Bill Taylor wrote: Another
thing to keep in mind when reading Torrance is this: we are ontologically
in Christ from birth via the go'el aspect of the atonement; but the
gift of the Holy Spirit is received at the point of trusting in Jesus
Christ. Sometimes this is referred to as repentance, sometimes as belief,
sometimes as faith, sometimes as conversion.
DM responds > So in the
theology of Torrance, repentance, belief, faith, and conversion are all the
same thing, or is there some distinction made between these
terms?
BT: I was not as clear here as I
should have been. I meant to say that in the NT there are different terms,
sometimes used interchangeably, to speak of that change of mind which brings us
to trust in Christ. When we read of "faith" on the part of a believer, this
faith includes that change of mind, a shift away from trusting in ourselves or
others or other gods to trusting in Christ. Faith and belief are not only
metanoia but metanoia is present in belief and faith. Torrance recognizes this
and so does not always draw as distinct a separation between these terms as
do many Christians.
DM > Your characterization of
the Anabaptist position toward Baptism did not seem accurate to me. I
think they were attempting to restore much of the reality of what Torrance
teaches, turning away from dead rituals that have only an external form,
but rather than distract from Torrance and discuss that, I'm going to
ignore that for now.
BT: You are quite correct in
regards to what the Anabaptists were attempting to restore. However, this
is not the point of Torrance's departure. The result of Anabaptist theology
on its recipient groups, in Torrance's mind, has lead to an
over-externallizing of the sacraments (sybolism over substance). If you have a
desire later on to flush this out, we can come back to it.
DM > I will say that I agree
with Torrance's view of the sacraments, and have for a very long
time. The difficulties arise in how he seems to want to marry certain
tenets of Reformed theology with his correct view of the Atonement and
Incarnation. This gets especially problematic when we consider how we
should preach the gospel to sinners. Eventually, we will be
discussing these things, but for now, let's get back to semantics and agree
upon terms and definitions. Bill Taylor wrote: "The Gospel, then,
calls for conversion, a fundamental change of mind, a radical departure
from our former way of life. In other words, to believe the Gospel is
to convert. BUT "conversion" is not what saves us. To convert is
simply to align ourselves with the truth and reality of him who does save
us: Jesus Christ."
I can agree with what you say here, as I preach
the gospel in this fashion, declaring the good news, and persuading men to
repent of their sin and obey the gospel. Something still seems odd
here, perhaps in your phrase, "conversion is not what saves us." I
don't think I have ever taught that conversion saves us, or even thought of
it that way. Yet, you seem compelled to raise this point and I'm not sure
why.
BT: This point is raised firstly
as a point of clarification. I am somewhat confident in my understanding
of "typical" evangelical speech in regards to the language of salvation,
"saved by faith," for example. I am also aware that in some instances this is
biblical language; however, we must first interpret the meaning of words before
they can become meaningful to us. And so I push this point to draw from you an
interpretation, a clarification in your own thinking as to what exactly you
understand these sayings to mean. Your conclusion will be yours to make. I only
push this to point help you to understand the dynamics involved in drawing that
conclusion.
Secondly, I stress this point because it is crucial
to an accurate apprehension of Torrance's thought. If this is missed, then much
of what Torrance says subsequent to this will be lost or misunderstood. To use
Jonathan's words, this is one of those "control" beiefs for Torrance. Jesus
Christ is solidly at the center of Torrance's thought. His entire theology is
grounded in his apprehension of Jesus Christ. We all think ours is as well;
however, when pushed and if honest, we will find we are not nearly so centered
as we thought. Torrance can help us here.
DM > I still have problems
with the idea that everyone is born into Christ at physical birth.
Torrance himself says on page 67, "That 'great mystery', as St. Paul
described it, of the union between Christ and his Church is primarily and
essentially corporate in nature, but it applies to all individual members
of his Body WHO ARE INGRAFTED INTO CHRIST BY BAPTISM and continue to live
in union with him as they feed upon his body and blood in Holy
Communion."
Here he says that they are ingrafted into
Christ by baptism. How do we reconcile that with the idea of being
born into Christ at physical birth BEFORE baptism?
BT: Again I want to suggest that
we be very careful that we do not make universals out of particulars. I am not
sure how to best address this quesion. I will look into this today and try to
get back to you with some clarity. Nevertheless, I am quite sure where
Torrance is in terms of his understanding of the go'el. He stresses many times
the ontological aspect of Christ's atoning work -- universal representation, the
One for the many, the One on behalf of all because of and through kinship, i.e.,
blood ties.
Again, I want to also point out that it is NOT that
Torrance does not see anything significant happening when an "individual" comes
to faith in Jesus Christ. In Torrance's thinking, just like in your thinking and
my thinking, when a person puts his faith (trust) in Jesus Christ, he receives
within his own constitution the gift of the Holy Spirit. This is huge in
Torrance's mind in terms the ongoing mediatorial work of Christ on
belalf of BELIEVERS through the indwelling Holy Spirit. I know that
Torrance does not quote this passage in The Mediation, but I want to include it
in this discussion -- Ephesians 1.13-14
"In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word
of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were
sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our
inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of
His glory."
In order to gain a better understanding of Torrance
(and me, for that matter) please notice with me some points from this passage (I
am aware that you may disagree with us, but I would very much appreciate it if
you would try to read my words here with the intent or purpose of gaining
understanding):
(1) "the word of truth" was true and constant
before you (pl. referring to Christians) trusted in Christ.
(2) "the word of truth" is the good news of
your salvation. The ontological status, including the truthfulness and reality,
of your salvation is true and real and effective before you believe it. In other
words there is no contengency here, no conditions which have to be met on one
end before the other end is activated or made real or appropriated. It
was "after" hearing the good news about the truth of your salvation that
you "trusted" in Jesus Christ. Nothing happens ontologically at this point. You
simply trusted in what was already true concerning your ontological state.
(3) Nevertheless, when you "trusted" in Christ,
something very significant happened in your life: "having believed, you were
sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance
until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory."
Upon believing the word of truth, you were (a)
"sealed" (b) "WITH the Holy Spirit" (c) "of promise" -- what greater, more
definite promise is there than that which comes from God?-- (d) "who is the
guarantee" -- and what guarantee is greater or stronger or more sure than one
which is given by God concerning -- (e) "our inheritance"?
This excites me very much. It motivates me to live
a life that is pleasing to our Lord. It makes me want to share this word of
truth, the gospel of salvation with others, that they too might live WITH the
great assurance of the Holy Spirit. In my mind, and the mind of Jonathan and
Lance and Torrance and others who think like we do, there is much to be excited
about in regards to the Christian life -- even if for whatever reason we
are emphasizing different aspects than most Christians have grown up
hearing emphasized.
DM > Maybe part of my
problem is understanding how someone can be IN Christ and yet not be in
relationship with Christ. For me, that would be like Jesus saying
that he and the Father are one, yet they are not in relationship with one
another. Impossible. To be IN CHRIST surely means to be in
relationship with Christ, does it not?
BT: Let me approach this one from
a little different direction. I will try to hit it a little more directly
in a minute.
Many, many children have died in infancy before
giving or even being able to give any indication that they are in a relationship
with Jesus Christ. Yet you agree with me that these children are not destined
for damnation. They are safe and will "go to heaven." The question is, why
are they safe? If a "relationship" with Christ is a prerequisite to being "in"
Christ, then we may want to believe that children are safe (and this because of
things we believe about the kind of God we have) but we have no real assurance
that they are. If "faith" and "repentance" (and on and on) are the conditions
which must be met on our end in order to be saved, then we can only speculate as
to how anyone can be saved in the absence of these things -- even though we may
know intuitively that our God is not a god that would send infants to
hell.
There is so much here that has to be realized for
our intuition about God to be confirmed doctrinaly and biblically. It's one
thing to say THAT God does not send infants to hell (you and others have shared
verses that would seem to indicate that children are safe -- II Sam 12.23,
e.g.); but it is quite another to know WHY they are safe. This "why" question
presents a problem for us if we do not have a biblical theology through which to
address it. I know that it bothers you and others when I say that what the
church has ended up with is two gospels -- one gospel for adults which
makes faith and repentance the necessary criteria of justification, the
conditions which must be met on our human end for salvation to be
appropriated, real, and effective; and the other gospel, the one for
infants, which does not have these conditions as criteria for justification.
What I want to know, is IF this first Gospel is present and set forth in the
Bible, where do we find the second gospel, the one that explains WHY kids
don't need these things? It's one thing to believe THAT they don't (even if this
is true); it is another to explain WHY they don't.
This is where Torrance has been so very helpful:
the WHY can only be answered in the WHO. There is much more to Christ's atoning
work than the Protestant theory of substitutionary atonement
can explain. This theory in and of itself is incapable of addressing
certain questions (the one regarding infants in particular). Yet, this is the
theory that MOST evangelicals embrace, whether knowingly or not.
Evangelicals have been taught to think almost exclusively in terms of a
judicial exchange which takes place between Christ and individuals at the point
of an individual's repentance (or faith, depending on who is making the
argument). At the moment of repentance, the sinner's sin is transfered to
Christ and Christ's righteousness is transfered to the believer. This is
sometimes referred to as "the double imputation." Thus it is reasoned that
individuals are justified by faith by way of this imputation; i.e.,
"justifacation by faith" -- Christ being the substitution. This teaching has
lead to all kinds of subsidiary beliefs, for instance, the idea
that individuals are "born again" in an existential point
or "conversion" experience. Another result of this theory is that it
separates justification from sanctification. This may show itself in a couple of
different forms. EITHER Justification happens in an instance, and then it is
past, BUT sanctification is an ongoing process (in other words one cannot lose
his justification even if their is little evidence of sanctification in his
life). OR justification is seen as a recurring experience
IF sancification does not immediately take hold (IOW, one can lose his
justification if he is not living a sanctified or holy life). This
confusion is apparently grounded in Scripture because we read certain
passages that indicate that justification and/or sanctification are a done deal,
and others that seem to indicate that both are onging. So, in support of
Jonathan's premise, some Christians read Scripture and place more emphasis upon
the once-justified-and-continued-sanctification passages, and other Christians
read and place more emphasis on
the recurring-justification-but-perfect-sanctification
passages.
At any rate, all of this is a result of an
insufficient theory of atonement. If the Gospel states that one has to be "born
again" to enter the kingdom of heaven, and if the only way that that can happen
is through faith and repentance, so that Christ's righteousness can be imputed
to a BELIEVING individual, then if children go to heaven there is a second
Gospel, some other form of Good News which says, AH BUT THIS DOESN'T APPLY TO
CHILDREN.
Torrance gets us through this problem. He finds in
Scripture through the examples of atonement in the OT several other aspects of
atonement besides just a penal substitution. As I have stated before, one of
these aspects is realized through the go'el. What Christ did in his flesh he did
in all flesh because he is our Kinsmen Redeemer. He is our blood relative, the
one who through his lineage is qualified to represent us all; thus when he
defeats sin, death, and the devil, in his flesh he defeats these things in all
flesh. All humanity is included in his humanity. When he died, we died. When he
was raised we were raised. When he ascended we ascended. Our ontological status
is in Christ Jesus:
Col 1.12 giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be
partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light.
13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed
us into the kingdom of the Son of His love,
14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness
of sins.
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all
creation.
16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that
are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or
principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.
17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the
beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the
preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness
should dwell,
20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether
things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His
cross.
21 And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by
wicked works, yet now He has reconciled
22 in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy,
and blameless, and above reproach in His sight --
23 if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast,
and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was
preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a
minister.
We are therefore included in Christ via the go'el aspect of
atonement. In one sense we are seated with him right now as he sits next to his
Father. In this sense our justification and our sanctification is complete,
mature, perfected, finished. In another sense we are in the flesh in the
present, waiting to experience the death we died in Christ. In this sense our
justification and (if we are Christians) our sanctification are ongoing. We are
being justified by Christ; we are being sanctified by Christ, both through the
ongoing work of the Holy Spirit.
Here is another crucial distinction: All are in Christ, but Christ
is not in all. Christ is only in those who have received the gift of the Holy
Spirit; i.e., those of us who have trusted in Christ and are being sancified.
Here is the relational element of faith. Infants are saved because of Christ's
atoning work. They may not be able to have a relationship, but they
are not expected to have one either. It is only when a person refuses to have a
relationship with Jesus Christ that he blasphemes the Holy Spirit.
"Christ in us, the hope of glory" is trusting in Jesus Christ; it
is relationship with him; it is this through ongoing, securing, work of the
Holy Spirit.
I hope this begins to answer some of your questions. Please
continue to ask more. Please do this before attacking what I've said or
concluding that Torrance and the rest of us are wrong. There will be plenty of
time for disagreement later on, at which time I will attempt to extend to you
the same curtesy and respect that I am requesting of you.
Thanks. Bill
PS I have read the rest of your post and am thinking that I have
probably addressed most of your questions, whether directly or indirectly. If
you are unsatisfied please inquire further.
>
> You seem to be
saying that everyone is already in Christ but don't
> realize it, and so
when they realize it, then they are putting faith in
> Christ and they
experience the reality of what has always been. This
> sounds like
you are saying that the relationship was always there but
> not recognized
and experienced? ?? Maybe you can help me understand you
> better,
because I clearly do not seem to be understanding you.
>
> Again,
my perspective regarding the Incarnation and the Atonement is
> very much
the same, as a work already done and accomplished, but I see
> faith as
the umbilical cord that ties us to that work and causes us to
> experience
it. In other words, from my perspective, physical birth has
>
absolutely nothing to do with being in Christ, but faith in Christ does.
>
Once we connect with Christ through faith, then we experience the
>
Incarnation and Atonement of which Torrance speaks as we are IN CHRIST
>
and Christ is IN US.
>
> Peace be with you.
> David Miller,
Beverly Hills, Florida.
>
> ----------
> "Let your speech be
always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer
every man." (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you
will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to
send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and he will be subscribed.
>
>
