Introduction
Central Question: How is what occurs in Christ related to what
occurs in us? (Hunsinger)
Much attention has been given to the “objective” aspect of
salvation in Barth’s thought (and in Trinitarian-Incarnational theology in
general). By “objective” salvation, I mean the full, final and complete
salvation for all accomplished in Jesus Christ. Less attention, however, has
been paid to the subjective (or, “existential”) side of the God-human
relationship. By “subjective,” I mean the role (if any) played by the individual
believer in salvation.
Both Barth and Torrance have been subjected to criticism (unjustly,
I think) for “neglecting” this aspect of salvation. In my reading of these
giants of theological thought, however, I find that both men attach significant
importance to the subjective aspect of salvation, not as a condition for
salvation but as the appropriate and―dare I say―necessary response to it. I have wrestled with the relationship
between the objective and subjective aspects of salvation for many years, even
decades. Finally, George Hunsinger has helped me greatly to understand Barth’s
description (not explanation!) of the relationship between the objective and
subjective aspects of salvation.(Hunsinger has provided an “answer” I can live
with at any rate.)
Professor George Hunsinger (Princeton) is one of the world’s
leading interpreters of the thought of Karl Barth. In this post, I will share
with you the salient points I have taken from Hunsinger regarding the
subjective and existentialist aspects of salvation. I will be writing from
notes, so the material may seem disjointed at times. I highly recommend that
you read this important chapter for yourself.
A
Paradoxical Relationship
Soteriological objectivism
refers to that position wherein any human contribution to salvation is
radically subordinated to what has taken place in Christ. Soteriological existentialism, on the other hand, refers
to the opposite position, wherein what has taken place in Christ is at some
point subordinated to what needs to take place in us. According to this view,
salvation is not constituted or complete until something decisive takes place
within us. In short, what took place in Christ does not acquire validity and
efficacy until something decisive also takes place in us. (Of course, both
Barth and Torrance reject soteriological existentialism as described here.)
Hunsinger identifies two points that are essential to Barth in
regard to salvation: 1) What took place in Jesus for our salvation avails for all. This is the objective aspect of salvation. 2) No one
participates in Christ apart from faith. This is the subjective or existential aspect of salvation. These points are not
to be confused. As Hunsinger notes, “The human act of faith is in no way
determinative or creative of salvation, and the divine act of grace is in no
way responsive or receptive to some condition external to itself as necessarily
imposed upon it by the human creature. . . . Grace therefore confronts the
creature as a sheer gift. The human act of faith, moreover, in no way
conditions, contributes to, or constitutes the event of salvation” (p. 106)
In regard to the relationship between the objective and subjective
(existentialist) aspects of salvation, Hunsinger
identifies three “non-negotiables for Barth: 1) The real efficacy of the saving
work of Christ for all; 2) the
unconditioned, gratuitous character of grace and 3) the impossibility of
actively participating in Christ and his righteousness apart from faith. For
Barth, these points were axiomatic when the scripture is exegeted
Christocentrically.
In regard to the objective “moment” of salvation, Barth asserts
that the history of every human being is included in the history of Jesus
Christ. Jesus enacts our salvation as a gift which is valid and efficacious for all. As Hunsinger notes, “The validity
and efficacy of this gift cannot be denied without compromising (among other
things) the absolutely unconditioned and therefore gratuitous character of
divine grace in him” (p.108). The history of every person is in Jesus. To deny
the universal efficaciousness of
salvation is to deny its gratuitous character. Conversely, the history of Jesus
is in every person. To deny the continual, miraculous presence of his history to every human is to deny his
resurrection. According to Hunsinger, “The once-for-all event of Jesus’
history, without ceasing to be such, reiterates itself so as to be present to
the history of each and every human being” (p. 109). In other words, through
his vicarious humanity and resurrection, the history of Jesus is present to all.
However, the subjective (“existentialist”) aspect of salvation
remains. Quoting Hunsinger:
[I]t is
impossible for anyone actively to participate in Jesus Christ and the salvation
he has accomplished apart from the
decision of faith. . . . Faith is
necessary as the only apt response to the objective validity and efficacy
of salvation. It is the response of gratitude, joy, trust, love, and obedience.
. . . It does not in any sense constitute, contribute to, or bring about the
occurrence of salvation. It simply undertakes to enact the appropriate
consequences in response to an occurrence of salvation which in itself and as
such already avails in validity, efficacy, and completeness for each one and
therefore for all (pp. 109, 110, emphasis added).
Thus, there is a non-constitutive character to faith with respect
to salvation. Simply stated, faith does not make it so; rather, faith joyfully
and gratefully accepts that it is so. Faith in no way causes, constitutes or
contributes to the objective reality of our salvation. Per Hunsinger:
The non-constitutive
character of one’s faith with respect to one’s salvation could not be denied
without denying (among other things) not only the absolutely unconditional and
gratuitous character of divine grace, but also the saving work of Christ as
something finished, complete, and unrepeatable in itself (p. 110).
In other words, to require a decision of faith in order to be
saved (as is common in evangelicalism) is to deny the finished work of Christ
and the gracious nature of salvation.
Obviously, there is a tension (paradox) here: if grace is
unconditional, how is faith indispensible? If faith is necessary, how is grace
unconditional? (p. 110). As Hunsinger explains, the tension between grace as unconditional and faith as indispensable must simply be
allow to stand. Barth does not try to explain the paradoxical relationship
between unconditional salvation and indispensable faith. For Barth, “mystery
precludes mastery.” Thus, theology must be content with description, not
explanation (p. 111). As Hunsinger notes, closely following Barth:
The unity of
grace and faith occurs in such a way that grace is always universal and
unconditional in its objective efficacy and validity, yet at the same time faith is always necessary and indispensable
in its existential receptivity and freedom. A theology which could explain how this unity occurs as it does or how
it occurs as a unity would be explaining the modus operandi of the Holy Spirit (p. 111).
COMMENT: Barth
does not try to explain away the tension between unconditional grace and the
necessity of faith. If I understand Barth correctly, he is simply trying to
describe―not explain!―what the New Testament teaches in regard to this paradoxical
relationship. It impresses me deeply that a thinker of Barth’s magnitude would
simply allow the paradox to stand. He does not attempt a “rational” explanation
of the mystery of the atonement as, for example, do R.C. Sproul and many other Calvinists,
who reduce salvation to a logical formula (i.e., the five points of Calvinism).
Nevertheless, because faith is indispensable to experience or participate in
salvation, I can stand alongside an evangelical and preach “repentance and
faith,” not as conditions for salvation but as the appropriate and again―dare I
say―necessary and indispensable responses to the gift that is already ours in
Christ. At least today, I am content to leave it at that.
Notwithstanding the indispensable nature of faith, three things must
not be said in regard to the existential
moment of faith: 1) The existential moment of faith must not be spoken of as
making the objective moment of salvation real, as though salvation were unreal
or merely abstract until the moment of its existential appropriation; 2) “Nor
may the existential moment be spoken of as effecting a transition from being
outside to being inside the objective moment, as though the objective moment
did not already include each and every human existence within itself” 3) nor
may the existential moment be spoken of as effecting a transition from a
potential state of grace to a real state of grace, as though the objective
moment of salvation was not already real, valid and efficacious for all (p.
113).
The transition effected by the existential moment of faith is a movement
from non-acknowledgement to acknowledgement. It is a transition from ignorance,
indifference or outright hostility to an attitude of gratitude and surrender. There
is an inner unity in the objective and existential moments of faith such that
the objective does not occur without the free existential reception and response
nor does the existential occur without the sovereign precedence and actualization
of the objective. From the standpoint of eternity, faith contributes nothing
new to the objective moment of salvation; from a personal, subjective
standpoint, faith makes all things new (p. 113). Quoting Barth, Hunsinger
writes:
[The phrase]
“In Christ” is the key indicator of Barth’s soteriological objectivism. . . . “In
Christ” means that we are reconciled to God, in him we are elect from eternity,
in him we are called, in him we are justified and sanctified, in him our sin is
carried to the grave, in his resurrection our death is overcome, with him our
life is hid in God, in him everything that has to be done for us, to us, and by
us, has already been done . . . (Barth, CD I/2, 240; cf. II/2, 117; Hunsinger, 115.)
We are incorporated “in Christ” by Christ. It is solely by his
acts as Mediator; it is accomplished without reference to us (p. 115).
Hunsinger notes:
In his role
as the true covenant partner, Jesus Christ took the place of humankind before
God in a positive sense, enacting obedience and service to God on humankind’s
behalf [active obedience] . . . . By his suffering and death he thereby also
took humankind’s place before God in a negative sense, assuming to himself the
accusation, judgment, and punishment that were rightfully humankind’s [passive
obedience] (p. 116).
As a consequence of the mediatorial work of Christ (both positive
and negative; active and passive), human salvation is already accomplished. “Whether
we acknowledge it or not, salvation comes to us as a gift that is already
real and complete. It needs no further actualization or completion by us or
even in us, for by Christ we already have our being in Christ” (pp. 116, 117;
emphasis added). Our salvation is real and effective whether we know it or not, for “the great alteration of the human
situation,” our reconciliation in Christ has already been accomplished. According
to Hunsinger, “Our being in Christ is understood in the strongest possible
terms: as an ‘ontological connection.’” It is a connection that is grounded and
established not by our action but solely by his action, not in our subjective
experience but solely in his experience, and thus not in ourselves but solely
in him. As Barth asserts, the gospel “does not indicate possibilities but
declares actualities” (CD IV/2, 275). For Hunsinger, “The gospel does not
proclaim that if only we will fulfill certain conditions, salvation will then
be effective for us.” Our being “in
Christ by Christ” is not a mere offer or a possibility; it is a reality, an event which “in its scope is
determinative of all human existence.” Our salvation is not merely potential,
it is actual. Our salvation is not contingent upon the fulfillment of
conditions such as making the necessary decision, undergoing various religious
exercises, righting social wrongs or receiving properly validated sacraments. Our
salvation is already actual and effective; we need only to acknowledge and receive
it in freedom, not make it effective ourselves (Hunsinger, p. 117). Barth
argues:
Is Jesus
Christ only the possibility and not rather the full actuality of the grace of
God? Is his intervention for us sinners anything other or less than the divine
forgiveness itself? And what does this forgiveness lack in order to be
effective if it has taken place in him (CD IV/1, 487. Cited in Hunsinger, 117,
118).
Rather than a mere open possibility, salvation is an effective
reality because it is a “comprehensive, total and definitive” event that has taken
place apart from us but not without us. Our salvation takes place because we
are included in the history of Jesus Christ. “His history is as such our
history,” because in his life, death and resurrection he has made our situation
his own (Barth, CD IV/1, 547, 548; cited in Hunsinger, p. 118).
If we are to find the truth of our salvation and the ground of our
existence in Christ, the “basic rule” is that we should look away from
ourselves to Jesus. We are not to seek knowledge of our salvation in
introspection or self-examination but rather we are to look away from ourselves
to the reality of our salvation in Christ (Hunsinger, p. 118).
***
If you find
these posts helpful, please consider a small online donation to AsiAfrica Ministries, Inc. We assist
pastors, evangelists, missionaries and their families and churches in east
Africa and south Asia. Visit our website at www.AsiAfricaMinistries.org
.
