Featured Dual Heresy - Torrance

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

 

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)

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.