Episode 114: AHOCT Interviews- Dr. Myk Habets

In this long overdue interview, Dr. Charles Kim interviews Dr. Myk Habets, head of the school of theology at Laidlaw College in New Zealand. Dr. Habets has done much of his academic work on T F Torrance, the great Scottish Reformed theologian and specifically on the doctrine of Thesis. The recording became corrupted after the conversation. Our apologies for the delay.

Timestamps:

8:30- T.F. Torrance

14:22- Theosis and Platonism

27:15- Reformed Theology

34:40- Habet’s Change of Mind

37:45- Torrance v. Augustine

Episode Transcription

Charles Kim 0:00

Hello and welcome to a history of Christian theology. My name is Chad Kim with me this week will be Mike hobbits. Dr. hobbits is the Head of School of Theology of the Laidlaw College in New Zealand. And it is a part of the Otago University. This conversation with Dr. Haber. It's happened several months ago. But my computer failed. And I was unable to reconstruct my own audio. So Dr. Habets, his audio works well, but mine is basically lost. So I'm just going to insert my questions and give you what Dr. Habits had to say in response to those questions. So if it seems a little strange, it's because it is. And so I hope that the conversation and I think the conversation is still worth listening to. Because mostly, you're here to hear from Dr. Habits more than you're here to, you come to this podcast to listen to me. So hopefully, my questions are illuminating, but but you will learn a lot from Dr. habits. And so I appreciate his time. And I'm sorry for the delay in the episodes there have been lots of different things going on in my own life from the computer that I was using crashing to having COVID and, you know, just any number of other things. But excuses aside, I'm gonna try to get this podcast out. And I hope that you will enjoy this conversation we you know, we will still be recording more we have recorded some, and I hope to start getting the pumping those back out here shortly. So appreciate your forbearance. As this podcast is a little different. And thanks for listening.

Myk Habets 1:42

Yeah, so Myk Habets. Yeah, my my dad's done. So yeah. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Dad. Dad immigrated. Yep. Yep. His family when they were young, direct from Holland. Yep. And then my wife, my wife, my mother's Scottish. So Dutch and Scottish ancestry, then, but we caught ourselves. Yeah, we New Zealand. And so we're Kiwis after our flightless blind bird. It's pretty pretty apt symbol for our country, really? But yeah, Mike, what my carbons.

Charles Kim 2:17

So, Dr. Habets, can you tell us a little bit about what it what Theosis actually means?

Myk Habets 2:25

Yeah, yeah, it's a good question. And Theosis simply that Greek term, which means a combination of Theosis. And point A to your point A says making one into a god or becoming God, which in a non Christian sense, is blasphemous idolatry that we would make ourselves into literally God, when it's used in Christian discourse, right from the very earliest followers of Jesus. Then even in Scripture itself, where it talks about humans being Gods, it's always lowercase Gods it's becoming, we would say like God, in its participating somehow, in God's attributes. So I guess at its most basic Theosis could be defined as the human creatures graced participation in the Trinitarian life, as they are united to Christ, the incarnate Son in full of the Spirit. There are fuller definitions of that, of course, but that's probably the most basic of Theosis in Christian discourse. There's always this very clear qualification when Christians use Theosis deification divinization, the Latin terms, that we're always maintaining the Creator creature distinction, we're never wanting to collapse that as as non Christians, do, they collapse the two so I literally, you know, Father, Son, Spirit, and Mike. Again, let's bless was for Christians. And we're not saying that in the early church wasn't saying that. They're saying that the what we might say the communicable attributes of God, those, those idioms or attributes that God has, that a human creature can have, they are imparted somehow by grace, so that the human is, is changed, is transformed. So we're not talking here about the incommunicable attribute of say, Omni presents, because that's a creature can't be omnipresent, but we are talking about about love. We are talking about immortality, which is gifted to us. So those incommunicable attributes, we don't get the communicable ones, arguably, we do. And to the extent that we participate in the divine life as a human creature that changes us and and we've had more traditionally, you know, a more it's more appealing in the West, we would simply talk about it as probably Christ like this.

Charles Kim 4:49

And as you define this notion of Theosis it seems that there could be a kind of confusion about creation and create tour, which what we might call the Creator create Shouldn't distinction. So can you say a little bit about how Theosis doesn't make or doesn't overcome this clear distinction between God the Creator and humans his creation?

Myk Habets 5:14

Yeah, yeah. And we could say a lot more if we want to around that. We'll leave that to you'd open up if you want. But yeah, the image of God that so so a theological anthropology is really important in a robust doctrine of Theosis there has to be an anthropology or an understanding of the human which conceives it as a developmental process. Not evolutionary but organic development. And and we have to articulate that as becoming like God, but yeah, in a Margo tryna Tartus, if you're like an image of the Trinity is not useful, I would argue, whatsoever. We get into all weird stuff. So if we image the Trinity, what part of me is the father what part of me is the son what part of me is the spirit and it just gets into really silly stuff. So an embargo tryna Tartus is really important. We created arguably, in the image of the Incarnate Son, and that's our transformational journey to become ever more like Him, not not as gendered nature as a male, but his personal nature as a genuine human. And so yeah, and a Margo Christie, as opposed to an embargo. Tryna Tartus would be how most advocates of Theosis would want to argue it. And I think that's really important, because if the humanity of Christ, it always has to be central in this discussion. Otherwise, again, we bypass the humanity of Christ and again, collapse that create a creature distinction, then then we become fourth and fifth and sixth members of the Godhead, which we Yeah, so it's really important.

Charles Kim 6:55

It seems like Theosis might be something of an Eastern doctrine, rather than a Western doctrine. Can you say a little something about TF Torrance and his relationship to Orthodox theology?

Myk Habets 7:09

Yeah, yeah. And very early in his career, he was. He was arguing for a form of Theosis. That was acceptable, then in a western context, he, very early on in his career had significant involvement with with Eastern Orthodoxy, and a number of key individuals. Yeah, more from the Greek than the Russian Orthodoxy. And he came to have great respect for that tradition. SN ACSC always said was his favorite theologian, even even more favorite than but it he said, I would like to be an F and a Xeon, rather than a Bharti. And if I have to be anything, he preferred, of course, simply to be a Christian. But so that's important. And he did predate, as you said, the retrieval of Theosis in western figures. He wasn't unaware of it. And so he he's an early help, I think along the way, but he did predict, predate a lot of the robust work that's been done now. So like you rightly said, Theosis is simply not an Eastern doctrine. If that means not a Western doctrine, it's a Christian doctrine, and with scholarships finally won that argument convincingly, torrents predated that to some extent, but also paved the way for some of it. Yeah.

Charles Kim 8:30

And the work that I'm talking with you about today is basically centered around the theology of TF Torrance, who you are sort of a pretty well known reader and student of his theology. Can you tell us a little bit about why TF Torrance, and the background of TF Torrance,

Myk Habets 8:50

so Torrance was born 1913 and Chengdu, China, two missionary parents from Scotland. They were out there. His father was apparently a legendary missionary figure. There's just recently, the last four or five years a major unit museum set up in Chengdu and in honor of his father, which is pretty remarkable, really. And so they lived there for a number of years, came back home to Scotland to Edinburgh for schooling, and there was the Boxer Rebellion and other things made it difficult to stay. This father went back to China without them for about a decade, as was often the case back then, and then came back and settled in Edinburgh. So born 1913 Trying to spend the rest of his career life and career in Edinburgh working at Edinburgh University as the chair and dogmatics one of the two chairs and dogmatics died in 2007. So not too long ago, I guess at a ripe old age, published over 650 pieces so I mean, massive output and across them The number of spheres. So he's he's well known by different people for different things. He dogmatics never wrote a systematic theology, but wrote lots and lots of books contributing to dogmatics, the chief interpreter of BART in the English speaking world, in the first half of the 20th century at least, and no one for his translation work as much as anything so, Chief, Chief translator and editor of BART's dogmatics, toots dogmatics, into English and Calvin's commentaries into English them and his brother did that, along with a whole bunch of other other works from from German, and in some older Scottish works. So lots of editorial, significant in the Ecumenical Movement early on, tried to work towards the unification of the Church of Scotland and the Church of England, his wife was a tutor Scotland, Church of England, Anglican, so I tried to work a long time there, and they're very early on in his career, particularly through Edinburgh and just the connections that, that that has to as a university as a world class university, very quickly came to associate with significant Eastern Orthodox students, who then went on to become bishops, patriarchs, senior clerics, and through those lifelong relationships ended up being a proto presbytery of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which is the highest honor for a non cleric and any received a, like a large cross metal cross necklace, which he would often wear around the place and parade. He liked that sort of thing, apparently, and it had a number of research assistants throughout his career as a professor of theology, people at Johns as a Ulis and others, George draggers, who were just significant orthodox theologians. So they were working with him at a very early stage of their career. And so all of those all of those factors and the intolerance was a Patristics reader. Let's say a Patristics reader rather than patristic scholar might be fear. And he just very quickly reading and original languages very quickly found an F and ACS, the hero of the early church. And then that sort of bezel Athanasius Cyril that that line he found was a what we would call today, a pro Nicene theology. And he very quickly saw that there was a third school between Alexandria and Antioch, he talks about this third school, not that I think literally thought there was a literal third school, but there was what you know, after Louis, he is his work, we would call a pro Nicene core, and his instincts were just finely attuned. And so he found in the Greek, the Greek theologians, particularly, I think, the, the heart of the gospel, I think, as he would articulate it, and then he spent the rest of his career. I think it's a bit blunt, but arguing that when the best of Eastern West comes together, we've got a coherent and mature Christianity and so that it can medical mission or impulse never left them. Yeah. Now that's, you know, a lot of bias judgments in that sort of narrative, but but I think that's the that's fair, mostly. And then tolerance. TF Torrance, the whole family went on to be this theological dynasty is he was the older of three brothers. His younger brother, James went on to become professional theology, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, other places. His then younger brother again, David studied, they all studied with bark. They all did their their doctorates with him in Basel. And then David came back and remained a tutor Scotland Minister his whole life. Thomas Torrance, his son, Ian Torrance, went on to be a theologian, Professor, president of Princeton seminary, vice, one of the the Chancellor of Aberdeen University, I think at the moment in his retirement. And James Torrance, his son went on to become Ellen Thornton on become professor of theology famously at St. Andrews before that King's College of London, and now their children. And Torrance, his grandchildren are occupying theological posts, so it's a real dynasty.

Charles Kim 14:22

So moving on from TF Torrance. Can you say a little something about whether or not this teaching of Theosis is platonic? And what that might mean?

Myk Habets 14:32

Yeah, the people, other people have talked about Theosis in terms of trying to try to work out some sort of taxonomy because they are different doctrines of Theosis. And Norman Russell, Oxford, Professor patristic scholar, he even argues convincingly shows that even within a single author in the early church, there are there are different doctrines of Theosis within a single author, because some of them were more overt than others. So So yeah, when we're talking about doctrines, we need to then sort of just have some sort of taxonomy or division. So, one, again, it's a reasonably blunt tool but it's it's it's useful is that there are Uzi anak and hypostatic versions Uzi, anak from this Greek term Uzi, or or substance. And that's where the idea is that we are absorbed into the substance of the Deity. And that's a very pantheistic model. We find it in some Eastern religions outside of Christianity, we find it in the ancient Near East.

Platonism has a form of it arguably, in a very different way. And that's that's not what Torrance is buying into. And that's not what he sees the early church, particularly that that basil Athanasius, sir, all that sort of line, he doesn't see them buying into that at all. So the other model, the hypostatic model, is the personal model where we use the hypostatic union, the two natures of Christ, one person with two complete natures, where neither of the natures is corrupted by the other or changed by the other. So real human, real Divine One person. So that hypostatic model is that the to use anachronistic language that's, that's after turns. But that's the sort of model that he's developing in his theology and trying to retrieve whereby the humanity the incarnation of Christ is the all important factor. Only Jesus Christ fully unites humanity and divinity without obliterating either. And, and that said, any subsequent Theosis, or divinization, of human creatures, is only through the Can we say, the mechanism or the instrument, of being united to the humanity of Christ. And then only in that union, do we participate in the divine nature, because Christ is the eternal Son, what if we ever step out of the sun, even if that were possible, they would either be back into an Uzi EMIC model, which is, you know, becoming a drop in the great ocean, and that is God and losing your identity becoming him, or, or the notion would just cease to have any coherence. So he's very much this what we might call hypostatic, model, Crystal logical model, taking the incarnation of the eternal Son who assumes a human nature, without ceasing to be God, and it's an our union with Him. And that's where he finds the tradition, utterly compelling and convincing, and make sense of text like Second Peter one, four, which talks about being participants by nature. And then Jesus talks, quoting the Psalms, about us being Gods about any any ethical transformation, and then ontological transformation, on tasks being our being. While we never cease to be creatures in tolerances work, we were not automatically persons, technically, there's only one person, and that's Jesus Christ. And he's the only fully personal person because to be a person, he would argue, again, from much of the Greek tradition is to be a being an imperfect relationship, first of all, with God, then with each other, and all of creation. So only Christ occupies that space, only Christ as the human perfectly related to God, acceptable in his sight, able to see God and live etc, and raised, immortal, etc. So to the extent that we become like Christ, in Christ Jesus by the Spirit, we become personalized. And so Christ in the spirit, Christ becomes the personalizing person. And our flesh is deified, only in the sense that it has transformed progressively into the likeness of Christ. Again, not gender, that's not what's important, we retain male or female, but the human nature so perfect, perfect mind, perfect world perfectly motions, perfect devotion to God, perfect worship, not my will be done, but yours when we get to, you know those types of positions. And that's only possible in Christ therefore, the creator creature distinction is always at play, and is never transgressed. Unlike and as we say in some non Christian versions of it. So even say, perhaps, some forms of modern Mormonism which teach some form of Theosis the language there are becoming little gods occupying the effectively your own planet and being your own deity on it. That's a bit crude, but but that idea is never in a Christian version of Theosis because that transcends the Creator creature distinction.

Yeah. And it's just a fantastic idea. I mean, there are no stats, you know, I mean, Scripture honestly start to but there are nice Yeah, sort of clerical. Well, significantly as an impetus for that, this epic tacis, this eternal growth and development. I mean, it's I think it's just one of the most stunning ideas that modern theology forgot. And now contemporary theology is reclaiming. I mean, John beers, little book, he's got a little, little picture book becoming human, just you know, it's just brilliant. So for intolerances, language, tolerance, often, like a lot of theologians, he'll, he'll develop his own language for stuff because he, you know, can't find any language that's acceptable. So he makes up his own. And a lot of theologians do that, which makes it at some point impenetrable for lay people to then access it. And so we need to translate. But it has this phrase, I've not used it so much. I like it. But when I first came upon, it's pretty clumsy. But the idea is brilliant. He believes that every human creature is created in the image of Christ, the incarnate Christ, that includes Adam and Eve. So it even works retrospectively. And were created, as you say, with this, this intended goal or tell us to become Christ like to become mature to be perfect and imperfect. And because perfect is in a static state, although that's how English tends to use it. And so Torrance has this phrase, the Holy Spirit in dwells all people the Holy Spirit's the the human correlate to the to the Divine Spirit. So it's unclear really, if Torrance even thinks humans have a spirit, other than the Holy Spirit. And I quite like this idea. It's bad here that we are embodied souls and unsold bodies in the Holy Spirit animates us, gives us life, but also gives us spiritual life. And so turns talks about the spirit being the the transcendental determination of every human and, and what he means is that another language, that religious impulse that almost every human, certainly every human society has to train seen, to be bigger to be, to leave a legacy to, to have children to grow, to develop to have society. He goes, this is a deeply Christian impulse given to us by the Spirit. And it's only ever rightly fulfilled when it's directed towards the triune. God, when we missed her it that transcendental to do emanation towards ourself towards creaturely things. It becomes idolatry and self destructive, I guess what, what Luther would call that incubator say that curved in on yourself. But when it's rightly ordered, then this is this finds its its ultimate tell us or goal in being a participant in the divine nature. He didn't go on to elaborate too much of this, but even into eternity, which the early church certainly does elaborate on. And they have those nice sort of, you know, phrases around the resurrection being the eighth day of creation, where it's a recapitulation and then yeah, so tolerance buys into there, I think any has to, I think rightly, because I think it's biblical, but because that the progress of Theosis doesn't stop. At the resurrection. It continues. These three remains is St. Paul, faith, hope and love. We know how faith in love remain people, we're stumped by how hope does because we think well, as soon as we get to heaven, I hope to fulfill, that's clearly not the case. Lots of our hopes are fulfilled, and then we're given more things to hope for and they're fulfilled, and they're more things. And that's why eternal life will never be boring. Again, maybe this is a pill for our modern anxiety today. Eternal life will never be boring, because we will never exhaust who God is and the enjoyment of that. And that's part of Theosis. Now, Torrance being situated historically, being a follower of BART has eschatology. He's a little thin, we might say, I'm a Baptist, evangelical and reformed. So you know, we might have a too thick eschatology perhaps, but it doesn't unpack a lot of that in great detail, but he unpacks it enough that others can, can then pick up on and he does it over a couple of volumes of sermons, particularly.

Charles Kim 24:16

Some of what you're saying just reminds me of the conversation that we had with Hans Bergsma. So I'll reference that for listeners if they want to go back and listen to that because it seems like there's a lot of connection there with what he does, and with what you're writing in Torrance.

Myk Habets 24:34

Yeah, yeah, I mean, Hans's works. Brilliant, lovely guy. And that book is really helpful. At the other end of the spectrum, if that's high academic work. I published a book few years back through work from stock or simply called heaven, an inkling of things to come, where it's the only work of really written for a popular audience to make entirely accessible to families. particularly, so that to resource them discussing these things around the dinner table. And this whole idea of perpetual human progress, and Christ is just it's just brilliant idea. We won't go into it but you know, asking questions around the dinner table, for instance, we don't know what time is like an eternity. And who knows. But you know, if there's anything like, like temporal time now, because we're embodied, what what might it mean to have your one millions birthday? Oh, well, maybe a big cake and a fire hazard. But what about your one millions and one that seems a bit depressing, because you've got a million years before another big birthday. And so that that notion of time is simply a sequential moment after another sequential moment, is actually reasonably oppressive to many people, particularly in our current context, where we experience time, as as a negativity roads us, you know, I'm 50 this year. So you know, the body starts to feel the effects of time and degenerate. But in a, in an unfallen, in a completely redeemed kingdom of God, where time doesn't have those, those types of effects, then the temporal succession, and aging takes on very little meaning. We need to replace it with things like I think maturity, we will continue to mature through experimentation, adventure, investigation, worship, learning, and that then becomes really inviting and enticing. And the vision of God isn't something that again, it's not, can't be a static thing, like some of the Catholic tradition. You know, Aquinas, it's, it's, you see nothing and you hear nothing. It's mute. Well, I know sorry, I can't I can't accept that. I don't think that's, that's the pinnacle of worship. I think, then resting this biblical idea, this resting from anything that opposes the will of God in the present in heaven, rest is characterized by intense activity, but it's activity that gives us energy and joy and delight, not saps, US of everything like it does. Now. There's more to be said. But Hans, his book is brilliant. Yeah.

Charles Kim 27:15

Can you tell us a little bit about whether or not this theology really fits within the reformed tradition? Like what does it mean for it to be reformed? Because this isn't normally what people think of when they think of Reformed theology?

Myk Habets 27:29

Ya know, it's a good question. And it does meet resistance from from, well, not just some reformed, but you know, other traditions of their own resistance as well. So in looking at that, in, particularly through tolerance, and in a successes, there's nothing in Reformed theology that that that prescribes, you can have a doctrine of Theosis. So it depends, again, on how one wants to define reformed. And if we're more historically, you know, you're a patristic scholar, so you'll appreciate if we're more historically aware, then the better. Unfortunately, I think a number of modern contemporary North American reformed people, they're just not very historically aware, a number of them. And so what they think they mean by reform bears very little resemblance to, to Calvin or any of us successes, there's been very little resemblance to the creeds and confessions of the Reformed churches. It's just a very modern North American invention. So if we cut behind that, one of the central features of being reformed, is that there's this emphasis upon justification as a forensic declaration. Now, Theosis is often misunderstood by people to be one part of the Ordo salutis or the order of salvation. So some will say its justification or Theosis. At that point, others will say if the the Wesleyan or holiness tradition, it's the osis replaces the idea of sanctification. Others still think on an earth Theosis is a different idea for glorification. Well, it's neither and none of those. If it's a doctrine of cell, if it's a doctrine Theosis it's, it's the playground within which all of those features exist. It's not one of those features. So if we think of an order of salvation, Theosis as the circle that encompasses the whole thing. It's not one piece of their or different metaphor, it's not a piece of a jigsaw puzzle. It's the picture that puzzle makes, if that makes it. So as Torrance uses that he finds nothing in his reformed heritage that that prescribes, you can adopt Theosis as the governing principle. In fact, everything within it arguably lends itself towards it. Now, people like Bruce McCormick and others think differently, but the yet to really show or convincingly show, why that would be the case. Justification can be both declaration, and deification. It doesn't have to be either or. And what we're finding today is someone like Michael Horton who's as reformed as you get to see a significant reformed thinker, historically astute. So he's consistently arguing now for Theosis as a reformed doctrine, he's going back to people like Calvin and others in the tradition and finding it as others are doing, finding it in the tradition because it's a Christian doctrine, not again, some weird archaic Eastern thing. And he's even adopting I don't agree, but he's even adopting the essence energies distinction, Michael Horton, as a way to safeguard has created a creature Now I personally in Torrance didn't do that. I don't think we want to do that. But that's interesting that even some contemporary, very conservative reformed are now adopting it quite freely. So his his little, we're not little it's large and systematic theology, the Christian faith. Michael Hordern has got some really perceptive stuff around Theosis. As a the only pushback might be the ISIS isn't is a rogue isn't as robust in his work, as it might be in torrent and others who use it as a architectonical restructuring motif. But it's more than simply a loose metaphor for Horton. So that's encouraging, I think.

I think I think what he what he saw an F and ACS, above all was the way that F and ACS used Homer crusius. And as in from that one word, his entire theology, if you like, branched out and intolerance, I think, just latched on to that, like a bulldog. And for him exactly the same thing. The homos, Ian, yeah, arguably, is another structural motif. And in through that the entire Gospel, the doctrine of the Trinity, everything unfolds from that. And so he would overtly talk about these sort of, after Einstein, he had in his office apparently, study, two pictures on the wall. One, one icon of ethnicity is the other pencil sketch of Einstein. These were as to, to sort of heroes for different reasons. And so from Einstein, this idea of the theory of relativity, objects in relation to other things, or how you describe objects in modern science, and he sees this as deeply theological. This is, of course, this is who God is. God is not a dictionary definition of the unmoved mover, any platonic or, or Aresty, Italian mumbo jumbo, it's three persons and perfect relationship revealed through Christ and holy scripture by the Spirit, therefore, period crisis was that the highest scientific definition for him from which everything unfolded, only because at the lower level, home OCS allowed it or allowed it dictated effectively. And then at the lowest level, that of experience or worship. That's why we, we, we come to the Lord's table the way we do, that's why we baptized, that's why we worship in the fullest sense of it. And so these three levels for him. Yeah, that's another way to structure his work overtly. And I think Theosis I mean, people haven't really, you know, I think we ended I wrote this in 2009. It was a doctoral dissertation. I mean, it hasn't gone on to convince lots of people that this is one of his key structural motifs. But at the same time, there isn't an article or a book that argues against it. I've certainly had lots of conference discussions. And I'm yet to see or hear a convincing argument against other suggestions of grace. Grace occupies that. I'm not sure that's true. The debate goes on. And I don't think it's that important. People can have a number of fundamental or key motifs. Yeah. It's about like the, the argument, the silly argument over Calvin's theology and doesn't have a single structure and motif and any regeneration throws up a different one. It's like, ah, that's not quite how things work. Yeah.

Charles Kim 34:40

Can you say a little something about what an idea that you have, or a truth that you now believe to be true that you've changed in your lifetime?

Myk Habets 34:52

Oh, yeah. So I was brought up in a reasonably conservative probably looking back I'd probably call it fundamentalist open brethren, Christian brethren, background, and there's a lot of good about that, you know, high view of Scripture and morality. There's a lot of bad about that bit of a fortress mentality and the world's evil. But it was also a very dispensational upbringing, which I simply I never really accepted but didn't know why and now completely reject in no way. So I was brought up with a very complementarian view of gender. Males could be leaders, pastors, head of the household, they functioned in an authority role and why was we're not pastors, not leaders, not elders, not teachers, they could do Sunday school and mission, pretty much. I've done a complete 180 on that I'm now an express and open II egalitarian. And I mean, you know, both life life circumstances, my wife's a pastor of a Baptist church, senior pastor of a Baptist church. So you know, I'm clearly committed to any egalitarian view. But what changed my mind is, as an Evangelical, if the Bible clearly teaches, then like it or not, we have to accept it until proven otherwise. And so even on doctrines and positions where we have pretty robust convictions, we always have to be open to re looking at the evidence and allowing God to speak through Scripture. And I was on a bus at one of the American Academy of Religion conferences, and I think this one was in Chicago. And I was on a bus with a guy going to the conference from our hotel. Hi, how are you? Blah, blah, blah. And this is a guy called Don Payne. And he had written a book, which was his PhD dissertation, one in Christ, and he looked at all the text on headship in the New Testament, and then did an exhaustive study took on Wayne Grudem. 's work and bedded it by several 100 years, looking at before and after this sort of stuff, and completely refuted the Grudem Piper. Bruce, we're tight, tight. complementarianism. So he told me about his book. I said, I'd read it. Two years later, I saw him at conference and I've read your book. I've worked through those texts looked at your evidence. I'm utterly convinced. Yeah, I think I think I can clearly preach those those texts from First Timothy and others in an egalitarian way that does more justice to the text. I'm convinced nominee egalitarian muster my wife's delight

Oh, absolutely. Yeah. Toby has the right to work through it still.

Charles Kim 37:45

And how does I have to ask about Agustin because I wrote my dissertation about Augustine. TF Torrance is very critical of him. Can you say a little bit about the relationship between Augustine and Torrance?

Myk Habets 37:57

He a bit like what you said about Schleiermacher earlier, when he when he read the Christian faith, he saw this when he calls architectonic this overall structure, which was just beautiful, pristine. Unfortunately, the content you found rubbish and many of us might agree. And but the there was a lot there to like. Now this is similar reaction that that others have had before when it comes to Agustin. So through a number of works, you've got to dig for it. But he's reading or gustan. Semi regularly. And he regularly read through the church fathers in Greek. And we know this, because when he sold his library, his personal library, the annotations, apparently annotations riddled all the works. Now, I don't know where all these books have ended up. We also know who brought you know, someone need to track down who brought it where they've ended up, but but we know from from stuff that so he does find an Augustine, I think it's fair to say, a Christian, who understands as other Christians do the beauty of God, and how a life oriented towards devotion and worship the God has a life worth living. And he really appreciates that, I think so he sees him as a brother in Christ. But then you will hardly ever find a nice reference to Augustine outside of that. And so he predates Of course, the retrieval of Augustan against anti or gustan deniers, and Gunton, who was a younger contemporary, you know, we find the same thing. So, this is what I think is happening. There are certain tolerance was not interested in close readings of patristic texts for the sake of patristic scholarship. He wasn't interested and what he was interested in as the The tenor, if you like, of people's ideas, but it's the ideas not the people or their articulation he could have cared about. So they'll often not put references or footnotes. And you're like, what was he reading? Who's he referring to? So frustrating we couldn't we're not allowed to get away with this today. So he tends to see, history is contemporaries. And he doesn't bother dotting his eyes and crossing his T's because for him, the idea is what's important not, don't bother me with the details. Now, again, for patristic scholars, quite rightly, this is not good enough. And that mean, he i, this is what I think he was doing. Then, in the early church, FM ACS and others. If you didn't agree with the view, you were an area didn't matter whether you are an Aryan or not, you were just an area this becomes a catch all phrase for anyone who disagrees with this pro Nicene theology. And they were Aryans. They were semi Aryans. And they were non Aryans. But you're all area to guilt by association type tactic. This is what torrents does all the time. There's a there's a thing called the Latin heresy which ingrain dualisms he finds in the Christian tradition, which he would argue come from outside the tradition out from Platonism and, and other other forces which we need to eradicate. Then Augustine becomes the poster child the whipping boy for every dualism ever invaded in the history of the church, it all goes back to Augustine. And you go look at an old gassy like seems a bit unfair in it is No, I don't think anyone would justify that that today. What we would want to say is, yeah, okay, Augustine, technically isn't doing this, that that's that's made clear by by, you know, Michelle Barnes and Lewis he is and then the rest of your guild and it's very helpful. But I Ghibli the some of the ideas implicit in their works, their successes went on to develop did end up in radical dualisms, which are deeply problematic and need to be eradicated. So Augustine shouldn't be the whipping boy for that.

But the ideas that Torrance is articulating, many would argue me included, are still good ideas and good arguments, they just that today, they would need to have a more refined and better historical basis. Gunton is the same. I mean, savaged and in some sense, rightly for again, Gunton is just the worst of the worst. is lucky, some evil, either no hear it. Again, I don't think that's probably how he personally saw him. He just sold the ideas that might have a Genesis in in Augustan. It's the ideas which are evil, evil in quotation marks here. Yeah. So it's a way to in the Trinitarian faith and the republished version, I do a sort of a lengthy introduction, trying to argue in a more scholarly, an articulate way, how we can retrieve tolerances arguments without having to buy into the rhetoric that he used. But I reckon I believe that he had Athanasius in mind. You don't agree with me? You're an area, you don't agree with me? You're an Augustinian. It's the Latin heresy. And if you know some of the audio you're talking about, this is what he does. Someone asked a question, or gustan. Let him hear it. And they're like, they're probably never heard of the bloomin. What are you talking about? Yeah. So it doesn't defend them entirely. But I think that perhaps explains his technique, if you like. Yeah. Yeah. And again, and you can and again, it's not to defend the argument that Augustine is the problem. But what's really interesting, I think, is that again, the ideas that Torrance is picking up on, I just think you're entirely right. He just says, he just uses Augustan as a rhetorical tool, which, again, we can't do today. And we wouldn't want we'd want to. I was gonna say be better. That sounds condescending. But I mean, it's, it's different. We wouldn't do that today. We'd make the argument and we'd have to do the historical detailed work as well. But Lewis Lewis he is Khalid in a totally us just just released I think Lance wasn't last year application through the cross year 2020. deification through the cross, just a staggeringly good work, I think. And what he's arguing in the beginning, is that with these models of the Atonement that we have all inherited, he goes they all undermine or undercut the fundamental learnings of the patristic era, that our soteriology is built upon our Christology and Trinitarian theology, we get to models of the Atonement, there's no trinity or Blumen Christology that that's at work, you know, the hypostatic union has Moses plays no role in any of them. Period crisis isn't isn't a controlling influence anywhere. And so you do have an atonement theology almost completely separate from your incarnation theology. That's the dualism. Torrance identified as nonsense, and he traces it yet back to, again, a bit unfairly, back to Latin theology, starting with Augustine. Augustine wasn't trying to do that. But there's probably is an argument that implicit in parts of his works there is that that, again, he's not doing the dualism that's that's anachronistic, but how could we could get hit where we are today where we divorce Christology and Trinity from our atonement theory, which is ridiculous. And it takes someone like, another patristic scholar, like like Anatolia, us to, to sort of try and correct the ballasts, which is really helpful. And who was one of his key Western advocates that he goes to in that book, TF Torrance, not not defending his reading of Augustine, but defending his reading of the tradition of ideas, and particularly this vicarious humanity and vicarious repentance. I think that's fascinating and helpful. He is a good patristic scholar, not not doing the bad Patristics, if you like, but doing the good argument and seeing Yeah, look, we wouldn't do it like torrents did, and we're not pretending we would. But the actual theological ideas still have merit and worth

Charles Kim 46:31

and how did you come to the study of TF Torrance?

Myk Habets 46:35

Yeah, that's a What's the short story? We're all complex people, sometimes by design, and sometimes by historical accident. So So yeah, briefly growing up in a dispensational context, but not agreeing with it entirely, but not not sure why without the language to sort of, you know, and then, very early as a young young adults, just reading through reformed works Calvin's institutes and just reading the institute's Yeah, there are parts of it that are problematic, but but on the whole, it's like on this, this is just this is my theology. Largely this, this, this pastoral, because he was a pastor this this pastoral, systematic theology, if we can call it that. And then, so I finished my undergraduate studies in theology and historical theology major, double major than those, and then coming into a research Master's. So I did a two year thesis, research only it was an unusual master's program back then, and it ceased to exist. But basically, it was a 80 90,000 word thesis. It was basically a doctorate. And I worked on spirit Christology, because I had questions coming at a dispensational background around the Holy Spirit, the Trinity. And so that that resource, a lot of those questions, and pushed me back into the early church, I'm not a patristic scholar, but an avid reader and learner of the Patristics. And so pushed me into into people like Athanasius, and RNAs and others. And again, just I mean, they've just so readable, just and then thankfully, St. glands are doing really nice, accessible, critical, you know, publication. That's great. Well, it's a great series. It's just so good. And so at the end of that, then coming into PhD work, I wanted to do something that would be obviously specific, but would resource a teaching career. And as an Evangelical, the, I'm in a Laidlaw college, so it's an evangelical college, but like a seminary effectively in your context. So confessional, very interdenominational. But we've all these evangelical piety, Mystic commitments, you know, the Gospels, not theory, it actually is the practical means it's worship. And so. So that's where I came across tolerance reasonably, it didn't really appear in my undergrad, I came across them in my master's work, and in started to read them the and then for the PhD. This idea of CoCs had presented itself as a natural follow on from spirit Christology, and looking for a way to do that. And then again, I was reading torrents, and it just appears everywhere. It just keeps cropping up explicitly implicitly as a theme as a motif. It's like it's everywhere. And I'm like, why is this is a there's a thesis here. And so that's what pushed me into Theosis and tf Torrance. He was influential enough figure and had written enough and so post the PhD just because he's got Such a big body of work. It just continues to resource. I think my thinking even where I depart from key places, different areas. I just keep coming back as a lifelong reader of tolerance. And I think everyone, I mean, that would be my advice for particularly younger theologians, trying to find someone like an old Gustin and Ethen ACs. TF Torrance, Carl, Bart Aquinas doesn't really matter. I mean, whoever you gel with someone that's robust enough to, to resource basically a Korea, it doesn't mean you just stick with them. And sometimes you fundamentally radically disagree with them. But they just could guide you along the way. They mature, they're, they're ecumenical. And so I just find Torrance a good guide, even when I disagree. And then through the things like the Torrance fellowship and others, it's a growing community of network scholars. I mean, CS Lewis is another one like that, that my current work is now

trying to produce a couple of books around Theosis in the thought of CS Lewis, and again, if you pick up almost anything he ever wrote, and you think, what did he say about Theosis? You'll find it everywhere, overtly and implicitly, he wrote the introduction to Athanasius on the Incarnation, you know, that, obviously, the republication now, if any of your listeners know how he came to write that introduction, I'd love to know because I'm trying to research how he got that invite. So if anyone wants to email you, and and then you can pass that on, that'd be great. But so that's that's how I got into Theosis into TF Torrance. As a Baptist, I mean, it communicable theologian, with Baptist commitments, I'm reformed in my sensibilities. And what I find attractive and tolerant and others like him, is that you can be committed to your tradition, and also be committed to the Catholic lowercase, to the Catholic Christian tradition at the same time. And in fact, that sort of receptive ecumenism is better than sort of watered down low and lowest common denominator, ecumenism, where we come as brothers and sisters in Christ to the table, more in common than we don't. And now let's talk about our differences. And I'll actually learn a whole lot, and hopefully others will, too. I might change my mind or stuff I might not, but that's okay. Because it's still worthwhile. So so that's why partly I find torrents useful as a guide in some of that. Now, I'm talking about his written work, not not specifically perhaps if you listened to his audio, he, he did not suffer fools lightly and often took no prisoners. I'm not not sure that's something to emulate directly. James is younger brother was a lot more, shall we say? Pastoral in in charitable in discourse. So like Thomas Torrance in articulation, and like James Torrance and delivery, you know, and then his brother, the younger brother, David's still still alive, just the most delightful Christian minister retired with a heart and passion, you know, so some combination of all three, I think makes us really good, well rounded Christians. And I find that resources, what I'm doing, of course, you know, whenever you're for something, you're against other things. So, yeah. A bunch of perhaps classical Calvinists. Yeah. have ongoing issues and debates with but the best of them, you know, the Kevin Vanhoozer is another's. I can't say they're personal friends that I'm in New Zealand a long way away. But you know, at conferences and and correspondents are just very generous and gracious and helpful correspondents who I greatly respect and admire. And we just respectfully can agree to disagree on stuff and I keep reading their works for edification. I don't know whether they read mine, but if they do, I hope it edifies them at some point. And I think that's what, what, what the best of the tradition should model for us. Yeah. So it's a bit of a long winded way to answer your question, but I think that that's, that's at least what I pick up from the best of our, you know, of the tradition and the think try to emulate as a theologian and a Christian

It's been my pleasure and thanks for taking the time I appreciate it

Transcribed by https://otter.ai