In the interest of saying things clearly and with as few words as possible, here’s a little help on the centrality of union versus the centrality of justification discussion.
The question is, “how am I right with God?â€
The Justification Priority folks answer in the following: “you are right with God by your justification, that is, an act of God wherein he freely pardons all your sins and accepts you as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ, which is imputed to you by faith alone.â€
The inquirer says, “thanks, that’s helpful.â€
The Union-Centric folks say: “you are right with God by your union with Christ, that is, by the Spirit applying to you all the benefits that Christ purchased for you, including both a forensic aspect (justification) and a renovative aspect (sanctification) and these dual benefits, though distinct, come to you simultaneously without confusion or commingling.â€
The inquirer then asks, “but how am I right with God?â€
The Union-Centric folks then clarifies, “well, you are right with God by your justification, that is, an act of God wherein he freely pardons all your sins and accepts you as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ, which is imputed to you by faith alone.â€
The inquirer then says, “thanks, but why didn’t you say that the first time?â€
Of course, the same Strunk & White rules would apply to the following scenario.
The inquirer asks, “how am I right with God?â€
The Shorter Catechism Devotee responds, “God created man. Man sinned and fell. God established a covenant of grace. God sent Christ, the only redeemer of God’s elect, to execute the offices of a prophet, priest, and king and fulfill the terms of the covenant of grace. All the offices of Christ have two aspects, one of humiliation one of exaltation. The Holy Spirit applies the benefits of redemption purchased by Christ. He calls you effectually. He unites you to Christ by faith. By faith you receive the benefits of justification, adoption, sanctification, assurance of God’s love, peace of conscience, joy in the Holy Spirit, increase of grace, and perseverance. You also get more benefits when you die, and when you are raised from the dead.â€
The inquirer has left the conversation.
Old Life 
Beware the following broken record. The issue comes back to what you mean by “right.” Union is central because it focuses on the one who procures salvation and answers the question of how you can be saved i.e. have eternal and consummated communion with God. A duplex gratia Dei is necessary to answer the problem of sin.
If you continue to empty the “question” of salvation of its renovative aspect, then justification would seem to be central (though you’re still not addressing the unique forensic contribution of adoption).
LikeLike
Camden, and I’ll replay a golden oldie — if sanctification in this life is incomplete, and if God requires perfect righteousness on judgment day, and if by faith I have Christ’s righteousness imputed to me, isn’t justification central to my own righteousness as well as the claim that I no longer face condemnation? My renovation in this life won’t get me out of jail back to Eden.
LikeLike
DGH, this is a fair attempt, but here’s this particular unionist’s answer:
Q: “How am I made right with God?”
A: “By believing in Christ, you receive his righteousness that covers your sin. God sees you righteous because of Christ. We call this imputation.”
Q: “Well, OK, but how can God possibly count me as righteous because of Jesus? That’s a legal fiction.” (our questioner happens to have an RC background).
A: “Ah. That happens because in believing, I am united to Christ; he is my federal head and I become one of his people. That’s why Paul says, “in Him, we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” God can count Christ’s righteousness for me because I am literally in Him.”
So union is not a replacement for justification! Rather, it is an explanation of the underlying mechanism. I think that’s probably why union lies in the background in the Confession.
By way of analogy: If you ask me
Q: How does the sun heat the world?
A: The radiation from the sun travels the distance and strikes the earth, and the molecules in the atmosphere and ground absorb that radiation.
Q: Well, OK, but how does the absorption process take place?
A: According to Quantum Mechanics, radiation travels in packets called photons, and each photon interacts with the chemical bonds in molecules causing vibrations. Here are the underlying equations ….
(eyes glaze over)”
The analogy is this: Quantum Mechanics is not opposed to the basic explanation, but provides a fuller account of it.
Likewise, union is not opposed to justification, but provides a fuller account of how it happens. If I were giving a simple answer to the question “How do I become right with God?”, I would give the simple answer every time.
But if I were getting into the technical details, I would appeal to union.
Why?
Because without union, we end up having to be justified outside of Christ.
Think about it: if we aren’t justified in union with Christ, then we are by definition justified outside of Christ. That’s a real problem.
LikeLike
“Omit needless words, omit needless words,” to quote Strunk. None of the words of explanation you posited were needless. Obviously, they should all come eventually. Some are needless for the simple answer you’re looking for, though. I find Elements of Style to be a very spiritual book, don’t you?
LikeLike
dgh, I like this approach because it, once again, gets to the heart of the matter. This is why sanctification must be understood as having two aspects – one is progressive and, therefore, incomplete in this life. The other is definitive and so we stand before God, in Christ, righteous and holy. Of course, you asked the question, “how am I made right with God?” I think that you are correct here, justification must play a “central role” in that explanation – even if it is in a union approach.
But, we are talking more about understanding the whole of soteriology – not just its parts. And, in speaking of the whole, we speak of being united to Christ in our effectual calling and receiving all the benefits from that union. This is the language of the catechism and, I think, it is right.
If someone asks me what must they do to be saved, I say “repent and believe.” If they ask me how they can be right with God – I say “turn to Christ; repent and believe.” I actually think using the word and definition of justification in such a setting (with an unbeliever) would also have the inquirer leave. That said, as they grow in their faith and understanding, we can talk about all of these technical terms.
LikeLike
Union is central because it focuses on the one who procures salvation and answers the question of how you can be saved i.e. have eternal and consummated communion with God.
But doesn’t the line of questioning still back up a bit further? For the sake of discussion, let’s say that union does what you say it does: union saves. The next question seems to be, How do I get that union? And the answer seems to be I get that union by being declared righteous. How do I become declared righteous? By grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
Or, how do I survive? You must eat. What should I eat? You should eat fish. How do I eat fish? You must catch them first with a fishing pole. The fishing pole seems to become the priority for me, doesn’t it, such that to have a fishing pole is to have life? Otherwise, it seems like unionists are telling hungry and ignorant men to survive without telling them how to eat—unless they ask.
LikeLike
Zrim, the reformers would agree with you! That is why Beza and Perkins constructed the chart and golden chain – to show that it goes all the way back to God’s eternal decree of election. Both of them, however, saw that this came to be effected in the individual believer through union with Christ. It’s in their charts and the explanations. They saw justification and sanctification as benefits received simultaneously (Perkins even saw sanctification having two aspects – a definitive and a progressive.)
So, I suppose we can say to those who ask “how can I be right with God?” That they must be elect. But that would be silly to start there. Starting with union doesn’t have the same problems. Then again, neither does starting with justification – if we’re talking about methods of evangelism. Justification would fit better into the “Romans Road” tract anyway.
LikeLike
Jeff, you have swapped unions. The union in WSC (funny how the initials of the catechism and the seminary are the same) 29ff is mystical union. You just appealed to federal union. That union happens well before the application of redemption.
cnh and Jeff, what I don’t get is that union is the application, it is the work of the Holy Spirit. And yet union is supposed to be all about Christ. Justification is a benefit. Without it no hope. Union doesn’t give that hope unless justification is in the answer, which means the brief answer about salvation is justification. Union is the long winded answer and actually invites even more questions — like, which union are you talking about? Maybe that’s why the sixteenth century creeds (he wrote for the umpteenth time) don’t mention union.
LikeLike
dgh, certainly there can be other reasons why 16th century creeds don’t mention union, right? Perhaps that wasn’t the question they were answering. A lack of mention, particularly in an early creed, doesn’t dismiss the doctrine completely – nor does it mean it wasn’t being talked about. It just wasn’t the reason the creed was written. Justification, being the material principle, is what is taken up. 100 years later, as theologians are spelling things out a bit more clearly (like at Westminster) you start to see the language of union introduced. I think this makes perfect sense and is a pattern you see in the development of just about every doctrine. I am ok with the fact that union language is all over Calvin and Beza but is not picked up in the confessions until Westminster (though, not having read all of those confessions, I can’t say that is an accurate summary).
I don’t think that union is the long-winded answer any more than I think explaining the intricacies of the Trinity are long-winded. They are necessary. Are there shorter ways to explain things? Yes. But are the more detailed ways important for making certain that our doctrines do not lead into error? Yes.
But I suspect that this more than “short” versus “long”. There is an irreconcilable element in this debate that sees sanctification as that which is caused by justification…or justification flows from sanctification – pick your language. This, when worked out, is problematic. I have yet to see the problems that arise from a Union view. Yes, there are those that misunderstand and abuse it. Welcome to doing theology. It has been the same in the doctrine of revelation, theology proper, Christology, Pneumetology, etc. I am sure the same thing occurs in the study of history.
Maybe the initials were the reason they stopped by WTS-California. We used to say that they just wanted to get rid of theology 😉
LikeLike
DGH: Jeff, you have swapped unions. The union in WSC (funny how the initials of the catechism and the seminary are the same) 29ff is mystical union. You just appealed to federal union.
I can see why you thought that, but no. “Federal union” as defined by Berkhof is our election, being chosen in Him before the foundation of the world. “Mystical union” as defined by Berkhof, which is what I usually mean by the word “union”, is the realization of that federal union in both its forensic and transformative aspects. So the mystical union consists of being united to our federal head. The reason then that justification is not a legal fiction is that in our mystical union I am clothed with Christ.
Here is Berkhof on the logical priority of mystical union and justification:
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. — Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 450
Please note the Confession: we are not justified until Christ is applied to us. That’s union.
Listen to Dabney, who is looser than I on this:
1. Union To Christ Effectuates Salvation.
It is through this union to Christ that the whole application of redemption is effectuated on the sinner’s soul. Although all the fullness of the Godhead dwell bodily in Him since His glorification, yet until the union of Christ is effected, the believer partakes of none to its completeness. When made one with His Redeeming Head, then all the communicable graces of that Head begin to transfer themselves to him. Thus we find that each kind of benefit which makes up redemption is, in different parts of the Scripture, deduced from this union as their source; Justification, spiritual strength, life, resurrection of the body, good works, prayer and praise, sanctification, perseverance, etc., etc. — Dabney, Systematic Theology, Ch. 38
DGH: …what I don’t get is that union is the application, it is the work of the Holy Spirit. And yet union is supposed to be all about Christ.
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ. Paul uses these terms interchangeably: the indwelling Spirit; Christ dwells in us. It’s not that the persons are confused; it’s that the work of the Triune God always includes all three persons.
LikeLike
Zrim: The next question seems to be, How do I get that union? And the answer seems to be I get that union by being declared righteous.
Can you point to a place in the Scripture, in the Confession, in the Catechisms, that would suggest that answer?
While you’re looking, ruminate on these proofs:
P: Union is prior to justification.
Proof #1:
(1) Justification is an application of redemption (Romans, Galatians, the whole NT).
(2) Redemption is applied to us in our effectual calling by uniting us with Christ (WSC 30).
(3a) Union is therefore necessary for redemption to be applied, and
(3b) Union is therefore logically prior to the application of redemption
(4) Therefore, union is a necessary precondition for the application of redemption,
(5) Which includes justification.
Proof #2:
(1) Justification is a manifestation of our union (WLC 69)
(2) “A manifests B” means that A shows that B has occurred.
(3) “A manifests B” therefore implies that B is prior to A.
(4) Union is therefore prior to justification.
Where is the error here? And importantly, why do you argue the opposite, that J is prior to U?
LikeLike
DGH: …if sanctification in this life is incomplete, and if God requires perfect righteousness on judgment day, and if by faith I have Christ’s righteousness imputed to me, isn’t justification central to my own righteousness as well as the claim that I no longer face condemnation?
This is indeed a golden oldie. Each statement here deserves a hearty Amen. The only slight problem is that it doesn’t go to the question.
You’re stringing several true statements — justification is indeed central to my own righteousness; and to the claim that I no longer face condemnation. You imply another true statement, that my sanctification has no bearing on my justification.
All of this is true. But it has Nothing To Do with the relationship of justification to union. Absolutely nothing.
Why?
Because union consists of two distinct aspects — forensic and transformative. The relationship of justification to union has to do with the relationship of the forensic aspect of our union to our justification. The transformative aspect is left out in the cold, so to speak. It is entirely irrelevant to the question of justification.
Let’s head off a less golden oldie at the pass: Why didn’t Shepherd and Kinnaird see it this way?
Probably, for an entirely different reason: they were tinkering with the nature of faith itself.
But before Shepherd, there was Berkhof — and he’s pretty much above reproach. And his view, represented above, is that union is logically prior to justification. I believe you recall that this was the view of the Hodges as well, and of course there’s Dabney as cited above.
Dr. Hart, isn’t the evidence pretty overwhelming that Reformed systematic theologians place union logically prior to justification?
LikeLike
Let’s tackle this question of the 16th century creeds and confessions.
First, which ones are we talking about? I’m thinking of the Heidelberg, Genevan confession, the Genevan catechism, the Helvetics, the Gallic, the Belgic, Augsburg, the Formula of Concord, Smalcald. We might or might not include the Book of Common Prayer. Did I miss any?
Second, why stop at the 16th century? Why not include the Westminster standards? John Owen? Fisher?
Alright, let’s tackle them
Heidelberg:
Q. 1. What is your only comfort, in life and in death?
A. That I belong–body and soul, in life and in death–not to myself but to my faithful Savior, Jesus Christ, who at the cost of his own blood has fully paid for all my sins and has completely freed me from the dominion of the devil; that he protects me so well that without the will of my Father in heaven not a hair can fall from my head; indeed, that everything must fit his purpose for my salvation.
Belonging to Christ — that’s the concept of union.
Genevan:
VI. Salvation in Jesus
We confess then that it is Jesus Christ who is given to us by the Father, in order that in him we should recover all of which in ourselves we are deficient.
Redemption in Christ again….
VII. Righteousness in Jesus
Therefore we acknowledge the things which are consequently given to us by God in Jesus Christ: first, that being in our own nature enemies of God and subjects of his wrath and judgment, we are reconciled with him and received again in grace through the intercession of Jesus Christ…
VIII. Regeneration in Jesus
Second, we acknowledge that by his Spirit we are regenerated into a new spiritual nature.
Redemption in Christ again, WITH bonus points for clear statement of duplex gratia.
Genevan Catechism:
Master. – Do we therefore eat the body and blood of the Lord?
Scholar. – I understand so. For as our whole reliance for salvation depends on him, in order that the obedience which he yielded to the Father may be imputed to us just as if it were ours, it is necessary that he be possessed by us; for the only way in which he communicates his blessings to us is by making himself ours.
Master. – But did he not give himself when he exposed himself to death, that he might redeem us from the sentence of death, and reconcile us to God?
Scholar. – That is indeed true; but it is not enough for us unless we now receive him, that thus the efficacy and fruit of his death may reach us.
Master. – Does not the manner of receiving consist in faith?
Scholar. – I admit it does. But I at the same time add, that this is done when we not only believe that he died in order to free us from death, and was raised up that he might purchase life for us, but recognise that he dwells in us, and that we are united to him by a union the same in kind as that which unites the members to the head, that by virtue of this union we may become partakers of all his blessings.
The Gallic:
XXXVI. We confess that the Lord’s Supper, which is the second sacraments, is a witness of the union which we have with Christ…
Wait a second … I thought that the Lord’s Supper was a witness to the forgiveness of sins …
Belgic:
We believe that, to attain the true knowledge of this great mystery, the Holy Ghost kindles in our hearts an upright faith, which embraces Jesus Christ, with all his merits, appropriates him, and seeks nothing more besides him. For it must needs follow, either that all things, which are requisite to our salvation, are not in Jesus Christ. or if all things are in him, that then those who possess Jesus Christ through faith, have complete salvation in him.
Bonus points: not only does the Belgic argue that our salvation is in Christ, but it makes my argument that if justification is not found in Christ, it must be found outside of him.
Now, when we get over to the Helvetics and the Lutheran confessions, we do not find recognizable union concepts (arguably). So your point is partially taken.
But in the main, I would say this: the concept of union is robustly present in the 16th century confessions and catechisms that were written by or influenced by Calvin, over against Luther.
This entirely unsurprising, given Inst 3.1.1.
The language of union, however, does not appear with regularity until the 17th century. But when it does appear, it appears consistently like this: out of union flow all of the benefits of redemption, including justification.
LikeLike
cnh,
…the reformers would agree with you! That is why Beza and Perkins constructed the chart and golden chain – to show that it goes all the way back to God’s eternal decree of election. Both of them, however, saw that this came to be effected in the individual believer through union with Christ…I suppose we can say to those who ask “how can I be right with God?†That they must be elect. But that would be silly to start there. Starting with union doesn’t have the same problems. Then again, neither does starting with justification.
Where is there any talk here of faith? It seems like Reformation Christianity 101 to say that all the benefits of Christ are communicated through faith. And, yes, election is the wrong place to start answering the question of how to be right with God. Just like union is. And you don’t start with justification because that’s a snyomyn for “being right with God” (how am I right with God? By being right with God. Huh?). And we are right with God, or justified, through faith alone in Christ alone. An dif you’re right with God you certainly have union with him. Right?
Jeff,
Real quick, sorry. You keep claiming that justification is a manifestation of our union (WLC 69). But 69 seems to suggest that it’s the other way around:
Q. 69. What is the communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ?
A. 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.
That is, union is a manifestation of justification (and whatever else); those who are justified are also adopted and sanctified. And only those who are such may be said to have union with him.
LikeLike
Zrim, I’m no logician but you turned WLC 69 on its head. It says that justification, adoption and sanctification manifests their union with Christ. That is, J, A and S show a person’s union with Christ. How do you see that union follows from those things? And, if so, how do you reconcile that view with the fact that the catechism states we are united to Christ in our effectual calling?
As for “talk of faith” – it is absolutely appropriate. We only take hold of Christ and all the benefits through faith. That isn’t excluded on a Union view to the best of my knowledge. Sorry I did not include it as I was trying to answer a more specific question.
Of course, if you are right with God then you are in union with God…but “being right” with him does not cause our “union with him” as you seem to want to state. That, at least, is not the historic reformed view, which is what we are trying to discuss. Do you have any citations of reformers and/or confessions that place union as flowing out of justification and sanctification? I would be interested to read them.
LikeLike
Zrim, I agree with cnh. The grammar of the sentence is clear.
Justification, sanctification, adoption, and whatever else is the compound subject.
manifests is the verb.
our union is the direct object.
Your reading is grammatically backwards.
LikeLike
No, no, my grammar is wrong too.
J, S, A, and the Whatever else clause are compound objects of “in.”
In the clause,
whatever else is the subject,
manifests is the verb,
their union is the object (functioning more like a predicate nominative).
Justification, sanctification, and adoption are then entailed into the verb by the “whatever else” — the “else” meaning “besides the foregoing.”
But though my first stab at the grammar was wrong, the sense was correct: J, S, A, and Whatever Else are things that manifest union.
It is certainly not the case that union manifests anything here.
LikeLike
A more obvious parallel:
We are inviting Alice, Bob, Charlie, and whoever else wants pizza.
The “else” entails Alice, Bob, and Charlie into the verb of the clause, “wants.”
LikeLike
Jeff:
I think you’re closer than Zrim, but I still think your analysis of the grammar is off. The answer focuses on mediation.
The main clause of the sentence is The communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ is their partaking of the virtue of his mediation.
The following words are a series of prepositional phrases with the preposition implied in all but the first phrase. Thus, you could render it in their justification, [in their] adoption, [in their] sanctification, and [in] whatever else, in this life, manifests their union with him.
The grammar of the sentence doesn’t compel one to say that justification manifests union. That’s just pushing it too far. But the sentence does carry that meaning in an indirect way.
LikeLike
I agree with your analysis of the main clause.
What do you make of the “else”? Am I pushing it too far to say that “else” entails the previous items into the subject of the clause? (as in the pizza example)
LikeLike
(that is to say, I’m reading the “else” as implying that J, S, and A are also manifesting union. Is this incorrect?)
LikeLike
—
Grammar aside,
DGH, what is the precise meaning of the sentence
“sanctification flows from justification”?
On the one hand, I’m a bit embarrassed to admit not understanding the seemingly simple concept “flows from.”
On the other, when told that our sanctification is motivated by the fact that I am already justified, I nod vigorously in agreement.
On the third hand, I’m told that “flows from” does not “is caused by” but does mean “is a fruit of.”
That hair don’t split for me. Help?
LikeLike
Of course, if you are right with God then you are in union with God…but “being right†with him does not cause our “union with him†as you seem to want to state. That, at least, is not the historic reformed view, which is what we are trying to discuss. Do you have any citations of reformers and/or confessions that place union as flowing out of justification and sanctification? I would be interested to read them.
Jeff,
What I have been trying to do, for the sake of discussion, is presume what unionists seem to want to say: union is the point and it saves. I don’t see it that way. I think that the point is justification, that it saves. But if unionists want to say that union makes me right with God, it seems to me that the question is how do I get that union. (I suppose one answer is, “You don’t ‘get it.’ You’re either elect or you aren’t.” But that seems hyper-Calvinist, or at least some system wherein we dispense with something like the well-meant offer, and, logically, evangelism.)
To my mind, this idea that union is the point or that it saves is the problem. Again, I’ve no beef with union per se, but I’m just trying to presume something I don’t and make it work (and I guess it isn’t for unionists). I suppose my problem is that I presume the question to be, How am I right with God? I see this as the primary theological question and the union answer is something of a philosophical one. Square pegs, round holes. Maybe unionists don’t see “How am I right with God” so much as Thee question as they do merely a question?
LikeLike
Jeff, yes, union is there in the 16th century and it’s all over the sacraments. So much for unionists today advocating Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper — talk about Lutheran.
cnh and Jeff, good works flow from justification. If you (cnh) want to accuse WSC of advocating justification causing sanctification, then you’re the one who’d better pick the words carefully. They have denied saying this. I have wondered what’s the problem. I’m not a theologian. I provoke, you decide.
But if Jeff is going to ask about sanct. flowing from just., and he is going to say that sanctification is “motivated” by my justified status, then it seems that unionists themselves go back and forth between interchanging sanct. and good works. The motivation for sanct. is God’s, not ours, since sanct. is the work of God.
Do you disagree that good works from from Just.?
LikeLike
Would it not be more correct to say that Justification is the means by which we are declared righteous before a holy God while Union with Christ is the means by which we receive the all the benefits of Christ including Justification, Sanctification, Adoption, and Glorification? In other words Union is a ‘higher” order benefit that has causal priority over the the other aspects/benefits of the Ordo Salutis.
LikeLike
But Kenneth, I didn’t think union was any more a benefit than effectual calling. Union and effectual calling are delivery systems for the benefits, not benefits themselves.
LikeLike
dgh, I am not accusing anyone of anything. To say that sanctification flows from justification is to say that sanctification is the result of justification. This is causal language. If it is supposed to be interpreted otherwise then they need to be more careful in how they word it. This is why I think it is best to follow the Confession and distinguish good works from sanctification. They are not synonymous.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
I think we are on the same page but just using different words. I agree that Union can be considered a delivery system; I mean the same thing when I call it a “higher order” benefit since it logically precedes the other “lower order” benefits, such as Justification and Sanctification. If that is not precise enough language, I am happy to go with delivery system.
My main point is that we need to be careful to distinguish Union with Justification in terms of what it does for us but maintain the causal connection.
LikeLike
DGH: …union is there in the 16th century and it’s all over the sacraments. So much for unionists today advocating Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper — talk about Lutheran.
I don’t follow? I’m pretty sure that Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper includes union (Inst. 4.17.9). The Lutheran problem has to do with the ubiquity of Christ’s body, a flat repudiation of Chalcedon.
LikeLike
Zrim: What I have been trying to do, for the sake of discussion, is presume what unionists seem to want to say: union is the point and it saves.
Now I understand what you’ve been doing. I thought you had been asserting that unionists teach that union is the point, and that it saves — neither of which is strictly accurate. And so I thought you were being obfuscatory on purpose. It turns out, you haven’t been.
So just to clear things up:
At least for me, union is not “the point.” Jesus is the point, and He saves. And He saves us from God’s wrath by justifying us; and from our slavery to sin by sanctifying us.
“Union” comes into the discussion of justification when it becomes necessary to emphasize that we are justified by being covered in Christ’s righteousness, and not by a bare legal fiction. Thus, union is a crucial piece in the Protestant defense against Trent.
“Union” comes into the discussion of sanctification when it becomes necessary to emphasize that our sanctification is not of ourselves, but driven by the work of the Spirit in us. Thus, union is a crucial piece in the Protestant pushback against the eternal tendency towards sanctification-by-the-flesh.
The truly perverse irony is that union was co-opted by covenantal nomists.
Zrim: I don’t see it that way. I think that the point is justification, that it saves.
Which is more important, to be righteous before God, or to be delivered from the enslavement of sin? Definitely, the former.
But the latter is not chopped liver. It is in fact a part of our salvation. And thus it is that “being saved” in Scripture and in the Confession includes both being righteous before God and also being delivered from this body of death. In that sense, sanctification also saves.
—
But more basically, you’ve been reading WLC 69 backwards.
LikeLike
Jeff,
If you want to use union against Trent, fine. I just don’t see the point, because the point of Trent was how justification is delivered: by faith and works or by faith alone? It seems to me that Rome agrees that we are united to Christ but disagrees with how that happens. There seems to be a parallel here between the material principle of the Reformation (sola fide) and the formal principle of the Reformation (sola scriptura). Rome agrees that the Bible is the infallible Word of God. But she doesn’t believe it is the sole authority. Using union against Rome in the material principle debate seems like using infallibility over the formal principle. We all agree that we are united to Christ and the Bible is the infallible Word of God. Yeah, so?
And, again, I think you’re overstating things. JPs don’t think sanctification is chopped liver and agree that it is part of the package of salvation. It’s that justification has a necessary priority to it. And I wouldn’t say “sanctification saves†so much as those who are justified are also sanctified. The former sounds a little too much like “one is as justified as he is sanctified,†the Roman shorthand. The latter sounds like “we are justified by faith alone but not a faith that is alone,†that classic Protestant shorthand.
LikeLike
The point of the sixth session of Trent was to lay out the RC account of justification. That account includes a large dose of justification delivered by transformation, which you’ve shorthanded as by faith and works. The core of Trent 6 is that “justification” means “being made righteous” and that justification is accomplished by a faith informed by love (cf. Cajetan, appealing to Augustine).
As a result, Trent explicitly anathematizes imputation:
“CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema. ” — Trent, 6th Session.
The reasoning behind this anathema is that “is repugnant that God should declare any one free from sin to whom sin is still actually cleaving.” Cath En, Sanctifying Grace.
Over against this, union points out that by participating in Christ, by being united with Him, his righteousness can legitimately be credited to us.
LikeLike
CNH:
You said, “To say that sanctification flows from justification is to say that sanctification is the result of justification. This is causal language. If it is supposed to be interpreted otherwise then they need to be more careful in how they word it. This is why I think it is best to follow the Confession and distinguish good works from sanctification.
Let’s stick with the Westminster Standards, then. WLC 75 teaches that sanctification is the “renewal of the whole man after the image of God.” It goes on to explain that this means that the Spirit plants, stirs up, increases, and strengthens “the seeds of repentance unto life, and all other saving graces” in the heart of the elect. The result of this is “that they more and more die unto sin, and rise unto newness of life.”
“Repentancte unto life” is so central to the definition of sanctification in WLC 75 that it warrants further elaboration in WLC 76, which teaches that “repentance unto life is a saving grace…whereby, out of the sight and sense, not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, and upon the apprehension of God’s mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, he so grieves for and hates his sins, as that he turns from them all to God, purposing and endeavouring constantly to walk with him in all the ways of new obedience” (emphasis added). In the context of language about the danger and odiousness of sin, don’t you think it’s likely that the phrase “God’s mercy in Christ” refers to God’s forgiveness of sins? Doesn’t this language presuppose that the repentant person is justified and understands his justification? And isn’t it this knowledge that is the foundation not only for the repentant person’s grieving and hating of sin but also for his purposing and endeavoring to walk in newness of life?
It seems to me that WLC 75 & 76, when read together, at least teach something close to a causal relationship between justification and sanctification. Though expressed differently, the same relationship is evident in Calvin’s 1537 Catechism. Chapter 17 is entitled “We Are Sanctified Through Faith In Order To Obey the Law.†This is what he has to say:
“Observance of the Law, therefore, is not a work that our power can accomplish, but it is a work of a spiritual power. Through this spiritual power it is brought about that our hearts our cleansed from their corruptions and are softened to obey unto righteousness. Now the function of the Law is for Christians quite different from what it may be without faith; for, when and where the Lord has engraved in our hearts the love for his righteousness, the external teaching of the Law (which before was only charging us with weakness and transgression) is now a lamp to guide our feet, to the end that we may not deviate from the right path. It is now our wisdom through which we are formed, instructed, and encouraged to all integrity; it is our discipline which does not suffer us to be dissolute through evil licentiousness.â€
Again, our sanctification (our being formed, instructed, and encouraged to all integrity by the Law) rests on the fact that the Law can no longer condemn us. It presupposes our justification. The use of the Law as a guide for grateful obedience rests on the end of the Law for righteousness.
Luke recounts how our Lord taught the same principle:
“One of the Pharisees asked him to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee’s house and took his place at the table. And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she learned that he was reclining at table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment, and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with the ointment. Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner.” And Jesus answering said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” And he answered, “Say it, Teacher.”
“A certain moneylender had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they could not pay, he cancelled the debt of both. Now which of them will love him more?” Simon answered, “The one, I suppose, for whom he cancelled the larger debt.” And he said to him, “You have judged rightly.” Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.” And he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, “Who is this, who even forgives sins?” And he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”
Don’t you think that all of this permits one to say that sanctification flows from justification?
I know that I used this passage in a previous comment and that it was featured in a recent post by Dr. Hart. But the simplicity and beauty of its teaching is irresistible.
LikeLike
RL, I have great appreciation for your correct point that our sanctification is motivated by and patterned after our justification (more below as time permits). But your points above significantly over-reach in order to make the stronger point that J causes S.
For example:
In the context of language about the danger and odiousness of sin, don’t you think it’s likely that the phrase “God’s mercy in Christ†refers to God’s forgiveness of sins? Doesn’t this language presuppose that the repentant person is justified and understands his justification?
Actually, it presupposes that the repentant person understands the atonement. You’ll need to coordinate this with the chapter in the Confession on repentance unto life, and also with Calvin’s teachings on the matter. As it is, the evidence is thin.
LikeLike
RL, here’s what I mean:
Calvin teaches this (Inst. 3.3.1):
Although we have already in some measure shown how faith possesses Christ, and gives us the enjoyment of his benefits, the subject would still be obscure were we not to add an exposition of the effects resulting from it. The sum of the Gospel is, not without good reason, made to consist in repentance and forgiveness of sins; and, therefore, where these two heads are omitted, any discussion concerning faith will be meager and defective, and indeed almost useless. Now, since Christ confers upon us, and we obtain by faith, both free reconciliation and newness of life, reason and order require that I should here begin to treat of both. The shortest transition, however, will be from faith to repentance; for repentance being properly understood it will better appear how a man is justified freely by faith alone, and yet that holiness of life, real holiness, as it is called, is inseparable from the free imputation of righteousness. That repentance not only always follows faith, but is produced by it, ought to be without controversy, (see Calvin in Joann. 1: 13.) For since pardon and forgiveness are offered by the preaching of the Gospel, in order that the sinner, delivered from the tyranny of Satan, the yoke of sin, and the miserable bondage of iniquity, may pass into the kingdom of God, it is certain that no man can embrace the grace of the Gospel without retaking himself from the errors of his former life into the right path, and making it his whole study to practice repentance. Those who think that repentance precedes faith instead of flowing from, or being produced by it, as the fruit by the tree, have never understood its nature, and are moved to adopt that view on very insufficient grounds.
The following things are clear from this passage:
(1) For Calvin, repentance and justification are two heads or fruits of faith.
(2) That neither appears without the other, and
(3) Both are caused by faith.
So from the start, the view that “S flows from J” is an awkward conflation of things. The genuinely Calvinistic teaching is that S and J both flow from faith.
One sign of a problem is that the Confession nowhere teaches that sanctification flows from justification; a second sign is that the Catechsim does teach that S and J are separate graces. It establishes a kind of firewall between S and J by establishing different causes for each: infused grace on the one hand and imputed grace on the other.
These two points, silence and a clear firewall between S and J, ought to require a high bar of proof in trying to causally relate one to the other.
In other words, it’s not enough to provide evidences that our good works are motivated by justification (as your Scriptural examples certainly demonstrate!). That only gets us so far.
To prove the much stronger claim that J causes S, you need much more — and as far as I can currently see, the support for this is not in Scripture (hence not in the standards).
LikeLike
cnh, Then how does sanctification (used interchangeably with good works following 16th c. usage) as the fruit of justification strike you? That still sounds causal. It’s organic causality, not mechanical or industrial. But to say that something is the fruit of something else suggests that it draws its life from the other. When my mother gave birth to me, I’d say she was a cause.
Jeff, my point about union and sacramental theology is that the only unionists who have taken Calvin seriously on the sacraments are the Federal Visionaries. So why don’t the rest of the unionists start advocating a higher view of baptism and weekly communion?
Also, you recent explanation of Calvin is curious because of the way that you seem to conflate repentance, sanctification, and good works. cnh has taught us that’s a no no.
Kenneth, I’m completely uncomfortable calling union a benefit. It is part of the application of redemption. That application enables those effectually called — oops, united to Christ — to partake of the benefits.
LikeLike
DGH: But to say that something is the fruit of something else suggests that it draws its life from the other.
That’s precisely the problem with this “fruit of” / “cause” / “flows from” language.
If justification causes sanctification, then the grace that causes justification thereby causes sanctification. And we know that this is false!
Why is this elusive?
DGH: Also, you recent explanation of Calvin is curious because of the way that you seem to conflate repentance, sanctification, and good works. cnh has taught us that’s a no no.
As I read Calvin and the Confession, sanctification is a change in nature “in the whole man”, while repentance unto life is a mental and affective fruit of this change, while good works are actions that proceed from sanctification.
If I understand, cnh doesn’t want us to confuse action with nature, good works with sanctification.
LikeLike
Jeff, what could this possibly mean? “If justification causes sanctification, then the grace that causes justification thereby causes sanctification. And we know that this is false!” Where does the Bible or confession teach that there is one grace that causes sanctification and another that causes sanctification? Isn’t it all of grace — one grace?
I’m not trying to be obtuse but this is a real head-scratcher. I mean, you even say that justification and sanctification flow from union. I am concerned about the relationship of the forensic to the revovative — duh. But if both proceed from union, aren’t they coming from the same grace?
LikeLike
DGH: Where does the Bible or confession teach that there is one grace that causes sanctification and another that causes sanctification?
WLC 77: Question 77: Wherein do justification and sanctification differ?
Answer: Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification, yet they differ, in that God in justification imputes the righteousness of Christ;in sanctification his Spirit infuses grace, and enables to the exercise thereof; in the former, sin is pardoned; in the other, it is subdued
LikeLike
Nor is this a niggling point. If you want to talk about material principles of the Reformation, one of the biggies was that justification is not caused by infused grace, but sanctification is. THAT is why Trent anathematizes Protestants; works is really just the outworking of the Tridentine doctrine that the grace that justifies also sanctifies.
Over against this, Calvin teaches clearly that justification and sanctification work on separate principles of imputation and infusion.
LikeLike
Jeff:
Doesn’t talking about the two-fold grace (duplex gratia) of union raise the same problem? Shouldn’t we shun that language? Would it have been more precise (more Reformed?) for Calvin to speak of two graces (duo gratiae)?
Dr. Hart has already pointed out that the union-emphasizers often criticize justification language for having the same drawbacks that union language has.
LikeLike
RL: Doesn’t talking about the two-fold grace (duplex gratia) of union raise the same problem?
Sorry, I don’t see what you mean. Keeping imputation and infusion distinct seems to be sufficient. Whether that should count as “two graces” or a “two-fold grace” would not appear to be material.
By contrast, having imputation cause justification which causes sanctification creates a clear chain of causality: imputation causes sanctification. Which means, through the back door, that imputation is transformative, and our justification is therefore caused by a transformative grace.
(Before anyone objects to the notion of chains of causality, think about this:
Bob causes his finger to pull the trigger.
The trigger causes the hammer to fall.
The hammer causes the primer to fire.
The primer causes the charge to explode.
The explosion causes the bullet to accelerate
The kinetic energy of the bullet causes Charlie’s heart to stop.
Charlie’s heart-stoppage causes him to die.
Would anyone seriously dispute the proposition, “Bob caused Charlie’s death”?
Yet somehow, it seems “strange” to say that if justification causes sanctification, then the grace of justification must be transformative.)
LikeLike
Would anyone seriously dispute the proposition, “Bob caused Charlie’s deathâ€?
Yet somehow, it seems “strange†to say that if justification causes sanctification, then the grace of justification must be transformative.
Jeff,
What would be a strange thing to say is that because my mother conceived me she created me, which is what you seem to be suggesting causal language does. But the grace of justification is no more transformative than my mother’s conception (of me) was creative. And I don’t see how causal language confuses either of those realities. I can see a child thinking that “I conceived you and caused you to live†means mom must’ve sat up one night and actually pieced him together, bit by bit. True, she could get more technical and precise about it all, but causal language isn’t doing anything more heinous than mom telling me she conceived me and caused me to live. And even when I grow up and understand the precision of things, it’s still perfectly fine for mom to tell me she conceived me and caused me to live.
LikeLike
Jeff:
Sure, Bob caused Charlie’s death. Let’s keep going. Suppose further that when Bob shot Charlie, he was motivated to shoot by a firm and certain knowledge that Charlie had a gun and was about to attack Bob and his family. Wouldn’t we say that Charlie’s attack caused Bob to shoot? (And we’d probably let Bob off the hook).
Now, suppose there’s a guy named Dan who daily endeavors to walk in new obedience, putting to death the old man. He is motivated to do this by a firm and certain knowledge that God is benevolent toward him and that God’s benevolence is based on Christ’s meriting for Dan the forgiveness of sins, without out which Dan and God would have remained enemies. What’s the cause of Dan’s repentance?
LikeLike
Jeff:
My comment about the duplex gratia was a reference to your earlier comment that “If justification causes sanctification, then the grace that causes justification thereby causes sanctification. And we know that this is false!” The noun gratia is singular. There is only one grace. The grace that causes justification also causes sanctification – that’s why it’s called “double” or “two-fold.” The one grace is both transformative and forensic. The one grace both imputes and infuses. You’ve labeled this a pernicious error when it appears in justification language.
Now, employing your own notion of a causal chain, we see how dangerous this language is if one does not zealously preserve the priority of justification. If sanctification has priority, then the chain has infused grace (or righteousness) being the first step toward justification. This isn’t getting close to Rome. This is Rome.
LikeLike
RL, the WLC says that grace is infused, not infuses. I don’t know what picture you have in mind, but you’re tinkering with the language.
If you want to say that it is one grace that accomplishes both, but with two aspects, I have no problem with that. But however you say it, the moment that your one aspect (imputed) starts causing what properly belongs to the other aspect (infused), then WLC 77 stands in your way.
As to “sanctification having priority”, no-one at all has said that! You’ve incorrectly assumed that either justification has causal priority or else sanctification has causal priority. The third option is obvious: neither has causal priority over the other.
In point of fact, I would hold that justification has a kind of priority over sanctification, along the lines of the OPC report. But that kind of priority is well short of full-blown causation.
—
But all of this is inside baseball. The real question is, does the Confession teach that “sanctification flows from / is caused by / is a fruit of justification”?
And if it doesn’t — and I see no reason to see that it does — then why is that formulation being taught as if it were Reformed doctrine? As if it were a test for orthodoxy?
It’s one thing to speculate; it’s another to hold other people to your speculations.
What is unequivocal is that justification and sanctification differ in this: “God in justification imputes the righteousness of Christ;in sanctification his Spirit infuses grace.”
LikeLike
Jeff, WLC doesn’t talk at all about two graces. It talks about two kinds of righteousness, if we want to be precise, which is what unionists are asking of thank God it’s forensic Fridayists. Also, justification and sanctification are technically benefits, using the language of the Standards. And I suspect that duplex gratia language is really talking about benefits. Since 16th c. Reformed creeds use sanctification and good works interchangeably, why not here.
But I don’t see why justification and sanctification need to be two kinds of grace. Two kinds of righteousness was at the heart of the Reformation debates.
LikeLike
One more thought about the transforming effects of grace (singular). Isn’t removing the claims of the law on my sinful behind pretty transformative?
LikeLike
Jeff:
RL, the WLC says that grace is infused, not infuses. I don’t know what picture you have in mind, but you’re tinkering with the language.
I didn’t mean to. Chalk it up to my not getting enough sleep last night and being in a hurry earlier. That’s a two-fold excuse (duplex excuso).
I also didn’t mean to imply that you had said sanctification has a causal priority over justification. I was just issuing a caution.
LikeLike
RL: Tried to post earlier but it got hung up … I appreciate your clarifications and thank you for your patience with my persistence.
LikeLike
All,
I may have had a breakthrough or maybe not. So tell me if this is what you are saying:
“Justification can be said to be a cause of sanctification in this sense: When Bob wakes up in the morning and fixes his mind on the fact that he is entirely righteous before God through the work of Christ, the Spirit uses his reflection on his justification to renovate his heart and increase his love for God and man, thus leading to a mortification of lusts and destruction of the body of sin.
Or in short: the accomplished verdict becomes the pattern from which the sanctified man derives his encouragement, his motivation, and his aim.”
Is this what you mean?
LikeLike
DGH: Jeff, WLC doesn’t talk at all about two graces. It talks about two kinds of righteousness
Not sure I see that. The WLC actually does mention more than one grace. “Justifying faith” is a saving grace (#72); “Repentance unto life” is a saving grace (#76). There are, apparently, multiple saving graces (#32). By contrast, I don’t see anything about two kinds of righteousness.
I am told, however, that there are two kinds of luv that you oughta know. 😉
LikeLike
Wow I cant fathom who is computing all these crazy posts. Your content is excellent and it attracts many amounts of these forms people. all the best and thanks for the work!
LikeLike