Christ did what was impossible for any of us (post Adam at least) to do. PERIOD. It was not primarily as example that he came.
But is WAS... That is what you are not getting yet... He came that we should walk as He walked...
Perhaps what you missed is the dialectic in Barth's theology, Torrance's too for that matter. Atonement is not just sufficient for all and efficacious for some (by faith); it is complete, effective, and universal in scope. Nothing can separate humanity ~ via our inclusive election in Christ ~ from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. This is the "objective" pole of salvation. The "subjective" pole is the active response of believers by way of faith participation in and through Jesus Christ.
The question of course regards those who hang in the balance, they being three groups: those who are incapable of "belief" ~ infants, etc; those who have not heard the true Gospel message, thus having had no opportunity to respond; and those who have heard, do understand, and still reject Jesus Christ. This latter group are likely destined to face the second death alone. The former group are raised from the dead safely in the arms of Jesus. The group in the middle are those with whom we seek to reach with the Good News of Jesus Christ. Because it is truly good news and the power of God into (eis) salvation, they are likely to believe and benefit immediately from the surety of Christ's Spirit in them, the sanctifying hope of glory.
The dialectic is the tension between the two poles. Where do we concentrate our preaching/teaching: on the Good News of humanity's full and effective inclusion in Christ's atoning work or on humanity's call to participate in it by faith? Barth thought the former; Torrance the same. In no respect does faith "activate" salvation. "Therefore repent and believe in Christ" comes at the end of Gospel, in full awareness of their inclusion in it, and not set as a condition upon receiving it. Those who believe receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, the surety of their salvation. Those who don't, we leave to the righteous, just, and merciful (all contained within the meaning of one word in Hebrew) judgment of God in Christ. It is not our call to make; hence the tension.
From my take on your understanding of Hunsinger, you may have missed the efficacy of the objective pole ~ that all truly does mean all ~ thus (still) throwing the entire weight of salvation on the backs of respondents, that being their obligation to believe in order to receive. Or from the other Federal Calvinist side, making God the bad guy for electing only some to salvation (I know, I know; it's really our fault).
I don't think it is unreasonable to think this. They may very well have done so. I'll get to why below.
Correct. As to why Jesus was able to withstand Satan's temptations, I believe the reasons are multifaceted. Jesus had the Holy Spirit upon him to guide him into truth. He had in-depth knowledge of the Scriptures to rebut Satan's deceptive claims. And most importantly, he had communed with his Father his entire life (and from eternity past) and knew him intimately. His desire was to please him and to do his will. In doing his will, he broke through Satan's schemes and in so doing won the day.
Yes, I would say so. This gets me to my above point: I think there is an assumption that Adam and Woman would not have gained knowledge of good and evil had they not eaten of the tree of knowledge of the same. I do not agree with this. Had they refrained from eating of the tree and communed with God instead, they would have learned of evil from the vantage point of goodness: God's goodness. They would have learned to look upon evil through his eyes. The longer they communed, the greater would have grown their ability and desire to resist evil and flee from it. Yes, they would likely have had the angels administering to them in recovery of Satan's wiles.
As it was, however, in disobedience to God, when they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they immediately became aware of God's goodness from the vantage point of evil. What did that goodness produce? Shame, which likely produced fear and feelings of guilt, among other derivatives.
Humanity has functioned from that evil side of knowledge ever since. Rather than commune in God's goodness and look upon evil through his eyes, we are prone to traffic in evil and look away from the goodness of God in shame.
Arsenios, I haven't forgotten your post. I will try to get to it as time permits.