Thomas F. Torrance

Según Max Ernst Mayer las exculpación excluyen la culp decir, son las que absuelven juicio de reproche. La Exculpabilidad. Según Max Ernst Mayer las causas de exculpación excluyen la culpabilidad, es decir, son las que a Sin embargo para Jiménez de Asúa las excusas que absuelven las causas vuelven a un acto típico

At the heart of T. F. Torrance's theology is a pattern of exchange-in the incarnation, the Son of God takes what is ours only to make what is his ours. This pattern of exchange also frames Torrance's biblical exegesis, of which Jesus' baptism in the Gospel of Mark is a prime example. He interprets Jesus' baptism as a clear indication of his assumption of fallen flesh and vicarious repentance. This reading goes well beyond what biblical commentators think the passage intends. The distance between Torrance's theological interpretation and a historical-critical reading of Jesus' baptism raises two questions that this essay shall address. First, what is the basis for Torrance's hermeneutic? Second, does his unapologetic theological approach help us to grasp the meaning of Jesus' Baptism? I will argue that Torrance's unapologetic theological reading of Jesus' baptism illumines the Markan Christology implicit in the Gospel's narrative.

Christian spirituality is often "activist." It consists in the performance of various actions through which a faithful person attempts to secure the presence of God. The argument of the present essay is that spiritual "activism" cannot actually accomplish this goal. For this reason, it is necessary to seek a foundation for all spiritual activism in spiritual "inactivism." This means that all Christian spiritual activity must be reconceived as a response to and celebration of a prior presence of God that comes before any performance. The phenomenological philosophy of Michel Henry makes it possible to appreciate how God is so present in the very fact of being alive. This can make the whole of Christian spiritual practice a Eucharist – a perpetual thanksgiving.

Abstract: T. F. Torrance, in the midst of early modern ecumenical dialogue, presented an ecclesial ontology robustly informed and determined by Christological categories. This is nowhere more evident than in his interpretation of the biblical image of the church as the “body of Christ.” In contrast to mystical interpretations of the image, Torrance argues that the “body of Christ” should be understood as an incarnational analogy. Christ’s humanity, resurrected and ascended, is the “essence” of the church. The church becomes what it already is in Christ by conforming to the newness of his humanity. In this way, Torrance constructs a powerful Protestant and ecumenical account of the church’s being-in-becoming. The uniqueness and ecumenical purchase of Torrance’s proposal are here demonstrated.

Agreement about theosis in the Orthodox-Reformed dialogues played a strategic role in the ecumenical recovery of the patristic doctrine of deification and its emergence as a locus of Reformed theology. Ecumenical dialogue helped dispel the idea that theosis is a distinctively Orthodox doctrine incompatible with the Western tradition. This idea was first propounded in the nineteenth-century by Albrecht Ritschl, Ferdinand Kattenbusch, Adolf von Harnack and others associated with the Ritschlian school. It was later appropriated by Émigré Orthodox scholars. Orthodox-Reformed dialogue helped correct this and other misconceptions about theosis. This began informally in correspondence between Thomas F. Torrance and Georges Florovsky and continued in formal dialogue meetings. Orthodox-Reformed dialogue also highlighted patristic ways of thinking about salvation that were not then prominent in Reformed theology. However, as the Reformed participants consulted the works of John Calvin, they realized that he shared those patristic ways of thinking. Today Reformed theologians are eager contributors to the ecumenical recovery of theosis. They increasingly discuss theosis as a doctrine native to the Reformed tradition.

For Torrance, Trinitarian theology is an ecumenical endeavor. This thesis examines T. F. Torrance’s Trinitarian theology as it relates to his efforts toward ecumenical rapprochement across the East-West divide. More specifically, Torrance’s Trinitarianism must be understood in light of his criticism of Augustinianism, whereby he issues a consciously ‘contra-Augustinian’ Trinitarian ontology—specifically on the points of the “Triune monarchy” and “perichoretic procession.” The way to see the above is to filter Torrance’s Trinitarian theology through the lens of his dogmatic methodology—that is, his unique integration of historical, constructive, and ecumenical concerns. In the end, Torrance’s ecumenical advance on the Trinity is only possible by cutting behind the Augustinian dualism in both the West and East.

This dissertation seeks to present a constructive theology from the perspective of Third Culture Kids (TCKs). TCKs are persons who, due to their parents’ occupation, have spent a significant time of their developmental years outside of their parents’ home culture. While taking part in their parents’ home culture (first culture) and host culture (second culture), their sense of belonging tends to be with others of a similar background (third culture). TCKs, shaped by high mobility and cross-cultural experience, often have a sense of living betwixt and between different worlds and carry with them questions of identity and belonging. This research proposes a theological answer to TCKs’ questions of identity and belonging.
First, the potential role of faith in the development of TCKs identity is examined. Faith provides TCKs with an internal locus of integrity and facilitates the consolidation of a fragmented identity on a higher level. Second, key concepts for understanding the experience of TCKs are identified to serve as themes with which to construct a meaningful theology for TCKs. Transculturality, liminality, non-place, liquid modernity, and constructive marginality and mediation are identified as relevant concepts capable of capturing the experience of feeling both at home everywhere and nowhere. Third, having identified key themes for a TCK theology, three areas of theology are addressed to propose a vision of Christianity capable of resonating with TCKs. The doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine of the person of Christ, and the doctrine of salvation and human identity in God are contextualized utilizing Nozomu Miyahira’s theology of ‘betweenness’, Emil Brunner’s doctrine of the identity-bestowing ‘Gott-zum-Menschen-hin’, and ‘mediation’ in the theology of Thomas F. Torrance. Each doctrine is reformulated in terms of liminality, non-place, liquidity, and mediation in order to present a coherent theology TCKs can recognize themselves in and identify with.

Central to understanding Herman Bavinck’s creation ontology is the dictum “grace restores and perfects nature.” The second half of this, namely that God’s work of grace aims to lead creation towards its perfection, is often neglected in articulations of Bavinck’s theology. To help underscore the importance of this perfecting work, with its soteriological and eschatological dimensions, this essay proposes that there is a fundamental similarity between this element of Bavinck’s thought and the doctrine of theosis. To that end, this essay examines Thomas F. Torrance’s doctrine of theosis, as a facet of his broader trinitarian theology, to highlight that not only do Bavinck and Torrance bear some surprising similarities, but also Torrance provides language helpful to reexamine Bavinck’s eschatological anthropology in light of the category of theosis.

The careers of Carl Henry and Thomas Torrance share many similarities in their general outlines, and yet they could not have chartered more different courses in theology had they tried. Both men were born in 1913 and lived into their 90s. Both were professors of theology: Henry at Fuller Theological Seminary, which he helped to establish; Torrance at the University of Edinburgh. Both were prolific authors: Henry's magnum opus being the six-volume God, Revelation and Authority; 1 Torrance's magnum opus being The Christian Doctrine of God (and The Trinitarian Faith). 2 Both were also editors of significant theological journals: Henry of the popular Christianity Today, 3 and Torrance of the Scottish Journal of Theology. Both were international speakers and first order systematic theologians. Finally, both were guardians of what they considered orthodoxy: Henry of the evangelical heritage which developed out of fundamentalism, 4 and Torrance of an orthodoxy developed in line with the Great Tradition.

Grounded in common commitment to a Reformed catholicity, both John Wesley and TF Torrance proffer Christian unity as a desideratum necessarily predicated upon the Nicene faith, and issuing from a common love of the triune God made known in Jesus Christ. Yet Wesley’s rational and relational approach stands in tension with Torrance’s ontological and sacramental emphasis. This article delineates points of convergence and divergence between these approaches, and suggests the possibility of their mutual complementarity and support toward to goal of Christian unity.

This article addresses some of the confusion regarding the role of metaphysical claims in narrative theology. Those inside and outside of narrative theology alike wonder at the ambiguous place of metaphysical claims about God as an objective reality. This essay enters the conversation through the side door of soteriology. Rather than focusing on the relationship between narrative and metaphysics or narrative and analogy or narrative and first-order theological claims, I examine what sort of metaphysical statements are required to make the Christian claim that human beings are “in Christ” intelligible as a soteriological reality. I argue that the Christian grammar itself assumes a Christology with a certain kind of metaphysical ambition without which Christianity lapses into incoherence. To make this case, I show that David Kelsey’s “narrative identity” Christology in Eccentric Existence lacks the metaphysical statements necessary to uphold his conviction that human beings are “in Christ.” A comparison with T.F Torrance and the Book of Hebrews reveals that when narrative circumvents metaphysical statements about the incarnate Son, soteriological claims lack coherence and the biblical narrative itself is distorted by a false metaphysic. Thus, metaphysical claims internal to the narrative of Jesus are necessary to tell the story of God faithfully. In this way, narrative is the expression of a theological metaphysics.

Theology — the science of apprehending, understanding, and speaking of God — needs constantly be evaluated and reevaluated under the judgment of God, who is himself both the truth and object of theology.  In a word, the theological enterprise must be coherent in its apprehending, understanding and speaking of the truth such that it accords to both the truth’s form and being. Ontology and epistemology must interrelate with each other which then form the presuppositions and convictions through which man can explore the depths of knowledge.  Accordingly, T.F. Torrance boldly asserts, “The source of our knowledge of God is His active revelation of himself.”

T.F. Torrance's work on the relation of theology and science has been met with skepticism from other students of Karl Barth. One recent example of this has come from Paul Molnar. Molnar argues a number of ‘Barthian’ points against Torrance, but has failed to penetrate to the heart of Torrance's vision. Of central import is whether Torrance countenances any possibility of natural knowledge of God. I will argue that he does not. If one understands Torrance's rejection of natural knowledge of God, and approaches his reformulated natural theology in this light, Molnar's criticisms of, and concerns about, Torrance's position can be set aside.

This essay considers T. F. Torrance’s assertion that Kierkegaard’s
paradoxical Christology seeks to draw attention to God’s nearness to humanity. I begin by looking at what Kierkegaard has to say about the union between God and humanity in Christ. I then turn to look at how his paradoxical understanding of the God-human relationship helps him to understand two difficult issues in theology: (1) God’s relationship to Christ’s suffering; and (2) the changelessness of God. Following this theological reflection, I examine the practical role that paradox
played in his theology. Finally, I conclude by offering a brief account of how Kierkegaard’s paradoxical Christology relates to the mediation of Christ — a connection that would come to be taken up in the Christocentric theologies of Barth and Torrance. What I show is that, despite his limited understanding of Kierkegaard, the above statement from Torrance shows a deep appreciation for Kierkegaard’s theology on an issue that is often both overlooked and misunderstood.

This article examines whether T. F. Torrance's theology can uphold the doctrine of divine simplicity, being consistent with his accounts of the ascension of Jesus, God's eternity, and divine im/passibility. This article indicates that Torrance's doctrine of simplicity does not fully accord with the traditional one that does not allow for any form of introduction of composites and any historical contingencies into the Being of God. On Torrance's account, God embraces the created temporality and carnality into his eternal Being through Jesus Christ, but that does not undercut the significance of the divine indissoluble oneness by virtue of christological and trinitarian notion of space. For Torrance, the one God embraces the creaturely others in his infinite, indivisible and comprehensive oneness.

I will critique Roy Bhaskar’s concept of the “epistemic fallacy” from the standpoint of Bernard Lonergan’s critical realism. In the first part I will walk through the first chapter of the first stage of Bhaskar’s philosophical project looking at how, by reflecting on the efficient causality of scientists, we are led to realism. Along the way I will tease out the inchoate presence of something akin to final causality in this account. In the second part I will indicate three reasons why Bhaskar’s focus tends to lack generality: knowing specifically regards the other; the causality specified is efficient; the epistemology critiqued is truncated. This will provide a springboard for a glance at Lonergan’s epistemology which, it is suggested, is free from Humean truncation. I will present what we might call the “epistemological theorem” in which being is presented in terms of knowing, a thesis that might be somewhat shocking to Bhaskarian ears. In view of the summary treatment in this note I will end by offering to locate further elaboration and support of these ideas in papers that may be easily accessed.

The study of Thomas Torrance is undergoing a revival, but has neglected to highlight one significant influence: the insights of the Scottish philosopher John Macmurray. This article focuses on three respects in which Torrance affirmed Macmurray's work: in overcoming dualism, in creating an integrated realist philosophy and in expounding the form of the personal. This study will bring to light Macmurray's contributions to Torrance's thought, surveying the works of Torrance to reveal where Macmurray contributed key epistemic and systemic points to Torrance's developing scientific theology. This brief summary intends to reveal both Torrance's overt acknowledgement of Macmurray and the need for more exploration of their connections in order to enrich the study of both scholars.

Abstract: Thomas F. Torrance criticized Karl Barth’s doctrine of baptism in Church Dogmatics 4.4, claiming that it exhibited an improper dualism. This essay explicates Torrance’s criticism as one that arises from Torrance’s own theological commitments and as a criticism of Barth’s doctrine of baptism. It does so by working through a series of four heuristic questions. First, what does Torrance mean when he accuses Barth of baptismal dualism? Second, why did Torrance think that Barth had lapsed into such a dualism? Third, what was Torrance’s alternative to Barth’s alleged baptismal dualism? Fourth, was Torrance right in his criticism of Barth? The essay concludes by reflecting on the question: where lies the disconnect between Barth and Torrance? Both thinkers are actualist, but they are so in different ways.

I owe thanks to David W. Congdon and Myk Habets, who read and provided valuable feedback on earlier versions of the essay. One such version of this essay was presented to the Thomas F. Torrance Theological Fellowship at their annual meeting in conjunction with the annual national meeting of the American Academy of Religion, on November 20th, 2015. I wish to thank the Fellowship’s president, Gary Deddo, and the other members of the Executive Committee for inviting me to address them. Discussion following the presentation was quite stimulating and I benefited especially from comments offered by Kimlyn Bender and George Hunsinger.

Torrance's proposals for natural theology have not been as well understood as have other aspects of his theology. This essay offers some clarification of this important aspect of Torrance's theology by holding it in relation to Torrance's synthesis of rational structure and material content in knowledge. It is argued that Torrance's proposals for natural theology are only understandable when viewed in this connection. The reason for this is that Torrance's natural theology fulfils a similar role in theology to the function of his logic of systematic form in his reconfiguration of formal logic. Both natural theology and the logic of systematic form function as a rational structure that is determined by the material content of knowledge. Properly considered as the rational intra-structure of theology in necessary conjunction with God's self-revelation, natural theology is found to be the rational structure of Torrance's project of theological science. Theological science is therefore found to be constituted by a synthetic structure in which natural theology and revealed theology combine to the end of theological knowledge that is determined by God's self-revelation.

The Intelligent Design proponent William Dembski presents us (to put it simply) with a three-fold choice: when we analyze events, they were either by necessity, by chance, or by design.  Here, for Dembski, "design" as the indication of a Designing intelligence (ultimately God) is placed in brief comparison with the works of Wolfhart Pannenberg and T.F. Torrance, whose theologies question and reorganize the trilemma of Dembski, both relativizing some of the differences typically seen between chance and necessity, and positively incorporating contingent acts into their theologies of nature.

The kataphystic epistemology of T.F. Torrance is established upon a conception of reality determined by God's self-revelation in Jesus Christ. However, understanding exactly what Torrance conceived the nature of reality to be is one of the more difficult challenges facing his interpreters. Torrance did not articulate his view of reality in formal proofs, but rather as the obedient response to God's self-revelation. Problematically, however, Torrance's attempts to establish connections between a theologically determined conception of reality and the view of reality in twentieth century physics has been subjected to continued criticism. This paper asks whether a fresh approach can help to clarify what Torrance's conception of reality is via a comparative analysis with an immanent-realist reading of Aristotle's formal discussion of ousia in the Categories. It is not argued that Torrance developed his conception of reality under the determination of Aristotelian metaphysics. It is argued that by such an analysis, we might understand Torrance's theologically determined understanding of reality a little better, particularly on the crucial matters such as the actual existence of reality independent of the observer and its own intrinsic intelligibility in intimate conjunction with phenomena. T.F. Torrance's kataphystic epistemological approach implies a particular conception of reality. The " scientific " attempt to know reality in accordance with its nature, such that reality might be known under the determination of its inherent rationality (instead of the human mind impressing its own rational

A vital axiom of Reformed theology is that God is who God claims to be, and that he acts to "self-authenticate" his identity to humans through the internal witness of the Holy Spirit. But how ought theologians to represent and make sense of the multiform nature of divine self-authentication (DSA)? And can their models account for the various kinds of evidence God utilizes in acts of DSA, or explain why doubt and deception about divine identity persists despite it? Operating at the intersection of theology and computer science, this study examines how modern authentication technologies can deepen theological reflection upon the nature, evidence, and efficacy of DSA. It proposes that computer authentication "trust systems": (1) offer a valuable schematic for representing the variegated structural patterns inherent in DSA; (2) shed critical light on the forms and functions of evidence used in DSA; and (3) provide strategies and practical measures for offsetting the continuing risk of deception about human and divine identity.

Andrew Torrance has recently argued that we can distinguish analytic theology from analytic philosophy of religion if we understand theology as, fundamentally, a scientific enterprise. However, this distinction holds only if philosophy of religion is not itself a science in the sense intended by Torrance. I argue that philosophy of religion is a science in this sense, and so, that Torrance cannot distinguish theology from philosophy of religion in the way suggested. Nevertheless, I offer two alternative routes to the distinction based on the nature of the respective objects of study in theology and philosophy of religion. Thus, I demonstrate that there is a coherent model available to Torrance which preserves the distinction he seeks.

Protopresbyter Georges Florovsky (1893-1979) was the most important Orthodox theologian of the 20th century. In addition to teaching in some of the world's leading universities, he also spent several decades as a leader in the international ecumenical movement. The present article provides an overview of Florovsky's vision for a distinctively Orthodox form of ecumenism, and it publishes three letters written by Florovsky on ecumenical themes, along with commentary and notes. The first letter, addressed to William Nicholls, was published in English in 1950, but the second and third letters, written to the famous Reformed theologian Thomas F. Torrance in 1953 and 1973, are unpublished until now. Topics covered in the letters include the doctrine of the Church, the impossibility of intercommunion, "ecumenism in time," and also a brief but important reference to Fr. Sergius Bulgakov, a noted figure in the so-called Russian religious renaissance.

The study of Thomas Torrance is undergoing a revival, but has neglected to highlight one significant influence: the insights of the Scottish philosopher John Macmurray. This article focuses on three respects in which Torrance affirmed Macmurray's work: in overcoming dualism, in creating an integrated realist philosophy, and in expounding the form of the personal. This study will bring to light Macmurray's contributions to Torrance's thought, surveying the works of Torrance to reveal where Macmurray contributed key epistemic and systemic points to Torrance's developing scientific theology. This brief summary intends to reveal both Torrance's overt acknowledgment of Macmurray and the need for more exploration of their connections in order to enrich the study of both scholars.

Patristic ressourcement is a style of 20 th century theology that attempts to retrieve and re-appropriate the classical sources of theology in the patristic period for the present. Its goal is thus always beyond a mere curiosity in historical reality. Its historical engagement is rather driven by the desire to make classical theology 'alive' in the present. Such a goal raises a serious question about the nature of historical scholarship carried out in this style of theology: what kind of historical understanding is presupposed by the theologians working in this style? Two recent books have documented the nature of patristic engagement found in two theologians who arguably worked within this style: T.F. Torrance (1913-2007) and Georges Florovsky (1893-1979). This review essay highlights the salient features in these books that provide substantial insights on the question of historical understanding in patristic ressourcement. Since each book carries out a distinct method to understand this style of patristic scholarship, I shall also offer some comments on the merits and limitations of each approach for studying and evaluating the nature of historical understanding in patristic ressourcement.

This is a review article discussing Jason Robert Radcliff, Thomas F. Torrance and the Church Fathers: A Reformed, Evangelical and Ecumenical Reconstruction of the Patristic Tradition (James Clark & Co., 2015)  and Paul L. Gavrilyuk, Georges Florovsky and the Russian Religious Renaissance (Oxford University Press, 2013)

Dans cette présentation, on voudra d'abord faire justice du travail initial autour d'une métaphysique biblique. Le renouvellement de la rationalité qu'y chercha Tresmontant le conduisit ensuite à défendre une interprétation croyante du regard sur les sciences contemporaines, école pour retrouver le chemin qui conduit vers Dieu. En tentant d'écarter ce qui nous semble des scories, nous voudrons surtout indiquer quelles analyses resteront et valideront pour l'essentiel la promesse cachée dans cette oeuvre considérable, visible dès 1953 avec l'*Essai sur la pensée hébraïque*. La méthode théologique de Tresmontant est déjà une proposition sur la rationalité de la théologie, qui nous conduira à discuter, entre autres positions, celle du thomisme transcendantal.

Torrance argues that the most popular contemporary proposals for the unity of the Church operate from an inherent cosmological and epistemological dualism anathema to Nicene Christology. What is more, they extend from an improper methodology and ultimately terminate in a reflection of some form of Christological heresy. In Torrance’s estimation, in order to advance a faithful basis for ecumenism, we must “take in earnest the work of Christological correction of the form and order of the Church.” 

This paper will seek to lay out Torrance’s critique of three of the most common arguments for ecumenism, extend his scientific methodology and Christological ecclesiology, and offer some brief proposals from a Baptist perspective for continued dialogue. In so doing, this paper will argue that Torrance’s Christological understanding of the unity of the church based on Nicene Christology provides needed safeguards in ecumenical discussion and establishes a sure foundation and helpful direction for continued conversation in the 21st century.