Firbush Retreats Firbush retreats are organized and led by Robert T. Walker. Firbush retreats are designed to make the best theology accessible to as many people as possible and especially those not trained in theology and often not familiar with routine technical terms. They combine times of worship and prayer with reflection on a theme related to Torrance theology. For more information see https://tftorrance.org/firbush. ----------- Firbush Retreat Fall 2016 Bruce Ritchie, "A Theology of Response in Torrance's Mediation of Christ" https://tftorrance.org/firbushF2016 The audio recording for this presentation is available on the Firbush Retreat section of the website for the Thomas F. Torrance Theological Fellowship. The following AI transcript is too rough to rely upon, but perhaps useful for word searches and time-stamps. It is unretouched; if anyone wishes to listen to it and clean it up we will be happy to post an improved version (contact the webmasters). We invite speakers to send us slides for their talks, which we will post alongside the audios and transcripts. If any speaker wishes to have their talk removed from the website, just let us know and we'll take down both the audio and the transcript. ------------ 00:00-00:17 A year ago we started to look at Tom Torrance's book, The Mediation of Christ, and thus far 00:17-00:25 Tom Noble has taken us in masterful style through chapters 1 and 2. His explanation 00:25-00:34 of TFT's thought last November was not just academically able, but at times very moving. 00:34-00:41 I missed the June conference, but I have no doubt that his paper then was equally so. 00:41-00:48 Some time ago Bob asked me to look at chapter 4. In this chapter Torrance touches on the 00:48-00:56 theology of our human response to the gospel. Now by response we don't mean the social or 00:56-01:02 the political implications of being a Christian. These of course are tremendously important, 01:02-01:10 but in our context response is focused on the theological question of how, within the 01:10-01:18 sovereignty of God, human response can have a place in relation to salvation. This was 01:18-01:24 an issue that concerned him deeply. He felt that the reformed tradition had developed 01:24-01:31 a warped theology in this area. So how do you mean this paper is to set Torrance's 01:31-01:40 thought within a wider context, but to come to chapter 4 toward the end. Western European 01:40-01:46 theology both before and after the Reformation has struggled with its expression of human 01:46-01:56 response to the gospel. We plan to do five things. First to survey the problem to the 01:56-02:03 time of the Reformation. Second to outline the Reformation reaction. Third to indicate 02:03-02:10 the problems created by reformed theology itself. Fourth to discuss a possible solution 02:10-02:16 through the concept of the vicarious humanity of Christ. And fifth to show how Torrance 02:16-02:24 incorporates this solution in chapter 4. So first the problem of the theology of human 02:24-02:34 response in the pre-Reformation period. Now a brief survey of such a huge period leaves 02:34-02:41 enormous questions unanswered. But in any Christian reflection on the nature of human 02:41-02:49 response there are I think three core New Testament realities that need to be preserved. 02:49-02:57 One that grace is a totally unmerited sovereign action of God. Two that faith is a gift of 02:57-03:05 God. And three that the New Testament narrative stresses the need of a genuine personal response 03:05-03:13 to the gospel. We start by going to the early 5th century. The problem of God's sovereign 03:13-03:20 grace and its relationship to genuine human response becomes a sharp problem with Augustine 03:20-03:28 and Pelagius. Augustine was a great theologian from North Africa. Pelagius was a theologian 03:28-03:37 born in Britain but living on the continent. Broadly speaking Pelagius taught that human 03:37-03:48 effort on its own can earn salvation. Augustine thundered in reply. He argued that no human 03:48-03:57 effort or achievement is part of our salvation. Rather salvation is all of grace totally under 03:57-04:04 God's sovereignty. It's a divine action from beginning to end and he protected this thesis 04:04-04:13 by a strong doctrine of predestination. Now officially the Western Church adopted Augustine's 04:13-04:20 theology and we stress officially because certainly by the end of the 6th century and 04:20-04:27 the papacy of Gregory the Great the church in Rome was very uncomfortable with Augustine's 04:27-04:36 radical notion of predestination. It seemed to eliminate any true human response. And 04:36-04:45 so the church unofficially adopted the theology of John Cassian. Now Cassian's theology is 04:45-04:52 given the very unfortunate term semi-Pelagian. Cassian essentially taught that in our salvation 04:52-04:59 there is a complementary relationship between God's grace and human effort. And his thinking 04:59-05:06 was seen as a common sense theology. After all the New Testament presents scenarios in 05:06-05:12 which people are urged to believe, urged to repent and urged to make a personal response. 05:12-05:19 And surely a biblically informed common sense implies that human response has to somehow 05:19-05:28 be an essential component in appropriating the salvation that Christ has won for us. 05:28-05:34 We now move on to Scotland. The theology of the Irish Celtic Church introduced by the 05:34-05:41 likes of Columba, Maluig, Morua and other Celtic missionary saints. The Celtic Church 05:41-05:49 was heavily influenced by John Cassian in its monasticism, its liturgy and its theology. 05:49-05:56 For example when Columba died on Iona in 597 an honour poem, the Amra Colum Cael celebrating 05:56-06:04 his virtues was published within the year. This poem mentions two theologians whose works 06:04-06:14 Columba revered. One was Basil of Caesarea, the other was John Cassian. And the Celtic 06:14-06:24 Church in Scotland brought with it the semi-Pelagianism common sense theology characteristic of Cassian. 06:24-06:29 Now this must have enormous effects on the understanding of the Gospel in Scotland right 06:29-06:35 to the medieval period. It meant that the Roman Church on the continent and the Celtic 06:35-06:42 Church in Britain both had a piety which was semi-Pelagian at heart. And as we've noted 06:42-06:49 semi-Pelagianism taught that our salvation was founded in a combination of divine grace 06:49-06:56 and human effort. God makes salvation possible through the cross but the benefits of that 06:56-07:04 salvation become ours if we do certain things. And so we can prepare for receiving God's 07:04-07:12 grace by living a good life. More specifically the exercise of penance can remove barriers 07:12-07:18 to receiving salvation. And this is crucial. The whole notion of penance as an essential 07:18-07:27 prerequisite to God granting forgiveness becomes embedded in the theology and the piety of 07:27-07:38 the church. The Celtic Church was particularly enthusiastic about penance. It was a forerunner. 07:38-07:44 Penance ceased being simply a spiritual exercise of self-discipline. It turned into something 07:44-07:50 which men and women by their efforts must complete as a prerequisite for divine pardon 07:50-07:58 and mercy. And so as the years and as the centuries passed penance began to dominate 07:58-08:05 the medieval theological landscape and the piety of believers. It started out being a 08:05-08:11 discipline for the individual spiritual life making our walk with God holier. It ended 08:11-08:16 up being a system in which the completion of penance became an essential part of our 08:16-08:26 salvation. Human effort in completing penance was required in addition to God's grace. To 08:26-08:30 my mind down through the centuries this distorted the gospel. It certainly created room for 08:30-08:38 human response. That is true but it did so at a terrible cost. Allied to penance came 08:38-08:43 the notion of indulgences. Allied to these were prayers and masses said for the dead 08:43-08:49 in order to release souls from purgatory. And so what men and women did determined the 08:49-08:56 spiritual outcome. Our completion of penance, the church's granting of indulgence, our 08:56-09:02 prayers for the dead, our celebration of a mass for the soul of a dead patron, all of 09:02-09:10 these became part of the salvation event. And in this messy church of the middle ages 09:10-09:16 the concept of human response was certainly protected but the gospel was lost. It became 09:16-09:27 a mess. The new testament concept of grace was eroded, spoiled and confused. So this 09:27-09:33 was a theological muddle faced by the reformers in the 16th century. Now we know that there 09:33-09:39 were many factors that promoted the reformation, political, economic, etc. But the critical 09:39-09:47 theological factor was the sovereignty of the grace of God. And the reformers saw very 09:47-09:54 clearly that the medieval muddle had terrible effects. It robbed God of his grace and it 09:54-10:02 robbed God of his glory. It robbed him of his glory because what kind of God do we have 10:02-10:11 if he is more merciful only if human beings do this or say that prayer or give that donation? 10:11-10:17 God's mercy is compromised if an outcome is dependent on human volition rather than 10:17-10:25 on the divine will. In such a system a God of honour and majesty is reduced to a deity 10:25-10:33 at the beck and call of human action. John Calvin prized the majesty and the glory of 10:33-10:45 God. In Calvin's view medieval theology robbed God of that majesty, dignity and glory. The 10:45-10:52 reformers knew that what had to be covered was the absolute principle of sola gratia. 10:52-10:58 Salvation had to be by grace alone. It was the loss of this key distinctive that created 10:58-11:04 the medieval muddle. Grace alone had been assert by a system of penance, indulgences, 11:04-11:12 prayers for the dead, etc. All of these in effect made pardon, forgiveness and salvation 11:12-11:20 dependent on human beings completing certain prescribed tasks or duties. For example the 11:20-11:25 church saw itself as holding the keys of the kingdom as acting with the authority given 11:25-11:30 by Christ to Peter. As such the church could grant remission of certain penalties through 11:30-11:37 granting indulgences. One of the publications of the Scottish Historical Society has examples 11:37-11:43 of letter after letter from Scottish nobility to Rome in the medieval period asking for 11:43-11:49 remission from purgatory by human papal decree. Another example is that during the medieval 11:49-11:56 period it was standard practice for a nobleman in his will to provide funds for monks to 11:56-12:02 save mass for his soul after he died, maybe for many years. This was in order to hasten 12:02-12:08 his release from purgatory. Now academic studies of the Reformation in England have revealed 12:08-12:15 that one of the markers for Reformation principles truly becoming part of a person's faith will 12:15-12:21 curse when their wills no longer make this provision because nothing is more precious 12:21-12:27 than the person's eternal destiny. And so it's a huge step to write a will which makes 12:27-12:33 no provision for prayers to be said for your soul after death. It's a marker that Reformation 12:33-12:42 doctrine has truly become a person's own individual piety. The medieval muddle brought 12:42-12:47 human effort, human achievement and human merit into the salvation process time and 12:47-12:54 again. But for the reformers all of this contradicted the true grace of God, it contradicted the 12:54-13:02 sovereignty of God. How can God be God if miserable human effort or monks carrying around 13:02-13:09 trying to say as many masses as possible for the deceased sway God's mercy? It all becomes 13:09-13:17 tawdry as well as wrong. It demeans God's glory and God's sovereignty. Most of all it 13:17-13:25 obscures the reality of grace as a totally undeserved mercy of God. And the reformers 13:25-13:31 saw very keenly that if any concession were given to human effort or human contribution 13:31-13:37 in the salvation process then God's sovereignty was compromised and God's grace was diluted. 13:37-13:44 And this then became the fundamental theological driving principle for the reformers whether 13:44-13:51 they were Lutheran, Calvinist or Anabaptist. The sovereignty of God has to be protected, 13:51-13:58 the grace of God must not be the lackey of human effort and merit. It is widely thought that the 13:58-14:04 only way to protect these two things, God's sovereignty and God's grace, is to eliminate 14:04-14:10 any notion of human effort entirely, hence the enthusiasm for Augustine among the reformers. 14:13-14:20 The conclusion of the main reformers was that if we allow even a scintilla of a sniff of human effort 14:20-14:28 then God's actions are compromised. Consequently one issue that became paramount was that of the 14:28-14:35 human will. The reformers argue the human will is dead in trespasses and sins, it is corrupted by 14:35-14:44 the fall and as such the human will has no ability to even consider responding to God. Because the 14:44-14:50 human will is in bondage and is dead then in itself it has no ability to decide for God. 14:50-14:56 It has no ability even to decide to do good works, far less carry out the intention, 14:56-15:04 nor does it have the ability in itself to exercise faith. Luther made such points in his treatise 15:04-15:11 'The Bondage of the Will' and this view is widely shared. Again going to Scotland, the 15:11-15:18 Scots Confession of 1560 in chapter 12 makes this very point. The Scots Confession stresses that 15:18-15:25 so-called good works can never earn merit for us and this is because good works do not in fact come 15:25-15:33 from our will or our decision but are simply worked in us by the Holy Spirit. And so man is 15:33-15:40 impotent to even think of doing good by his will and this is because the critical deciding element 15:40-15:48 of his humanity is dead because the will is dead, it has no ability to choose the good or to exercise 15:48-15:58 faith. But the reformers were also aware that the New Testament spoke of faith. So how does faith 15:58-16:04 fit in? For the reformers the answer of course lay in Paul's expression 'the gift of faith'. 16:04-16:11 Faith is not something we produce of ourselves, rather faith is a sovereign gift of God to those 16:11-16:17 whom he has chosen and therefore both the sovereignty of God and the grace of God are 16:17-16:25 still protected. But there's still the niggling thought that faith to be true faith in some sense 16:25-16:33 had to be our faith. Yes of course it's a gift of God but surely it also has to be ours, it has to be 16:33-16:41 mine if my response to grace is a true response of the heart. And this was an issue the second and 16:41-16:49 third generation of Reformation theologians struggled with. Now one possible solution 16:49-16:57 developed was the idea of God granting special grace to the sinner and this special grace 16:57-17:05 creates life in the otherwise dead human will and enables that human will to genuinely respond from 17:05-17:14 our side. This was a notion of enabling grace. It said yes our human will is dead and trespasses and 17:14-17:20 sins and therefore impotent and powerless. Yes our human will has no ability in itself to respond to 17:20-17:29 the gospel but God grants enabling grace to that dead will, granting it the ability to exercise 17:29-17:36 its functions and to choose Christ or to exercise faith. And this concept was welcomed by the 17:36-17:42 Scottish theologian John Cameron among others whom Tom Torrance deals with in his book on Scottish 17:42-17:49 theology. John Cameron wanted to allow some kind of human response and this notion of enabling grace 17:49-17:57 seemed to solve the problem but did it? Protestant theology was being closely monitored in Roman 17:57-18:03 Catholic circles and one of the most deciduous observers of Protestant theology from the Roman 18:03-18:10 perspective was Robert Bellarmine and Torrance notes this in his introduction to the school of 18:10-18:16 faith and Bellarmine spotted this notion of enabling grace and saw it as a Protestant Achilles 18:16-18:23 heel. Was it not similar to the Roman Catholic understanding of justification as formulated the 18:23-18:31 council of Trent? If so did it not imply that Catholic theology was correct? Did it not concede 18:31-18:37 that human effort or human contribution was still part of the salvation event through being enabled 18:37-18:45 by divine grace? Was that not good Catholic theology? And so Protestant theologians became 18:45-18:52 aware that the notion of enabling grace which had seemed so helpful was in fact a problem. It might 18:52-18:58 be a Trojan horse, a fifth columnist which ultimately compromises God's absolute sovereignty 18:58-19:06 allowing Romanist ideas to re-enter the church and the idea of enabling grace began to be regarded 19:06-19:13 with deep disfavor and so increasingly any possibility of human effort supplementing God's 19:13-19:21 sovereignty in any way had to be eradicated totally. Faith is simply the gift of God. Such 19:21-19:29 faith is granted to those whom God chooses full stop. The will of man, the ability of man in himself 19:29-19:36 to choose Christ is dead full stop. The only factor operating is the absolute sovereignty of God 19:36-19:45 full stop. No possibility of human cooperation with God can exist because the will itself is dead. 19:45-19:53 The one human agency which could decide simply cannot. Any other understanding 19:53-20:01 eventually undermines God's sovereignty and undermines God's grace. Any other understanding 20:01-20:07 makes men and women in however small a way co-contributors to their own salvation. 20:07-20:14 And so the later decades of the 16th century and the early decades of the 17th century 20:14-20:22 saw the firming up of this position. It was at this time that Reform theology established its notion 20:22-20:28 of the absolute sovereignty of God and an absolute doctrine of double predestination. 20:29-20:34 This was codified in the Synod of Dort. It was repeated in the Westminster Confession. 20:34-20:44 From all eternity God has predestined the elect and the damned, the saved and the lost. 20:44-20:50 All possibility of human cooperation is eliminated absolutely. 20:54-21:01 All of this creates the dilemma of Reform theology. As we've seen during the later 16th century and 21:01-21:09 into the 17th century, any hint, any sniff, any scintilla of a suggestion that human decision or 21:09-21:18 human action can be decisive in our salvation had to be removed. All hint of human merit 21:18-21:26 had to be eliminated. If not, then the Gospel was undermined, grace was lost, God's dignity 21:26-21:32 was compromised. The Reform solution was the radical doctrine of double predestination. 21:32-21:41 Even before we were born, indeed even before creation itself, God in his sovereign will decided 21:41-21:47 who would be saved and who would be lost. And rooting our salvation in the decree of God before 21:47-21:57 creation removes the whole issue from the sphere of human action entirely. And so a problem emerged. 21:57-22:03 It emerged in one sense because of the praiseworthy conviction that nothing must be allowed to 22:03-22:11 compromise the understanding that grace is utterly unearned in any way on our part. Grace is absolute. 22:12-22:18 And to dilute the radical meaning of divine grace in any form dilutes the majesty of God. 22:18-22:27 Torrance was aware that Reformed and Scottish theology had been affected by pushing the logic 22:27-22:35 inherent in the grace and glory of God to the limit. He understood the dynamic behind this, 22:35-22:41 but he knew that the solution found by Protestant scholasticism through an extreme doctrine of 22:41-22:49 absolute predestination does not represent the New Testament. In the New Testament, men and women are 22:49-22:56 called to respond and their response is not a charade. They are not puppets acting out something 22:56-23:04 already decided beforehand in the secret council of God. In the New Testament, men and women are 23:04-23:12 called to respond. Their response will be decisive and the response is not some plastic or artificial 23:12-23:20 event with the real decision taken elsewhere. But how can a theology of valid human response exist 23:20-23:27 within a theology which will not compromise its adherence to a radical understanding of God's 23:27-23:33 sovereign grace? And as Torrance surveyed the theological landscape, he knew that all the 23:33-23:39 previous attempts within the Reformed tradition to solve this conundrum run into difficulties. 23:39-23:46 If human response is totally eliminated, this leads to the horror of double predestination. 23:46-23:51 If it is posited that God gives enabling grace, this leads back to Rome. 23:51-23:57 If it is held that human nature is not dead in sin but simply damaged by sin 23:58-24:03 and therefore able to exercise a decision to believe, we end up with Arminianism and all 24:03-24:09 the problems inherent in that. And so a new theological solution had to be found. 24:09-24:15 And in the end, Torrance would find an answer which was Christologically based. 24:15-24:24 God does not give us enabling grace, nor does God do something apart from us in the hidden 24:24-24:33 councils of eternity. Rather, God actualizes something in Christ, the God-man, on our behalf. 24:33-24:41 Now this is where the notion of the vicarious humanity of Christ becomes important for Torrance. 24:41-24:49 He offers a richer and a more satisfying doctrine of the atonement and the forensic model on its own, 24:49-24:54 but also gives a new theological insight into the nature of human response. 24:54-24:59 And Torrance recognized it was the likes of John MacLeod Campbell in the 19th century 24:59-25:04 who brought this to the fore. And Torrance's own teacher H.R. McIntosh 25:04-25:08 first made him aware of MacLeod Campbell's ideas. 25:08-25:15 Like Torrance, John MacLeod Campbell was troubled by the Westminster Confession model. 25:15-25:22 The Confession subsumed human response under the absolute double predestinarian Decree of God. 25:23-25:29 This maintained the divine honor and the total supremacy of grace over any human works, 25:29-25:34 but it came at a terrible price. MacLeod Campbell knew that the Westminster 25:34-25:40 Confession magnificently protected the absolute grace of God and the glory of the sovereignty 25:40-25:45 of God, but the cost was total determinism concerning our eternal fate. 25:45-25:52 MacLeod Campbell sought to reinstate genuine human response to the event of salvation in the soul. 25:52-25:59 He turned the focus on the love of God in Christ rather than the decree of God. 25:59-26:04 And he understood human response as part of the work of Christ himself for us 26:04-26:11 within his vicarious humanity. And you can see Torrance's comments on this in his big chapter 26:11-26:16 on MacLeod Campbell in his book on Scottish theology. What does this mean? 26:18-26:23 The word vicarious means someone else takes on themselves what should happen to another. 26:23-26:28 So for example, Christ dies in my place upon the cross. 26:28-26:35 Christ takes the penalty of sin in my place. In my place, condemned, he stood, 26:35-26:43 sealed my pardon with his blood. And thus Christ clothed in our humanity goes to the cross in my 26:43-26:48 place. He takes a divine wrath in my place. He suffers a penalty of sin in my place. 26:48-26:51 He acts vicariously in my place. 26:51-26:59 Now the notion of Christ dying in my place is a familiar one among Christians. 26:59-27:07 But MacLeod Campbell took the notion of Christ's vicarious role even further. And here in Torrance's 27:07-27:12 view, MacLeod Campbell went back to themes which had been explored by the early fathers 27:12-27:19 and by some of the reformers themselves. MacLeod Campbell sought the notion of in my place should 27:19-27:27 not only be applied to the death of Christ but also to his life. And Tom would often emphasize 27:27-27:33 to his students the text from Romans 5 10 which states if we are saved by Christ's death how much 27:33-27:39 more by his life. Now we may have exegetical questions about Tom's interpretation of that 27:39-27:46 but this is certainly what he said. So Jesus not only dies in my place, he also lived in my place. 27:46-27:56 Jesus whole life was vicarious not simply his death. He is baptized in my place. He repents 27:56-28:02 in my place. He prays and intercedes in my place. He worships in spirit and truth in my place. 28:02-28:08 He gives to the father the worship I should have given but do not give and cannot give 28:08-28:15 because of my sin. Jesus fulfills the law of God in my place. Jesus lives that life of holiness and 28:15-28:24 righteousness I was called to live but have not done so in my place. And Torrance writes page 90 28:24-28:30 or page 80. We are to think of the whole life and activity of Jesus from the cradle to the grave 28:30-28:37 as constituting the vicarious human response to himself which God has freely and unconditionally 28:37-28:46 provided for us. Jesus Christ is our human response to God. And so in my place instead of me but on my 28:46-28:54 behalf Jesus does these things. In his whole incarnate life clothed in my humanity he vicariously 28:54-29:03 lives out and completes the life of a child of God for me. But Jesus does not simply represent me 29:04-29:11 rather my life is lived in him. And so the vicarious humanity of Christ means that God 29:11-29:19 fulfills in him what I should do what I should be on my behalf. He lives in my place. He is 29:19-29:25 baptized in my place. He is obedient in my place. He worships in my place and all of this is for me. 29:28-29:36 And this brings us to the crucial matter, faith. When Jesus lives out this vicarious humanity it 29:36-29:44 also involves him in believing in my place. The vicarious humanity of Christ means that he believes 29:44-29:53 for me it also means he responds for me. Now over the years here at Fairbush David Torrance has 29:53-30:00 pointed us to Galatians 2 20. Most translations render it as Paul saying I live by faith in the 30:00-30:05 Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me. But David has stressed that this text should 30:05-30:13 really be translated as I live by the faith of the Son of God. Tom Torrance makes the same emphasis 30:13-30:22 in the Mediation of Christ page 107 or page 97. Tom prior for paraphrases it as I live by faith 30:22-30:27 the faithfulness of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me. The point is the same. 30:27-30:35 Paul is not focusing on his faith he is focusing on the faith or the faithfulness of Jesus 30:35-30:45 trusting and believing and obeying vicariously for me. Thus I don't live simply by believing in Jesus 30:45-30:51 I don't live simply by having a faith similar to Jesus rather I live in Christ by the faith 30:51-31:00 of Jesus. And so Jesus is not just the one true worshipper Jesus is not just the one true obedient 31:00-31:08 servant he is also the one true believer. He vicariously on my behalf in my place as the one 31:08-31:16 man who is truly believed exercises faith in response. Faith involves trust surrender obedience 31:16-31:22 acceptance of God's truth and in all of these aspects of faith Jesus vicariously fulfills them 31:22-31:31 perfectly for me. And so for MacLeod Campbell and later elaborated by both Tom and James Torrance 31:31-31:39 human response and faith is real and is decisive but it is so because it is actualized vicariously 31:39-31:44 in the very humanity of Christ and my existence is an existence in Christ. 31:44-31:51 And so in the early 17th century the likes of John Cameron attempted to solve the guardian knot 31:51-31:57 by thinking in terms of a special enabling grace and the Synod of Dort and the Westminster 31:57-32:01 Confession tried to solve the same knot by focusing on the absolute decree of God. 32:01-32:08 But Torrance comes from a completely different direction he brings a solution focused on the 32:08-32:18 vicarious humanity of Christ. The solution lies in the God-man Christ Jesus and so there are no need 32:18-32:25 for theories in which a special ability is given to man temporarily to revivify his will nor is there 32:25-32:31 a need to create a determinism to protect grace rather in him in the election of God that takes 32:31-32:40 place in him and in the response of man which is created by his response the gospel is maintained. 32:40-32:50 Now this creates a tremendous pastoral theology for example all of us as Christians know that if 32:50-32:57 we fixate on the quality of our faith we can be filled with dismay isn't that right? We wonder is 32:57-33:03 my faith good enough? Have I surrendered enough? Have I trusted enough? Have I obeyed enough? 33:03-33:10 And our faith is indeed flawed even as we believe we do. As Torrance writes in the Mediation of 33:10-33:19 Christ 108 98 sin has been so ingrained into our minds that we are unable to repent and have to 33:19-33:27 repent even of the kind of repentance we bring before God that Jesus Christ laid hold of us even 33:27-33:33 there in our sinful repentance and turned everything around through his holy vicarious 33:33-33:43 repentance. Jesus vicariously in my place believes and trusts and surrenders for me and I do so in 33:43-33:51 him and so Paul writes I live by the faith of Jesus Christ and so the Christian need never 33:51-33:56 worry about the quality of his or her faith that it may not be up to the mark of course there is 33:56-34:02 of course it isn't it never is our obedience is flawed our very prayer life is flawed 34:02-34:10 but Christ vicariously lives the life of faith in all its aspects for us and we live in him 34:10-34:16 in union with him we are clothed with his humanity we are clothed in his righteousness 34:16-34:23 and we are clothed in his faith and his worship of the father. On page 98 page 88 Tom gives a 34:23-34:30 very personal example he says at the end of the day when I kneel down and say my evening prayers 34:30-34:37 I know that no prayer of my own that I can offer to the father is worthy of him or of power to 34:37-34:44 avail with him but all my prayer is made in the name of Jesus Christ alone as I rest in his 34:44-34:56 vicarious prayer it is then with utter peace and joy that I pray. So with that background 34:56-35:04 what do we see in chapter 4 of the mediation of Christ and when we dig into the chapter we see 35:04-35:10 TFT putting into practice the theological principles we have tried to expound so far. 35:12-35:17 In chapter 3 is thought to be expounded in our serious turn focuses on the God manward ministry 35:17-35:25 of Christ in this Christ is God and man is central his incarnational nature defines who he is what he 35:25-35:33 does and then in chapter 4 we have the man Godward ministry of Christ he is our high priest he is man 35:33-35:41 in the presence of God page 83 page 73 he is the one human being who responds perfectly and 35:41-35:48 appropriately to God and so any response which we as redeemed sinners bring before God is a response 35:48-35:56 contained within his response but yet the word contained can be misleading I think our first week 35:56-36:03 at New College we were warned against a container universe the word contained creates an image of 36:03-36:10 our distinct response being parceled up within his response but that's not what we mean rather 36:10-36:17 Jesus is in himself our response he lives his life in our place he dies our death in our place he 36:17-36:23 suffers judgment in our place he goes to hell in our place his response is our response and in 36:23-36:29 terms of human response to the grace of God he is our response in our place and he does this not 36:29-36:38 simply for himself but for us I live yet not I but Christ who lives within me and so we do not mean 36:38-36:44 that we live because we follow his example neither do we mean that we worship an imitation of him 36:44-36:52 that thinking empties Christ of his power and what he has achieved rather he alone as man offers to 36:52-36:58 God what man should have offered but has not and now cannot and that is the case forever 36:58-37:07 for all eternity he alone is true man before God and for all eternity his response his worship his 37:07-37:14 faith his obedience is the only response to God which is holy and yet through union with him 37:14-37:22 it also becomes our response and we say how and we can't explain all we can do is to offer 37:22-37:32 analogies just as the as Jesus 100% man in union with 100% God so also the response we have in him 37:32-37:40 is 100% our response but in a hypostatic union with his humanity is 100% his response 37:40-37:47 so Tom Torrance never attempts to explain how he simply says this is how it happens 37:47-37:52 and therefore only in him clothed not only with his righteousness 37:52-37:57 but also with his response to the living God we come before the Lord 37:59-38:06 this brings us to what Torrance later in chapter 4 calls a covenanted way of response page 84 or 38:06-38:13 page 74 and here Torrance points to how God provided Israel with a way of response to him 38:13-38:20 and God's dealings with Israel introduce us to how God will ultimately deal with things for us 38:20-38:28 in Christ in Israel's liturgy of worship God freely provided Israel with a covenanted way 38:28-38:34 of responding to him a vicarious way in which the covenant might be fulfilled in their midst 38:34-38:43 and on their behalf page 84 page 74 now God knew that Israel was unable to fulfill the covenant 38:43-38:51 therefore he supplies the liturgies of expiation and God provides the servant of the Lord who in 38:51-38:59 himself embodies the covenant the servant of the Lord becomes the guilt bearer that the dog's body 38:59-39:07 the sacrifice of sin and in the liturgy of old testament worship all the principles simply shadow 39:07-39:14 the reality which occurs in Christ and basically what the old testament cult adds up to is this 39:14-39:21 that God himself not only provides everything in the cultic liturgy that needs to be done 39:21-39:29 but also he also does everything God himself fulfills the covenant on our behalf 39:29-39:36 and all of this will become crystallized in the ultimate reality in the vicarious humanity of 39:36-39:45 Jesus but foreshadowed and foreannounced in the liturgy of Israel as Torrance puts it page 86 39:45-39:51 it is as though the prophet wanted to say that the real servant of the Lord is the Lord himself 39:51-39:58 who as goel redeemer has bound himself up in such a tight covenant kinship with Israel that he has 39:58-40:05 taken upon himself Israel's afflicted existence and made it his own in order to redeem Israel 40:05-40:14 and so for Torrance Jesus as the God-man is the one in whom both sides of the relationship 40:14-40:21 between God and man are actualized he is the word of God to man and he is also the personal 40:21-40:28 response of man to God's word the whole life and activity of Jesus becomes a vicarious human 40:28-40:37 response which God himself has provided for us I myself will provide a lamb I myself will be a 40:37-40:45 shepherd to my people and the I myself theme is what finds its fulfillment in Jesus Christ 40:45-40:54 in all aspects of our faith and so Jesus is himself our response and this is important 40:54-41:01 he is not simply our representative doing a response that we can imitate he is our response 41:02-41:09 his very being as God and man incorporates that response in who he is not simply in what he does 41:09-41:14 and this is where Tom Torrance would say why did you skip over the first four centuries 41:14-41:22 because atonement and incarnation have to go together as Torrance writes page 86 page 76 41:22-41:29 in other words Jesus Christ constitutes in his own self-consecrated humanity the fulfillment 41:29-41:35 of the vicarious way of human response to God in biblical language he fulfilled the covenant from 41:35-41:43 both sides and further on Jesus Christ in his own self-oblation to the father is our worship 41:43-41:51 and prayer in an acutely personalized form so Jesus does not show us our worship and a prayer 41:51-41:58 and a faith that we have to copy he is in himself he is our righteousness he is these things 41:59-42:04 in his being he actualizes them in his incarnate being 42:04-42:11 if Jesus were only a representation of human response then Jesus only models the kind of 42:11-42:17 response we have to try and copy Torrance points out that liberals reject substitution with scorn 42:17-42:23 but also fundamentalists do not always see its relationship to the vicarious humanity of Christ 42:24-42:29 and what Torrance means here is that many evangelicals only view the life of Christ as a 42:29-42:34 vehicle to get him to the cross where the real work of substitution is going to start 42:34-42:41 Torrance wants to see the substitutionary and vicarious role of Jesus throughout his life 42:41-42:48 from the moment he is conceived in the womb of Mary and so the notion of Christ on our behalf 42:48-42:55 and Christ in our place includes but is not exhausted by paying the price or sin on the cross 42:55-43:01 in Torrance's view evangelicals have often exclusively focused on this one aspect of 43:01-43:07 Christ's substitutionary work he pays the price in my place now that is true that is essential 43:07-43:11 but for Torrance it is only part of the substitutionary work 43:14-43:21 he then goes on very briefly to relay our response to the vicarious humanity of Christ to five areas 43:21-43:27 we'll just touch on four view of the sacraments is dealt with later in our conference faith we 43:27-43:34 must have faith but not by human effort Jesus provides again that's an inadequate word that 43:34-43:41 faith in which we share again an inadequate work he actually creates the faith which has created our 43:41-43:50 faith and yet in him it is truly my faith and Torrance points out that our western stress and 43:50-43:56 individual freedom makes it hard sometimes to understand this second conversion we must repent 43:56-44:03 and believe it has to come from us yet no one else can do it but Jesus Jesus is baptized into our 44:03-44:10 repentance and he points out that Jesus baptism carried out by John the Baptist was specifically 44:10-44:16 a baptism of repentance for sin this means that Jesus allowing himself to be baptized creates real 44:16-44:23 problems unless he is being baptized vicariously for us in our place fulfilling that baptism 44:23-44:31 in fact only he can decide to repent and be baptized our wills and consciences are dead 44:31-44:38 and trespasses and sins we have no power to repent or decide to be baptized only he has the power to 44:38-44:47 do that our so-called free will isn't fat self-will only he can truly surrender himself to the waters 44:47-44:54 of baptism thirdly worship torn stresses that the worship pattern of Old Testament prefigures this 44:54-45:02 vicarious aspect jesus in bodies in vicarious form response of human beings to god and lastly 45:02-45:09 evangelism how do we present Christ how do we proclaim him only he says by stressing 45:09-45:19 unconditional grace and yet magnificent as it is it is here that I think that Tom seems to allow 45:19-45:25 patterns of thought different from those of scripture he seems to reject preaching with 45:25-45:31 states in his words you will not be saved unless you make your own personal decision for Christ 45:32-45:36 but it seems to me that much of the preaching of the acts of the apostles said exactly that 45:36-45:43 though not in the exact words or so badly and this surely is the problem certainly in evangelical 45:43-45:51 circles with Tom's theology Torrance's theology is magnificent I love it it speaks to me deep in my 45:51-46:00 faith but can we bypass instances in which God's written word interrupts the perfections of any of 46:00-46:07 our theological systems and therefore is this disharmony a third like quality then so be it 46:07-46:15 Tom presented so powerfully the notion of Christ vicarious humanity certainly enriched my own 46:15-46:23 understanding of my own face but like everything else it raises even more questions for times in 46:23-46:30 for times in the future thank you