Trinity Western University

THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION:
T. C. CHAO IN DIALOGUE WITH KARL BARTH

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF
THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
in
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

by
Tiffany Yu

Langley, British Columbia
March 2024

ii

Acknowledgement
I am genuinely thankful to the individuals who have played a pivotal role in the completion
of my thesis, and I want to express my heartfelt appreciation to each one of them.
First and foremost, I extend my profound gratitude to Dr. Archie Spencer, whose guidance
and direction have been instrumental in shaping my research. His encouragement, patience,
and corrections on numerous drafts have been indispensable, and it has been a true privilege
to work alongside such a dedicated mentor.
I am deeply thankful to Dr. Yonghua Ge for providing invaluable feedback and corrections on
my thesis drafts. His suggestions for refining the thesis structure and articulating ideas in
English have greatly improved the readability and elevated the overall quality of my work.
A heartfelt thanks to the esteemed faculty members at ACTS Seminaries, including Dr. Brian
Rapske, Dr. Robert Hiebert, Dr. Brian Cooper, Dr. Bruce Guenther, Dr. Larry Perkins, Dr.
Anderson, and Bill Badke. Their corrections and feedback on the thesis proposal have played
a crucial role in sharpening my understanding of the topic and improving the overall clarity
of the proposal.
My sincere appreciation goes to my colleagues and dialogue partners, Paul Foth, Erika
McAuley, Nick Poetker, and Fernando Miranda, whose constructive feedback on my initial
ideas greatly contributed to the development of my thesis.
Special thanks are due to Chinese Barthian Scholars Dr. Thomas Xutong Qu and Dr. Alex
Shaokai Tseng or providing insights into the acceptance of Barth's theology in China's
context, thereby enriching my understanding of the dialogue between T. C. Chao and Karl
Barth. I am particularly grateful to Dr. Qu for his insightful comments on contextualizing
Chao's work and for his emphasis on rigorously analyzing the text.
I wish to express my appreciation to the dedicated members of the libraries at Trinity Western
University and the John Richard Allison Library at Regent College, whose assistance in
locating essential resources proved invaluable in completing my research.
Last but certainly not least, I extend my heartfelt thanks to my husband and son for being by
my side every step of the way. I am truly grateful for their unwavering support and
encouragement throughout this journey.

iii

Abstract
This research compares the doctrines of justification articulated by the Chinese theologian T.
C. Chao and the Swiss theologian Karl Barth. After examining the development of each
theologian’s doctrine of justification within their respective contextual background, the study
undertakes a comparison of their most mature forms. The central research question is: What
are the similarities and differences between T. C. Chao’s doctrine of justification and that of
Karl Barth? Through an exploration of four essential aspects of the Protestant doctrine of
justification—Grace alone, Christ alone, Faith alone, and the relationship between
justification and sanctification—the comparative analysis demonstrates that Barth’s concept
of the covenantal relationship between God and humanity, grounded in the revelation of
Jesus Christ, enables a more comprehensive doctrine of justification, addressing both its
objective and subjective dimensions adequately. If this argument is sustainable, it suggests
additional areas where Chinese Christians might benefit from engaging with Barth’s
theological work.

iv

Contents

Acknowledgement
Abstract

Chapter 1 Introduction……………………………………………………………...…….....1
Introducing the Problem………………………………………………….…...1
Research Question & Hypothesis & Method…………….……………………3
Literature Referred...……………….………………………………….………3
Thesis Structure…………………………………….……..…........................10
Chapter 2 Exposition of T. C. Chao’s Doctrine of Justification…………...…...……..…13
The Context of T. C. Chao…………………………….…….…….........…....13
“God-man Cooperation” Justification
in Christian Philosophy…..………………………………...………………..20
“Fulfilling God’s Will” Justification
in Further Interpretation of Christianity………………………………..…...28
“Union with God” Justification
in Four Talks of Theology………………..………………………..................34
Chapter 3 Exposition of Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Justification……………....................42
The Context of Karl Barth………………………………..…..................…...42
Eschatological Justification
in The Epistle to the Romans…………………………...………................…48
Time-eternal Dialectical Justification

v

in Göttingen Dogmatics ………..……………………………....................…54
The Presupposition of The Mature Form
of Barth’s Doctrine of Justification…………………………................……..59
The Mature Form of Barth’s Doctrine of Justification
in Church Dogmatics…………………………………………................……64
Chapter 4

T. C. Chao and Karl Barth’s Doctrines of Justification
in Comparison………………………………………………………………71
Grace Alone……………………………….………………………...….……72
Christ Alone ………………………………………….…….……...…...……73
Faith Alone ………………………………………………….…….….....…...80
The Relation between Justification and Sanctification……..….….…..……..85

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………..........88

Bibliography…………………………………………………….……….……….......……..90

1

Chapter 1
Introduction

INTRODUCING THE PROBLEM
This study attempts to bring Karl Barth, arguably the most influential theologian in the West
in the last century or more, and T. C. Chao, one of the most famous Chinese theologians, into
dialogue, focusing on the doctrine of justification.
There are two reasons for considering this question. First, comparing the doctrines of
these two theologians promises a compelling exploration, given that both have left lasting
imprints on Christian thought, yet their contexts and theological emphases diverge. On the
one hand, as a major voice in contemporary theology,1 Karl Barth’s value for and
contribution to Christian theology is undeniably recognized in Europe, English-speaking
theological circles in the U.K. and USA, and other regions worldwide. For many reasons,
largely due to the lack of accessibility, however, Barth has remained largely unfamiliar in
China, and his influence on Chinese Christian thinking is minimal. But this situation is
beginning to change in China. Despite the limited availability of Chinese translations of
Barth's books, a few introductory books on Barth have been published in Chinese.2 In
addition, in the 2019 spring volume of the Chinese Journal for the Study of Christian
Culture, a special issue commemorating Barth, there are eight articles on his life and works,3
a sign of growing interest in him and his thoughts in China, particularly in academic circles.
Chinese Christian faith communities are, by and large, however, not very aware of his

1

John B. Webster, The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000),

xiii.
2 See Qu Xutong, “A Model of ‘Creating by Returning to the Original’: Rethinking Karl Barth's Theology in a
Chinese Context [返本开新’的思想典:在汉语处境中再思巴特神学],” Journal for the Study of Christian Culture [基督教
文化学刊] 41, vo.1 (2019), 2f.
3 Qu, “A Model of ‘Creating by Returning to the Original,’” 9-280.

2

theology and its value. This thesis will show that Chinese Christians can benefit from reading
Barth’s theology.
On the other hand, T. C. Chao is a representative of the Chinese Theology. “Chinese
Theology” here is broadly defined as Christian thought and teaching documented in the
ecclesial and theological context in publications written by Chinese theologians or ministers
in China, excluding the works translated into the Chinese Mandarin language from the West.
While his theology may not have been considered successful or well-accepted in his time, it
is now gaining lasting value in the construction of contextual theology in China.
Furthermore, his theological thinking and experience serve as a reference for contemporary
and future Chinese theologians constructing theology in the Chinese context.
Secondly, to understand Barth's adaptability and potential contribution to Chinese
Christianity, we will focus on the doctrine of justification as a test case. Justification is
arguably the quintessential doctrine for Protestant Christianity, deemed by Orthodox
Lutherans of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as the “article by which the Church
stands and falls.”4 Even today, few would dispute the theological significance of this
doctrine, described by Eberhard Jüngel as that which “identifies the center of the Christian
faith” and at which “all lines of Christian teaching intersect.”5 Furthermore, the doctrines of
justification by both theologians have undergone historical developments. Therefore, the
dialogue between T. C. Chao and Barth on justification serves as a pertinent test case,
allowing us to delve into a fundamental truth of the Christian faith. We aim to extract
valuable lessons from the development of their understanding of justification and explore
how it may benefit Chinese Christian theological understanding, both in general and across
various areas of doctrine.

Hans Küng, Justification: The Doctrine of Karl Barth and a Catholic Reflection (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster
John Knox Press, 2004), 7.
5 Eberhard Jüngel, Justification: The Heart of the Christian Faith: A Theological Study with an Ecumenical
Purpose (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001), viii.
4

3

RESEARCH QUESTION & HYPOTHESIS & METHOD
This research will make a comparison between T. C. Chao and Karl Barth regarding their
theological understandings of justification in light of their contexts. The research question for
this essay is: What are the similarities and differences between T. C. Chao’s doctrine of
Justification and that of Karl Barth? Through an analysis of these similarities and differences
between Chao and Barth, we will argue that Barth’s theological framework, particularly his
concept of the covenantal relationship between God and humanity, grounded in the revelation
of Jesus Christ, empowers him to articulate a more comprehensive and thoroughly developed
doctrine of justification, addressing both its objective and subjective dimensions adequately.
If this argument holds, it suggests that there are likely other important areas in which Chinese
Christians might benefit from engaging with Barth’s rich theological work.
This research involves a textual investigation of the theological works of both
theologians. Various texts from each theologian will be selected to better grasp their
respective thinking and doctrinal development on justification.6

LITERATURE REFERRED
Numerous valuable scholarly sources have been identified for the subject under investigation,
and these sources can be categorized into three groups. The first group focuses on the
doctrine of justification, covering the main issues and contemporary debates associated with
it and offering an overview of its historical development. This group will serve as the control
feature in the doctrinal comparison, establishing a standard norm for the doctrine against
which each theologian’s proposal can be evaluated. Douglas A. Campbell’s Deliverance of
God is a massive study on the development of the doctrine in the writings of St. Paul and

6

The texts selected and the rationale for the selection will be discussed in the next section.

4

since the early second century.7 Two books, Justification in Perspective: Historical
Developments and Contemporary Challenges8 and Justification: What’s at Stake in the
Current Debates,9 provide insights into historical and modern debates concerning the
doctrine. Another acclaimed study is Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of
Justification by Alister E. McGrath.10 From an Evangelical perspective, we will also employ
Justification: Five Views, edited by James K. Beiby and Paul Rhodes Eddy.11 Recently,
Michael Horton, one of the contributors to Justification: Five Views, has published his twovolume work, Justification, in which he provides a map for contemporary discussions on
justification in the light of modern exegesis.12 Finally, there is the very incisive work by
David Edward Aune, Rereading Paul Together: Protestant and Catholic Perspectives on
Justification.13
The second group delves into Barth’s doctrine of justification, encompassing primary
and secondary sources. Barth’s second commentary on The Epistle to the Romans14 (hereafter
referred to as RII), the Göttingen Dogmatics: Instruction in the Christian Religion15
(hereafter GD), and the Church Dogmatics II/216 and Church Dogmatics IV/117 (hereafter
CD), are the primary texts for understanding his doctrine of justification. As Bruce
McCormack has argued with respect to Barth’s theology, “[T]hose who wish to read the
dogmatics without the benefit of the lens provided by Romans II will understand everything

Douglas Atchison Campbell, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2009).
8 Bruce L. McCormack, Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2006)
9 Mark Husbands and Daniel J. Treier, Justification: What's at Stake in the Current Debates (Downers Grove, Ill.:
InterVarsity Press, 2004).
10 Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: a History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2005).
11 James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy, Justification: Five Views (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2011).
12 Michael Scott Horton, Justification (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2018).
13 David Edward Aune, Rereading Paul Together: Protestant and Catholic Perspectives on Justification (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2006).
14 Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), 27-187.
15 Karl Barth and Hannelotte Reiffen, The Göttingen Dogmatics: Instruction in the Christian Religion (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 1991).
16 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, II/2, ed. G. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2009), 3-506.
17 Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV/1, 514-642.
7

5

in the wrong light.”18 The doctrine of Justification in the GD can be treated as the developing
stage of Barth’s theology. Barth has departed from his early theology in RII but has not yet
arrived at his mature thoughts on justification as expressed in CD. CD IV/1 includes Barth’s
mature form of the doctrine of justification, and the doctrine of election discussed in CD II/2
serves as the presupposition of the doctrine of justification presented in CD IV/I. Therefore,
the mentioned works will be considered to have a fuller understanding and appreciation of
Barth’s doctrine of justification.
Regarding secondary sources, Küng’s landmark volume, Justification: The Doctrine of
Karl Barth and a Catholic Reflection,19 is a classic work on Barth’s doctrine of justification
and serves as a model for doctrinal comparison for this study. McGrath’s thorough study of
justification in his Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification20 and
McCormack’s article, “Justitia aliena: Karl Barth in Conversation with the Evangelical
Doctrine of Imputed Righteousness,”21 are valuable resources for understanding Barth’s
doctrine of justification even though they may hold contradicting views on Barth’s continuity
and discontinuity with the Reformation’s view of justification. Eberhard Jüngel’s
Justification: The Heart of the Christian Faith: A Theological Study with an Ecumenical
Purpose and McCormack’s Justification in Perspective are two essential books for
interpreting Barth's doctrine of justification. Furthermore, Shannon N. Smythe’s latest work,
Forensic Apocalyptic Theology: Karl Barth and the Doctrine of Justification,22 argues for the
forensic nature of Barth’s position on justification, which inspired me to construct the
comparative analysis of the four distinctive Protestant elements of justification. In this book,
Smythe provides a valuable collection of bibliographical data on the latest study on Barth’s

18 Bruce L. McCormack, Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology: Its Genesis and Development,
1909-1936 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 244-45.
19 Hans Küng, Justification: the doctrine of Karl Barth and a Catholic reflection (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster
John Knox Press, 2004).
20 McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 400.
21 McCormack, Justification in Perspective, 196.
22 Shannon Nicole Smythe, Forensic Apocalyptic Theology: Karl Barth and the Doctrine of Justification
(Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2016).

6

doctrine of justification. Moreover, the recently published two handbooks, Wiley Blackwell
Companion to Karl Barth, edited by George Hunsinger and Keith L. Johnson and The
Oxford Handbook of Karl Barth, edited by Paul Dafydd Jones,23 are also valuable sources.
In addition to the sources mentioned above, this study is enriched by including some
introductory books on Karl Barth. Given the richness and complexity of Barth’s theology, a
comprehensive understanding of his doctrine of justification is facilitated by consulting
certain general introductory books that explore his life and theological perspectives. There is
perhaps no better or more authoritative summary of Barth’s theology than what is presented
in his own words in the two short books, Dogmatics in Outline24 and Evangelical Theology:
An Introduction.25 The classic works of Hans Urs von Balthasar, Eberhard Busch, Eberhard
Jüngel, and Bruce McCormack richly portray Barth’s life and the development of his
thoughts and comprehensively present the contextual background of the German and Swiss
academics and the social and political environment of that time.26 The Cambridge
Companion to Karl Barth, edited by John Webster, offers a thematical treatment of Barth's
central doctrines by leading scholars from Europe and North America and provides an
essential orientation for understanding the doctrine of justification in Barth’s work.27 Finally,
George Hunsinger’s How to Read Karl Barth, which summarizes the characteristics of
Barth’s way of doing theology, known as six “motifs” – “Actualism,” “Particularism,”
“Objectivism,” “Personalism,” “Realism,” and “Rationalism” – helps us to follow Barth’s

Paul Dafydd Jones, The Oxford Handbook of Karl Barth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020).
Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline C.2. With a New Foreword by the Author (New York: Harper, 1959).
25 Karl Barth and Grover Foley, Evangelical Theology: An Introduction (London: Fontana, 1963).
26 Hans Urs von Balthasar and Edward T. Oakes, The Theology of Karl Barth: Exposition and Interpretation (San
Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1992); Eberhard Busch and Karl Barth, Karl Barth: His Life from Letters and Autobiographical
Texts (London: SCM Press, 1976); Eberhard Busch, Darrell L. Guder, and Judith J. Guder, The Great Passion: An
Introduction to Karl Barth's Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2004); Eberhard Jüngel, Karl Barth, a
Theological Legacy (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986).
27 John Webster, The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University, 2000).
23
24

7

argument better in a mixture of multiple-faceted analysis with dialectical language and
passionate rhetoric.28
The last set of sources revolves around T. C. Chao’s religious texts and relevant
secondary sources pertaining to the doctrine of justification. All of Chao's writings are now
available in the five-volume collection, Works of T. C. Chao, whether in books or essays.29
Although Chao did not produce books or articles explicitly dedicated to discussing the
doctrine of justification, we can grasp his understanding of this doctrine from his various
writings, especially the first two volumes of Works of T.C Chao. These contain the following
works: Jidujiao zhexue (Christian Philosophy 基督教哲学, 1926),30 Yesu de rensheng zhexue
(Jesus’ Philosophy of Life 耶稣的人生哲学, 1926),31 Yesu Zhuan (Life of Jesus 耶稣传,
1935),32 Ba De de zongjiao sixiang (The Theology of Karl Barth 巴德的宗教思想, 1939),33
Jidujiao jinjie (A Further Interpretation of Christianity 基督教进解, 1947, written in
1943),34 Sheng Baoluo zhuan (Life of St. Paul 圣保罗传, 1947),35 Xiyuji (My Experience of
Imprisonment 系狱记, 1948),36 Jidujiao lunli (Christian Ethics 基督教伦理, 1948),37
Shenxue sijiang (Four Talks on Theology 神学四讲, 1948).38 These books and essays will
serve as the primary sources for comprehending Chao’s thoughts on the doctrine of
justification.39 Out of these mentioned works, Christian Philosophy (1926), A Further
Interpretation of Christianity (written in 1943), and Four Talks on Theology (1948) will be

28

George Hunsinger, How to Read Karl Barth: The Shape of His Theology (New York: Oxford University Press,

1993).
29 T. C. Chao 趙紫宸, Zhao Zichen wenji 趙紫宸文集 [The Works of T. C. Chao], 5 vols, ed. Xiaochao Wang 王曉
朝(Beijing: Shangwu yin shuguan 商務印書館 [Commercial Press], 2003-2010).
30 Chao, “Christian Philosophy,” in The Works, vol. 1, 1-178.
31 Chao, “Jesus’s Philosophy of Life,” in The Works, vol. 1, 179-356.
32 Chao, “Life of Jesus,” in The Works, vol. 1, 449-636.
33 Chao, “The Theology of Karl Barth,” in The Works, vol. 2, 1-35.
34 Chao, “A Further Interpretation of Christianity,” in The Works, vol. 2, 37-177.
35 Chao, “Life of St. Paul,” in The Works, vol. 2, 179-391.
36 Chao, “My Experience of Imprisonment,” in The Works, vol. 2, 411-92.
37 Chao, “Christian Ethics,” in The Works, vol. 2, 493-511.
38 Chao, “Four Talks on Theology,” in The Works, vol. 2, 513-72.
39 In the third and fourth volumes of The Works, there are many of his articles and pamphlets collected, providing
rich contextual information about the ecclesiastical, intellectual, and social situation of his time.

8

the primary texts for tracing the understanding and development of Chao’s doctrine of
justification. These three texts are all systematic theological works, each representing Chao’s
understanding of justification in a different period of his theological development.
As Chao’s body of work has aroused widespread interest since the 1970s and
continuously inspires scholars and theologians to investigate his theological contributions,
many monographs and essays about Chao’s life and theological thoughts are available
nowadays.40 First, some monographs and collections of articles comprehensively analyze T.
C. Chao’s life and theology and its relationship with Chinese culture. These include Zhao
Zichen de Shenxue Sixiang [=The Theological Thought of T. C. Chao] by German scholar
Winfried Glüer,41 Too High to Be Popular: T. C. Chao’s Life and Theology by Hong Kong
scholar Lam Win-Hong,42 a joint-effort of Lam and Weiyao Wen, Ji Du Jiao Yu Zhong Guo
Wen Hua De Xiang Yu [=The Encounter between Christianity and Chinese Culture],43
another work from Hong Kong scholar Ying Fuk-Tsang, In Search of the Uniqueness of
Christianity: Essays on T. C. Chao’s Theology,44 and also Zhao Zichen Shenxue sixiang
yanjiu [=A Study of Zhao Zichen’s Theological Thought] by Tang Xiaofeng, a scholar from
China.45
In addition, two recent monographs on China’s most influential theologians, Theosis,
Sino-Christian Theology and the Second Chinese Enlightenment: Heaven and Humanity in

See Tang, Zhao Zichen Shenxue sixiang yanjiu, 74-82; Chen, The Chinese Christology of T. C. Chao, 17-29.
Winfried Glüer, Zhao Zichen de Shenxue Sixiang 趙紫宸的神學思想 [The Theological Thought of T. C. Chao],
trans. Joe Dunn (Hong Kong: Jidujiao wenyi chubanshe 基督教文藝出版社 [Chinese Christian Literature Council Ltd.],
1979).
42 Wing-hung Lam 林荣洪, Too High to Be Popular: T. C. Chao’s Life and Theology 曲高和寡: 赵紫宸的生平及
神学 (Hong Kong: China Alliance Press, 1994).
43 Wing-hung Lam and Weiyao Wen, Ji Du Jiao Yu Zhong Guo Wen Hua De Xiang Yu 基督教与中国文化的相遇
[The encounter between Christianity and Chinese culture] (Xianggang: Xiang gang zhong wen da xue chong ji xue yuan,
2001).
44 Fuk-tsang Ying 邢福增, In Search of the Uniqueness of Christianity: Essays on T. C. Chao’s Theology 寻索基
督教的独特性—赵紫宸研究论集 (Hong Kong: Alliance Bible Seminary, 2003).
45 Xiaofeng Tang 唐曉峰, Zhao Zichen Shenxue sixiang yanjiu 趙紫宸神學思想研究 [A Study of Zhao Zichen’s
Theological Thought] (Beijing: Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe, 2006).
40

41

9

Unity by Alexander Chow46 and Chinese Theology: Text and Context by Chloë Starr,47 have
each dedicated one chapter on T. C. Chao. A unique contribution of Starr’s book has to do
with her emphasis on the importance of the literary form of the text in understanding the
theological texts of T. C. Chao. In chapter three of her book, Starr uses Chao’s early work,
The Life of Jesus, to illustrate how critical a literary form is for interpreting the theological
meaning of the text. This insight helps us to read Chao’s other works.48
Two other relevant books are collections of articles that were presented in two
international conferences on Chao, held in 2004 and 2010 respectively: Zhao Zichen Xian
Sheng Ji Nian Lun Wen Ji [赵紫宸先生纪念文集 =Zhao Zichen’s Memorial Collection]
edited by Wang Xiachao,49 and The Ambition of a Nighthawk: A Collection of “T. C. Chao
and the Sino-Western Exchange of Thought” Conference jointly edited by Tang Xiaofeng
and Xiao Xiaohong.50 The articles that focus on salvation, soteriology, and the relationship
between justification and sanctification, such as “The Theological Importance of T. C.
Chao’s Contextual Christology” authored by Hoi-ming Hui and “The Transition of T.C
Chao’s Christology” by Tuo Shi are beneficial for the doctrinal discussions in the thesis.51
Two additional lengthy studies on Chao’s Christology are my most essential dialogue
partners in dealing with Chao’s doctrine of justification. The first is the Ph.D. dissertation of
Hong Kong scholar Hui Hoiming, A Study of T. C. Chao’s Christology in the Social Context
of China 1920 to 1949,52 and the second is The Chinese Christology of T. C. Chao by

Alexander Chow, Theosis, Sino-Christian Theology and the Second Chinese Enlightenment: Heaven and
Humanity in Unity (Basingstoke, N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013).
47 Chloë Starr, Chinese Theology: Text and Context (Cumberland: Yale University Press, 2016).
48 Starr, Chinese Theology, 73-99.
49 XiaochaoWang 王晓朝, Zhao Zichen Xian Sheng Ji Nian Lun Wen Ji 赵紫宸先生纪念文集 [=Zhao Zichen’s
Memorial Collection] (Beijing: Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe, 2005).
50 Tang Xiaofeng 唐晓峰 and Xiong Xiaohong 熊晓红, The Ambition of a Nighthawk: A Collection of “T. C. Chao
and the Sino-Western Exchange of Thought” Conference 夜鹰之志: “赵紫宸与中西思想交流”学术研讨会论文集
(Beijing: CRCP, 2010).
51 Hoi-ming Hui, “The Theological Importance of T. C. Chao’s Contextual Christology,” in Tang and Xiong, The
Ambition of a Nighthawk, 95-148; Tuo Shi, “The Transition of T. C. Chao’s Christology,” in Tang and Xiong, The Ambition
of a Nighthawk, 299-306.
52 Hoi-ming Hui, “A Study of T.C.Chao’s Christology in the Social Context of China 1920 To1949,” (PhD diss.,
University of Birmingham, 2008).
46

10

Chinese scholar Yongtao Chen.53 These two works pay special attention to the
contextualization and development of Chao’s theological thinking and provide in-depth
discussions on many aspects of Chao’s understanding of Christology, including God, Jesus
Christ, humanity, sin, salvation, justification, and sanctification. In particular, Chen’s
bibliography provides up-to-date bibliographical data on the recent research on T. C. Chao.54
The sources, as mentioned earlier, constitute the foundation of this research yet represent
only a portion of the referenced materials.

THESIS STRUCTURE
This thesis comprises four chapters. The opening chapter lays the groundwork by introducing
the subject matter and presenting the hypothesis, research question, and methodology.
Additionally, a comprehensive list of reference resources is included under the heading
'Literature Referred,' and the overall structure of the thesis is outlined.
Chapters two and three will delve into T. C. Chao and Karl Barth’s theological thoughts
on the doctrine of justification, respectively. Both chapters follow a consistent pattern, each
comprising two sections in each chapter. The first section introduces the contextual
background, including a brief personal sketch, the social and political milieu of their time,
and the intellectual and theological forces that shaped theological goals and perspectives. The
second part focuses on doctrinal exploration. Given the evolving nature of their theological
perspectives, our exploration in this section will not only delve into their mature doctrines
but also examine three texts from different stages of each theologian's career in chronological
order. Chao’s selected texts are Christianity Philosophy (1926),55 A Further Interpretation of

53 Yongtao

Chen, The Chinese Christology of T. C. Chao (Leiden: Brill, 2017).
Chen, The Chinese Christology of T. C. Chao, 364-86.
55 Chao, “Christian Philosophy,” in The Works, vol. 1, 1-178.
54

11

Christianity (1943),56 and Four Talks on Theology (1948).57 Barth’s three texts include the
second edition of The Epistle to the Romans (1922), Göttingen Dogmatics (1924-1925), and
Church Dogmatics IV/1 (1953).58 By comparing the continuities and discontinuities of the
different versions of their theological thoughts on the same doctrine, we aim to better
understand the two theologians’ theological perspectives on justification.
To facilitate a meaningful and organized comparison of the mature forms of two
theologians' doctrines of justification in chapter four, we will employ a four-question
framework in the doctrinal discussion section in chapters two and three. These questions
guide our exploration of key aspects of the doctrine of justification: First, what are the
reasons for justification? Secondly, how does justification happen? Thirdly, what is the role
of human participation in justification? The last one follows: What is the relationship
between justification and sanctification? This set of questions comprehensively addresses key
aspects of the Protestant doctrine of justification: grace alone (sola Gratia), Christ alone
(solus Christus), faith alone (sola Fide), and the relationship between justification and
sanctification.
Given that both T. C. Chao and Karl Barth were Protestant theologians, we can expect
their doctrines of justification to cover these four questions. Each question will serve as a
focal point for our analysis, allowing for a detailed examination of their perspectives.
Additionally, the first two questions concern the objective aspects of the doctrine of
justification, while the last two questions pertain more to the subject dimensions of the
doctrine. Thus, these questions also facilitate a discussion on the objective and subjective
aspects of the doctrine of justification.

Chao, “A Further Interpretation of Christianity,” in The Works, vol. 2, 37-177.
Chao, “Four Talks on Theology,” in The Works, vol. 2, 513-72.
58 The years listed after the titles of books in both Chao’s and Barth’s three texts indicate when the books were
written or first published in their original languages. If the written years are known, they will be used; otherwise, the
published years will be utilized.
56
57

12

In Chapter Four, we will undertake a comparative analysis of the mature forms of the
doctrines of justification put forth by the two theologians. First, we will identify the
similarities and differences between the two theologians’ doctrines within each of the four
questions. Subsequently, we will delve into a comparative discussion on the objective and
subjective aspects of the doctrine of justification, respectively. Now, we turn to T. C. Chao’s
doctrine of justification.

13

Chapter 2
Exposition of T. C. Chao’s Doctrine of Justification

In China, T. C. Chao was a well-known Chinese theologian, Christian educator, and a
prestigious writer and philosopher of the twentieth century. To a certain extent, we can
understand Chao’s theology as a response to the complex context of his time. His theological
education and the influence he received enabled him to respond to his context the way he did.
Before delving into T. C. Chao’s doctrine of justification, let's briefly introduce his contextual
background, including a personal sketch, the social-political background, and his theological
journey.

THE CONTEXT OF T. C. CHAO
A Sketch of T. C. Chao. T. C. Chao was born on February 14, 1888, into a moderately welloff family and received a solid classical Chinese education in his early years. He became a
Christian in 1907 while studying at Dongwu University, a missionary school in the Methodist
tradition. Influenced by American liberal theology, he pursued a three-year theological
education from 1914 to1917 at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, United States,
graduating with honors (M.A. and B.D.).1
After returning to China from the US, Chao started his teaching career, commencing at
Soochow. Subsequently, from 1926 onward, he was a professor of theology and Christianity
and served as the dean of the School of Religion from 1928 to 1951 at Yenching University
(Yanjing Daxue) in Beijing. In recognition of his academic achievement, Princeton
University conferred upon him an Honorary Doctoral Degree in 1947.

1 Tang, A Study of Zhao Zi Chen's Theological Thought, 64-66; Chen, The Chinese Christology of T. C. Chao, 3336. Winfried Glüer, "The Legacy of T. C. Chao," International Bulletin of Mission Research 6, no. 4 (1982), 165-69.

14

In addition to his standing as a prominent Chinese intellectual, widely regarded as “a
leading academic in pre-war China,” T. C. Chao was also a churchman.2 Ordained as a priest
of the Sheng Kung Hwei (Anglican) community in Hong Kong in 1941, he went on to
achieve global recognition. Elected as one of the six World Council of Churches presidents,
Chao attended the Council’s first conference in Amsterdam, Holland, in 1948. Before this, he
represented Chinese Christians at the International Missionary Conference three times in
different locations: Jerusalem (1928), Madras, India (1938), and Whitby, Ontario, Canada
(1947).3
Chao was an original thinker and a remarkably productive writer. Before 1950, he
authored several monographs and hundreds of essays and crafted numerous religious poems
and hymns, spanning various disciplines such as theology, philosophy, history, ethics, New
Testament studies, poetry, and music. Regrettably, after the 1950s, Chao did not produce
many theological works primarily attributed to China's particular social environment and
political pressure. Consequently, only a few theological works were published during this
period.4
T. C. Chao passed away in Beijing on November 21, 1979, leaving a rich legacy as a
Chinese theologian, thinker, and churchman.
The Social-political Background. Chao’s theological career unfolded during the
tumultuous decades of the 1920s to the 1940s, a period between the end of the Qing dynasty
in 1911 and the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949. This era was
characterized by unprecedented chaos, coinciding with overthrowing the Qing dynasty and
questioning traditional values, particularly Confucianism, which was deemed obsolete. The

Chen, The Chinese Christology of T. C. Chao, X.
See Chao, “Resume of T.C Chao,” in The Works, Vol. 5, 1-3; also see Tang, “Profile of T.C Chao,” in Zhao Zichen
Shenxue sixiang yanjiu, 367-68.
4 Tang, The Ambition of a Nighthawk, 44-85. Also see Winfried Glüer, “T. C. Chao Re-visited: Questions about His
Later Years," Ching Feng 11, no. 2 (2012): 171-96.
2
3

15

collapse of the old order, coupled with invasions by foreign countries in the nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries, weakened China, leaving a significant vacuum.
But it also marked a new era, and many new things were ushered in. Chinese people
sought new ways to strengthen the nation, and the motif of “Saving the Nation” became a
theme among Chinese intellectuals, Christians, and non-Christians alike. Rooted in Chinese
tradition and influenced by contemporary trends since the Enlightenment, the typical
mentality of Chinese intellectuals was to actively participate in social activities as a mandate
of their social duties. Christian leaders, including T. C. Chao, perceived Christianity as a
potential force for saving China. Alongside other Christian intellectuals, Chao was highly
active in endeavors to contribute to the country-saving movements. They employed their own
ways to participate in and influence the socio-cultural landscape during this crucial period.5
Nevertheless, the emergence of the Anti-Christian Movement in 1922 cast doubt on the
viability of Christianity as a solution for the nation's challenges. Christianity faced a twofold
challenge: it was perceived as both “religious” and “foreign,” presenting intricate issues for
Chinese Christians. Firstly, with the introduction of modern Western thoughts in China, there
was a growing acceptance of ideas such as science and rationality. This shift led to a disdain
for Christianity, as it, along with other religions, including Confucianism, was considered
superstitious and irrational. Secondly, Christianity was viewed as a “foreign” religion from
the Western world, a perception heightened by its association with imperialism. The
projected link with imperialism became particularly problematic as the anti-imperialist ethos
emerged in China. (Even today, for some, the shadow of this perception lingers, making the
acceptance of Christianity a complex and nuanced challenge.)

5 Wenjuan Zhao, “A Critical Comparison of Stanley Hauerwas’ and T. C. Chao’s Character Ethics,” (PhD. Diss.,
HKBU Institutional Repository, 2014), 175. “所以，赵紫宸不是唯一认为以基督教来救中国的知识分子，参见 1922 年
基督教全國大會的《教會的宣言》中鄭重聲明基督教救中國之主張。” （Chen Duxiu published an article in February
1920 talking about Jesus Christ, who can be "an inspiration to the Chinese in their national commitment." “吳耀宗、賈玉銘
與簡又文認為，中國的信徒要效法耶穌基督的人格，成為新人，去拯救中國，拯救世界此外，當時具備黨政軍三界
背景的基督徒--徐謙、馮玉祥與張之江都積極主張基督教救國（Zhao, “A Critical Compariso,” 171; footnote 94）

16

Confronted with the imperative of national salvation and the obstacles presented by the
Anti-Christian Movement and nationalism, T. C. Chao, a socially committed Christian
intellectual, recognized the need to reinterpret Christianity for the Chinese people to
strengthen China and defend the Christian faith. Consequently, he emerged as one of the
pioneering Chinese Christians advocating for an indigenized church, emphasizing the
relevance of the Gospel to Chinese society.6
This vision seamlessly aligned with Chao's broader objective—central to which was the
moralization of Chinese society through the exemplary life of Jesus Christ. He viewed moral
issues as the primary concern in Chinese society. He believed that Christianity could instigate
a transformation in Chinese culture by exemplifying the virtues of Jesus Christ, ultimately
contributing to the nation's strength.
As a testament to Chao's unwavering commitment to the moralization of Chinese society,
his writings from the 1920s and 1930s offer profound insights into the challenges faced by
China and the transformative power of Christianity. To delve deeper into Chao's convictions,
let's turn our attention to his candid expressions during this period.
In the 1920s, Chao wrote, “China’s weakness does not lie in the strength of the foreign
powers, but the weakness of personality of Chinese people.”7 He further asserted, “For
today’s China, only two problems need to be solved. One is a personality problem, and
another is an industrial problem. However, I believe that personality problems are the first.”8
Chao continued in the 1930s, “China’s tribulation is due to the corruption of the system, but

6 Primary text “Four Talks on Theology,” in The Works, vol.2, xx; Anping Xiao, "Interpreting T. C. Chao's
Indigenized Theology from a Perspective of Development," in The Ambition of a Nighthawk, 179-80.
Chao's call for the “indigenization of Christianity” is a direct quote from 《中国人的教会意识》
。 Tang, A Study of Zhao Zi
Chen's Theological Thought, 215-16.
7 “中国的弱，不弱于列强的强大，而弱于中国人人格的委靡。” (《耶稣的人生哲学》
， 《赵紫宸文集》
vol.1, 204.)
8 “中國人天性的改良，良心的進化，我很屬望於宗教，我特屬望於基督教。國內“壞人太多，好人太少”。
為今日中國計，只須解決兩種問題，一是人格問題，一是實業問題。然而我意以為人格問題為本”（趙紫宸, 2007c,
74；2007c <《聖經》在近世文化中的地位>（寫於 1920 年）
，頁 56-74，收集卷 3）
。

17

it is also due to the corruption of the human heart. . .Therefore, the urgent task in China today
[is that it]… strives and make a revolution on the human heart.”9
According to Glüer, the first foreign scholar who studied T. C. Chao, the theme of
moralizing Chinese society through the example of Jesus is deeply rooted in Chao’s Christian
hope for China and his best understanding of the Christian spirit since his youth. Chao
regarded the “dedication and self-sacrifice” as exemplified by Jesus as the most beautiful
aspect of Christianity, convinced that this spirit is precisely what Chinese people lack but
could help to build up the nation’s strength.10 Furthermore, Chao's moral approach aligns
seamlessly with the practical mindset of Chinese culture, epitomized by the Confucian ideal
of “zhixingheyi” (“知行合一,” the unity of knowledge and actions). Remarkably, amidst the
difficulties of the Anti-Christian Movement, the moral example set by Jesus Christ resonated
with the Chinese situation and found acceptance among the Chinese people.11
Hence, it is unsurprising that ethical considerations, grounded in Chao’s convictions
regarding the moral landscape of China and his faith in the transformative power of
Christianity, persist as a central focus in his writing, intricately woven throughout his
theological works.
T. C. Chao’s Theological Development. T. C. Chao's theology underwent observable
changes throughout his career in pursuing the theological mandate to re-interpret Christian
theology for the Chinese context, aiming to make the Gospel relevant to Chinese people and
benefit Chinese society. His early theological education under the liberal wing, later exposure
to Neoorthodoxy theology, and evolving understanding of Chinese culture collectively
contributed to his theological development.

9 "中國的患難，固然是因為制度的敗壞，但亦是因為人心的墮落。
。。
。故今日中國的急務，不在於以黨推
翻以黨代替黨，而在於各黨自悟各人自悟，而努力急追，作其心理上的革命。"（趙紫宸, 2007p, 464-465；2007p <
基督教與中國的心理建設>（寫於 1932 年）
，頁 464-471，收集於卷 3）
。
10 Winfried Glüer, "The Legacy of T. C. Chao," International Bulletin of Mission Research 6, no. 4 (1982): 166.
11 Tang, A Study of Zhao Zi Chen's Theological Thought, 205-38.

18

At the beginning of Chao’s career as a Christian intellectual, liberal Protestantism
offered him the essential tools to participate in the ‘national salvation movement’ and address
the ethical issues of Chinese society through the example of Jesus Christ. After returning to
China, in his early career stage, Chao immediately used liberal theology to preach the Gospel
and sought its social relevance in China by emphasizing the example of Jesus Christ. Until
the 1930s, liberal theology was still the main thread of Chao’s theological thinking. One can
easily find liberal theological thought in his book on The Life of Jesus, published in the mid1930s.12 During this period, he did not hold the Bible as the highest authority in his
theological reflection and eliminated the supernatural elements, such as virgin birth,
resurrection, or eschaton, from his theological construction, an approach aligned with the
typical traits of liberal theology.
Chao's early theology was significantly shaped by Methodist B.P. Bowne’s Boston
Personalism, a part of American liberalism. Chao admitted that re-interpreting the theological
concepts through the personalist framework helped address the Chinese mind. Personalism
played a crucial role in his understanding of God, Christ, God-human relation, and salvation
Christianity during this phase of his career. (More about Chao’s employment of personalist
concepts will be discussed in the next section of this chapter.) However, upon later
encounters with the new trends of theology, Chao gradually departed from liberal theology
and dropped off personalism, if not entirely.
Later, he distanced himself from the spirit of liberal theology in his writings. Two
significant factors likely contributed to this theological shift: a six-month prison term
following Chao's capture by the Japanese in 1941 and his exposure to Karl Barth’s theology.
In 1939, Chao authored a brief yet comprehensive introduction to Karl Barth’s theology for
the Chinese audience. Later, it becomes evident that in Chao’s later theological works, he
began incorporating conservative Christian elements, such as the revelation of God and Jesus

12

Glüer, "The Legacy of T. C. Chao,” 166.

19

Christ as the Incarnate Word — distinctive characteristics of Barth’s theology.13 However,
Chao did not fully embrace Barth’s theology. In The Theology of Karl Barth, Chao explicitly
stated that he did not consider himself a Barthian.14 Our later doctrinal discussion will reveal
that Chao particularly disagreed with Barth’s atonement theory, as it did not align with
Chao’s theological goal of moralizing Chinese society by imitating Jesus Christ’s example.
While Chao's later theology became more conservative, traces of liberalism persisted.
According to Glüer, the rational elements throughout Chao’s writing were learned and are
based on his liberal training and the influence of the modern American culture during his
time there. Even though Chao scorned his early theology a decade later as “youthful
immaturity,” his later writings offered no admit of the virgin birth and remained silent about
eschaton, indicating liberal theological elements remained in Chao’s matured theology.15
Lastly, the influence of Chinese culture, especially Confucianism, played an essential
role in Chao’s theological endeavours. Chao shifted his understanding of the relationship
between Chinese culture and Christianity. Abandoning his early attempt to reconcile
Christianity and Chinese culture to advocate the relevance of Christianity to the Chinese
people and society, in his later theology, he regarded Chinese cultural elements, including
Confucianism, secondary to Christianity, as a valuable resource in constructing Chinese
Christian theology.16
Chao’s incorporation of Chinese culture went beyond being a language to convey the
Gospel message; it involved utilizing Chinese concepts that resonated with the Chinese
mindset to illustrate theological thoughts. This interaction between Chao's theological
framework and Chinese culture was mutually influential. Specifically, the ethical-focused
nature of Chinese culture, coupled with its customary understanding of humanity as moral

13

Chao, “Four Talks on Theology,” in The Works, vol. 2, 533, 540; Chao, “Revelation,” in The Works, vol.5, 435-

60.
Chao, “The Theology of Karl Barth,” in The Works, vol.2, 30.
Glüer, "The Legacy of T. C. Chao," 166.
16 Chen, The Chinese Christology of T. C. Chao, 74-78.
14
15

20

agents, consistently formed the foundational support for Chao’s theological perspectives.17
These cultural influences further manifested in shaping doctrines, one example being the
doctrine of justification, a topic we will delve into later.
Summary. Chao's theology was a typical product of his time, responding to the social
and political issues of his time, which demanded a new form of expression of Christianity.
His central focus was on fostering moral transformation in Chinese society through imitating
the exemplary life of Jesus Christ. This commitment became a cornerstone of Chao's
theological framework. Starting with a combination of influences from his liberal theological
training and his embedded Chinese culture, especially Confucianism, Chao's theological
trajectory underwent a transformation from an early adherence to typical liberal theology to a
later embrace of a more conservative theological stance.

“GOD-MAN COOPERATION” JUSTIFICATION
IN CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY
In Chao's theological framework, justification is perceived as the outcome of salvation. His
exploration of the doctrine of justification is embedded within his broader discourse on 'the
salvation method' (救法), a term he introduces to encapsulate the concept of salvation
through Jesus Christ.18
To understand Chao’s doctrine of justification, this section will examine three texts, one
from his early writings and two written at the late stage of his theological career. The first
text is Jidujiao zhexue (Christianity Philosophy 基督教哲学)19 published in 1926, in which

Tang, A Study of Zhao Zi Chen's Theological Thought, 238.
In all three texts by Chao that we examine in this research, Chao employs the term “the salvation method” to
discuss his soteriology. Within his context, he envisions salvation as the means to rescue humanity from sin and evil. Chao’s
decision to utilize this term, “salvation method,” underscores the religious milieu of his era and reflects his intention to
establish connections and distinctions with alternative methods of salvation ingrained in the Chinese cultural and
philosophical landscape, such as Buddhism, Daoism, and Confucianism. Chao provides a more detailed illustration of this
point in the second text. See Chao, “A Further Interpretation of Christianity,” in The Works, vol. 2, 139.
19 Chao, “Christian Philosophy,” in The Works, vol. 1, 1-178.
17
18

21

Chao holds a more synergistic “God-human Cooperation” (合作论) type of salvation.20 In
the second text, Jidujiao jinjie (A Further Interpretation of Christianity 基督教进解), which
was written in 1943 but published in 1947, Chao names his understanding of salvation as
“Fulfilling God’s Will” (成旨论).21 The third one is Shenxue Lijiang (Four Talks on Theology

神学四讲), published in 1948, in which Chao presents his most mature form of salvation,
“Union with God” (合一论).22 Chao’s conceptualization of salvation, distinguished by
specific names, highlights the varying emphases he places on different aspects. The concept
of "God-man relationship" underscores his focus on human participation in salvation.
“Fulfilling God’s will” emphasizes Jesus's sacrificial death on the cross as the fulfillment of
God's salvific will for humanity. “Union with God” accentuates the significance of being
united with Jesus Christ in salvation, encompassing both justification and sanctification.23
These texts cover Chao’s three developmentally distinct views on salvation, in which
justification and related aspects are discussed.
We shall begin with four questions in each text to examine Chao’s doctrine and its
development over time. These questions are as follows: First, what, in Chao’s mind, are the
reasons for salvation/justification? Secondly, how does he conceive of the way that
salvation/justification happens? Thirdly, what is, as he understands, the role of human
participation in salvation/justification? The last one follows logically: What is Chao’s
conception of the relationship between Justification and Sanctification of man? In addressing
each question, we will trace the natural upfolding of Chao’s argument, revealing his nuanced
emphasis on different facets of his doctrine.

20 In the course of this thesis discussion, we adopt 'God-man relationship' to adhere to conventional terminology.
Within Chao's text, he utilizes a term that essentially conveys the relationship between man and God, favoring “man-God
relationship” over “God-man relationship” Chao's choice of terminology underscores his emphasis on humanity's role in the
salvation process within his early theology. See Chao, Christian Philosophy,” in The Works, vol. 1, 140. “人神合作乃能
有救法的道理。
”(140)
21 Chao, “A Further Interpretation of Christianity,” in The Works, vol. 2, 37-177.
22 Chao, “Four Talks on Theology,” in The Works, vol. 2, 513-72.
23 See Hui, “The Theological Importance of T. C. Chao’s Contextual Christology,” 109-10.

22

In Christian Philosophy, Chao deals with the doctrine of justification in three successive
chapters (Chapters 30-32), which covers the topics of God’s love and human-made evil, the
salvation method Jesus used, and Jesus being the Savior in order.24
As mentioned earlier, personalism is pivotal in Chao's early theological framework. This
version illustrates how Chao employs personalist frameworks to articulate his understanding
of salvation and justification. Additionally, in alignment with Chao’s ethical focus, he places
a central emphasis on the concept that humanity necessarily carries the responsibility for its
own salvation and must actively participate in the process. Chao elaborates on these points
from the perspectives of human personality and God’s Personality.
Reason for Salvation. For Chao, the reason for salvation lies in two aspects: Humanity
needs salvation because they are sinful, and God must save because He is love. Chao is
concerned less about God's willingness to save humanity from sin; he directed his focus
toward investigating the capacity and feasibility of sinners to engage in the process of
salvation actively.
Chao begins his exposition of salvation by defining sin and original sin. After
distinguishing natural evil and humanly derived evil, the former for which humans have no
accountability and the latter for which humans should be responsible, Chao unfolds the idea
of original sin as that which causes human-made evil. In Chao’s definition, original sin is the
destruction and damage of a human’s personality, that is, what we might call in Western
theology, the marring of the image of God in humanity.25 In other words, humanity should
work hard and attempt to move upward morally, and anyone who does not remain in their
original sin condition. Thus, for example, one who distances himself from God sins, one who

24 Chao, “Christian Philosophy,” in The Works, vol. 1, 132-43. In this text, Chao employs a writing style
reminiscent of Plato’s dialogues, utilizing the character of “my friend” as a proxy to articulate Chao’s theological viewpoints
and convictions. Through this method, Chao indirectly intervenes in the dialogue, as the character “I”, to provide
clarification, pose questions, and offer comments that reflect his own perspectives. The majority of direct quotes
documented in this section originate from the dialogue of the main character, “my friend,” interspersed with occasional
interjections from Chao, speaking as the character “I”. These authorial comments and reflections are marked as 'I narrative'
in footnotes 27, 32, 34, and 37.
25 Chao, “Christian Philosophy,” in The Works, vol. 1, 132. “人的涣散就是人格的消灭，就是罪。” (132)

23

does not work hard sins, one who does not engage the use of natural reason sins, one who
takes life, their own or another also sins, and one who does not love people and his nation, or
not trust and help people, sins.26 For Chao, sin is an abuse of the freedom of humans with
divinely determined personalities.
Affirming humans can sin, Chao insists that humanity must be responsible for their sin
because of their personalities.27 To argue this point, Chao first needs to address the question
of whether humans can save themselves or not. If humans cannot save themselves, Chao
must answer how they should be held accountable for their sins.
Chao’s answer is a dialectical one: yes and no. Chao writes, “We believe that humans
can save themselves and also cannot, no matter how we need to strive to be good people.”28
He believes that some people with perfect personalities can save themselves. In Chao’s mind,
only humans who have perfect personalities can save themselves and others. For Chao, not
only the Savior (救世主) but also a wise man (贤人) and saints (圣人) can save people by
their love and by their personality.29 Chao gives a few reasons why a human can save
himself. First, Chao believes some wise people and saints, such as Confucius, Socrates,
Plato, and Isaiah, who died before Jesus was born, must not go to hell; therefore, their
necessary salvation is proof that man can, in some sense, save themselves. Secondly, Jesus is
the only one among humanity with a perfect and sinless personality. Jesus’s ideal and sinless
personality proves that a human can save himself, as long as they pattern themselves after
Jesus. It is hard for Chao to imagine how God could incarnate as a human being in such a
way that this being could not save himself.30

Chao, “Christian Philosophy,” in The Works, vol. 1, 132-33.
The notion of personality Chao uses in his work is a Chinese concept, referring to the inherent nature of
humanity, which is close to the Western connotation of the “image of God” but without explicit reference to the divine.
28 Chao, “Christian Philosophy,” in The Works, vol. 1, 140, 144. “人能自救，也不能自救。” (140) “我们是相信
人能自救，也不能自救，但我们也尽力做好人。” (144; “I narrative”)
29 Chao, “Christian Philosophy,” in The Works, vol. 1, 134.
30 Chao, “Christian Philosophy,” in The Works, vol. 1, 140.
26
27

24

For those with imperfect personalities, Chao does not want to affirm that sinful humans
have no opportunity to save themselves. By appealing to Phil. 2:12-13, Chao argues that Paul
knows that humans cannot save themselves (alone), but they should continue to work out
their salvation; as the text says, you should “continue to work out your salvation with fear
and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good
purpose.”31 For Chao, the bondage of sin is a loose bondage, which cannot ultimately remove
man’s possibility of making good choices to save himself. Chao wants to emphasize here that
human salvation must be a self-salvation as taught by Jesus Christ and achieved in the love of
God.32 For Chao, the difference between those who have perfect personalities and those who
don’t lies in whether they know how to save themselves. Except for those with perfect
personalities, most people do not know how to save themselves and cannot save themselves
alone; for this reason, humans need a Savior.
Next, Chao argues for the human responsibility of self-salvation from the divine
perspective. For Chao, God’s willingness to save humanity is not an issue because God is
love; therefore, He creates and saves. Chao emphasizes that God saves through personality.
Because of this love, God must save humans from their sins. God is almighty and can
eliminate sins, but God chooses to use “personality” to save people.33 As Chao argues, God is
free and has a personality; as God’s creature, a man also has freedom and personality. With
human freedom, they can choose to do evil and good, and therefore, they should be
responsible for the consequences of their choices. Therefore, a human must be accountable
for doing his part in his salvation even though God is almighty and can save a human from
his sin all by Himself. But God has the freedom of holding back and constraining His

Italic mine.
Chao, “Christian Philosophy,” in The Works, vol. 1, 140. 耶稣的救法，一点一横都是教人自己发心，努力直
前，在上帝爱的生命里作自救的事功。
” (140)
33 Chao, “Christian Philosophy,” in The Works, vol. 1, 133. “他是要自己负责，用人格救人。” (133; “I
narrative”)
31
32

25

almightiness and allowing a human to preserve his highest value, i.e., allowing himself to be
responsible for his behaviors and giving himself a chance to participate in his salvation.34
In sum, God is willing to save and freely chooses to use the method of love and
personality to save man from his sin and evil. God’s saving act does not take away human
freedom and personality but extends human freedom and personality.
The Way of Justification: Cooperation-Model of Salvation. Based on the
understanding of personality, Chao continues his exposition on how salvation happens on the
side of Jesus Christ and the side of humans. He believes that salvation is a cooperation
between God and man—“Jesus saves us, and we save ourselves.”35
How does Jesus Christ save us through cooperation with human beings? First, to explain
how Jesus Christ can save us, Chao writes, “The reason why Jesus can be our Savior is that
he can find the only way for us to be saved. He can make himself this way, and he can
tell/communicate this way to others and lead them on this way.”36 The death of Jesus Christ
on the cross manifested the only way of salvation that the evil and sin have no power over
Him—Jesus Christ would rather die than surrender to the evil and sin. That means the only
method of conquering death and evil is the way that is demonstrated by Jesus Christ on the
cross, the way from death to life and from doing evil to doing good.37
Secondly, for humans, following Jesus’s example is walking on the way to salvation;
human salvation is following the example of Jesus’s suffering and sacrificing for others.38 In
other words, Jesus is the Savior, showing the way of salvation, and humans need to do their
part to save themselves by following Jesus’s example to perfect their personality. As Chao

Chao, “Christian Philosophy,” in The Works, vol. 1, 134. “上帝万能，却用他自己的自由，限制这万能，以
至于人可以保存他的最高价值。 (134)
35 Chao, “Christian Philosophy,” in The Works, vol. 1, 136. “耶稣救我们，我们救自己。” (136; “I narrative”)
36 Chao, “Christian Philosophy,” in The Works, vol. 1, 137. ““耶稣所以能为我们的救主的缘故，就是因为他能
为我们找出找出得救的唯一道路，他能自己为这条路，他能将这道路传示人，在这道路上引道人。” (137)
37 Chao, “Christian Philosophy,” in The Works, vol. 1, 137.
38 Chao, “Christian Philosophy,” in The Works, vol. 1, 139. “假使我们不学耶稣，不服事人而要人服事，不牺
牲自己去救人，而牺牲他人去寻求自己的私利，我们便是最大的罪人，便没有宗教，没有信仰。” (139; “I
narrative”)
34

26

understands, following the way of Jesus is man’s self-salvation. (Sadly, only an extreme
minority of people would choose to follow Jesus and be able to get themselves saved.
However, the rest, most people need a savior to save them.39 At this stage, Chao has a very
optimistic view of humanity’s capability of saving themselves, even though only a few can
do so.)
Lastly, humans need not only to participate but also to take the initiative in their
salvation. As God saves humans through personality instead of His mighty power, humans
must participate in salvation by putting in the effort and working hard. For Chao, human
participation is a must for his salvation because striving to be a good person and worthy of
his personality is man’s salvation; by Chao’s definition, working hard to be a good person is
the only way to man’s salvation.40
Within the overarching framework of the God-man cooperation principle, Chao
articulates his comprehension of justification by faith.
Justification by Faith. Trust the Personality of Jesus. Chao affirms Justification by
faith. Justification, viewed as the result of salvation, signifies the forgiveness of our sins. For
Chao, “Justification by Faith” is working hard to create new lives.41 Chao understands “faith”
as a human effort, meaning “trust.” Faith is an act of hoping for something we cannot see. In
faith, we trust the Personality of Jesus; we trust the will of God manifested in the Personality
of Jesus. Consequently, individuals strive diligently to shape and create their new lives in
alignment with this trust and faith.42
Besides faith, repentance is also necessary for humans to become redeemed; they can
only receive their salvation through repentance. For Chao, it is natural to think that one needs
to repent first to get his sin forgiven. Repentance means turning to God, without which, how

Chao, “Christian Philosophy,” in The Works, vol. 1, 141.
Chao, “Christian Philosophy,” in The Works, vol. 1, 135.
41 Chao, “Christian Philosophy,” in The Works, vol. 1, 137. In a sense, the term of “working hard to create new
lives” [“努力向前, 创新离旧”] echoes the social spirit of Chao’s time.
42 Chao, “Christian Philosophy,” in The Works, vol. 1, 137.
39
40

27

could his sin be forgiven? To illustrate this point, Chao refers to the story of the prodigal son.
The prodigal son’s turning back and walking home made him realize that his father was in
love and his sin was forgiven.43 The emphasis here is the action of the prodigal son’s turning
back and walking home that matters to the forgiveness of his sin. Faith is the beginning of a
new life for Chao, and repentance is the turning point where our sin is forgiven.
To underscore the significance of faith and repentance, Chao contends that the
forgiveness of sin is not an automatic process. Instead, humans need to take the initiative
steps toward human salvation. Chao emphatically asserts that it is stupid to believe that God
is love, and therefore, God will forgive humans anyway without his repentance. In Chao’s
view, a man should walk out of his sin first, and then, his sin can be forgiven by God. If a
man does not repent, then he remains in sin, and according to Chao, forgiveness from God is
not conceivable in such a scenario.44
Justification and Sanctification. Moreover, Chao understands that justification and
sanctification are distinct, but his concepts of justification, sanctification, and regeneration
are very close. As mentioned earlier, Chao understands that “Justification by faith” is
working hard to create new lives; in saying so, it appears that Chao has blended the concept
of sanctification into the discussion. Moreover, Chao’s conception of regeneration is similar
to sanctification, while the latter emphasizes the progress of the renewal of Christian life. The
process of creating new lives is regarded as regeneration, while at the same time,
sanctification, as a gradual (day-by-day) and repeated (again and again) process, 45 refers to a
constant renewal of Christian life, a similar concept of regeneration.46
Summary. Chao’s first version of soteriology, “God-human Cooperation,” is expounded
within the personalist framework. It can be summed up as follows. Because God is love,

Chao, “Christian Philosophy,” in The Works, vol. 1, 138.
Chao, “Christian Philosophy,” in The Works, vol. 1, 138.
45 Chao, “Christian Philosophy,” in The Works, vol. 1, 138. “我们须得时时日日，在上帝面前献身，作为馨香
的祭礼才是。
”(138)
46 Chao, “Christian Philosophy,” in The Works, vol. 1, 137-38.
43
44

28

humans who have sinned ruined their personalities and cannot save themselves alone.
Therefore, God and man must cooperate to save humans from sin and evil. God chooses to
save humans through personality. As the Savior, Jesus Christ, who has a perfect personality,
died on the cross, manifesting the love of God and working out the way of human salvation,
which is to die and not surrender to sin and evil. Humans need to make an effort to follow
Jesus’s example and eventually work out of sin and evil and create new personalities. The
result of salvation is man’s justification; sin is forgiven. Chao affirms the justification by
faith, which is man’s effort to believe in Jesus’s Personality, turn away from evil and sin,
walk on the way of light, create new life, and expect the Kingdom of God to come. As
happened after justification, sanctification equals regeneration and is a constant renewal of
Christian life.

“FULFILLING GOD’S WILL” JUSTIFICATION
IN A FURTHER INTERPRETATION OF CHRISTIANITY
In the second text of Chao’s doctrine of justification, A Further Interpretation of Christianity,
Chao presents his second salvation theory: Fulfilling God’s Will (“成旨论”). This text is
considered Chao’s later theology, written within nineteen days in September of 1943. This
text aims to introduce Christianity systematically to his friends and students from a Chinese
cultural perspective.47 Out of ten chapters of this book, chapter eight deals with the doctrine
of salvation, in which justification is discussed.48
A few years before writing this text, Chao had published The Theology of Karl Barth;
thus, he likely incorporated some of Barth’s theological thoughts, shifting toward a more
conservative stance. This evolution introduced new elements, including an emphasis on the

47
48

Chao, “A Further Interpretation of Christianity,” in The Works, vol. 2, 38.
Chao, “A Further Interpretation of Christianity,” in The Works, vol. 2, 139-51.

29

transcendence of God, the pre-existence, and the divinity of Jesus Christ,49 while still
retaining the use of Personalism in this version.
The Reason for Justification. Similar to the previous text, Christian philosophy, the
problems of evil and sin in Chao’s mind are the very problem that makes salvation necessary
in this version of salvation. Likewise, the love of God is the reason for God’s willingness to
save humans from their sins. Chao believes that, on the one hand, God is omniscient and
foreknows that man will fall, and He prepares salvation for humans; on the other hand, man
has freedom and should be responsible for their sin and wrongdoings.50 Chao’s insistence on
human freedom is due to his ethical concerns; that is, he wants to hold humans accountable
for their moral responsibility.51
Chao, however, does not hold the same positive view of humans as he does in the first
text but still affirms human freedom and personality, and therefore, humans should be
responsible for their sins. He distinguishes the original sin and self-sin; the former refers to
the sinful nature of disobeying God humans inherited from Adam, and the latter is the sinful
act against God humans commit in their real lives.52 Regarding self-sin, Chao insists that
even though everybody inherits a sinful nature, they still have the freedom and personality to
make the right choices53 and should be responsible for their sinful behaviours whether or not
their sins are committed by themselves or influenced by others.54 Chao emphasizes that
freedom itself is not a sin, but abusing it is.55 Admitting that everybody sins, Chao explains
that the very reason is that humans live in society, and no one can escape from being
influenced by others’ sins. As Chao writes, "While people in the group live in a complex

Chao, “A Further Interpretation of Christianity,” in The Works, vol. 2, 38.
Chao, “A Further Interpretation of Christianity,” in The Works, vol. 2, 143.
51 Chen, The Chinese Christology of T. C. Chao, 254.
52 Chao, “A Further Interpretation of Christianity,” in The Works, vol. 2, 142.
53 Chao, “A Further Interpretation of Christianity,” in The Works, vol. 2, 143. “人有自由, 须负责人; 人有品格，须
遵法律。
” (143)
54 Chao, “A Further Interpretation of Christianity,” in The Works, vol. 2, 141.
55 Chao, “A Further Interpretation of Christianity,” in The Works, vol. 2, 142.
49
50

30

network of relationships, if one sins, it will affect others. Therefore, no one sins completely
alone or is solely responsible for his sin. That is to say, self-sin is also a sin of society, and
individual sin and others’ sin are mutually related. But the person who sins must bear his own
responsibility, regardless of the connection with others."56 Worth noting, Chao exposits sin
mostly as external attitudes and behaviors rather than the sinful nature of humanity, the
reason behind which is also his ethical concerns.
As God is almighty, Chao continues, God foreknows human’s possible rebellions and
sins; therefore, He prepared salvation in advance.57 The omnipotent and omniscient God will
save humanity by constraining Himself for the reason of love without interfering with human
freedom or taking away the responsibility from him for his sin. Thus, Chao writes,
“Transcendence and morality are mutually restricted in God’s personality as a harmonious
fusion of each other,” “God is infinite, but He can also limit Himself,” and “God rules and
also can transcend His ruling, all based on love.”58 For Chao, God’s self-limitation out of
love is why humans have room to participate in their salvation.
The Way of Justification. When dealing with Jesus Christ as the way of salvation, Chao
also considers the revelation in Him and His earthly life on top of the death and resurrection
of Jesus Christ, as Chao treats in the first text. The way of salvation, Chao writes, “includes
the revelation in Jesus Christ, the life and death of Jesus Christ, His words and deeds, His
ministry, and His pure and unblemished Personality.”59 Chao summarizes his understanding
of salvation in the following five points:60

56 Chao, “A Further Interpretation of Christianity,” in The Works, vol. 2, 141. “人在群中，生活在一个复杂的关
系之网中，自己犯罪，必影响他人，因此没有一个人完全独自犯罪，完全独自负责人。即论本罪，也是群中之罪，
罪罪牵连的。但是犯罪的人须负他自己的责任，无论其他的联系如何。” (141)
57 Chao, “A Further Interpretation of Christianity,” in The Works, vol. 2, 142.
58 Chao, “A Further Interpretation of Christianity,” in The Works, vol. 2, 143. “超越性与道德性二者在上帝品格内
互为限制互为协调的融合”… “全能能放能收，能无限能自限;” “上帝统治，是统治，亦是超统治的统治，而一切皆
本于爱。” (143)
59 Chao, “A Further Interpretation of Christianity,” in The Works, vol. 2, 144. “全部的救法包括耶稣基督完全的启
示，他的生死，言行，事工，与纯洁无瑕疵无玷污的人格。” (144)
60 Chao, “A Further Interpretation of Christianity,” in The Works, vol. 2, 146-47.

31

1. The death of Jesus Christ is God's revelation, manifesting God's love.
2. The death of Jesus Christ is to moralize people (influence people with morals) and
attract people to follow him.
3. Jesus Christ conquered evil and sin in His death because Jesus does not surrender to
evil and sin until he dies; in His death, evil and sin have no control over Him but only
fail entirely.
4. In the death of Jesus Christ, evil and sin have been conquered. Therefore, personality
will not perish because sin is the reason for the death of a human’s personality.
5. The death of Jesus Christ witnesses two things. First, it witnesses His equality with
God in terms of love: God is love, and therefore Jesus Christ is love. Next, it testifies
that Jesus Christ is the way that everyone should and could follow, from sin to
holiness, from death to life.
These five points are the critical elements of the second version of Chao’s soteriology. Chao
continues using the “personalist approach” in elucidating the doctrine of salvation but adds
some new elements, such as the “revelation of God” in the death of Jesus Christ,61 and
mentions Jesus Christ’s equality with God in terms of love.62 Here, Chao affirms Jesus
Christ’s divinity, the same quality as God, in terms of love. As Hui observes, Jesus Christ’s
divinity is not related to any supernatural character of God but only to the moral character in
terms of love.63 Even though he added the revelation in Jesus Christ (and His earthly life) in
his exposition of salvation, Chao’s atonement theory regarding how salvation is achieved in
Jesus Christ remains generally the same as the previous version.
Human Participation in Justification. How do humans get saved? Chao also lists five
things of human participation in salvation. First and foremost, humans need to pray and
repent, turn away from all the transgressions, and get gracious forgiveness from God.

Chao, “A Further Interpretation of Christianity,” in The Works, vol. 2, 146.
Chao, “A Further Interpretation of Christianity,” in The Works, vol. 2, 147.
63 Hui, "A Study of T. C. Chao's Christology," 177.
61
62

32

Secondly, humans need faith, an act of believing in Jesus Christ. Thirdly, to be saved, one
needs to join the Christian community. Fourthly, serving society is one aspect of salvation.
Finally, Chao understands sanctification as participating in Jesus’s death, life, and
resurrection, walking with Him. Believers are those who get Jesus Christ’s effective saving
method of saving people through death.64 For Chao, sanctification is an essential part of the
salvation process (in this version).65
To sum up, combining the five things on Jesus's side and the five items on the human
side makes salvation happen. Chao insists that participation is the man’s part of the effort in
his salvation. Clearly, man should not get salvation without putting in his due effort. Chao
rehearses Phil. 3:12 and concludes that participation in Jesus Christ and being united with
Him in everything is our journey of asking for our salvation with fear and trembling.66 Worth
noting that Chao chooses the term “asking for salvation” instead of “working out our
salvation” is to emphasize that human participation is secondary, and God’s grace (salvation)
is primary. Compared to the first text, human participation in this second version of salvation
turns from the active participation of “working out” his salvation to a secondary role in
participation in terms of “asking for help” in his salvation. Human participation in salvation
is still an indispensable element, even though it is not primary.
Chao affirms justification by faith and holds a view of “alien” righteousness, the forensic
concept. Faith is an act of believing, and because of faith, man is united with (or comes into
union with) Jesus Christ; in the eyes of God, man is regarded as righteous. Chao considers
the righteousness that man receives as an acquittal in nature, which means man is regarded as
righteous, not man himself is righteous.67 Thereof, Chao draws on the Scripture that “the

Chao, “A Further Interpretation of Christianity,” in The Works, vol. 2, 148.
Chao, “A Further Interpretation of Christianity,” in The Works, vol. 2, 148. “第五：是深入成圣之域，参与耶稣
基督生死复活的生命，与他同在一路行进。参与是我们进入得救的法则和进程。” (148)
66 Chao, “A Further Interpretation of Christianity,” in The Works, vol. 2, 148. “参与耶稣基督，与他在一切之中有
同一，是我们战战兢兢作出求救之工的经程。” (148)
67 Chao, “A Further Interpretation of Christianity,” in The Works, vol. 2, 148.
64
65

33

righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This
righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe” (Rom. 3:21-22); and
he emphasizes, “the righteousness is grace; the gracious righteousness of salvation is
bestowed from God.68 In addition, the term “union with Jesus Christ” that Chao used in
Chinese literally means “enter into” Jesus Christ, which can be rendered as “be united” with
Jesus Christ. Chao does not further unfold what kind of union is in his mind.69
Justification and Sanctification As expressed in this text, justification and sanctification
are distinct as the two parts of salvation, and both are needed for salvation. For Chao,
Justification means being saved. This justification is primarily established by Jesus Christ
and necessarily participated by a human in repentance, faith in Jesus Christ, sanctification,
and following Jesus Christ’s step and walking with Him. After being saved and justified,
humans should strive towards the final goal: eternity. For the first time, Chao affirms eternity,
which refers to the immorality of humans' hearts, characters, and personalities. He writes, “If
we seek truth and evidence of life, we will naturally have eternal life. Can one's self surpass
the body and still exist? Does one have a character/personality after death? Yes. One’s self is
the heart, not the body; the body is the tool of the heart, the symbol of the heart, the
temporary residence of the heart.”70 Chao does not further exposit sanctification and its
relationship with Justification.
Summary. In this text, Chao continues using the personalist approach to illustrate his
version of soteriology, named “Fulfilling God’s Will” (“成旨论”), which is similar to his first
version. For the reason of love, God Almighty foreknows that humans will sin, and God
prepared salvation in advance. However, God still holds humans accountable for their sin and
evil because humans have the freedom and personality to make a good choice. Jesus Christ

Chao, “A Further Interpretation of Christianity,” in The Works, vol. 2, 148.
Chao, “A Further Interpretation of Christianity,” in The Works, vol. 2, 148.
70 Chao, “A Further Interpretation of Christianity,” in The Works, vol. 2, 149. “我们若寻求真理，与生命证据，
我们自然有永生。人的自己可以超越身体仍能存在，人有品格吗？有。自己是心，不是身体，身体是心的工具，心
的象征，心暂时的居所。
” (149)
68

69

34

has the perfect Personality and achieved salvation by showing the ONLY way of conquering
evil and sin through his death on the cross without surrendering to sin and evil. Humans need
to follow His example and walk out of their sin and evil to get themselves saved. Jesus
continues to be a moral example for humans to follow for salvation; human participation
continues to be needed even though human participation plays a secondary role in achieving
human salvation.

“UNION WITH GOD” JUSTIFICATION
IN FOUR TALKS OF THEOLOGY
The final piece of Chao’s writing on the justification is Four Talks on Theology, the last and
most systematic theological work in Chao’s career. In this four-chapter book, Chao dedicates
the third chapter to the doctrine of salvation, in which the doctrine of Justification is
discussed. Chao names the third salvation theory as “Union with God.” In this version, Chao
completely abandons the personalist framework.
Let us continue to deal with the four questions.
The Reason for Justification. Following a similar structure to earlier versions of
salvation, Chao starts with the issues of evil and sin. He admits that we may not have a
satisfying answer as to where sin comes from, but how to conquer evil and sin and save all
people from sin and evil is an important question to deal with. For Chao, the necessity of
salvation is to deal with the problem of evil and sin, and the purpose of salvation is to save
people from evil and sin. In this version, Chao emphasizes that because God is holy, good,
omniscient, and all-mighty, God has prepared salvation through Jesus Christ for humanity to
be saved even before creation.71 For the above-stated points, continuity is shown compared

Chao, “Four Talks on Theology,” in The Works, vol. 2, 550. “上帝是全圣全善全知全能的，在创世以先预备了
拯救的羔羊，预知了耶稣基督，预作了我们的救法。” (550)
71

35

with the previous version of the explanation of the reason for God to save humanity in the
second text, A Further Interpretation of Christianity.
The Way of Justification. In the third text, Chao admits humanity’s incapability and the
impossibility of saving themselves from evil and sin and accentuates that only God can save
humans from evil and sin through His incarnated Son, Jesus Christ.72 Jesus Christ’s life on
earth, His death on the cross, and His resurrection are what God has done for human
salvation. Thus, three things have been achieved through the life, death, resurrection, and
ascension of Jesus Christ.73
1. His life is the perfect and good life, as demonstrated in the words and deeds of Jesus in
his earthly life.
2. His death on the cross manifested His love and sacrifice.
3. His resurrection and ascension revealed that death and sin had been conquered.
Chao emphasizes that the earthly life of Jesus is an essential part of the salvation God
prepared for humanity. If Jesus had no such perfect and good life on earth, Chao argues, the
death on the cross would be meaningless and ineffective. Likewise, without the resurrection
of Jesus Christ, death on the cross would have no effect and would be pointless. Therefore,
with His earthly life and resurrection, Jesus Christ's death on the cross became the highest
point of God’s salvation for humanity.74
Chao further tackles the problem of why the death of Jesus Christ on the cross can
remove man's sin and reconcile man with God. Chao summarizes six things that have been
achieved in the death of Jesus Christ. First, Jesus died a death for humanity, who represents

72 Chao, “Four Talks on Theology,” in The Works, vol. 2, 550. “人有罪恶，不能自救，唯有上帝成身才能拯拨
他从罪恶里出来。” (550)
73 Chao, “Four Talks on Theology,” in The Works, vol. 2, 550.
74 Chao, “Four Talks on Theology,” in The Works, vol. 2, 551. “但是没有耶稣基督那样生，虽有十字架上的
死，死亦毫无意义，毫无功效；没有耶稣基督那样的复活升天，虽有十字架上的舍生，舍生也毫无功效，毫无意
义。既有生，复有其复活升天，耶稣基督的死就成了上帝救人工程的最高点。” (551)

36

God. 75 Secondly, He conquered evil and death through his death on the cross. Thirdly, the
death of Jesus Christ reveals the love of God, love at its culmination. 4) The death of Jesus
Christ shows how deep human sin is. Here, the profound evil and sin of humanity revealed
refers to the evil behaviors of humans that sent Jesus to the cross. Therefore, man’s sin needs
to be redeemed by a perfect and sinless person who dies the cruellest punishment. 5) Jesus
Christ conquers sin and evil by steadfastly refusing to surrender or compromise to sin, even
unto death, thereby rendering death powerless over him. In other words, Jesus Christ died to
sin and evil so that sin and evil cannot control him; this is how Jesus Christ conquered sin
and evil on the cross. 6) The resurrection reveals that Jesus Christ has conquered death and
opened the door of eternity for humanity. Because Jesus Christ is the source of holiness,
mercy, and goodness, he cannot remain decayed. In Chao’s understanding, the resurrection is
a kind of immortality of goodness. Finally, salvation was achieved by Jesus Christ on the
cross, which humans cannot achieve by themselves because Jesus has found a way of
conquering sin and evil by not surrendering until death and demonstrating their success in
His resurrection. As the first item shows, this atonement theory is considered within a
trinitarian framework, but the overall understanding of atonement remains unchanged. The
next question is what humans should do on their side to conquer their sins.76
Human’s Passive Participation in Justification. Chao continues his argument on why
humanity should be morally responsible for their sin from God's and human perspectives.
From the human side, how would a human being participate in his salvation, especially when
he cannot save himself because of sin? With his mind deeply rooted in Chinese culture, Chao
naturally believes that humans should and need to establish their personality/character

75 Chen, Chinese Christology of T. C. Chao, 238. Chen mentions that Chao understands the death of Jesus Christ
on the cross in the framework of the Trinity, under which Chao can say that God the Father really died for humanity.
76 Chao, “Four Talks on Theology,” in The Works, vol. 2, 553-54. “他为我们垂示了一个制胜罪恶的法则，制胜
了罪恶。这是他替代我们找到的，也是代替我们作成的。我们当然还要自己去胜过罪恶。” (553-54)

37

themselves, and no one else can do such things for them.77 He states, "Jesus Christ cannot
replace us as sinners, nor can he establish our virtues. We made ourselves sinners, so did we
make ourselves good people. "78 When Chao interprets “Jesus died for us,” he does not use
the term “Jesus died in our place” or “Jesus replaced us to die,” but instead, Jesus died for
our benefit, i.e., for showing us the way of salvation and having destroyed the causal linkage
between the death and evil and sin. However, man needs to walk his own death to conquer
his own death.79 Even though humans cannot save themselves because of sin, humans still
need to be responsible for their sins. In this version, Chao does not appeal to the personalist
framework but explains the human mandate of being accountable for their sins and
participating in their salvation through Chinese cultural norms. Chao drops the entire
framework of Personalism, but his emphasis on human participation in salvation remains
unchanged.
From the divine perspective, Chao highlights the help of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, Chao
argues, humans cannot save themselves due to their sinfulness (or sinful behaviors), but they
can cooperate with others to carry out their due diligence. Therefore, Chao emphasizes that
humans need to put in their own effort for their salvation, with the help from the Holy Spirit
to give us guidance and strength to follow the way Jesus Christ opened the way for us.80 The
Holy Spirit, however, cannot replace human moral effort either.81 Chao lists a few things
humans need to do to make his salvation effective, such as repentance, testimony, serving
others, following the example of Jesus, and refusing temptations.82 All these things should be

Chao, “Four Talks on Theology,” in The Works, vol. 2, 552. “人格必内启，道德不外铄，岂有人能披带他人
之恶，穿上他人之善？”
78 Chao, “Four Talks on Theology,” in The Works, vol. 2, 553. The Chinese term Chao uses is “pin ge 品格” with
the connotation of personality or character from a moral consideration. “耶稣基督不能代替我们作罪人，也不能代替我
们建立我们的德行。罪人是我们自己作的，善人也是我们自己做的…人却不能…由人代病而自己不死，由人为善而
自己成品格。” (553)
79 Chao, “Four Talks on Theology,” in The Works, vol. 2, 554.
80 Chao, “Four Talks on Theology,” in The Works, vol. 2, 553, 554. “但是他代替我们开了路，又差遣圣灵来给
我们引导与力量。” (554)
81 Chao, “Four Talks on Theology,” in The Works, vol. 2, 553.
82 Chao, “Four Talks on Theology,” in The Works, vol. 2, 554. “须怎样发生影响与效率？”(554)
77

38

categorized into Chao’s concept of “the effort to ask for help,” an effort that humans
continuously work out of their salvation with fear and trembling ( Phil.2:12-13), regardless of
their sinfulness.
Justification by Faith. In this text, Chao elaborates further on his comprehension of
justification. The justification of man means forgiveness of sin, being acquitted by God in
His grace and being regarded as righteous. The justification of man is man’s believing in
Jesus Christ and following His steps. When we have faith in Jesus Christ, our sin is acquitted,
God regards us as innocent, and we are given a new beginning. From then on, we live a life
of faith. We believe in Jesus Christ, ask for his guidance, and walk on the road as He
conquers sin and death. By doing so, we are regarded as righteous by God and are reconciled
with God.83 That is to say, believing in Jesus Christ and following His steps is man's
justification that man is regarded as righteous.
Consistent with the initial two versions, Chao persists in affirming justification by faith.
Based on Romans 4:5 and 3:24, Chao illustrates his forensic justification.84 For justification
by faith, Chao uses the Chinese term “zhi” (直; literally means “straight”) to represent “yi”
(义; literally means righteousness) to express the justification of man by faith.85 Chao
carefully distinguishes between faith (“信仰”) and belief (“信受”). They both are human
efforts: belief is a human effort; faith is a joint effort between God and man. Faith is a special
act from the human side that we trust (rely on) God and receive Jesus as Lord, helping us
complete salvation. Faith encompasses both active and negative perspectives. From a
positive standpoint, faith involves actively trusting and relying on God. From a negative
standpoint, faith is seen as something initiated by God within us rather than by our own
efforts. We both take action and surrender simultaneously. Chao views faith as a mysterious
phenomenon.

Chao, “Four Talks on Theology,” in The Works, vol. 2, 554-55.
Chao, “Four Talks on Theology,” in The Works, vol. 2, 554.
85 Chao, “Four Talks on Theology,” in The Works, vol. 2, 554.
83
84

39

Justification and Sanctification. In this text, Chao explains justification and
sanctification from the perspective of “the union with God,” as suggested in the title of the
third version of soteriology.
After humans are justified, they are regenerated because God gives us the Holy Spirit.
Chao equals regeneration with human resurrection. Once we believe (or have faith), God
gives us life and regenerates us. In other words, God gives us the Holy Spirit; therefore, we
have regeneration. Our resurrection is our regeneration.86 Our righteousness is to walk on the
road of faith, following the victorious road of Jesus. That means walking on the road is our
salvation; walking on the road, we are regenerated because the Holy Spirit is with us, and we
are resurrected (in this life). Chao does not mention eternal life or teach the other side of the
eschaton.
Therefore, Chao recaps the justification in “the union with God.” According to Chao’s
perspective, humans are justified through the union with Jesus Christ, which encompasses the
forgiveness of sins, the reception of the Holy Spirit sent by Jesus Christ, and the regeneration
(or resurrection).87 Through the union with Jesus Christ, humans conquer evil, sin, and death
by the power of the Holy Spirit. Even though humans may still experience suffering, the
suffering becomes easier to bear and more meaningful.88
Likewise, Chao also explains sanctification from the union with God. Sanctification, in
essence, is to suffer with Jesus Christ. Chao regards sanctification as one of the two types of
suffering—the first is the consequence of sin and evil, and the second is the process of
sanctification.89 In a sense, sanctification is suffering. Fundamentally, Chao understands the
union with Christ is to suffer like Him and save the world like Him.90

Chao, “Four Talks on Theology,” in The Works, vol. 2, 555. “我们的重生，就是我们的复活。” (555)
Chao, “Four Talks on Theology,” in The Works, vol. 2, 556.
88 Chao, “Four Talks on Theology,” in The Works, vol. 2, 557.
89 Chao, “Four Talks on Theology,” in The Works, vol. 2, 557. “世界上本有两种苦难：一种是罪恶的结果。
。
。
一种是成圣的经历。” (557)
86
87

90

Chao, “Four Talks on Theology,” in The Works, vol. 2, 557. “我们与耶稣基督同一，他因担受苦难而救苦

难；我们也要担受苦难而救苦难。” (557)

40

Summary. Building upon previous versions but exhibiting further development, the third
text encapsulates Chao's ultimate and most mature comprehension of salvation, presenting a
more systematic doctrine of justification. Chao drops the Personalism and adds more
conservative theological elements in his exposition.
In explaining the reason for salvation, Chao articulates that because humanity sins and is
incapable of saving itself, God has prepared salvation through Jesus Christ even before
creation, as God is holy, good, omniscient, and almighty. He highlights that God saves
through the incarnated Son Jesus Christ instead of through personality.
Chao’s atonement theory remains consistent with the previous version. Jesus Christ
exemplifies the way of overcoming sin and evil by steadfastly resisting sin and evil even unto
death, thereby establishing salvation through his life, death, resurrection and ascension. Thus,
the importance of the earthly life of Jesus Christ is highlighted, without which salvation
cannot be established.
Chao affirms humanity’s utter incapability of saving himself due to his sinfulness and
sin, but he insists on the necessity of personal responsibility in addressing and overcoming
sin; he emphasizes following the example of Jesus as the only way to salvation, urging
individuals to strive towards righteousness and walk out of their sin and evil. However,
humans need help from the Holy Spirit to contribute their due part to salvation. Jesus Christ
is continuously a moral example for humanity to follow to achieve their salvation.
Chao maintains justification by faith. The justification of man is that humans believe in
Jesus Christ and follow His steps; faith is a joint effort between God and man. Once he has
faith, human sin is forgiven and regarded as righteous by God. God gives humans the Holy
Spirit; therefore, humans are regenerated and resurrected. According to Chao, human
resurrection represents their regeneration within this present age of the eschaton.
Chao clearly distinguishes between justification and sanctification, and both can be
illustrated in the term “union with God,” as the title of the salvation theory suggests. On the
one hand, man's justification is human’s union with Jesus Christ, a joint effort between God

41

and man, so that human is justified—his sin is forgiven, the Holy Spirit is given to him, and
then he is regenerated and resurrected. On the other hand, sanctification is another type of
union with Jesus Christ, joining Him and suffering like Him.
In summary, Chao's mature version of salvation theology and the doctrine of justification
incorporates conservative theological elements, placing increased emphasis on the
transcendence of God, the divinity of Jesus Christ, and human sinfulness. Nevertheless, it
upholds the consistent thread found in the three texts under examination—Chao's unwavering
emphasis on the necessity of human participation and the significance of Jesus Christ’s moral
exemplar. What has evolved is the emphasis on the weight of human involvement in the
doctrine of justification, shifting from a balanced divine and human cooperation, where
humans take an active role in salvation, to a paradigm where divine action is primary and
human participation is secondary in the salvation process.

42

Chapter 3
Exposition of Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Justification

Karl Barth, a Swiss Protestant theologian, is arguably the most influential theologian of the
twentieth century. Barth received his theological education within the framework of German
Protestant Liberalism. Influenced by Kantian philosophy through his teacher Wilhelm
Herrmann at Marburg, Barth initially aligned with liberal Protestant theology. However, a
significant shift occurred during World War I when he witnessed attempts within liberal
theology to justify the war. This disillusionment catalyzed Barth's four-decade endeavour to
reconstruct Protestant theology, steering it back towards a more orthodox position.
As we did in the previous chapter on Chao's doctrine, we will provide a brief overview
of Karl Barth's contextual background and theological development before delving into
examining his doctrine of justification across various stages.

THE CONTEXT OF KARL BARTH
A Sketch of Karl Barth. On May 10, 1886, he was born in Basel, Switzerland, and grew up
in a religious and intellectual family. From 1904 to 1908, Barth studied theology at the
Universities in Bern, Berlin, Tübingen, and Marburg. Therein, he was trained in German
Protestant Liberalism. He learned the historical-critical method, the ruling methodology of
modern Protestant theology, from teachers like Ernst Troeltsch, Adolf von Harnack, and
Wilhelm Herrmann. At Marburg, he studied Kant thoroughly.1
Following his study and a short period of service as an assistant editor for the journal Die
Christliche Welt (The Christian World) in 1908, Barth went back to Switzerland and started
his pastoral work in 1909; he first served as assistant pastor in a German Reformed church

1

Karl Barth and Clifford Green, Karl Barth: Theologian of Freedom (London: Collins, 1989), 13.

43

and then as pastor in the small town of Safenwil, Canton Aargau, from 1911 to 1921.2 His
pastoral experience led him to realize that liberal theology, especially from the perspective of
religious experience, cannot explain well the reality people faced, such as the injustice of
society and the problem of the bourgeoisie.3
One significant event at the beginning of WWI triggered his final break from liberal
theology. In 1914, there was a public signing of a war-supporting manifesto, signed by
ninety-three German intellectuals, including Barth’s former theological teachers (his beloved
teacher Wilhelm Herrmann and Adolf von Harnack, for example). Barth wrote
retrospectively about that event in the later years of his life, “An entire world of theological
exegesis, ethics, dogmatics, and preaching, which up to that point I had accepted as basically
credible, was thereby shaken to the foundations, and with it everything which flowed at that
time from the pends of the German theologians.”4
In his teaching career, Barth first took up a position as an Honorary Professor of
Reformed theology at the University of Göttingen in Germany from October 1921 to April
1924. Then, he moved to the University of Münster and served as a professor of New
Testament Exegesis and Dogmatics from October 1925 until March 1930. In August 1923,
Barth and a few theologians, Rudolf Bultmann, Fredrick Gogarten, Eduard Thurneysen, and
Fredrick Merz, started a journal, Zwischen den Zeiten (Between the Times), which marked
the beginning of the “dialectical theology” movement. This team was dissolved in 1933
because they had diverging views on the future development of dialectical theology. Barth

Karl Barth and Keith L. Johnson, The Essential Karl Barth: A Reader and Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Baker Academic, 2021), 2.
3 John Webster, “Introducing Barth.” In The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, ed. John Webster (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2009), 3.
4 See Barth, “Concluding Unscientific Postscript,” 264; cited in Webster, “Introducing Barth,” 3. Also see
McCormack, Karl Barth’s Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology, 78-126. In section 2.2, “Socialism and Religious
Socialism in Safenwill (July 1911 – August 1915),” McCormack shows that Barth’s break and departure from liberal
theology was not an overnight event but rather a progressive one completed during his first years in Safenwil. That is,
Barth’s break with liberal Protestantism was not merely because of the manifesto of the ninety-three German intellectuals.
Also see Frank Jehle, “Intellectual and Personal Biography I: The Young Barth (1886–1921),” in The Oxford Handbook of
Karl Barth, 25-28.
2

44

taught his first dogmatics course at the University of Göttingen and the second at the
University of Münster, which lectures were compiled and published in Göttingen Dogmatics
(known as GD and published posthumously.) and Christian Dogmatics in Outline:
Prolegomena (known as Munster Dogmatics (MD), published in 1927) respectively. In
March 1930, Barth was assigned to the University of Bonn, instructing students in dogmatics
until June 1935. In 1932, Barth launched his third dogmatical work, the Church Dogmatics
(CD), a project on which Barth spent most of his time in his theological career. Because he
protested against the treatment of the Jews and refused to swear an oath of loyalty to Hitler,
Barth was dismissed from his teaching position in June 1935.5 Barth left Germany, and not
long after (almost immediately), he took a chair as professor of Theology at Basel University,
teaching dogmatics and continued on his magnum opus, Church Dogmatics, until his
retirement in 1962.6 After retirement, Barth continued writing, travelled to teach, and
participated in ecumenical engagement as a leading Protestant theologian.7
Barth was a prolific writer. Besides his works on dogmatics mentioned, he had produced
several commentaries, countless sermons, lectures and speeches, journal articles, and
manuscripts published. Due to his academic contribution, Barth received some noteworthy
honours: the Sonning Prize in 1963, the honorary doctorate in Paris the same year, and the
Sigmund Freud Prize in 1968.8
He passed away peacefully at his home on December 10, 1968, leaving behind a lasting
legacy in the world of theology.
Barth’s Theological Development As a church theologian, Barth’s theological trajectory
started from a sharp departure from liberal theology and developed along Christological lines

5 See “Professional Timeline,” in George Hunsinger and Keith L. Johnson ed., Wiley Blackwell Companion to Karl
Barth (Regis: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2020), 4; Eberhard Busch, “Intellectual and Personal Biography II: Barth in Germany
(1921–1935),” in The Oxford Handbook of Karl Barth, 49-50.
6 Hans-Anton Drewes, “Intellectual and Personal Biography III: Barth the Elder (1935–1968),” in The Oxford
Handbook of Karl Barth, 52-55.
7 Drewes, “Barth the Elder (1935–1968),” 65-67.
8 Drewes, “Barth the Elder (1935–1968),” 66.

45

towards his mature form of theology, Church Dogmatics. What follows will introduce the
major milestones of this long and complex trajectory.
After his break from liberal theology in 1914, Barth needed to find a new starting point
and a new theological path for his theology. So, encouraged and inspired by Eduard
Thurneysen, his lifelong friend who was a neighboring pastor, Barth started an intensive
study and deeper engagement with the Bible, especially the book of Romans, in 1916. The
studying notes were compiled and published as a book, The Epistle to the Romans (hereafter
RI), in 1919, and its second version, RII, a thorough revision, was published in 1922. In RI
and RII, Barth addresses God as “Wholly Other,” emphasizing the “infinite qualitative
difference” between eternity (God) and time (man), the Kierkegaardian dialectics, and
highlights Jesus Christ as the revelation of God.9 This new starting point, opposite to liberal
theology that upholds rationality over the Bible, rejects all sorts of anthropocentric
approaches to knowing God.
In his appointment as a professor of Reformed Theology in Göttingen, Barth diligently
studied historic Reformed orthodoxy to deliver his lectures, in the process of which he
grasped the Chalcedonian Christology, as expressed in GD.10 As McCormack summarizes,
“the theoretical ground of Barth’s theology in GD was found in his Christology, his basic
orientation was towards the revelation-event which occurs in the here and now on the basis
of God’s Self-revelation in Christ.”11 Thus, the Reformation's heritage enabled Barth to build
his proper theology on top of his continuous critique and rebuttal of liberal theology. That is,
by dealing with the two natures of Jesus Christ and the hypostatic union as the Logos, the
second person of the Trinity, Barth can express Jesus Christ as the revelation of God in

9 Karl Barth and Keith L. Johnson, The Essential Karl Barth: A Reader and Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Baker Academic, 2021), 3-4; Shao Kai Tseng, Karl Barth (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Pub., 2021), 42-43. Also see,
McCormack, Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology, 236.
10 Tseng, Karl Barth, 43.
11 McCormack, Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology, 328.

46

history and safeguard God’s distinction from history by using the veiling and unveiling
dialectic.12
When teaching in Münster, Barth had opportunities to explore the Catholic tradition and
was inspired to engage with patristics and medieval-period theology in depth. Thanks to
these experiences, as Eberhard Busch comments, Barth’s dogmatics retains “the fullness of
the biblical statements and the fullness of the voices of Christian history, and Barth allows
both to speak afresh and to point the way forward.”13
During his appointment in Münster, Barth studied Anselm’s theology, and after moving
to Bonn, he published his work Anselm14 in 1931. His deep engagement with Anselm of
Canterbury significantly impacted Barth’s theological development, even though the impact
should not be considered a dramatic second turn of Barth’s theology from dialectic to
analogy, as described in Hans Urs von Balthasar’s account, because McCormack has
pervasively demonstrated that Barth has used analogy long before his writing the book on
Anselm.15 Through reflecting on Anselm’s notion of faith-seeking-understanding, Barth
figured out an ontological expression of Christianity.16 That is, Barth learned from Anselm
that the knowledge of God revealed to us in faith is distinct from the knowledge of God and
the relationship between God and humans that we have in our created order, as human
sinfulness already taints the latter. Therefore, Barth can speak about God and the God-man
relationship “by simply describing Jesus Christ, because the human subject’s knowledge of

12

Barth and Johnson, The Essential Karl Barth, 5. Also see Johnson, “A Reappraisal,” 11.
Busch, “Barth in Germany (1921–1935),” 43.
14 Karl Barth, Anselm, Fides Quaerens Intellectum: Anselm’s Proof of the Existence of God in the Context of His
Theological Scheme, trans. Ian W. Robertson (Richmond: John Knox, 1960).
15 McCormack, Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology, 421-27. In McCormack’s recount of von
Balthasar’s account, the definition of dialectic and analogy is summarized as: “‘dialectic’ was seen as an attempt to ground
theology philosophically by means of the categories provided by existentialism and phenomenology; ‘analogy’ as an attempt
to develop a ‘pure’ theology, grounded in revelation alone.” See McCormack, Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical
Theology, 421
16 Tseng, Karl Barth, 44.
13

47

and relationship with God is determined in and by Christ himself.”17 By doing so, Barth’s
theology became truly Christ-centered ever since.18
The last notable change in Barth’s theology is associated with the development of the
doctrine of election. In 1936, inspired by a lecture on election delivered by Pierre Maury in
Geneva, Barth developed the doctrine of election.19 Based on Paul’s teaching about the
election (Eph. 1:4) that God “chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and
blameless in his sight in love,” Barth unfolds that Jesus Christ is both the electing God and
the elected man, in whom a covenant relationship between God and humanity has been
established eternally, and this covenant will be fulfilled in time and space. Jesus Christ is the
covenantal grace, in and through whom God chooses, by his grace in his freedom and love,
to unite humanity with God himself in Logos, the Son of God, the second person of the
Trinity. Thereby, human nature is determined by the covenant, that is, by Jesus Christ, not
given us by the creation, as “a relationship of ongoing continuity between God and humanity
exists, therefore, but only because both created order and our human being presuppose the
prior existence of God’s covenant of grace.”20 Thus, the development of the doctrine of
election is regarded as his last substantial theological development, which became the
foundation/presupposition undergirding his following central doctrines in CD, such as
creation and reconciliation.
Summary. In conclusion, Karl Barth's theological journey can be viewed as a
reconstruction of Christianity in response to the dominance of liberal Protestantism. By
emphasizing the transcendence of God and grounding his theology in the Bible, Barth sought
to correct the anthropocentric tendencies of liberal theology. The development of doctrines
like election became the pillars of his mature theological stance.

Johnson, “A Reappraisal,” 17-18.
Scholars have different views on when Barth’s theology turned to purely Christ-centric. McCormack renders
this to have happened when Barth developed his doctrine of election in CD II/2. See Johnson’s analysis in Johnson, “A
Reappraisal,” 18-19.
19 Tseng, Karl Barth, 45.
20 Johnson, “A Reappraisal,” 22.
17
18

48

ESCHATOLOGICAL JUSTIFICATION
IN THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
Since the 1920s, Barth’s theology has undergone changes and revisions alongside his
understanding of the subject matter of theology and his doctrine of justification. The
importance of tracing his earlier understanding of this central Christian doctrine lies in a
better appreciation of his mature form of the doctrine of justification in Church Dogmatics
and a deeper understanding of his overall theological development.21 This chapter will
investigate Barth’s doctrine of justification expressed in The Epistle to the Romans,
Göttingen Dogmatics, and Church Dogmatics IV/1.
In each text, we will consider the same set of questions as we ask in chapter two in
considering T. C. Chao’s doctrine of justification for the sake of dialogue between the two
theologians in chapter four. These questions are: First, what are the reasons for
salvation/justification? Secondly, how does salvation/justification happen on the divine side?
The third one is about human participation in justification. Lastly, what is the relationship
between justification and sanctification of man? Now we turn to Barth’s exposition of the
doctrine of Justification.
The Epistle to the Romans, the second edition of Barth’s commentary on the book of
Romans (RII hereafter), is the first major writing after Barth broke with Protestant liberalism.
Through this book, Barth stresses “the infinitely qualitative difference between God and
man” (Kierkegaard) and wishes to speak of God without appealing to any form of human
subjectivity. At that time, Barth’s most pressing challenge was “to explain why God alone is

21 Hereafter, I will use the abbreviation RII to represent the Epistle to the Romans, GD Göttingen Dogmatics, and
CD Church Dogmatics in this chapter due to the high frequency of usage of the titles of the three texts.

49

the proper subject matter of theology and how God can be this subject matter while also
remaining beyond human manipulation or control.”22
The doctrine of justification in RII is not systematically unfolded but rather scattered in
the different chapters of this commentary. However, it is not difficult to grasp Barth’s
understanding of justification because he uses this doctrine as an instrument to illustrate “the
dialectic divine-human relationship” in this book.23 The central material this paper uses for
the doctrinal discussion on justification is the first eight chapters, in particular, five of them
including Introduction (the first chapter), The Righteousness of God (the third chapter), the
Coming Day (the fifth chapter), Freedom (the seventh chapter), and the Spirit (the eighth
chapter).
The Reason for Justification: Grace alone. In RII, Barth's central focus is not to explain
why God justifies humanity but to underscore justification by grace alone, with no human
contribution. Barth’s justification follows the Protestant doctrine of justification, emphasizing
justification by Grace of God, Christ alone, and faith alone, but it is expressed in a dialectical
way that “the dialectic of sin and judgment on the one hand and righteousness and grace on
the other.”24 Barth understands justification more as a divine act, and there is no precondition on the human side.25 In other words, he emphasizes God’s transcendence and
negates “the creaturely side of the equation.”26 Justification is manifested in the resurrection
of Jesus Christ.27

Keith L. Johnson, "A Reappraisal of Karl Barth's Theological Development and His Dialogue with
Catholicism," 14, no. 1 (2012), 7.
23 Johnson, "A Reappraisal of Karl Barth's Theological Development and His Dialogue with Catholicism,"
International Journal of Systematic Theology 14, no. 1 (2012): 8. The insightful observation and discussion about Barth’s
use of Christian doctrine to solve his theological problems in his early theology can also be found in various books. See John
Webster, Barth’s Earlier Theology (London: T. & T. Clark, 2005), 54; Hunsinger, How to Read Karl Barth, 143–47.
24 Johnson, "A Reappraisal," 8.
25 See the essay by Shannon Smythe, "Barth on Justification," in Wiley Blackwell Companion to Karl Barth, ed.
George Hunsinger and Keith L. Johnson (Bognor Regis: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2020), 292.
26 Johnson, "A Reappraisal," 13.
27 Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 94.
22

50

Barth affirms salvation is the work of God and by His Grace alone. “God Himself, and
God alone, wills and elects, creates and redeems.”28 Barth understands grace by which we are
saved dialectically: “Grace is not grace if he that receives it is not under judgment.
Righteousness is not righteousness if it is not reckoned to the sinner. Life is not life if it is not
life from death. And God is not God, if he be not the End of men.”29 The sinners’ being
justified, the declared righteousness, is freely by His grace. “God declares: He declares His
Righteousness to be the truth behind and beyond all human righteousness and
unrighteousness. He declares that He has espoused our cause and that we belong to Him. He
declares that we, His enemies, are His beloved Children.”30 This declared righteousness
demonstrates the very nature of forensic justification.
Justification Is a Divine Act. We are saved by Christ alone, God’s divine act in Jesus
Christ, who manifests God’s faithfulness, love, and righteousness. For Barth, the
righteousness of God is the sovereign and regal display of the power of God. And the
manifestation, the revelation of God’s saving grace, lies in the miracle of the resurrection of
Jesus Christ.31 In RII, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is at the center of God’s revelation.
“The Resurrection is the revelation: the disclosing of Jesus of Christ, the appearing of God,
and the apprehending of God in Jesus.”32 Only in the light of the resurrection of Jesus from
the dead can justification be perceived and recognized—“the power and meaning of the
Coming Day: the Day of the New World and of the New Man.”33
As Barth understands, God's revelation in Jesus Christ is a hidden one. God encounters
history in and through Jesus Christ in “a historical occurrence and marks the point where the
unknown world cuts the known world.”34 “Jesus has been appointed from eternity as the

28

Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 187.
Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 187.
30 Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 110.
31 Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 94.
32 Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 30.
33 Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 187.
34 Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 29.
29

51

place of propitiation above which God dwells and from which He speaks; now, however, He
occupies a position in time, in history, in the presence of men.”35 The revelation in Jesus
“must be the complete veiling of God’s incomprehensibility,” and in Jesus, “God becomes
veritably a secret: He is made known as the Unknown.”36 “As Christ, Jesus is the plane
which lies beyond our comprehension. The plane which is known to us, intersects vertically
from above. Within history, Jesus as Christ can be understood only as Problem or Myth.”37
The hiddenness of the revelation and God’s incomprehensibility is where Barth emphasizes
God’s transcendence in the history that He has stepped in from eternity.
However, what has been achieved in the life and death of Jesus Christ (atonement) is not
an ontologically finished work as expressed in Barth’s later theology. “The life of Jesus is
perfected obedience to the will of the faithful God.… He moves to the cross and to death; His
greatest achievement is a negative achievement.”38 By using “a negative achievement” to
describe what Jesus has achieved on the cross, Barth wants to accentuate God’s negation to
human beings. In this negation, Jesus “sacrifices to the incomparably Greater and to the
invisibly Other every claim to genius and every human heroic or aesthetic or psychic
possibility, because there is no conceivable human possibility of which He did not rid
Himself.”39 Because of Jesus’s sacrificing on the cross and putting himself under judgment
on behalf of us, “we behold the faithfulness of God in the depths of Hell.”40
Human Participation: No Precondition on Us. The righteousness of God is His
forgiveness of the sinners, regardless of their unrighteousness and ungodliness. “The
righteousness of God is His forgiveness, the radical alteration of the relation between God
and man, which explains why, though human unrighteousness and ungodliness have brought
the world to its present condition and are intolerable to Him, He nevertheless continues to

35

Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 105.
Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 98.
37 Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 29–30.
38 Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 97.
39 Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 97.
40 Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 97.
36

52

name us His people so that we may BE His people.”41 Barth holds a forensic understanding
of God’s righteousness, “righteousness from outside—justitia forensis, justitia aliena; for the
Judge pronounces His verdict according to the standard of His righteousness only.”42 There is
nothing we can do on the human side for our justification. We are just forgiven. We didn’t do
anything, and we cannot do anything.
Justification by Faith. Only by faith are humans justified. “By faith, we are what we are
not. Faith is the predicate of which the new man is subject.”43 Faith, in Barth, is conversion
and an attitude of a human who turns to Jesus Christ. As Barth writes, “Faith is conversion: it
is the radically new disposition of the man who stands naked before God and has been
wholly impoverished that he may procure the one pearl of great price; it is the attitude of the
man who for the sake of Jesus has lost his own soul.”44 Barth does not credit faith as a human
effort that we humans contribute to salvation, but as “awe in the presence of the divine
incognito” (hiddenness of God in Jesus Christ). Faith “is aware of the qualitative distinction
between God and man and God and the world; it is the affirmation of resurrection as the
turning-point of the world; and therefore it is the affirmation of the divine ‘No’ in Christ, of
the shattering halt in the presence of God;”45 it is “to feel and comprehend the unheard of
‘love-less’ love of God, to do the ever scandalous and outrageous will of God, to call upon
God in His incomprehensibility and hiddenness.”46 After all, for Barth, “faith is not a
foundation upon which men can emplace themselves.”47 For Barth, faith is an attitude for us
to turn to God, who is infinitely different from us, for which we cannot claim any credit
because it is all due to God’s grace (and justice) that we sinners are justified.

41

Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 93.
Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 93.
43 Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 149.
44 Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 98.
45 Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 39.
46 Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 99.
47 Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 110.
42

53

Justification and Sanctification. In RII, Barth offers limited discussion on Christian
existence, resulting in a relatively minimal exploration of the relationship between
justification and sanctification. For him, the new life relies on the Holy Spirit, who plays a
critical role because it is a “sheer impossibility” for humans to attain freedom from the law.48
The Spirit actualizes the new life that is justified by the atonement of Christ on the cross.
“The Spirit is the ‘Yes’ from which proceeds the negative knowledge which men have of
themselves. As negation, the Spirit is the frontier and meaning and reality of human life: as
affirmation, the Spirit is the new, transfigured reality which lies beyond this frontier.”49
Moreover, this new life is in our future, not our present.50 “Projected into the midst of human
life, the new man seems no more than a void; his ‘passionate motions of eternity’
(Kierkegaard) are invisible.”51 At this moment, like Kierkegaard, Barth thinks a new life only
exists in the eschaton, not in this life.
Summary. As discussed above, Barth’s justification affirms the Protestant forensic
justification by Grace alone, Christ alone, and faith alone. Holding Kierkegaard’s “infinitely
qualitative difference between God and man” as the presupposition, Barth presents an
eschatological justification in RII, which is not free of problems. Maybe it is not wrong to
say, in this version of justification, that Barth exalts the transcendence of God and distances
God from His creation “by effectively negating the creaturely side of the equation
altogether.”52
Based on his retrospective reflection, Barth admits that RII has some problems to fix. For
example, RII does not do justice to the theology of John 1:14 (“The Word became flesh and
made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who
came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” NIV) 53That is to say, in distancing God and

48

Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 257.
Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 272.
50 Smythe, "Barth on Justification," 294.
51 Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 149.
52 Johnson, "A Reappraisal," 13.
53 Barth, Church Dogmatics, CD I/2, 50.
49

54

the World, Barth’s RII lacks space “for any tangible and visible manifestation of God’s grace
in human history.”54 Furthermore, Barth agrees that he needs to deal with “the tension
between the “then” and the “now,” i.e., the time of eternity and the time of church history. By
the time he writing RII, Barth understood that “A Christianity that is not wholly and utterly
and irreducibly eschatology has absolutely nothing to do with Christ.”55 In sum, Barth was
right to insist on God’s distinction from His creation, but he “also needs to show how this
distinction is maintained from within history itself as God enters into it.”56
With the emphasis on God’s transcendence, Barth’s justification in RII follows the
traditional Protestant forensic framework, which has affirmed that our sinners are justified by
God’s grace alone, Christ alone, and faith alone. However, this eschatological justification
does not adequately express God’s justification of humanity on this side of the eschaton.
How should Barth develop his theology with the ongoing claim of God’s transcendence, and
what does his doctrine of justification look like in GD? We will now examine Barth’s
understanding of the doctrine of justification in his first cycle of dogmatics.57

TIME-ETERNAL DIALECTICAL JUSTIFICATION
IN GÖTTINGEN DOGMATICS
GD is Barth’s first cycle of dogmatics, delivered from 1924 through the semester of 1925
during his academic appointment at Göttingen.58 The challenge of writing a dogmatics for
Barth was that “he could no longer simply attack ‘errors and abuses’ but now had ‘to say
what [he] really thought.’”59 As a step after RII, Barth needed to continue tackling his

Johnson, "A Reappraisal," 9.
Barth, Church Dogmatics. CD II/1, 634.
56 See Johnson, "A Reappraisal," 9; CD II/1, 634–35.
57 In Barth’s life, he taught three cycles of dogmatics, first was in Göttingen (1924), the second in Münster (1926),
and the Church Dogmatics in Bonn and Basel (1931-1968). See Barth, The Göttingen Dogmatics, XV.
58 Barth, The Göttingen Dogmatics, XV.
59 Johnson, "A Reappraisal" 10. Also see Busch, Karl Barth, 156.
54
55

55

theological problems without compromising his claims about God’s transcendence. In GD,
Barth’s theological question is, “How is it possible to speak about the encounter with God in
revelation without making God’s presence historically ‘available’”?60 Barth’s task is to tackle
the doctrine of justification in time and space, i.e., in human history, while upholding the
transcendence of God.
Presupposition: The revelation of God in Jesus Christ. While in RII, an eschatological
justification was a solution for Barth to keep the distance between God and humans, in GD,
Barth developed the time-eternal dialectic in which he can express God in history while the
distance between God and humans is also secured.61 Barth developed the incarnation doctrine
by taking up anhypostatic-hypostatic Christological dogma, an ancient dogma that Logos
took up human flesh and lived through. Jesus of Nazareth is God taking up human nature and
veiling Himself in “a creaturely medium.” The Subject of this human life is the second
person of the Trinity. God can only be known in the life of Jesus; because of the veil of
human flesh, the Subject remains incomprehensible. Because of God’s incomprehensibility,
“God can only be known in Jesus where He condescends to grant faith to the would-be
human knower; where He unveils Himself in and through the veil of human flesh.”62 In
Jesus, God and humanity, eternal and temporal, encounter Jesus’s incarnation while God’s
transcendence is also preserved. Following this line, while RII’s eschatological dimension of
justification will continue in GD, God’s Self-revelation took place in history “without being
transformed into history.”63 With the new theoretical ground throughout GD, Barth addresses

60 Christopher Asprey, “Eschatological Presence: Karl Barth's Theology in Göttingen,” (PhD diss., University of
Aberdeen, 2008), 160.
61 McCormack, Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology, 328.

62

McCormack, Orthodox and Modern, 327.
Johnson, "A Reappraisal," 11. Also see Barth, The Göttingen Dogmatics, 58–59. In Göttingen Dogmatics, Barth
formulates the concept of a time-eternal dialectical solution, characterized by an encounter involving dynamic tension or
interaction, to articulate the intricate relationship between time and eternity within the doctrine of justification. This
formulation in Göttingen Dogmatics may serve as a foundational influence on the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, but
unlike the dynamic interplay between God and humanity as subsequently expressed in Church Dogmatics.
63

56

the God-man relationship as a dialectical encounter between God and humanity, with the
latter receiving God's revelation moment by moment.64
With this presupposition in mind, we will examine Barth’s justification in GD. The
doctrine of justification is discussed in various chapters of the third volume of GD.65 We will
see that Barth’s justification in GD is still forensic in nature. Grace alone is a default element
in Barth’s exposition of Justification.
Grace Alone and Christ Alone. Like in RII, Barth underscores the primacy of God’s
action and grace in reconciliation. As he writes, “‘Not for a single moment’s duration can be
the gospel stand-alone, only to be believed, however certain it is that justification by faith
alone. It’s fundamentally a matter of God, of his will and his glory, which means not just
being justified and believing’ (UCR I, 212).”66
The foundation of justification is Christ’s work, in particular His sacrifice. Christ’s
reconciliation work includes all the works of the three offices—priestly, prophetic, and royal
offices. Barth uses Hebrew liturgical concepts to describe Christ’s priesthood and the
sacrifice offered by Jesus.
It is precisely the priest who intercedes before God on behalf of a people who are weighed down
by their sins and cannot themselves proffer effectively sacrifices or prayers. [He is] the mediator
and vicar who, thanks to his sacred office, makes the cult legitimate and indeed possible at all,
and (although this second sense is not envisaged in our case) is then also in a position to serve as
a channel for the interaction between God and the people (UCR III, 114).67

Not only did Jesus offer the sacrifices that no others can offer, but his sacrifice also occurred
just once and for all. To distinguish it with Hebrew liturgy, the term “once” is vital in
expositing the sacrifice of Jesus that ‘[t]he whole doctrine of reconciliation, and ultimately

64

Barth, The Göttingen Dogmatics, XXVIII .
Due to the third volume of GD not being translated into English, the sketch of Barth’s doctrine of justification in
this essay relies heavily on quotations from Barth’s text and analysis in secondary sources.
66 Asprey, "Eschatological Presence," 222.
67 Asprey, "Eschatological Presence," 220.
65

57

the whole doctrine of Christ’s work, rests on knowing this “once!’ (UCR III, 128)”68
Moreover, Barth carefully contrasts Christ’s sacrifice with the Levitical sacrifice by pointing
out the latter's limitations with the totality of Christ’s sacrifice, the sacrifice of grace (UCR
III, 132).69
Human Participation in Justification. Justification by faith alone continues to be
Barth’s emphasis in GD. “‘Because in faith we are one with Christ the righteous
one…therefore we are justified in him before God, not vice versa’ (UCR III, 249).”70 Barth
pays attention to dealing with the positive nature of faith. Barth admits that his expression of
faith in RII is often in a negative sense, such as a type of ‘vacuum,’ without expressing the
active character of faith. Barth's problem of human passivity will risk a misunderstanding
that “it sets divine and human action on the same plane, so that they are forced into
competition with each other, and cancel each other out.”71 In dealing with the active aspect of
faith, Barth highlights the limit of human actions and rejects all sorts of self-sanctification
and self-glorification against God.72 By all means, Barth does not wish to give any credit to
human subjectivity in justification and soteriology. “‘It cannot be a matter of finally putting
man back in the saddle after all and letting him cooperate in his reconciliation, but of
expressing how, as a reconciled man, he does indeed find himself in that closed circle of
divine monergism.’ (UCR 111, 307).”73
Summary. As we have seen, the doctrine of justification in GD is also within the
forensic framework of Protestant theology74 but talks more about human actions in the
justification based on the time-eternal dialectic. In GD, Barth does not highlight the

Asprey, "Eschatological Presence," 221.
Asprey, "Eschatological Presence," 221.
70 Asprey, "Eschatological Presence," 225.
71 Asprey, "Eschatological Presence," 227
72 Asprey, "Eschatological Presence," 223
73 Asprey, "Eschatological Presence," 228
74 Barth prefers the Reformed justification, which “secures the character of this even as free grace, over Lutheran
justification. See Barth, The Göttingen Dogmatic, LII.
68
69

58

qualitative distinction between God and man as he does in RII, but Barth follows the same
line of RII’s justification by emphasizing God’s transcendence but in a dialectic way. In both
RII and GD, Barth affirms justification by grace alone, by Christ alone, and by faith alone; he
stresses that justification is declared to the sinner from the grace of God and insists on a
divine monergism.
From the development from RII to GD, we can see Barth carefully guards against human
subjectivity in theological construction. In RII, his doctrine of justification is an
eschatological one; by doing so, God’s transcendence is fully preserved, but at the cost of
leaving no Christian existence on this side of the eschaton.75 In GD, Barth maintains a
continuous eschatological orientation of justification. He describes the encounter between
God and humanity through God's revelation, wherein God breaks into time through the Word
proclaimed, and humans receive this revelation by hearing the Word of God.76 While God is
wholly presented and revealed in Jesus Christ, Barth notes that revelation is hidden and
veiled in the human nature of Jesus of Nazareth.77 Within GD, Barth explores the human
subjective situation, portraying it as a moment-by-moment reception of divine revelation,
assuming humanity possesses an innate capacity to receive God's revelation. However, in his
broader theology, Barth does not concede that humans inherently have such a capacity for
God. This discrepancy becomes an issue left unresolved in GD. Consequently, Barth's
exploration of the doctrine of justification at the existential level may require further
development.
In CD, we anticipate a more comprehensive exploration of the doctrine of justification.
Now, let's delve into Barth's doctrine of justification presented in CD IV/1.

75

Balthasar and Oakes, The Theology of Karl Barth, 197–98.
Johnson, "A Reappraisal," 16.
77 Johnson, "A Reappraisal," 11.
76

59

PRESUPPOSITION OF BARTH’S MATURE FORM OF JUSTIFICATION
The doctrine of justification presented in CD IV/1 is Barth’s mature form of justification, in
which he balances the sovereignty of God and humanity of God (lacking in RII) and solves
the time-and-eternal dialectical issue (left from the GD) in his dealing with justification.
Compared with the previous version of Justification expressed in RII and GD, in CD IV/1,
Barth extends the doctrine of Justification to the existential level of the Christian life.
In contrast to his early doctrine of justification, Barth continuously emphasizes the
sovereignty of God in Church Dogmatics but solves the eternal-time dialectic issue as in GD,
and the separation or divorce of the divine subject and human subject as RII does. In the
doctrine of election (CD II/2), Barth refines the encounter of God and humans in Jesus
Christ, viz., the union between God and humanity in Jesus Christ. As Jesus Christ is the
single revelation and God’s primary intent, Barth can talk about salvation and justification
concretely based on the history of Jesus Christ in his life, death, and resurrection.78
Barth places justification as one aspect of the doctrine of reconciliation in the Church
Dogmatics, which consists of Justification, Sanctification, and vocation, all centred on Jesus
Christ, each dealing with different types of human sins. For example, justification deals with
the sin of pride, and sanctification opposes the sin of sloth and vocation against falsehood.
But this does not mean that justification is a part of the doctrine of reconciliation; instead, it
is the whole reconciliation (salvation) from a distinctive vantage point. George Hunsinger
summarizes well, “[Reconciliation] also involves sanctification and vocation. As three
distinct forms of a single, indivisible whole (each of which represents the whole from a
distinctive vantage point), justification, sanctification, and vocation correspond to the

78 Barth works out these claims in the doctrine of election in CD II/2. More will be discussed in next section, the
doctrine of election as presupposition.

60

threefold office of Christ — Priest, King, and Prophet — in his one saving, reconciling
work.”79
To fully grasp Barth’s mature form of Justification, we need to discuss His doctrine of
election, which serves as a presupposition of the doctrine of justification. Before delving into
Barth’s mature formulation of the doctrine of justification in CD, it is crucial to examine
Barth’s doctrine of election. This doctrine provides the ontological foundation for
justification and gives rise to the fundamental framework: the covenantal relationship
between God and humans, which undergirds many critical doctrines, including Barth’s
mature form of the doctrine of justification. It is accurate to assert that the doctrine of
election constructs the essential ontological foundation for Barth’s comprehensive
understanding of justification.
The doctrine of election was developed to replace the Old Protestant doctrine of
predestination, especially Calvin’s teaching of double predestination.80 As John Wester
describes, "In Barth's hands, the term comes to refer not to a decision of God in which the
human race is divided into the elect and the reprobate, but to God's self-election and the
election of humanity, both actual in Jesus Christ."81
Barth disagrees with the Reformed doctrine of predestination in two aspects. First, Barth
rejects the distinction between Logos incarnadus (the Logos ‘to be incarnate’) and Logos
incanatus (the Logos ‘incarnate’), a thought which the 17th century Orthodox Reformed
theologians held.82 For Barth, this distinction is to separate God from the revelation of Jesus

George Hunsinger, "Barth on Justification and Sanctification," in Evangelical, Catholic, and Reformed: Essays on
Barth and Other Themes (Grand Rapids, Michi.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2015), 117.
80 "For not all are created in equal condition, but some are preordained for eternal life and some for eternal damnation.
Accordingly, as anyone is put into one or the other end, we thus say [this person] is predestinated either to life or to death."
(Calvin 1960: 926 rev.) See Matthew J. Aragon Bruce, "Election," in The Oxford Handbook of Karl Barth, ed. Paul Dafydd
Jones (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), 310.
81 John Webster, Barth (London/New York: Continuum, 2000), 91.
82 See Barth’s lengthy discussion on the Reformed dogmatics on Predestination in CD II/2, 127-45; Also see Bruce,
"Election," 311, and Bruce McCormack, "Grace and being: the role of God's gracious election in Karl Barth's theological
ontology," in The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, ed. John Webster (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009),
94-95.
79

61

Christ. As Barth contends, "all the dubious features of Calvin's doctrine result from the basic
failing that in the last analysis, he separates God and Jesus Christ, thinking that what was at
the beginning with God must be sought elsewhere than in Jesus Christ."83 Secondly, Barth
disagrees that Jesus Christ is only an instrument in executing God’s saving plan or merely an
object for salvation. A deeper reason behind these two rejections is Barth’s rejection of
“abstraction,” a technical term that means, as Colin Gunton describes, "the treatment of any
topic out of revelation" in Jesus Christ.84 For Barth, theology must begin with and end with
Jesus Christ. 85
Instead, drawing on the Scriptures and the revelation in Jesus Christ, Barth develops the
doctrine of election as that God decides to elect to unite Himself in the person of His only
begotten Son to the man Jesus of Nazareth, and in and through Him with the people He
represents,86 rather than electing individuals into two groups of "the elected" and "the
reprobated" as the Old Protestant doctrine of predestination teaches.
Election as the summary of the Gospel. God freely makes this decision out of love;
therefore, the election is also called the election of grace. This free decision is also a
definitive one because God is a being whose decision will not contradict his actions or vice
versa. Once God’s decision is made to unite Himself with humanity, the relationship between
God and man will be permanently determined, once and for all.87
The significance of the union between the eternal Son and the human Jesus of Nazareth
cannot be exaggerated. God’s choice to unite Himself with humanity in and through Jesus
Christ, the content of the election, means that “God has decided to live His own divine life

83 CD II/2, 111; also see David Gibson, "Barth on Divine Election," in Wiley Blackwell Companion to Karl Barth, ed.
George Hunsinger and Keith L. Johnson (Bognor Regis: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2020), 51.
84 Colin Gunton, "Salvation," in The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, ed. John Webster (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2009), 143.
85 CD II/2, 4.
86 CD II/2, 3, 8, 13.
87 CD II/2, 6.

62

together with humans.”88 This union demonstrates God’s eternal attitude and relation with
humanity—the human Jesus of Nazareth and the people He represents. In Jesus Christ, God
determines in his grace to unite Himself with humanity and, most alarmingly, to determine
Himself for sinful man and sinful man for Himself, in and through Jesus Christ.89
The relationship between God and humans is covenantal, in which God has determined
himself to be the covenant God and in which He has elected the man of Nazareth and His
people as His covenant partners.90 “He constitutes Himself the Lord of the covenant. He is,
therefore, its free author. He gives it its content and determines its order. He maintains it. He
directs it to its goal. He governs it in every respect. It is His decision that there is a covenant
partner. It is also His decision who this partner is and what must befall him.”91
The covenantal relationship between God and humanity established in Jesus Christ is the
ontological foundation of the doctrine of justification, signifying that our salvation is
preordained from eternity. At the beginning of eternity, God determines in His grace to elect
Jesus the Nazareth and His people as His covenant partners and constitutes Himself the Lord
of the covenant. In Jesus Christ, God established the covenantal relationship with humanity
(even the sinners) in His love and freedom.92 “In Jesus Christ, God in His free grace
determines Himself for sinful man and sinful man for Himself. He, therefore, takes upon
Himself the rejection of man with all its consequences and elects man to participate in His
own glory.”93 Therefore, with the institution of the covenant between God and man, human
salvation is ordained according to God’s divine purpose: "Salvation is fulfilment, the

88 Karl Barth and Keith L. Johnson, The Essential Karl Barth: A Reader and Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker
Academic, 2021), 176.
89 “The election of grace is the eternal beginning of all the ways and works of God in Jesus Christ. In Jesus Christ God
in His free grace determines Himself for sinful man and sinful man for Himself. He therefore takes upon Himself the
rejection of man with all its consequences, and elects man to participation in His own glory.” (CD II/2, 94)
90 CD II/2, 8-9.
91
CD II/2, 9.
92 CD II/2, 8-9.

93

CD II/2, 94.

63

supreme, sufficient, definitive and indestructible fulfilment of being,”94 and our salvation is
our participation in His being.
Further, creation, the first work of God, cannot be isolated from the covenant between
God and man. Creation is the external foundation for the covenant, and the covenant is the
internal basis of creation (its external basis is the omnipotence and wisdom of God).95 That
is, “the original ordination of man to salvation and of salvation for man as the meaning and
basis even of the divine creative will.” 96 However, the covenant partner of God, humanity,
sinned, making himself the enemy of God, and then the covenant between God and man is
broken due to humanity’s sin.97 In the meantime, sinful humanity rejects his ordained
salvation. As Barth states, “He (the sinful man) does not conduct himself as the partner God
has given Himself to receive His redemptive grace. He has opposed his ordination to
salvation. He has turned his back on the salvation which actually comes to him. He does not
find the fulfilment of his being in participation in the being of God by the gift of God.”98 (CD
IV/1, 10)
Therefore, a redeeming act is needed, an act revealing an even greater grace. The Lord of
the covenant will not allow the covenant to be forfeited and must act as the covenant Lord to
fulfill the covenant by Himself. Barth writes, “Despising the dignity with which God
invested him, he has obviously forfeited the right which God gave and ascribed to him as the
creature of God. But it is with this lost son in a far country, with man as he has fallen and
now exists in this sorry plight, that God has to do in this redeeming event.”99 In net, as Küng
well puts, “man himself forfeited this salvation; he broke the covenant in the insanity of his

94

CD IV/1, 8.

95

CD III/1, 231.

96CD

IV/1,19.

97

CD IV/1, 10-11.

98

CD IV/1, 10.

99

CD IV/1, 11.

64

sin. If he is justified despite being a sinner, it is only because God has stood by His covenant,
notwithstanding the sin of men.”100
With this ontological foundation in mind, we will examine Barth’s mature form of the
doctrine of justification.

THE MATURE FORM OF JUSTIFICATION
IN CHURCH DOGMATICS
This section will follow the same set of questions as we asked earlier, i.e., 1) Why does God
save/justify the sinner? 2) How is salvation/justification established in Jesus Christ? 3)
Human participation in Justification? 4) Justification and Sanctification.
The Reason for Justification: Grace alone. In light of the doctrine of election, based on
the covenantal relationship between God and man and the eternal election of humanity in
Jesus Christ at the beginning (even before the creation), the reason why God saves humans is
evident, that is, the justification of man is to fulfil the covenantal relationship between God
and man as the divine decision from eternity. In other words, to restore the broken covenantal
relationship, God, the Lord of the covenant, who entered into a relationship with the sinful
humans in and through Jesus Christ, must judge sinners whose sins lead to death, who break
the covenant and put themselves against God as God’s enemies. Therefore, God is faithful to
His covenantal partners and faithful to Himself in judging sinful humans.
The judgment is laid upon the Son of God, Jesus Christ. His death and resurrection have a
twofold sense, which shows God’s wrath on the corrupt and sinful man on the one hand and
His goodness, mercy, and grace in His sentence of judgment. God considers humans His
creatures and His elect covenant partners despite man’s sin. As Barth writes,

100 Küng,

Justification, 22.

65

Or we can say that they have a negative sense in so far as His judgment and sentence are related
to the being and activity and attitude of man, in so far as they have to do with the man of sin and
his pride and fall; and a positive sense in so far as God looks back to the fact that as His creature
and elect covenant-partner man is from all eternity and therefore unchangeably His own
possession: looking back to His own will and plan and purpose, and looking forward to the goal
which, in spite of man’s being and activity and attitude as the man of sin, is still unchangeably set
for him, since God Himself has set it.101

Justification is God’s judgment on humanity, and God’s judgment is His righteousness
and His Grace. God’s judgment on sinners does not contradict His Love and mercy; instead,
Barth argues that God’s judgment and human pardon, the outcome of the judgment, God’s
merciful love and grace, and His righteousness and justice are not contradicting but united.102
It is worth noting here that Barth wishes us to see that even the wrath of God, which
consumes man because of his wrong, is grace because “it would not, in fact, be good for man
to continue to be as a wrongdoer, that it is, therefore, grace if he has to perish and die as
such.”103 Thus, Barth firmly concludes that “the gracious justification of man is the work of
God’s eternal righteousness.”104
Justification Established in Jesus Christ. The justification of man is established in the
death of Jesus Christ and revealed in His resurrection. Following the Chalcedonian
understanding of Jesus Christ, Barth unfolds the establishment of the justification in Jesus
Christ from the true divinity and the true humanity perspectives, that is, Jesus Christ as the
Judge is judged in our place; in His human agency’s obedience to God the Father, He took up
our sin and died on our behalf. Barth treats this topic from an ontological perspective.
The judgment happens in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ on our behalf, and
the pardon of man as the divine sentence is the result of the divine judgment. The pardon of

CD IV/1, 515.
CD IV/1, 536-37.
103 CD IV/1, 542.
104 CD IV/1, 538.
101
102

66

man is our justification, which includes three elements: 1) the forgiveness of sin, 2)
becoming the children of God, and 3) having hope for an eternal inheritance.105
Barth discusses what has been established in Jesus Christ from negative and positive
aspects. The negative aspect of justification happens in the death of Jesus Christ, in which
humanity has been released from the imprisonment of sin.106 George Hunsinger helpfully
points out that it “is not sin’s punishment but its removal that satisfies God’s righteousness (a
point of great importance).”107 The positive aspect of justification is associated with the
resurrection of Jesus Christ, in which humans are given a new right, our alien righteousness
from the Son of God.108
This result appears to be a transition (German: Wende): “The justification of man takes
place as his transition from wrong to right, from death to life.”109 The concept of “transition”
is one of the key concepts for understanding Barth’s doctrine of Justification. For Barth, a
transition is an event between the being of God and man. This transition separates humans
from sin—sins and, together with those wrong-doers, are condemned alongside the death of
Jesus Christ; therefore, sin is forgiven, and new right is given to humans, who are exalted
with Jesus Christ in His resurrection. Humanity is in transition from the old man to the new
as the children of God and with the hope of eternity.
In the pardon of man, human is justified. For Barth, Jesus Christ is the justified man. “It
is in Him that the judgment of God is fulfilled and the pardon of God pronounced on all
men.”110 Up to this point, Barth is dealing with the ontological aspect of Justification, the

CD IV/1, 596-602.
CD IV/1, 244-45. Barth writes, “Here is the place for the doubtful concept that in the passion of Jesus Christ, in the
giving up of His Son to death, God has done that which is “satisfactory” or sufficient in the victorious fighting of sin to
make this victory radical and total. He has done that which is sufficient to take away sin, to restore order between Himself as
the Creator and His creation, to bring in the new man reconciled and therefore at peace with Him, to redeem man from
death. God has done this in the passion of Jesus Christ. For this reason the divine judgment in which the Judge was judged,
and therefore the passion of Jesus Christ, is as such the divine action of atonement which has taken place for us.” (CD IV/1,
244-45)
107 Hunsinger, “Barth on Justification and Sanctification,” 117.
108 CD IV/1, 514.
109 CD IV/1, 589.
110 CD IV/1, 629.
105
106

67

objective aspect of the truth. The justification of man, i.e., the pardon of man, happened in
the history of Jesus Christ. The sentence of the divine pardoning is the first and has actually
happened already in Jesus Christ. The divine pardon of man mentioned above is addressed to
all human beings because Jesus Christ represents all humanity and our being included in
Him, so the justification of man also applies to us ontologically.
Human Participation in Justification. Barth categorizes human participation in
justification into two kinds of participation—objective and passive participation in Jesus
Christ’s death and resurrection there and then by grace, and subjective and active
participation in our Christian life here and now by grace through faith. There exists a
transition between objective and subjective participation, which involves a movement from
the past to the future.111 Justification of man involves a transition from a sinner to a new
righteous human (as mentioned in an earlier paragraph112, and a transition from objective
participation to subject participation113.
As mentioned earlier, human’s objective and passive participation in justification refers
to what has happened in Jesus Christ. As Jesus Christ is our Representative and He died in
our place and justified for us; therefore, all humans objectively participate in the justification
as achieved by Jesus Christ in His death and resurrection. However, human subjective and
active participation refers to our justification at the existential level through justifying faith.

111 CD IV/1, 545. Says Barth, “Again, the Justification of man by God is an event between God and man, not the static
relationship of their being, but the being of God and man in a definite movement which cannot be reproduced in two
pictures which can be placed alongside and studied together. It takes place as the history of God with man. That which is
twofold but one in it is the righteousness and grace of the one God above, condemning and pardoning, killing and making
alive; and corresponding to this divine activity the dark Whence and the bright Whither of the one man below, experiencing
His judgment—his transition and progress from that yesterday to this to-morrow, his coming out of the wrong which is
removed and destroyed, his coming, therefore, out of his own death, and in that coming—this is his present—his going
forward to his new right and therefore to his new life.”
112 CD IV/1, 516.
113 CD IV/1, 545.

68

Justifying faith, by definition, is “the faith which recognizes and apprehends man’s
justification, is the obedience of humility.”114 Barth says the negative form of faith is
humility and excludes human works; however, faith is “negative only in appearance.”115 The
positive form of faith is grounded in its object, Jesus Christ, because Christ is the author and
the finisher of faith. Faith (imperfectly) imitates Jesus Christ and corresponds to Him.116

That it is negative only in appearance, in its human and external aspect, and that it is the fullness
of faith, its object, which gives to it this character. Now we must advance a further step and say
that when we call faith humility, the obedience of humility, we say the most positive possible
thing that we can say of it as a human form of being, a human act and experience. For in this way
it imitates Jesus Christ in whom it believes, it corresponds to Him, it has a similarity with the
One who “for your sakes became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich” (2 Cor. 8:9).117

In the positive form, faith is human work, “the human work which corresponds” to
God’s work “because God accepts it as the human work which corresponds to His work.”118
However, faith is neither an act of merely “believing in” nor an act of following Jesus as a
moral example. Shaokai Tseng points out that this imitating Jesus Christ is not treating Jesus
Christ as a moral example, but “[o]ur imitatio Christi in faith presupposes participatio
Christi, as faith was first wrought in the person of Christ.”119 That’s why Barth says, “What
is the sola fide (by faith alone) but a faint yet necessary echo of the solus Christus (Christ
alone)?”120
Also, by faith, our history mirrors Jesus Christ’s history, and “His history is as such our
history.”121 Faith is a “real apprehension of [our] real being in Christ.”122 This real being
refers to our ontological being in Christ, i.e., the inclusion of humanity in Jesus Christ, as we

CD IV/1, 626.
CD IV/1, 635.
116 Smythe, “Barth on Justification,” 300.
117 CD IV/1, 635.
118 CD IV/1, 615.
119 Shao Kai Tseng, Karl Barth (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Pub., 2021), 172.
120 CD IV/1, 632.
121 CD IV/1, 548.
122 CD IV/1, 636.
114
115

69

discussed in the doctrine of election. In this sense, by justifying faith, we actively and
subjectively participate in justification here and now, which is objectively and ontologically
established in Jesus Christ there and then.
Justification and Sanctification. Within the forensic framework, Barth distinguishes
justification and sanctification, but unlike the traditional teaching of ordo salutis (the order of
salvation), both justification and sanctification have an ontological aspect. Justification and
sanctification are “two different aspects of the one saving event,” each describing the whole
of the reconciling/saving activity of God.123 The relationship between the two is distinct,
unchangeable, and inseparable (in the Chalcedonian terms). Justification and sanctification,
representing two interconnected 'moments' within a single redemptive event of Jesus Christ,
are both accomplished wholly and simultaneously with one another—Justification as the
movement from above to below, and Sanctification as the movement from below to above—
namely, “the one totality of the reconciling action of God, of the one whole and undivided
Jesus Christ, and His one grace.”124
The order of justification and sanctification can be viewed from two perspectives. In
terms of basis and consequence, justification takes priority over sanctification. However,
from the standpoint of goal and presupposition, sanctification is considered to precede
justification.125
Barth’s understanding of the relationship between justification and sanctification is
different from the traditional teaching, in which justification and sanctification are ordered
sequences in the salvation process, i.e., ordo salutis (the order of salvation).126 McCormack
aptly summarizes the reason why Barth rejects the Protestant concept of ordo salutis:

CD IV/2, 503.
CD IV/2, 502.
125 CD IV/1, 508.
126 “The ordo salutis describes the process by which the work of salvation, wrought in Christ, is subjectively realized in
the hearts and lives of sinners. It aims at describing in their logical order, and also in their interrelations, the various
movements of the Holy Spirit in the application of the work of redemption.” See A.T. B. McGowan, “Justification and the
ordo salutis” in Justification in Perspective, 148. L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 41516.
123
124

70

“For Barth, this way of thinking fails to understand that what Jesus Christ accomplishes is not
merely the possibility of reconciliation but the reality of it.” Expressed even more concretely,
Justification is not first made effective when the Holy Spirit awakens faith in us; rather, the Spirit
awakens faith in us so that we might live from and toward the reality of a justification that is
already effective for us even before we come to know of it. “127

In sum, justification and sanctification are achieved in Jesus Christ ontologically and
become actualized reality at the existential level through faith with the help of the Holy
Spirit.128
Summary. In his mature formulation of the doctrine of Justification, Barth continuously
emphasizes the sovereignty of God and discusses the existential dimension of human
justification in CD IV/1 without attributing merit to human capacity as part of the created
order in the process of justification/salvation. Meanwhile, Barth has also solved the problems
left over from his previous versions of justification in RII. By employing the covenantal
relationship between God and humanity, Barth adeptly unfolds both the objective and
subjective aspects of the doctrine of justification thoroughly, all without diminishing the
primacy of God's sovereignty. Now, we are ready to compare T. C. Chao and Karl Barth’s
doctrines of justification.

127 Bruce L. McCormack, Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2006), 179.
128 Tseng, Karl Barth, 172.

71

Chapter 4
T. C. Chao and Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Justification
in Comparison

As explored in chapters two and three, these theologians crafted their doctrines in distinct
contexts, addressing unique issues and employing different theological frameworks. Chao's
account holds a strong ethical consideration, aiming to reinterpret Christian theology to
resonate and have a meaningful impact on the strengthening of Chinese society. On the other
hand, Barth's theology can be seen as a reinterpretation of Protestant theology, consistently
emphasizing God's sovereignty and unwaveringly rejecting all forms of anthropocentric
approaches in his theological construction.
In this chapter, we will compare T. C. Chao and Karl Barth's most mature doctrines of
justification, as articulated in Chao's Four Talks on Theology and Barth's CD IV/1. We will
first identify the commonalities and differences between the two theologians' doctrines of
justification. Subsequently, this comparison aims to show Barth’s exposition of the doctrine
of justification, employing the covenantal relationship, allows for a well-balanced and
comprehensive treatment of the doctrine's objective and subjective dimensions.
Throughout this chapter, we will consistently follow the four-question framework
employed in chapters two and three. When addressing the first and second questions, we will
focus on the objective aspects of the doctrine. Conversely, when delving into the third and
fourth questions, our focus will shift to the subjective aspects of the doctrine.
As shown in chapters two and three, both theologians’ doctrines of justification align
with the Protestant forensic justification framework. This alignment is characterized by their
shared affirmation of justification by God’s grace alone, justification in Christ alone, and
justification by faith alone, as well as their constant distinction between justification and
sanctification. Within each aspect, there exists a spectrum of agreement and disagreement.

72

GRACE ALONE: WHY DOES GOD JUSTIFY THE SINFUL HUMANS?
Both Chao and Barth affirm that justification is, first and foremost, by the grace of God, but
they express the reason for justification/salvation differently. For Chao, the reason why God
saves humanity is straightforward: it is out of God’s love and mercy to save humanity from
sin and evil so that God prepared salvation in Jesus Christ even before creation. Chao follows
a traditional treatment of soteriology, asserting that the reason for God to justify humanity
lies in humans' commission of sin and the consequent outcome of death. Additionally, in their
sinful state, humans are incapable of saving themselves. However, in the human incapability
of saving themselves, Chao still painstakingly maintains human freedom to ask for help and
take responsibility for their sins. Consequently, driven by God’s love and mercy, God rescues
humanity from plight.
While Barth concurs that saving humanity is out of God’s grace and love, he
elucidates the reasons why God justifies sinners from a covenantal perspective. The act of
human sin not only leads to humanity’s miserable situation and inevitable demise but also
breaks the covenantal relationship between God and humanity. This rupture of the covenant
presents an even more serious problem that necessitates God’s intervention.
On the flip side, sinners exhibit rebellion against God; 1 in their sinful state, they
demonstrate disobedience and an unwillingness to accept salvation, 2 going as far as rejecting
God’s righteousness. 3 It is God’s unwavering determination to save humanity, refusing to
allow the covenant between God and humans to remain broken and not abandoning His
covenant partners in a state of sin and separation. The justification of humanity is equivalent
to restoring the broken covenantal relationship between God and humanity. Barth’s
exposition of God’s justice and faithfulness in justifying the sinner is an action which is not

CD IV/1, 414.
CD IV/1, 252-54.
3 CD IV/1, 444.
1
2

73

merely a reaction to sin as the Almighty God but also a faithful and gracious step towards
covenant partners as the covenant Lord.
Summary. In conclusion, building upon the shared foundation of Chao and Barth's
mutual comprehension of God's redemptive love and grace, Barth's exposition, characterized
by a covenantal relationship perspective, delves into a nuanced exploration of God's grace
and the weightiness of human sin. As a result, Barth's expositions add depth to the profound
nature of God's grace, elucidating that salvation is God's eternal will and determination as the
covenant Lord. Secondly, Barth underscores humanity's utter dependence on God's grace for
salvation, a dependence arising from human total corruption and their reluctance to be saved.

CHRIST ALONE: HOW DID JESUS CHRIST ESTABLISH HUMAN
JUSTIFICATION
The two theologians both agree that humanity's justification is solely established in Jesus
Christ. However, substantial differences arise in their interpretations of atonement, especially
the nature of the atonement. Given the significance of this difference, a more detailed
exploration will be undertaken. We will first examine Chao's general stance towards Western
atonement theories before delving into a comparative analysis of the individual atonement
perspectives of the two theologians.
Chao’s Rejection of Western Atonement Theories: Chao's atonement theory deserves
careful consideration, as he has critically studied all Western atonement theories. After
examining Chao's critical opinions on historical atonement theories, we can better appreciate
his uniquely crafted atonement theory tailored to the Chinese context.
In our examination of Chao’s doctrine of justification across the three texts in Chapter
Two, it becomes evident that he consistently critiques all the prevailing atonement theories of
his time. To delve deeper into his critique, we will follow his argumentation in the second

74

text, A Further Interpretation of Christianity, where Chao offers a more comprehensive
evaluation. This includes his critique of the Ransom theory, followed by rebuttals on the
Satisfaction theory (Anselm), the Penal Substitutionary theory (Reformation) along with the
concept of the imputation of righteousness, the Substitution theory, the Governmental
Theory, and finally, the moral influence theory."
Appealing to the Scripture, Chao rebuts the Satisfaction theory (Anselm) and the Penal
Substitutionary theory (Reformation) together, arguing that the sacrifice pleasing God is “a
broken and contrite heart” (Ps. 51:17) and it is hard to imagine, for Chao, that God wants the
death of Jesus Christ to satisfy God himself or pacify his wrath.4
Chao goes on to criticize the Substitution theory, a view that Karl Barth holds, which is
surprising to Chao. Understanding “substitution” as a synonym of “transaction,” Chao argues
that Jesus Christ, the holy one, cannot become a sinner; therefore, he cannot substitute the
sinners and die in their place. Also, based on Chinese culture, one’s situation cannot and
should not be borne by others. Moreover, for Chao, it is unjust to punish the innocent;
therefore, what Jesus suffered on the cross could not be divine punishment.
Next, Chao disproves the Governmental Theory by arguing that letting Jesus Christ die
for the law of divine governance is against God’s own law of authority, ruling by love and
moral justice. He lastly discusses the Moral Influence theory, in which Jesus reveals the heart
of God, loves humans until death, and dies on the cruellest cross to moralize the sinners,
making them repent and, therefore, be saved. Although admitting the Moral Influence theory
is reasonable in this aspect, Chao points out its twofold inadequacy that, on the one hand, this
theory does not exhaust the whole truth, especially the mystery of Jesus Christ’s death on the

4 Chao's classification of historical atonement theories may not be strictly exclusive to one another. As noted in the text,
there exists an interconnected relationship between the satisfaction theory (Anselm) and substitution theory (Reformation),
where the former is considered a part of the latter.

75

cross, and that, on the other hand, this moral approach is weak in wakening the faith of
Christian.5
In summary, as a serious theologian, Chao critically engages with Western theological
theories, identifying points of disagreement with all the atonement theories. Shaped by his
Chinese cultural background and liberal theological training, he refrains from endorsing any
form of substitution theories. Influenced by his understanding of God’s attributes, he rejects
the Satisfaction and Ransom theories. Additionally, Chao has his own distinct theological
objective—to construct a Chinese theology contributing to the nation's salvation and strength
through the moral upliftment of individuals and society. Consequently, he advocates for a
more robust atonement theory to align with this theological vision.
Chao’s Atonement Theory: As discussed in chapter two, Chao’s view posits that God’s
means of saving humanity is through Jesus Christ. According to Chao, Jesus Christ is the
exclusive path to salvation, as He exemplified the way to salvation through His sacrificial
death on the cross, demonstrating unwavering rejection to sin and evil. Through this means,
Jesus Christ triumphed over sin. The method by which He conquered sin is a unique
discovery made by Jesus Christ for our salvation and justification.
Even though Chao’s atonement theory looks close to the Moral Influence theory (or
Moral Exemplar theory), in reality, as presented in the Four Talks on Theology, he introduces
his innovative modification of the weak spots of the Moral Influence Theory, namely, its
failure to explain how the mysterious atonement happens. In Chao’s exposition, what Jesus
Christ has achieved on the cross is to figure out a way—not compromising sin and evil until
he dies—to conquer sin and evil and the subsequent. Through this act, Jesus broke the causal
relationship between sin and death; once the causal relationship was broken, God's wrath was
appeased. The method discovered by Jesus on the cross is the way of salvation, which

5

Chao, “A Further Interpretation of Christianity,” in The Works, vol. 2, 145-46.

76

humans cannot figure out by themselves; this is Chao’s understanding of the mysterious
element of atonement, that is, how the atonement works on the cross.
Therefore, it is fair to say that Chao’s atonement theory aligns closely with, though not
identical to, the Moral Influence theory (or Moral Exemplar theory). To assess Chao’s
modified atonement theory, we can refer to a recent article titled “Moral Exemplarism and
Atonement” by Oliver D. Crisp, who is sympathetic to, but not a defender of, the Moral
Exemplar theory. 6 In his article, Crisp succinctly outlines four classical objections to this
theory and three common biblical motifs where this atonement theory often falls short.
Concerning the four objections typically associated with the Moral Exemplar theory,
Chao’s atonement theory successfully addresses each one of them. The first objection, which
involves “the subjectivist-moralist worries,” and the fourth objection, “the problem of the
missing mechanism,” are interrelated and both rejected by Chao. He argues that these
objections arise from a lack of a clear exposition of the mysterious work of Christ on the
cross. The second objection associated with this model is the concern about salvation through
human meritorious works. Chao, especially in his later works, consistently emphasizes the
role of the Holy Spirit when discussing human participation in salvation, ensuring that
humans cannot claim merit for their actions as their participation is secondary to the work of
the Holy Spirit. Lastly, the third problem with the moral exemplar model is its neglect of the
issue of sin. In contrast, Chao does not share this problem and engages in extensive
discussions on sin and original sin, particularly in his later theology.
However, the primary deficiency of the Moral Exemplar atonement theory, as Crisp
points out on top of the four classic objections, is that this model (in all its forms) falls short
in three characteristics of atonement as revealed in the biblical scripture, that is,
substitutionary (Rom. 5:12-19; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:10-13; 1 Pet. 2:24, 3:18), representative

6

Oliver D. Crisp, “Moral Exemplarism and Atonement,” Scottish Journal of Theology 73, no. 2 (May 2020): 137–49.

77

(Rom. 5:12-19 and 1 Cor. 5), and expiation (Rom. 3:25; 1 Cor. 5:21; Eph. 1:7; 2:13; Col.
1:20).7 Unfortunately, this is also the very inadequacy in Chao’s atonement theory.
For Chao, with his ethical concerns and cultural heritage, substitution in any form is not
an option for him (non-substitutionary). Similarly, there is no theological space for Jesus
Christ to act as a representative of humanity, as Jesus Christ is seen as our Savior who
discovered the way to salvation and serves as our example by demonstrating the path for us
to follow. Humans haven’t been deemed righteous or received the gift of righteousness
because of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross (non-representative). While what Jesus
accomplished on the cross can satisfy God by breaking the causal relationship between sin
and evil and the subsequent death for humanity, what Jesus Christ has achieved is only
showing the way as an example to follow. With no forgiveness of sin or the gift of a new life,
humans have not yet reconciled with God (no expiation). What Jesus has achieved, as
expressed in Chao’s atonement, is not even a high chance possibility of salvation given
human’s incapability of saving themselves.
In the subsequent discussion, we will delve into Barth’s atonement theory, specifically
focusing on how Barth's articulation within the covenantal relationship framework addresses
the three biblical motifs which are insufficiently covered by Chao’s atonement theory.
Barth’s Atonement Theory: As discussed in chapter three, Barth asserts that human
justification is established through Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ, as the Judge, was judged in our
place (in His divinity) and His obedience to God the Father; he took up our sins and died on
our behalf (in His humanity); consequently, humans are released from sin imprisonment in
His death, and a new right is given in His resurrection (substitutionary & representative).
Therefore, human justification has been ontologically established in Jesus Christ, with three
benefits for humanity: 1) the forgiveness of sin, 2) becoming the children of God, and 3)
having hope for an eternal inheritance (expiation).

7 Crisp,

“Moral Exemplarism and Atonement,” 148–49.

78

In contrast to Chao, Barth's exposition of atonement places a significant emphasis on
Jesus Christ as both our substitute and representative on the cross, effecting the removal and
forgiveness of our sin. He writes,

Jesus Christ for us” means that as this one true man, Jesus Christ has taken the place of us men,
of many, in all the authority and omnipotence and competence of the one true God, in order to
act in our name and, therefore validly and effectively for us in all matters of reconciliation with
God and therefore of our redemption and salvation, representing us without any co-operation
on our part…It has happened fully and exclusively in Him, excluding any need for completion.
Whatever may happen in consequence of the fact that Jesus Christ is for us cannot add to it…His
activity as our Representative and Substitute.8 (Emphases mine)

Barth defends the substitution9 and explains that “our sin is transferred to Jesus, or that he
bears our sin for us.”10 In contrast to Chao’s moral example of Jesus Christ, for Barth, Jesus
is a sin-bearer. “Our sin is no longer our own. It is His sin, the sin of Jesus Christ.11 In this
sense, Jesus is the “one great sinner.”12 Furthermore, Barth is also able to say that Jesus
Christ is our representative; he died, and we also died in him; we literally died in Jesus
Christ.13 And the history of Jesus Christ is our history.
Barth’s above illustration is grounded in the covenantal relationship between God and
humanity. Jesus Christ is the embodiment of the covenantal relationship between the
transcendent covenant Lord and the obedient covenant partner. This covenantal relationship
is willed by God in eternity and fulfilled in time and place in Jesus Christ, and as the
revelation in Jesus Christ, signifying the fellowship, communion, and mutual participation

8

CD IV/1, 230.

9

CD IV/1, 93-94; 253; 273.

10

CD II/2, 123.

11

CD IV/1, 238.

12

CD IV/1, 254.

13

CD IV/1, 295-96.

79

between God and humanity. With Jesus Christ as the embodiment of the covenantal
relationship, Barth can speak of our human inclusion in Jesus Christ.
In Barth’s creation account, the reality of our human creatures lies in Christ14; our human
nature is derived from Jesus, the One man15. That is to say, Jesus is “the very ground and
sphere, the atmosphere of the being of every man”16; we exist “in him,” and Jesus “is our true
existence.” That our being, nature, and existence are determined in or derived from Jesus
Christ means that our relationship with our Creator determines our being, nature, our being,
and even our lives and moves as God sees and treats us in and through Jesus Christ, the
covenant grace.
Moreover, “because we are in Christ, every man in his time and space is changed”17 in
the course of the history of Jesus. That is to say, as our (ontological) true being in Jesus
Christ, what happened on the cross changed our existence at the time and place. Similarly, as
Johnson well put, “What it means to be human, what means to derive our nature from Jesus,
is to have God see and treat us “in and with His beloved Son”18…such that God relates to all
others in and through this on man, Jesus Christ: “God’s relation to man, sinful man, is to this
man alone and all others in and through Him.”19 This conception, enabling Barth to talk
about the humanity of Jesus Christ and our humanity simultaneously, explains why Barth
says Jesus Christ is the justified man (not individual man or humanity in general) and how
this justified man relates to our human justification ontologically. As Johnson lays his stress,
“We humans are who we are in Christ, our representative substitute, and our identity is
therefore fundamentally shaped by the life death and resurrection of this one [Jesus Christ,],”

14

CD III/2, 225.

15

CD III/2, 50.

16

CD IV/1, 53.

17

CD III/2, 133.

18

CD III/2, 42.

19

CD III/2, 43; Johnson, “Barth on the Atonement,” 150.

80

i.e., in atonement, God took our place, and we might have life in him.20 We can also claim
that the ontological reality of justification established once and for all in Jesus Christ is our
own.
Summary. In addressing the first two questions, we explore two key elements of the
objective aspects of the doctrine of justification: Why does God save humanity? And how is
justification established in Jesus Christ? Through a comparison of the treatment of the first
two questions, it becomes evident that Barth's exposition, rooted in the covenantal
relationship between God and humanity, is more comprehensive and aligned with biblical
principles. In addressing the first question, Barth delves deeper into the explication of God’s
grace, faithfulness, and justice. Secondly, Barth's account of atonement adeptly presents the
substitutive and representative nature, including the penal aspects, while also highlighting
justification as an ontological reality achieved once and for all, resulting in reconciliation
between humans and God. In contrast, Chao's exposition is hindered by his theological
conviction that humans must take responsibility for their sins and actively participate in their
salvation. Consequently, Chao's treatment of the objective aspects appears relatively
inadequate.

FAITH ALONE: HOW DO HUMANS PARTICIPATE IN JUSTIFICATION?
Both T. C. Chao and Karl Barth affirm justification by faith, but they differ most in their
understanding of human participation in justification, especially whether or not human
participation will add the efficacy and completeness of justification established by the
atoning work of Jesus Christ.
Chao’s View on Human Participation. As discussed in Chapter Two, Chao continues to
emphasize human responsibility for sin and maintains his insistence on the mandate that
humans must walk their own path to conquer sin. Chao perceives the justification of man as

20

Johnson, “Barth on the Atonement,” 148.

81

the forgiveness of sin and the commencement of a new life. In his view, faith involves belief
and trust in Jesus Christ. Chao underscores that justification occurs when humans believe in
Jesus Christ and follow His steps. Chao views faith as a mysterious phenomenon involving
both human action and divine influence. He emphasizes the necessity of the Holy Spirit as a
guide and a source of strength for humans to traverse the path that Jesus Christ revealed on
the cross. With a consistent ethical focus, Chao highlights that the Holy Spirit cannot
substitute for human moral effort. He clarifies that the righteousness received in justification
should not be equated with moral righteousness. After all, for Chao, “the human effort of
asking for help” remains critical for making human justification effective.
However, Chao’s concept of “the human effort of asking for help” is hard to grasp,
leading some scholars to interpret his soteriology as a clear form of synergism, while others
find this interpretation problematic. For example, in his book A Study of Zhao Zichen’s
Theological Thought, Xiaofeng Tang has a section subtitled as “Chao’s late theology—
Synergism,” in which he argues, for Chao, human participation with moral actions is a
necessary condition for salvation, even though it also need to rely on God’s grace.21 Yongtao
Chen, among others who hold the same views, argues in his book, The Chinese Christology
of T. C. Chao, that as long as Chao affirms salvation is by God's grace alone22 and established
in Jesus Christ alone23, then it is problematic to label Chao’s soteriology as synergism. Chen
refers to Chao’s other text written the same year as this third text under discussion, stating,
“Chao strongly emphasized that Jesus Christ was the only way for human salvation. At the
same time, Chao believed that Christ did not take away humanity’s active response to God’s

21 Xiaofeng Tang 唐曉峰, Zhao Zichen Shenxue sixiang yanjiu 趙紫宸神學思想研究 [A Study of Zhao Zichen’s
Theological Thought] (Beijing: Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe, 2006), 127-29. Also see Tang, Zhao Zichen Shenxue sixiang
yanjiu, 129.“赵紫宸始终持守的是一种自立的道德得救论，而在后期的神学中，人类在基督的启示下，所实行的道
德行为只是人类得救的一个必要条件，至于人类究竟能不能得到救赎，还需要来自上帝的恩典。” Also see ibid.,
143. “他（赵紫宸）的整个神学是围绕救赎这一目标建立的，而这个救赎是建立在道德行为的基础上的。”
22 Chao, “Four Talks on Theology,” in The Works, vol. 2, 529.
23

Chao, “Four Talks on Theology,” in The Works, vol. 2, 566, 557.

82

grace, which is human responsibility to walk with him in the process of salvation. In saying
this, Chao is able to maintain human moral responsibility as the product of sanctifying grace
in his soteriological thinking.”24
Chao's commendable emphasis on human participation is noteworthy; however, the role
of human participation in his doctrine of justification remains unclear. From my reading of
Chao’s text, on the one hand, Chao does affirm that salvation is established in Jesus Christ,
without saying that what is established is a definite reality or a mere possibility; on the other
hand, Chao holds fast that humans must participate and carry out their moral responsibility
with the help from Jesus Christ (i.e., the Holy Spirit sent from Jesus Christ, who lives in us)
to complete the salvation, without specifying whether this human participation is viewed a
necessity to salvation (as per Tang’s interpretation) or as a human active response to God’s
grace (as per Chen’s interpretation).
There are two possible explanations for the different readings among scholars regarding
Chao's position. First, Chao's stance itself is ambiguous regarding whether human
participation can or cannot add efficacy and completeness to salvation. Perhaps Chao was
comfortable with this “ambiguity,” viewing it as an unresolved tension in the doctrine as long
as he could hold humans accountable for their sins and advocate human participation in
salvation. Second, it's possible that he considers both justification and sanctification without
properly distinguishing them in his contemplation of human participation in salvation.
Now, let's delve into Barth's comprehension of human participation.
Barth’s View on Human Participation Barth's justification encompasses both the
objective (ontological aspect) and subjective (at the existential level) aspects, also described
as de jure and de facto. At the ontological (de jure) level, justification is established in Jesus
Christ once and for all as a universal reality accessible to all of humanity. The ontological

Yongtao Chen, The Chinese Christology of T. C. Chao (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 258. Also see, Chao, “My Experience in
Prison,” in The Works, vol.2, 448. “但他不代表我们做我们自己必须作的，他只是因着我们的信仰，给我们全能，住
在我们生活里，与我们同行。这就是他用他的死所做成的救法。”
24

83

reality (de jure) serves as the foundation for humans to receive and recognize the
accomplished reality in Jesus Christ and make it a reality in the life of humanity (de facto).
As Hans Küng rightly observes, based on the covenantal relationship between God and
humanity, Barth's justification is “an unqualified act, eternally valid and universally
binding.”25 From an ontological perspective, yes, the justification is a complete reality and
universal in scope. However, at the existential level, not everybody actualizes this ontological
reality as a subjective reality in human life.
Corresponding to these two facets of justification, Barth categorizes human
participation into two types—objective human passive participation in Jesus Christ
(ontologically) and subjective human active participation through grace and faith
(existentially). (Barth’s human active participation aligns with Chao’s human passive
participation, where Chao emphasizes human participation in salvation as a secondary role in
his mature form of the doctrine of justification.) Human active participation in justification at
the existential here and now is to actualize the ontological reality established in Jesus Christ
there and then. In other words, the ontological reality of justification is what Jesus makes
ours; at the existential level, we need to make the reality that is already ours our own.
Unbelievers, in this context, fail to recognize this reality and do not make it their own.
The actualization at the existential level of the ontological justification established in
Jesus Christ is through faith in the power of the Holy Spirit. Barth, like Chao, affirms faith as
both a divine act and a human act. But in contrast, Barth’s understanding of faith is grounded
in Jesus Christ as its object. Jesus Christ is the object of faith; faith is orientated and based on
Him,26 and faith is the work of Jesus Christ.27 Faith as a human act is considered the human
free choice to believe in Jesus Christ.28 But faith, as a free human act, only has a “cognitive

Küng, Justification, 18
CD IV/1, 749.
27 CD IV/1, 744.
28 CD IV/1, 748.
25
26

84

character” instead of a “creative character,” consisting “in a definite acknowledgement,
recognition and confession.”29 When a human believes in Jesus Christ, he “knows and grasps
his own righteousness”30 as “the witness of the alteration of the human situation;”31 those
who have faith will miss their righteousness.32 It is interesting to note that, when addressing
justification by faith, Chao's focus centers on “justification (righteousness)” with a careful
distinction from moral righteousness. In contrast, Barth's attention is directed toward the
phrase “by faith” as he endeavours to clarify the specific contribution of faith to the
realization of ontological justification into subjective reality.
However, human faith does not take place naturally. Barth aptly expresses this by
stating, “Whenever faith takes place in a man, it will always mean a swimming against the
current—a counter-movement which is not undertaken in his own reason and strength.”33 The
Holy Spirit is the awakening power of human faith,34 which attests to what Jesus Christ has
done for our salvation apart from us35 and mediates our participation in it by faith.36
In conclusion, Barth's comprehension of human participation in justification is
nuanced. While he affirms the universal accessibility of justification to humanity, he equally
emphasizes the indispensable role of individuals in actively engaging with faith to recognize,
apprehend, and receive the accomplished reality of justification in their lives. When
addressing whether human participation contributes efficacy or completeness to justification
established by Jesus Christ on the cross, Barth’s answer is a resolute “no.”

CD IV/1, 751.
CD IV/1, 631.
31 CD IV/1,752.
32 CD IV/1, 631.
33 CD IV/1, 745.
34 CD IV/1, 748.
35 CD IV/1, 211-83.
36 CD IV/2, 518, 526-33, 581-4; George Hungsinger, “The mediator of communion: Barl Barth’s doctrine of the Holy
Spirit.” In The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, edited by John Webster (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2009), 181.
29
30

85

JUSTIFICATION AND SANCTIFICATION: WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN JUSTIFICATION AND SANCTIFICATION
In this section, we will compare T. C. Chao and Karl Barth’s views on the relationship
between justification and sanctification, examining how each theologian perceives these
aspects within the context of their respective theological frameworks.
Chao’s Perspective. In the Four Talks on Theology, Chao expounds on justification and
sanctification within the framework of “the union with God.” According to Chao, humans
achieve justification through their union with Jesus Christ. This union involves the
forgiveness of sins, receiving the Holy Spirit sent by Jesus, and experiencing regeneration.
Through this transformative union, believers overcome evil, sin, and death with the power of
the Holy Spirit. While suffering may still be part of the human experience, Chao suggests
that, within the union with God, suffering becomes more bearable and meaningful.
Sanctification is explained as suffering with Jesus Christ. Chao views sanctification as a form
of suffering, distinguishing it from the consequences of sin and evil. In discussing
justification and sanctification, Chao focuses on the transformative union with God and
suffering with Jesus Christ to save the world like him, a focal point that distinctly reflects
Chao’s theological goals and convictions.
Chao considers that justification and sanctification are two parts of salvation. He
regards salvation as progressive and affirms the ordo salutis (order of salvation) implicitly.
However, the distinction between justification and sanctification is not explicitly elaborated
upon, and the precise boundaries and distinct characteristics of each are not explicitly
defined. When Chao accentuates the union with God and the transformative process
facilitated by faith, regeneration, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, it appears that both
justification and sanctification are encompassed in his perspective.
Barth’s Perspective. Barth views Justification and sanctification as two different aspects
of the one saving event, each representing the whole reconciling/saving activity of God.

86

Barth sees justification as the movement from above to below (the condescension of God)
and sanctification as the movement from below to above (the exaltation of man in Jesus
Christ), constituting “the one totality of the reconciling action of God.”37
With the covenantal framework as the underpinning, both justification and
sanctification have objective and subjective perspectives, each representing the whole
reconciliation work of Jesus Christ; both are established in Jesus Christ ontologically and
apprehended/actualized in the believer's lives here and now by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Hence, Barth rejects the concept of ordo salutis as he considers these distinctive temporal
sequences expressed in the concept of ordo salutis do not reveal or correspond to what has
happened in Jesus Christ. He perceives ordo salutis as “diminishing the spiritual to the
psychological and rendering the mysterious as mundane.”38
For Barth, as two aspects of a single reconciling divine act, the order of justification
and sanctification is double asymmetry. Fundamentally, justification takes precedence over
sanctification, serving as its foundation, while sanctification follows as the consequence.
Conversely, from a teleological standpoint, sanctification is prioritized over justification,
with sanctification representing the goal of justification and the latter serving as the
presupposition for the former.39
In Barth’s perspective, the relationship between justification and sanctification is
distinct, unchangeable, and inseparable. Barth explicitly cautions against the danger of
confusion between justification and sanctification, as observed in Roman Catholicism and
modernist Protestantism, where this confusion manifests by merging justification with
sanctification, particularly when justification is perceived as the beginning of a sanctifying
process.40 This confusion is observable in Chao’s exposition.

CD IV/2, 503.
George Hunsinger, Evangelical, Catholic, and Reformed: Essays on Barth and Other Themes (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
W.B. Eerdmans, 2015), 120.
39 CD IV/1, 508.
40 CD IV/1, 505-07.
37
38

87

Moreover, in his exploration of sanctification, Barth provides a thorough and detailed
analysis of the ethics encompassing various aspects of the Christian life, such as conversions,
discipleship, good works, bearing the cross, new life as a child of God, and participation in
Christ.41 These ethical elements effectively address Chao’s ethical concerns. Unlike Chao, in
Barth’s covenantal framework, Christians become God’s active covenantal partners after
acknowledging and receiving their justification and sanctification, both realities established
in Jesus Christ. Within this covenantal framework, ethics are viewed as a response to God's
grace rather than an attempt to earn salvation.

41 The Holy One and the Saints (CD IV/1, 511-33), The Call to Discipleship (CD IV/1, 533-53), The Awakening to
Conversion (CD IV/1, 553-84), The Praise of Works (CD IV/1, 584-98) The Dignity of the Cross (CD IV/1, 598-613).

88

Conclusion

So far, we have scrutinized and compared the doctrines of justification put forth by T. C.
Chao and Karl Barth concerning the four key aspects of the Protestant doctrine of
justification: grace alone (sola Gratia), Christ alone (solus Christus), faith alone (sola Fide),
and the interplay between justification and sanctification.
Considering the contextual background and the development of their individual
doctrines of justification, it is evident that each doctrine evolves around unique theological
concerns, featuring a distinct starting point and employing its own theological framework as
it matures.
Informed by his theological convictions and cultural heritage, Chao emphasizes
human responsibility for sin and active human participation. Through his innovative
incorporation of conservative theological elements into an ethically oriented narrative, which
seeks to moralize the Chinese people and society using the exemplar of Jesus Christ, his
doctrine of justification reveals inadequacies.
Barth's doctrine of justification is expounded within a theological framework based
on the covenantal relationship between God and humanity. This framework enables Barth to
offer a more comprehensive and robust exposition of the four aspects we have examined.
First, in dealing with Grace alone, Barth is able to elaborate on the depth of God’s grace in
expositing God’s saving grace and the gravity of human sin within this relational framework.
Secondly, in dealing with Christ alone, Barth delivers a more robust atonement account by
presenting the objective reality established in Jesus once and for all. He comprehensively
covers the biblical motifs (substitutionary, representative, expiation) associated with the
nature of the doctrine, an aspect where Chao's account falls short. Thirdly, in Fatih alone,
Barth, while affirming that humans add no efficacy and completeness to their justification,
also emphasizes human active participation in justification. Lastly, regarding the relationship
between justification and sanctification within the covenantal framework, Barth posits that

89

human justification and sanctification find their ontological grounding in Jesus Christ;
specifically, both have objective and subjective aspects.
In Chao’s doctrine of justification, there is a struggle to balance the objective and
subjective aspects of the doctrine. On one hand, he aims to be faithful to the Christian faith,
and on the other, he emphasizes the moralization of Chinese society through the exemplar of
Jesus Christ to achieve his theological goal. This tension is a constant challenge for Chao.
Chao's limited exploration of the objective aspect of the doctrine of justification does not
result in a robust examination of the subjective aspect.
Barth, in contrast with the covenantal framework, is able to provide a comprehensive
exposition of the objective aspect, also delving deeply into the subjective dimension of the
doctrine. Within Barth’s framework, the objective and subjective aspects, God and humanity,
do not contradict each other, but they can go together.
In conclusion, Barth's doctrine of justification, framed within the covenantal
relationship, provides a valuable reference for Chao's doctrine. It is evident that Chinese
Christians could benefit significantly from engaging with Barth's rich theological insights.

90

Bibliography

Asprey, Christopher. “Eschatological Presence: Karl Barth’s Theology in Göttingen.” PhD
diss., University of Aberdeen, 2008.
Aune, David Edward. Rereading Paul Together: Protestant and Catholic Perspectives on
Justification. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2006.
Balthasar, Hans Urs von and Edward T. Oakes. The Theology of Karl Barth: Exposition and
Interpretation. Translated by Edward T. Oakes. San Francisco: Communio Books:
Ignatius Press, 1992.
Barth, Karl. Dogmatics in Outline C.2. With a New Foreword by the Author. New York:
Harper, 1959.
________. The Epistle to the Romans. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968.
________. How I Changed My Mind: Richmond: John Knox Press, 1969.
________. The Theology of John Calvin. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 1995.
________. A Shorter Commentary on Romans. Eugene, Ore.: Wipf and Stock Publishers,
2012.
________. Church Dogmatics. Edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley and Thomas F. Torrance.
Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley et al. 5 vols. in 14 parts. Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
2009.
II/2 The Doctrine of God (The Election of God)
IV/1 The Doctrine of Reconciliation (Jesus Christ, The Lord as Servant)
IV/2 The Doctrine of Reconciliation (Jesus Christ, the Servant as Lord)
IV/3 The Doctrine of Reconciliation, First Half (Jesus Christ, the True Witness)
IV/4 The Doctrine of Reconciliation, Second Half (Jesus Christ, the True Witness)
________, and Hannelotte Reiffen. The Göttingen Dogmatics: Instruction in the Christian
Religion. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 1991.

91

________, Rolf Joachim Erler, Reiner Marquard, and Geoffrey William Bromiley. A Karl
Barth Reader. Edinburgh: Clark, 1986.
________ and Grover Foley. Evangelical Theology: An Introduction. London: Fontana,
1963.
________ and Clifford Green. Karl Barth: Theologian of Freedom. London: Collins, 1989.
________, John Newton Thomas, and Thomas Wieser. The Humanity of God. Richmond:
John Knox Press, 1960.
________ and Eduard Thurneysen. Revolutionary Theology in the Making: BarthThurneysen Correspondence, 1914-1925. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1964.
________, and Keith L. Johnson. The Essential Karl Barth: A Reader and Commentary.
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2021.
Bartholomaeus, Michael. Karl Barth's Doctrine of Sanctification: An Exploration of Church
Dogmatics. 66. Lanham Maryland: Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2021.
Beilby, James K. and Paul R. Eddy. Justification: Five Views. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP
Academic, 2011.
Berkhof, H. Two Hundred Years of Theology: Report of a Personal Journey. Grand Rapids,
Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 1989.
Bevans, Stephen B. Models of Contextual Theology. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1992.
Busch, Eberhard and Karl Barth. Karl Barth: His Life from Letters and Autobiographical
Texts. London: SCM Press, 1976.
________, Darrell L. Guder, and Judith J. Guder. The Great Passion: An Introduction to
Karl Barth's Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2004.
Campbell, Douglas Atchison. The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of
Justification in Paul. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2009.
Chao, T. C. (Zhao Zichen) 趙紫宸. Zhao Zichen wenji 趙紫宸文集 [The Works of T. C.
Chao]. Edited by Wang Xiaochao 王曉朝. 5 vols. Beijing: Shangwu yin shuguan 商
務印書館 [Commercial Press], 2003-2010.

92

Chen, Yongtao. The Chinese Christology of T. C. Chao. Leiden: Brill, 2017.
Chow, Alexander. Theosis, Sino-Christian Theology and the Second Chinese Enlightenment:
Heaven and Humanity in Unity, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.
________. Chinese Public Theology: Generational Shifts and Confucian Imagination in
Chinese Christianity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.
Chung, Sung Wook. Karl Barth and Evangelical Theology: Convergences and Divergences.
Milton Keynes: Paternoster Press, 2006.
Clark, Gordon Haddon. Karl Barth's Theological Method. Philadelphia: Presbyterian
Reformed Publishing, 1963.
Clark, Samuel Moreton. "The Nature of Justification in the Theologies of John Calvin and
Karl Barth: A Comparative and Critical Study." PhD diss., University of Aberdeen,
1992.
Cortez, M. “What Does It Mean to Call Karl Barth a ‘Christocentric’ Theologian?” Scottish
Journal of Theology 60, no.2 (2007): 127-143.
Crisp, Oliver D. “Moral Exemplarism and Atonement.” Scottish Journal of Theology 73, no.
2 (May 2020): 137–49.
Dorrien, Gary J. The Barthian Revolt in Modern Theology: Theology without Weapons.
Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000.
Dunn, James D. G. The New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays. Grand Rapids, Mich.:
W.B. Eerdmans, 2008.
Fesko, J. V. Justification: Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine. Phillipsburg, N.J.:
P & R Pub., 2008.
Gibson, David and Daniel Strange. Engaging with Barth: Contemporary Evangelical
Critiques. New York: T & T Clark, 2008.
Glüer, Winfried (Gu Aihua) 古愛華. Zhao Zichen de Shenxue Sixiang 趙紫宸的神學思想
[The Theological Thought of T. C. Chao]. Translated by Joe Dunn. Hong Kong:

93

Jidujiao wenyi chubanshe 基督教文藝出版社 [Chinese Christian Literature Council
Ltd.], 1979.
______. "The Legacy of T. C. Chao." International Bulletin of Mission Research 6, no. 4
(1982): 165-169.
González, Justo L. Christian Thought Revisited: Three Types of Theology. Nashville, Tenn.:
Abingdon Press, 1989.
Hesselgrave, David J., and Edward Rommen. Contextualization: Meanings, Methods, and
Models. Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library, 2000.
McDowell, John C. Conversing with Barth. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004.
Hoekema, Alle. "Barth and Asia: 'No Boring Theology'." Exchange 33, no. 2 (2004): 102131.
Horton, Michael Scott. Justification. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2018.
Hui, Hoi-ming. “A Study of T.C.Chao's Christology in the Social Context of China 1920 to
1949.” PhD diss., University of Birmingham, 2008.
Hunsinger, George. Evangelical, Catholic, and Reformed: Essays on Barth and Other
Themes. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2015.
________. How to Read Karl Barth: The Shape of His Theology. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1991.
________. Karl Barth and Radical Politics. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2017.
________. Reading Barth with Charity: A Hermeneutical Proposal. Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Baker Academic, 2015.
________, and Keith L. Johnson. Wiley Blackwell Companion to Karl Barth. Bognor Regis:
John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2020.
Husbands, Mark, Daniel J. Treier, and Robert Horton Gundry. Justification: What's at Stake
in the Current Debates. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004.

94

Johnson, Keith L. “A Reappraisal of Karl Barth’s Theological Development and His
Dialogue with Catholicism.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 14, no. 1
(2012): 3-25.
Jones, Paul Dafydd. The Humanity of Christ Christology in Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics.
New York: T & T Clark, 2008
________, and Paul T. Nimmo, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Karl Barth. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2020.
Jüngel, Eberhard. Karl Barth, a Theological Legacy. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986.
________. Justification: The Heart of the Christian Faith: A Theological Study with an
Ecumenical Purpose. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001.
Kim, Young-Gwan. "Karl Barth's Reception in Korea: An Historical Overview." Evangelical
Review of Theology 27, no. 1 (2003): 73–85.
Klooster, Fred H. The Significance of Barth's Theology: An Appraisal: With Special
Reference to Election and Reconciliation. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House,
1961.
Küng, Hans. Justification: The Doctrine of Karl Barth and a Catholic Reflection. Louisville,
Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.
Lenk, Hans and Gregor Paul. Epistemological Issues in Classical Chinese Philosophy.
Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993.
Lian, Xi. Redeemed by Fire: The Rise of Popular Christianity in Modern China.
Cumberland: Yale University Press, 2010.
Lam, Wing-hung (Lin Ronghong) 林荣洪. Chinese Theology in Construction. Pasadena,
Calif: W. Carey Library, 1983.
________. Too High to Be Popular: T. C. Chao’s Life and Theology 曲高和寡: 赵紫宸的生
平及神学. Hong Kong: China Alliance Press, 1994.
________ and Weiyao Wen. Ji Du Jiao Yu Zhong Guo Wen Hua De Xiang Yu 基督教与中
国文化的相遇 [The encounter between Christianity and Chinese culture]. Hong
Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2001.

95

Lindbeck, George A. The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age.
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984.
MacDonald, Neil B. Calvin, Barth, and Reformed Theology. Milton Keynes: Paternoster,
2008.
Mangina, Joseph L. Karl Barth: Theologian of Christian Witness. Louisville, Ky.:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.
McCormack, Bruce L. Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology: Its Genesis and
Development, 1909-1936. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
________. Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary
Challenges. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2006.
________. "Karl Barth's Christology As a Resource for a Reformed Version of Kenoticism."
International Journal of Systematic Theology 8, no. 3 (2006): 243-251.
________. Orthodox and Modern: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth: Grand Rapids,
Mich..: Baker Academic, 2008.
________. Thomas Aquinas and Karl Barth: An Unofficial Catholic-Protestant Dialogue.
Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2013.
________. and Kimlyn J. Bender. Theology as Conversation: The Significance of Dialogue
in Historical and Contemporary Theology: A Festschrift for Daniel L. Migliore.
Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2009.
McGrath, Alister E. "Justification: Barth, Trent, and Küng." Scottish Journal of Theology 34,
no. 6 (1981): 517-529.
________. "Forerunners of the Reformation: A Critical Examination of the Evidence for
Precursors of the Reformation Doctrines of Justification." Harvard Theological
Review 75, no. 2 (1982): 219-242.
________. “The Moral Theory of the Atonement: An Historical and Theological Critique.”
Scottish Journal of Theology 38, no. 2 (1985): 205–20.

96

________. The Making of Modern German Christology, 1750-1990. Leicester: Apollos,
1994.
________. Iustitia Dei a History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2005.
_________. Christian Theology: An Introduction. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.
Mou, Bo. Two Roads to Wisdom?: Chinese and Analytic Philosophical Traditions. Chicago:
Open Court, 2001.
Ng, Lee-ming (Wu Liming) 吴利明. “An Evaluation of T.C Chao’s Thought.” Ching Feng
14, nos. 1-2 (1971): 5-59.
________. “Christianity in China.” In Christianity in Asia: North-East Asia, edited by T. K.
Thomas, 9-33. Singapore: Christian Conference of Asia, 1979.
________. 基督教與中國社會變遷 Jidujiao yu Zhongguo shehui bianqian [Christianity and
Social Change in China], 3rd ed. Hong Kong: Jidujiao wenyi chubanshe 基督教文藝
出版社 [Chinese Christian Literature Council Ltd.], 1997.
Nimmo, Paul T.. Barth: A Guide for the Perplexed. Guides for the Perplexed. London: T&T
Clark, 2017.
Oden, Thomas C. The Justification Reader. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2002.
Ramm, Bernard L. Protestant Biblical Interpretation; a Textbook of Hermeneutics for
Conservative Protestants. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1969.
________. The Evangelical Heritage. Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1973.
Richardson, Kurt Anders. Reading Karl Barth: New Directions for North American
Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2004.
Rouse, Ruth, Stephen Neill, and Harold Edward Fey. A History of the Ecumenical Movement.
Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1986.
Rumscheidt, Hans M. Revelation and Theology: An Analysis of the Barth-Harnack
Correspondence of 1923. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972.

97

Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977.
Smythe, Shannon Nicole. Forensic Apocalyptic Theology: Karl Barth and the Doctrine of
Justification. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016.
Spencer, Archie J. Clearing a Space for Human Action: Ethical Ontology in the Theology of
Karl Barth. New York: Peter Lang, 2003.
________. The Analogy of Faith: The Quest for God’s Speakability. Downers Grove, Ill.:
IVP Academic, 2015.
Starr, Chloë. Chinese Theology: Text and Context. Cumberland: Yale University Press, 2016.
Stendahl, Krister. "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West." Harvard
Theological Review 56, no. 3 (1963): 199-215.
Stumme, Wayne. The Gospel of Justification in Christ: Where Does the Church Stand
Today? Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2006.
Sykes, S. W. Karl Barth: Studies of His Theological Method. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979.
Tang, Xiaofeng 唐曉峰. Zhao Zichen Shenxue sixiang yanjiu 趙紫宸神學思想研究 [A
Study of Zhao Zichen’s Theological Thought]. Beijing: Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe
宗教文化出版社 [Religion and Culture Press], 2006.
________and Xiong Xiaohong 唐曉峰 熊晓红. The Ambition of a Nighthawk: A Collection
of “T. C. Chao and the Sino-Western Exchange of Thought” Conference 夜鹰之志:
“赵紫宸与中西思想交流”学术研讨会论文集, Beijing: CRCP, 2010.
Torrance, Thomas Forsyth. Karl Barth: An Introduction to His Early Theology, 1910-1931.
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000.
Tseng, Shao Kai. Barth's Ontology of Sin and Grace: Variations on a Theme of Augustine.
London: Routledge, 2018.
________. Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology: Origins and Development, 1920-1953.
New Explorations in Theology. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2016.

98

________. “萬物復原與終末天譴: 巴特對普世救贖的辯證處理.” [Apokatastasis and
Condemnation: Barth's Dialectical Treatment of Universal Salvation] Logos &
Pneuma 47 (2017): 141-167
________. “「信心」在巴特稱義中的地位：巴特對路德與加爾文的詮釋與應用.” [The
Role of Faith in Justification: Karl Barth's Interpretation and Reapropriation of Luther
and Calvin.] China Evangelical Seminary Journal no.6 (2014): 54-86.
________. Karl Barth. Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Pub., 2021.
VanLandingham, Chris. Judgment & Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul.
Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006.
Wang, Xiaochao 王晓朝, Yanjing yan jiu yuan, Qing hua da xue, and Zong jiao yan jiu
Zhong xin. Zhao Zichen Xian Sheng Ji Nian Lun Wen Ji 赵紫宸先生纪念文集 [Zhao
Zichen’s Memorial Collection]. Beijing: Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe 宗教文化出版
社 [Religion and Culture Press], 2005.
Webster, John. Barth's Moral Theology: Human Action in Barth's Thought. Edinburgh: T &
T Clark, 1998.
________. Barth. London/New York: Continuum, 2000.
________. Barth's Earlier Theology: Four Studies. London: T & T Clark, 2005.
________. The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2009.
Wright, N. T. Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic,
2009.
Xin, Yalin. Inside China's House Church Network the Word of Life Movement and Its
Renewing Dynamic. Lexington, Ky.: Emeth Press, 2009.
Yang, Huilin, and Xinan Yang. Sino-Christian Studies in China. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge
Scholars Press, 2006.
Ying, Fuk-tsang 邢福增. In Search of the Uniqueness of Christianity: Essays on T. C. Chao’s
Theology 寻索基督教的独特性—赵紫宸研究论集, Hong Kong: Alliance Bible
Seminary, 2003.

99

Zhao, Wenjuan 赵文娟. "侯活士品格倫理與趙紫宸人格倫理的批判性比較 =A Critical
Comparison of Stanley Hauerwas' and T. C. Chao's Character Ethics." PhD diss.,
HKBU Institutional Repository, 2014.