Reference
Radcliff, A.S. 2016. The Claim of Humanity in Christ: Salvation
and Sanctification in the Theology of T.F. and J.B. Torrance. (Princeton
Theological Monograph Series 222), Eugene, OR: Pickwick. 208 pp.
Justified by Faith
At this point we need to get
something straight. As Radcliff rightly states, “The gospel calls for us to receive by faith this salvation objectively
achieved by Christ” (emphasis mine). Radcliff cites a number of scriptures to
support this claim (John 3;16; 6:28, 29;Rom 3:28; 5:1; Gal 2:16; 3:24; Eph
2:8). In the Torrance tradition, as I understand it, a response of faith is important, even necessary. Nevertheless,
while asserting the necessity of a response for salvation, the Torrances
rightly insist that salvation is not dependent
upon our personal (existential)
decision of faith. Salvation is not conditional; it is objectively real for all
in Jesus. At the same time, no one participates in the reality of salvation
except by faith.
Comment: The Torrances do not deny the need for personal faith and repentance. What they
adamantly do deny is that personal faith and repentance are conditions for salvation. As I often
teach it, we do not repent and believe in
order to be saved, we repent and believe because we are saved. Repentance, faith and, dare I say it,
obedience are the appropriate responses to the grace that is already ours in Jesus. What God has done
for us in Christ is far too precious to merely sluff off with a wink and a nod,
while going about our business, as if Jesus had never come. But perhaps I
digress. Let me move on before I break into “Rock of Ages.”
As Radcliff notes, the gospel
is distorted by preaching that makes faith a condition for salvation. Douglas Campbell articulates the
distortion this way: If you exercise faith then
you will be saved. If not, however, then this contract is not activated and its
obligations will not be honored by God.” Well said, Douglas! He rightly gets it
that this arrangement is really a business deal (perhaps a form of Locke’s
“individual contractualism,” as Radcliff so astutely notes (in a footnote,
thank goodness!)). In this distorted view, grace is unmerited (which is
correct) but it is not unconditional (which is incorrect). In this scheme,
justification is regarded as extremely gracious of God (after all, he deigns to
save a few of us miserable sinners), yet faith is still a condition for salvation.
Critics may argue that the
evangelical view does not really make faith a condition of salvation. In theory
that may be true; in practice it seems much different. As Radcliff notes,
critics fail to take “serious account of the reality within the church today,
where God’s acceptance of us can be made conditional upon the strength of our
faith, the sincerity of our repentance, the passion of our worship, the quality
of our prayer, and more.” I agree with Radcliff. I believe this is our default
way of thinking about the Gospel: God did his part, now we gotta do ours! I
believe this applies to conservative evangelicalism, as well as the social
gospel of liberal theology. Surely, there must be something we have to do to be
saved?
TF Torrance argues that evangelical
Protestantism has developed a way of preaching that distorts the gospel by
introducing an element of “co-redemption.” TFT calls this “the modern notion of
salvation by existential decision.”
Salvation is presented as a “potentiality” that must be “actualized” by a
personal (existential) decision of faith. For Torrance, this makes the
effectiveness of Christ’s work dependent upon the individual believer, thus
throwing the responsibility of salvation back upon us.
Comment: George Hunsinger, the great interpreter
of Barth, has some excellent things to say on the place of personal faith (or,
existential decision) in a Barth’s objective view of salvation. See my post here.
Vicarious Faith
Per Radcliff, for the Torrances,
“Justification is not a potentiality to be actualized by our faith; salvation
is an accomplished reality in Christ” (p. 75). It is not faith that justifies
us, but Christ in whom we have faith. This does not mean, however, that the Torrances diminish the gospel call to respond with faith. Our response, notes
Radcliff is a “participation” in a response that has already been made for us. Quoting
James Torrance, “Our response in faith and obedience is a response to the Response already made for us by Christ to the
Father’s holy love, a response we are summoned to make in union with Christ” (emphasis
mine). Our decision for Christ is a response to his prior decision for us. Our
“yes” to Jesus is a response to his prior “Yes” to all humanity. As JB Torrance
says, “He chose us, not we him.”
Comment: Our “response” in faith rests on Jesus
prior “Response” for us. Apart from the incarnational redemption of Jesus Christ
and the sending of the Spirit, we could not say “yes” to God’s prior “Yes’ in
Jesus. But the priority of Christ’s response does not mean that our “yes” is
meaningless or unimportant. While our salvation does not depend upon our “yes”
to Jesus, we cannot participate in
that salvation apart from it.
In his vicarious humanity,
Jesus has faith for us. Jesus is the
True Believer, on behalf of all humanity. Thus, we are liberated from the
burdensome task of trying to work up “enough” faith for our salvation. We are
called to have faith but it is not an autonomous, independent act. There is a
“polar relation” between Jesus’ faith and ours, where our faith is laid hold of
and enveloped in Jesus’ vicarious faith.
Comment: Isn’t it wonderful to know that our
salvation does not depend upon our weak, faltering faith, or our inconsistent
obedience. We depend only on Jesus, who lives the life of perfect faith and
obedience in our place, and on our behalf. Even now, Jesus is at the Father’s
side, presenting his perfect faith and obedience as a holy and pleasing
offering to God, all for us and for our salvation.
Pistis Christou
Radcliff concludes this
chapter with a discussion of the current debate on the proper translation of pistis christou, for example in
Galatians 2:20. Is it “faith of Christ” or “faith in Christ.” From what I have
read, the phrase can be translated correctly either way. For Torrance, it is
the former that is correct (“faith of Christ”). Here is the KJV translation:
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet
not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I
live by the faith of the Son of God,
who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Although the Torrance
tradition puts heavy weight on translating pistis
christou as “faith (or faithfulness) of
Christ,” most modern translations seem to translate the phrase as “faith in
Christ.” However, even translators bring their theological biases to the table.
N.T. Wright, Richard B. Hayes and Douglas Campbell are in agreement with
Torrance on the assertion of “faith of
Christ.” Radcliff quotes Hayes: “…it is a terrible and ironic blunder to read
Paul as though his gospel made redemption contingent upon our act of deciding to
dispose ourselves towards God in a particular way.”
As Radcliff notes, the
assertion that we are saved by faith “in” Christ puts tremendous responsibility
on our “personal decision” of faith in Jesus, whereas the assertion that we are
saved by the faith “of” Christ takes the load off our shoulders and transfers it
to Jesus, who in his vicarious humanity, includes us in his perfect faith.
***
For a detailed discussion of
Torrance’s doctrine of vicarious faith and the translation of pistis christou as “faith of Christ, see
my post here.
With the next post, we get to
Radcliff’s discussion of sanctification and the work of the Spirit in the
Torrance tradition. This is where the book comes into its own. Stay tuned,
brothers and sisters!
Please consider a small
tax-deductible donation to AsiAfrica
Ministries, Inc. We are working hard to bring incarnational-trinitarian
theology to east Africa and south Asia. We could use some help! Click here . (Put “God for Us” in message area).
No comments:
Post a Comment