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 19

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

Per Radcliff, there is an eschatological reserve (“time lag”) between the ascension and the parousia in which sin is an ongoing reality, both in the world and in the Church. At the same time, we are given a new “eschatological orientation” in the risen humanity of Jesus, so that, in the here and now, we are privileged to share by the Spirit in Christ’s communion with the Father. This means that a “holy life” does not stem from introspective self-examination or muscular moral effort; a holy life stems from our free and liberating participation by the Spirit in the Father- Son relationship.

Man Turned in Upon Himself

For the Torrances, sin is “man turned in upon himself” (homo incurvatus in se). Sin is the rejection of God in favor of personal autonomy. (In the words of C.S. Lewis, sin is man’s desire “to set up shop on his own.”) Robert Jensen suggests that pride, sloth and falsehood fall under the conceptual umbrella of homo incurvatus in se. As Radcliff argues,

Essentially, sin is homo incurvatus in se (man turned in upon himself). Although we have been reconciled for relationship, to share by the Spirit in the Son’s communion with the Father, there is an irrational mystery that people choose to make themselves their own center.

For Barth, sin is driven by two errors: a misunderstanding of God as a despot and a misunderstanding of humanity as self-determining. Paraphrasing Torrance, since we are created to find our “center” in relationship with God, sin violates our center, so that we become “ec-centric” (“off-center”). Barth describes this as “man rotating about himself.” As Radcliff argues, the ministry of the Holy Spirit is to turn us out of ourselves (homo excurvatus ex se), so that we are re-oriented (by the Spirit) to find our lives in Jesus, and in his relationship with the Father. Our “re-orientation” by the Spirit, in which we are turned out of ourselves toward Jesus (homo excurvatus ex se), is the foundation of a holy life. Radcliff’s assertion is in marked contrast to the neo-Puritan insistence on an introspective turn inward to look for vestiges of sin.

Comment: In many self-help programs based on the Twelve Steps, there is a strong emphasis on a “moral inventory” that requires a significant amount of introspection and self-examination. Twenty-five years ago, when I was a therapist, I led a weekend workshop where the participants spent the weekend in introspection and self-examination, writing their findings down, so that they could lay it all at the foot of the cross at the end of the workshop. I was amazed at the level of fear expressed by the participants. The notion that they were supposed to look inside in order to “inventory” all their character defects, shortcomings and sins was absolutely terrifying for almost everyone. In view of Radcliff’s argument for a turn away from ourselves toward Jesus, I am wondering about the therapeutic efficacy of the “moral inventory” of Twelve Step programs. Given that many (most?) people in these programs are burdened with low self-esteem, would it not be better to ask them to turn away from themselves in order to see who they are in Jesus. I don’t know. Just thinkin’.

Back to Radcliff. For the Torrances, God’s purpose for humanity is filial (having to do with sonship, or relationship), not legal. We are reconciled for relationship, not for a second chance to keep the law. As we participate by the Spirit in the “right-ness” of the Father-Son relationship, we are enabled (by the Spirit) to reflect the reality of who we are in Jesus. In short, our humanity is not determined by Adam (despite the Calvinists’ insistence on “total depravity”); rather, our humanity is determined by the risen Jesus, as we participate by the Spirit in his sanctified humanity. Although we live in the “eschatological reserve,” with the ongoing presence of sin, we also live in the power of Pentecost, notes Radcliff (p. 171). At Pentecost, argues TF Torrance, Jesus shared the Holy Spirit with humanity, so that humanity might share by the Holy Spirit in Christ.

Comment: For me, here is the advantage of viewing justification and sanctification as objectively realized for everyone in the vicarious humanity of Jesus assumed in the incarnation. Because we are justified-sanctified “in him,” we can regard holy living as the consequence of participation, rather than the result of puritanical effort. If I am understanding this correctly, and I think I am, this is extremely liberating. It allows me to lay down the heavy yoke of moral effort (which I’m no good at anyway!) and take on Jesus’ light yoke instead. It will be interesting to see how this actually “lives out” for me.

To continue: Radcliff asserts that “sin is driven by not knowing what has been objectively achieved for us in Christ.” (That’s a nice assertion but sin can also be driven by “wine, women and song,” or so they tell me!) In a sermon, Torrance preached that we behave as though we are not dead to sin because we do not believe we are dead to sin. Radcliff cites 2 Peter 1:9, where those who do not practice godliness have forgotten that they have been cleansed by sin. As a former therapist, I would argue that sin involves more than a lack of knowledge of our ontological reality in Jesus (as important as that is). Behavior, good or bad, is driven by a multitude of psychological, emotional and behavioral factors.

Metanoia

According to Radcliff, the scriptural admonition to “fix our eyes on Jesus” is the essence of repentance (“a change of mind”). It is a turning outward, away from ourselves (homo excurvatus ex se), toward Jesus. As I like to say it, this turn toward Jesus is “moving from self-centeredness to Christ-centeredness.” It is finding our center in Jesus, not in self. As Radcliff argues, “This challenges an introspective, anthropocentric notion of repentance whereby we are turned in on ourselves to examine our sinfulness and endeavor to offer satisfactory grief” (p. 173). She contrasts this outward turn toward Jesus with the neo-Puritanism of J.I. Packer, who describes repentance in terms of confessing and forsaking sins, altering thoughts, habits and attitudes and “binding one’s conscience to God’s moral law” (and more!). In the Torrance tradition, by contrast, we need not rely on the adequacy of our own moral effort because our repentance is a sharing in Jesus’ perfect vicarious repentance on our behalf. Where Packer describes repentance in terms of displeasure and life-long pain, JB Torrance describes it as a “joyful” activity. This is because, as Radcliff notes, JB conceives of repentance as turning away from ourselves to Christ, in whose intimate communion with the Father we are free to participate.

Comment: Following Radcliff, if sin involves an inward turn toward self, one could argue that that the Puritan insistence on introspection and self-examination may actually make matters worse!

As we live in the “eschatological reserve,” the Church is directed away from itself toward those things which are above, so that we may hold on to what is true of us in Jesus, for our lives are hidden with Christ in God (Col 3:1-3). Not only are we directed to Christ, we are directed to share in Christ, and in his mind and truth (1 Cor 2:16: “We have the mind of Christ.”). As Radcliff notes:

This means that our beliefs should be shaped by the truth of God rather than our own human experience. In the context of sanctification, this means that what we believe should be informed by the truth of our identity as saints in Christ, as opposed to our earthly experiences of sinfulness (p. 174). Write it down folks. That’ll preach!

Comment: Radcliff’s assertion finds support in cognitive therapy, where changing our beliefs about ourselves is an important part of the therapeutic process.

Radcliff concludes this section by examining the “pattern” of the apostle Paul’s letters. Since sin is driven by a misunderstanding of God and humanity (per Radcliff), it is necessary to have correct knowledge in order to live holy lives. Paul reminds his readers of “who they are” in Christ, then exhorts them to live accordingly. Richard Hayes (like Barth) argues that Paul exhorts his readers to view their “obligations and actions in the cosmic context of what God has done in Christ.” This, of course, accords well with JB Torrance’s well-known assertion that the “indicatives of grace are prior to the imperatives of law.” Finally, Andrew Murray asserts that “[t]he whole Christian life depends on the clear consciousness of our position in Christ.” In an extensive quote, Murray exhorts us to “get hold of” the reality of our union with Christ, for “man’s acts are always in accordance with his idea of his state.” For Murray, a man who knows he is a king will act like a king.

Comment: Andrew Murray (South African pastor) was roughly contemporary with George MacDonald. Murray’s devotional writings are well-worth a look.

As Radcliff rightly notes, knowing “who we are” in Jesus does not necessarily mean we will always live holy lives. However, the idea that our perceived identity is significant for how we act finds support in Paul’s frequent affirmations of our identity in Christ. Per Radcliff, “Scriptural exhortations to godly behavior are often preceded by directing the early Christians to the truth of their identity in Christ.” She cites a sermon by TF Torrance, who argued that our new life in the vicarious humanity of Christ leads to a change in moral behavior. Torrance preached that our identity as saints is the basis for a holy life. It is the glorious paradox of the Gospel that, while, to all outward appearances we remain sinners, we are, in fact, new creations in Christ. When we are turned out of ourselves by the Spirit (homo excurvatus ex se), we find our identities in the vicarious humanity of Jesus, where our primary ontological reality is “saint.”

Comment: I continue to see many implications for pastoral counselling in Radcliff’s excellent work.

Key points

·       Holy living stems from our participation by the Spirit in the Father-Son relationship.

·       Holy living arises as we are turned out of ourselves by the Spirit to fix our eyes on Jesus.

·       Sin is “ec-centric.” It seeks to find its center in self, not in God.

·       Repentance is a change of mind, as we turn away from ourselves to fix our eyes on Jesus.

·       Self-perception influences behavior. We must see ourselves as “saints” in order to live holy lives.

Iron Sharpening Iron

Scripture tells us that “as iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.” (Prov 27:17). This is exactly what is happening on Tim Brassell’s Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/#!/tjbrassell in response to my latest post on “evangelism” and the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ. Tim graciously encouraged his readers to view my post and I thank him for that.

One of Tim’s readers and friends is rightly concerned with the place of individual repentance, discipleship, etc., in the light of Torrance’s doctrine of the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ. He used the all-too-real example of a meth-addict who shows up at church on Sunday morning. How is the community of faith to approach this suffering soul in the light of his inclusion in the Triune life of God?

Personal repentance is an important issue in Torrance’s theology. For Torrance, there is an “urgency” to the preaching of the Gospel because of the very real possibility that some may reject the love of God given for all in Jesus Christ. Because, the issue of reprobation and “hell” is real in this tradition, Torrance calls for a proclamation of repentance.

I do not know of a specific definition or description of repentance in Torrance’s writing, however (If any one does, please let me know). I am familiar with the descriptions of repentance offered by other students of Torrance, but I won’t attempt to repeat them here. For me, repentance involves both changing our thinking and behavior, changes related to the gospel proclamation that Jesus is Lord and Caesar is not (as NT Wright puts it). Therefore, get on board the Jesus train and become part of what he is doing here and now.

In regard to the preaching of repentance, however, there are two very different approaches, as I mentioned in the previous post. One approach is the “turn or burn” approach, particularly characteristic of older, and some, contemporary, evangelicalism. This approach regards repentance as a condition of salvation: If you repent, you will be saved. Inevitably, other conditions are added on: if you believe, if you obey, if you receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit, if you persevere, etc., you will be saved. This is the very form of “legal’ repentance which the Reformers fought against. This is NOT what I want to tell the meth-addict who comes to my church. More on him (or her) later.

In contradistinction to legal repentance is the good news proclaimed by the Reformers, what Calvin called “evangelical” repentance. “You are loved, you are chosen, you are saved: therefore, repent!” Here, repentance is a response to salvation, not a condition for it. This is what I want to tell the meth-addict.

I grew up in an alcoholic home. My parents divorced at a time when divorce was uncommon. Shame and guilt were my constant companions. A feeling of unworthiness has haunted me much of my life, especially in relation to all things “religious.” Moreover, the church has heaped enough shame, guilt, and condemnation on us poor sinners. We need some good news for a change. In this regard, Torrance’s approach to evangelism is vital and crucial.

When I was younger, if I came to your church and you told me I had better repent or God was going to send me to an eternity of hell-fire, I would have offered you the universal single-fingered gesture of contempt as I walked out the door. I’ve had enough condemnation; I don’t need any from you, thank you!

On the other, hand if you had told me:

God loves you so utterly and completely that he has given himself for you in Jesus Christ his beloved Son, and has thereby pledged his very Being as God for your salvation. In Jesus Christ God has actualised his unconditional love for you in your human nature in such a once for all way, that he cannot go back upon it without undoing the Incarnation and the Cross and thereby denying himself. Jesus Christ died for you precisely because you are sinful and utterly unworthy of him, and has thereby already made you his own before and apart from your ever believing in him. He has bound you to himself by his love in a way that he will never let you go, for even if you refuse him and damn yourself in hell his love will never cease. Therefore, repent and believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour. (TF Torrance)

then I might have been ready to listen. I might have even listened to your suggestions about getting help for my addiction.

In this regard, I want the meth-addict to come to my church. I want to tell him that God loves him unconditionally, that God has always loved him unconditionally, and that God will always love him unconditionally, no matter what. I’m telling you, brothers, this will preach!

Yet, this is not the end of it; this is only the beginning. I want to help the meth-addict get out of hell now and start living in the freedom of Jesus Christ. The meth-addict needs to repent, and I have a responsibility to tell him so. At the very least, his repentance would include abstinence from crystal meth and participation in a recovery program. If I am to mirror God’s unconditional love to this suffering soul, then I may need to direct him to a 12-Step meeting. I may need to get him into a treatment centre. There may be many things I need to do to minister to this suffering addict and in so doing, to minister to Jesus Christ (Mt 25). I will also need to assure him that God is with him in his brokenness, and will never let him go. Even if he relapses into active addiction, God will be there to pick him up out of the dirt and begin with him again on the road to recovery. And for the record, God will be there with him even in the hell of his using, but his addiction will blind him to the spiritual presence all around him.

Returning specifically to the doctrine of the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ, this doctrine does not negate the importance of personal faith, repentance, obedience and discipleship. To the contrary, it empowers it. As Torrance repeatedly argues, Jesus takes up our puny, feeble attempts at faith and obedience and unites them to his own, including them in his High-Priestly offering to the Father. Thus we are free to obey, knowing that our failures and shortcomings are made whole in the self-offering of Jesus Christ. Where we fall short, he hits the mark; where we stumble, he stands tall. This is good news. Now my faith and obedience can be offered in thanksgiving and gratitude to God. I can give God the gift of myself (the only thing God wants from me), not out of fear of punishment but out of loving gratitude for the riches that are mine in Christ.

To me, the difference between a “gospel” of repentance as a condition for salvation and repentance as a joyful response to salvation is immeasurable.

Thanks again to Tim Brassell and those participating in the conversation on his Facebook page. We need more of this to sharpen us all up!

Martin

If you find this blog helpful, please consider making a small online donation to AsiAfrica Ministries, Inc. We assist pastors, evangelists, missionaries and their families and churches in east Africa and south Asia. Please visit our website at www.AsiAfricaMinistries.org/ .

T.F. Torrance: The Vicarious Humanity of Jesus Christ, pt. 12

Evangelism

For Torrance (1992:92, 93), Jesus Christ must take centre stage when the Gospel is proclaimed. Noting Jesus’ teaching that we must deny ourselves to follow him, and that we must lose our own lives for his sake (Mt 16:24, 25), Torrance writes:

Face to face with Christ all would-be followers find themselves called into radical question, together with their preconceptions, self-centred desires and self-will, for to have him as Lord and Saviour means that he takes their place in order to give them his place.

Giving centre place to Jesus Christ is made difficult, however, by the “unevangelical” way in which the Gospel is often preached, for the call to repentance and faith seems to turn its hearers back upon their own faith and obedience rather than that of Jesus Christ. Torrance (1992:93) continues:

There is, then, an evangelical way to preach the Gospel and an unevangelical way to preach it. The Gospel is preached in an unevangelical way, as happens so often in modern evangelism, when the preacher announces: This is what Jesus Christ has done for you, but you will not be saved unless you make your own personal decision for Christ as your Saviour. Or: Jesus Christ loved you and gave his life for you on the Cross, but you will be saved only if you give your heart to him.

Torrance describes this “unless,” “if” form of evangelism as a doctrine of “conditional” grace which “belies the essential nature and content of the Gospel as it is in Jesus” by telling “poor sinners” that the final responsibility for their salvation is transferred from the shoulders of the Lamb of God to their own shoulders. This conditional or legalist proclamation may lead sinners to doubt their salvation, notes Torrance, for if the chain that binds them to God in Jesus Christ has for even one of its links their own weak faith, then the integrity of the entire chain is in question. Because they are aware that the very self that is being called upon to make a decision for Christ is in need of salvation, the Gospel is not really “good news” for them unless it is announced that Jesus Christ, in his unconditional love, has put the human self on an entirely different basis by replacing it with his own vicarious faith and obedience (Torrance, 1992:93).

Comment: Modern evangelicalism proclaims a conditional “gospel”: If you repent, you will be saved. To the contrary, the apostolic/Patristic kerygma (proclamation) is unconditional: You have been, are being, and will be saved by Jesus Christ; therefore, repent (2Cor 5:14-21). Repentance is not a requirement for salvation; it is a response to it. As the Apostle Paul argues, you are reconciled to God; therefore, be reconciled!

For Torrance (1992:94), the Gospel can only be preached in a genuinely evangelical way “when full and central place is given to the vicarious humanity of Jesus as the all-sufficient human response to the saving love of God which he has freely and unconditionally provided for us.” According to Torrance, the Gospel is preached evangelically as follows:

God loves you so utterly and completely that he has given himself for you in Jesus Christ his beloved Son, and has thereby pledged his very Being as God for your salvation. In Jesus Christ God has actualised his unconditional love for you in your human nature in such a once for all way, that he cannot go back upon it without undoing the Incarnation and the Cross and thereby denying himself. Jesus Christ died for you precisely because you are sinful and utterly unworthy of him, and has thereby already made you his own before and apart from your ever believing in him. He has bound you to himself by his love in a way that he will never let you go, for even if you refuse him and damn yourself in hell his love will never cease. Therefore, repent and believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour.

Comment: We need to hear the above quote in many sermons!

Torrance (1992:94) goes on to assure us that Jesus Christ, “as man,” has acted in our place, even in our personal response to the love of God and our acts of faith. He continues:

He has believed for you, fulfilled your human response to God, even made your personal decision for you, so that he acknowledges you before God as one who has already responded to God in him, who has already believed in God through him, and whose personal decision is already implicated in Christ’s self-offering to the Father, in all of which he has been fully and completely accepted by the Father, so that in Jesus Christ you are already accepted by him. Therefore, renounce yourself, take up your cross and follow Jesus as your Lord and Saviour.

Comment: Jesus Christ has already made a “personal decision of faith” in place of and on behalf of every one of us. We don’t “accept the Lord” in order to be saved; he has already “accepted” us and included us in his High-Priestly self-offering to the Father. That is what the doctrine of vicarious humanity is all about. Therefore, get off the fast track and get on board the Jesus’ train! All aboard!!

To preach the Gospel in this way, notes Torrance (1992:94, 95), is “to set before the people the astonishingly good news of what God has freely provided for us in the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ.” The evangelical proclamation frees us from doubts about the adequacy of our own faith, for it is not our faith, belief, and commitment that we rely on, but rather upon what Jesus Christ has done for us, in our place and on our behalf. Thus, we are liberated from all “ulterior motives” in following Christ on the ground of his vicarious response for us, so that we are “free for spontaneous joyful response and worship and service” in a way that we could not otherwise be.

Comment: Does Jesus set us free so that we can take up the chains of bondage and live again in the dark dungeon of sin, alienated from our Father? Of course not. He acts vicariously on our behalf, offering for us the perfect response of faith and obedience, so that we are free to worship and serve God. Thus, our service and obedience arise not from dreadful fear of awful punishment but as joyful, grateful responses to the salvation that is already ours in Jesus Christ.

References

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