Even though we have taught in part how faith possesses Christ, and how through it we enjoy his benefits, this would still remain obscure if we did not add an explanation of the effects we feel. With good reason, the sum of the gospel is held to consist in repentance and forgiveness of sins [Luke 24:47; Acts 5:31]. Any discussion of faith, therefore, that omitted these two topics would be barren and mutilated and well-nigh useless. . . . For when this topic is rightly understood it will better appear how man is justified by faith alone, and simple pardon; nevertheless actual holiness of life, so to speak, is not separated from free imputation of righteousness. Now it ought to be a fact beyond controversy that repentance not only constantly follows faith, but is also born of faith. For since pardon and forgiveness are offered through the preaching of the gospel in order that the sinner, freed from the tyranny of Satan, the yoke of sin, and the miserable bondage of vices, may cross over into the Kingdom of God, surely no one can embrace the grace of the gospel without breaking himself from the errors of his past life into the right way, and applying his whole effort to the practice of repentance. There are some, however, who suppose that repentance precedes faith, rather than flows from it, or is produced by it as fruit from a tree. Such persons have never known the power of repentance, and are moved to feel this way by an unduly slight argument. (Institutes, III.3.1)
123 Comments
Zrim: You seem to suggest that confessionalists are pushing forensics and dispensing with union.
The nature of these discussions might be the culprit here, but my outside perception is that present company is pushing forensics and dispensing with union, or perhaps “making union so secondary that it disappears.” It appears that justification and union are, for you, locked in a battle such that one must increase and the other decrease.
For example:
Two things: first, union simply isn’t given nearly that sort of space in the confessional formulations, and second, the reason is that it doesn’t make anybody right with God.
By contrast, WSC 30 teaches that justification is a manifestation of our union with Christ. So if being united to Christ (which means that His righteousness covers me) doesn’t make us right with God, then what does, exactly?
How is it that someone like Reymond (not, AFAIK, one of “Gaffin’s boys”) could summarize union thus:
Union with Christ is the fountainhead from which flows the Christian’s every spiritual blessing — repentance and faith, pardon, justification, adoption, sanctification, perseverance, and glorification. (Syst. Theol. 739).
I just don’t think you’ve interacted satisfactorily with the non-Westminster-Philly theologians who speak positively of union. It really seems that “union” has become a political term that is used to identify a party.
Would our union with Christ, or for that matter, any of His work on our behalf, avail anything for us apart from God’s announcement of the verdict from heaven? If God, the judge of mankind, did not declare that He was not counting our sins against us for the sake of His Son, and counting the Son’s righteousness as ours, would there even be saving faith? If there was faith, what would be its content?
I am not dismissive of union, but I fail to see how it benefits unless there is the judicial decree of ‘not guilty’ from heaven. I grant that God could not (would not) give this verdict apart from the work of Christ for us men and for our salvation, but it is this announcement of the good news verdict that the Holy Spirit uses to generate the saving faith that evidences our union with Christ. Does this not give at least some support to the priority of the forensic in our justification? And since justification is the only part of our salvation that is sola fide, doesn’t that also give some support to the idea that sanctification is in some sense grounded in our justification, that is, the announcement of God’s verdict of not guilty.
Randy,
The judicial decree is part of what it means to be united to Christ. Being covered in His righteousness — imputation — *is* to be righteous in God’s sight.
So our union avails us in our justification.
…my outside perception is that present company is pushing forensics and dispensing with union, or perhaps “making union so secondary that it disappears.†It appears that justification and union are, for you, locked in a battle such that one must increase and the other decrease.
Well, I don’t think that’s really the case. I think you’re taking the push for the priority of justification to be the same as hanging union out to dry. But now I am getting repetitive.
But what I find interesting is that Rome, in some sense, agrees with Geneva (and Wittenberg): justification is so vital that those who construe it in terms of sola fide are to be anathematized. I guess I feel more at home with the presuppositions that inform Rome’s anathema than with fellow Protestants who want union on equal ground with justification. So, Jeff, do you take issue with Trent because it isn’t as positive of union as it is negative on sola fide?
I take issue with Trent because it anathematizes sola fide. That’s enough.
Zrim: Well, I don’t think that’s really the case.
The easiest way to show that it’s not the case is to start writing positive things about union. Start interacting with Reformed exponents of the doctrine. Stop treating pro-union folk with suspicion.
If you don’t want to hang union out to dry, then stop treating it like the ugly stepchild.
Listen to yourself!
I guess I feel more at home with the presuppositions that inform Rome’s anathema than with fellow Protestants who want union on equal ground with justification.
You’re saying that you feel more at home with Rome than Gaffin. How in the world do you get to this point?
Jeff,
Take a breath. What I am saying is that Rome seems to understand the priority of justification. Not in relation to sanctification, of course, but in relation to getting it right, such that strong pronouncement is reserved for those who get it wrong. Isn’t that what Paul says about himself or angels who preach another gospel?
How’s this for positive: union, like marriage, is a very good thing. My only point is that, like marriage, union doesn’t exist without legal, forensic declarations. Why is this treating union like an ugly stepchild? Even good looking stepchildren aren’t legitimate until certain legal declarations are made.
OK, breath taken.
In marriage, the declaration creates the marriage. Alice and Bob walk the aisle as unmarrieds; they take vows and the minister makes a proclamation; they walk back down as a married couple clap clap clap.
If we reason from your analogy, then the declaration (justification) creates the marriage (union).
But this not correct according to the Catechism, which lays things out as
The Holy Spirit unites us in our effectual calling to Christ by faith.
That union is manifested in different ways: justification, sanctification, etc.
To make your analogy Confessionally correct, we would have to say that the Holy Spirit’s effectual calling creates the marriage, which includes the declaration.
Now, you may say, why doesn’t the Confession make this clearer?
Actually, it does:
God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sins, and rise for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.
The union and the justification are simultaneous; not one before the other, either in time, logical priority, or importance.
Zrim: What I am saying is that Rome seems to understand the priority of justification. Not in relation to sanctification, of course, but in relation to getting it right, such that strong pronouncement is reserved for those who get it wrong. Isn’t that what Paul says about himself or angels who preach another gospel?
No, Paul has not a word to say to people who “get the priority of justification” wrong.
What he does have to say is to those who are turning to or preaching another “gospel.” And the chief characteristic of that other “gospel” is that it begins by faith but continues in the power of the flesh (Gal 3.3). It is very true that the Galatians have a defective understanding of justification in relationship to sanctification. But Paul’s solution is not to “get the priority of justification” right; it is to get straight that the Spirit, not the flesh, is the source of godly living; and that justification and covenant membership is by faith and not by works of the law.
Put this another way: the real prize for you is to establish the legitimate priority of justification over sanctification, right?
And if we put it that way, then I agree:
(1) A man is justified entirely prior to his being sanctified.
(2) Our justification is the pattern for our sanctification.
(3) Our sanctification is motivated in part out of gratitude for our justification.
All of these things are true.
My point is, “union” is not a proxy for “sanctification.” You want to establish some kind of priority of justification over union as a way to get at the priority of justification over sanctification, and it just won’t work.
There is no priority of justification over union, any more than there can be a priority of “running” over “taking steps.” How do we run? By taking steps. How are we justified? By Christ’s righteousness applied to us.
Jeff:
I think you’re right so long as a person is thinking of union the way that you are describing it now. I appreciate your definition of union, and I really think that you’ve taken the time to get at what Calvin is trying to say. But I think that you too readily assume that everyone is using it in that way. (The fact that there are so many ways to interpret and employ the term cautions against its overuse). I think your view of the interplay among justification, sanctification, and union is at odds with Gaffin’s view.
Here’s another quote from Gaffin that should convince you that you and he are not speaking about the same thing:
“Calvin destroys Rome’s charge [of antinomianism] by showing that faith, in its Protestant understanding, entails a disposition to holiness without particular reference to justification….Calvin proceeds as he does, and is free to do so, because for him the relative “ordo†or priority of justification and sanctification is indifferent theologically. Rather, what has controlling soteriological importance is the priority to both of (spiritual, “existential,†faith-) to union with Christ.” From Biblical Theology and the Westminster Standards WTJ 65 (2003) 165–79.
It seems to me that Gaffin is using union terminology here not to stress the closeness and interrelatedness of justification and sanctification, but to pull them apart. He uses union to speak of a “disposition to holiness without particular reference to justification.” I don’t see that in Calvin, and from our past discussions, I don’t think you see that in Calvin.
I think Gaffin and Garcia’s novel use of union language warrants our skepticism.
RL, thanks for the distinctions. My queue currently has TLNF, Justified in Christ, Shepherd’s Saved By Grace, and van Drunen’s Two Kingdoms on it, so I hope to be able to see things more clearly at the end of all of it.
There are ways that I could make sense of Gaffin’s quote in terms of duplex gratia, but he does seem to have more daylight between the two than I would allow.
Zrim, sorry for the hot-headedness earlier.
Jeff, you think an emphasis on forensics obscures a fuller view of Reformed soteriology. That’s fine. I get it. That’s also the point that Shepherd was trying to make. I’m not using Shepherd as a scare word. That’s simply the case that Shepherd was trying to get the dual aspects of salvation before a crowd that he thought was guilty of antinomianism. So the way to solve antinomianism is bring in the renovative aspects.
The problem though is that the Reformation was forensic happy — that’s why we call justification the material principle of the Reformation and why Rome anathametized Protestants. Justification is also what Murray called the crux of the Reformation. (Are the Philly theologians interacting with the Philly theologians?)
So it is a feature of Reformed Protestantism to stress the forensic, not simply for historical reason but also for pastoral ones, because the work of sanctification is imperfect and imperfect won’t cut it on judgument day. So for sanctification to be effective, it needs justification. And for union to deliver the goods we need for salvation, it needs to rely on the transaction of justification.
That in my view makes forensic pretty darned central, and it is something that the emphasis on union has not admitted. Union has become central to certain formulations for whatever reasons and has decentered justification. What unionist has written what Murray did about the “crux” of the Reformation, and done so without trying to work union into the answer?
BTW, what Protestants have been antinomian? We are legalists through and through (except when it comes to worship and observing the Lord’s Day).
Jeff, one more thing: I’m not sure if you’ve answered this, but I wonder what you make of the idea that union is such a small part of the teaching of the Reformed confessions, and that even in the WCF it fails to generate a chapter. How central is that?
Zrim, sorry for the hot-headedness earlier.
It’s funny how that happens whenever justification gets prioritized. There’s got to be a way to affix an “R†to those who do so, as in radical justification prioritizers.
Man has a union problem. As naturally born he is in Adam. The fruits of that union, if one can call them that, are sin, death, bondage, and enmity with God. Man’s only answer is that he must be born again. He must have his union with Adam severed and be united to another. He must be born Spiritually. He must be born again in Christ.
Peter tells us that we are born again by the word of God, and that this word is the word by which the gospel is preached. In the Reformation this gospel was recovered and restored to its apostolic sweetness. Our salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, on the account of Christ’s merits alone. Through the preaching of this apostolic message of free justification the Holy Spirit creates faith in our hearts, giving us new birth in Christ, thus uniting us with Him. It is from this union that all experiential benefits of salvation flow. Having new birth through justification, we now live the new life in our sanctification.
Now it would be difficult to ascribe a priority of birth over life, or life over birth. They are, in normal usage, undivided. One is born to life, and no one lives who has not been born. Yet, there is one aspect in which birth claims its position.
What ordinarily makes one a citizen of the United States is his birth. Living in the country is not enough. I recently went through the process of obtaining a passport. Proof of my birth here was required. No verification of birth in the US meant no US passport. Similarly, when I need verification of my citizenship in heaven, looking to the subjective benefit of the covenant (sanctification and inward renewal) is not enough. I must look to the forensic, objective benefit of the covenant (justification and righteousness sola fide) if I am to assured that I am a citizen of the age to come. Sanctification does give a necessary corroboration to my justification, but is in no way the ground of my citizenship. I need my birth certificate.
This is a summary of my current understanding of the relationship of justification and sanctification. Like birth and life, I do not believe they can be severed. I also believe that this agrees in substance with the historic reformed doctrines. I am willing to be instructed.
Randy,
Thanks for that God-glorifying summary of the doctrine. The only difference I would draw with you is that the union we have with Christ is not limited to experiential relationship but also includes our forensic, legal declarations. We are justified by being “in Christ.”
This is why the Catechism teaches
Q. 29. How are we made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ?
A. We are made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ, by the effectual application of it to us by his Holy Spirit.[83]
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,[84] and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling.[85]
Q. 31. What is effectual calling?
A. Effectual calling is the work of God’s Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ,[86] and renewing our wills,[87] he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ,[88] freely offered to us in the gospel.[89]
Q. 32. What benefits do they that are effectually called partake of in this life?
A. 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.[90]
And the Larger:
Question 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.
Question 67: What is effectual calling?
Answer: Effectual calling is the work of God’s almighty power and grace, whereby (out of his free and special love to his elect, and from nothing in them moving him thereunto) he does, in his accepted time, invite and draw them to Jesus Christ, by his Word and Spirit; savingly enlightening their minds, renewing and powerfully determining their wills, so as they (although in themselves dead in sin) are hereby made willing and able freely to
Answer: his call, and to accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein.
Question 68: Are the elect only effectually called?
Answer: All the elect, and they only, are effectually called; although others may be, and often are, outwardly called by the ministry of the Word, and have some common operations of the Spirit; who, for their wilful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ.
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 70: What is justification?
Answer: Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardons all their sins, accepts and accounts their persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone.
In other words, justification is a result of redemption applied; we are justified in Christ by His righteousness imputed to us.
So the real issue is not whether justification has priority over sanctification (it does, properly understood), nor whether justification corresponds to a verdict that marks our entrance into spiritual life (it does), but whether “union” properly understood is limited only to experiential and transformative benefits (it isn’t).
Dr. Hart, in case it hasn’t yet become clear: I do not suspect you of antinomianism.
More later.
About 9 years ago, after I had moved into my first house but before marriage, a couple of door-to-door evangelists from a local Baptist church came to my door.
I welcomed them, mentioned I was a member of a Presbyterian church, and asked them how their evangelism was going.
They, with friendly but guarded faces, asked me whether I was saved. I replied, Yes. They asked, How did I know?
I replied that Jesus had died on the cross for my sins, and that I was forgiven because of His death on the cross for me.
Yes, they pressed, but had I accepted Jesus as my personal Savior and Lord?
With a small mental *sigh*, I said Yes. Then they relaxed.
What struck me about the encounter was our different understandings of assurance.
In my view, the best way to know that I was saved was to look at Jesus and say, “He died for me!”
In their view, that wasn’t enough. Instead, I was supposed to look at my own faith and say, “See! I have made a personal decision for Christ!”
I consider that a defective soteriology. It moves faith in Christ out of the center and puts faith in faith in its place. Not that I think these folk were unsaved; rather, I was (slightly) disappointed that they didn’t understand that my response *was* a response of faith.
—
Move forward now to our conversations about union and justification. My understanding of salvation is like this:
God chose you before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless in His sight. To accomplish this, He at His appointed time effectually called you, creating faith. By that faith, He united you to Christ, applying redemption to you. There are two distinct aspects of this redemption. The first, forensic, consists of a verdict of “Not Guilty!”, flowing out of being clothed with Christ, an act of imputation. The second, experiential, consists of a new nature and the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ, which is called “Christ in me”, an act of infusion. Christ is at the center of redemption, and all of the blessings of redemption flow from Him.
That’s salvation as I see it, as it appears to be in Scripture, the Confession, Calvin, and all of the systematic theologians I know.
But now, along come Justification Priority folk who say, No, no. This picture is all wrong. Justification is at the center of redemption, and all of the blessings of redemption flow out of that verdict. And if you don’t think about it in this way, then you are a closet moralist and Shepherdite.
And in some cases (Zrim, for example), the JP teaching appears to be that being united to Christ occurs after being justified, so that being justified is NOT through being “in Christ”, but in some other way (presumably, a legal transfer of righteousness while still outside of Christ).
So I listen to JP folk, and I hear their concern to not make justification depend on sanctification, and I nod my head and say “Yep. Justification is based on imputation; sanctification on infusion. We don’t want to confuse these”
But then I hear the demand to make justification the center. And I say, “But Christ is the center. Why would I want to make justification the center?”
Right?
And to add to it, I read Calvin and the Confessions and it appears to me that my model of salvation is in accord with what they teach; while nary a word do I see in the Confession about the “priority of justification over union.” Instead, in the Catechism, justification is a manifestation of union. Why? Because being in Christ is the source of the verdict of Not Guilty.
Now, I have no idea about Gaffin and Garcia. At some point I’ll read them and decide for myself whether they are confusing justification and sanctification. It may well be that their view of union is different from mine; but I care not. The point is not to pick a team. the point is to get the story straight.
So I don’t see the Priority of Justification as a helpful explanation of salvation. By subordinating union to justification (Zrim’s words), it appears to make union a manifestation of justification instead of the other way round as the Catechism teaches (and the Confession: We are not justified until Christ is applied to us). At best, this is confusing.
Instead, JP appears to me to be an over-correction for the errors of Shepherd.
—
Why am I not like Shepherd? Simple: justifying faith is purely receptive, containing nothing of itself that tends towards good works. Done.
This is an outcome of my “firewall” between imputed and infused graces.
—
Why doesn’t the Confession have a separate chapter on union? Because union is not the point; being united with Christ is the point; just as “faith” is not the point, but “faith in Christ” is the point.
And I’m fairly confident that the Confession puts Christ at the center of our salvation. He even gets His own separate chapter.
Jeff,
As usual, there is much with which to agree. I do like your evangelizing example, as it helps us to see the foibles of fideism. But it does seem quite odd to suggest that to prioritize justification is to subordinate Christ.
And if being united with Christ is the point then the next question seems to be, How does that happen? And the answer, at least as I have always understood Reformed Christianity, is in being justified by grace alone, through faith alone on account of Christ alone. Again, the marriage analogy: if being united is the point then it seems natural to ask how does that actually happen? By legal declaration, right? We seem to agree that union is the point. But, to keep the analogy going, your concern seems to be like telling a courting couple not to get too caught up in the formalities of legal declarations, lest they over-react to the errors of some who bypass them in the pursuit of union. Is that really good advice?
Jeff, Thanks for putting your cards on the table.
It’s an interesting story you tell about the evangelism visit. It is also odd that the JP folks are the ones out there being critical of that kind of experiential understanding of faith. I haven’t heard it much from the unionists. So actually, I don’t think the example goes to the heart of the matter.
What comes closer is your assertion that “being in Christ is the source of the verdict, ‘not guilty.’” Actually, that’s not right. Christ’s righteousness is the source of the verdict, technically. Which is why I keep saying that union doesn’t remedy our problem without having to lean on justification. A bare union can’t help without justification. So union can be as abstract as the unionists assert about justification as the hinge — you know, a hinge is not a sky hook.
It’s also odd that you have made salvation dependent on union with Christ. Of course, there is a sense in which that is right. But it is not right unless it also speaks of faith and the imputed righteousness of Christ that comes with it. In other words, union makes no sense without justification. So that makes justification conceptually prior to union.
Here is what the JP folk are trying to say:
“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 along, 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)
If the question is how is man right with God, union is not the answer. Union is an answer to any number of questions. But it doesn’t answer the one put forward by the Reformation. That likely explains why union is not part of the 16th c. creeds and confessions.
DGH: If the question is how is man right with God, union is not the answer. Union is an answer to any number of questions. But it doesn’t answer the one put forward by the Reformation. That likely explains why union is not part of the 16th c. creeds and confessions.
Zrim: And if being united with Christ is the point then the next question seems to be, How does that happen? And the answer, at least as I have always understood Reformed Christianity, is in being justified by grace alone, through faith alone on account of Christ alone.
I think we just have to part company on this question, then. These statements appear to me to be counterfactual. The concept of union is important enough to Calvin that he leads off the discussion of salvation with it. The Catechisms are clear: Redemption is applied to us by uniting us with Christ in our effectual calling. Justification is a manifestation of our union with Christ.
Whatever else might be said about relative importances or key doctrines of the Reformation, these statements from the Catechism just cannot be (or at least have not yet been) reconciled with the proposition that union depends on justification.
So gentlemen, I appreciate your desire to keep sanctification out of justification, and join you in this. I just can’t accept the “priority of justification over union” as genuinely Confessional at this time.
(That doesn’t mean I’m totally immune to persuasion … it just means that I’m stuck on the priority that is apparently clear in the Catechism, which seems to be thoroughly confirmed by a survey of historic and current systematic theologians.)
Jeff said:
“So the real issue is not whether justification has priority over sanctification (it does, properly understood), nor whether justification corresponds to a verdict that marks our entrance into spiritual life (it does), but whether “union†properly understood is limited only to experiential and transformative benefits (it isn’t).”
I agree, but I think we might be talking past one another. This is Bierma on Olevianus’s bilateral nature of the covenant (from “German Calvinism in the Confessional Age”):
“The covenant so understood is more than a promise of reconciliation; it is the realization of that promise–reconciliation itself–through a mutual coming to terms. Not only does God bind Himself to us in a pledge that He will be our Father; we also bind ourselves to Him in a pledge of acceptance of His paternal beneficence. Not only does God promise that He will blot out all memory of our sins; we in turn promise that we will walk uprightly before Him. The covenant in this sense includes both God’s ‘promissio’ and our ‘repromissio’.”
Bierma is careful here in noting that even our ‘repromissio’ is an evangelical response. It is God working in us and through us that enables our part of the reconciliation.
I think we can see two aspects of union in this description of the covenant. The first is Christ uniting (binding) Himself to the elect. This He does in eternity in the covenant of redemption and in history in the Incarnation and, of course, in all His subsequent work on our behalf. In this sense God was reconciling Himself to the world in Christ. What remains is for the individual to be united (bound) or reconciled to Christ. This is the experiential, transforming part aspect of the union.This seems to agree with the language in II Cor 5. We have been reconciled, so then let us be reconciled.
Maybe this bilateral notion of the promise and consequent bilateral notion of union may help in our conversation. I believe proponents on both sides love the Lord and are sincerely seeking the truth. When I hear one side I think, “That sounds right.” Then I hear the response and I think, “That sounds good, too.” A coin has two sides, yet it is but one coin. Maybe union can be the same, maybe not. Thoughts?
Jeff, the point wasn’t one about ordo. And this is the incredible irony — noted again and again — that union was supposed to be about the historia not the ordo and yet when someone claims that union depends on justification — that is for an explanation of how we are righteous — you only think in terms of ordo, as in justification precedes union.
My point was this: effectual calling don’t answer how we are right with God. They answer how the spirit applies to us the benefits of redemption. The answer to how I am right comes from justification. So union needs to get to the answer of justification to address the question of how am I right with God, which was, as Murray indicated, the crux of the Reformation. And which explains why union was not in the Reformed creeds of the sixteenth century and why it only makes it into the Standards by the skin of its teeth.
Come on, Jeff, give us more than a paragraph of Calvin and four answers from the Westminster Catechisms. How is it pervasive in the Reformation? And why is it more pervasive in Reformed thought than in Roman Catholic or Lutheran thought?