[TruthTalk] Fw: Torrance

[Judy Taylor]

Lance, I would like to be able to agree with you and Jonathan about this man's teaching but from where I sit it is downright dangerous.  His Good News is all God and none of us.  So is this in line with the clear teaching of God's Word?  I understand he is a super smart theologian but I can not find his terminology anywhere in scripture.  Vicarious sacrifice and unilateral covenant are theological words as are the "Christ event" and "incarnational theology"   I understand that in going to the Cross Jesus did for us what we could never have done for ourselves and he has provided a way for us to be free from the power and the presence of sin in our lives because he loves us.  However, I can see no precedent in all of God's dealings with mankind for this "unilateral" idea.  Sure it's always His power but even his power will not avail for disobedient children.   For instance look at Israel's deliverance out of Egypt; God gave them specific instructions about housecleaning, killing a lamb for each household, putting blood on the lintels of the door etc.  So what if some families resisted all this because God loved them anyway (since they were Abraham's seed and children of the covenant) and they didn't want to kill the sweet little lamb who had been a household pet much less eat it when the children were so attached to it and anyway the wife did not feel like cleaning house and throwing out all that leaven, what a waste. Would God's love and unilateral covenant cover them in this or would these rebellious ones be cut off?  IOW Does God really mean what He says or can we totally push the envelope and get away with it because He loves us?  judyt     From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: April 25, 2005 19:38 Subject: Torrance     > I know I sent this to you a few weeks ago but it is so good I am sending > it again. > > JBH > > “The covenant between God and Israel was not a covenant between God and > a holy people, but precisely the reverse. It was a covenant established > out of pure grace between God and Israel in its sinful, rebellious and > estranged existence. Hence, no matter how rebellious or sinful Israel > was, it could not escape from the covenant love and faithfulness of God… > There were evidently critical moments in Israel’s history when it seemed > ready to do anything to flout the will of God in hope of breaking loose > from the grip of his unswerving love and of escaping from the painful > transformation of its existence that relations with ‘the Holy One of > Israel’ involved. No, the covenant was not made with holy people, nor > did its validity depend upon a contractual fulfillment of its conditions > on the part of Israel, for its was a unilateral covenant which depended > for its fulfillment upon the unconditional grace of God and the > unrelenting purpose of reconciliation which he had pledged to work out > through Israel for all peoples. And therefore…it depended upon a > vicarious way of response to the love of God which God himself provided > within the covenant—a way of response which he set out in the liturgy of > atoning sacrifice and which he insisted on translating into the very > existence of Israel in its vocation as ‘servant of the Lord.’ > > “…the more fully God gave himself to this people, the more he forced it > to be what it actually was, what we all are, in the self-willed > isolation of fallen humanity from God. Thus the movement of God’s > reconciling love toward Israel not only revealed Israel’s sin but > intensified it. That intensification, however, is not to be regarded > simply as an accidental result of the covenant but rather as something > which God deliberately took into the full design of his reconciling > activity, for it was the will and the way of God’s grace to effect > reconciliation with man at his very worst, precisely in his state of > rebellion against God. That is to say, *in his marvelous wisdom and love > God worked out in Israel a way of reconciliation* which does not depend > on the worth of men and women, but makes their very sin in rebellion > against him the means by which he binds them for ever to himself and > through which he reconstitutes their relations with him in such a way > that their true end is fully and perfectly realized in unsullied > communion with himself. > > “That is the way in which we are surely to interpret the Incarnation, in > which God has drawn so near to man and drawn man so near to himself in > Jesus that they are perfectly at one. In Jesus the problematic presence > of God to Israel, the distance of his nearness and the nearness of his > distance, which so deeply trouble the soul of the psalmists and prophets > alike, was brought to its resolution” (T.F. Torrance, /The Mediation of > Christ/, pp. 28-29). > >     ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org   If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.