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declares that justification consists in renovation and sanctification, and the decrees of the Council of Trent have not been retracted or repudiated.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)
157 Comments
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.
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
Ack, I torched the HTML again.
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.
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.
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
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…)
One Trackback
[...] Mr Murray on Justification Posted on January 29, 2010 by R. Scott Clark Darryl has it at OLTS. [...]