The basic question is: How can man be just with God? If man had never sinned the all-important question would have been: How can man be right with God? He would continue to be right with God by fulfilling the will of God perfectly. But the question takes on a radically different complexion with the entrance of sin. Man is wrong with God. And the question is: How can man become right with God? This was Luther’s burning question. He found the answer in Paul’s Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians, that we are justified by faith alone, through grace alone . . . .
It is to be acknowledged and appreciated that theologians of the Roman Catholic Church are giving a great deal of renewed attention to this subject, and there is a gratifying recognition that “to justify” is “to declare to be righteous”, that it is a declarative act on God’s part. But the central issue of the Reformation remains. Rome still maintains and declares that justification consists in renovation and sanctification, and the decrees of the Council of Trent have not been retracted or repudiated. . . .
Renovation and sanctification are indispensible elements of the gospel, and justification must never be separated from regeneration and sanctification. But to make justification to consist in renovation and sanctification is to eleiminate from the gospel that which meets our basic need as sinners, and answers the basic question: How can a sinner become just with God? The answer is that which makes the lame man leap as an hart and the tongue of the dumb sing. . . . Why so? It is the righteousness of God by faith of Jesus Christ. This is not God’s attribute of justice, but it is a God-righteousness, a righteousness with divine properties and qualities, contrasted not only with human unrighteousness but with human righteousness. And what his righteousness is, the apostle makes very clear. It is a free gift. . .
When Paul invokes God’s anathema upon any who would preach a gospel other than that he preached, he used a term which means “devoted to destruction”. It is a term weighted with imprecation. . . . To the core of his being he was persuaded that the heresy combated was aimed at the destruction of the gospel. It took the crown from the Redeemer’s head. It is this same passion that must imbue us if we are worthy children of the Reformation. . .
(Collected Writings, vol. 1, 302-304)
Old Life 
Just to be clear, there are two separate issues on the table.
One is, “is justification separate from sanctification”? On this, the Standards are abundantly clear (following the Scripture): Yes.
The other is, “does justification have logical priority over union with Christ, or is justification but one of the many benefits of union with Christ?” That’s where the debate now rages.
Murray is answering the first question, not the second.
JRC
LikeLike
Jeff, well to be crystal clear, the debate raging in the sixteenth century was not over union. To make union the emphasis — and Murray was pretty sympathetic to union — in our understanding of the REformed doctrine of salvation is novel.
Also, the way you phrase the debate in the second instance is not quite right. Many justificiation-centric people, Murray among them, teach union. It is a question of the relationship among the benefits of union, with whether justification is prior or justification is one among many.
Either way, it is hard to understand the rage of the 16th century in the contemporary rage for union.
LikeLike
Just for clarification… I think “along” in the last line of the first paragraph should be “alone,” right?
LikeLike
Would you agree that union with Christ is the first truly saving spiritual mercy, the first vital grace believers possess? I think it is the greatest and most honorable of all graces, that it is the cause of all other graces that we are made partakers of. What do you think?
John
LikeLike
Well, sure, different issues were at stake. Zane Hodges and Norm Shepherd were yet to be born.
I’m not an expert, but my observation of the debate between Horton and Gaffin is whether union is a consequence of justification or the other way ’round:
Horton via <a href="http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/vos-on-justification-and-union-with-christ/"Clark: While union with Christ and the sanctification that results from that union are more than forensic,they are the consequences of God’s forensic declaration. Both justification (“Let there be….!â€) and inner renewal (“Let the earth bring forth…!â€) are speech-acts of the Triune God…Like ex nihilo creation, justification is not a process of transforming an already existing state of affairs. In other words it is a synthetic rather than an analytic verdict.
Clark appears to affirm this view, citing Berkhof.
Gaffin: Horton’s view of the relationship between justification and union with Christ seems unclear. For instance, just prior to the statement on page 143 cited above, in discussing Reformation views of union, he says, “Regardless of whether union temporally preceded justification, Calvin is clear that the latter is the basis for the former” (as far as I can see, the Calvin citation in the following sentence does not support this statement and the quote from Institutes, 3.16.1 on the previous page in fact tells against it) …
JRC
LikeLike
Dang, those tags got torched. Sorry.
LikeLike
“To the core of his [Paul’s] being he was persuaded that the heresy combated was aimed at the destruction of the gospel. It took the crown from the Redeemer’s head. It is this same passion that must imbue us if we are worthy children of the Reformation. . .”
I like that statement a lot.
LikeLike
John, if union is as precious and effectual as you say, why didn’t Murray or the Reformers put it where you do? Could it be union is preventing you from seeing how important the forensic is?
LikeLike
Jeff, what are the different issues at stake today that force justification to take a back seat to justification? Are sin and guilt and righteousness and forgiveness different today from when Paul wrote to the Galatians?
Seriously, what do you think is at stake with union that makes it so necessary?
LikeLike
Sorry, I should have provided a quote. Owen’s exegesis on Hebrews 3:12-14 uses the exact same language. It was Owen who said that union with Christ is the “principle and measure of all spiritual enjoyments and expectations” (see Hebrews, 4:146ff).
He calls union the “first truly saving spiritual mercy” … the “first vital grace” believers possess.
Union with Christ is the first saving grace in dignity. Owen calls it the “greatest, most honorable, and glorious of all graces.” Union with Christ is first in respect of causality and efficacy, that is, “it is the cause of all other graces that we are made partakers of.”
He adds: “our union with him is the ground of the actual imputation of his righteousness unto us.”
I don’t think Owen had a problem seeing how important the forensic is. What do you think?
John
LikeLike
Fair question. Let’s see what one can do when insomniac at 2AM.
First, my reading of the reformers tends to line up with the quote John provides above: union is the ground of our justification. I see this in Calvin; I see it in the structure of WLC 66 – 70; I see it in Ephesians: “In him, we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins.”
Union is really the mechanism by which the benefits of Jesus are given to us. That’s the picture that Calvin and the Westminster divines drew.
As I understand it, the Holy Spirit changes us so that we believe and repent; and the belief is the means by which the benefits of Christ come to us, which is called our union with Him.
What is the objection?
There’s another question behind your question: is this picture (union precedes justification) so necessary that I would oppose others or consider them out of accord with the Standards? No, I wouldn’t.
Honestly, I don’t fully understand the ins and outs of the WTS East-West debate on this. I would endorse, for example, the treatment of union given by Michael Horton here.
But Gaffin reads Horton in Covenant and Salvation as going a step further, holding justification itself to have rennovative power (similar to the Lutheran view?).
I’m a little leery of that … seems to me that it’s the direct agency of the Spirit that provides the rennovative power. And in any event, isn’t it rather important to maintain that justification is forensic, rather than “effectively forensic”?
But I don’t have a bee in my bonnet about it. My bottom-line, non-negotiable is that “in Him, we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.” Beyond that, I’m not too picky.
JRC
LikeLike
John, I’d say that Owen wrote a whole fat volume on the death of death in the death of Christ.
BTW, I think is correct to say that the ground of justification is the perfect righteousness of Christ.
LikeLike
Jeff, like I said to John, the way Reformed theologians have typically spoken of the ground of justification is in terms of Christ’s perfect righteousness. But I appreciate your efforts to answer my question. I usually get defensive “how dare you’s” when I ask.
One factor behind the current WTS-WSC debate could be the specter of Shepherd. If union is prior to justification, and if justification and sanctification are simultaneous benefits with no priority for the forensic, then with the forensic and rennovative equally present, you can get Shepherd’s obedient faith as part of union. And that would also account for efforts (per union centrism) to condemn the Lutheran view as antinomian (which Reformed theologians had not argued) and the effort (also union-centric) to find room for a real personal righteousness in the believer (a la Kinnaird).
So the behind union lurks antinomianism and neonomianism. If forced to choose I don’t see how you avoid coming down on the antinomian side, as in faith alone, not works, are necessary for salvation.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle-
Larger Catechism Question 77: Wherein do justification and sanctification differ?
Answer: Although sanctification be INSEPARABLY joined with justification, yet they differ, in that God in justification imputes the righteousness of Christ; in sanctification his Spirit infuses grace, and enables to the exercise thereof; in the former, sin is pardoned; in the other, it is subdued: the one does equally free all believers from the revenging wrath of God, and that perfectly in this life, that they never fall into condemnation; the other is neither equal in all, nor in this life perfect in any, but growing up to perfection.
LikeLike
“I confess that we are deprived of this blessing [justification] until Christ is made ours. Therefore, that joining together of head and members, that indwelling of Christ in our hearts–in short, that mystical union–are accorded by us the highest degree of importance, so that Christ, having been made ours, makes us sharers with him in the gifts with which he has been endowed. We do not, therefore, contemplate him outside ourselves from afar in order that his righteousness may be imputed to us but because we put on Christ and are engrafted into his body–in short, because he deigns to make us one with him. For this reason, we glory that we have fellowship of righteousness with him.†-John Calvin. Institutes 3.11.10
LikeLike
What’s your point that Owen wrote a whole fat volume on the death of death? Owen gives union a priority that you seem to reject. Owen was not, of course, alone. Did he have trouble with the forensic? I hope not.
John
LikeLike
The point would be that Owen (to my knowledge) did not write a fat volume on union. Which would go along with Murray’s point about the forensic, not union, being the crux of the Reformation.
The other point is that union is not the ground of justification. The righteousness of Christ is. So why is it that the current formulations of union want to make it the “ground” of justification?
LikeLike
Jared, thanks for those. Calv. Inst. 3.11 was precisely what I had in mind when I said that Calvin teaches the priority of union.
Dr. Hart: We recall further that Shepherd’s teaching grew out of the reaction against Zane Hodges and Charles Ryrie and the teaching that one could be justified through faith alone without experiencing sanctification also. I’m just old enough to remember the “Lordship Salvation” kerfluffle.
The particular issue with Hodges was that he taught a forensic justification that was apart from participation in Christ through the Spirit. He himself, personally, was not antinomian — but his teaching opened the door wide to the “carnal Christian” concept.
In my limited understanding of the story, Murray and Shepherd separately reacted. Murray, with the notion of “definitive sanctification”; Shepherd, with the idea that faith and works are united together.
(I note with interest that Horton has a recent book on this issue also).
I say all this to explain a piece of history: I suspect that “priority of union” folk see declarations of “priority of justification” as being a throwback to justification without union — and thus opening the door to Hodges. I haven’t read that anywhere, it’s just my intuition.
And is not the converse true? Don’t “priority of justification” folk see Shepherd lurking under every “priority of union” rock?
LikeLike
Yes, you can … but you don’t have to. Reconsider John’s point about Owen: there is “priority of union” language that does *not* mean what Shepherd means. We’ve already mentioned Owen, Calvin, and Hoekema in this connection.
So what’s the difference between these three and Shepherd?
Actually, having recently read Shepherd’s 34 Theses, I’m struck that he could have been helped by a *better* understanding of union.
First, understanding union as the mechanism of the application of Jesus to us clears up the question about “union” vs. “Christ’s righteousness.”
It is equally true that
We are justified because we are united to Christ, and
We are justified because of Christ’s righteousness imputed to us
but those two sentences are equivocating on “because.” The first speaks to *how*; the second speaks to *why*. (For all that I don’t like about Aristotle, I occasionally appreciate his four types of causes).
Thus, the “ground” of our justification in the legal sense is always and only imputed righteousness. The means of our justification is union: We believe, which unites us to Christ and makes his righteousness ours. If you think of a coupling between man and God, faith is the man-side; union is the God-side. Faith is the sole instrument; union is God’s response; the whole thing is monergistic because the faith is priorly caused by the Spirit.
Second, placing the Spirit in the center of union as the dynamic maintainer of our relationship with God, as the seal guaranteeing our inheritance, clears out any question of the relationship of our works to faith. Faith receives; the Spirit produces. Isn’t that the teaching of Galatians?
(Thoughts on this)
Third, the various benefits (justification, sanctification, adoption, &c) might be connected to a central hub, but they are not therefore identical. And some of them, of necessity, must occur first. Justification, in particular, must occur prior to adoption.
Hence, I’m not comfortable with “final justification” language, even though I know why Gaffin says it like this. If we use this language, we need to always footnote it with “but the legal verdict happens directly upon faith” (as Gaffin has).
WRT Kennaird — there will always be “close calls” in heresy trials. That’s unavoidable. And choosing this side or that doesn’t protect us from having to make those close calls. For some, Lee Irons should have been vindicated; for others, he was “obviously’ out of accord with the Standards. It kinda depends on which allergens you’re sensitive to.
JRC
LikeLike
If Zane Hodges doesn’t provide justification for overturning the Reformation and justification by faith alone my neighbor with be happy to take his place.
And while I’m at it: God help Luther and Calvin is they’d had to deal with Zane Hodges…
LikeLike
DGH:
At the risk of making you disavow the above, that’s the closest expression of my own issue with union centrim I’ve read.
However, what always seems missing in every discussion (not directing this at you specifically) of this subject is the fact that God’s ways are higher than our ability to understand. From our own analogical logic me must still remember than correlation does not imply causation. It seems to me that distinction is often forgotten in these discussions. Because we are finite creatures, our logic as created by God is not capable of coping with all the interactions of the how, when (logically) and reasons why the different aspects of salvation are manifested by the Holy Spirit in elect. I would like to see a serious discussion how the interaction of justification and union with Christ is not something that is a secret thing that belongs to God. That fact we are justified by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ received by faith alone and the fact we are joined to Christ are revealed and belong to us, because those are revealed in Scripture. However, the method of working of the Holy Spirit in applying that to us has not been sufficiently demonstrated to be revealed, and until it is I think a lot of this is unprofitable. Has any of us been the counsellor of God that makes this our business? (cf Job 40 & 41)
Nevertheless, an honest reading of the Reformed Confessions especially the WCF, WLC & WSC place the emphasis on the forensic and I am convinced they do so correctly reflecting the teaching of scripture. Does that mean I deny any idea of union with Christ for believers? — No, I just see it more as expression the fullness of benefits of salvation.
LikeLike
But you are missing the point. Owen calls the doctrine of justification the doctrine by which the church stands or falls. However, notice where he places justification in relation to union. He’s doing the same thing that Gaffin is doing. It’s pretty hard to deny that. That is why it is irresponsible to call Gaffin’s views on union “unique” when you consider the quotes I have provided from Owen. Owen’s vol. 5 is the place to read his mature thoughts on justification, not vol. 10 (the death of death).
John
LikeLike
I’m probably just repeating what Darryl has already said, but the main difficulty I have in understanding this “union with Christ” emphasis, which wants to make justification and santification the simultaneous benefits of union, is that in the process of doing so “faith” seems to get removed as the instrumental cause of justification. Faith is made the instrumental cause of union (vital union with Christ in time, as opposed to federal union with Christ from eternity), and union then becomes the instrumental cause of justification. Justification is no longer “by faith” any more than definitive santification, progressive sanctification, adoption, perseverance and glorificaiton are “by faith.” Is that the proper conclusion?
LikeLike
Jeff, no, emphasizing union doesn’t have to work out in either Shepherd or Kinnaird. But has it ever occurred to you where some of the pro-union folk are regarding the controversies over justification that have been simmering since Shepherd and spilled out on to ECT, New Perspective, and Kinnaird, and that finally forced the OPC to issue a report on justification? What I have heard most often is the same line (from unionists) that Shepherd said — we must avoid holding to a Lutheran understanding of justification. Last time I checked, no Reformed church or theologian from the 17th c. condemned Lutheranism for its doctrine of the forensic nature of justification or its importance. And yet, Lutheranism, not Shepherd or ECT, receives criticism. Very strange.
LikeLike
I thought Zane Hodges wrote Westerns.
LikeLike
Andy, I would say “no.” Think about imputation, which is commonly and correctly considered to be the mechanism by which justification takes place. Because there is an underlying mechanism, would we therefore say that justification is removed from faith as the instrumental cause? Definitely not.
Think again about how imputation is described, as “being clothed with the righteousness of Christ.” This means that the righteousness of Jesus has already been applied to us, forensically speaking. We are, in this metaphor, in Christ.
The problem here is thinking of “union” as something different from “Christ applied to us.” If we understand that those two are the same thing, then it’s clear that “union” is simply the mechanism for justification. Or put another way, that the legal aspect of union *is* imputation, which entails justification.
So yes: we want to resist any view that separates justification from faith. But no: the priority of union does not do this. At least not in Calvin.
LikeLike
Andrew, I sympathize with what you write about the mysteries of God’s ways and I find incredibly ironic that the insights of redemptive historical theology that were supposed to put historia salutis on the table with the ordo has actually riveted the discussion of ordo in specifics akin to dispensationlists about the sequence of the rapture and Christ’s return. But I do think that the confessions of the 16th and 17th centuries are clear about the importance and centrality of the forensic. Joe Friday would be happy.
LikeLike
John, where did Owen say that union was the doctrine on which the church stands or falls. You may think that his high esteem for union implies that notion, but nothing you wrote here says it directly. This is I fear another indication of the way that union has replaced and decentered justification.
Whatever the point of your quotes of Owen mean, I do think it is interesting that one of the foremost scholars on Owen could write the following about justification (that would be Carl Trueman):
“. . . if one wishes to historicize and relativize imputation by claiming that this doctrine did in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries what some other doctrine can or must do today, one needs to revise and reconstruct a whole host of other doctrines to make the claim coherent; and in doing so, if one is being honest, one is really required to abandon anything even vaguely resembling confessional Reformed orthodoxy. One can repeat the shibboleth of, say “union with Christ†indefinitely – and such a concept is certainly germane to Reformed theology – but unless this is clearly set within a solid, federal scheme akin to that outlined by Buchanan, the content of the phrase will not be Reformed in any meaningful, historic, confessional way. . . . both the content of justification and its basic placement within the federal structure of Reformed theology are clear and nonnegotiable for those committed by church vow to upholding the theology of the Westminster Standards.”
LikeLike
That’s odd. I would have thought that the Lutheran view of *sanctification* was at issue. Justification looks pretty much the same for Luther and Calvin, right? Christ’s alien righteousness imputed to us through the agency of faith to those elect from the foundation of the world. There’s a little hiccup between them wrt apostasy, but otherwise they seem to have the same view. Am I missing something?
To quote someone famous, “What denominational planet are you living on?” 😉
I would rate the relative Digg values of Luther, Shepherd, and ECT on a place like The Puritan Board or GreenBaggins at about 75, -5, and 10 respectively. Luther is the eccentric uncle with unusual sacramental views and mostly cool soteriology. Shepherd is the black sheep who had to move to the Netherlands. And ECT was the Trojan horse that almost destroyed justification by faith. Heck, Luther probably rates higher than Frame. 🙂
At least, that’s my perception of things.
JRC
LikeLike
This is a misunderstanding of what John said. It’s not “high esteem for union” — the priority is not in terms of *importance*! (In that case, Jesus has priority).
It has to do with mechanism. Owen says, “Here’s how it happens: we are united with Christ, leading to justification.”
That’s it.
I don’t know what Trueman was reacting to in his quote, but as applied to this situation, it’s way off-base.
Unless we can all agree to distinguish *mechanism* from *legal ground* and *causation* from *importance*, the two groups will continue to strive with one another.
JRC
LikeLike
DGH,
A scholar of your caliber and you make such a blatant mistake? Where did I say that Owen said union was the doctrine by which the church stands or falls? I will post again what I said:
“But you are missing the point. Owen calls the doctrine of justification the doctrine by which the church stands or falls. However, notice where he places justification in relation to union. He’s doing the same thing that Gaffin is doing. It’s pretty hard to deny that. That is why it is irresponsible to call Gaffin’s views on union “unique†when you consider the quotes I have provided from Owen. Owen’s vol. 5 is the place to read his mature thoughts on justification, not vol. 10 (the death of death).”
So, back to my point: Owen says JUSTIFICATION is the doctrine by which the church stands or falls. But you have to acknowledge that justification flows out of union, not vice versa. That is the debate, and that is why Gaffin is not advocating what some call “a new perspective on union”. He’s saying nothing that Owen (and many others) have not said before.
I affirm what Trueman says. But if you want to speak about how great justification is, forensically understood, I will join you. I’m more interested, however, in what you think of Owen’s position that union precedes justification, that it is the most glorious of all the graces believers possess.
John
LikeLike
If John Owen got more theologically mature after writing Death of Death in the Death of Christ I’m personally frightened.
LikeLike
>A scholar of your caliber and you make such a blatant mistake? Where did I say that Owen said union was the doctrine by which the church stands or falls?
That fact that Owen didn’t say that is the point. DGH was being ironic. Or, maybe he was being some other word, but I’ll say ironic. An ironic rhetorical question which made the point.
LikeLike
Maybe we should see what Owen says about union in Death of Death in the Death of Christ? Not that I want to be a part in furthering quote wars. We’ve seen enough of that from the FVers. My favorite:
“I support. The Pope…” – John Calvin
LikeLike
I once spent a miserable night in the Zanesville, OH town square after our car broke down.
Dr. Hart, put the shoe on the other foot. Which Reformers have argued as you have here, that justification is the cause of union?
JRC
LikeLike
Jeff:
Did you know there’s a Zane Grey museum in Zanesville? Grey was born there, and he was a descendant of the town’s founders.
Ohio is so cool!
LikeLike
Jeff, don’t you at least have to agree that in this scheme the connection between justification and faith is no different than the connection between glorification and faith? If faith leads to union, and all other aspects of the application of redemption flow out of union, then the emphasis on a unique relationship between faith and justification is misquided.
LikeLike
>Dr. Hart, put the shoe on the other foot. Which Reformers have argued as you have here, that justification is the cause of union?
It’s a silly question. You’re switching terms and playing games. In the real world, which is the world of spiritual warfare where the devil wants you thinking that your own works save you *justification* by faith alone is the ground on which a believer stands not union by faith alone.
This is all the endless attacks of false teachers who *always* attack at the point of justification by faith alone. Whether they are up river denying the Covenant of Works, or more down river denying the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, or laying beside the swirling waters of the stream with a leaf in their fingers idly speculating that might not union come before justification, hence…
Wake up. The basics are not difficult. They are known. They are armor of God. Put them on. Use them.
LikeLike
@RL: Yes, I did … my dad’s a fan.
@Andy: Explain more. There is a unique relationship between faith and justification in that “faith is the alone instrument of justification.”
However, justification is not the alone fruit of faith. Quite the contrary, according to WCoF 14, justification, sanctification, and eternal life in general are the fruits of faith.
So if your concern is that by emphasizing union through faith, I’m allowing faith to drive things other than justification, then I refer you to the Confession.
If your concern is that by emphasizing union, I’m introducing another instrument of justification, then I’m simply not.
So say more.
JRC
LikeLike
Christian: I’m happy to have a civil conversation with you, but not an abusive one. Others besides yourself have taken a vow to uphold the purity of the church, and they take it seriously.
LikeLike
>Christian: I’m happy to have a civil conversation with you, but not an abusive one. Others besides yourself have taken a vow to uphold the purity of the church, and they take it seriously.
Every priest of the Beast of Rome takes vows. Every false teacher in a Protestant church or seminary probably has taken some kind of vow. The devil himself can tell me he’s taken a vow to uphold the truth of God’s Word. Why? The devil is a liar. So are his children. Especially the ones who infiltrate rare churches and seminaries that are teaching the truth.
It’s been explained rather clearly above by others. Union allows you to import something that justification by faith alone forces you to keep out. You don’t just like the fuzzy feeling of the term ‘union with Christ.’ You have ulterior motive.
And as long as you are intent on smuggling works righteousness into Calvinism, or Reformed Theology, you don’t even have union with Christ, what you claim to value. You have union with old Adam. What you had at birth.
LikeLike
How long will false teachers attack justification by faith alone, in all the many and common ways they attack it and have attacked it in all eras of the history of redemption?
Until the return of the King.
How long will God’s elect confront the false teachers and continue to defend the truth of justification by faith alone?
Until the return of the King.
LikeLike
“When the devil accuses us and says, ‘You are a sinner and therefore damned,’ we should answer, ‘Because you say I am a sinner, I will be righteous and saved.’ ‘No,’ says the devil, ‘you will be damned.’ And I reply, ‘No, for I fly to Christ, who gave himself for my sins. Satan, you will not prevail against me when you try to terrify me by setting forth the greatness of my sins and try to bring me into heaviness, distrust, despair, hatred, contempt and blasphemy against God. On the contrary, when you say I am a sinner, you give me armor and weapons against yourself, so that with your own sword I may cut your throat and tread you under my feet, for Christ died for sinners. . . . As often as you object that I am a sinner, so often you remind me of the benefit of Christ my Redeemer, on whose shoulders, and not on mine, lie all my sins. So when you say I am a sinner, you do not terrify me but comfort me immeasurably.’â€
Martin Luther, commenting on Galatians 1:4
Biblical doctrine should be seen as a confrontation between yourself and the devil. What does the devil want you to think? How does the devil want you to be? How does the armor of God fight all the wiles and temptations and attacks of the devil? Apostolic biblical doctrine (what was recovered at the Reformation) is the armor, defensive and offensive, one uses in this confronation with the devil, the world, and the flesh (your inner Old Man).
You, naked ‘soldier’, walking around blowing dandilions, calling yourself ‘in union’ with Christ. You are a sinner in need of justification by the blood of Christ. Get some armor on. You’re on a battlefield. Anyway, when you get regenerated by the Word and the Spirit you know you are on a battlefield. The devil, the world, your inner Old Man then notice you and confront you.
LikeLike
Christian, consider your own words.
Now consider the words of Paul: The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.
Now ask yourself: do your words convey patience, kindness, gentleness, self-control? Or dissension, discord, and rage?
Don’t listen to me. Listen to the Word of God and judge yourself. Isn’t that what Jesus commanded? To judge oneself before judging your brother?
Here’s one way that the devil wins: he provokes you to imagine me as the enemy so that you vent your rage on me.
Keep reminding yourself: “Not against flesh and blood.” I’m not the enemy. Walk back the anger. Meditate on James’ teachings about the tongue. Be quick to listen, slow to anger.
“But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.”
Sincerely,
Jeff Cagle
LikeLike
Hi Jeff,
If I understand the argument, faith is the alone instrument of union, and out of union flows justification, sanctification, adoption, etc. Yet you still want to maintain that “faith is the alone instrument of justification.” Do you also maintain then that “faith is the alone instrument of sanctification” and the “alone instrument of adoption,” etc. Is faith the “alone instrument” of all the benefits of “redemption applied?”
I’m not trying to dispute any argument at this point, just trying to understand it.
LikeLike
Don Garlington: “It is the contention of this paper that the free gift of righteousness comes our way by virtue of union with Christ, not imputation as classically defined.†Moreover, “Paul’s purpose is not to articulate a dogma of imputation, but to demonstrate that faith is the great equalizer of nations.†From:
Click to access Imputation.pdf
Richard Gaffin: “Not justification by faith but union with the resurrected Christ by faith (of which union, to be sure, the justifying aspect stands out perhaps the most prominently) is the central motif of Paul’s applied soteriology.†(Resurrection and Redemption, p. 132.)
Compare with:
John Calvin: “Thus, him who he receives into union with himself the Lord is said to justify, because he cannot receive him into grace nor join him to himself unless he turns him from a sinner into a righteous man. We add that this is done through forgiveness of sins.†(Inst. Sec. 21, p. 751.)
Notice, “cannot…join him to himself [union] unless….through forgiveness of sins [justification].”
L. Berkhof: “It is sometimes said that the merits of Christ cannot be imputed to us as long as we are not in Christ [union with Christ—VC], since it is only on the basis of our oneness with Him that such an imputation could be reasonable. But this view fails to distinguish between our legal unity with Christ and our spiritual oneness with Him, and is a falsification of the fundamental element in the doctrine of redemption, namely, of the doctrine of justification.†(Systematic Theology, p. 452.)
Which sounds more like the gospel: Darlington and Gaffin, or Calvin and Berkhof?
LikeLike
>Which sounds more like the gospel: Darlington and Gaffin, or Calvin and Berkhof?
This is why FVers melt like that wicked witch at the name of Berkhof. With his background in historical theology he pretty much mentioned and hence ironically anticipated and exposed most all the ‘novelties’ false teachers have put forward from since the resurrection.
LikeLike
John, I see now that I was wrong in what you said about Owen on the doctrine by which the church stands or falls. Sorry. I see now also that I am no scholar. God have mercy.
If you agree with Trueman then why do you think that union is the most precious benefit? Why not justification, if it is indeed the doctrine by which the church stands or falls.
If it is simply a question of justification or union’s priority in the ordo, then I don’t see what all the bother is on either side. I am not that happy with trying to discern the inner workings of the Holy Spirit. If it makes me Lutheran to look to Christ and the promises of God, then so be it.
But I think that your reactions here, John, suggest that this is more than an academic interest about ordo. You seem to think that union is more important than justification. My sense is that such a thought does not see how consoling the doctrine of justification is, and that it fails to see the truly evangelical nature of the Reformation.
Would you say that someone who doesn’t understand union misunderstands the gospel? Or would you say that someone who doesn’t understand justification misunderstands the gospel?
LikeLike
Jeff, I live on the Presbyterian planet and in case you missed it, the PCA and OPC have been struggling of late over justification ever since Shepherd, who spawned among other things, Federal Vision, which both communions have had to address. Also, within the OPC the criticisms of WSC for Lutheranism have been pronounced. Here is a link to several links: http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/01/31/godfrey-and-vandrunen-reply-to-garcia/ And just to put the icing on the cake comes the Kerux business from the other side of the aisle.
I see why you think the Lutheran doctrine of sanctification would be a problem. But it is the Lutheran doctrine of justification that is the root of the problem with sanctification. It is antinomian, so the Reformed need a different purer doctrine of justification to avoid Lutheranism’s error.
As to you question about which Reformers said justification causes union. First, are you saying so crudely that union CAUSES justification? I am not saying that justification causes union. I myself am agnostic about ordo matters and don’t see why we need pre-trib (justification) rapture (union) for orthodoxy. What I am saying is that union was not the crux of the Reformation, and that justification was and continues to be.
LikeLike
Not quite. It’s not
Faith –> Union –> Justification.
Rather, it’s
“Those whom God effectually calleth, He also freely justifieth … by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith.”
Our union with Him (as far as justification goes) consists of resting on Him. His righteousness comes to us by imputation. We are united with Him. What is His, is ours.
In other words, “union with Christ” is not a thing, a separate piece of the ordo; it is a description of our relationship to Him. We are “in Him.” It is *how* the ordo occurs.
JRC
LikeLike
It really is simply that question, and this side of the keyboard wasn’t particularly bothered until the pitchforks came out. In my opinion, Garcia, van Drunen, and Clark should figure out how to agree with each other instead of anathematizing each other. The children are watching.
JRC
LikeLike
@DGH: Sorry to be testy above. I really do think, though, that this should not be an area of contention.
The problem with your question (“which is more important, justification or union?”) is that you are comparing unlike things.
Union with Christ is not a part of the ordo salutis; it’s not a benefit that can be compared to justification in importance. It is simply a description of the nature of our relationship to Christ: He is in us, we are in Him.
It is *how* justification happens — His righteousness belongs to us (forensically).
Take a standard ordo:
election, regeneration, faith/conversion, justification, sanctification, glorification.
Union doesn’t appear. It never does. Why? Because union is not a thing that happens to us; it is the way in which those things (justification and what follows) happen to us: Christ is ours and we are His.
JRC
LikeLike
DGH,
All I did was quote Owen on union with Christ. He’s one of the most significant thinkers the Reformed tradition has produced. I don’t really care what Trueman writes about Owen; I provided actual primary source quotes. If you don’t like the language he uses to describe how wonderful union is, then fine. My point is that the doctrine seemed pretty significant to Owen; in fact, Owen sounds a lot like Gaffin.
Like I said, justification is the article by which the church stands or falls. But it is interesting that Owen said, and I repeat, that union is the “greatest, most honorable, and glorious of all graces.†Union with Christ is first in respect of causality and efficacy, that is, “it is the cause of all other graces that we are made partakers of.â€
He adds: “our union with him is the ground of the actual imputation of his righteousness unto us.â€
I think Owen’s been unduly influenced by the new perspective on union crowd ….
John
LikeLike
Jeff: “Union with Christ is not a part of the ordo salutis”
That’s true for Gaffin. But only because he thinks that the unions is the ordo salutis. He says, “This, in a nutshell, is Calvin’s ordo salutis: union with Christ by (Spirit-worked) faith.” Gaffin want’s to replace the ordo with his theory of union, not explain the ordo with his theory union. He does this because he also wants to be able claim that there is no logical or temporal priority to justification vis-a-vis sanctification. This, I think, is a contradiction of Reformed orthodoxy.
LikeLike
Unio mystica re the ordo salutis, according to Richard Muller, was seen by Protestant scholastics to correspond to adoption, first, then sanctification throughout the life of the believer.
See Muller’s Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms.
LikeLike
The reason the mystical union with Christ correlates to adoption (a part of justification) is because it is a legal act. Union occurs in and following justification. I.e. becoming a child of God. Adopted into God’s family.
LikeLike
Jeff, is union the only way of describing our relationship to God? What about children, body, bride, saved? And what about the way that union has decentered justification?
BTW, it’s not as if the pitchforks came out from VanDrunen or Clark on Garcia or Gaffin prior to Garcia’s review of the WSC volume. For some reason, some union proponents are really quite wary of a Lutheran construction of justification and want to insist on a truly Reformed one. Someone who spoke that way was Norman Shepherd.
So these are not baggageless questions.
LikeLike
John, well, the scholar in me is not overly impressed by one quote from Owen on union. He did write a lot, and I if he wrote, as you say, that justification is the doctrine by which the church stands or falls, then how do you decide that he believed union was the most precious benefit? Compared to the doctrine by which the church stands or falls? Might you need to read a lot more widely in Owen to make a judgement about the importance of union?
I am still curious what your answer is to this: Would you say that someone who doesn’t understand union misunderstands the gospel? Or would you say that someone who doesn’t understand justification misunderstands the gospel?
I’ll accept an answer of 25 words or less, or more.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Many Reformed theologians have spoken of a seed of faith or a faith faculty in children of the covenant. They have spoken of this faith as maybe lying dormant for years before being watered by means of grace and flowering into full faith.
Does your view of Union as mechanism mean that faith, repentance, and conversion must immediately follow such union or does it allow for a seed of faith in which these other graces can follow at a later time?
LikeLike
Possibly, and Yes.
(I would fix that person’s understanding of justification first, though.)
No.
Explain what “center” means and then we can talk about whether justification has been “decentered.”
—
All: Let’s start from the top.
Justification
Means, a declaration of righteousness in God’s eyes, both a forgiveness of sins and a positive decree of “righteous!” It occurs when a sinner, moved by the effectual call of the Spirit, rests and relies on Christ alone for salvation. It occurs by the mechanism of imputation: Christ’s righteousness is reckoned as mine.
Union
Means, a uniting of Christ with me. Not in an essence sense, as Osiander taught, but rather that
(1) the benefits of Christ come to me, and
(2) the righteousness of Christ comes to me through the agency of the HS.
The idea of union is not a separate piece of the ordo but rather a relationship, a preposition — we are in Christ.
Notice that imputation is one consequence of union; infusion is a separate consequence of union. Hence are justification and sanctification ever distinct.
JFBA
Faith is the alone instrument of justification because faith receives Christ’s righteousness imputed.
From this, it is clear that “union” is not a separate thing, but a description of how Christ relates to the saved sinner: He provides righteousness, both imputed for justification and infused for sanctification. We are “in Him” (clothed in His righteousness); He is “in us” (through the agency of the Spirit).
That this is the classic Reformed view is beyond dispute:
I could add Hoekema, a strong union guy, but what would be the point? A moment’s attention to the sources above demonstrates beyond question that justification is a fruit of union is a proper Reformed statement.
JRC
LikeLike
No matter how many times and how clearly you disabuse these wicked fools of their false teachings they dig in and double down. They are unteachable because they don’t value the truth. And they have nothing but their dishonest quoting of theologians (whose quotes above don’t prove their case, notice, not one) who in their day would grin and pin a note to their collar saying: “This one is lost. Buy this one a ticket back to Rome.”
Just step back and see how little they value anything but their own fallen demands. And if anyone thinks they are just ignorant rather than wicked you’re wrong. Their target, what they hate because the devil tells them to hate it, is the same as it’s always been in all eras: justification by faith alone. The devil counsels them: “Say you’re for it, but then redefine it. And do it over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Never let up. We will defeat their ‘god’. This is a war we will win.”
No. Actually, you’ve already lost.
LikeLike
By the way, Jeff went to a Federal Vision site for those boilerplate quotes. I would suspect he didn’t even read them. Just copied and pasted them. I mean, if he’d actually read them he’d have seen most don’t even make his case in an ‘out of context’ manner.
LikeLike
If one has not read Garcia (*raises hand*), one has no particular pitchfork to heft. I learned Gaffin from one of his protoges, Dr. Griffith, who had nary a bad word to say about “Lutheran constructions of justification” — but a couple of warnings about Shepherd.
So while I sympathize (really, I do) with your getting a couple of misguided tines in you, please believe that everyone is not out to get you. I’m certainly not.
Shepherd’s over-reaction was unfortunate, but it’s not profitable (or fair!) to tag every “union” guy with his name.
JRC
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle said: “All: Let’s start from the top.”
This is the common call of the false teacher. Or in the case of Jeff, the follower of the false teachers. This is their common call, especially just after they’ve been confronted, exposed, and defeated from stem to stern.
LikeLike
It’s odd, Christian, that you would know how I generated my quotes. Unfortunately for you, here are my sources:
Calvin
Turretin
C. Hodge
AA Hodge
2nd Helvetic
Raymond I typed in directly from the text.
Confronted with the facts, will you repent, or triple down?
Here’s the address of the Stated Clerk of my Presbytery:
David A. O’Steen
Chesapeake Presbytery – PCA
225 S. Rogers Street
Aberdeen, MD 21001
You can contact Presbytery and tell them that I should be brought up on charges for abandoning the doctrine of justification by grace through faith, because I think that we are justified as a fruit of our union with Christ.
Be sure to link to our conversation here. And give your actual name.
Good luck.
(But really … please repent. This is shameful. I’m embarrassed to have to defend myself in this way, and I’m only doing it because I would hate to leave the impression that there’s a grain of truth in your accusations.)
JRC
LikeLike
So Jeff, how do you explain Garlington and Gaffin dissing imputation and justification by faith with their concept of union?
Also, if you are correct that union is the big thing, why was Paul charged with teaching antinomianism?
LikeLike
Jeff, I’ve just skimmed your blog, and I can see now you are a bit of a neophyte regarding all this doctrine. I have though made the distinction in my comments above between the false teachers and their duped followers. You’re apparently in the latter group. That mitigates your situation only in that you potentially only have a brain problem and not a heart problem.
Still, though, I discern the same petulance and doggedness mixed with disrespect for any authority that refuses to conform to your demands. You also play the usual game of not responding to people if they expose you at a core level. I.e. you, as is usual with false teachers, are playing the game of being willing to sacrifice your public reputation so as to fool innocents. In other words, you say: I know you guys who know the issues are on to me, but I won’t ever admit it or publicly recognize it because I am only interested in deceiving the innocents currently viewing the discussion.
Not good, Jeff.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Shepherd’s overreaction was unfortunate? That’s it? To get justification wrong is an overeaction? Is that what Paul said?
I can play quotes too:
“What is effectual calling? Effectual calling is the work of God’s Spirit, whereby convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, he persuades and enables us to embrace Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel.
“What benefits do they that are effectually called partake of in this life? The benefits which they that are effectually called do in this life partake of justification, adoption, and sanctification, and the several benefits which in this life do accompany or flow from them.
“What is justification? Justification is an act of God’s free grace, wherein he pardons all our sin and accepts us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ, imputed to us and received by faith alone.”
Where’s union? You can understand a lot about justification without ever mentioning union. I do see a lot of effectual calling. Is effectual calling chopped liver? In fact, if union is so pervasive why no chapter on it the Standards or Three Forms of Unity?
My point is not to deny union. The point is to see what Murray saw who affirmed union. Union is not the crux of the Reformation, justification is. In which case elevating union means getting the Reformation wrong.
LikeLike
Jeff, ignore my latest and engage Vern Crisler’s and DGH’s latest. I mean, really engage them directly. I’ll take a 50-yard-line seat.
LikeLike
Vern:
I don’t read Don Garlington, so I can’t speak about him.
In the case of Gaffin, his concern is with the concept of ordo, not justification or imputation.
Take it up with him … I’m not a “Gaffin” guy.
LikeLike
There’s no substance here. You’re flogging me for failing to use the right invective.
Union is right there in the word “imputation.” You’re a (very) smart guy. You know that theology is not a word game but is a matter of concept.
How am I justified? Christ’s righteousness is forensically mine. That’s union.
No, you don’t have to use the word “union” to describe that relationship. But you cannot describe justification correctly without saying that the righteousness I have, is Christ’s given to me.
JRC
LikeLike
Dear Dr. Hart, I wrote and then deleted a steamed response to this.
I appreciate that you wish to magnify the importance of justification. I agree with that importance.
Nothing I have said denigrates that importance. Nothing.
I have two appeals to you. First, please read what I’ve said and show me what you find to be in actual error. I’m not Gaffin, Garcia, Shepherd, or Federal Vision, and it’s not profitable to walk down the trail of your disagreements with them. I do not carry their baggage.
Instead, please interact with, for example, the quotes I’ve provided. Do they not demonstrate the basic thesis that “union is a fruit of justification” is a Reformed thought?
Second, please observe that your polemic with me has left unrebuked some accusations that are quite undeserved. I believe you know them to be undeserved. As the “resident expert”, your silence and continued polemic leaves the impression that you approve of them. In light of that, could you make it a practice, not simply to disagree with what I say, but to affirm also the points where we agree?
Thank you,
Jeff Cagle
LikeLike
Excuse me, the first appeal should read,
“Do they not demonstrate the basic thesis that ‘justification is a fruit of union’ is a Reformed thought?”
LikeLike
>“Do they not demonstrate the basic thesis that ‘justification is a fruit of union’ is a Reformed thought?â€
That was actually the second time you mis-wrote that.
You can’t be in union with God without justification. These aren’t mere words. Doctrine correlates to inner states and one’s standing with the Triune God.
Unio mystica implies adoption as a child of God. Adoption implies justification. It is a matter of *legal standing.* You are not born a child of God. (Maybe that is a point you are confused on.)
You’re playing with these terms based on reading lightweights and worse. You can’t yet discern (I hope this is your current situation) the subtle and age-old attacks on justification by faith alone.
You side-stepped V. Crisler’s post above, and completely punted on Paul and antinomianism. You also punted on the Westminster Confession of Faith DGH provided.
You can’t claim you have no baggage when everything you are carrying is stenciled with the name of your teachers.
LikeLike
Name them.
LikeLike
Your Calvin quote doesn’t speak to ‘union prior to justification.’
Your 2nd Helvetic Confession doesn’t put union prior to justification. We are justified at the point of faith. Now read that quote again.
The Charles Hodge quote is talking about faith as well. It does not put union prior to justification.
You’ve butchered the A. A. Hodge quote, and if you insist on standing by it I have his Outlines and will find what he stated. It nevertheless is not a carefully written passage on the relation of justification to union. I.e. it is not a passage on that subject. We can cherry pick such quotes from anywhere. I shouldn’t need to state this. This is game-playing.
The Turretin quote does not say union prior to justification. (One wonders why you bothered to post these quotes other than to hope nobody would actually read them and just assume they back up your views.)
The Reymond quote does not put union prior to justification. (I assume you meant R[e]ymond.)
LikeLike
>Name them.
You have a dedicated category for Federal Vision on your blog. I’ve come across you on other blogs. You seem to be one of the types that pretends to be lukewarm to FV while running interference for it and being an obvious advocate for it. You adopt all their rhetorical and po-mo nonsense (define ‘is’). Let’s start from the top. Let’s redefine everything. You don’t understand me. I can quote Calvin all day. See? I just did. It isn’t relevant to my position? Prove it. Let’s start again. Blah, blah, blah.
These are serious subjects, and you are being a troll with them.
LikeLike
I stand by the AA Hodge quote. It’s in the chapter on Union with Christ, around p. 320 if memory serves.
And you haven’t read very carefully. It’s not “union prior to justification”; it’s “justification by imputation, which is an aspect of our union.”
There’s not a microsecond of time between faith and justification; union with Christ is not a “thing” that occurs in the ordo. It is the means by which those things in the ordo are accomplished.
So tell me, O Expert on Heavyweights, which FV site did these quotes come from?
“If we recognize the two points that we have established thus far, namely that union with Christ undergirds the whole order of salvation, and that the legal aspects of our redemption are relational, then we must realize that justification is a legal aspect of our union with Christ.”
And this:
“”in Christ” we possess all of his righteousness, holiness, eternal life, justification, adoption, and blessing. Further, “Even when we were dead in trespasses, God made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus…” (Eph.2:5). “I have been crucified with Christ,” Paul declares, “and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me” (Gal.2:20).
Thus, this doctrine is the wheel which unites the spokes of salvation and keeps them in proper perspective. “In Christ” (i.e., through union with him) appears, by my accounting, nine times in the first chapter of Ephesians. Chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, God has thus “made us accepted in the Beloved.” He cannot love us directly because of our sinfulness, but he can love us in union with Christ, because he is the one the Father loves. “In him we have redemption”; “in him we have an inheritance,” and so on.”
And this:
“IT is through this union to Christ that the whole application of redemption is effectuated on the sinner’s soul. Although all the fullness of the Godhead dwelleth bodily in Him since His glorification, yet until the union of Christ is effected, the believer partakes of none to its completeness. When made one with His Redeeming Head, then all the communicable graces of that Head begin to transfer themselves to him. Thus we find that each kind of benefit which makes up redemption is, in different parts of the Scripture, deduced from this union as their source; justification, spiritual strength, life, resurrection of the body, good works, prayer and praise, sanctification, perseverance, &c., &c”
These quotes also demonstrate that “justification is a fruit of our union with Christ.”
LikeLike
Jeff said,
union with Christ is not a “thing†that occurs in the ordo. It is the means by which those things in the ordo are accomplished.
Sorry for my ignorance but isn’t regeneration in the restrictive sense, the new life principle, or effectual calling the means by which the things in the ordo are accomplished?
Is effectual calling a part of Union with Christ?
LikeLike
DGH,
I think you are consistently missing my point. How many times do I have to say that I agree with Owen that the doctrine of justification is the doctrine by which the church stands or falls? I’d repeat it again, but I’m not sure there’s any point. My point, however, was to show you the so-called order for Owen: union > justification, not justification > union. That’s all. Plus, I thought it interesting how Owen places so much emphasis on union being the greatest blessing. And, for your information, I’ve read pretty much all of Owen’s corpus and have published several articles on him alone.
I think Bavinck makes an interesting point about justification and sanctification: “Hence, the two are equally necessary and are proclaimed in Scripture with equal emphasis….Justification and sanctification…grant the same benefitsâ€, namely, “the entire Christ†(III.249). If not Owen, do you agree with Bavinck?
John
LikeLike
Oh, a Federal Vision category on my blog. Well-spotted. You mean like the one on RS Clark’s blog? And Lane Keister’s? Excellent deduction.
If you go beyond skimming my blog, you will discover the following:
(1) I engage with FV advocates because I care for them as fellow members of the visible church. It is my hope that some will turn from what errors are found in their teaching.
Please excuse the fact that my tone with them is friendly rather than otherwise.
Nevertheless, my aim is reclamation.
(2) I have publicly staked out definite positions on ecclesiology, imputation, election, and forgiveness that set me at odds with FV advocates, especially “dark.”
(3) The reason I “define things” and “start at the top” is that I’m trying to be *careful* in analysis. There are other ways to go about that; this is mine.
(4) I do not give an inch in redefining terms that are (a) in Scripture, or (b) in the Standards. The first, because God’s Word is of highest priority, and sets norms on our language usage. The second, because it would be confusing.
(5) I “run interference” insofar as I care about due process and treating people fairly. I was glad at the outcome of the Wilkins trial; I was appalled at the “trial by Internet” that preceded it.
Christian, you have forced me into some foolishness in defending myself. I could add to it the testimony of others as to the soundness of my doctrine.
But none of this will matter — unless you can “man up” and admit that you’ve jumped the gun here. You don’t actually have the ability to look inside someone else’s heart and see ulterior motives. You don’t know who I’ve been taught by. You don’t actually have very much knowledge about me at all. It’s just guess-work that you feel certain about.
Feeling certain is not the same thing as knowledge. That’s why we need the Scripture.
Come on, back down, stop the testosterone, and let’s have a real conversation. Do we really want to create the parties of “justification first!” and “No, union first!”? Is that what theology is good for?
As your (very very grumpy) brother,
Jeff Cagle
LikeLike
Careful … the pitchforks might start flying.
The correct Shibboleth is that “faith is the alone instrument of justification.”
The ordo starts with effectual calling But effectual calling by itself does not produce, say, sanctification. That is caused instead by the indwelling HS, with whom we cooperate (WCoF 13, esp. 13.3). Likewise, saving faith is the result of effectual calling, but is not the same as effectual calling.
I would say that we are “in Christ” through faith: the moment of faith is the moment of being in Christ (which is also the moment of being justified. Put the pitchfork down, Christian.)
I think the Dabney article does this justice.
JRC
LikeLike
Union isn’t “the big thing”; it is the means by which Christ’s benefits come to us, including His righteousness imputed to us.
Why would this be related to charges of Paul’s antinomianism? (The only occasion I can recall is in Acts, and there it was something quite different … circumcision.)
JRC
LikeLike
Just in case anyone was in doubt about the Reymond quote, here he is again:
Reymond apparently thinks of it more strongly and more “priorly” than I do — he grounds even our repentance and faith in union with Christ.
LikeLike
Likewise, saving faith is the result of effectual calling, but is not the same as effectual calling.
That’s why I thought it more appropriate to say that effectual calling is the means by which the things in the ordo are accomplished.
I brought up the seeds of faith thing earlier because I am re-reading “Saved by Grace” by Bavinck. This book deals with among other things Kuypers view on presupposed regeneration. It deals with the issue of whether or not someone can be regenerated, in the restrictive sense as infused with the new life principle, yet not manifesting the fruits of that new life til later in life.
Bavinck agrees with Kuyper on that point but in the introduction the editor notes:
“Moreover, we would be derelict in presenting Bavincks’s views if we failed to observe that, for Bavinck, all the blessings of salvation are tied to the covenant of grace and are only bestowed upon a person unto salvation in union with Christ. This is not a small point for Bavinck; it ought to be “in the foreground of our consciousness,” for “all the benefits of salvation are secured by Christ and present in him…” In fact, Christ distributes all the blessings of the covenant of grace at his pleasure, which include regeneration or new birth, faith and repentance, reconciliation and forgiveness, renewal and sanctification.”
LikeLike
Hi Jeff,
Your concept of union appears to be more like Berkhof’s “legal” union which is different from the mystical union. Darlington and Gaffin have a concept of union that undermines justification, as can be seen from their quotes. Which concept of union do you hold to?
If Paul was so clearly teaching that union was the main thing, rather than justification by faith alone, his critics would not have accused him of teaching a let-us-sin-that-grace-may-abound gospel.
LikeLike
Yes, you can see that Reymond also takes a broader view of union than I have. I would imagine that Bavinck would be a source for Hoekema.
I’m limiting my view of union just because I want to stick close to the Scripture here; we appear to be “in Christ” by faith. But I can see why people would consider the work of the Spirit in effectual calling to be the work of, well, certainly uniting people to Christ (as a goal), if not union with Christ (in the present tense).
JRC
LikeLike
Hi Vern,
I agree with you that I am recapitulating the “legal union” category that one finds even in Fesko and Horton (as above). I would endorse AA Hodge’s view: there is a forensic aspect of union and a vital aspect of union. We receive the first in toto at faith; the other, as it unfolds in the life of the believer. The first corresponds, roughly, to imputation; the second, roughly, to infusion.
However, I don’t separate the two, as if we receive one kind of union and then a “second blessing”; there is one Christ, whom we receive at faith.
—
About mystical union: My reading leads me to believe that “mystical union” is used variously in different authors … some, as the same as vital union; some as simply, “the union that we have with Christ, which is a mystery.”
So I would be careful to not assume that all “mystical union” language is experiential OR related to infusion. I’m speaking here with reference to Gaffin … it is my understanding that he sees union as having a separate forensic and infusion components. His beef with the ordo comes out of the question, “order according to which principle?” It is a recognized weakness with ordo talk that the ordo is (a) not strictly temporal, since several benefits occur simultaneously, but also (b) not strictly a logical order, since all of the benefits of salvation are logically equivalent
Meaning: if Bob has effectual calling, he necessarily has or will have all the rest; if he has justification, he necessarily has or will have all the rest; etc. So the presence of any one of the benefits implies the presence of all of the others at some point in time: they are logically equivalent.
It is my sense, not based on careful study, that Gaffin wishes to point out that the ordo concept has this weakness (it corresponds neither to a strict temporal nor a strict logical order). He would likely say that the ground of all of it is Christ.
But he seems at pains to separate forensic from experiential categories.
Again, I’m not a Gaffin expert. The best thing is to ask him directly.
JRC
LikeLike
Oh, yes, Rom 3. Thanks for the memory jog.
Paul was accused of teaching “let-us-sin-yada-yada” because he taught justification apart from works of the Law.
But he was able to teach that because he taught justification through faith in Christ.
So which is it? Is the main thing that we are justified through faith, or is the main thing that we are justified because Christ’s righteousness is ours?
And of course, the answer is Yes, both. Each is necessary to understand the other.
See, the problem is that some (not necessarily you or anyone here, just speaking generally) misunderstand union as a separate thing apart from the benefits of Christ to us. It’s not. The operational definition of union is the benefits we receive by being in Christ.
Take a look at Philippians 3:
Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh— though I myself have reasons for such confidence.
If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.
But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.
It’s all right there: the antidote to legalistic righteousness is righteous through faith (JFBA); it is righteousness by being found in Christ (union).
There’s not an ounce of daylight between the two.
JRC
LikeLike
Vern, to be fair to Gaffin, does his language of “applied soteriology” give him wiggle room? I’m not sure if that phrase is particularly helpful — applied as opposed to “theoretical soteriology”? But Gaffin does say, in tension with quotes like this, that he does not mean to decenter justification.
LikeLike
Christian, as much as I find it strangely exhilirating to be on “your” side in this one, I do think that phrases like “wicked fools” and “false teachers” is over the top. If I were a referee, I’d throw the flag.
LikeLike
It’s only over the top if a Jeff Cagle is genuinely confused. But these guys don’t just behave as one confused. They are bopping around with a troll’s grin on their face, equivocating with biblical terms, saying, in effect, you can’t catch me! Oh, look! I just wrote something that is orthodox! But look at me over here now! I’m saying something different! And the fact that it all mirrors known false teachers such as Federal Visionists doesn’t speak well for him. Does it? No, it doesn’t.
LikeLike
Jeff says: “justification is a fruit of union”
Then Jeff says: “And you haven’t read very carefully. It’s not ‘union prior to justification’; it’s ‘justification by imputation, which is an aspect of our union.'”
You can’t write these two statements without a) being extremely confused, or b) being a person who does not value the careful language biblical doctrine has been formulated in by Reformed theologians over the centuries and hence who does not value the doctrines themselves. If it’s the latter then he’s playing word games just like the Federal Vision pixies, and those guys have a known motive and goal: promoting works righteousness under the name of Reformed Theology. I.e. from within the tent of Reformed Theology.
LikeLike
I don’t much if any patience for these guys because when I first came to the point where I was finally valuing and gravitating towards orthodox doctrine and hence came into the neighborhood of Federal Theology I had to drive through the fog of 1) theonomists (who seemed to stealthily control every Calvinist forum on the internet at the time) and 2) the people who became known as Federal Vision. This is because they intentionally set up shop at places where beginners enter.
Now, I don’t think false teachers can fool God’s elect. But they can throw a lot of confusion around and do other things. Let me give you an example: the false teachers *know* when a real believer who they know they can’t fool shows up in one of their environments (or an environment where they have some, at least, control). And they really attempt to destroy that person. They begin with mocking you before you’ve really even said more than ‘hello.’ Then they unceremoniously declare *you* a troll and have you banned from the environment. So here you are, new to Calvinism, and these people (theonomists, Federal Vision, whatever) are identifying themselves as Calvinists. As someone new to the scene you’re left thinking, wow, what did I do?
I’m talking the internet. but they are doing it in church environments too. Anywhere they exist they’re doing it. In apologetic situations and events they’re doing it. These are not people who deserve charity. God comes down hard in Scripture on people who teach false doctrine in His name.
In my case I’d had enough of sound doctrinal teaching (and many dedicated readings of the Bible which is the foundation for being able to discern the truth) that I could begin to sort things out. But the behavior of these false teachers definitely leaves you with a low opinion of, if not Calvinist doctrine, then Calvinist environments. Because you think: why would Calvinists who know the truth allow these types around and allow them to treat new people like they do?
I’m someone who doesn’t associate teachings with humans. I.e. if something is true then it’s true despite which humans decide to associate themselves with it. But you can see how the devil and his children play for time. They can’t defeat God’s plan, but they can annoy God’s plan. Play for time. They lose in the end no matter what.
All this to say I’m easily chain-yanked by these types. The word games alone send me over the edge. I’d thought I’d left all that in the secular world. But it’s a battle everywhere until the return of the King.
LikeLike
Jeff, your claiming that union is “right there” in imputation indicates that you may implicitly be carrying more baggage than you know. I look at the word imputation and I don’t see union. I’ve read defenses of the active and passive obedience of Christ and I haven’t noticed union. But for you union is everywhere. It doesn’t seem to matter if the word is actually used or not.
Now maybe CVD is right: I don’t get out much. But I’ve been reading in REformed theology for over half of my ever widening life and I just haven’t noticed union being all that prominent in the literature. Sure, now I see that Calvin talked about it some, and I see the word mentioned in the Shorter Catechism on the application of redemption, and now I see a certain set of questions devoted to union in the Larger Catechism. (But so is communion so used and I don’t see folks all reved about Communion.)
Plus, when you look for the word in the Standards and Three forms of Union (tee hee) you get not much. In fact, the consistent appearance of the word is in connection with the union of Christ’s natures, and in discussion of union with Christ in the Supper.
So now union is important to lots of folks, and it comes at a time when justification and the forensic has taken a number of hits. Is that a coincidence? I don’t think it is.
You may think yourself free and clear from such associations, and perhaps you are. But just like when CVD mentioned 2k advocates who support gay marriage and I wanted to know more so that I could respond or consider the development accordingly in my own arguments for 2k, wouldn’t you want to know how union is susceptible to certain misconstructions, rather than blithely going on as if there is not a bag in the world attached to union?
LikeLike
John, I got your point. Did you get mine? Murray thought highly of union. He said that justification was the crux of the Reformation. Do you agree that justification was the crux of the Reformation?
And as for union being the most precious benefit, I can’t say it does as much for me as justification, as in what Heidelberg says in Q & A 60, “Even though my conscience accuses me of having grieviously sinnned against all God’s commandments and of never having kept any of them, and even though I am still inclined toward all evil, nevertheless, without my deserving it at all, out of sheer grace, God grants and credits to me the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ, as if I had never sinned nor been a sinner, as if I had been perfectly obedient as Christ was obedient for me.”
To borrow a line from Machen, that’s the stuff that makes the Reformed faith “grand.”
LikeLike
Christian,
What I’m saying about your remarks is that a blog is a forum for discussion, not a courtroom. I welcome provocation and pointed comments. But I don’t think a good conversation can be had by attributing guilt to other interlocuters.
LikeLike
Christian, I think your point here is right on the money. This is the problem I have in understanding the emphasis on union, which wants to make justification a fruit of union (vital union which comes about by faith), but yet resists the logical conclusion that “justification is by union.” It seems to me that union has, in effect, been added as a previously missing step to the ordo salutis.
On the other hand, I’ve seen Jeff’s contributions on various blogs and I think your attacks on him here are completely unwarranted and shameful.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart: Thank you for your brief and effective statements.
Christian: Given your background, I can have some sympathy for your plight. Just be careful that you shoot at deer, not folk who wear tan. Not everyone is a hunter; not everyone wears orange.
OK, we have different observations. I hope I’ve demonstrated above that the notion of union as I’ve talked about it (forensic + vital) really, truly is in the literature, and for whatever reason, I’ve noticed that fact. I think the cause, honestly, is reading through Hoekema and writing a seminary paper on ordo and union (in which I made pretty much the same argument as here … there is a natural mapping between the two concepts, so we shouldn’t argue about it).
[Note: the paper did not touch on the Garcia kerfluffle, as his book was not yet published. It was based on a comparison of Hoekema to The Golden Chain]
So is the visible church important to a lot of folks, coming at a time when the distinction between invisible and visible is being blurred. What are we going to do … tar everyone who talks about the importance of the visible church with the label “FV”?
Or should Dr. Hart be a crypto-FV guy because he emphasizes communion as a means of grace?
Of course not. The right thing to do is distinguish between right views of the church and wrong views. Right views of the sacraments and wrong views.
Right views of union and wrong views.
Here it is in a nutshell (IMO): A reasonably right view is that, as your buddies Fesko and Horton argued in the quotes above (context here and here), justification is the fruit of union with Christ. “Legal union”, if we must distinguish. The wrong view is that justification is the fruit of vital, experiential union.
And the point of emphasizing union is to emphasize that we have justification by possessing Christ (i.e., imputation) and not by God arbitrarily forgiving you (as, for example, the governmental theory of atonement had it).
The “company I keep” is pretty much Scripture, Calvin, and the Confession. Occasionally Edwards, Hodge, a little bit of eclectic stuff I had to read for seminary (Hoekema, Ellul, Grudem, Reymond). I’m more likely to go back to the church fathers than to the current theologians. I was “paleo-” when …
My only contact with these food fights is the ‘Net, and frankly they grieve me.
JRC
LikeLike
It’s very possible I have Jeff confused with another more FVish person on GreenBaggins blog with a similar sounding name. Still, the language games alone put Jeff in the dog house, if not perdition.
One way to to cut through all the nonsense is just to point out that once regenerated one can see the truth of biblical doctrine. But we’re not supposed to suggest a person is not regenerate.
But what’s the worth of defining and defending Reformed doctrine to a hair’s breadth of clarity if you are doing it for a person who can’t yet discern and value such things? So we are doing it for onlookers perhaps.
Then you know there are people reading all this and saying: “Union? Justification, order of salvation…ha ha. These people are all words in their mind… The faith is more than intellectual propositions and debating and arguing…” And the false teachers exploit this (notice the big theme with Federal Visionists regarding ‘beer’ and ‘hey, man, lighten up, have a beer…’). The devil had the same approach in the Garden.
Then, an element in this thread is how the confused and the intentionally mischievous shift the ground and get Reformed believers to start making arguments where they avoid even wanting to *use* the term union with Christ, as if that is not an elemental part of Reformed doctrine. As if the false teachers own the phrase and the reality of it.
And of course they wave off any time-vetted source or authority you put before them. Berkhof? Look at this broken up quote from A. A. Hodge! Muller? That’s just a dictionary! Who cares what Protestant scholastics thought? Let me give you a Calvin quote that can mean anything I want it to mean!
They have to wave such sources off. If they didn’t they’d have to admit they are playing games.
Meanwhile our legal standing in the Kingdom of God is at stake. You don’t have union with the Triune God if you only have the Holy Spirit in you. Your problem is with God the Father (I speak to the union guys). If the call is effectual and you are regenerated by the Word and the Spirit you still have yet to convert (faith and repentance). Once you have faith you are justification. Then only are you *legally* adopted by God the Father into His family.
In the economy of redemption the problem of fallen man’s *legal standing* in the Kingdom of God is with God the Father. You can talk of union all you want, but if God the Father hasn’t declared you just in His sight you have no *legal standing* (no adoption) into God’s family and Kingdom.
Union for the Pope means being baptized in and belonging to the Roman Catholic Church. If you want to know what union is worth when it is made something greater than and prior to justification by faith alone.
LikeLike
I think the last three paragraphs of my comment above get as a missing element in this thread discussion.
LikeLike
In the economy of redemption Jesus is the *Mediator* between [who?] and man.
Between God the Father and man.
The reason Reformed Theology doesn’t talk of union prior to justification by faith is because union presupposes union with the Triune God. I.e. Jesus as the fulness of the Godhead and union established with the Godhead after *completion* of the Mediatorial work in our individual case, which is justification by faith. Until that happens we may have *contact* with the Mediator and His Spirit (the Spirit of Christ), but the Mediator’s work is not completed until we are declared just by God the Father.
LikeLike
Just to clarify one point, and it’s easily done. The participant above going by “Christian” is NOT the Christian A. Dickason, aka Cris A. Dickason, WTS alumnus! I went by/go by both; one of my WTS sheepskins has Christian, one has Cris. I can probably be nastier than this other “Christian”, but I can definitely be more careful in my rhetoric. So, if we run into each other in Presbytery or the Library at Church Rd & Willow Grove Ave, I am not that other guy. Thanks!
LikeLike
I don’t want union if God the Father is not on board. I need all three Persons of the Trinity in my camp.
LikeLike
I’m base and despised. Everybody is distancing themselves from me.
1Co 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen,
LikeLike
Hi Jeff,
You said, “Here it is in a nutshell (IMO): A reasonably right view is that, as your buddies Fesko and Horton argued in the quotes above (context here and here), justification is the fruit of union with Christ. “Legal unionâ€, if we must distinguish. The wrong view is that justification is the fruit of vital, experiential union.”
I don’t think justification is the fruit of a legal union with Christ. Rather justification just is legal union with Christ. I agree with you, though, that justification is not the fruit of vital union but rather the basis of vital union.
So given your last comment, I’m not sure why you are debating with us regarding the union issue.
LikeLike
I have no problem with that formulation.
The timeline was, I made an observation about there being two issues on the table; DGH asked me a question; I answered; pitchforks; defensive response. The only reasons I’m debating are (positively) that no evil be spoken of the correct view, and (negatively) because I get stubborn when attacked.
JRC
LikeLike
BTW, Scott Clark has a lot of good discussion of this issue:
http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/new-perspective-union-with-christ-radical-gaffin-evans/
LikeLike
Vern said:
And Jeff replied:
Now I’m confused Jeff. I thought the “union with Christ” view you were defending was that which says that justification is a fruit of “vital union,” i.e., union grounded in the believer’s faith, in time. Am I now to understand you to say that the view you are defending is merely that justification is the fruit of “legal union” or “federal union”, i.e., grounded in the believer’s union with Christ from eternity? Or do I have my legal confused with my federal confused with my mystical confused with my vital?!
LikeLike
Exactly so. The confusion (and I think why Christian is confused) is that different authors use the term “mystical union” differently, and some do not distinguish “vital” from “legal” at all. AA Hodge is an example of the former — the whole thing, legal and vital, is “mystical union” for Hodge. Calvin is an example of the latter. For Calvin, the issue on the table was to refute Osiander, who was arguing for an “essential union” (a kind of theosis); Calvin opposes this with a “mystical union”, which is both justifying and sanctifying.
It’s absolutely essential, in my view, to see union as consisting of two separate components. If you call those components “legal” and “vital”, or “imputation” and “infusion”, or some other similar pair of terms (“forensic” and “experiental”), that’s OK. And when speaking of UX, it is not necessary at all times to qualify, since “union” consists of those two components.
JRC
LikeLike
Vern, I agree that there’s something “off” about the Evans quote. I don’t know who he is, or his relationship to Gaffin, so I would be cautious in adopting Clark’s quote of Evan’s summary of Gaffin as evidence of the latter’s view.
JRC
LikeLike
I’m calmer now, so I say this without heat and certainly without malice. The elephant in the room here is how we handle the truth.
You’ve presented a number of assertions and charges that have a very loose basis in fact:
* That I am a “wicked fool”;
* That I have “ulterior motives”;
* That I copied and pasted my quotes from an FV site;
* That I am a follower of false teachers;
* That I mangled quotes by ripping them out of context;
* That I am confused.
You might really feel that these are true, but feelings aren’t facts; intuitions aren’t reality.
When challenged on the facts, you’ve dodged. I invited you to check my Hodge quote (p. 369 in the link above, given again here for your convenience). Instead of doing so, you’ve repeated your accusation. I asked you to name my false teachers. No names forthcoming. I demonstrated that my quotes are from my own reading and indeed, more than that, they are in some cases the outcome of academic research (granted … at a master’s level, but still).
And I challenged you (somewhat rudely, I admit) to present your complaint, decently and in order, to my proper controlling authority, the Presbytery. Instead of doing so, you continued to press your accusations here.
I’m not saying this to clear my name; I’m satisfied that others here do not take your view. Instead, I’m laying the facts before you as a basis for an appeal: To speak of grace, you must know grace; to speak of truth, you must know what it is to be truthful. Please, please go to the Scripture and learn what it means to speak charitably and truthfully.
I say this as one who fails; I certainly spoke heatedly and sarcastically above, and I apologize for being defensive instead of relying Jesus my righteousness.
But as one who fails, as one who used to believe that “being intense about doctrine” was a cover for harsh rhetoric, let me tell you plainly that theological discourse is of no value unless you can be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger.
Let justification by grace through faith be the teacher of your tongue.
Jeff Cagle
LikeLike
No, I havn’t been talking about ‘legal’ at all. Hmm. Jeff, you’re not as innocent as you are now attempting to claim. You’ve been playing games with words, in the least. I’ve only let up because this is DGH’s blog and he’s asked me to.
1. Your quotes don’t carry the water you claim they do. That you posted them as if they did shows you are at least not very clear in your own understanding of what you are trying to present. (There’s charity, from me that is…!)
2. I’ve gone back and forth on whether you are a false teacher or just a victim of false teachers. The latter case obviously is less of a crime. But remaining in a state of being duped is not good, it should be stated. And this is the great subject of the false teachers, so…
3. Everybody presenting bad doctrine wants to be treated with kid gloves. They may even appeal to Scripture to demand this treatment.
4. If you have learned *anything* from *anybody here* on this subject of union/justification (leave me out of that to make it easy) then you really should *acknowledge it.* At this point since you’ve both veered and miswritten your own position more than once I’m not alone in not being able to figure out just what it is you do now believe. It sounds maybe like you went to those Clark posts and learned about the distinctions among types of union, and now you are pretending to have known of them all along? That’s what it sounds like. I frankly didn’t, but I sussed it out when I kept harping on *legal*, because, frankly again, I am a genius. I can reinvent the wheel. Quickly.
5. My contribution regarding pointing out that fallen man has a problem with God the Father thus hence any union that doesn’t include God the Father is not going to help you in the long run, to say the least, was an insight of genius. I’ve already let the cat out of the bag that I’m a genius though.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Thanks for your response.
One, I have distinguished myself from Federal Vision on at least two occasions (and continue to do so on this blog). Have you done the same with the flawed views of union?
Two, will you concede that union is not explicitly important to the Reformed creeds and catechisms? And if that is the case, then the emphasis on union today is novel? That’s not to say it’s wrong. But it is to raise the question about why pro-union folk, unlike Murray, will not speak of the forensic as the crux of the Reformation.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I think Xian was going after me (or more specifically Bavinck) in his God the Father diatribe.
Do you find that it is common for the continental Reformed to include effectual calling as part of union as opposed to Presbyterians who do not?
LikeLike
>Do you find that it is common for the continental Reformed to include effectual calling as part of union as opposed to Presbyterians who do not?
Read Larger Catechism 66.
LikeLike
Xian,
Is regeneration synonomous with effectual calling or…
does regeneration precede effectual calling or…
does effectual calling precede regeneration?
LikeLike
First of all can you acknowledge learning something in Larger Catechism 66?
OK. I’ll assume I heard a: “Yes, I learned something.”
I’ll speak from my own experience regarding your question. Effectual calling precedes regeneration. I was not regenerated by the Word and the Spirit until I began to really hear the Word of God. It was not long after that that when I walked into a Christian bookstore I didn’t get the feeling of walking into a gay bar. Which I did before.
Yet there is also a sense where effectual calling and regeneration are concurrent. For that you have to go to a published Reformed Theologian like Berkhof because a blog thread comment won’t catch the necessary subtleties…
LikeLike
I’m aware of one definite and one possible FV issue with union. The first is the Lusk/Leithart statement that union makes imputation redundant.
Given that I think of imputation as a forensic aspect of union, I find that statement to be confused; it is saying, “being declared righteous in Christ makes imputation redundant.”
So I would reject that statement as incoherent.
A second possible issue is the issue I raised with Shepherd above, failing to admit any distinction between a forensic aspect of union and an experiential aspect of union. I believe those two must be distinguished, and that justification is not a process based on the way of faith, but a once-for-all reception of a righteous verdict that occurs at the moment of saving faith.
Are there other issues you have in mind?
Thanks,
Jeff Cagle
LikeLike
A third possible issue is the cause and moment of union. On the FV account, if I understand, union is effected by baptism “in some sense” at the moment of application; this I would reject entirely. Union with Christ in the sense we’ve been talking about is mystical and invisible. Belonging to His body, while possibly describable as ‘connection to Christ’ in a family sense (WCoF 25.2), is not equivalent to being united with Christ in the salvific sense.
To be more careful, I hold closely to the Confession here: baptism is the “sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.”
Oh look — ingrafting into Christ — those darn unionists! 😉
But also that “The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in His appointed time. ”
Or as I have sloganized, “The efficacy of the sacrament is faith.”
JRC
LikeLike
Hm. I would say that ‘union’ is in the background compared to justification in the early Reformation. I’m not a fan of “center” and “crux” kinds of discussions, especially if one wants to nail down a “center of Calvin’s thought” or something. But if you want to say that justification by grace through faith was the central point of contention between Protestant and Reformed, I won’t object.
However, I would not say that ‘union’ is not explicitly important. I pointed out above that the confession sees baptism, among other things, is the sign and seal of ingrafting into Christ. I’ve pointed out above that Calvin deals with union in his refutation of Osiander, and attributes justification to our mystical union (Inst 3.11). And we also see, as I have shown, that Reformed theologians in centuries following have become (a) more explicit about union, (b) more encompassing in the language about union, and (c) more exacting about union (forensic v. vital, etc.).
So, not being a historian of theology, I would offer the lay opinion that the new emphasis on union is not the emergence of a novel doctrine (at least, not in orthodox quarters), but rather a response to a new issue. Here’s my tale:
In the early Reformation, JFBA was the issue on the table because it was necessary to distinguish faith from infused grace (or sacrament ex operato) as the instrument of justification.
By the time of Dort, the situation had changed. Now, the question on the table was, “to whom is justification given?” And the answer was, to the elect. Thus, election came to the fore, whereas it had been an important-but-secondary concern for Calvin and Luther. For Calvin, election was important, but a high mystery to be treated with care (in contrast to today’s cavalier 5-Point-ism); for Luther, election was subordinate to inability (Bondage of the Will).
In our time, an important question has become once again, “How is justification given?” Is it given by participating in Christ, or is it given as a bare legal verdict, unattached to the rest of the Christian life?
In the orthodox Reformed world, I think the question is settled — whether you are Horton or Fesko or Gaffin or Sproul, the answer is that we are justified by participating in Christ. Or put another way, all who are justified also receive all of the other benefits of being in Christ.
In the non-Reformed protestant world, with Ryrie as extreme example, justification is more of a bare legal verdict. We might call this the “sola justification” view: we are saved by a justifying verdict that stands alone, with or without the accompanying benefits of perseverance, etc. In my understanding, Lutheranism on the continent also struggled with this issue.
So the concept of “union” has been emphasized as reaction against this trend. The core concept is not which happens when, nor which is the ground of what, but one of logical equivalency: Receiving Christ through faith logically implies reception of everything He has to offer.
And thus the Lordship problem goes away at a stroke.
Let me speculate: if one is sensitive to this problem (“bare legal verdict”), then “justification as the crux” can superficially sound like “sola justification”; hence, I suspect — but do not know — that some of the push-back from WSPhil is to get some concession on the issue of receiving all of Christ at faith.
That’s my version of the story. Note that in my view, all of the players in the current kerfluffle sit well inside the circle of orthodoxy. I’m just speculating as to why a “union” guy might possibly care about a “justification as crux” view. I don’t see it as a matter of concern.
JRC
LikeLike
I think that question is above my pay grade. It’s a question of development-of-doctrine. I’m tempted to speculate “yes”, but the broad statement about union by Reymond gives me pause.
JRC
LikeLike
>In the orthodox Reformed world, I think the question is settled — whether you are Horton or Fesko or Gaffin or Sproul, the answer is that we are justified by participating in Christ. Or put another way, all who are justified also receive all of the other benefits of being in Christ.
and…
>In the non-Reformed protestant world, with Ryrie as extreme example, justification is more of a bare legal verdict. We might call this the “sola justification†view: we are saved by a justifying verdict that stands alone, with or without the accompanying benefits of perseverance, etc. In my understanding, Lutheranism on the continent also struggled with this issue.
Jeff, entertain the possibility, the real possibility (really, entertain it) that this subject has ‘come up’ because of the age-old spirit of disobedience in demanding to defile biblical doctrine at the usual point of justification by faith alone.
By the way, if I were in your position, being questioned and giving my views on subject matter that is more than settled, but doing it on an inane scale where my words seem to be able to *over-throw the Reformation*… (“Now what is Jeff going to say about this? Is the Reformation safe? Did Jeff agree to how the Westminster divines worded that? oh, no! he did, but sort of with some qualifications! what do Jeff’s qualifications mean for the Reformation? Where is Calvin?!? Come back, Calvin! We need you to counter Jeff!!!”) I.e. if I was in such a vain state where I wouldn’t be embarrassed that people were questioning me and seeking my views in this manner I would be seriously worried about my myself. I mean, I would conclude I was a bit juvenile. Like the atheist who thinks he must be *begged* to come to the faith. So he plays the *hard to get* act. And enjoys it.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart, a question for you. I mentioned a while back the WLC as one of the reasons to think about “justification as a fruit of union” — or as Vern would say, “justification is forensic union.” What do you make of the flow from WLC 66 – WLC 69?
JRC
LikeLike
Jeff, I don’t have any objections to WLC 66 and following. But I don’t know how this becomes the golden grail of reading the standards. Does it ever puzzle you that union receives so little discussion in the Confession of Faith or the Shorter Catechism? Again, if so important, why not a separate chapter.
I would dissent from your effort at historical theology. The question of How is Justification given was settles back at the Reformation. By faith. And if you don’t think that’s adequate, then you have WLC 66-69 to fall back on. But it is hardly a problem for today. Do people in Reformed churches really read Ryrie? Is that who Shepherd had in mind?
And if antinomianism is the problem, when have Presbyterians been anything but moralistic? Why does redemptive historical preaching continue to receive criticism for not being practical?
And to talk of justification as a bare legal declaration I think seriously diminishes justification or the righteousness of Christ that we receive in it. In justification I get all I need to stand blameless before God on judgment day. That is not chopped liver. There may be more to salvation but not a whole lot.
So the union “improvements” I don’t think are all that helpful, especially when they tempt you to poo poo the idea of central or crux. This is exactly what I fear, that union has obscured how precious and fulsome the doctrine of justification.
LikeLike
I have no problem with union being associated with effectual calling – or regeneration – because regeneration is the *main thing.*
In the process of being drawn into God’s Kingdom regeneration is the main thing. Nothing follows without being regenerated by the Word and the Spirit.
But again that union is the Holy Spirit doing His work in the economy of redemption. Applying the work of Christ to God’s elect. The phrase mystical union here has the right sound. Obviously that is a connection with Christ (the Spirit of Christ). We’re not right with *God the Father*, however, until we have faith and are proclaimed or seen as just in the eyes of God the Father. This is why I can see why the Protestant scholastics associated union with adoption. Adoption follows justification. Adoption is a legal matter. To become a child of God is a legal matter. To have standing as a citizen in the Kingdom of God is a legal matter. The Pactum Salutis then becomes like our Constitution, it gives us legal rights. Like being a Roman citizen in Palestine. You had rights non-Roman citizens didn’t have.
At physical birth we are not children of God, it goes without saying, but many people popularly believe that we are.
LikeLike
Well, yes, they did. Recall that dispensationalism was one of the driving antitheses for Murray, and Ryrie was the spearhead of the revised dispensational movement. Ryrie was, I think, the one who developed the concept of “carnal Christian” — which then was picked up by Bill Bright.
It is my understanding that Shepherd was directly reacting against Bright.
And Murray’s notion of “definitive sanctification” was moving in opposition to the “carnal Christian” concept also. For Murray, the forensic declaration of justification also comes with a forensic declaration of sanctification.
But Shepherd is a red herring. He does not adequately represent the “union” view, any more than Arminius represents Dutch theology of the early 17th century.
Well, that’s something else quite again. “Being practical” is a wind blowing in from the 2nd GA, at least.
As to moralism — well, I’d tend to agree.
Now to serious issues:
This is not the issue at stake. No-one that I know of would deny that justification is given by faith as the alone instrument.
The discussion of union is orthogonal to, unrelated to, the issue of how we receive justification.
No, the issue at stake is, when we receive justification by faith, do we receive it by being “in Christ”, or do we receive it by some other mechanism (for example, by God imputing faith to us as righteousness?)
And here, the Standards actually are clear: we receive it by being in Christ. By receiving Christ.
That’s what imputation means — that my righteousness is in Him.
“Question 69: What is the communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ?
Answer: The communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ, is their partaking of the virtue of his mediation, in their justification, adoption, sanctification, and: Whatever else, in this life, manifests their union with him.
Question 73: How does faith justify a sinner in the sight of God?
Answer: Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it, nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification; but only as it is an instrument by which he receives and applies Christ and his righteousness.”
You missed the point. I agree with you — Justification is *not* a bare legal declaration; that is the *false* teaching that the emphasis on union is trying to avoid.
I’m not saying, Dr. Hart, that your view of justification is defective. Never have, never will. Rather, I’m (a) puzzled by the fact that union folk and justification-priority folk haven’t been able to hammer this out, and (b) trying to explain that fact.
And along the way, I’m also trying to defend the idea that justification in union with Christ is a basic Reformed way of expressing imputation.
JRC
LikeLike
Jeff:
I don’t follow your argument, and I think it’s flatly contradicted by the Question 30 of the Shorter Catechism.
Q. 30. How doth the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ?
A. The Spirit applieth to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling.
Thereby is causal language. The Spirit’s applying of redemption to us and working faith in us is are either the cause or the means of union. That’s the only way to read thereby.
LikeLike
>Do people in Reformed churches really read Ryrie?
No more than we read Finney. Or Scofield.
And what is this justification of “he was reacting to [human being ‘X’]…” One doesn’t react to bad doctrine by changing doctrine. One reacts to bad doctrine by expounding and defending on-the-mark doctrine.
Dort didn’t collectively say: “Oh, no. Arminius. We’re going to have to reformulate biblical doctrine now. Maybe if we change total depravity to bad fashion sense we can combat these Arminian errors more effectively. What do you guys say…?”
LikeLike
Xian said,
Obviously that is a connection with Christ (the Spirit of Christ). We’re not right with *God the Father*, however, until we have faith and are proclaimed or seen as just in the eyes of God the Father.
That sounds an awful like neonomianism.
The Pactum Salutis then becomes like our Constitution, it gives us legal rights. Like being a Roman citizen in Palestine. You had rights non-Roman citizens didn’t have.
Some have used the Pactum Salutis as the means to justification from eternity.
I believe it can be generally said that the Continental Reformed tend to be more synthetic in their approach and Presbyterians tend to be analytic in their approach. The Continental tend to look at the whole as greater than the sum of the parts and are less prone to dissect the ordo apart from union.
LikeLike
Jeff, you’re sounding more and more like an innocent in over your head. The waters that have swamped you are the dark,murky, foul-smelling waters of those who would attack justification by faith alone from any angle, using any language at their means, with no conscience, speaking out of two, three, four if could, sides of their mouths, etc., etc., etc.
I also detect, I’m sorry if you get upset, a little bit of the common tactic of ‘disingenuous bewilderment’ people with bad arguments who are presenting them dishonestly engage in. “I just can’t understand what the problem is here, gentlemen? Can’t we all just get along…?” You may be picking up this tactic from others and using it without realizing it.
Disingenuous bewilderment enables the user to side-step being directly exposed and to endlessly further the ‘debate’ until the threads start to unravel and the ground is able to subtly shift and by attrition they get what their lack of truth can’t get them. Or at least they get what the Kingdom of Satan only has, endless hall of mirrors illusion and delusion behind which is emptiness.
LikeLike
>Xian said, “Obviously that is a connection with Christ (the Spirit of Christ). We’re not right with *God the Father*, however, until we have faith and are proclaimed or seen as just in the eyes of God the Father.” That sounds an awful like neonomianism.
No, no, igasx, it’s a description of legal union. We are justified at the point of faith. That statement has nothing to do with saying faith is a ‘work.’ You are throwing terms around like a Romanist internet apologist when he is cornered. “Nestorianism!” (We’ve all been there, right?)
LikeLike
igasx wrote: “Some have used the Pactum Salutis as the means to justification from eternity.”
Why not glorification from eternity then as well? Look at me, I’m a being of celestial light. See me walking down the street. See the police pulling over to have a talk with me…
The Covenant of Redemption was made in eternity. The part of it called the Covenant of Grace plays out in historical time. This is how God’s plan of redemption was made to be.
You know, I’m getting a sense you, igasx, and Jeff are really somewhat new to Reformed Theology. You write these things as if Reformed theologians have never mentally encountered them or worked through them. Really, the glory of Reformed Theology, one of the glories, is the extent that Reformed theologians have worked through pretty much everything, and taken on all comers, running from no one, and being the only systematic theologians to have the confidence of putting other schools of doctrine in their systematic theologies for all to see and to see in the light of Reformed doctrine and knowing that people will see the truth.
See Turretin. Turretin wrote a multi-volume work that covers *everything.* He even covers the doctrine of pre-Adamites, for crying out loud. Also, see a Brakel. Brakel probably has a paragraph or two dedicated personally to you, igasx, and also to Jeff.
LikeLike
>I believe it can be generally said that the Continental Reformed tend to be more synthetic in their approach and Presbyterians tend to be analytic in their approach. The Continental tend to look at the whole as greater than the sum of the parts and are less prone to dissect the ordo apart from union.
I see you’re fond of making these generalizations. Your last was was debunked by Larger Catechism 66. This latest one is debunked by something called Federal Theology. Federal Theology is parts in relation to the whole understanding. In fact a good definition of understanding, whatever the subject, is seeing the parts in relation to the whole.
Actually, though, I see you are not using ‘whole’ and ‘parts’ in that classical way but are saying it is possible to have an understanding that is based on ‘parts’ and a different understanding that is based on ‘the whole.’ That sounds like an approach a modern day deconstructionist would pose with intent to divide and conquer and sow confusion until he’s standing, fists in the air, triumphant over yet another annoying ‘thing of truth’…
LikeLike
Xian,
Sure, faith is the instrument and inevitable response of those decreed to election. I’m less concerned with points of time and it’s connection to union.
LikeLike
Sorry if my tone is getting, again, more and more (whatever I’ve been accused of). I know there is a sensitivity to tone here.
I know there is a pedagogical thing where you have to assume an inquirer/student/innocent/orphan who is grappling with a subject is genuine. I tend to think when the subject is already at the altitude of Reformed Theology then there are no innocents. Or few. And they really wouldn’t come across as if they would lecture all the reformers, first, second, third generation and on up.
LikeLike
Xian,
Read ‘Saved by Grace’ by Bavinck. It may help open your eyes.
LikeLike
What have I written that suggests I need to have my eyes opened (doctrinely speaking)? Seriously, address that directly. If you don’t I’ll assume you think that somebody who holds to justification by faith alone needs to have their eyes opened.
If you are in the least in the camp of Federal Vision (listen closely) *you don’t even believe in regeneration by the Word and the Spirit.* Your side is so doctrinally malignant and *graceless* (as you pretend to champion grace in some dumb way setting up a straw man where your opposition has to be against grace in some way) that you actually *get angry* at the though of the Word and the Spirit *regenerating* individuals (you hate the thought of *individuals* getting attention from God as well.
I mean, if you to any degree are in the camp of the Federal Visionaries or any sympathetic to them doctrinally.
LikeLike
They’ve run off. They’ve run off! And I am here alone base and despised. Probably about to get kicked off this blog.
The Bible won’t open my eyes. Calvin won’t open my eyes. Bunyan, Spurgeon, Owen, and Fisher won’t open my eyes. But…Bavinck! Bavinck *will* open my eyes! They say Berkhof is a compendium of sorts of Bavinck, but…apparently Berkhof won’t open my eyes (the thought of it!). It must be Bavinck. And not the recently translated Reformed Dogmatics, or whatever translation of the title is on it. No. It must be Saved by Grace.
Because, obviously if you don’t think the Reformation got it wrong and that justification by union rather than justification by faith is the biblical truth then – it follows! – you must be against *grace*! You graceless troll dishonestly self-identifying as a follower of the gracifier Himself, Jesus Christ!
LikeLike
Examples of what this ‘new’ talk of union is meant to lead to:
http://reformedreader.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/baptism-is-not-faith/
LikeLike
Jeff, I appreciate your efforts to engage on this and I don’t want to hold you to a textbook standard for what is simply an on-line conversation. But I don’t see how your argument for union coheres. For instance, you say that Ryrie and Bright were problems (antinomianism) but then concede that Presbyterians are moralistic. So Ryrie and Bright likely were not threats to Reformed Christians. Also, at one point you say that the problem in Shepherd’s day was how is justification given and then later you say something that seems self-contradictory — the issue is, “when we receive justification by faith, do we receive it by being “in Christâ€, or do we receive it by some other mechanism (for example, by God imputing faith to us as righteousness?)” We receive justification by faith alone. Your question answers itself. But to try to link it to another “mechanism,” like union, is to tinker with a very important and cardinal mechanism — faith alone. And like I said above, when union becomes the mechanism, and justification are equally benefits coming simultaneously, you have a way to argue for obedient faith.
In other words, I still don’t see the problem that union solves. What I do see is confusion in trying to make it as important as it supposedly is, with some of that confusion flowing down to the way, as you put it, “justification is given.”
I still wonder how much more there is to salvation once we have been justified, and stand righteous before God, here and in the world to come. Am I missing something? How much more do we need?
LikeLike
RL,
Thanks for your input. The argument in short is this:
There are two equivalent ways of expressing justification by grace through faith alone.
(1) The HS effectually calls us, creating faith. The faith is the means that God uses to impute Christ’s righteousness to us, rendering us a verdict of “justified.”
This way of expression is found in WCoF 11.1, and in many, many other places that I won’t cite because they aren’t at controversy here.
(2) The HS effectually calls us, creating faith. This faith is the means that God uses to unite us to Christ, so that the benefits of his redemption are applied to us. One of those benefits is imputed righteousness.
This way of expression is found precisely in the WSC 30 that you cited:
Q. 30. How doth the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ?
A. The Spirit applieth to us the redemption purchased by Christ, [How?] by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling.
That this is a basic Reformed way of expressing JFBA is testified amply in the literature, from Calvin through Hodge through … yes, Horton and Fesko.
I recommend AA Hodge’s treatment in Outlines and Anthony Hoekema’s treatment in Saved by Grace (same title as Bavinck’s).
Key points:
* Union properly understood is not a competitor for JFBA, but a mechanism for explaining it; it is parallel, not to JFBA, but to imputation. And it doesn’t replace imputation, but parallels it.
* If union is to be the competitor to anything, it would be a competitor to a strict ordo.
* It is helpful in light of Shepherd to distinguish forensic and experiential aspects of union.
Does that help?
JRC
(DGH — will get back to you; have to go teach)
LikeLike
This I don’t get. Two errors typically don’t cancel each other out; so how is it that moralism and antinomianism can’t both be problems?
I don’t know what your contact with dispensational thought has been, but I can say that a significant portion of the Reformed world is engaged in discussion with dispie thought at different levels — dialog (Poythress’ “Understanding Dispensationalism”; Sproul’s friendship with MacArthur), debate (Gerstner, Mathison, Murray). Heck, go to CRTA and notice the banner ads flash across the top. Fully half are anti-dispensational. Even Kline’s structure is a deliberate reversal of dispensationalism: instead of the Church being the “intrusion” into history, Israel was.
So I am puzzled why you think that “reacting against dispensationalism” could not be a live option for explaining the rhetoric coming out of WSPhil. I don’t know that it is, but I think the hypothesis is worth exploring.
You have no problem with saying, “We are justified through faith; by faith, God imputes the righteousness of Christ to us.” Right?
So is “imputation” an additional instrument of justification? Not at all. Instead, faith is the instrument, imputation is the mechanism.
So now: “We are justified through faith; by faith God unites us to Christ so that we are seen in Him as righteous.”
Is union an additional instrument of justification? Not at all. Faith is the instrument, union is the mechanism. A mechanism is not a means, it is a description of the process.
Bottom line: Imputation is a forensic aspect of our justification.
And again, I appeal to Hodge, Reymond, Hoekema, WSC 30, WLC 66 – 69, Calv Inst 3.11. And most of all, Ephesians and Philippians: “In him, we have redemption through his blood…”; “I want to be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own…”
You’re arguing from abuse. Why do that? Why not instead, as Hodge does, guard the correct doctrine by distinguishing it from the error, instead of jettisoning the whole?
JRC
LikeLike
>Even Kline’s structure is a deliberate reversal of dispensationalism: instead of the Church being the “intrusion†into history, Israel was.
Oh, my. It’s not just that you don’t have understanding of Kline here, it’s that you are stating these things so boldly with no hint of any self-awareness that you might not have understanding of the material. ‘
I conclude that you picked up the above point from another source other than your own study and accepted the source as sound.
You, by the way, in your last couple of comments have lapsed into Federal Vision style. You’re not a dabbler who, as you stated, is just concerned to defend people with other views (Federal Vision people that is), you are a full blown adherent playing the usual FV game here.
LikeLike
After using google’s advanced search to see what Jeff was saying over at GreenBaggins during some of the more ‘hot’ years of Federal Vision debate I conclude that Jeff likes to 1) stake out middle-ground, and then Jeff likes to 2) argue.
Regarding doctrinal truth Scripture would describe him as 1) 2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. And 2) lukewarm.
Jeff (this is where I talk down to you again), it’s on the spiritual battlefield where these doctrines become more than fodder for endless, vain debate. False teachers like the Federal Vision people want you to be naked on the battlefield. They want you in the bondage and darkness of the devil’s kingdom. And they know that half-way-there is all the way there.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I grew up a dispensationalist. I won two Scofield reference Bibles in sword drills, and like competitions. I know the phenomenon. I am also writing a history of the OPC. I see nothing in the OPC’s past, aside from the tensions that split the OP and the BP, which indicates OP’s were flirting with dispensationalism. What Gaffin and Poythress were experiencing in ETS circles is another matter entirely.
Also, whence the language of mechanism? To play Frame’s bibilicism card on you, is it biblical? Even more pressing, where is it in Reformed theological discourse?
LikeLike
Hey, weren’t those fun?
You may be right. Not having read Garcia, I can’t explain the bee in his particular bonnet. Or in Kerux, although I’ll bet being Dutch has something to do with it (Bavinck, etc.). It seems like the Dutch are bigger on union talk also, as a broad brush stroke.
—
Whence the language of mechanism? I have a scientific background and it’s just a term one uses for a description of process. If you don’t like it, we can pick another.
But I would like an up-or-down on the substance: do you, or do you not agree that “union” is a historically Reformed way of explaining how JFBA happens?
To play the Jack of Biblicism card, isn’t it actually OK if one says, “In Him, we have forgiveness of sins”?
If not, then why have such a large number of Reformed folk expressed it in exactly this way? (go back to the Reymond quote). OTOH, if so, why must I press the issue this hard just to get the concession?! (Read that with a smile … not upset, just puzzled).
Finally, do you have any additional concerns on the FV question?
JRC
LikeLike
Jeff, this seems unfair. You can find the word “in” everywhere and pull the trump card of union. How about the actual use of the word, “union.” It narrows considerably at that point and the word is not prevalent in 16th c. Reformed creeds. Plus, which kind of union are you talking about? As I understand it, we have three varieties, something like mystical, decretal, and federal (though I don’t have an ST text handy). Why is it that in most of the recent discussions of union the word is used frequently without distinguishing precisely the sense of union being employed.
My other reason for resisting an affirmative to your question — aside from apparent disregard it implies for effectual calling — is that it seems to imply denying the priority of the forensic.
LikeLike
Unfair as in over-reading? I can understand the concern. But go back and look at the prooftexts for WLC 66 – 69 and WSC 30. They’re being far, far more broad about finding “union” in texts that don’t explicitly say “union”, than I am.
“Not prevalent” does not mean either (a) absent, or (b) unimportant. The notion of union is explicit in both WLC and WSC. In WLC 66, effectual calling is said to cause our union. In WLC 69, union is manifested in our justification, sanctification, &c. Why is more needed?
I don’t know the answer to your last question. However, if you look at Hoekema’s Saved by Grace, he uses the term “union” without distinction, but also clearly distinguishes forensic from experiential. Reymond is exactly the same.
The answer to your first is that there is a diversity of adjectives used to distinguish union. For my part, I am speaking (in justification) of the forensic aspect of our union: fully accomplished at the moment of faith.
Not so! Read what I wrote to RL:
There are two equivalent ways of expressing justification by grace through faith alone.
(1) The HS effectually calls us, creating faith. The faith is the means that God uses to impute Christ’s righteousness to us, rendering us a verdict of “justified.â€
This way of expression is found in WCoF 11.1, and in many, many other places that I won’t cite because they aren’t at controversy here.
(2) The HS effectually calls us, creating faith. This faith is the means that God uses to unite us to Christ, so that the benefits of his redemption are applied to us. One of those benefits is imputed righteousness.
Effectual calling is right there, performing our union (per WLC 66).
…is that it seems to imply denying the priority of the forensic.
Now why is it that the phrase “priority of the forensic” isn’t prevalent in the Standards? 😉
Seriously, is it possible that you’ve latched onto “priority of the forensic” as A way of preserving JFBA, without realizing that it is not THE only way of doing so?
Union properly understood (IMO) guards JFBA, protects against antinomianism, and protects against legalism or moralism also. In that regard, it is like the doctrine of imputation … which is unsurprising, since forensic union is imputation.
JRC
LikeLike
Jeff, you may think that my emphasis on justification is overdone. But why is it that when almost every church historian lectures on the Reformation, he talks about the formal and material principles of the Reformation, which are sola Scriptura and sola fidei? It is a slight of hand to say that justification needs to back down a little bit and make room for other doctrines. I’m not sure you can understand Protestantism without justification. The same cannot be said for union.
And to aid the common good, here is Berkhof on the significance of mystical union:
“The mystical union in the sense in which we are not speaking of it is not the judicial ground, on the basis of which we become partakers of the riches that are in Christ. It is sometimes said that the merits of Christ cannot be imputed to us as long as we are not in Christ, since it is only on the basis of our oneness with Him that such an imputation could be rasonable. But this view fails to distinguish between our legal unity with Christ and our spiritual oneness with Him, and is a falsification of the fundamental element in the doctrine of redemption, namely, of the doctrine of justification. Justification is always a declaration of God, not on the basis of an existing condition, but on that of a gracious imputation — a declaration which is not in harmony with the existing condition of the sinner. The judicial ground for all the special grace which we receive lies in the fact that the righteousness of Christ is freely imputed to us.
“But this state of affairs, namely, that the sinner has nothing in himself and receives everything freely from Christ, must be reflected in the consciousness of the sinner. And this takes place through the mediation of the mystical union. While the union is effected when the sinner is renewed by the operation of the Holy Spirit, he does not become cognizant of it and does not actively cultivate it until the conscious operation of faith begins. Then he becomes aware of the fact that he has no reghteousness of his own, and that the righteousness by which he appears just in the sight of God is imputed to him. But even so somtimething additional is required. The sinner must feel his dependence on Christ in the very depths of his being — in the subconscious life. Hence he is incorprated in Christ, and as a result experiences that all the grace which he receives flows from Christ. The constant feeling of dependence thus engendered, is an antidote against all self-righteousness.” p. 452
It looks to me that the priority of the forensic has its built-in mechanisms for guarding against legalism or antinomianism.
LikeLike
Hrm, not exactly overdone, as if less would be better. Rather, I think you fail to see (please excuse the boldness) the essential unity between “priority of justification” language and “union with Christ” language.
Berkhof’s quote, which is making the rounds for the third time in this discussion, has been taken out of context.
Go back to the beginning of his discussion of union (p. 447).
He says this:
Calvin repeatedly expresses the idea that the sinner cannot share in the saving benefits of Christ’s redemptive work, unless he be in union with Him, and thus emphasizes a very important truth. As Adam was the representative head of the old humanity, so Christ is the representative head of the new humanity. All the blessings of the covenant of grace flow from Him who is the Mediator of the covenant. Even the very first blessing of the saving grace of God which we receive already presupposes a union with the Person of the Mediator. It is exactly at this point that we find one of the most characteristic differences between the operations and blessings of special and those of common grace. (p. 447)
And then this:
In virtue of the legal or representative union established in the covenant of redemption Christ became incarnate as the substitute for His people, to merit all the blessings of salvation for them. Since His children were sharers’ in flesh and blood, “He also in like manner partook of the same; that through death He might bring to nought him that had the power of death, that is the devil; and might deliver all them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage,” Heb. 2:14,15. He could merit salvation for them just because He already stood in relation to them as their Surety and Mediator, their Head and Substitute. (p. 448)
And then this:
Since the believer is “a new creature” (II Cor. 5:17), or is’ “justified” (Acts 13:39) only in Christ, union with Him logicallv precedes both regeneration and justification by faith, while yet, chronologically, the moment when we are united with Christ is also the moment of our regeneration and justification. (p. 450)
It is only later that he then launches into a subdiscussion with this:
From the preceding it appears that the term “mystical union” can be. and often is, used in a broad sense, including the various aspects (legal, objective, subjective) of the union between Christ and believers. Most generally, however, it denotes only the crowning aspect of that union, namely, its subjective realization bv the operation of the IIolv Spirit, and it is this aspect of it that is naturally in the foreground in soteriology. All that is said in the rest of this chapter bears on this subjective union. (p. 450).
And only after that comes the quote on p. 452 that has been cited thrice. Mis-cited, I would say, in that it makes Berkhof appear to be arguing against “justification as aspect of union” when he says, explicitly, that union logically precedes and and it temporally simultaneous with justification, and that justification comes, along with all spiritual benefits, by virtue of our union with him!
So what is Berkhof really arguing?
Rather than seeing him as arguing against “justification as an aspect of union”, his discussion makes clear that he is arguing against “justification grounded in union.”
That is: we are not justified because God looks down and says, “Oh, they have union, so I shall justify them on that basis.”
No, says Berkhof, we are justified because of Jesus’ righteousness imputed to us (p. 452).
HOW does that happen? It comes through being united to Christ. Union is, for Berkhof, the mechanism by which imputation functions. We have nothing of ourselves; everything is from Christ.
That is: union is not the cause of justification; rather, justification is an aspect of union. So we can say “I am justified because I am united with Christ”, but this statement is an analytic observation of the state of affairs. It is not a causative statement.
—
Finally, why is union (properly understood) an antidote to legalism or moralism? Berkhof again …
The sinner must feel his dependence on Christ in the very depths of his being, — in the sub-conscious life. Hence he is incorporated in Christ, and as a result experiences that all the grace which he receives flows from Christ. The constant feeling of dependence thus engendered, is an antidote against all self-righteousness. (p. 452).
This is my plea: Don’t pit justification against union! Berkhof doesn’t do it; no systematic theologian I’ve seen does it.
How’s the snow for y’all?
JRC
LikeLike
Ack, I torched the HTML again.
LikeLike
Union with a dead person is first? It seems to me that the logical progression would be regeneration, then union. Otherwise the union would be meaningless. Does anyone know why this statement should be taken as authoritative? In other words, what biblical basis is there for it? 2 Cor 5:17 as a proof?
When Jesus prayed thus, “Jhn 17:9 I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours; Jhn 17:10 and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them. Jhn 17:11 “I am no longer in the world; and {yet} they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, {the name} which You have given Me,
***that they may be one even as We {are.}***
Jhn 17:12 “While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled. Jhn 17:13 “But now I come to You; and these things I speak in the world so that they may have My joy made full in themselves. Jhn 17:14 “I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Jhn 17:15 “I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil {one.} Jhn 17:16 “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Jhn 17:17 “Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. Jhn 17:18 “As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. Jhn 17:19 “For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth. Jhn 17:20 “I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; Jhn 17:21
***that they may all be one; even as You, Father, {are} in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us,***
so that the world may believe that You sent Me”
In what sense is Jesus using the word “in” and “one” here? It is definately relational, we aren’t participating in the divine nature[essence]. The Holy Spirit dwells in-gives life for the purpose of attaining union-relationship with Christ–no? I’ll have a hard time buying that 2Cor 5:17 is a good proof text for a logical preceeding of union before regeneration. .
FWIW, I’m kinda new at confessionalism, I usually consult the bible first, so this is one more thing to look into–any references are welcomed.
LikeLike
Jeff, if all the unionists are saying is what Berkhof said, then I don’t see the reason for a fuss. But in case you haven’t noticed, some unionists insist that union is an unparalleled breakthrough that only comes from reading Paul after Vos and Ridderbos have explained him. The unionists also claim that Lutherans are defective because of a erroneous placement and understanding of union. So the tension is not of my making.
But historically speaking, Reformed and Lutherans agreed on justification at the time of the Reformation. Where important divisions emerged was over the Supper. Union was not part of the Reformation putsch against Rome, and I think that to insist now on union the way that you do encourages people to forget the import of justification as the material principle of the Reformation.
LikeLike
Well, all this unionist is saying is what Berkhof (and friends) said. So I’m happy that we can leave it there.
I hadn’t noticed. 10 years of part-time seminary study at two different seminaries (Chesapeake, then RTS), numerous theological discussions with friends, and nary a word about “union v. the Lutherans.”
There was some discussion about “union v. ordo”; as I mentioned above, one of my papers was on harmonizing the two views. But never was it presented as “this one is wrong, that one is right.”
Interestingly, Jack Miller’s work with Sonship … whatever the merits or demerits in general of Sonship aren’t relevant … is interesting because he brings in an explicitly Lutheran view of justification as the source of sanctification, yet he couches it all in terms of union mediated by the Spirit.
Just tell your unionist friends that union and ordo are complementary perspectives on justification. 😉
JRC
LikeLike
Wow, thanks for all that, Jeff. I guess the Reformation still stands. (Memo to book publishers, no need to re-write all the history books and systematic theologies now…)
LikeLike