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declares that justification consists in renovation and sanctification, and the decrees of the Council of Trent have not been retracted or repudiated.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
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.
I think the last three paragraphs of my comment above get as a missing element in this thread discussion.
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.
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!
I don’t want union if God the Father is not on board. I need all three Persons of the Trinity in my camp.
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,
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.
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
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/
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?!
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
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
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
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.
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.
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?
>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.
Xian,
Is regeneration synonomous with effectual calling or…
does regeneration precede effectual calling or…
does effectual calling precede regeneration?
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…
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
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
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
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
>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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
>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…?”
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.
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.
>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?)
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.
>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’…
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.
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.
Xian,
Read ‘Saved by Grace’ by Bavinck. It may help open your eyes.
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.
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!
Examples of what this ‘new’ talk of union is meant to lead to:
http://reformedreader.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/baptism-is-not-faith/
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?
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)
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
>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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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
One Trackback