Calvin, Torrance and later Orthodoxy

[arapahoepark]

I've been running into a number of ideas in books or articles, even from orthodox (little o) guys that post reformation dogma is a betrayal of Calvin, especially in the doctrine of union with Christ. It sounds eerily like Wright where justification, in particular, is made all but trivial. 'Federal' theology is deingrated and dubbed without grace. Is this perhaps part of the WTS east vs west side debate on union?
I also notice much of this stems from TF Torrance and his reading of the Scots Confession, Calvin and Knox.
Is Torrance basically making Calvin anachronistically into Barth with a sliver of Scottish nationalism (hey look at us, we're the real followers of Calvin!)?

 

[RamistThomist]

I've been running into a number of ideas in books or articles, even from orthodox (little o) guys that post reformation dogma is a betrayal of Calvin, especially in the doctrine of union with Christ. It sounds eerily like Wright where justification, in particular, is made all but trivial. 'Federal' theology is deingrated and dubbed without grace. Is this perhaps part of the WTS east vs west side debate on union?
I also notice much of this stems from TF Torrance and his reading of the Scots Confession, Calvin and Knox.
Is Torrance basically making Calvin anachronistically into Barth with a sliver of Scottish nationalism (hey look at us, we're the real followers of Calvin!)?

Yes and no. On one hand, Torrance forgot more about Patristic theology than we will know in a dozen lifetimes. On the other hand, he does tend to read Barth back into Calvin and Athanasius. Try to find his debate with Donald Macleod. It's legendary.

In terms of historiography, Torrance is simply wrong. In terms of a positive, constructive case for what one should believe, he's not so easy to dismiss.

 

[arapahoepark]

Yes and no. On one hand, Torrance forgot more about Patristic theology than we will know in a dozen lifetimes. On the other hand, he does tend to read Barth back into Calvin and Athanasius. Try to find his debate with Donald Macleod. It's legendary.

In terms of historiography, Torrance is simply wrong. In terms of a positive, constructive case for what one should believe, he's not so easy to dismiss.

Any ideas on where to find the debate?

 

[arapahoepark]

Found this from Donald MacLeod.

 

[RamistThomist]

Any ideas on where to find the debate?

http://tapesfromscotland.org/Rutherfordhouseaudio.htm

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

Are you referring to the one below labeled as a dialogue?

http://tapesfromscotland.org/Rutherfordhouseaudio/200%20Tom%20Torrance%20and%20Donald%20Macleod%20Dialogue.mp3

 

[RamistThomist]

Are you referring to the one below labeled as a dialogue?

http://tapesfromscotland.org/Rutherfordhouseaudio/200%20Tom%20Torrance%20and%20Donald%20Macleod%20Dialogue.mp3

One of the mp3s has Macleod. Another mp3 has Torrance. It's been some years, though, so I could be mistaken.

 

[bookslover]

Yes and no. On one hand, Torrance forgot more about Patristic theology than we will know in a dozen lifetimes. On the other hand, he does tend to read Barth back into Calvin and Athanasius. Try to find his debate with Donald Macleod. It's legendary.

In terms of historiography, Torrance is simply wrong. In terms of a positive, constructive case for what one should believe, he's not so easy to dismiss.

Torrance (1913-2007) is a very interesting writer. He studied under Barth and appreciated him greatly, but he was also willing to criticize him in areas in which he disagreed. Torrance's 1996 book on the development of the doctrine of the Trinity among the church fathers is a masterpiece.