Grace and Response: A Matter of Order

Many years ago, when I was a young man in Bible college, one of my theology professors said to the class, “When I wake up in the morning, the first thing I do is fall out of bed onto my knees and pray that I don’t sin!” I remember the discomfort I felt upon hearing this stunning revelation. I knew immediately that I was a wash-out, a spiritual failure, because the first thing I did in the morning was reach for the coffee pot! Still today, I must drink at least two cups of “java” to clear my head before I can vaguely contemplate the sins I am liable to commit before lunch.

Even as a naïve and inexperienced nineteen-year old, I knew there was something fundamentally wrong with my professor’s view of God―at least I hoped there was! It seemed that his “God” was more to be feared than loved. Behind his staggering confession lurked a harsh taskmaster who meticulously keeps count of our sins and shortcomings, so that he can finally mete out the just and terrible punishment we deserve. Decades later, after years of study, I realize that the doctrine of God I was taught in “Bible college” described a deity far different from the loving Father that Jesus Christ came to reveal (Matt 11:27).

Purveyors of Legalism

Since that time, I have encountered other preachers and teachers of “religion” who are fond of portraying “God” as a harsh judge, whose primary concern is crime and punishment or sin and guilt. Because of their one-sided emphasis on law, judgment and penalty, they insist that the most important aspect of Christian life is obedience, which often includes strict adherence to humanly-devised codes of dress, diet and lifestyle.

For these messengers of the “bad news” anti-gospel, obedience and discipline take priority over relationship and grace. God is a judge to be feared or a taskmaster to be served rather than a Father to be adored. Where legalism (i.e., “law”) takes center stage, discipleship and Christian living are reduced to obedience without faith, service without joy, and worship without gratitude. These important aspects of Christian life become burdensome duties to be performed out of fear of retribution rather than grateful responses to the Father’s love revealed in Jesus Christ.

According to the ministers of legalism, grace, forgiveness and justification are conditional. Rather than gifts to be gratefully received, these Gospel promises are held out like carrots to spur overburdened believers to obedience. For the purveyors of religion, the Gospel is a threat rather than a promise, so that discipleship is reduced to a fearful response rather than a joyful encounter with the Father’s love.

The purveyors of law present the Gospel in terms of a “contract”: “If the ‘party of the first part’ (you and me) meets certain conditions, then the ‘party of the second part’ (God) will be gracious.” God’s love and goodness are not offered as gifts to be received but favours to be earned. Rather than the lavish outpouring of God’s innermost heart, divine love is “conditioned” by performance; that is, God will love us only “if” we meet the required standard―and woe to those who fall short, for surely they will be “left behind.”

In addition, a persistent fear lingers among the purveyors of religion, who insist that an emphasis on grace will lead to antinomianism (i.e., “lawlessness”). They refuse to spare the “rod” of law for fear their congregation will be spoiled. With furrowed brow and pointed finger, they try to coerce repentance and piety with the threat of judgment, hellfire and ever-impending doom. The “submission” coerced by the purveyors of religion, however, does not glorify God. Rather, obedience coerced under threat of punishment is “sin,” for it is not of “faith” (see Rom 14:23). Legalism’s emphasis on adherence to law by the power of the will forces believer’s into a “faithless obedience.”[1] To be sure, “legalism is obedience without faith.”[2]

Relationship between Grace and Response

Legalism, with its emphasis on law, judgment and penalty, is founded on a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between grace and law, forgiveness and repentance, and justification and faith. Legalism reverses the proper relationship between divine grace and human response portrayed in scripture, so that grace is conditioned by performance and forgiveness is begrudgingly bestowed following repentance. The legalist bellows, “If you repent, you will be forgiven.”

Grace is not a wage to be earned, however; it is a gift to be received. The Gospel proclaims, “You have been forgiven in Jesus, the Lamb of God who has taken away the sin of the world; therefore, repent and believe the good news!” The Gospel calls us to “change our mind” (i.e., “repent”) about Jesus, repudiate the demands of religion with its “conditional” grace, and embrace the Father’s love that is unconditionally poured out for all in the incarnate Saviour of the world.

In the Book of Exodus, we find the classic model for the proper relationship between grace and response. After he miraculously saved the people from bondage by a series of plagues that devastated Egypt, God led the Hebrew slaves to Mount Sinai, where he “introduced” himself to his people. Speaking through Moses, God said, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me….” (Ex 20:3ff). Notice the proper order between divine grace and human response that is revealed in this passage. First, God introduces himself as the God who saves: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the bondage of Egypt.” Second, God summons the people to respond to his gracious initiative: “You shall have no other gods before me.” The relationship between grace and law is set in the context of an indicative (“I have saved you”) followed by an imperative (“You shall have no other gods …”).[3] After saving them from bondage, God gives the people the law as an act of grace, so that this stubborn, stiff-necked band of slaves may learn to live in right relationship with God and neighbour. In turn, God graciously provides the ceremonial-sacrificial liturgy so that the people may respond to divine revelation in an appropriate and reverent manner (Ex 20-40; Lev 1-27). In regard to the relationship between grace and human response, grace is prior, so that law and liturgy is a response to grace, not a condition for it! This passage clearly establishes the relationship between divine grace and human response and sets a pattern that runs throughout both the Old and New Testaments: grace is prior to and unconditioned by human response.

The relationship between grace and response is clearly evidenced in the New Testament. Jesus said to his disciples, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another” (John 13:34). The priority of grace is glaringly apparent: “As I have loved you [grace], so you must love one another [response].” Again, Jesus says (John 15:9), “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you [grace]. Now remain in my love” [response]. Perhaps the clearest indication of the relationship between grace and response is found in 1 John (4:19): “We love because he first loved us” (emphasis added).

Grace Before Dinner

Luke (19:1-10) describes an encounter between Jesus and a notorious sinner that perfectly illustrates the proper relationship between divine grace and human response. When Jesus was passing through Jericho on his way to Jerusalem, near the end of his earthly ministry, Zacchaeus, who was short in stature, climbed a sycamore tree so that he might see Jesus pass. Seeing him in the tree, Jesus said, “Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.” Upon hearing Jesus’ gracious request, Zacchaeus came down from the tree and gladly welcomed Jesus to his home. Immediately the local villagers began to mutter among themselves, for Zacchaeus, like other tax collectors, was regarded as a swindler and a thief, who unlawfully kept for himself a portion of the taxes he collected. Even worse, everyone regarded Zacchaeus as a traitor, because he collaborated with the oppressive Roman regime. Because he was a “sinner,” Zacchaeus was a social outcast, ostracized by the respectable community. Jesus’ surprising request to dine at his home, therefore, was cause for scandal. At dinner, however, Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.” Then Jesus said to Zacchaeus, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”

This story perfectly illustrates the relationship between grace and response. In the light of Jesus’ love for him, Zacchaeus sees the darkness of his own sin. In response to the love and acceptance he encounters in Jesus, Zacchaeus repents! His repentance, however, is not a shame-based response coerced by law and condemnation. It is a joyful, grateful response to the love and acceptance he encounters in Jesus. The grace of God embodied in Jesus is the immediate cause of the tax collector’s repentance. Zacchaeus’ repentance is not a condition for grace. It is a joyful response to grace!

Grace is Always Prior

We can better understand the relationship between grace and response by noting the difference between “legal” repentance and “evangelical” repentance. “Legal” repentance is a fearful submission to the threat of law and judgment. “Evangelical” repentance, on the other hand, is a joyous response to God’s love for the entire world revealed in Jesus. Zacchaeus’ grateful response to Jesus is a prime example of “evangelical” repentance. The Scottish Reformer John Knox disdained the words “justification by faith,” noting that this recurring slogan implies that justification depends upon the believer’s faith rather than the grace of God. Knox preferred the fuller phrase, “justification by grace through faith” in Jesus, for it accurately represents the proper relationship between grace and justification. Our “right-standing” with God (i.e., “justification”) is freely and unconditionally given us in Jesus, through whom the Father has reconciled the world to himself (2 Cor 5:19; Col 1:19, 20). Faith is not the cause of justification. It is the channel through which we receive the “right-standing” that is already ours in Jesus.

COMMENT: We are not “made right” with God because of our personal faith. To the contrary, we were “made right” in Jesus long before we had a chance to profess our faith. Personal faith is the channel that allows us to receive the grace that is already ours in Jesus. In other words, we do not believe to make it so, we believe because it is so.

The re-discovery of the God of grace revealed in Jesus Christ enabled Reformers like John Knox to re-claim the New Testament promise that “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom 5:8). The Reformers rediscovered the Gospel truth elegantly illustrated in the story of Jesus and Zacchaeus. In the good news of God’s love for humanity revealed in Jesus Christ, grace is prior to human response. Divine love is the cause, repentance and faith are the consequences.

Preaching and Missions

The proper understanding of the relationship between grace and response has a profound effect on preaching and missions. An emphasis on grace frees believers from the burden of legalism (Matt 11:28) in favour of freedom for love of God and neighbour empowered by the Holy Spirit. Discipleship as a response to grace brings glory to God, for it is the expression of love rather than duty (see John 14:23; 15:8). Preachers and teachers who wish to promote love for neighbour in their hearers must focus on Jesus’ love for the sinner, the outcast and the marginalized as revealed in the Gospel. Pastors who want to encourage generosity, service and self-giving should remind their hearers of God’s sacrificial love revealed in Jesus, who heard the cry of the needy, healed the sick, fed the hungry, washed his disciples’ feet and gave his life on the cross as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45).

When the proper relationship between grace and response is clearly understood, God is glorified because love for God and neighbour rather than fear of judgment and penalty becomes the motive for Christian living. When believers fully understand the good news that underlies the proper relationship between divine grace and human response, the ordinary concerns of Christian life, including worship, Bible study, service and giving, become grateful responses to grace willingly engaged rather than duties grudgingly carried out in order to earn God’s favour. When grace is properly related to response, legalistic demands for obedience and conformity—usually accompanied by an unbiblical threat of hellfire and damnation—may be rejected in favour of the Gospel proclamation of the good news of God’s love for all revealed in Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29).

The proper relation between grace and response has a profound effect on missions and the proclamation of the Gospel. Rather than a “rescue” operation intended to “save” people from hell, missions becomes a joyful and confident invitation for all to receive the grace and goodness of the loving Father, who “was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” (2 Cor 5:19). Like Jesus, who summoned his hearers to repent and believe the Gospel (Mark 1:15), the messengers of the good news may confidently summon their hearers to repentance, faith and appropriate form of life, not as conditions for divine favour, but as grateful responses to the grace that is already poured out on all humanity by the Father who sent his precious Son, so that he might “lavish” his love upon us in Jesus Christ (John 3:16; 1 John 3:1). 

Martin M. Davis, PhD

[1] Deddo, G.W. 2007. The Christian Life and Our Participation in Christ’s Continuing Ministry. In G. Dawson, ed. An Introduction to Torrance Theology: Discovering the Incarnate Saviour. London: T & T Clark, p. 157.

[2] Ibid. 

[3] I am paraphrasing theologian James B. Torrance, who often said that “the indicatives of grace are prior to the imperatives of law.”

A.S. Radcliff: The Claim of Humanity in Christ (in the Torrance tradition), Post 10

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).

Hunsinger: The Place of Faith in Barth's Objective View of Salvation

Reference: Hunsinger, G. 1991. How to Read Karl Barth: The Shape of His Theology. Oxford: OUP. 298pp. From Chapter Five, “Truth as Mediated: Salvation.”

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 .

T.F. Torrance: The Vicarious Humanity of Jesus Christ, pt. 5

With this and the following posts, we get into the heart of Torrance’s doctrine of the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ.

Vicarious Humanity and Human Response

A clearer understanding of Torrance’s doctrine of the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ may be gained by an exploration of the relationship between the humanity of Jesus and the mediation of the human response to God.

Following Scottish pastor and theologian, John McLeod Campbell (Torrance, 1976a:141), Torrance identifies Galatians 2:20 as a passage of “primary importance” in his doctrine of the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ, a passage he personally translates as follows (Torrance, 1994:31; Torrance, et. al., 1999:24, 25; cf. Torrance, 1957:113):

I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I. But Christ lives 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.

Commenting on his translation of this passage, Torrance (1994:31; Torrance, et. al., 1999:25) argues:

“The faith of the Son of God” is to be understood here not just as my faith in him, but as the faith of Christ himself, for it refers primarily to Christ’s unswerving faithfulness, his vicarious and substitutionary faith which embraces and undergirds us, such that when we believe we must say with St. Paul “not I but Christ,” even in our act of faith.

Galatians 2:20 is the paradigmatic text for understanding Torrance’s doctrine of the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ. As Torrance (1992:98) argues, this text informs all our human responses to God, including faith, conversion, worship, the sacraments, and evangelism (cf. Torrance, 1992:81-98). The relationship between the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ and specific aspects of human response to God will be the subject of the remainder of the present chapter.

Faith

Torrance’s early article on faith (1957) ignited a “firestorm” of controversy. In this article, Torrance argues that human faith is grounded in God’s faithfulness, indeed, that faith and believing do not apply to humanity, but to God. Torrance’s understanding of faith and its relation to the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ reveals the “fundamental contours” of his theology, particularly in regard to the “once-for-allness” of what God has accomplished in the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ (Thimell, 2008:27, 28).

While we are accustomed to thinking of faith as something we possess, or as an activity in which we engage, faith is not to be construed as an independent, autonomous act which arises from a base within ourselves (Torrance, 1992:81, 82). Arguing that the intellectual aspect of faith (pistis) is grounded in “the basic fact of the faithfulness of God,” Torrance (1957:111) notes that the Old Testament concept of faith (’emunah) mirrors the “constancy” and “steadfastness” of a parent to her child (cf. Is 49:15), and is properly applied to God in his covenant faithfulness, not to man (cf. Dt 7:9). Thus, faith and belief do not properly describe a virtue or quality of human beings; rather, “they describe man as taking refuge from his own frailty and instability in God who is firm and steadfast.”

The biblical conception of faith is rooted in the covenant relationship between God and Israel. In the “community of reciprocity” established between God and his people, there is a reciprocal movement of faith, that is, a “polarity between the faithfulness of God and the answering faithfulness of man.” Even when the people’s faith faltered, God would not let them go. Despite their rebellion and unfaithfulness, God held on to them in “undergirding” and “utterly invariant” faithfulness, as revealed in his covenant love for Israel. Hence, the ultimate ground of Israel’s faith toward God was God’s faithfulness toward Israel. As Torrance argues, the steadfast faithfulness of God is the ground on which redemption rests, as the divinely prepared pattern of Israel’s cultic liturgy attests (Torrance, 1992:82).

The New Testament concept of faith is not different, although it is “intensely personalised” in the incarnation of Jesus Christ. He is “the Truth of God actualized in our midst, the incarnate faithfulness of God” (Torrance, 1971:154; 1992:82). In an important passage for understanding the relation between human faith (pistis), God, and the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ, Torrance (1957:113; cf. 1971:154) describes Jesus Christ as the “embodiment and actualisation” of human faith in covenant with God. He writes:

Like the Old Testament, the New Testament also lays emphasis upon the faithfulness of God, and requires from man a corresponding faithfulness. But in the gospel the steadfast faithfulness of God has achieved its end in righteousness and truth in Jesus Christ, for in Him it has been actualised as Truth, and is fulfilled in our midst. Jesus Christ is not only the Truth of God but also Truth of God become man, the Truth of God become truth of man. As such, Jesus is also the truth of man before God, for God, and toward God. Jesus Christ is thus not only the incarnation of the Divine pistis, but He is the embodiment and actualization of man’s pistis in covenant with God. He is not only the Righteousness of God, but the embodiment and actualization of our human righteousness before God.

The Old Testament concept of the faithfulness of God is actualised in Jesus Christ, who, at the same time, is the embodiment and actualisation of man’s faith toward God. In his incarnate constitution as God and man in one person, Jesus Christ manifests a “twofold” faithfulness or steadfastness; that is, “the steadfastness of God and the steadfastness of man in obedience to God.” Jesus Christ is both the Word of God revealed to man and man in steadfast obedience and faithfulness to that Word. As Torrance argues, “He is from the side of man, man’s pistis answering to God’s pistis, as well as from the side of God, God’s pistis requiring man’s pistis: as such He lived out the life of the Servant, fulfilling in Himself our salvation in righteousness and truth.” Torrance finds this truth summed up in the New Testament assertion that Jesus Christ is both the faithful “Yes” of God to man and the faithful “Amen” of man to God (cf. 2Cor 1:18-20). “He offers to God for us, and is toward God in His own person and life, our human response of obedience and faithfulness” (Torrance, 1957:114).

In this regard, Torrance notes two great aspects of the gospel which need fuller consideration in modern theology than they have been given. First, the “whole of our salvation” is dependent upon the “faithfulness of God.” It is God’s faithfulness that undergirds and supports our “feeble and faltering” faith, and enfolds it in his own. In Jesus Christ, we are unable to disentangle our faith from the faithfulness of God, for it is the nature of our faith to be implicated in the faithfulness of Jesus. Second, Jesus Christ is not only the incarnate Word of God; he is also “Believer,” “Believer for us,” “vicariously Believer, whose very humanity is the embodiment of our salvation” (Torrance, 1957:114). Torrance continues:

In Him who is Man of our humanity, we are graciously given to share, and so to participate in the whole course of His reconciling obedience from His birth to His death. That He stood in our place and gave to God account for us, that He believed for us, was faithful for us, and remains faithful even when we fail Him again and again, is the very substance of our salvation and the anchor of our hope.

In his solidarity with humanity, Jesus Christ stands in our place, in his life and in his death, in utter faithfulness to God and man. In his complete filial obedience and faithfulness to the Father, Jesus offers to God the “perfect response of faith” which we are unable to offer; that is, Jesus “offers to God, and is toward God in His own person and life, our human response of faith and obedience to God.” He is man keeping faith and truth with “perfect correspondence” between his life and the word of God. In Jesus, there is “utter consistency” between the revealed word of God and man hearing, believing, and obeying that word (Torrance, 1971:154). Jesus enters into the relationship between the faithfulness of God and the unfaithfulness of human beings to restore the faithfulness of mankind by grounding it in his own faithfulness, thereby perfectly answering God’s faithfulness (Torrance, 1992:82). Torrance continues:

Thus Jesus steps into the actual situation where we are summoned to have faith in God, to believe and trust in him, and he acts in our place and in our stead from within the depths of our unfaithfulness and provides us freely with a faithfulness in which we share. He does that as Mediator between God and man, yet precisely as man united to us and taking our place at every point where we human beings . . . are called to have faith in the Father, to believe in him and trust him.

As Mediator between God and man, Jesus steps into the arena of human faith in order to act in our place from within the depths of our fallen and unfaithful humanity. As Torrance argues, “[I]f we think of belief, trust or faith as forms of human activity before God, then we must think of Jesus Christ as believing, trusting and having faith in God the Father on our behalf and in our place.” Even in regard to our belief, Jesus acts vicariously, that is, in our place, offering to the Father the fullness of faith we are unable to offer. Torrance illustrates his argument with a story about teaching his young daughter to walk. While the little child held firmly to her father’s hand as tightly as she could, it was not her feeble grasp that enabled her to remain steady, but, rather, her father’s strong grip on her hand. As Torrance argues, “This is surely how God’s faithfulness actualised in Jesus Christ has hold of our weak and faltering faith and holds it securely in his hand” (Torrance, 1992:82, 83; cf. 1994:32; et. al., 1999:26).

For Torrance, our response of faith is a “free participation” in the faithful response of Jesus Christ already made on our behalf. Our response of faith is encompassed “within the ring of faithfulness which Christ has already thrown around us, when in faith we rely not on our own believing but wholly on his vicarious response of faithfulness toward God.” Hence, Christ’s faith undergirds our feeble faith and enfolds it in his own. Moreover, since the faith of the incarnate Word includes both the faith of God and the faith of man, “we are unable to disentangle our acts of faith in Christ from their implication in the eternal faithfulness of God” (Torrance, 1971:154).

For Torrance, faith is a “polar concept” that “reposes upon and derives from the prior faithfulness of God which has been translated permanently into our actual human existence in Jesus Christ.” We do not rely upon our own faith, “but upon the faith of Christ which undergirds and upholds our faith” (Torrance, 1960:235). In the “polar relation” between Christ’s faith and our faith, “our faith is laid hold of, enveloped, and upheld by his unswerving faithfulness.” Jesus Christ takes our place, making our cause his own, and offering to the Father the response of faith and love we are altogether unable to offer. Human faith, therefore, has its proper place, not within the autonomous individual, but within the “polar relationship” between God and mankind, a relationship that is “actualised” in Jesus Christ, with whom we are yoked together and made to share in his vicarious faith and faithfulness on our behalf. Through his incarnational and atoning union with us, our faith is implicated in his faith; yet, far from being depersonalised, our faith is made to issue “freely and spontaneously” out of our own lives before God. To be sure, we rest in the faithfulness of the incarnate Saviour, and even the way in which we rest is undergirded by his own faithfulness. For Torrance, therefore, the relation between our responses in faith to the vicarious faith of Christ can be summed up in the Pauline principle, “not I but Christ.” Even in our believing we must say with St. Paul, “I believe, yet not I but Christ” (Torrance, 1992:83, 84; 1994:31, 32; Torrance, et. al., 1999:25; cf. 1957:113).

References

Thimell, D. 2008. Torrance’s Doctrine of Faith. The Princeton Theological Review, vol XIV, no. 2, issue 39. Available at http://www.princetontheologicalreview.org/issues_pdf/39.pdf

Torrance, T.F. 1957. One Aspect of the Biblical Conception of Faith. The Expository Times, vol 68, pp. 111-114.

Torrance, T.F. 1971. God and Rationality. London: OUP. 216 pp.

Torrance, T.F. 1976a. Theology in Reconciliation: Essays toward Evangelical and Catholic Unity in East and West. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 302 pp.

Torrance, T.F. 1992. The Mediation of Christ (rev. ed.). Colorado Springs, CO: Helmers & Howard. 126 pp.

Torrance, T.F. 1994. Preaching Christ Today: The Gospel and Scientific Thinking. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 71 pp.

Torrance, T.F. et al. 1999. A Passion for Christ: The Vision That Ignites Ministry (edited by G. Dawson & J. Stein). Edinburgh: Handel Press. 150 pp.