is a simple error in one doctrine, if we build on that doctrine, could yield a plethora of logical conclusions which may not be true.

The assuring part is that we are saved not by our own understanding but by Christ. We all have to have some amount of misunderstanding because at present we see as through a glass, dimly.

This is why, I believe, we are to constantly examine ourselves and our theology while at the same time being fully convinced while working out our own salvation.

To borrow from John MacArthur - I know I am right because when I find I am wrong I change my position and it will be right again... and it's a continual process.