The Priority
Although no fundamental issue of theology, or specifically of soteriology, would be at stake if regeneration were giving the priority in the application of redemption, yet the evidence shows that the call occupies this position. If we fail to accord to it the place which the exegetical considerations demand, we miss a great deal of the emphasis of Scripture and are also liable to overlook what belongs to its specific and distinguishing character. The key passage evincing its priority is Romans 8: 29, 30. There are so many indication of order in this passage that we are compelled to regard the apostle as enunciating the order: calling, justification, glorification, in verse 30, and also establishing calling as the act of grace directly joined to predestination, and as that which in the realm of application brings the latter to expression. Other passages, particularly those in the Pauline epistles, create the strongest presumption in favour of the conclusion which Romans 8:29, 30 would require (cf. 1 Cor. 1:9; Gal. 1:15; 2 Tim. 1:9; 1 Peter. 2:9; 5:10; 2 Pet. 1:10). (John Murray on “The Call†in Collected Writings, vol. 2, pp. 161-62.)
85 Comments
Curious Darryl, what you do with the fact that it is in the effectual calling that union with Christ comes (according to the Confession & Catechisms) and that the other benefits flow from that? I am not saying that the other benefits come simultaneously (that’s another discussion for me) but union does come before the rest.
Would you agree with the Westminster Divines on that?
This is playing ‘gotcha’ with the Westminster Standards, which anybody can do with with any document drawn up by man. It evinces a lack of valuation for what the Standards are teaching and a lack of seriousness in general.
Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 10, speaks of “effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ” which is exactly what regeneration accomplishes. No language of union. Language of new heart, renewed will, enlightened mind to understand the things of God.
Anything serious can be vulnerable to trollish or lawyerly game-playing. It’s here where serious men of God kick the trolls out of the church or whatever environment the trolls are invading, including blogs. *That* is exactly what *is not* happening.
It’s a lack of confidence and lack of conviction on the part of Reformed pastors and teachers, and the trolls have sensed it all along and because this lack hasn’t gone away the trolls havn’t gone away.
Wow Christian, I was asking a question for which I was looking for dialogue…not accusations of playing games. I am not sure what ‘button’ I pushed with you but since you jumped…
Larger Catechism # 66: What is that union which the elect have with Christ? Answer: The union which the elect have with Christ is the work of God’s grace, whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ as their head and husband; which is done in their effectual calling.
It seems to me that there is no playing ‘gotcha’ with the standards. At least, I am not playing any kind of game. I am trying to make sense of the literal language.
Shorter Catechism # 32: What benefits do they that are effectually called partake of in this life? Answer: They that are effectually called do in this life partake of justification, adoption, and sanctification, and the several benefits which in this life do either accompany or flow from them.
If you look at the Puritans before the Westminster Divines and even someone like Beza, you will find that they see effectual calling as the moment when we are united to Christ.
So, my point (and my question), was not to take away priority from effectual calling (or even from justification) but to ask the question of whether or not the original post had a problem with this sort of language from the Divines – where effectual calling and union are connected and out of that comes all the other benefits.
Actually, Reformed theology determined, if one has to place it, that ‘adoption’ is the point of union with Christ.
Again, if you want to know what the Standards mean by effectual calling you go to chapter 10 of the Westminster Confession of Faith. The language in the catechisms is short hand and understood in good faith by anyone who knows the confession, knows the Bible, values both, and is serious about it all.
The overall point here is false teachers are using ‘union’ to vitiate justification by faith alone. If you aren’t following that, sorry. That is the source of my impatience with all of this.
And for the record, regeneration is the unspoken aspect of redemption that both the false teachers *and* the Reformed types they are currently trolling don’t want to talk about. It’s a ‘third rail’ of theology and the false teachers take advantage of that. Once you start talking about regeneration you get intense pronouncement of resentment from both sides. “Are you suggesting I’m not regenerate???” “Can you look into my heart???” Or the more mocking: “So tell us, what exactly did you ‘experience’ in this regneration you speak of? Did Jesus strike you down as you were walking down the road (ha ha ha ha hahahahahahah, good one!)”… So both sides really demand to have ritualism replace the Word and the Spirit regarding how regeneration is effected, when it is effected. The false teachers know this is their main ‘breach’ in the wall they are exploiting, and they *don’t even have to mention it*, but can just grin silently as they go about doing their thing, never-ending.
John Owen didn’t write the following for no reason:
“As among all the doctrines of the gospel, there is none opposed with more violence and subtlety than that concerning our regeneration by the immediate, powerful, effectual operation of the Holy Spirit of grace; so there is not scarce anything more despised or scorned by many in the world than that any should profess that there hath been such a work of God upon themselves, or on any occasion declare aught of the way and manner whereby it was wrought… yea, the enmity of Cain against Abel was but a branch of this proud and perverse inclination.”
- John Owen, A Discourse Concerning The Holy Spirit
Darryl
To summarize Murray: the Call not Regeneration has priority.
That’s fine: most of us (at least the confessional “usâ€) arguing for union, do not want to state anything else. The call, as CNH has demonstrated is the temporally uniting foundation in redemption, not justification, not regeneration. Murray is right Romans 8:30 carries great significance in this discussion. An example of synecdoche, Paul is arguing for the eternal aspect (predestination), the pre-faith temporal aspect (calling), the faith-based-temporal high point of redemption (justification) and the post-faith eternal aspect (glorification). It is important that we understand why Paul chose these particular aspects of the ordo and not some of the others, which he easily could have. The focus on justification should be obvious – he’s writing a letter to a group of believers where the gospel and particularly the doctrine of justification are under attack. He wants to place justification in its correct ordo context and use it within the ordo as the central teaching of, not only the book of Romans, but of the Christian’s experience – the life of faith.
But you’ll also notice that by emphasizing justification in this part of the ordo (by identifying IT as the part for the whole – logical priority over sanctification etc), Paul also set it in its context. It is not the fountainhead as some are arguing but redemptive activity takes place before it and after it. If anything, there is a logical progression from predestination and calling TO justification and not the other way around. (Indeed if we are to follow our catechisms, which I know you do, then our union precedes our justification SC 31 – “effectual calling is the work of God’s Spirit … he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel†and then SC 32 “they that are effectually called do in this life partake of justification …â€. Thus, using other Scriptures (Eph 1 in particular) and the summary of such in our standards, we can build a systematic picture of where justification resides in relation to the other aspects of redemption. Though it is of central and critical importance and non-negotiable in its content and necessity, it is not the fountainhead of other redemptive benefits.
Blessings
Matt
Christian
“Actually, Reformed theology determined, if one has to place it, that ‘adoption’ is the point of union with Christ. ”
That’s a bold statement – care to back it up?
Matt
I did in another thread quoting Richard Muller’s Dictionary of Greek and Latin Theological Terms where he discusses scholastic Reformed theologians correlating union with adoption.
Page 314, almost at the very the bottom of the page, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms – Richard Muller.
Ok, Christian, so Muller has taught you that union and adoption are connected. But the Catechisms, in short shrift, tie it to effectual calling. Are you following Muller or the Confession? Furthermore, what do you do with those who preceded the Confession, but in many ways laid its groundwork, who connect effectual calling with union?
What is so important to you that union cannot come with effectual calling and must come after justification? I don’t understand your anger but, to be honest, in reading your comments I can practically visualize you angrily tying away at your computer, spit flying from your mouth as you rehearse these arguments against fictitious opponents.
I’m a confession guy both in practice and in vow. The confession is not at odds with the catechisms so I would not assume to read the confession as simply nullifying what is in the catechisms.
Do you have an actual argument or just more pent up frustration?
cnh, you seem new to this subject. Effectual calling and regeneration are pretty much the same thing, and in Calvin’s day regeneration as a theological term was used more broadly than it came to be used. I see some of that more broad use of the term in the catechisms. The point is, anybody with good faith can see this, and based on the chapter 10 of the confession one can see what the Westminster divines were saying on this subject. There is also the legal consideration re union, but, again, you seem new to this subject. Try not to overstate any emotion you think you see in my writing, also, by the way. You seem a bit easily freaked out regarding that. Calm down. You’re not in danger.
Also, you don’t seem to know who Richard Muller is. When you cite Muller you are really citing history rather than Mr. Muller’s ‘teaching’. He’s not a systematic theologian. His dictionary is not based on his opinions either.
Christian wrote,
“You seem a bit easily freaked out regarding that. Calm down.”
Sound advice, you should give it a try. You are trying to evade what is laid out and no amount of appeal to Muller’s 4 vols is going to change that reality. If the catechism links union’s timing to effectual calling (LC 66) and if the sort of union they speak of is spiritual and mystical, real and inseprable and relates to our relation to Christ both federally as Head and maritally as husband then you have some explaining to do. You cant just keep saying, “late to the conversation” or “ever hear of legal union” or “don’t you read Muller”. It is possible that the anti-union crowd is overplaying the sources by trying to squeeze out of them more than they are willing to give and they would do well to show folks where they have clearly erred in their reading of LC 66 and other places.
You write,
“He’s not a systematic theologian. His dictionary is not based on his opinions either.”
Yes, he is an airtight dictionary without personality or presupposition. Why arent my copies of Muller in alphabetical order if it is simply a dictionary? Why the historic as well as systematic preambles before the quoting of the sources? Let’s not be naive.
Um, I’m referring to a specific book titled Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, not his more recent four-volume work.
And, again, everything is personality with you types. You have to attack names. For instance when a historic doctrine of the 16th century is being referenced you say “This whole Klinean notion of…” Muller is merely citing history. Quarrel with the history if you want, but that is a different can of worms for you.
“You types”?
I’m sorry, have we met? Do I know you? Oh, I see the old “people are categories’ thing left over from modernism…no wonder “you guys” cant do good Biblical theology, you are too worried about finding the “principle” buried underneath all those extranous historical events and people. Now that we know what “type” you are, we can add a spot to the dictionary of theology that God…err…Muller left and all will be well.
I dont know you, but I bet your not much fun to have a beer with and I imagine you dont like fiction. But it’s just a hunch.
And again, you still have answered the confessional language of LC 66. I guess that is what “all you guys” do. Wait, who are all you guys again?
Christian
You really display little grace with those who disagree with you. You sour every post to which you contribute. In the interests of us all – stop it. In case you had missed the fact, and I suspect you may have, I am now the third person on this entry to highlight your gracelessness. Perhaps you should consider the wisdom of a multitude of counselors?
Strange that you are the one accusing everyone of not knowing, or loving or following the confession as you do, but then look to a source outside the confession to support your position. That’s simply poor work. I’m not bound by Muller, I am by the confession.
Matthew
The current false teachers (Federal Vision and fellow travelers) don’t even recognize individual regeneration by the Word and the Spirit, so this thread is ironically ‘off the reservation’ according to the very people and their novel views you are wittingly or unwittingly defending.
>In case you had missed the fact, and I suspect you may have, I am now the third person on this entry to highlight your gracelessness. Perhaps you should consider the wisdom of a multitude of counselors?
Look at any thread on this blog I am in and see this tactic you all are playing is the *first* tactic you play when you find yourself confronted by someone like myself who does not desire to play games with you and with these very serious doctrines of the faith.
Unfortunately blog and forum owners have fallen for your tactics over and over and have systematically banned all the non-lukewarm Christians on these subjects and allowed all the false teachers and their followers free reign to endlessly poison the waters.
Exactly where did I say the Holocaust was a good thing above? Quote it.
Christian,
Is Dr. Gaffin a part of these false teaching travelers? The authors of question 66? Some of us are disagreeing with the actual arguments being made, not the big spooky ghosts that you find looming behind them.
>no wonder “you guys†cant do good Biblical theology
No, Geerhardus Vos and Meredith G. Kline are lightweights in that area.
>I dont know you, but I bet your not much fun to have a beer with and I imagine you dont like fiction. But it’s just a hunch.
I don’t like beer. I like novels. They, as a genre, allow a true picture of human nature and the ways of the world to be presented. At their best.
Christian,
You are blowing our cover. Up till now “us guys” had the wool pulled over Dr. Hart’s eyes (foolish man!) but by your revealing of our tactics (men, we must have another secret counsel today to change ‘tactics’) we must now be exposed for the sinister luke-warm bunch that we are.
And I thought we were asking union and ordo questions…little did I know how involved the whole thing was complete with secret societies, brown shirts and wiley tactics.
Dr. Hart, I am ashamed you did catch on to us sooner….sucker.
correction – you “didnt” catch on
Christian,
I am sorry I didnt get the team rosters to know who “you guys” picked…I called Vos right after the coin toss, so you cant have him…you guys got John Robbins. Skoda.
Christian,
I don’t like beer much and I’m not the world’s greatest fan of novels, but I still know arrogance and intemperate language when I see it. I see it in you – NOTHING to do with your argument or your position, or mine for that matter (or Jesse’s or cnh’s) – though you seem incapable of recognizing that, but EVERYTHING to do with your attitude. Poor.
>Is Dr. Gaffin a part of these false teaching travelers? The authors of question 66? Some of us are disagreeing with the actual arguments being made, not the big spooky ghosts that you find looming behind them.
If the Westminster divines could divine that 350 years from the time they were putting pen to paper a group of people were going to pounce all over their language in question 66 of the LC, disregard totally any influence of chapter 10 of the WCF, written on that very subject, then pretend that the term regeneration was not used differently in the history of the development of Reformed Theology than it came to be settled as being used, then they’d have been more careful. It’s a man-made document.
But having said the above, your ‘gotcha’ isn’t really much of a smoking gun, is it? What you want would dismantle the entire Westminster Standards at their marrow. We who actually value the doctrine presented by the Westminster Standards can afford to read it honestly and with the necessary care one needs to bring to a historic document, understanding language does not conform – or is not intentionally tightly written – to ward off all future periods of heresy/attack.
Can I be on Vos’s side? Please don’t pick me last Jesse!
Jesse, I didn’t say *you* were lukewarm. You’re obviously very revved up looking for a fight.
Matthew, how many times can you call somebody ‘without grace’ ‘bad attitude’ ‘behaving incorrectly’ before you sound like the beast you are accusing?
Without conceding you don’t have a trumped up charge against me in these accusations, personally, I’m never offended by someone’s attitude. Who cares? Like water off a duck’s back, as they say.
Chill. But don’t try to chill me.
Matthew,
First, greetings. I heard much about you as the former minister of your parish came out this way and you took the charge in Georgia. Lord willing our paths will cross at GA or the like.
Second, for shame about the fiction, for shame…we can deal with the beer situation later. You see there are sins and there are transgressions…but anyway, all that for another day.
Christian,
Please read my above posts in light of the sarcasm with which they were delivered in hopes of having you see the strange leaps in your arguments. This “tactic” failed apparently, so I will get back to my work as lunch is over.
>I am sorry I didnt get the team rosters to know who “you guys†picked…I called Vos right after the coin toss, so you cant have him…you guys got John Robbins. Skoda.
If you don’t want Kline as well, you can’t have Vos.
Anyway it’s great that you want Vos. Now read him.
>Please read my above posts in light of the sarcasm with which they were delivered in hopes of having you see the strange leaps in your arguments.
I’m pretty much a hardened veteran of snarky forums full of intellectual types (I’m a great and foolish debater of evolutionists and atheists too!), and your claim of a running tactic in your posts falls flat, I must say. As, though, a roundabout way to call me a moron we’ll give you some points. If it makes you feel better.
Christian,
Spoiler alert: We know that regeneration was used differently, as was conversion etc.
Please do us the favor, those of us who are not your faithful readers, and spell out for us how chapter 10 on “effectual call” is in any way undone by us reading chapter 10 and question 66 as mutually interpretive? You know, for us slow people.
And then tell us where these two events come in your ordo if at all
1. Legal Union
2. Vital Union
Christian
Very good argument “how many times can you call somebody ‘without grace’ ‘bad attitude’ ‘behaving incorrectly’ before you sound like the beast you are accusing” – sounds awfully like one we used to use in primary school “… No! You are…”. Good stuff.
Didn’t I read somewhere about “…peace, patience, kindness, goodness … gentleness, self control…” or did I dream it?
Jesse,
Greetings also. It would be good to meet up sometime soon, where we could have a decent discussion without all this school-yard silliness. It all get rather boring after about 20 minutes! But still don’t pick me last!
Grace and Peace.
Matt
Never said we didnt want Kline, but then again you dont know me…and you dont have the gift of mind reading.
And really, from the “you types” down, it was a running tactic. Again, your expertise does not lie where you claim. Hopefully your reading of historical sources is better than your proclaimed interpretive “snarkiness’ grid.
Rev. Holst,
Stop acting desperate, it is unbecoming. I am trying to snag all Christian’s guys first and he doesnt want you, you are not “his type” (see there Christian, I did it again! See the quotation marks, dead give away).
>Spoiler alert: We know that regeneration was used differently, as was conversion etc. Please do us the favor, those of us who are not your faithful readers, and spell out for us how chapter 10 on “effectual call†is in any way undone by us reading chapter 10 and question 66 as mutually interpretive? You know, for us slow people. And then tell us where these two events come in your ordo if at all 1. Legal Union 2. Vital Union
I suspect you were able to composed this latest comment because of the fact that you read my comments above. At least you’re learning, even if you don’t want to admit it.
As stated in my very first comment above WCF 10 uses effectuall calling language such as:
‘“effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ†which is exactly what regeneration accomplishes. No language of union. Language of new heart, renewed will, enlightened mind to understand the things of God.’
Legal union in the ordo salutis is adoption, which in Reformed Theology is an element of justification.
Now that you are hip to such distinctions why don’t you just simply learn them? I mean, cut the bluster and defending of wounded vanity, and just simply learn? The false teachers take advantage of ignorance in these matters. You don’t have to be convinced by me just be convinced by the study of Reformed Theology and your conscience and discernment.
Matthew, don’t worry, I sense DGH is about five minutes away from coming into this thread and telling me to stop being a Viking imposing my danelaw on you poor souls. I want at least half the island, though, just so anyone who sees the light can have a place to go and not be called graceless and what not. Imagine that, Vikings graceless and behaving incorrectly…
Or maybe it was because I taught on Calvin’s view of the Christian life as one of repentance…or read Muether on it in seminary when I think he was discussing Pilgrims Progress or …. but sure, you can be my teacher if you need your esteem built.
Adam, is that you? Bluster…sounds like you!
So were the authors of the LC tired when they clearly link mystical union with effectual calling…do tell O Master, My Master.
And if this is so clear, please show me the confessional teaching on it. That should not be tough, especially since you have already taught me all I know on these matters.
And I noticed you dont have a place for vital union. Is that correct?
(dont tell but I read Horton on Covenant and Salvation too…I am hip to this jive, dig?)
You crazy manly viking you…went all danelaw up in this place.
Good thing you did it from a distance, any closer and I would have caught a case of the shivers.
Regarding the false teachers the issue is legal union. I’m big on law regarding my faith. I want to be standing on the Covenant of Redemption when any devil tries to stop me or fool me on the spiritual battlefield. But, again, see my comments above. It’s all there. Once one has experienced regeneration by the Word and the Spirit the resentments and attacks from the world, the flesh, and the devil commence, and also from nominal Christians who don’t cotton to any ‘regeneration’ by the Word and the Spirit. False teachers will never get any charity from me. Their followers need shocks to their system. Hope yours havn’t been *too* difficult…
Low self awareness radar alert
I have never seen a Viking dodge and backpeddle so much in a fight, is this Sister Christian by any chance.
Of course answering any of the straightforward questions listed above about LC 66 or vital union would require you to show yourself beyond the confession on many points so you huff and puff and apparently shock (though I think that might be you get shocked from working with wires while the lines are hot, this is not the place for do it your-self-ers) but you dont answer anything.
Let the reader understand.
Christian, Jesse & Matt:
Wow, I apologize for not checking the blog recently. I was working on a paper that is overdue.
Christian, you wrote: “What you want would dismantle the entire Westminster Standards at their marrow.”
Saying it is so doesn’t make it so. You make assertions and don’t back it up. Please, explain to me. Teach me. How exactly would union coming with effectual calling, as the catechisms and many independent divines stated, dismantle the entire Westminster Standards? How can something they actually wrote dismantle their program? If they don’t mention it in Chapter 10, let me assure you, that it was in many of their independent writings.
What, please, does it do and how does it do it?
FYI, in case you think I am one of “those guys” – I am wary of Kline, enjoy Vos but stay very clear of Federal Vision and NPP. That said, if teams are being drawn up for some sort of RPG version of a theology smack-down…I will take Kline and Vos any day over what side you are on, Christian.
Pick me, Jesse. I like beer AND fiction!
I’ll take….cnh. What kind of beer did you bring? If its light or from a macro brew I’m throwing you back.
CNH, I’ll say it again, I find the ordo in the Catechisms’ discussion of ordo to be not entirely orderly. For instance, the Shorter Catechism starts the application of redemption by talking about faith. The HS applies to us the benefits of redemption by working faith in us, thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling. So is it faith, then union, then effectual calling? Then the catechism says, effectual calling is convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds, and renewing our wills and then we embrace Christ. So knowledge and regeneration proceed union (i.e. embracing Christ).
I’m not objecting to these answers. I just don’t find them to be definitive about the ordo.
Meanwhile, I keep wondering why the historia salutis, which was supposed to liberate us from ordo questions, has made us obsessive about ordo questions.
Matt, I don’t disagree that redemptive stuff happens before and after justification, no more than I deny that redemptive stuff happened before and after the death of Christ. But isn’t it possible to say that just as there is not salvation without Christ’s death, there is no salvation without justification. If you want to claim that union is crucial to justification, I see the point and take it. But so is the Trinity crucial to justification. What I am partly contending for is the idea that justification is central in a way that sanctification is not. And that is because it is possible for someone to be saved who is partially sanctified. There is no such thing as partial justification.
No, not light beer…the darker the better. I tend to like beer that is too expensive for my budget so I have to make it myself. That just means that there’s plenty to go around!
dgh, what do you think of Murray’s understanding of definitive sanctification? Wouldn’t that mean that there’s a sense in which a person cannot be saved who is partially sanctified? Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think union people (aka, “those people”) argue that a person is progressively sanctified all at once in their union with Christ. Do they?
dgh, you wrote, “I find the ordo in the Catechisms’ discussion of ordo to be not entirely orderly.” So, as a “Old Life” confessional kind of guy…what do you base your understanding of the ordo on?
I am confused a bit. I agree with what you are saying: completely justified. Completely saved even if only partially sanctified (thief on the cross, right?). How does the placement of union hurt that? Furthermore, how does receiving the benefits simultaneously hurt that? In other words, if you are fully justified and adopted and sanctification begins all at the same time – what’s lost?
DGH: The HS applies to us the benefits of redemption by working faith in us, thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling.
“Thereby” means “thus”, or as RL put it, is a causative (“by this”). So:
The HS applies to us the benefits of redemption by working faith in us. By this, He unites us to Christ in our effectual calling.
So faith causes union (more precisely, causes reception of union).
The “in our effectual calling” is an appositive of the “working faith in us.” So:
The HS applies to us the benefits of redemption by working faith in us, which is our effectual calling. By this, He unites us to Christ.
JRC
P.S. My beer is root (IBC), though ginger is nice also.