The following is a guest post I originally posted at another instantiation of The Evangelical Calvinist back on August 24, 2009, here.
T.F. Torrance and Union with Christ in Scottish Theology
Without exploring the entire history of Scottish theology as read
through the eyes of Torrance, we may note a few key influences on his
thinking about union with Christ from this context. Torrance believes
that ‘Union with Christ probably had a more important place in [Robert]
Leighton’s theology than that given to it in the thought of any other
Scottish theologian.’ Torrance gives Leighton (1611-1684) praise for not
considering union with Christ simply as a ‘judicial union’ but as a
‘real union’ which occupies the centre of the whole redemptive activity
mediated through Christ as saving grace. Utilised in this way union with
Christ is fundamentally related to both election in Christ and the
concept of saving exchange whereby Christ gives to humanity what is his –
his righteousness and filial status – and takes to himself what is not
his own – our sin and alienation. In James Fraser of Brea (1639-1698)
Torrance identifies the same emphasis placed upon union with Christ, ‘It
is through union and communion with [Christ], grounded in the “personal
union” of his divine and human natures, that we come out of ourselves
and partake of his fullness; we approach him empty to find all our
salvation in the all-sufficient Lord Jesus.’ Thomas Boston (1676-1732)
viewed union with Christ not merely as a legal union but a ‘real and
proper union with ‘the whole Christ’ transformed through his death and
resurrection, that is, a union of an ontological kind.’ Boston often
spoke of this as a ‘mystical union’ in which all the benefits of the
covenant of grace are given to the elect. Torrance traces these ideas
back directly through Robert Bruce (c1554-1631), John Knox (1505-1572),
John Calvin, and many others.
Of
special interest to Torrance is H.R. Mackintosh (1870-1936). Torrance
shows how Mackintosh in continuity with Calvin and the Scottish Reformed
tradition, also made the concept of the unio mystica central to his
soteriology. For Mackintosh, the concept of the unio mystica was merely a
dogmatic restatement of the biblically rich material on the believer’s
participatio Christi found throughout the New Testament, particularly in
the ‘in/with Christ’ language of Paul and in the organic relationship
between Christ and believers depicted in Johannine theology.
According to Mackintosh, mystical union effects a change in the
believer’s identity. Through participating in Christ there is an
‘importation of another’s personality into him; the life, the will of
Christ has taken over what once was in sheer antagonism to it, and
replaced the power of sin by the forces of a divine life.’ There is a
twofold objectivity about union with Christ: on the one hand, there is a
‘Christ-in-you’ relationship, and on the other there is a
‘you-in-Christ’ aspect. The former has to do with Christ being present
within the believer as the source of new life, while the latter points
to the foundation of this new life as lying outside of the believer in
Christ. The union is mediated by the Holy Spirit. Torrance adopts these
two aspects of participation in Christ into his own theology.
Mackintosh was attempting to postulate a union with Christ Jesus that
went beyond the merely moral or ethical. Like Torrance, Mackintosh had
reservations over using the term ‘mystical union’ (despite teaching its
substance), but chose to define what he meant by unio mystica more
willingly than discard the term altogether. By ‘mystical’ Mackintosh
means, according to Redman, ‘that the believer’s relationship to Christ
transcends human relationships and human experiences of solidarity and
union.’ In place of a mere moral union Mackintosh presents a spiritual
union that, while rational, is beyond human comprehension. By ‘union’
Mackintosh does not mean a complete identification in which Christ and
the believer become indistinguishable; this would be an essential union,
something found in the writings of some of the medieval mystics.
Mackintosh was aware of the risk of pantheism and avoided this in his
christology. Through participatio Christi, Mackintosh argues, one has
communion with God as a human being because it is through union with the
incarnate Christ that we come to commune with God. By defining union
with Christ in such a way Mackintosh is in basic agreement with Calvin’s
three senses of the term – incarnational, mystical, and spiritual. One
can clearly see why Torrance is so attracted to Mackintosh’s theology.
In his critique of Mackintosh’s doctrine of the unio mystica Redman
comments on his use of language. He argues that Mackintosh should have
ceased using the language of mystical union and instead used concepts
more akin to the essential logic of his theology, such as spiritual
communion. Torrance perhaps agrees with Redman’s critique for he does
not use the term ‘mystical union’ either, but retains the basic
three-fold sense of union with Christ. Despite differences of
terminology, Torrance considers his use of theōsis, both in terminology
and in substance, conforms to a consistent theme of Reformed theology
going back to Calvin and found particularly within the Scottish
tradition.
Within this very specific trajectory of Reformed theology Torrance
posits his own soteriology. Torrance articulates the dimensions of union
with Christ in various ways but consistently he sees three realities
involved. Firstly, there is union with Christ made possible objectively
through the homoousion of the incarnate Son (Calvin’s ‘incarnational
union’ ). Secondly, there is the hypostatic union, and its significance
for the reconciling exchange wrought by Christ in his life, death, and
resurrection (Calvin’s unio mystica). Finally, these two aspects of
union with Christ are fulfilled or brought to completion in the
communion that exists between believers and the triune God (broadly
corresponding to Calvin’s ‘spiritual union’).
In a paraphrase of Torrance’s theology, Hunsinger presents three
aspects which correlate approximately to our outline. Firstly,
reception, a past event which involves what Christ has done for us. This
is received by grace through faith alone. Secondly, participation, a
present event, in which believers are clothed with Christ’s
righteousness through partaking of Christ by virtue of his vicarious
humanity. Thirdly, communion, the future or eschatological aspect which
equates to eternal life itself in which believers enjoy communion in
reciprocal love and knowledge of the triune God.
According to Torrance, union with Christ is not a ‘judicial union’
but a ‘real union’ which lies at the heart of the whole redemptive
activity mediated through Christ as an act of saving grace. Torrance
uses three words to elaborate what union with Christ means in his essay
‘The Mystery of the Kingdom’: divine purpose (prothesis), mystery
(mystērion), and fellowship/communion (koinōnia). This triadic structure
reflects the trinitarian action of the triune God: prothesis – the
Father, mystērion – the Son, and koinōnia – the Holy Spirit. Prothesis
refers to divine election whereby the Father purposed or ‘set forth’ the
union of God and humanity in Jesus Christ. Divine election is a free,
sovereign decision, a contingent act of God’s love; as such it is
neither arbitrary nor necessary. Torrance thus holds to the Reformed
doctrine of unconditional election, one which represents a strictly
theonomous way of thinking, from a centre in God and not in ourselves.
Torrance draws on certain aspects of Barth’s doctrine of election for he
equates the incarnation as the counterpart to the doctrine of election
so that ‘the incarnation, therefore, may be regarded as the eternal
decision or election of God in his Love…’ Calling upon Calvin’s analogy,
Torrance insists that ‘Christ himself is the ‘mirror of election,’ for
it takes place in him in such a way that he is the Origin and the End,
the Agent and the Substance of election…’
The second key expression Torrance uses is mystērion; the term is
applied to Christ, and specifically to the mystery of his hypostatic
union. In relation to God this means that the consubstantial union of
the Trinity upholds the hypostatic union so that God does not merely
come in man but as man. In this union of God and man a complete henosis
between the two is effected, and they are ‘perfectly at one’.
He had come, Son of God incarnate as son of man, in order to get
to grips with the powers of darkness and defeat them, but he had been
sent to do that not through the manipulation of social, political or
economic power-structures, but by striking beneath them all into the
ontological depths of Israel’s existence where man, and Israel
representing all mankind, had become estranged from God, and there
within those ontological depths of human being to forge a bond of union
and communion between man and God in himself which can never be undone.
Hence the hypostatic union is also a ‘reconciling union’ in which
estrangement between God and humanity is bridged, conflict is
eradicated, and human nature is ‘brought into perfect sanctifying union
with divine nature in Jesus Christ.’
This atoning union is not merely external or juridical but actual,
and points to the higher reality of communion. Hence Torrance can assert
that:
it is not atonement that constitutes the goal and end of
that integrated movement of reconciliation but union with God in and
through Jesus Christ in whom our human nature is not only saved, healed
and renewed but lifted up to participate in the very light, life and
love of the Holy Trinity.
Union with Christ must be understood within Torrance’s doctrine of
reconciliation to refer to the real participation of believers in the
divine nature made possible by the dynamic atoning union of Christ.
Torrance contends this is atonement in effect. As a result of the
incarnation, humanity is united to divinity in the hypostatic union so
that:
In the Church of Christ all who are redeemed through the
atoning union embodied in him are made to share in his resurrection and
are incorporated into Christ by the power of his Holy Spirit as living
members of his Body…Thus it may be said that the ‘objective’ union which
we have with Christ through his incarnational assumption of our
humanity into himself is ‘subjectively’ actualised in us through his
indwelling Spirit, ‘we in Christ’ and ‘Christ in us’ thus complementing
and interpenetrating each other.
In addition to the hypostatic union Torrance applies the concept of
mystērion to the mystery of the one-and-the-many, or Christ and his body
the church. Torrance thus understands union with Christ to be largely
corporate in nature but applicable to each individual member of his body
who is ingrafted into Christ by Baptism and continue to live in union
with him as they feed upon his body and blood in Holy Communion.
Understanding the church as the body of Christ is thus another way of
asserting an ontological union between the community of believers and
Christ the Head.
The third term Torrance uses is koinōnia, and it too has a double
reference. First, vertically, it represents our participation through
the Spirit in the mystery of Christ’s union with us. Second,
horizontally, it is applied to our fellowship or communion with one
another in the body of Christ. At the intersection of the vertical and
horizontal dimensions of koinōnia is the church, the community of
believers united to Christ, who is himself united to humanity through
the incarnation. Torrance asserts that ‘in and through koinonia the
divine prothesis enshrining the eternal mysterion embodies itself
horizontally in a community of those who are one with God through the
reconciliation of Christ.’ It is this theology of union with Christ by
means of fellowship or participation in God which links Torrance’s
doctrines of soteriology and ecclesiology; both are aspects of his
christology, as we shall see in more detail in the next chapter.
In summarising Torrance’s use of these three concepts Lee’s study
helpfully concludes that ‘the cause (causa) of ‘union with Christ’ is
prothesis, the election of God. Its substance (materia) is mysterion,
the hypostatic union in Jesus Christ, and its fulfilment (effectus) is
koinonia, the communion of the Holy Spirit.’ This outline focuses on the
trinitarian foundation inherent throughout Torrance’s work which
reminds readers not to see the work of reconciliation as exclusively
that of the Son, or the Son and the Spirit, but as the work of the
triune God.
