Cassidy 19

MJT 19 (2008) 165-194
T. F. TORRANCE'S REALISTIC
SOTERIOLOGICAL OBJECTIVISM AND
THE ELIMINATION OF DUALISMS:
UNION WITH CHRIST IN CURRENT PERSPECTIVE
by James J. Cassidy
Introduction
ON DECEMBER 2, 2007 the theological world lost one of its most articulate
thinkers and prolific writers in recent memory. Born in August of 1913
Thomas F. Torrance was a man constantly between places. He was a
Scotsman, but was born in China to Scottish Presbyterian missionaries.1
He studied German in Marburg, then under Karl Barth in Basel for two
semesters2, and then taught in the United States at Auburn Theological
Seminary (later turning down positions at McCormack Theological Semi-
nary and Princeton University).3 He was a theologian, but knew his sci-
ence so well that he had became the authority on the relation between
science and theology. He was called to replace Karl Barth at the Univer-
sity of Basel, but ended up teaching back in Scotland. He was an aca-
demic and served 27 years at New College, but was also a churchman
who served many years in the pastorate. He was a Presbyterian minister,
but was consecrated a Protopresbyter in the Patriarchate of Alexandria.4
He was active in writing during his teaching career, but his greatest work
came after his retirement when he penned The Christian Doctrine of God.
It is perhaps ironic, in light of his life and dual (evenly multiple) resi-
dences, callings, and interests, that he is so well known for his disdain of
dualisms5. In his search for a “rigorous scientific theology”6 he found a
unified theory of knowledge in Christology. Epistemologically or sote-
riologically, the hypostatic union of God and man in the incarnation
1 Alister E. McGrath, Thomas F. Torrance: An Intellectual Biography (Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1999) 3-18; Elmer M. Colyer, How to Read T. F. Torrance: Understanding His Trinitarian
and Scientific Theology (Downers Grove: IVP, 2001) 36.
2 McGrath, Thomas F. Torrance, 19ff.
3 Ibid., 47ff. Colyer, How to Read T. F. Torrance, 40-41.
4 McGrath, Thomas F. Torrance, 102.
5 Kye Won Lee, Living in Union with Christ: The Practical Theology of Thomas F. Torrance
(New York: Peter Lang, 2003) 11ff. Here Lee notes, “Torrance regards the post-Augustinian
period until Einstein as the era of imprisonment in dualism.” See also Alan G. Marley, T. F.
Torrance: The Rejection of Dualism (Edinburgh: Handsel Press, 1992).
6 Elmer M. Colyer, How to Read T. F. Torrance, 21.
166 Mid-America Journal of Theology
through the Spirit is our union with Christ⎯thus the source of both our
knowledge in theology and of our salvation. Thus, all that Christ did in
his life, death, and resurrection he did on our behalf. All of the tradi-
tional ordo salutis is encapsulated objectively in Jesus Christ. Jesus
Christ lives for man vicariously, such that all he is and does he is and
does for us. If we want to know where our justification is, we find it in
Christ. If we want to know where our faith is, we look to Christ who be-
lieved for us. Christ is objectively our all and all.
However, what is the relation between Christ's objective work pro no-
bis, and his subjective work in nobis? In other words, what⎯if any-
thing⎯happens to the believer in his life-history? How is the objective
work of Christ appropriated or applied to the believer today? Interest-
ingly, there is not complete agreement among the current interpreters of
Torrance's theology. In this essay we will compare and contrast three
Torrance scholars and how they view the Scottish theologian's doctrine of
union with Christ. We will then compare and contrast these views with
Torrance's writings themselves and draw some implications for the cur-
rent discussion. Then, we will compare Torrance's doctrine of union with
Christ with Reformed exegetical theology, specifically with reference to
Paul's teaching in Ephesians 2:1-10. And lastly, we will compare Tor-
rance's doctrine of union with Christ with the Reformed tradi-
tion⎯particularly John Calvin. From all this we will evaluate Torrance's
doctrine and consider how it may or may not be helpful for a future con-
structive soteriology.
1. Three Current Torrance Interpreters

1.1. Preliminary Considerations
The doctrine of union with Christ is not exactly at the front and cen-
ter of theological studies produced by Barthians. Even a cursory search
for studies explicitly written on Barth's doctrine of union with Christ
turns up virtually nothing.7 However, there are more studies readily
available on T. F. Torrance's doctrine of union with Christ. Here we will
consider three of them: Colyer, Lee, and Rankin.
7 The few exceptions approach the doctrine of union with Christ in Barth's theology in an
indirect way. See, for instance, A. T. B. McGowan, “Justification and the ordo salutis,” and
Bruce L. McCormack, “Justitia aliena: Karl Barth in Conversation with the Evangelical
Doctrine of Imputed Righteousness,” both in ed. Bruce McCormack, Justification in
Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges (Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2006) 147-163 and 167-196, respectively; George Hunsinger, Disruptive Grace:
Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 148-85. (This chapter is
also found in an abbreviated form as “The Mediator of Communion: Karl Barth's Doctrine of
the Holy Spirit,” in ed. John Webster, The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth (Cambridge:
CUP, 2000) 177-94; How to Read Karl Barth: The Shape of His Theology (Oxford: OUP, 1991)
218-224; “A Tale of Two Simultaneities: Justification and Sanctification in Calvin and Barth,”
in eds. John C. McDowell and Mike Higton, Conversing with Barth (Hampshire: Ashgate,
2004).
T. F. Torrance’s Realistic Soteriological Objectivism 167
1.2 Elmer M. Colyer

Colyer is arguably the leading authority on the theology of T. F. Tor-
rance. In his survey of Torrance's theology, he covers the full scope of the
New College Professor's thinking. Hence, there is no full orbed or ex-
tended treatment of Torrance's doctrine of union with Christ, per se.
However, there is enough in Colyer's work to be helpful in attaining a
comprehension of the issues involved. Especially because Colyer does
treat at length Torrance's doctrine of the incarnation; for it is in the con-
text of Torrance's incarnational theology that we do see the topic of union
with Christ surface.
Discussion about union with Christ first comes in Colyer's treatment
of Torrance's view of the hypostatic union. Here he discusses the idea of
“incarnational redemption.”8 For Torrance the atonement is not some-
thing which occurs on the cross⎯primarily. Rather, the atonement takes
place in the incarnation. In the incarnation the eternal Son of God takes
to himself our sinful, fallen flesh.9 Yet, the Son does not sin himself, nor
does he become corrupt by our sin and guilt. So it is, in the hypostatic
union, that the redemption of our flesh occurs⎯for a real, reconciling
union between man and Christ is effected. Colyer lays out the formula-
tion this way:
… the hypostatic union is a reconciling union in which the Son of God

condemned sin in our sinful humanity and overcame the estrangement,
sin, guilt and death entrenched in our humanity via a transforming rela-
tion between the divine and the human natures within the incarnate re-
ality of Jesus Christ. The incarnation is inherently redemptive, and re-
demption is intrinsically incarnational.10
In this way, the very idea of reconciliation and union between God and
man is radically restructured from the traditional conception. As will be
mapped out below, the traditional concept of reconciliation and union
has a two-fold aspect: objective and subjective. What Christ does extra
nos is God's objective work of redemption; thus, it is accomplished once
and for all. But⎯according to the traditional view⎯that work needs to be
applied to his people, in nobis. Through a subjective work, the Holy Spirit
applies Christ's objective accomplishments to the believer. This is a work
that takes place in his life-history whereby his spiritual condition transi-
tions from a state of wrath to a state grace and forgiveness. However, if
Colyer is accurate, for Torrance the idea of union and reconciliation be-
tween God and man is a wholly objective scenario in which the idea of a
subjective application in the life-history of the believer is completely by-
passed. Or, so it seems.
This train of thought continues in Colyer as he develops Torrance's
theology of the hypostatic union. Following on the theme just developed,
Colyer writes:
8 Colyer, How to Read T. F. Torrance, 84.

9 Ibid., 85.
10 Idem. The emphasis is mine.
Torrance argues that redemption takes place through Jesus Christ's res-
urrection and ascension and not just Christ's death on the cross. Incar-
national redemption involves not only forgiveness and freedom from
bondage, but also new life in union with God. The end goal of the atone-
ment is more than the restoration of relations between God and human-
ity, for it includes '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.'11
Several points from this passage are in order. First, notice that the lan-
guage concerns “union with God” at this point, and not more specifically
“union with Christ.” In other words, the incarnation unites all men to
God himself. By virtue of the divine and human hypostasis, God and
man are brought into union and communion with each other. Second,
notice the extent of that union. It consists in the lifting up of humanity to
participate in the very life of the Trinity. Here hints are given of Tor-
rance's doctrine of theosis, which will be further developed below. And
third, the incarnation itself effects redemption. It effects a redemption
which is not just about forgiveness of sins but about a real union with
the very being of God. Yet, all this takes place outside of us, extra nos. It
happens irrespective of the faith response or the work of the Holy Spirit
in nobis in our real life-history.
This being said, there is a marked shift in Colyer's synopsis of Tor-
rance's soteriology throughout the course of his work. Whereas in the
earlier sections of his volume the emphasis is overwhelmingly in the di-
rection of the objective work of redemption in which we are brought into
union with Christ and God through the incarnation, in the later sections
emphasis is given to the subjective work of the Spirit “in us.” As noted
above, earlier on Colyer speaks about the incarnation effecting union
with God. However, he makes no specific mention of “union with Christ.”
The concept of union with Christ seems reserved for the sections dealing
with the work of the Holy Spirit. For instance, Colyer can say:
This also means that the image of God restored through the vicarious
humanity of Jesus Christ, and mediated to us in the Spirit who unites us
in Christ, is closely related to Torrance's understanding of theosis.12
Notice here⎯contrary to what Colyer said earlier⎯there is now a dualism

introduced into Torrance's soteriology. Whereas before it appeared as if
all of soteriology⎯including union with Christ⎯is wrapped up in the
once and for all event of the incarnation, here two distinct steps in salva-
tion are introduced. On the one hand there is the restoration of the im-
age of God “through the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ” in the in-
carnation; and then there is the mediation of the Spirit who
subsequently “unites us in Christ” on the other. Colyer goes on to state:
Thus theosis/theopoiesis is closely related to this relational imago Dei, for

in Torrance's trinitarian perspective, the Spirit unites us to Christ and
11 Ibid., 93.
12 Ibid., 178.
through Christ with the Father, and therefore brings our creaturely rela-
tions to their true end and fulfillment in union and communion with the
triune God.13
Note again the “two step” process. The Holy Spirit unites us to Christ,
but Christ unites us to the triune God by virtue of the incarnational un-
ion of the divine and human in the God-man, Jesus Christ.
This course of thought continues in Colyer's chapter on the Holy
Spirit. Under a subsection entitled “The coming of the Holy Spirit medi-
ates Jesus Christ to us” he expressly states that it is the Spirit that
unites us to Christ.14 He then explicates this idea by saying:
We should not think of the Holy Spirit, Torrance argues, as a substitute

for Christ, but rather as coming in Christ's name and uniting the church
with the risen Christ in Christ's identification with us. The Spirit so
unites us with Christ that in the Spirit's coming on the church Christ
himself comes again to dwell in the church uniting the church with him-
self as his body.15
The work of the Holy Spirit described here is similar to that found in tra-
ditional doctrines of union with Christ. It appears as if this is a subjec-
tive work of the Holy Spirit in the life-history of the believer subsequent
to the act of incarnation. Colyer makes his point even more explicit when
he writes:
Here Torrance sees a twofold activity of the Holy Spirit … that parallels
and answers the twofold work of Christ. The Spirit comes forth from God
the Father, receives from the Son, acts from the side of God and unites
Christ to us, actualizing Christ's revealing and reconciling activity within
us.16
The work of the Holy Spirit is described as a work in which he unites the
believer to Christ. Thus the Spirit “actualizes Christ's revealing and rec-
onciling activity within us.” A distinction is made between Christ's objec-
tive reconciling activity (i.e., the incarnation) on the one hand, and the
Holy Spirit's subjective “actualizing” of that activity “within us” on the
other. If any doubt about a re-introduction of an objective/subjective
dualism remains, Colyer settles the matter when he says:
In places Torrance speaks of the Spirit as Christ's Alter Ego or Alter Ad-
vocatus who seals our adoption as children of God in Christ and so
unites us to Christ that we come to share by grace in Christ's own filial
relationship with the Father realized vicariously within Christ's earthly
human life on our behalf … and sheds the love of God in Christ abroad
in our hearts.17
13 Ibid., 179.
14 Ibid., 224.
15 Ibid., 224-5.
16 Ibid., 225.
17 Ibid., 230.
The Holy Spirit's work is described as an act of sealing to us what Christ

has already accomplished. And in so doing the Holy Spirit “sheds the love
of God in Christ abroad in our hearts.” This, again, is indicative of a sub-
jective aspect of salvation and thus a re-introduction of an ordo salutis in
Torrance's thought. And with the ordo salutis comes, inevitably, what
Torrance would consider to be a soteriological dualism.
To summarize, Colyer appears to begin his treatment of Torrance in
a strong and consistent way emphasizing his soteriological objectivism
and his disdain for dualisms. However, Colyer seems to lose his bearings
and falls back into an objective/subjective duality. This seems to miss
the radical nature of Torrance's soteriology which is wholly objective.
Salvation is an objective once and for all activity of God in Christ, par-
ticularly in the act of incarnation. For Torrance, in the hypostatic union
redemption is so realistically accomplished that there is no need to speak
about redemption applied. However, Colyer seems to lose sight of this all
important aspect to Torrance's doctrine of union with Christ understood
incarnationally. Perhaps there is a more consist read among some of Tor-
rance's other interpreters.
1.3. Kye Won Lee

Lee's work makes clear the central place of the incarnation in the
theology of T. F. Torrance. So central is the incarnation in his thinking
that the doctrine of union with Christ may be described in incarnational
terms. In the God-man, Jesus Christ, God and man are so united to each
other that the bond may be categorized as ontological, through and
through. Lee explains:
This incarnational union of Christ with us is an indissoluble ontological

union … This ontological union established for us in the whole historical
Jesus Christ is continuously maintained and effected in our space-time
through the Spirit of Christ.18
In this way, then, the idea of salvation and grace is completely objectiv-
ized. To have grace, to be saved, is to be united to Christ through the
hypostatic union. Because we are man, and because Christ took to him-
self true humanity (in its fallen state)19, and because Christ is of one
substance with the father (i.e., homoousion), we become one with the
Father. All this, of course, takes place outside of us and apart from us.
Lee summarizes:
Torrance's doctrine of grace is characterized by its objectivity. He restores

the importance of the covenant of grace, and personal and dialogical the-
ology without falling into anthropocentric and subjective personalism. He
applies the homoousion and the hypostatic union to the doctrine of grace.
He maintains the personal nature and mode of God's grace, and our par-
ticipation in the new humanity of Christ.20
18 Lee, Living in Union with Christ, 121.

19 “Our fallen humanity has been assumed, cleansed, healed ….” Ibid., 210.
20 Ibid., 211.
But that is not all. According to Lee, Torrance so objectivizes salva-

tion that even those aspects of the so-called ordo salutis traditionally re-
served for a subjective appropriation by the Holy Spirit in nobis are ac-
complished and applied in Christ extra nos. In this way, then, “Torrance
does not view our regeneration … as what happens in our heart.”21 So,
we may ask, if regeneration does not happen in our hearts, then where
and when does it happen? Lee explains that regeneration occurs “in and
with Christ's birth and resurrection.”22 In other words, when Christ is
born and then later resurrected from the dead, those events are his gen-
eration and regeneration⎯respectively. And those acts are performed “in
the flesh,” that is in our flesh. Thus, our humanity (and, in fact, human-
ity as such) is born and born again in the birth and rebirth of Jesus
Christ. There is so further work to be done by the Holy Spirit in us, for
our birth and rebirth is already accomplished once and for all in Jesus
Christ.
At first glance one might be lead to believe that Lee sees no need for
a subjective appropriation of Christ's objective work for us in Torrance's
theology. However, that would be to misread Lee. The strong emphasis
on the objective which we have thus highlighted, becomes confused in
Lee's work by another emphasis on the subjective. For Lee, Torrance
speaks about union in Christ in contrast to union with Christ. All of hu-
manity is united in Christ by virtue of the incarnation. However, only
some humans are united with Christ through the Holy Spirit working in
them subjectively. Lee explains:
Union in [emphasis his] Christ, for Torrance, is viewed as a 'natural law'

in our faith and theology. This ontological and personal logic intrinsic in
Jesus is noetically and sacramentally reflected in us through union with
[emphasis mine] Christ. What is cardinal to Torrance's doctrine of the
Mediator is the once-for-all fulfillment of the objective-ontological reality
and the subjective-eschatological realization of it in and through the
obedient humanity of Christ. The objective and subjective realization of
God's revelation and reconciliation was fulfilled in the humanity of
Christ. This objectively-subjectively actualized reality is subjectively real-
ized in us through union with Christ by the Holy Spirit.23
The all important distinction that must be pointed up is that between

“actualized” and “realized.” What Lee is saying is that in the incarnation,
union is actualized between God and man by virtue of the hypostatic un-
ion. However, that union is only realized in the believer by the power of
the Holy Spirit. So, it would seem appropriate to speak about a subjec-
tive aspect of soteriology. Again, Lee states:
Torrance holds to a theology of objectivity in or to maintain the basic

equilibrium of theology which has been biased by subjectivism. However,
it is not a pure objectivity which has nothing to do with us in its detach-
21 Ibid., 210.
22 Idem.
23 Ibid., 301.
ment from us, but an objectivity which itself enables the integrity of sub-
jectivity.24
We can greatly appreciate Lee's theological instincts at this point. He ap-

parently wants to avoid turning Christ and the incarnation into an ab-
straction. However, and this is where Lee's study becomes extremely
frustrating, how does this square with the previous comments he has
made about Torrance's formulations which speaks about the ordo salutis
in objective and incarnational terms?
It seems as if there is a shift in Lee's study. At the beginning of the
work, front and center is the idea of the incarnation as explaining the
architectonic principle for all of Torrance's theology. All of salvation, rec-
onciliation, and atonement are encapsulated within the doctrine of in-
carnation. The hypostatic union is the union of humanity with God in
Christ. All of mankind are united to Christ by virtue of his assumption of
fallen humanity.
The incarnational union of Christ with our sinful flesh initiated in his
birth and Baptism is to provide through his substitutionary atonement a
way for our union with Christ as his Body.25
In this way all of our redemption is accomplished in our union with

Christ in his incarnation, life, death, and resurrection. Not only is regen-
eration something that does not happen in us, but neither is justifica-
tion. “Justification refers to our sacramental union with Christ. It is al-
ready given to us.”26 Yet, we should not mistake Lee's language here.
When he says that Justification is “sacramental” and “given to us,” he
does not mean it is subjectively appropriated in the real life-history of the
believer. That is because “Torrance rejects the notion of justification as a
temporal process within sinful history.”27 The idea of subjective applica-
tion of Christ's benefits could not be further from his mind being that he
“rejects the notion of ordo salutis in which justification and sanctification
are viewed as two different stages.”28 Yet, towards the end of the study,
Lee articulates Torrance's doctrine of union with Christ as if there is a
strong subjective aspect in which Christ's incarnational union with man
must be applied and become an existential union in us.
It is difficult to see, given these ideas of the incarnation and the life-
history of Christ providing the objective reality of humanity's union with
God, how Lee can make room for a subjective realization in the life of the
believer. This tension in Lee's work may be due to the dialectical nature
of Torrance's theology. Or, it may be that he is reading his own theologi-
cal instincts into Torrance and making a theological provision which is
not actually there in Torrance's writings themselves. Given the late Edin-
burgh professor's disdain for dualism of any sort, we suspect that the
24 Ibid., 297.
25 Ibid., 188.
26 Ibid., 214.
27 Idem.
28 Idem.
latter is the case. Lee, therefore, does not offer us any more of a consis-
tent read than did Colyer.
1.4. W. Duncan Rankin

If Lee provides the strongest statements on a subjective aspect of un-
ion with Christ in Torrance, and Colyer provides similar but weaker
statements, then Rankin's study stands out from the others as being
meticulously consist against any subjective idea of union in Torrancean
soteriology.29 For instance, Rankin begins his study with a survey of Tor-
rance's introduction to his work on the Reformed catechisms30 in which
he summarizes:
In the pages that follow, Torrance distances himself from Crag's division
between 'carnal union' and 'spiritual union,' instead uniting the two by
subsuming the latter under the former. Thus, in his introduction, Tor-
rance utilizes the sixteenth-century Scot's peculiar terminology but re-
constructs its doctrinal content.31
What Rankin has in view is Torrance's appropriation of John Craig's lan-

guage of “carnal union” in his 1581 catechism. In the original context,
Craig makes a distinction between “carnal union” and “spiritual union”
with Christ. The former is a clear reference to the incarnation. There is a
sense in which man and Christ have an external, physical union by vir-
tue of Christ and humanity sharing in the same nature. However, Craig
makes mention that without “spiritual union” the “carnal union” avails
nothing.32 In other words, without the subjective application of Christ's
objective work, that work means nothing to man in terms of his redemp-
tion. However, Rankin argues, Torrance obliterates the clear distinction
between objective and subjective by collapsing the latter into the former.
All of the doctrine of union with Christ must be understood in exclusively
incarnational terms.
Now, to be sure, Rankin does recognize that Torrance has a place for
the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer.33 Yet⎯and this is all
important⎯the objective and subjective sides of union with Christ are
both actualized in the incarnation. Union is objectively offered from the
divine side, and it is subjectively received and appropriated by the Holy
Spirit on the human side⎯all happening once and for all in the divine-
human, Jesus Christ. Rankin explains:
This universal incarnational union Torrance identifies with Scottish Re-

former John Craig's terminology of 'carnal union,' describing more his
own broader development of union with Christ⎯which includes not only
29 W. Duncan Rankin, “Carnal Union with Christ in the Theology of T. F. Torrance”
(Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1997).

30 T. F. Torrance, The School of Faith: The Catechisms of the Reformed Church (London: J.
Clarke, 1959).
31 Rankin, “Carnal Union with Christ,” 2-3. The emphasis is mine.
32 The School of Faith, 113.
33 See, for instance, “Carnal Union with Christ,” 127.
the hypostatic union but also spiritual union⎯than Craig's double un-
ion, to which he has objected previously.34
In other words⎯standing against the tradition of Reformed theology to

make a distinction between the hypostatic union on the one hand and
the Spirit-wrought union of the believer with Jesus Christ on the other⎯
Torrance sees incarnational/carnal union as including both the union of
the two natures of Christ and the spiritual union man has with Christ.
They are one and the same event. Spiritual and thus soteric union with
Christ is given and received in the person and work of Jesus. It is analo-
gous to Torrance's (and thus Barth's before him) doctrine of revelation or
reconciliation. The revelation of God does not await us individual men to
receive it by our weak and imperfect faith, but rather God's revelation is
given by God and received by man in the God-man, Jesus Christ.
This is a keen insight rendered by Rankin; many of Torrance's cur-
rent interpreters miss it completely. It is only by taking this approach to
the late Scottish professor's soteriology that we may preserve his com-
mitment against dualisms. Again, Rankin is helpful is distilling this
highly original doctrine of union with Christ when he writes:
On the ground of our ontological union, carnal union connection to

Christ as man established in his incarnation, which Torrance terms 'ob-
jective union,' the Holy Spirit makes the incarnational union a subjective
reality in our daily experience. Instead of Craig's two separate unions,
Torrance see one union with Christ, including objective and subjective
aspects. This, Torrance see in the doctrine of union with Christ a univer-
sal union with all men via the incarnation, whereby they are in Christ.
He is persuaded that incarnational union with Christ includes the actual
content of spiritual union, objectively involving all humankind. This under-
standing produces no dogmatic division between carnal and spiritual un-
ion with Christ in Torrance's thought: there is only one union with
Christ.35
Notice that incarnational union⎯or the hypostatic union of the two na-
tures of God and humanity⎯includes not just an objective uniting of
man to Christ ontologically speaking, but also a spiritual union as well.
That is to say, a union that is accomplished by the Holy Spirit at the in-
carnation in which union with Christ is both given and received. In
Christ, and by virtue of the hypostatic union, all of humanity has been
united to Him both carnally and spiritually. In fact, such a distinction
(i.e., that between carnal and spiritual union) is not viable on Torrance's
view, according to Rankin. This is because “in Torrance's thought: there
is only one union with Christ.”
Thus, the who idea of the operation of the Holy Spirit becomes Chris-
tologically reoriented. The Holy Spirit, in uniting man to Christ, is an
event that has already occurred. Rankin highlights the fact that Torrance
sees the fulfillment of Joel 2:28 taking place already in the incarnation.
Again, with a keen eye, Ranking quotes the words of Torrance himself:
34 “Carnal Union with Christ,” 126-7.

35 Ibid., 127. The emphasis is mine.
How wide is the range of 'the carnal union' which Christ has effected be-
tween Himself as the Incarnate Son and human flesh? Does this include
all men, or does it refer to only the elect? This is of fundamental impor-
tance for the doctrine of the Spirit. If Christ's incarnational union with us
involves all men, then we must give a proper interpretation to the pour-
ing out of the Spirit upon “all flesh,” but if Christ's incarnational union
only involves those who believe in Him … then the doctrine of the Spirit's
work must be changed accordingly … The 'carnal union' effected by
Christ between Himself and all men supplies, as it were, the field of the
Spirit's activity, so that in a profound sense we have to take seriously the
fact that the Spirit was poured out on 'all flesh' and operates on 'all
flesh.'36
For our purposes here, we will put aside Torrance's exegesis of Joel 2
and Acts 2 (surely an untenable interpretation). What is important to
highlight from this passage is how Torrance sees the relation between
carnal union and the work of the Holy Spirit. After all, for Torrance, this
is what it means to say that Christ was conceived by the power of the
Holy Spirit. It was the Spirit who united God and man in the incarnation.
Therefore, it is the Holy Spirit who is given and received in the hypostatic
union of God and man. Union with Christ does not consist of “the elect”
who will believe on Jesus Christ in a time subsequent to the incarnation,
but union occurs by the Holy Spirit in the incarnation.
To summarize, Rankin's read of Torrance's doctrine of union with
Christ stands out against the other interpretations. His view is altogether
original and differs markedly from those of Lee and Colyer. The latter two
scholars have a relatively reserved read of Torrance's doctrine of union
with Christ which still allows for a traditional formulation in which the
Holy Spirit existentially unites the believer with Christ. However, Ran-
kin's read is radical. And it is radical exactly because Torrance's proposal
is that radical. Lee and Colyer tend to somewhat “tame” Torrance's doc-
trine of union with Christ. Rankin's read stands out from the rest be-
cause he presents us with an untamed Torrance.
2. Torrance on Union with Christ

2.1. Preliminary Considerations
At this point, we are now in a better position to evaluate these three
interpretations against the writings of Torrance himself. It has already
been intimated that of the three, Rankin offers us the most faithful and
consistent read of Torrance on union with Christ. It will be our task in
this section to prove this from a close reading of several of Torrance's
writings. But first, we need to set the context.
2.2. Setting the Context

Torrance's career as a theologian has been driven by a passion for
Barth's vision of a theology which is Christologically centered and objec-
36 Quoted in ibid., 137.

tively conceived. Torrance seeks to develop a rigorous “scientific” theology

on the basis of God's revelation in Jesus Christ37. Part and parcel of this
program is a thoroughgoing objective epistemology. That is to say, all
Christian doctrine must be meticulously expounded from the starting
point of revelation38. And revelation, for Torrance (and for Barth before
him) is Jesus Christ39. So, when we begin with Christology, that is this
Christology, the Christology of God's act of revelation in the incarnation,
we avoid all speculation in theology. All theology then becomes concrete
and actualized. From the doctrine of the Trinity, to the doctrine of crea-
tion, to the doctrine of reconciliation, all doctrine must be drawn out of
and flow from Jesus Christ as very God and very man.
2.3. Monism over Dualism?

Therefore, it is in light of the incarnation that Torrance understands
the doctrine of union with Christ. For Torrance, incarnation, revelation,
and reconciliation happen all at once and the same time.40 In the incar-
nation we have God who takes to himself not just a man, but humanity
itself. The eternal Word becomes humanity without ceasing to be divine.
Here God's Word⎯the Word Himself⎯is communicated to man⎯to hu-
manity⎯such that in the incarnation God's Word is revealed and re-
ceived. God's revelation is not some aimless speaking which floats out
there waiting to be received. It is received by man in the God-Man Jesus
Christ. Torrance states it this way:
Within the dialogue of the divine-human life of Jesus, as the self-giving of

God to man and the obedience of the Son to the Father, Revelation is
both given and received, and as such is essentially historical and per-
sonal in nature.41
And so it is in this act or Christ-event (and in this event alone) that

God and humanity are brought together: they are reconciled. Reconcilia-
tion is not something that depends on us. It is not contingent upon our
accepting it (though, for Torrance, the imperative to accept it is there
nonetheless). It is effected once and for all in the incarnation. This is bib-
lical union. This is what it means to be united with God in Christ.42
37See Colyer, How to Read T. F. Torrance, 21.

38 Here Torrance speaks of Jesus Christ as the arche, the origin and starting point of
theology. See his The Trinitarian Faith: The Evangelical Theology of the Ancient Catholic Church
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988) 7.
39 In fact, Torrance can say that Jesus Christ is the text of the New Testament. See his
The Mediation of Christ (Colorado Springs: Helmers & Howard, 1992) 78. The biblical text,
when speaking about revelation, gets all but left out. Torrance writes elsewhere, “We cannot
think and speak of God truly apart from his Word and Act in the incarnation, and that means,
apart from Jesus Christ. Otherwise expressed, Jesus Christ is the one place given to us within
space and time where we may know God the Father.” The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being
in Three Persons (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996) 17-18. Torrance seems to be saying that
revelation takes place exclusively in the incarnation and no where else, including in the Bible.
40 This is what he calls the “objectivity of God.” See Kye Won Lee, Living in Union with
Christ: The Practical Theology of Thomas F. Torrance (New York: Peter Lang, 2003) 77.
41 T. F. Torrance, The School of Faith, lxvi.
42 Lee, Living in Union with Christ, 99. Lee calls this “theological realism” in which “… union
But what of the Holy Spirit's work in us? Is there not a subjective
side to soteriology in which the Holy Spirit brings us into communion
with God? Torrance does speak about the Holy Spirit bringing us into
communion with God, but this is not by virtue of a subjective work in us.
This is what he calls “objective inwardness”43 The Holy Spirit ever re-
mains objective to us, never in our possession. So the “inwardness” of
the Holy Spirit entails the inner-trinitarian relations between the persons
of the Godhead.
Nevertheless, Torrance sees the role of true union taking place in
revelation and reconciliation. Here the Holy Spirit is the one who united
man with God in the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Lee explains Torrance's
view this way:
… it is through the one Spirit that the Word was enfleshed in his hypo-
static union with our human nature, and that we are also united with
Christ … It is through the Spirit that God's intima locutio is related both
to the creatio ex nihilo and to our knowledge of God.44
The Holy Spirit is instrumental in the incarnation, thus communicating

the knowledge of God to humanity. So, in this way he can maintain the
traditional Reformed language of the Holy Spirit as the one who unites
God's people to himself in Christ, and that the Holy Spirit communicates
all the benefits of Christ to them. Colyer explains it this way:
Torrance argues that when we receive the Spirit, it is not a receiving dif-
ferent from or independent of Christ's vicarious reception of the Spirit,
but rather a sharing in that reception. Moreover, this means that our re-
ception of the Holy Spirit takes place only through union with Christ and
through Christ with God the Father.45
In connection with this we are to understand the receiving of the

Holy Spirit in a vicarious manner. When Jesus received the Spirit he did
so “for us.” The idea of receiving the Spirit remains objective to us as it is
accomplished already by Christ:
Our receiving of the Spirit is objectively grounded in and derives from

Christ who as the incarnate Son was anointed by the Spirit in his hu-
manity and endowed with the Spirit without measure, not for his own
sake … but for our sakes, and who then mediates the Spirit to us
through himself … Our receiving of the Spirit, therefore, is not independ-
ent of or different from the vicarious receiving of the Spirit by Christ him-
self but is a sharing in it.46
with Christ should be understood in terms of Christ's ontological union with us in his
incarnation.” This is what Torrance elsewhere calls “the logic of grace,” Theological Science
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996) 216.
43 The Trinitarian Faith, 208 ff. See Colyer's helpful explanation, How to Read T. F.
Torrance, 218ff.
44 Lee, Living in Union with Christ , 93.
45 Colyer, How to Read T. F. Torrance, 223.
46 The Christian Doctrine of God, 148.
This role of faith and justification are seen in the same objective way. We
are not justified by our faith, but by Jesus' faith “for us.” Because man
and God are united in the incarnation, what Jesus does we do as well in
him.
It is illuminating to recognize that subjective justification as well as ob-

jective justification, has already taken place in Jesus Christ … for what
He was and did in His human nature was not for His own sake, but for
our sakes … Through union with Him, we share in His faith, in His obe-
dience, in His trust and in His appropriation of the Father’s blessing; we
share in His justification before God. Therefore, when we are justified by
faith, this does not mean that it is our faith that justifies us, far from it −
it is the faith of Christ alone that justifies us.47
Lee explains that Christ's vicarious life, his life lived “for us” all but
precludes our human response.48 The response⎯man's response⎯is
there already in the work of Jesus Christ:
The way of God's saving grace is that our true and faithful response was
provided and fulfilled in the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ… Tor-
rance argues that in the incarnation we have the Word of God which was
once and for all realized not only 'objectively' but also 'subjectively' in the
humanity of Christ49
This seems to leave place neither for a subjective appropriation of the

benefits of Christ, nor for our response to the Gospel.
2.4. Homoousion, Perichoresis, and Hypostatic Union

The doctrine of homoousion may properly be described as the episte-
mological linchpin of Christian theology.50 This is because the Son, the
Father, and the Holy Spirit are all of the same substance living in peri-
choretic relationship. Torrance calls this an “onto-relation.” An onto-
relation is a relation in which persons are determined by their natural
and inherent relationship to others. The Son is the Son precisely because
he is of the Father, and the Father is who he is by virtue of his relation
with the Son.51 So, in the hypostatic union of the incarnation⎯in which
God is revealed to human flesh⎯we find not only the revelation of the
47 “Justification: Its Radical Nature and Place in Reformed Doctrine and Life,” SJT 13
(1960): 232-36. See also, The Mediation of Christ, 82-3 where he states: “We must think of
Jesus as stepping into the relation between the faithfulness of God and the actual
unfaithfulness of human beings, actualizing the faithfulness of God and restoring the
faithfulness of human beings by grounding it in the incarnate medium of his own faithfulness
so that it answers perfectly to divine faithfulness …. He does that as Mediator between God
and man, yet precisely as man united to us and taking our place at every point where we
human beings act as human beings and are called to have faith in the Father, to believe in
him and trust him. … we must think of Jesus Christ as believing, trusting and having faith in
God the Father on our behalf and in our place.” The emphasis is his.
49 Lee, Living in Union with Christ, 159ff.
50 Lee, Living in Union with Christ, 90. Compare with Torrance's formulation, The
Christian Doctrine of God, 95.

Son, but the Trinity itself. Thus, we may not seek knowledge of God in
any place we please. God is known as triune in Jesus Christ alone. God
reveals his whole self in the incarnation:
What God is toward us in the revealing and saving acts of Jesus Christ
he is eternally and immanently in himself, and what God is in himself
eternally and immanently as Father and Son he actually is toward us in
the revealing and saving acts of Jesus Christ.52
Here Torrance's realistic epistemology and ontology comes to its clearest

integration. God is known objectively, because he has made himself to be
object to us in revelation.
Also, homoousion allows Torrance to make the ontological relation
between God's being and his act identical. He states:
… that was the evangelical significance of the homoousion formulated at

the Council of Nicea. Unless there is a relation of oneness in being and
act between Jesus Christ and the eternal God, then the bottom falls out
of the Gospel.53
This brings together the ontological and economic Trinity such that
who God communicates himself as in Jesus Christ is God himself in his
being.54 Jesus Christ is God actually giving himself. It is both a self-
giving and a self-communication. There is no gap, not dualism, between
God and man in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is God and God is Jesus
Christ.55 Therefore we find knowledge of God nowhere else than in his
revelation, in Jesus Christ. It is here, and here alone that man's knowl-
edge and the knowledge of God are united. And this is so because as God
reveals himself as triune economically, so he is in himself ontologically.
“Everything hinges, then, upon the ontological and dynamic oneness be-
tween the economic Trinity and the ontological Trinity”56
All this, of course, should sound very familiar to anyone with
Barthian ears to hear. The Swiss theologian himself continually identified
God's act with his being.57 It is this “actualistic” ontology which forms
52 The Mediation of Christ, 112.

53 The Mediation of Christ, 124; see also, The Christian Doctrine of God, 30. At this point,
it ought to be highlighted the fundamental flaw in Torrance's formulation. For instance, Nicea
does not identify the substance of Jesus Christ, in his divine-human hypostasis, with God.
Rather, it identifies the substance of Jesus Christ's divine nature as the eternal Son with that
of the Father and the Spirit. The divine nature, the person of the eternal Logos, is of the same
substance as of the Father and the Spirit, not the divine and human person of the hypostasis.
Secondly, Nicea is making an assertion about being, not act. Torrance wants to here identify
the being and act of Jesus Christ in his divine-human person with the being of the entire
Trinity.
This way of stating things is extremely problematic; and for at least two reasons. First, it
makes both natures of Christ of one nature with God. It leads to a kind of theosis, or
divinizing of the creature. Second, it runs uncomfortably close to the Eutychian heresy in
which it was said that Jesus Christ was only one nature. For Torrance Jesus Christ, in both
his human and divine nature, is of the divine ousia.
55 Ibid., 143.
57 For instance, Barth says, “… the Son who has come to us or the Word that has been
Barth's metaphysical basis for his doctrine of union with Christ. Yet, Tor-
rance⎯and Barth before him⎯does not seem to anticipate the potential
dangers of making such an identity between the economic and ontologi-
cal Trinity. For instance, the Reformers were clear by their expression
finitum non capax infiniti that such an identification is impossible. If
there is no ontological Trinity that stands ad extra (i.e., independently
and apart from his works in history) then history gets swallowed up in
divinity. This then would lead easily to a communication of attributes;
which the Reformed were zealous to avoid. To do otherwise would lead to
potential problems in the doctrine of God in which the creation would
end up constituting the creator. This is what you get, for instance, in
Hegel.58
So, here Torrance can speak about the hypostatic union as that un-
ion between God and the creation in which God and creation are actually
reconciled. God took to himself sinful, fallen flesh. And it is this fallen
flesh which God has reconciled to himself in the act of hypostatic union.
Thus, hypostatic union is atonement and reconciliation. This is our un-
ion with Christ. Lee states Torrance position this way:
… the Incarnation [is] Christ's self-incorporation and entry into our sin-
ful and alienated existence for our reconciliation with God through the
Cross, as well as Christ's obedient life, and ministry, mission or atoning
work for us. This is because Torrance understands reconciliation not as
something added to hypostatic union, but as the hypostatic union itself at
work in expiation and atonement. In a sense, reconciliation is the inner
dynamics of the ontological hypostatic union.59
Furthermore, this act of hypostatic union is understood in the form of a

“couplet”⎯enhypostasia and anhypostasia. These two form the whole of
the atonement in the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Lee explains:
spoken to us is antecedently the Son or Word of God per se … We have to say that, as Christ
is in revelation, so He is antecedently in Himself.” Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of the Word
of God eds. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2004) 415; 428.
Hereafter abbreviated as CD followed by volume and part.
58 The question which this leads to then is the relation between Hegel and Barth (and
thus Torrance). However, the scope of this essay prevents us from going into a detailed
discussion. Nevertheless, there are works out there which hint at a close connection between
Hegel and Barth. See for instance Adam Eitel, “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ: Karl Barth
and the Historicization of God's Being,” IJST 10/1 (2008): 36-53. Torrance at times sounds
concerned with maintaining a creator/creature distinction, and thus an antecedent being
which lies back of creation. But his identifying of the ontological and economical Trinity
makes this impossible. For a perspective within the Barthian fold that wants to caution
against Hegelianism, see Paul D. Molnar, Divine Freedom and the Doctrine of the Immanent
Trinity (New York: T&T Clark, 2002).
59 Lee, Living in Union with Christ, 146 and 157ff. Emphasis is mine. This idea of our
union taking place in the ontological hypostatic union in which God takes to himself fallen
human flesh is a correlate of Barth's teaching found in, for instance, CD I/2, 40 and 151. In
the latter page reference, Barth states, “Nor is [Jesus] the ideal man. He is a man as we are,
equal to us as a creature, as a human individual, but also equal to us in the state and
condition into which our disobedience and brought us.” (Emphasis is mine). For more on
Torrance's view of the Son taking fallen flesh to himself, see G. S. Dawson, “Far as the Curse
is Found,” in ed. G. S. Dawson, An Introduction to Torrance Theology: Discovering the Incarnate
Savior (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2007); Colyer, Reading T. F. Torrance, 82; and Torrance, The
Trinitarian Faith, 153.
By the couplet of anhypostasia and enhypostasia Torrance understands

the atonement to be the one act of the Mediator, God-Man. It is not only
the act of God, but also the act of God as Man vicariously done as our
acts.60
Lee notes in a footnote here that anhypostasia and enhypostasia roughly

correlates to Christ's active and passive obedience. However, it should be
noted that the terms are being used here in a sense unique from their
historical employment. Historically, anhypostasia is the doctrine which
denotes that the humanity to be assumed by the eternal Logos was not
itself personal. Enhypostasia denotes the way the humanity become per-
sonal at the incarnation by virtue of the assumption of it by the second
person of the Trinity. This distinction was never intended to describe an
act which God does vicariously on behalf of man.
Back to Torrance, homoousion means that Jesus Christ, in his God
and human complex⎯or duplex⎯is of one substance with the Father.
Here we see a development of the Eastern church doctrine of theosis.61 In
the incarnation Jesus Christ is not only divine, but his human nature
“gets taken up into the life of God” itself,62 such that “we must think of
the incarnation of the Son as falling within the eternal Life and Being of
God.”63 Given this reality it can be said “Jesus Christ the incarnate Son
is one in Being and Act with God the Father.”64 And this is how man be-
come united to and partakes in God. For the eternal Son did not only
take to himself a man (human flesh particularly) but he also took to him-
self human flesh generally. That is to say, he assumed humanity itself.
And not just neutral humanity; but sinful, fallen humanity. And here we
must recall the importance of the doctrine of the non-assumptus; that
which is not assumed can not be healed.65 Thus, it is by way of the in-
carnation that the Son of God takes up, sanctifies, kills, and makes alive
again our very corrupt nature.
2.5. Vicarious Response in the Humanity of Christ

While it may appear at times that Torrance allows for a subjective
view of union with Christ, we would be misinterpreting him if we closely
associated this with the traditional doctrine of union with Christ. In that
doctrine there is a real-time work of the Holy Spirit in our subjective ex-
perience in which we are given the gift of faith. By this faith⎯which is
our faith, albeit graciously bestowed⎯we are united to Christ. For Tor-
rance, however, no such human response is demanded for union with

61 See his discussion in The Trinitarian Faith, 139. Torrance also states: “[Christ] was not
diminished by the envelopment of the body, but on the contrary he deified it and rendered it
immortal” (188).
62 See, for instance, The Christian Doctrine of God, 95.
63 Ibid., 144.
64 Ibid., 95.
65 Torrance develops the doctrine of the non-assumptus in many places, some of which
include The Christian Doctrine of God, 250; The Mediation of Christ, 39-42; and The Trinitarian
Faith, 153-66.
Christ. And this is where his doctrine of Christ's vicarious response

comes in:
Jesus Christ is our human response to God. Thus we appear be-

fore God and are accepted by him as those who are inseparably
united to Jesus Christ our great High Priest in his eternal self-
presentation to the Father.66
This is made possible because Jesus is not merely our representative,

but our real onto-substitute. In his vicarious humanity, he acts in our
place.67 So, the faith which unites us to Christ is a faith which is already
exercised vicariously by Christ himself for us.68 On this scheme, pre-
sumably our union with Christ is never something that takes place inde-
pendent of or subsequent to the incarnation and vicarious life, death,
and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But, rather, this union takes place in
the incarnation of Jesus Christ and, by extension, in his vicarious faith.
So any disconnect which we may see elsewhere in Torrance's writings
between “objective” and “subjective” union is corrected⎯or at least fur-
ther explicated⎯by his doctrine of Christ's vicarious response for us.
This is nowhere more clear than when he closely associates Christ's vi-
carious faith and our union with him:
… we are yoked together with Jesus in his bearing our burden and are
made to share in the almighty strength and immutability of his vicarious
faith and faithfulness on our behalf. Through his incarnational and aton-
ing union with us our faith is implicated in his faith, and through that
implication, far from being depersonalized or dehumanized, it is made to
issue freely and spontaneously out of our own human life before God.69
Therefore, in his faith Christ vicariously believes on behalf of man. Thus,

all of humanity is joined to him. This event happens before God the Fa-
ther in a once and for all act of union and reconciliation. Again, Torrance
could not be more clear when he writes:
He has believed for you, fulfilled your human response to God, even
made your personal decision for you, so that he acknowledges you before
God as one who as already responded to God in him, who has already be-
lieved in God through him, and whose personal decision is already impli-
cated in Christ's self-offering to the Father, in all of which he has been
fully and completely accepted by the Father, so that in Jesus Christ you
are already accepted by him.70
Now, it is true that he goes on to say that our faith today is still impor-
tant.71 However, it is in no way essential to being united to Christ. Fur-
66 The Mediation of Christ, 80. Emphasis is his.

67 Ibid., 81.
68 Ibid., 82-3.
69 Ibid., 84. The emphasis is mine.
70 Ibid., 94.
71 Ibid., 81.
thermore, it is not necessary for salvation. Salvation is accomplished by

Christ for us in his faith, not ours.
2.6. The Son and the Spirit

Thus far we have argued that Torrance sees union with Christ as be-
ing an exclusively objective work. Union with Christ takes place by virtue
of the hypostatic union: the hypostatic union is union with Christ. This
certainly seems to be Torrance's view in his earlier writings, such as The
School of Faith and The Mediation of Christ. However, there does appear
to be some development in the thought of Torrance with reference to un-
ion with Christ. In The Trinitarian Faith, for instance, he can speak about
the work of the Holy Spirit in uniting the church to Christ. So, we may
ask, does Torrance come around to a more traditional view of union with
Christ? Does this language lead us to believe that Torrance has a place
for a subjective uniting work of the Holy Spirit of believers to Jesus
Christ?
To these questions we must answer in the negative. For when Tor-
rance speaks of the Holy Spirit's uniting the church to Christ, here he is
once again speaking wholly objectively. For here he has in view nothing
less than the Pentecost event. It is at Pentecost that the Holy Spirit, once
and for all, is poured out on the church in which Christ through the
Spirit has “united it to himself as his Body.”72 The explicit connection,
then, between the incarnation and the event of Pentecost is made by Tor-
rance when he says:
All members of the Church are united to Christ and organically cohere
with and in him as one Body in one Spirit. It was thus, for example, that
Irenaeus, as we shall see, used to speak of a oneness and communion
with Christ in the most realist sense, for there takes place in him a sote-
riological and ontological unification of people in whose midst God himself
dwells through the presence of his Spirit. This Body is what it is through
the incarnation of the Son of God in Christ who has gathered up and re-
formed the human race in himself, and through the astonishing event at
Pentecost when God poured out his own Spirit upon the apostles and dis-
ciples of the Lord Jesus thereby giving birth or rather rebirth to the Church
and making it participate in his own divine life and love.73
Any extensive reader of Torrance knows how he can pack much meaning
into few words. And so much can be said about this citation. But for our
purposes, we make just three points to bring Torrance's hyper-objective
soteriology into sharp relief.
First, notice the connection between the incarnation and the Pente-
cost event. For Torrance, the union we have in Christ in the hypostatic
union is never separated from the union we have with Christ at Pente-
cost.74 Second, it at Pentecost that the church is made to participate in
72 The Trinitarian Faith, 258.

73 Ibid., 254. Emphasis is mine.
74 This is where Lee's read of Torrance has gone bad. Lee, as developed above, rightly
sees a distinction in Torrance's thinking between union with Christ and union in Christ.
the life of the Son of God. This is Torrance's version of the participatio
Christi. And third, here Torrance's objective realism is clearly seen for at
Pentecost we have “communion with Christ in the most realist sense.”
Therefore, any idea of the believer in his life-history being united to
Christ by faith and thus having a transition from being under God's di-
vine judgment to being brought into a state of salvation is wholly absent
from Torrance's thought. According to Torrance's way of thinking, any
such transition and union has already taken place⎯once and for all⎯in
the incarnation and at Pentecost. It is all done objectively and vicariously
by Christ. Christ unites us to God in the incarnation and he unites us to
himself through pouring out the Holy Spirit upon the church at Pente-
cost. There is then no need to speak about a work of the Holy Spirit re-
generating the hearts of people today in the subjective life of the be-
liever75.
3. Scripture Speaks
It is at this point that we would do well to consider some exegetical
thoughts to “referee” between the doctrine of union with Christ in Tor-
rance and that of Calvin and the Reformed tradition. We will contend
that while it may be proper to call Torrance's doctrine of union with
Christ “Protestant” we can not in any faithful way call it “Reformed.” It so
diverges from core aspects of Reformed soteriology to make it unrecog-
nizable under the heading “Reformed.” It really is so original that it de-
serves its own distinctive category; whether that be “Barthian” or “neo-
orthodox.”
Here we must begin with a close examination of Ephesians 2:1-10.
But before we do so, some preliminary considerations are in order. And
the first consideration is to delimit the scope of our investigation and
determine clearly the goal of our exegetical work. In order to preclude
Torrance's interpretation and explication of the doctrine of union with
Christ as being exclusively objective and incarnational in nature, all we
However, Lee interprets that as meaning a distinction between objective and subjective
aspects of salvation. However, for Torrance both aspects are objective and refer to the two
aspects⎯incarnation and Pentecost⎯of one event.
75 However, see ibid., 261 where Torrance speaks of “the regenerating gift of the Holy
Spirit” in the context of speaking about the Church's union with Christ. Nevertheless, given
his previously cited language of the Holy Spirit giving “rebirth” to the church at Pentecost, we
must interpret Torrance's language of regeneration in the light of his objective understanding
of rebirth at Pentecost. Likewise, see ibid., 265, in which Torrance speaks about our union
coming from the Holy Spirit dwelling in us. Well, how does the Holy Spirit dwell in us? In the
traditional sense in which Calvin spoke of the Holy Spirit dwelling in us thus uniting us to
Christ? Not at all. But this indwelling is again connected to the incarnation and “takes place
in Christ, the incarnate Son [and] it involves a somatic and not just a spiritual union in and
with him.” It is a “union between Christ and the members of his Body as established by
incarnation and atonement” (266). Further, we are “rooted in Christ and united together with
him through incarnation ….” (267-8).
The modus operandi of Torrance seems to be to first radically redefine traditional
orthodox language, and then continue to employ that language in seemingly traditional ways.
Yet, we must go back⎯time and again⎯to his initial re-definitions to properly interpret later
formulations. Only in this way can we do justice to the intricate thought of this profound and
complex theologian.
need to show exegetically is that union with Christ has a subjective ele-
ment to it. That brings us then necessarily to our second consideration;
namely, a subjective understanding of union with Christ (or, that the
Bible teaches an ordo salutis) does not preclude the objective element. In
other words, the attempt here to show that there is an existential union
with Christ in the life of the believer⎯that is, a real live transition from
wrath to grace⎯does not negate the all important reality of the finished
work of Christ and his people's union with him in the redemptive-
historical sphere. Nor does it cancel out the important element of the
elect's eternal union with Christ by virtue of the pre-temporal decree of
God as one finds in Ephesians 1:4-12. And lastly, disproving Barth's
claim that union with Christ occurs at the incarnation will not be ac-
complished directly. Nor does it need to be. Here we are attacking the
premise that union with Christ occurs exclusively at the incarnation, not
that union with Christ occurs at all at the incarnation. Hypothetically we
can think of someone contending that Barth teaches that union with
Christ occurs only proleptically at the incarnation but is subjectively re-
alized in the life of the believer. While it is our opinion that such a formu-
lation is untenable according to the Scriptural witness, nevertheless dis-
proving it is not our goal here. Our goal will be restricted to disproving
the claim that union with Christ occurs exclusively in an objective sense.
With that being said, let us examine the text of Ephesians 2:1-10 in
detail. The first question that comes to mind as we approach this pas-
sage is: what does Paul mean when in v. 5 he says that we were made
alive together with Christ, sunezwopoi,hsen tw/| Cristw/|? Reformed exegetes
are not altogether united on the answer to this question. For instance, as
R. B. Gaffin notes, Herman Ridderbos reads this expression in an exclu-
sively redemptive-historical and objective sense.76 In other words, Rid-
derbos excludes the idea that Paul is speaking about an ordo salutis mat-
ter here77. When Paul says that we were made alive with Christ, what
Paul is referring to is the resurrection of Christ as the representative of
his people. Thus, he is not referring to an existential change or shift in
the life of the sinner-become-believer. It is not a reference to an inner,
subjective transformation by which a person is brought from spiritual
death to life. In a move that Barth would be comfortable with, Ridderbos
states that it is as if Paul is saying that Christ in his objective redemptive
work dies and comes to life again with the humanity that he represents.
Granted, the grammar of the text allows for this interpretation. The
verb sunezwopoi,hsen is in the aorist, thus indicative of a past event. How-
ever, the context makes it impossible. The condition of the sinner-
turned-believer before being sunezwopoi,hsen tw/| Cristw/| is nothing less
than h`ma/j nekrou.j toi/j paraptw,masin, dead in our trespasses (5a). This
harks back to the opening of the pericope in v. 1 where Paul states that
u`ma/j o;ntaj nekrou.j toi/j paraptw,masin kai. tai/j a`marti,aij u`mw/n, you were
76 Richard B. Gaffin, Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul's Soteriology
(Phillipsburg: P&R, 1987) 42.

77 Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975)
211.
dead in your trespasses and sins. In other words, if the being made alive
in 5b is a reference to the objective and redemptive-historical event of
Christ's resurrection, then the being dead in sins and trespasses must be
a reference also to Christ's death. Now, initially, we might think that
there is something to this. After all, according to Paul, on the cross
Christ become sin (2 Corinthians 5:21) and thus bore the just punish-
ment for the sins of others, which is death (Romans 6:23). However, as
Paul expands on his and his reader's sins and trespasses in vv. 2 and 3,
we see that this interpretation is impossible. The sins mentioned in v. 1
are the sins evn ai-j pote periepath,sate kata. to.n aivw/na tou/ ko,smou tou,tou, in
which you once walked according to the way of this world.78 This means
that Paul must be speaking about his and his reader's life experiences,
and not the redemptive-historical experience of Christ. Otherwise, we
would have to conclude that Jesus walked around in sins that are after
the ways of this present evil age (cf. Galatians 1:4). This conclusion
would go well beyond even Barth's formulation of the non-assumptus.79
For Barth the eternal Logos took on fallen, sinful human flesh but he
never “walked in” any actual sins and trespasses. Otherwise, we would
have to conclude that Christ, walked kata. to.n a;rconta th/j evxousi,aj tou/
ave,roj, following the prince of the authority of the air. Gaffin helpfully ex-
pounds the relation of v. 5b with its surrounding context:
… the conclusion that [Paul] is describing what has taken place for be-
lievers existentially is difficult to avoid … Clearly this 'being dead' is not
solidaric involvement with Christ in his death, for it is 'being dead in
transgressions'. In view is the actual, existential deadness of Paul and
his readers … Specifically, [verses 2 and 3] provide an extended descrip-
tion of the former moral depravity and guilt of Paul and his readers …
Consequently, the enlivening and resurrection, which took place when
they were dead as just defined, at least includes the initial experience of
transformation and ethical renewal.80
So, are Paul's comments about objective or subjective salvation? The an-
swer is yes. While his comments here are about the subjective appropria-
tion of Christ's benefits, they are always and everywhere conditioned by
the objective work of Christ. So, Gaffin can conclude, “While the apos-
tles's perspectives are certainly heilshistorisch, his primary interest is
decidedly heilsordelijk.”81
Thus far we have argued for what we believe Paul is not saying in our
passage. We have excluded the possibility that when he speaks about
being raised with Christ that he is speaking about Christ's resurrection
in redemptive history⎯though his comments are never to be understood
apart from that all important event. So, what then is he saying? Here we
begin with the o;ntaj of v. 5a. This is the present, active, participle of the
verb eimi. And as such carries with it a temporal force.82 In other words,
78 My translation.
79 That is, the idea that the eternal Logos took on fallen human flesh. See CD I/2, 151.
80 Gaffin, Resurrection and Redemption, 42-3. Emphasis is mine.
81 Ibid., 43.
82 As per Gaffin. Idem.
it is in and during the time of death⎯that is the death of Paul and his
readers⎯that something occurs. It is in their life history when their inner
spiritual state was characterized by a life of death, sin, rebellion that
something happens. What happened? God (the subject of the clause, as
established by v. 4a) made us alive with Christ (tw/| Cristw/)| . The question
then becomes, what does Paul mean here by tw/| Cristw/|? What is the ex-
act force of the dative case? Most naturally, especially given the prefix
sun in the preceding verb, the noun here is a dative of association.83 The
meaning then being: God made us alive⎯a work elsewhere in Paul at-
tributed to God the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13; Titus 3:5; cf. Ezek. 37:14)⎯by
bringing us into association with and taking us into the company of
Christ.
This interpretation is further confirmed by v. 6. Again, employing the
prefix sun to the two main verbs, Paul is emphasizing the togetherness of
the believer with Christ in his current resurrected and glorified state.
This time, however, Paul uses the more familiar prepositional clause evn
Cristw/|. The use of the preposition here is epexegetical with reference to
the previous verses' use of the dative. Here the preposition plus dative
denotes a dative of sphere.84 What Paul means is that we have been
raised up and seated in the sphere of Christ. We are where Christ now is.
So, the quickening of the sinner-made-believer mentioned in v. 5 has its
further explication, and we might even say end result, in the bringing of
the one made alive into the very place where Christ is. Thus, the believer
is both brought to and joined with Jesus Christ by virtue of the quicken-
ing work of God the Holy Spirit.
This is what it means to be united to Christ. It is an event in the ex-
periential life of the sinner-become-believer which is subsequent to⎯al-
though by no means disconnected from⎯the redemptive-historical act of
God in the incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and glorification of Je-
sus Christ. Barth and his followers have wanted to do away with the
supposed dualism in traditional Reformed theology between the object
and subjective aspects of soteriology. However, all they have done is col-
lapse the latter into the former. Contrary to this tact, Reformed soteriol-
ogy⎯at its best anyway⎯has distinguished between the two aspects
without separating them.85 This can hardly be deemed a “dualism.” Could
it be that Torrance was boxing against an antagonist of his own making?
It would seem so. Especially given the fact that a careful and thorough
exegesis of Ephesians 1 and 2 shows that for the apostle Paul union with
Christ has three aspects to it⎯none of which cancel out the other two.
83 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1996) 159-60.
84 Ibid., 175.
85 And this is precisely where the work of R. B. Gaffin, Jr. has proven so helpful. It might
be argued that an element within Reformed soteriology tended to unduly separated historia
salutis and ordo salutis. Many have reacted against this disconnection⎯especially in
Barthian, New Perspective, and Federal Vision theological circles⎯in such a way that the ordo
salutis is all but jettisoned or swallowed up into the historia salutis. Gaffin, however, brings to
the foreground the historia salutis without doing away with the ordo salutis. In other words, he
gives the ordo salutis its rightful place in a thoroughly biblical soteriology.
Ephesians 1:3-11 clearly teaches an eternal union with Christ by way of

God's sovereign decree. Ephesians 1:15-23 has in view Christ as our rep-
resentative head in his salvific work prior to and objective from us in the
history of redemption. And the text we examined here, Ephesians 2:1-10,
clear speaks about how we have been joined and united to Christ in our
real life histories.
4. Union with Christ in Calvin

At this point we are now in a better position to address the question
of the relation between Torrance's explication of union with Christ and
that of John Calvin. At first glance, it may seem as if Torrance does fit
within the tradition of Calvin. After all, the Genevan Reformer describes
the incarnation in this way:
… it was necessary for the Son of God to become for us 'Immanuel' … in

such a way that his divinity and our human nature might by mutual
connection grow together. Otherwise the nearness would not have been
near enough, nor the affinity sufficiently firm, for us to hope that God
might dwell with us.86
As T. Hart has pointed up concerning this statement of Calvin's, it ap-

pears as if the definitive union requisite for reconciliation and atonement
is provided in the incarnation. He argues that here Calvin is equating
incarnation, atonement, reconciliation, and union.87
However, upon a closer read of Calvin we see that Torrance's doc-
trine of union with Christ and that of Calvin's couldn't be more opposite.
For instance, consider Calvin's well-know maxim which we find at the
beginning of book three of the Institutes:
First, we must understand that as long as Christ remains outside us,

and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the
salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us.88
This quotation comes from the third book of the Institutes, which is enti-
tled “The Way in Which We Receive the Grace of Christ: What Benefits
Come to Us From It, And What Effects Follow.” The title of the book and
the aforementioned formulation of the relationship between Christ's work
and the believer should make clear the radical difference between Calvin
and Torrance. Commenting on the title and then the same words quoted
above, R. B. Gaffin observes:
86 Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeil (Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1960) II.XII.1. Hereafter, cited as Institutes with book, chapter, and section. This is
cited by Hart, “Humankind in Christ and Christ in Humankind: Salvation as Participation In
Our Substitute in the Theology of John Calvin,” SJT 42 (1989): 83. He cites this passage to
support his thesis that for Calvin “… the Incarnation is the Atonement. God and man have
been reconciled in their personal union in Christ.” Emphasis is his.
87 “Humankind in Christ,” 83.
88 Institutes III.I.I.
This title plainly shows that Calvin understands himself to be concerned

throughout with the application of salvation, its 'benefits' and conse-
quent 'effects'… on the matter at hand no more important words have
been written than these. Incisively and in a fundamental way, they ad-
dress both the necessity and nature of application, the basic concerns of
an ordo salutis.89
To be sure, Calvin is not advocating a dualism between Christ's finished

work on the one hand and the application of that work on the other. But
what he does do is make a careful distinction. As Gaffin points up, a
careful balance is struck between the historia salutis and ordo salutis. We
can even go so far as to say that in his thinking the historia takes prior-
ity. Without the history of God's redemption in Christ⎯without Christ in
all of his objective glory extra nos⎯there is nothing to apply. Neverthe-
less, as long as Christ's person and work remain extra nos and never in
nobis, he remains a nebulous, nominalistic ideal. He never enters into
us⎯into our lives⎯in the here and now. Without the application of
Christ and all his benefits to us, Christ himself remains “of no use to us.”
And so, to prevent any accusation of a “legal fiction”⎯particularly as
it was leveled against the Reformers by the counter-Reformation⎯Calvin
responded with his doctrine of union with Christ. Furthermore, in this
section of the Institutes Calvin also has in view his controversy with Osi-
ander (which originally took place in the context of the debates between
the Lutheran and Reformed over the Lord's Supper). Calvin found himself
in the middle with Rome's accusations of a legal fiction on the one side,
and Osiander's formulations on the other. Osiander⎯himself trying to
provide an answer to the charge of a “legal fiction”⎯taught a doctrine of
union with Christ in which Christ's divine attribute of righteousness be-
came man's in justification.90 This, however, came way too close to vio-
lating the creator/creature distinction for Calvin. So, he responded with
two “limiting concepts”⎯union and imputation. Union is what prevents a
“legal fiction” (contra Rome); imputation is what prevents a communicatio
idiomatum (contra Osiander). Its in this controversial milieu that Calvin
states the following about the relation between Christ's person and work
in the believer:
There is good reason for the repeated mention of the 'testimony of the
Spirit,' a testimony we feel engraved like a seal upon our heart, with the
result that it seals the cleansing and sacrifice of Christ … in order that
the shedding of his sacred blood may not be nullified, our souls are
cleansed by the secret watering of the Spirit … to sum up, the Holy Spirit
is the bond by which Christ effectually unites us to himself.91
89 Richard B. Gaffin, “Biblical Theology and the Westminster Standards,” WTJ 65/2
(2003): 170.
90 On this debate, and its implications for justification and the doctrine of union with
Christ, see Mark A. Garcia, “Imputation and the Christology of Union with Christ: Calvin,
Osiander, and the Contemporary Quest for a Reformed Model,” WTJ 68/2 (2006): 219-51.
91 Institutes, III.I.1.
On the one hand we have Calvin's concern for the historia salutis (i.e.,
“the shedding of his sacred blood”), and on the other hand the applica-
tion of the work of Christ to us subjectively (i.e., “our souls are cleansed
… by which Christ effectually unites us to himself”). Here Calvin holds in
balance and proportion the twin soteriological elements: redemption ac-
complished and redemption applied. This is further clarified by Calvin in
a statement which surely Torrance would not have approved of:
We know, moreover, that he benefits only those whose 'Head' he is, for
whom he is 'the firstborn among brethren' … This union alone ensures
that, as far as we are concerned, he has not unprofitably come with the
name of Savior … But he unites himself to us by the Spirit alone. By the
grace and power of the same Spirit we are made his members, to keep us
under himself and in turn to possess him.92
The union that is effected by the Holy Spirit assures that Christ's name
as Savior is not in vain. What does Calvin mean by this? Basically, he is
restating in different terms what he said at the opening of Book III: as
long as Christ remains outside of us, he of no profit to us. He does not
actually save anyone without the “benefit” of his work being applied. Re-
demption must not only be given and wrought, but it must also be ap-
plied and received in the here and now of the believer's life. For Torrance,
the giving and the receiving of redemption both take place at once and
the same time in the incarnation. For Calvin, the giving and receiving of
redemption are two distinct⎯though never separated⎯events in the plan
of salvation.
After a lengthy section on the doctrine of sanctification (chapters 2-
10 of book III), Calvin then enters into a discussion of the doctrine of jus-
tification in chapter 11. In the opening section of this chapter, he ex-
plains why it is that he treated the doctrine of sanctification before justi-
fication. He did so to show how “it was more to the point to understand
first how little devoid of good works is the faith through which alone we
obtain free righteousness.”93 This is a clear reference to the charges of
Rome that the Reformation doctrine of justification was a “legal fiction”
and did not allow for any renewal in the life of the believer. Calvin's re-
sponse was that union with Christ yields a two-fold grace (duplex gratia)
which flows from that union: justification and regeneration (“regenera-
tion” is used here synonymously with our term “sanctification”). In other
words, where there is justification there is sanctification. Where there is
a legal declaration of righteousness, there is also moral renewal. In
Christ these two benefits are never separated, although⎯and this is all
important⎯they are never confused either. Thus, sanctification flows
from the believer's union with Christ, and not from his justification. If it
did flow from justification, the latter would have a transforming power (a
notion Calvin wanted to avoid at all cost).
In addition, Calvin goes on to introduce the concept of imputation.
And here is the second prong of his defense⎯this time against Osiander.
92 Institutes, III.I.3.
93 Institutes, III.XI.1.
Whereas Osiander wanted to posit the actual divine attribute of Christ's

righteousness as the “stuff” of man's justification, Calvin spoke about
imputation as the way to maintain the creator/creature distinction and
avoid a communicatio idiomatum. So, justification is not to be confused
with sanctification but is rather
… simply … the acceptance with which God receives us into his favor as
righteous men. And we say that it consists in the remission of sins and
the imputation of Christ's righteousness … Therefore, 'to justify' means
nothing else than to acquit of guilt him who was accused, as if his inno-
cence were confirmed. Therefore, since God justifies us by the interces-
sion of Christ, he absolves us not by the confirmation of our own inno-
cence, but by the imputation of righteousness.94
Here imputation accomplishes two things. First, it distinguishes jus-

tification from sanctification (however, union with Christ limits the dis-
tinction between these two benefits such that they are never sepa-
rated).95 And, second, it distinguishes the nature and essence of the
believer and Christ⎯all the while keeping both believer and Christ un-
separated by virtue of the union involved. This sets the table for his po-
lemic against Osiander in sections 5-12 of III.XI. Its here that he explains
that Osiander's view of “essential righteousness” not only confuses the
divine essence of Christ with the human essence of man96, but it con-
fuses justification and sanctification as well.97
Much more may be said concerning the (radical) differences between
Calvin and Torrance on the doctrine of union with Christ. However, we
have space here for only one more point. The idea of union with Christ
being understood along incarnational lines is not new within the devel-
opment of Torrance's soteriology and Barth before him. In Calvin's own
day such a view was propounded, discussed, and outright rejected by
him and his followers. A classic example is found in Calvin's correspon-
dence with Peter Martyr Vermigli, the Italian reformer. This correspon-
dence, explored in depth with reference to the doctrine of union with
Christ by W. D. Rankin,98 mentions three “strata” on union with Christ:
1) incarnational, 2) mystical, and 3) spiritual. Vermigli describes the in-
carnational union between Christ and man as being a natural and non-
redemptive union; thus making it “very general and feeble.”99 It is signifi-
cant how Calvin responds to this formulation. It is true that concerning
94 Institutes, III.XI.2-3.
95 Herman Bavinck puts it succinctly when he writes, “in his opposition to Osiander,
Calvin makes a sharp distinction between justification and sanctification, for the former is a
purely forensic act; but he never separates the two and consistently keeps them very closely
connected … Christ does not justify anyone whom he does not also at the same time sanctify.
We, accordingly, are not justified by works, but neither are we justified without works.”
Reformed Dogmatics: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation; v. IV (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008)
200.
96 At one point Calvin states that Osiander's view is bordering on Manichaeism,
Institutes, III.XI.5.
97 Institutes, III.XI.6.
98 Rankin, “Carnal Union,” 176-189.
99 Mark A. Garcia, Life in Christ: Union with Christ and Twofold Grace in Calvin's Theology
(Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2008) 275.

Vermigli's letter Calvin says “we entirely agree in sentiment.”100 However,

concerning the idea of incarnational union specifically, he all but ignores
it. How are we to take his silence? Rankin offers the following explana-
tion:
There is no hint of duplicity in Calvin's dealings with Martyr here. Calvin

is comfortable passing over incarnational communion when answering
Peter Martyr's plea for his own frank opinion on the doctrine of union
with Christ. Martyr and Calvin were very close in their mutual theology,
friendship, and regard at this point in their lives. Thus, it is patently un-
reasonable to suspect that in passing over incarnational communion
Calvin had something to hide. In disregarding the topic, is Calvin not im-
plying that the wider subject can be adequately treated without it?101
The obvious answer to Rankin's question here is “yes.” Calvin ignores the
idea because it really does not pertain to the issue at hand, which is re-
demptive in nature. He hurries on to mystical and spiritual union be-
cause the nature of incarnational union is non-redemptive and “feeble.”
This view of incarnational union, then, stands worlds apart from that
found in Torrance. For the Scottish professor, incarnational union is so-
teric in nature and universal in scope. For Calvin and Vermigli, however,
this union does not reconcile or atone in and of itself. In other words,
Torrance believes that the incarnation effects man's union with Christ
and thus his redemption; however, for Calvin the incarnation does not
effect a redeeming union between Christ and man. For Torrance union
with Christ takes place exclusively in the incarnation; for Calvin union
with Christ is something which happens by the Holy Spirit's work in us.
A more pronounced difference between two views could not be drawn.
Conclusion and Evaluation

What T. F. Torrance (and those Barthian theologians who think along
his lines) has done for theology should not be underestimated; even given
some of the above crucial reservations. Torrance⎯given his disdain for
dualisms⎯has reminded us not to tear asunder what God hath joined
together. He has reminded us that we ought not to polarize the humanity
and divinity of Christ in such a way that we fall into Docetism on the one
hand, or Arianism on the other. His disdain for dualism, and his search
for a grand unifying theory of theology, forms the guts of his theological
program. With these things in mind, he offers us some possibilities for a
future constructive theology and apologetic against modern day Arian-
ism. Also helpful has been his reminder that we ought not to think about
faith (i.e., our faith) as some autonomous creature that we must awaken
in order to make Christ's atonement effectual. He is mistaken, however,
to replace the believer's personal faith as the alone instrument by which
he is united to Christ with Jesus’ vicarious faith and faithfulness. Here
we cannot help noticing that the dualism which Torrance so vehemently
100 Ibid., 276 ff.

101 Rankin, “Carnal Union,” 188.
decries is still resident in his thinking. Even so, in so much as he re-

minds us not to obsess over our own subjective experiences, but to look
outside of ourselves to Christ instead, he has hinted at ways to building
a constructive soteriology.
Nevertheless, these positive elements in the thinking of T. F. Tor-
rance are far outweighed by his problematic proposals. This is evident in
at least two ways. First, in his unifying program in which all dualism are
eliminated, all important theological distinctions seem to get tossed as
well.102 On the basis of the exegesis of Scripture, we must stand with
Calvin and his understanding of the need of the application of Christ's
benefits to us “here and now” by virtue of the Holy Spirit's uniting us to
Christ by faith. Or⎯to use the categories so helpfully set out by Calvin,
Ridderbos, and Gaffin⎯in so much as the historia salutis stands outside
of us and apart from the ordo salutis, Christ is of no use to us.
Second, given the correlative doctrines of the homoousion and non-
assumptus, one is lead to wonder how Torrance can possibly avoid a sin-
ful God. If Jesus Christ⎯in his human and divine complex⎯is divinized
(made to be of one substance with the Father), and if one aspect of that
complex is sinful humanity, then would it not follow that God⎯at the
incarnation⎯becomes sinful? Elsewhere, this form of thinking does lead
Torrance to advance a doctrine of divine passibility103. But what is good
for one aspect of the life of Christ must be good for another. If homo-
ousion and the non-assumptus lead Torrance to conclude divine passibil-
ity, then what is to stop us from concluding divine peccability? Once Tor-
rance allows for the creation to constitute the divine nature, what is to
prevent us from affirming a sinful God? This problem remains unan-
swered by Barthian theologians.
To be sure, we want to be careful to avoid all unbiblical dualisms.
But just because a theological formulation is in the form of a dualism,
doesn't necessarily make it unbiblical. The Bible itself makes use of dual-
istic concepts. A case in point is the twofold way in which Scripture
speaks about Christ's finished work on the one hand, and the application
of the benefits of that work on the other. For Torrance “union with
Christ” is swallowed up by “union in Christ.” The unio mystica disap-
pears into unio hypostasia, and the ordo salutis is collapsed into the his-
toria salutis. If traditional theology has been guilty of rending asunder
what God hath joined together, then Torrance is guilty of joining together
what God hath deemed distinct. And now, we are back to the wisdom of
Chalcedon. As with the two natures in one person, so with many Chris-
102 Rankin, 55ff. Here Rankin helpfully explores Torrance's thought and shows that from
very early on (in fact from the days of his lecturing at Auburn Theological Seminary where his
notes were hastily put together) this idea of unifying theology such that the traditional
distinctions were all but dissolved. Some of the instances Rankin cites are: the active and
passive obedience of Christ, his person and work, the being of God and his act, the hypostatic
union and atonement, the two natures of Christ, and of course incarnation union and union
with Christ. It is not an overstatement to say that the architectonic concept holding together
all of Torrance's thought is the unifying and eliminating of theological-conceptual dualism.
103 The Trinitarian Faith, 185.
tian doctrines: we must distinguish without separating and join without

confusing.104
104 A classic example of this is found in the Trinitarian theology of Karl Rahner where he
eliminates any distinction between the ontological and economic Trinity in his famous maxim,
“The imminent Trinity is the economic Trinity.” This flows from, of course, Barth's identifying
God's being with his acts. For a traditional response, see Dennis W. Jowers, "A Test of Karl
Rahner's Axiom, 'The Economic Trinity is the Immanent Trinity and Vice Versa,'" Thomist,
70:3 (2006): 421-55.

Cassidy 19

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cassidy 19

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cassidy 19

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MJT 19 (2008) 165-194

1 Alister E. McGrath, Thomas F. Torrance: An Intellectual Biography (Edinburgh: T&T

1. Three Current Torrance Interpreters

1.2 Elmer M. Colyer

… the hypostatic union is a reconciling union in which the Son of God

8 Colyer, How to Read T. F. Torrance, 84.

Notice here⎯contrary to what Colyer said earlier⎯there is now a dualism

Thus theosis/theopoiesis is closely related to this relational imago Dei, for

We should not think of the Holy Spirit, Torrance argues, as a substitute

The Holy Spirit's work is described as an act of sealing to us what Christ

1.3. Kye Won Lee

This incarnational union of Christ with us is an indissoluble ontological

Torrance's doctrine of grace is characterized by its objectivity. He restores

18 Lee, Living in Union with Christ, 121.

But that is not all. According to Lee, Torrance so objectivizes salva-

Union in [emphasis his] Christ, for Torrance, is viewed as a 'natural law'

The all important distinction that must be pointed up is that between

Torrance holds to a theology of objectivity in or to maintain the basic

We can greatly appreciate Lee's theological instincts at this point. He ap-

In this way all of our redemption is accomplished in our union with

1.4. W. Duncan Rankin

What Rankin has in view is Torrance's appropriation of John Craig's lan-

This universal incarnational union Torrance identifies with Scottish Re-

29 W. Duncan Rankin, “Carnal Union with Christ in the Theology of T. F. Torrance”

(Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1997).

In other words⎯standing against the tradition of Reformed theology to

On the ground of our ontological union, carnal union connection to

34 “Carnal Union with Christ,” 126-7.

2. Torrance on Union with Christ

2.2. Setting the Context

36 Quoted in ibid., 137.

tively conceived. Torrance seeks to develop a rigorous “scientific” theology

2.3. Monism over Dualism?

Within the dialogue of the divine-human life of Jesus, as the self-giving of

And so it is in this act or Christ-event (and in this event alone) that

37See Colyer, How to Read T. F. Torrance, 21.

The Holy Spirit is instrumental in the incarnation, thus communicating

In connection with this we are to understand the receiving of the

Our receiving of the Spirit is objectively grounded in and derives from

It is illuminating to recognize that subjective justification as well as ob-

This seems to leave place neither for a subjective appropriation of the

2.4. Homoousion, Perichoresis, and Hypostatic Union

Christian Doctrine of God, 95.

Here Torrance's realistic epistemology and ontology comes to its clearest

… that was the evangelical significance of the homoousion formulated at

52 The Mediation of Christ, 112.

Furthermore, this act of hypostatic union is understood in the form of a

By the couplet of anhypostasia and enhypostasia Torrance understands

Lee notes in a footnote here that anhypostasia and enhypostasia roughly

2.5. Vicarious Response in the Humanity of Christ

60 Lee, Living in Union with Christ, 188.

Christ. And this is where his doctrine of Christ's vicarious response

Jesus Christ is our human response to God. Thus we appear be-

This is made possible because Jesus is not merely our representative,

Therefore, in his faith Christ vicariously believes on behalf of man. Thus,

66 The Mediation of Christ, 80. Emphasis is his.

thermore, it is not necessary for salvation. Salvation is accomplished by

2.6. The Son and the Spirit

72 The Trinitarian Faith, 258.