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
Jeff,
Sorry the marriage analogy fell flat. Computer analogies just seem inferior compared to familial ones.
But my point was just to suggest that this conversation always seems to be one of priority. And those who would defend the priority of the declarative nature of justification seem to have something in common with those who would champion the priority of the same in marital vows (confessionalists are intuitionalists after all). It’s better to speak of priority to than causation of, but I don’t see that those who might say that justification causes sanctification are meaning to say that “justification contains within it a transformative grace.â€
When I was declared married I didn’t think of that declaration as having resident within it something transformative per se. It simply, but necessarily, put something into motion, made something true that an hour before was not true. The declaration of the minister depended upon the authority vested in him. In the same way, it seems to me that my being declared justified really finds its transformative power in God himself to make true what he has declared, and that by way of sanctification. And, so, if there is any danger in how justification and sanctification are construed, I think the Roman construal that imports sanctification back into justification is a better template than suspecting those who might speak of justification causing sanctification. Saying justification causes sanctification just seems like a less than ideal way of saying justification has priority to sanctification, that’s all.
CNH:
What do you mean by “material condition”?
RL, I mean what most everyone means when they speak of material condition. Sorry, I don’t have the exact definition in front of me. You can google it. It’s one of Aristotle’s four causes: formal, material, final and one other one that I can’t remember.
Zrim, isn’t the RCC problem that they put justification into sanctification (not S into J)? The problem with causal language is that it is not, in any way, priority language. Priority has to do with dependence while causation is more than that. If we want to say that J has priority over S then we want to define in which way it has priority but causation is much stronger relationship that would make one more important than another.
I am fine with a language of priority so long as it is defined properly. I think that causation (saying that justification is the source of sanctification) takes us back into the errors of mixing the two benefits.
Sorry, RL, I have gotten my terms tangled. Not good for someone who is trying to carefully define things.
I did not mean “material condition(al)” as that has to do with logic. If P then Q is the same as saying not both P and not Q.
I had meant, the first time I used it, to refer to the “material principle” of the Reformation, which is the question of justification. (The Formal Principle is the authority of Scripture.)
The second time I used it I was thinking of causation (as I mentioned above, which also tipped me off to my mix-up). There are four kinds of causation: material, formal, efficient and final. To say that justification causes sanctification you would have to define what you mean by cause. I was thinking about material causation, I think. Certainly it is not the formal or the final. So, it could either be efficient (justification brings sanctification about) or material (justification is the stuff that makes up sanctification). I don’t know that I would be comfortable saying that that sort of relationship is appropriate. So, I don’t know that causal language is proper.
But, my original point was to say that the sentence “sanctification flows from justification” is simply another way of saying “justification is the source of sanctification” or “justification causes sanctification.” I think that it would have to be either MC or EC though I suppose there might be an argument that it is FC…I am just not sure if that would lead to saying S flows from J.
As I said before, I am fine with priority language, rightly defined, but causal language is a direction I would not want to go.
CNH:
I wasn’t being facetious. I just wasn’t sure.
I was particularly interested in this statement of yours: “So, how does J causing S not lead to the individual having, within themselves, the material condition for sanctification?”
Here, you indicate that it would be a serious error for a person to think that they had within themselves the “material condition” of sanctification. As I understand the term, the material cause is the thing (or substance) out of which something is made. Aristotle used the example of the making of a bronze statue. When compare sanctification to the making of the bronze statue, the Spirit corresponds to the sculptor and the person corresponds to the bronze. The Spirit transforms people the way the sculptor transforms bronze. Isn’t this right?
If my comparison is accurate, then a person is the material cause of sanctification, but that’s no cause of concern is it? I don’t think it would cause anyone to be puffed up to teach them that they are the material cause of sanctification in the same way that bronze is the material cause of a statue. Is this a problem or have I confused the categories?
In Aristotle’s philosophy, the efficient cause is the principle of change. So broadly speaking it is the sculptor and, narrowly speaking, it is the art that the sculptor employs. So in sanctification, the Spirit corresponds to the broad sense and his working through the preached Word corresponds to the narrow sense.
To finish off the comparison, I think that the formal cause is Christ, in the sense that Christ is the pattern of the Spirit’s sanctifying work in the same way that the sculptor’s vision of what he wants his statue to look like is the pattern of his work. The final cause, of course, is the glory of God.
So I don’t think that justification causes sanctification in any Aristotelean sense, but I don’t think Aristotle’s uses exhaust the modern meaning of the term. Sticking with Aristotle’s statue example, I would say that election and justification correspond to the sculptor’s choosing and purchasing the bronze that he would use. The Father’s choosing the elect is election and Christ’s purchasing the elect is justification.
Though we see that choosing and buying bronze didn’t figure into Aristotle’s account of the causes of a statue, most people would see them necessary preliminary steps. Hence, one could say but for the sculptor’s choosing and purchasing of the bronze there would be no statue. In that sense they are causes.
RL, let me think more about it. I like what you are saying and I think that it fits. And now that it’s clear, I don’t think that is what they are saying (since they are speaking of the relationship of J to S, not self to S). Thank you for thinking it through so well, it is very helpful.
Some say that S flows from J. That seems to me to be something different…giving J a generative and transformative aspect that we would not want to give it. J is declarative and S is transformative. I think if we were to see it this way, J causes S, (keeping with Aristotle) we would have to say that Justification is the efficient cause of Sanctification, the source. I think that this is where others were going with it as an error. The justified person then becomes the efficient cause of their own sanctification. I would have to re-read Garcia but it seems that this was his concern.
…isn’t the RCC problem that they put justification into sanctification (not S into J)?
Well, the shorthand from the Catholics I have ever engaged is that “one is only as justified as he is sanctified.” That seems like thinking sanctification when one is saying justification to me, or putting sanctification into justification.
As far as your protestation against causation, again, I remain relatively unpersuaded that it is anything more than shorthand for priority. As you know, there is another Reformed tandum known as the indicative-imperative. I don’t see anything wrong with saying our indicative status “causes” our living out the imperatives. The one is tied to the heel of the other, and when things are so necessarily linked it doesn’t seem problematic to say the one that has priority is causing the animation of the other. And I don’t see how that threatens the understanding that the source of both just. and sanct. is God, nor do I see how that makes just. “more important than” sanct. I mean, couldn’t couldn’t you say the same thing about priority, that it implies that just. is more important than sanct.?
Zrim, so would you reject Murray’s understanding of definitive sanctification? It seems that you are going on about progressive sanctification – it was the indicative and imperative that made me think this. How do you see the relationship between ‘we are sanctified’ and ‘we are being sanctified’? Also, what do you see as the relationship between sanctification and good works?
I am still uncomfortable with causative language. I don’t see it in the reformers or in the Westminster Confession. I don’t see it in Paul. The source of our sanctification is not our justification. If you want to give justification a conceptual priority, then that would be fine (though this would only apply to progressive sanctification).
Yeah, I guess I read the RCC quote you give as putting justification into sanctification but I am sure it is a moot point. I read the Reformers as holding to distinction, inseparability and simultaneous reception of justification and the beginning of sanctification. Beza’s chart has it. Calvin states it as the twofold benefit. I don’t know how to get around that. I don’t see causation language in there except to say, as Perkins does, that the cause of our sanctification is the resurrection of Christ.
CNH:
Applying Aristotle’s account of causes to justification highlights the priority of justification.
How God justifies sinners is complex, and this makes explaining how it relates to how God sanctifies sinners complex. First, I think we need to recognize that both are acts of which God is the subject and people are the object. We sometimes tend to think of them as things and not acts because we shun the verbs justify and sanctify in favor of nouns like justification and sanctification. We need to keep this in mind, especially when we are trying to apply Aristotle’s notion of causality. For example, the question “what is the material cause of justification?†is vague compared to the question “what is the material (i.e. thing) that God justifies?†The first question seems like one for a philosopher; the second one any catechized child could answer. God justifies the elect. The final cause is just as obvious: the glory of God.
Just like with sanctification, the formal cause of justification is Christ. But whereas Christ was the formal cause of sanctification in a moral sense (i.e. the pattern for how we think, act, and feel), Christ is the formal cause of justification in a legal sense (i.e. the pattern of our legal standing before God). When God justifies us, we acquire the same legal standing before God as the risen Christ. God wipes away our demerits and credits us with Christ’s merits.
That leaves us with the question of the efficient cause of justification. Though, strictly speaking, justification is a single declaratory act, its efficient causes are multiple. Both Christ and the Spirit are agents of our justification.
Christ’s work, as one of the efficient causes of our perfected legal standing, is well known. His passive and active obedience merit for us the remission of sins and the imputation of righteousness. This is the objective aspect of justification. The Spirit’s work is the application of those benefits won for us by Christ. The Spirit, working through the preached Word, accomplishes this by working faith in the heart of the believer. That is, he convinces the elect sinner to believe and rest in the message that because of Christ’s work his sins are forgiven and he is counted righteous before God. This is the subjective aspect of justification.
Comparing just those two aspects of justification, we see that Christ’s work has a priority. Though it’s not a cause of the Spirit’s work (in an Aristotelean sense), it’s a necessary antecedent. For the OT saints, faith looked forward to Christ’s work. For NT church, faith looks backward to Christ’s work. Either way, the faith that the Spirit works has as its object Christ and his work. Without Christ’s work, there would be no object for the faith that the Spirit would work. Further, without Christ’s work, there would be no message that our sins our forgiven and that we are reconciled to God (i.e. there would be no word through which the Spirit could work).
The priority that Christ’s work has within the economy of justification extends to sanctification. Though the Spirit is the only agent of sanctification, he transforms believers the same way that he justifies them: he works through faith in the preached word. As mentioned above, apart from Christ’s work, there is no faith and no word to be preached. Hence, Christ’s work has a priority, and justification has a priority over sanctification.
The message of Christ’s work in justification is the message that we have been forgiven, that we are friends with God, that we have peace with God, that we are reconciled to God. In other words, it’s the gospel. This is why Paul would spend years teaching nothing but Christ and him crucified. May it be so in Christ’s church today!
RL, if you look at the preceding discussion – I don’t deny a priority to justification. What I deny is a temporal separation in receiving justification and sanctification. I deny that justification is the cause of sanctification (because this would create a temporal distinction, however small). The benefits that we receive, in our faith in Christ, is an apprehension of all of the benefits of our salvation. In our union with Christ we are justified, adopted and sanctified. All of it is true simultaneously, inseparably and distinctly.
This doesn’t do away with priority or risk the gospel.
I am not certain that Aristotle’s categories are useful in the discussion – though I am still thinking it through. I was reading Robert Shaw’s exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith and this is how he lays out the causes of sanctification:
“The impulsive or moving cause of sanctification is the free grace of God. The meritorious cause is the blood and righteousness of Christ. The efficient cause is the Holy Spirit. The instrumental cause is faith in Christ.”
Interestingly, he doesn’t get into the “material cause”. I don’t know why, at this point, but I would not be surprised to find a resistance to setting the individual in the causation formula at all. That would be akin to saying, “if I was never born, God couldn’t save me; therefore, God needs me to save me.” I have heard this kind of language used by the Christian Hedonist movement (our salvation adds glory to God) and I am curious why Shaw does not find the individual believer at all in the causation.
Jeff, you write: “The term “union†is chosen (by Calvin, picking up from Paul) to indicate the closeness of this relationship: in being justified, I am not justified at a distance, but by being united with Christ in his death. So the importance of the term union is to emphasize that salvation is all of Christ, and that salvation happens relationally. I would imagine that no-one would disagree with either of those two emphases, right?”
I think you’re right, that no one objects to this. But who ever said that justification happens and yet Christ is still far away from me? It seems that union is a correction to a problem that doesn’t exist.
Meanwhile, some unionists talk about the doctrine as if it were the greatest thing since sliced bread. To say that salvation is all of Christ and that a relationship is part of it (I’m not sure that “salvation happens relationally” is the best construction — that sounds pretty FV) is ho hum. Who doesn’t believe that?
But unionists seem to want to say more.
cnh,
All of your cautions about j causing s seem to apply equally to union. You have seemed to say a variety of places that j and s flow from union. So how is that not causal language? I don’t quite understand why unionists want a precision from the priority folks that the discussions of union have yet to achieve. Which union are you talking about? Why is “union” used so indiscrimately as if there are not at least three senses of the word (as Gaffin concedes).
And on the apparent error of saying that just. causes sanct. I don’t know what you are talking about. Sorry, but it doesn’t make any sense. The people who are supposedly guilty of this claim are Lutherans. But the apparent error of saying j causes s turns Lutherans into Roman Catholics. But at the same time, leading unionists want to say that Lutherans are guilty of antinomianism. It sure looks like Lutherans are damned if they do and if they don’t. Meanwhile, it looks like unionists keep creating errors that don’t exist in order to vindicate union as the doctrine that solves all problems. Meanwhile, which union?
I also think it is sort of humorous that you say to Zrim you have never denied priority. You have been hanging out here questioning it a lot. Some of those questions seemed to reach the threshold of denial.
I stand by what I wrote about just. and sanct. “It really does seem to me that the way Paul bangs on the law, as in the law is not of faith, makes the forensic aspect of salvation in a sense transformative. It is not the material cause of sanctification — as Jeff points out. But it is a motivational cause for true good works. That is what I think Clark and Fesko are trying to affirm. And I’m not sure why Garcia wants to make a deal of that aspect of the forensic.”
The fact that the law no longer has any claims on me, that I am no longer a slave of sin, is indeed transformative, and it sure seems to start with the legal and economic reality of Christ purchasing my redemption and the benefit of justification.
Hope you guys are having a great Sunday.
Here’s the pastoral concern about “J causes S.” Sometimes, sanctification is presented in this way (not by present company):
The error in this teaching is subtle but real: it locates the primary power for sanctification in the individual himself (with God as the obligatory co-pilot). The result of this error is that a believer is taught to turn inward, so that he attempts to complete by the flesh what he began by the Spirit. Completely missing here is an acknowledgment of the Spirit’s “continual supply of sanctifying grace” and the need for faith (not to mention simul peccator et justus).
By contrast, Scripture locates the power for sanctification in the work of the Spirit upon the individual — Gal 3, 5; Rom 8; cf. WCoF 13.
So the pastoral concern is that “J causes S” aids and abets this wrong teaching by obscuring the central role of the Spirit in sanctification. Dr. Hart, I think this answers your question, “But who ever said that justification happens and yet Christ is still far away from me?” The answer is, those who teach about sanctification in such a way as to rely on the flesh. Those whom Jack Miller used to term, “orphans.”
So this goes back to my question, which nobody has addressed:
If the Spirit supplies the energy in sanctification, and if faith is the means, then where is the role of justification in all of this?
It seems to me that by magnifying the role of justification — in whatever sense one means it — we are diminishing the focus on the role of the Spirit. At its worst, the outcome is that sanctification is no longer a separate work of the Spirit, but an effect of having been justified. God launches the ordo through effectual calling, and then the rest operates all on its own.
—
The Scriptural concern is this: Why are we all rushing to defend language that has no Scriptural warrant? Scripture doesn’t teach that “justification causes sanctification.” So shouldn’t we be a bit cautious about accepting (and defending) that language?
Dr. Hart, you’ve appealed to Rom 6 as evidence that justification is transformative. But here’s Calvin on Rom 6:
The state of the case is really this, — that the faithful are never reconciled to God without the gift of regeneration; nay, we are for this end justified, — that we may afterwards serve God in holiness of life. Christ indeed does not cleanse us by his blood, nor render God propitious to us by his expiation, in any other way than by making us partakers of his Spirit, who renews us to a holy life.
And again when discussing Rom 6.14:
Hence, not to be under the law means, not only that we are not under the letter which prescribes what involves us in guilt, as we are not able to perform it, but also that we are no longer subject to the law, as requiring perfect righteousness, and pronouncing death on all who deviate from it in any part. In like manner, by the word grace, we are to understand both parts of redemption — the remission of sins, by which God imputes righteousness to us, — and the sanctification of the Spirit, by whom he forms us anew unto good works.
It is not “J causes S”, but “The Spirit causes both justification and regeneration” (which in Calvin’s parlance refers not to effectual calling, but to transformation — the destroying of the old nature and creation of the new). Here in this very passage, Calvin finds duplex gratia, not “J causes S.”
And specifically, Calvin does not make the forensic transformative. To think this way confuses categories that are positively separated in the Confession:
Those whom God effectually calleth, He also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them…
A justification that transforms is a righteousness that is infused, by definition. To be specific, a justification that transforms would have to be a justification that creates a new nature. And that really is what Rome teaches.
—
DGH: Meanwhile, some unionists talk about the doctrine as if it were the greatest thing since sliced bread.
OK, but cnh and I are not federal heads of all unionists. It’s not material to argue against the views of others to us, unless you think that we are secretly in agreement with or aiding and abetting them.
Likewise,
But the apparent error of saying j causes s turns Lutherans into Roman Catholics. But at the same time, leading unionists want to say that Lutherans are guilty of antinomianism. It sure looks like Lutherans are damned if they do and if they don’t. Meanwhile, it looks like unionists keep creating errors that don’t exist in order to vindicate union as the doctrine that solves all problems. Meanwhile, which union?
Whatever and whoever leading unionists may be, my thesis is
(1) Union solves the problem of sanctification being decoupled from the work of the Spirit, either doctrinally or practically.
(2) The phrase “J causes S”, unless understood in an obscure Aristotelian fashion, attributes transformative — infused grace — power to justification, which is a big no-no.
Can we at least agree that justification is not caused by infused grace?
DGH: You have seemed to say a variety of places that j and s flow from union.
Don’t know about cnh, but I’ve been very clear that union doesn’t cause anything.
Zrim: As far as your protestation against causation, again, I remain relatively unpersuaded that it is anything more than shorthand for priority. As you know, there is another Reformed tandum known as the indicative-imperative. I don’t see anything wrong with saying our indicative status “causes†our living out the imperatives. The one is tied to the heel of the other, and when things are so necessarily linked it doesn’t seem problematic to say the one that has priority is causing the animation of the other.
Nevertheless, it *is* problematic to say that the indicative causes the imperative, or that justification causes sanctification.
Turn it around:
Is sanctification an effect of justification? Does being made righteous in action occur as a by-product of being declared righteous? OR is being made righteous in action occur as a separate work of the Spirit?
Jeff,
Call it my stubborn inner double English/Lit major, but I am still all right with shorthand language. I see it in the Bible all the time. Just tonight our Psalm selection had to do with “praising the Name of the Lord.” Now, I suppose we could get all pedantic about whether we praise the Lord or the Name of the Lord, but I take the phrase to be figurative, shorthand, manner of speech to be conveying that we are indeed praising the Lord. If you don’t like the suggestion that J causes S, I understand. I just think you’re perhaps being a bit too wooden about it.
Whatever else may be said here, I suppose my concern with Reformed unionism as a former evangelical is that I really don’t see what distinguishes it from broad evangelicalism. In BE’ism what mediates salvation is a relational experience with the risen Christ. And this is also what essentially characterizes Roman piety (which makes evangelical disdain for Romanism soemthing of an oddity, maybe even hypocrisy? After all, pious Romanists also read their Bible daily, relate to Jesus in their hearts, and believe that faith and grace are important). I see the same thing in Federal Visionism. In all these camps the category is some variation or another of relational. But in Reformation Christianity the category is faith; salvation is mediated through faith, not by any relationship or mystical union with the risen Christ. Like dgh keeps suggesting, the question is, How am I right with God? The evangelicals, Romanists and Federal Visionaries all seem to end up saying that I am right with God via my relatively successful relationship to Jesus. But the Reformation said I am right with God through faith in Jesus. Those categories, faith and relationship, are vastly different from each other. I think the Reformation, to put it mildly, got it right, and I don’t really understand the efforts to monkey with it.
Brother Zrim,
I’ve had quite a different experience with Reformed soteriology. The first time that I “got” limited atonement was when I understood how relational it is: that Jesus died for each of His people on the cross.
I think you equate the term “union” to “some kind of experience.” And while I can appreciate your avoidance of the latter, this equation misses the entire point of union.
In fact, part of the problem may be one of pronunciation.
It’s not “UNION with Christ”
but
“union with CHRIST.”
The point of union is to put Jesus as the center of salvation.
But in Reformation Christianity the category is faith; salvation is mediated through faith, not by any relationship or mystical union with the risen Christ.
I don’t know if you’re placing emphasis on “mystical”, but if you’re saying that in Reformation theology, we are not saved by being in union with Christ, then I’d ask you to reconsider. I would have hoped that my multi-fold citations from bona fide Reformed theologians concerning union would have put that canard to rest.
To recap two of the most important:
WSC 30: Q. 30. How doth the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ?
A. The Spirit applieth to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling.
Union with Christ, caused by faith, is the way that the Spirit applies redemption to us. There is not some other way.
Calv Inst 3.1: We must now see in what way we become possessed of the blessings which God has bestowed on his only-begotten Son, not for private use, but to enrich the poor and needy. And the first thing to be attended to is, that so long as we are without Christ and separated from him, nothing which he suffered and did for the salvation of the human race is of the least benefit to us. To communicate to us the blessings which he received from the Father, he must become ours and dwell in us. Accordingly, he is called our Head, and the first-born among many brethren, while, on the other hand, we are said to be ingrafted into him and clothed with him, all which he possesses being, as I have said, nothing to us until we become one with him. And although it is true that we obtain this by faith, yet since we see that all do not indiscriminately embrace the offer of Christ which is made by the gospel, the very nature of the case teaches us to ascend higher, and inquire into the secret efficacy of the Spirit, to which it is owing that we enjoy Christ and all his blessings.
Ditto.
This supposed antithesis between union and JFBA is simply incorrect. In reality, the two go hand-in-hand.
In saying this, I’m not staking a position that Westminster Philly is right(er) or wrong(er) than Westminster Escon. I’m saying that in the genuine Reformed teaching, union and JFBA are both affirmed.
If you feel the need to then qualify that this doesn’t entail some kind of emotional experientialism, then I’ll second your motion; but as it is, when you say “salvation is mediated through faith, not by any relationship or mystical union with the risen Christ”, aren’t you running afoul of WSC 30?
Jeff:
“I’m saying that in the genuine Reformed teaching, union and JFBA are both affirmed.”
Right. After all, the title of one of Dr. Horton’s most recent books (he’ll probably finish a couple more while I write this post) is Covenant and Salvation: Union with Christ. That’s a pretty emphatic pro-union statement. And anyone who has skimmed Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry knows that WSC also emphatically affirms justification by faith alone.
So since both are taught at Escondido, why all the animosity toward the Escondido faculty? Why all this insinuation that the Escondido faculty teach deficient (or dare I say) Lutheran doctrine? The answer is that Gaffin and his boys think they’ve made a breakthrough. They think that union is more than the things you’ve mentioned. They, in my opinion, view Christ’s work as merely the prologue to a life of maintaining a relationship with him–once one understand’s their justified status, it’s time to move on. For them, justification is only important at the moment of conversion, and there’s no since dwelling on that cold legal language when I have Jesus in my heart.
RL, I have not been particularly in contact with “Gaffin and his boys”, so I cannot affirm or deny the truth of what you say. My studies were at Chesapeake Theological Seminary and Reformed Theological Seminary. In neither institute was there any hint or suggestion of “Westminster West teaches a deficient doctrine.”
You’re a careful guy. Those are serious allegations you’re leveling at Gaffin (and I presume, Garcia). They amount to the charge of having abandoned justification. What reason do you have for them?
Jeff:
My first point was that Gaffin thinks of union as something distinct from (and bigger than) justification. If I understand you properly, you are saying that union is shorthand for imputation plus indwelling. Hence you wrote:
“When I believe, two things happen:
(1) I receive Christ’s righteousness by imputation, and
(2) The Spirit of Christ dwells in me.
We summarize these two things by the phrase “united with Christ.â€
But Gaffin says, “Now certainly, it is true to say that for Calvin union with Christ is the “precondition for imputation.”" That’s from his “Justification and Union with Christ” in A Theological Guide to Calvin’s Institutes page 261; he’s citing an unpublished paper by G. Hunsinger the info for which is in note 24 on the same page.
If we limit “union” to your understanding, don’t we have to conclude that the aspect of union that he is speaking of is the Spirit’s indwelling, sanctifying presence. He can’t be speaking of union as imputation because it wouldn’t make sense to say that imputation is the precondition for imputation, would it? So you have to admit that he’s either saying that sanctification is the precondition for imputation or he’s using union in a way that is broader than the one you describe.
He also adds, “For Calvin participatio Christi was prior to imputation, and imputation prior to judgment.” (Italics in the original; page 262). Again, he must be speaking about a participation in Christ that is not imputation or else his sentence is nonsense. So what’s he talking about? Again, I insist that if the two-fold benefit of union with Christ is justification and sanctification, and if there is an aspect of that union that is the precondition of the justifying (forensic) aspect, then the precondition must be sanctification. And that’s not right!
On page 265, he writes “Here [referring to 3.11.10 of the Institutes] justification could not be valued more highly; it is an utterly incomparable good.” Yet it is not that in splendid judicial isolation, as it were, involving a solitary imputative act….In the actual possession of justification this union is deeply and ultimately decisive, and so it has “the highest degree of importance.”" So justification’s prized position isn’t based on a “solitary imputative act”; it’s prized position is based on union. Notice how that subordinates God’s declaration of our righteous standing to union. Notice also (contra to your explanation of union) that imputation is contrasted with and subordinated to union.
To be sure, his aim is historical theology. But you have to admit that the battle for what Calvin teaches is often a battle to vindicate one’s own personal theological convictions.
Jeff, I don’t get it. I attempt to say why j causing s might be plausible and it always comes back to me that I’m saying s causes j, as in s’s infused righteousness causes imputed. Why can’t it be that imputed “causes” (a non-technical term) infused? Why is it heterodox or deficient or erroneous to suggest that infused flows from imputed.
A cause of a thing is not the same thing as the thing. And yet, it always seems to be the case among unionists that any hint of j causing s makes j the thing being caused. Huh?
Sometimes, I wonder where the rule book governing union logic is hidden.
RL: Not having read Gaffin in context, I would tentatively take issue with what he has written as cited here. He appears to thing of union as a “thing” rather than a description of process. The problem with that approach is that union is not an element in the ordo.
DGH: Why can’t it be that imputed “causes†(a non-technical term) infused? Why is it heterodox or deficient or erroneous to suggest that infused flows from imputed.
As I mentioned above, “flows from” needs to be defined clearly first. If it simply means that J is a warranty of or a pattern for our sanctification, then no problem. But if it means that J has some kind of transformative, “effective cause” property to it, then there’s a large problem.
As for using “cause” as a non-technical term, this would be inadvisable given the history of discussions of causation in salvation.
About your gloss: …it always comes back to me that I’m saying s causes j
I’m definitely not attributing that to you! I’m saying that
(1) *if* J were to (efficiently or instrumentally) cause S, then S would be an effect of J.
(2) And since we know that S is an effect of infused righteousness,
(3) it follows that the grace of J is at least in part infused.
(4) And this we know to be contrary to Reformed theology.
So clearly you (well, hypothetical “you”, since you aren’t officially espousing this language) are not saying S causes J. Instead, “you” are implicitly saying that J consists of, in part, infused righteousness.
Is that clear enough?
If not, perhaps you could bounce it off of Bob Godfrey or another Westminster Wester who does not affirm “J causes S” language and simply ask him Why Not? He may well give a different answer, but I would be curious to know his reasons.
The union thing is, for me, not directly connected to the question of “Does J cause S?” Even if were not union-oriented, so to speak, I would still object to “J causes S.”
WSC 30: Q. 30. How doth the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ?
A. The Spirit applieth to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling.
Union with Christ, caused by faith, is the way that the Spirit applies redemption to us. There is not some other way.
If you feel the need to then qualify that this doesn’t entail some kind of emotional experientialism, then I’ll second your motion; but as it is, when you say “salvation is mediated through faith, not by any relationship or mystical union with the risen Christâ€, aren’t you running afoul of WSC 30?
Jeff, I don’t see how prioritizing faith over union runs afoul of WC 30. It sure seems to me that union (which again, confessionalists have no problem with) depends on faith first, the way marital union depends on forensic declarations. Union, important as it is, turns entirely on faith. How is this not clear from WC 30? And if union saves then shouldn’t the shorthand of the Reformation have been more like we are saved by grace alone, through union alone to Christ alone? (As an aside, if “union is caused by faith,†is there really a problem saying that sanctification is caused by justification?) But maybe Belgic 22 has something to add:
“We believe that, to attain the true knowledge of this great mystery, the Holy Ghost kindleth 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. Therefore, for any to assert, that Christ is not sufficient, but that something more is required besides him, would be too gross a blasphemy: for hence it would follow, that Christ was but half a Savior. Therefore we justly say with Paul, that we are justified by faith alone, or by faith without works. However, to speak more clearly, we do not mean, that faith itself justifies us, for it is only an instrument with which we embrace Christ our Righteousness. But Jesus Christ, imputing to us all his merits and so many holy works which he has done for us, and in our stead, is our Righteousness. And faith is an instrument that keeps us in communion with him in all his benefits, which, when become ours, are more than sufficient to acquit us of our sins.â€
Seems like the point is that faith (in Christ) is the instrument of salvation, not union with him. Though to have faith in him is to then have union with him. If union was so instrumental then where is there an article in the Belgic for it?
Hey Zrim:
Jeff, I don’t see how prioritizing faith over union runs afoul of WC 30. It sure seems to me that union (which again, confessionalists have no problem with) depends on faith first, the way marital union depends on forensic declarations. Union, important as it is, turns entirely on faith. How is this not clear from WC 30? And if union saves then shouldn’t the shorthand of the Reformation have been more like we are saved by grace alone, through union alone to Christ alone?
Did you notice that you shifted ground? You went from “faith, not union, mediates salvation” to “faith has a priority over union.”
The first is false; the second is true.
Remember that imputation is one aspect of union. So it is legitimate to test your statements by replacing “union” with “imputation” and seeing what happens.
Faith, not imputation, mediates justification.
Faith has a priority over justification.
And if imputation saves, then shouldn’t the shorthand of the Reformation have been more like we are saved by grace alone, through imputation of Christ’s righteousness alone?
The second is true. The first and third are false, perhaps even nonsensical. And the nonsense turns on continuing to think of union as a means instead of as a description-of-process.
Stop for a moment and contemplate the fact that both of these are true:
(1) We are justified by grace through the sole instrument of faith.
(2) We are justified by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us.
Why doesn’t (1) (“sole instrument”) preclude (2)? That’s the same reason that union is not a competitor with faith for instrumentality.
(As an aside, if “union is caused by faith,†is there really a problem saying that sanctification is caused by justification?)
Yes, there is. Sanctification and justification are dual graces, both mediated by faith. But the graces are distinct and of a different nature: infused v. imputed. This distinction was an important facet of the Reformation. Out of all of the different strands in our discussion, the distinction between infused and imputed righteousness is the brightest line I would draw.
Two additional points out of all of this:
(1) Consistent with the citation of Inst 3.1.1, DGH’s citation of Calvin clearly indicates his duplex gratia thinking: repentance and the forgiveness of sins are together the sum of the gospel.
(2) Repentance follows faith and is produced by it; not justification.
Faith, not imputation, mediates justification…is false and nonsensical…Sanctification and justification are dual graces, both mediated by faith.
Jeff, I guess I’m not sure how you can say that justification coming through faith is false and nonsensical when that’s precisely what Belgic says Paul says, but also when you yourself say justification is mediated by faith. So justification isn’t mediated through faith, but it also is? Speaking of nonsense, how do those two statements co-exist?
Jeff, I guess I’m not sure how you can say that justification coming through faith is false and nonsensical
I didn’t. Here’s what I said:
Faith, not imputation, mediates justification is nonsensical.
Why?
Because it pits two unlike things against each other. As in,
“Do you walk to school or take your lunch?”
Go back to the basics. Aren’t these both true:
(1) Faith is the alone instrument of justification
(2) Those whom God effectually calleth, He also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.
You cannot compare faith and imputation (“this one mediates, that one doesn’t”). Faith is what happens on man’s side of the equation. Imputation is what happens on God’s side.
Jeff, you wrote:
“(1) *if* J were to (efficiently or instrumentally) cause S, then S would be an effect of J.
(2) And since we know that S is an effect of infused righteousness,
(3) it follows that the grace of J is at least in part infused.
(4) And this we know to be contrary to Reformed theology”
Again, I don’t get it. It seems you have attributed attributes to things before the deductive process starts. Let’s try this:
1) if the bat were efficiently to cause the ball to go over the fence, then the homerun would be an effect of the bat hitting the ball.
2) Since we know that baseballs are also made by the woodworkers who make bats
3) it follows that the power of the bat must come from the hide of the baseball
4) and this we know to be contrary to physics.
This all seems pretty arbitrary. The conclusion about physics comes from prior observations about laborers who make bats and balls. It also assumes something about the attributes of balls on the basis of the workers involved.
I guess a question here is about the righteousness. Whether infused or imputed it is the same righteousness — it is Christ’s. This is a different matter of instrumentality or delivery. The problem with infused righteousness is that it is never complete in this life. That’s why Roman Catholics need to go to purgatory for justification. But if I receive Christ’s righteousness by faith, why can’t that righteousness be the “cause” of the righteousness I receive in sanctification where the moral pollution of me begins to match the legal innocence of me.
Jeff:
What’s your take on this description of the relationship between justification and sanctification?
Since the sanctified life is a life of gratitude, justification is its cause because it is the principle event for which the believer is grateful. In other words, the believer’s embrace of the law as the rule to shape his life of gratitude is rooted in the announcement of the end of the law as the means for acquiring righteousness. Thus, I don’t think it’s wrong to describe this relationship as one in which sanctification flows from (is rooted in, feeds on, or is caused by) justification.
Doesn’t Jesus make the same connection in Luke 7:41-43 (ESV): “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.” Isn’t this enough to justify our use of causal language?
RL: I think there’s a lot of merit in your approach. What I like in particular is the way in which you connect the believer’s motivation for sanctification in his already accomplished justification.
If we were going to use causal language at all, I would be most comfortable with
“J causes S” or “S flows out of J.”
meaning
“S is motivated by a recognition of J.”
The obstacle is still, though, that the role of the Spirit is obscured. Is there some way in which you could formulate this so as to make clear that the operation of the Spirit in us is the principle of life at work in us, rather than leaving open the possibility that this gratitude runs along on its own steam?
DGH: Again, I don’t get it. It seems you have attributed attributes to things before the deductive process starts. Let’s try this:
1) if the bat were efficiently to cause the ball to go over the fence, then the homerun would be an effect of the bat hitting the ball.
2) Since we know that baseballs are also made by the woodworkers who make bats
3) it follows that the power of the bat must come from the hide of the baseball
4) and this we know to be contrary to physics.
This all seems pretty arbitrary.
The arbitrariness occurred when you switched symbols in step 2. In step 1, sanctification corresponded to homeruns. In step 2, sanctification all of the sudden corresponds to the ball. If we can be that absurd, then why not run the bases:
1) if the bat were efficiently to cause the ball to go over the fence, then the homerun would be an effect of the bat hitting the ball.
2) Since we know that airplanes are made by Boeing…
That’s a properly tortured argument for ya.
To use the baseball analogy properly we would have to argue more like this:
1) If the bat were to cause the ball to go over the fence (and inside the foul lines), then the homerun would be an effect of the bat hitting the ball.
2) And since we know that home runs are caused by skilled batters, then it follows that
3) The cause of the bat’s action must be the skilled batter. (unless of course, the bat causes the skill of the batter … one thinks here of The Farmer Giles of Ham)
In other words, my argument is establishing a causal chain. There are two missing premises: First, that causes are transitive (if A causes B and B causes C, then A causes C); second, that each of justification and sanctification has a single cause: the grace of God.
So we have J causes S. We know that S is caused by infused righteousness. So the infused righteousness must be causing the justification; unless of course justification causes the infusion of righteousness.
This mixing of the two is quite at odds with how Calvin argues it, and indeed how the Confession argues it.
And again … “J causes S” obscures the role of the Spirit in sanctification.
Faith, not imputation, mediates justification is nonsensical. Why? Because it pits two unlike things against each other.
Jeff, again, I think this point was made around here in some of these forensic posts: nobody is pitting anything against another thing here; I’m not pitting faith against union (or imputation, etc.), I’m saying union, like justification and sanctification, comes by way of faith. In fact, all things come by way of faith. Sola fide was the material principle of the Reformation. Faith is the controlling category. I don’t see how making this point is the same as pitting faith against anything else.
If I say the benefits of marriage only come by way of a legal declaration of marriage am I pitting the benefits against the declaration, or I am simply pointing out how things work?
If we were going to use causal language at all, I would be most comfortable with “J causes S†or “S flows out of J.†meaning “S is motivated by a recognition of J.â€
Deal. But I don’t understand your need to explicitly chisel out a place for the role of the Spirit. I mean, isn’t the Spirit at work only in those who look to their justification to motivate their sanctification? When is the last time an unbeliever did that? It’s almost like protesting that the Creed doesn’t delineate anything about faith, but only those with faith can utter the Creed.
Jeff said:
“The obstacle is still, though, that the role of the Spirit is obscured. Is there some way in which you could formulate this so as to make clear that the operation of the Spirit in us is the principle of life at work in us, rather than leaving open the possibility that this gratitude runs along on its own steam?”
How about this from Article 24 of the Belgic Confession:
“We believe that this true faith being wrought in man by the hearing of the Word of God, and the operation of the Holy Ghost, doth regenerate and make him a new man, causing him to live a new life, and freeing him from the bondage of sin. Therefore it is so far from being true, that this justifying faith makes men remiss in a pious and holy life, that on the contrary without it they would never do anything out of love to God, but only out of self-love or fear of damnation. Therefore it is impossible that this holy faith can be unfruitful in man: for we do not speak of a vain faith, but of such a faith, which is called in Scripture, a faith that worketh by love, which excites man to the practice of those works, which God has commanded in his Word. ”
The Word of God that the Spirit uses to bring about this justifying faith is the pronouncement of our justification. From the Second Helvetic Confession, XV:
“WHAT IS JUSTIFICATION? According to the apostle in his treatment of justification, to justify means to remit sins, to absolve from guilt and punishment, to receive into favor, and to pronounce a man just. For in his epistle to the Romans the apostle says: “It is God who justifies; who is to condemn?” (Rom. 8:33).”
Jeff:
I had in mind questions 75 & 76 of the Larger Catechism when I made my last post. Question 75 teaches that the principle part of the Spirit’s sanctifying work is the stirring up, increasing, and strengthening of the seeds of repentance unto life (and all other saving graces). Question 76 further explains repentance unto life:
Q. 76. What is repentance unto life?
A. Repentance unto life is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, 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 endeavoring constantly to walk with him in all the ways of new obedience.
I think this fits nicely with the relationship between justification and sanctification that I described above. In sum, the Spirit sanctifies us by reorienting our hearts through the explanation of the magnitude of the debt we owe God and the announcement that the debt has been paid in full by Christ. He has chosen as his ordinary instrument preaching of the law and gospel.
Zrim: But I don’t understand your need to explicitly chisel out a place for the role of the Spirit.
Perhaps because I’m particularly sensitive to sanctification-by-the-flesh. In this, I take comfort that Paul was also (Gal. 3).
“But I don’t understand your need to explicitly chisel out a place for the role of the Spirit.â€
Perhaps because I’m particularly sensitive to sanctification-by-the-flesh. In this, I take comfort that Paul was also (Gal. 3).
Jeff,
That’s a fair concern. I should have, like Randy, gone with my original intent to quote Belgic 24. But I suppose I didn’t because it feels like the conversation begins to do what the confessions already do; and, for better or worse, I assume you know that the confessions do carve out a role for the Spirit.
Besides, if there is anything one can safely assume about old school Calvinists, who make a big deal about the forensic nature of justification, etc., it’s that sanctification is completely Spirit wrought. Shouldn’t “yeah, but where’s the Spirit in all this†really be a question for new schoolers who seem given to sanctification-by-the-flesh? I mean, asking old schoolers to show that they haven’t forgotten the Spirit is a bit like asking the computer repair man, when he says this switch causes this whackadoo to work, “Yeah, but are you taking into account electricity has something to do with it?†See, I can do computer analogies.
Zrim: I mean, asking old schoolers to show that they haven’t forgotten the Spirit is a bit like asking the computer repair man, when he says this switch causes this whackadoo to work, “Yeah, but are you taking into account electricity has something to do with it?â€
If the repairman toggled the switch and expected a result, I would feel free to gently point out that the computer wasn’t plugged in.
And that’s the point. You’re asking me to assume that the confessional language is baseline, while at the same time advancing language (“Justification causes sanctification”) that isn’t in the confession.
So it’s hard to know which assumptions still hold.
That said, I’m glad that we’re on the same page with regard to the role of the Spirit. Given that, can you appreciate that I would want to reserve ’cause’ for the role of the Spirit, while allowing terms like ‘motivate’ to express what RL’s getting at?
That said, I’m glad that we’re on the same page with regard to the role of the Spirit. Given that, can you appreciate that I would want to reserve ’cause’ for the role of the Spirit, while allowing terms like ‘motivate’ to express what RL’s getting at?
Jeff,
I can, which is why earlier I said I understand if you don’t care much for the language of causation. But I also suggested that perhaps you’re being a bit wooden about it.
It could be that causation language obscures the role of the Spirit or otherwise nurtures a sanctification-by-the-flesh. But, by the same token, when Jesus tells the woman at the Pharisee’s house that “her faith has healed her†is fideism lurking? But Jesus may use shorthand, why mayn’t we?
Jeff, the homerun in #2 was salvation, not sanctifcation. It’s not a great analogy. But I’m still left puzzled by your logic which says that if justifcation causes sanctification then justification must a form of infused righteouness. I mean, if we can say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son and not confuse the persons of the Trinity, why can’t we say sanctification flows from justification and not confuse infused and imputed righteousness. Your logic is not obvious.
As far as leaving out the Holy Spirit, why isn’t that the same problem that afflicts those who say that just. and sanct. flow from union? A lot of the faults that unionists find in forensic firsters are also embedded within union teaching.
DGH: As far as leaving out the Holy Spirit, why isn’t that the same problem that afflicts those who say that just. and sanct. flow from union?
Again, there’s a pronunciation issue here. You keep pronouncing it “UNION with Christ” instead of “union with CHRIST.” The point of union is to emphasize the centrality of Jesus in every aspect of salvation.
Union is not a cause of anything; it is a description of the process. (Once more, with feeling and four-part harmony…)
DGH: Your logic is not obvious.
Well, perhaps I haven’t thought it through enough. I’m working on the assumption that if A causes B which causes C, then the cause of C is implicit in A.
DGH: I mean, if we can say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son and not confuse the persons of the Trinity…
We can say it, but I’m not sure we can comprehend it…
It might be helpful to remember that our justification is mediated to us through proclamation. We all agree that there is no justification apart from saving or justifying faith. It is the work of the Holy Spirit to generate that faith when we hear the good news of our reconciliation with God proclaimed to us through the foolishness of preaching. According to Belgic 24 it is just that faith that “doth regenerate and make him a new man, causing him to live a new life.”
From R. Scott Clark’s “Caspar Olevian and the Substance of the Covenant”, pages 193-194:
“Preaching however not only creates faith, but it is the chief means by which God ‘conserves and strengthens’ it and ‘through it not only communicates that substance of the covenant (substantia foederis) to all the elect, but also ‘daily promotes by degrees’ the beginning of the mystical fellowship between Christ and his people. The proclamation of the gospel (praedictatio evagelii) strengthens and confirms faith in the elect by the pronouncement of repentance (poenitentiae) and forgiveness of sins in the name of Christ. Through gospel teaching, Christ is offered to us daily, clothed in the covenant of grace or the promise of the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Jeff, no offense, but I think it has less to do with pronunciation that it does with hidden code. If union is all about Jesus, then why is union the work of the Holy Spirit? Which is to say that union is being used to assert a number of things that could be asserted much more clearly and directly.
But the idea that union needs to be asserted in order to claim the centrality of Christ, as opposed to legal conceptions of salvation that emphasize an alien righteousness, is far fetched since the entire point of justification by faith alone was also to assert Christ alone.
No offense taken, but keep in mind that I’m not suggesting “union instead of forensics” but rather “union and forensics go hand-in-hand to give a more complete picture.”
My concern about such a one-sided forensics push, with the centrality of justification proclaimed so forcefully, is that it obscures the dual grace, imputed and infused, structure of salvation that is basic and obvious in both Calvin and the Confession (10.1, 11.1, 13.1 and most especially WLC 77).
The solution, IMO, is not to deny forensics, but to uphold union at the same time as upholding forensics. Wouldn’t you agree?
As far as hidden code goes, I’ve been trying very hard to be as clear as possible …
Just to follow up: Recall that earlier I was “finding union” on your Where’s Waldo posts (thought that was the point … Where’s Waldo? There he is!
).
The point in doing so was simple: if indeed forensics and union are complementary, then it ought to be the case that “forensaical” theology should be amenable to “unionistic” accounts and vice-versa.
Jeff:
So, you’re using “union” language to clarify what WLC 77 states clearly? That sounds like the solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. Are you sure you don’t work for the federal government?
No, look at it again. WLC 77 is “basic and obvious”, I said. The “one-sided forensics push” obscures this fact.
Jeff,
Speaking of solutions to problems that don’t exist, it seems like you think those who champion forensics are doing so at the expense of union; when you say you’re not pushing “union instead of forensics†it seems to suggest that the confessionalists are pushing “forensics instead of union.†But, like I have tried to suggest before, I just don’t see how the confessionalists are dumping union at all.
The thing about prioritizing is that it means, by definition, to put things in proper order. It doesn’t mean something is a one-sided push to run roughshod over another. So, whaddaya mean by a “one-sided push that obscures the dual grace, imputed and infused, structure of salvation that is basic and obviousâ€?
Zrim: …it seems to suggest that the confessionalists are pushing “forensics instead of union.â€
Well, yes, it appears that this may be the case. I’d like to be wrong, so here’s the opportunity to convince me.
Two pieces of evidence:
(1) We have two weekly features here entitled “Forensic Friday” and “Where’s Waldo?” that are dedicated to promoting the forensic nature of justification. On union, nothing.
(2) Anyone who mentions the word “union” (*coff* yours truly *coff* — but also cnh and a host of others) is forced to defend his Reformed bona fides and explain why he doesn’t agree with Shepherd and Kennaird. Last I checked, I never asked you guys to explain why you aren’t the same as Lee Irons.
(of course, I actually appreciate some of what Lee has to say, so I probably wouldn’t. But others sure would).
—
So it’s pretty easy to conclude that forensics are in and union is out over in this neck of the woods. Perhaps that’s the wrong conclusion to draw. Dr. Hart has, after all, said that he “has no problem with union.” But I haven’t been able to reconcile that with the other evidences yet.
Jeff:
So, you’re using “union†language to clarify what WLC 77
states clearlymakes obvious? That sounds like the solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. Are you sure you don’t work for the federal government?I think the point still stands.
RL,
I’m using “union” language to clear up what a forensic-heavy focus obscures. I’m surprised that we can’t come to an understanding on this.
Jeff,
Let me restate. You seem to suggest that confessionalists are pushing forensics and dispensing with union. Maybe it would be better to say confessionalism wants to push the priority of justification instead of the priority of union. And you make it sound like justification and union are on equal footing, and all you’re trying to do is give each equal time. 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. If that’s the case, I guess I still don’t get why union is so important is the minds of some. And I don’t understand why things deemed secondary are understood to be “out.†Isn’t that a sort of egalitarian hermeneutic?
Re Irons, I appreciate him as well. But I don’t think he’s quite on board with the thesis that Protestantism divides down confessional and evangelical lines. I’m happy to try and explain how I think Reformed confessionalists differ from Reformed evangelicals:
http://confessionalouthouse.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/heavens-to-murgatroyd/