I have made this point in the comments on various posts but do not believe I have done so in a post itself. The point is obviously related to the priority of justification to sanctification specifically with regard to the righteousness we possess by faith in Christ.
The doctrine of justification teaches that God accepts us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ, imputed to us and received by faith alone. That would seem to close the case. I no longer fear condemnation – either in this life or the life to come – because by faith in Christ I am now entirely acceptable in God’s sight. With justification comes peace of conscience.
But along comes my unionist friend (I think we’re still friends) and he says that yes, you’re righteous but you still don’t have an infused righteousness. In other words, if I understand correctly, I need to be both justified and sanctified if I am going to avoid condemnation on judgment day.
What I don’t understand is not that sanctification is one of the benefits of the redemption purchased by Christ, or that sanctification is part of salvation, or that those who are justified will also produce fruit and evidence of their saving faith in the form of good works. What I don’t understand is how this construction – you need to be both justified and sanctified – is supposed to be undermine the priority of justification. Here’s why.
In justification I receive all of Christ’s righteousness. In sanctification, I receive only part of his righteousness because in this life, as the Confession of Faith says, sanctification is imperfect and there still abides in me “some remnants of corruption in every part.†(16.2). In other words, sanctification ultimately needs the lift of justification if we are going to cross the threshold of God’s righteous judgment. The righteousness of sanctification being incomplete and imperfect will stand or fall on judgement day depending on whether the righteousness of justification is present – that is, his perfect righteousness is my perfect righteousness.
How this does not make justification prior to sanctification, I cannot fathom. And this intuition is confirmed by chapters on sanctification like Article 24 from the Belgic Confession (“On the Sanctification of Sinnersâ€):
although we do good works we do not base our salvation on them; for we cannot do any work that is not defiled by our flesh and also worthy of punishment. And even if we could point to one, memory of a single sin is enough for God to reject that work.
So we would always be in doubt, tossed back and forth without any certainty, and our poor consciences would be tormented constantly if they did not rest on the merit of the suffering and death of our Savior.
In other words, the pastoral nature of justification and its priority is at the heart of the Reformation. The complete and perfect righteousness of Christ, received by faith alone, is the only reality that will free “the conscience from the fear, dread, and terror of God’s approach, without doing what our first father, Adam, did, who trembled as he tried to cover himself with fig leaves†(Belgic Confession, Art. 23). We don’t look to sanctification in the same way that we do to justification. If we did we would live a life of fear because we know that our personal righteousness is imperfect and incomplete in this life.
Am I clueless?
108 Comments
Jeff, there is only one saving grace, right? Even Garcia talks about duplex gratia as a double sided grace. So the grace that justifies is the same one that sanctifies. The righteousness that comes with justification is different from the one that comes with sanctification.
Matt, I appreciate your advice to John. But isn’t it odd that you can speak of union “causing” sanctification but other unionists here balk at saying the same of justification. Again, to sound picky, neither the doctrine of just. or the doctrine of union cause anything. God is the one doing the saving. So is it really the case that because I am united to Christ in his death that I am putting to death sin? Or is it the case that because the spirit is at work in me that I am putting to death sin? This attribution of cause is tricky business.
Matt,
I can understand what John Y is saying. I would however doubt that after being a x-ian for 34 years that he has made no sanctified progress. The trick is, at least in my own experience, that I can look back to where I was 10 years ago or 15 years ago and see how the Spirit has wrought maturity in me. However, with maturity also comes a heightened awareness of the corruption of sin and its lingering effects. I can’t tell you how many Lord’s Days I come beleaguered to church, with a deeper sense of my sin than I did in the past when I was arguably less sanctified. It is possible to experience renovation, actually be on the path of being and behaving in a better fashion, and ostensibly feel worse and even have a diminished view of our sanctification.
This is where the objectivity of justification is such a balm to this sinner. Union definitely plays some part in it, but the fact of justification, and Christ’s imputed righteousness credited to me is of great consolation as I wrestle with sin. Communion is a profound extension of this as I take my place at the Lord’s table based on what he objectively accomplished by his broken body and shed blood.
This union discussion has been an interesting one to observe, one criticism I might have is that I don’t think that union as a theological category is a silver bullet in the quest for sanctity. Maybe I have a dim view of how much we can actually progress in this life. Parishioners, such as myself are consoled most by the objective and concrete realities of justification by faith, and the union talk so far as I have observed obscures this more than it clarifies. Maybe that’s attributable to my lack of understanding, or maybe because the notion of union, while real, is really hard to communicate with the same clarity and simplicity as justification.
DGH
I’m not trying to say that the cause of sanctification is union, though justification and sanctification can’t be understood outside of union – see with regard to justification and union my earlier comments which I think have gone unanswered save for John, who I think misunderstood me – penal substitution / legal fiction – that comment. Additionally to say that the Spirit is working in me in sanctification, is kind of stating the obvious – how does He work is the question (one which I don’t propose to answer!)
However Paul is quite clear – I don’t need to create a theology here Paul has done it already: Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? NO! Paul says how can one who has died to sin live any longer in it? He then explains the death and resurrection of Christ are a spiritual reality for us – the Greek literally reads “in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead … THUS we in newness of life should walk”. Pretty clear to me. He’s arguing that the Christians daily walk before God (progressive sanct if you will) is motivated and in some way founded upon our union with Christ in his death and resurrection. Paul uses causal language of a kind ” just as … thus you”.
Acknowledging that we have died to sin is more than simply a sound motivation for holy living, which was the thrust of my post to John. I’m not arguing that union is the cause – union is union, a connection – the aim of union, as Dr Clark said earlier, is to point to the One to whom we are united, and the blessing apprehended in him. So union is a broad but convenient brush for explaining something of the relational aspect of the believer to Christ.
Hope this clarifies
Matt
Matt,
You woke me out of my slumber. The point I was trying to make is that the awareness of my sin is much more obvious to me now as I have grown in my knowledge of the Law of God both in the scriptures and in much greater awareness in my conscience. The law somehow works together with my still inherent sin and still causes me to sin- much to my dismay. Romans 7 comes after Romans 6- I think this is significant. Romans 8 then instructs us to walk in the spirit and not in the flesh and that nothing will ever separate us from God’s love towards us in Christ. This is what then propels my attempts at obedience. This sin and law dynamic never departs us in this life so our obedience always needs the good news of the Gospels justifying and cleansing work for us. As Michael Horton often says- it is the wind of the Gospel that propels and moves us towards obedience. This is why we constantly need to be reminded of the good news in the Gospel each Sunday and why we should be taking communion weekly too. Sorry, I still think I have not made much progress in sanctification but I do not despair over my trust in Christ. That is what I think gets stronger (not my progressive sanctification) as I have spent more years struggling with these issues. I agree with Jed but thanks for the exhortation Matt- that never is bad advice and I will take it to heart.
Jeff:
You seem to think that one cannot talk of justification causing sanctification without equating justification to sanctification. This concern is unwarranted. Justification is a forensic act that happens outside of the believer. Sanctification is the renewal of the inner man. The two are distinct; they happen at the same time; and the first is the cause of the second.
To avoid confusion, let me be clear: I am not speaking of justification and sanctification in any personal or experiential sense. I am thinking of both as successive acts of God. Again, the first, justification, occurs outside the believer; it is a forensic declaration that forgives sins and imputes Christ’s righteousness. The second, sanctification, occurs inside the believer; it is the Spirit’s work of conforming the moral character to the image of Christ. The extraspective nature of justification does not prevent it from being the cause of sanctification. This doesn’t make me a papist. Hodge the Younger has my back on this (pay close attention to his second principle):
“The two principles which give character to Protestant soteriology, and distinguish it generically from Romish soteriology on the one hand, and from the Socinians and Rationalists on the other, are:
“(1) The clear distinction emphasized between the change of relation to the law, signalized by the word justification; and the real subjective change of personal character, signalized by the words regeneration and sanctification. With the Protestants, justification is a forensic act of God, declaring that the law as a covenant of life is satisfied, and that the subject is no longer subject to its penalty, but entitled henceforth to the rewards conditioned upon obedience. Regeneration, on the other hand, is a subjective change in the moral character of the subject, the gracious commencement of his complete restoration to the moral image of God, effected by the Holy Spirit in progressive sanctification.â€
“(2) The second characteristic mark of Protestant soteriology is the principle that the change or relation to the law signalized by the term justification, involving remission of penalty and restoration of favor, necessarily precedes and renders possible the real moral change of character signalized by the terms regeneration and sanctification. The continuance of judicial condemnation excludes the exercise of grace in the heart. Remission of punishment must be preceded by remission of guilt, and must itself precede the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart. Hence it must be entirely unconditioned upon any legal standing, or moral or gracious condition of the subject. We are pardoned in order that we may be good, never made good in order that we may be pardoned. We are freely co-heirs with Christ in order that we may become willing co-workers with him, but we are never made co-workers in order that we may become co-heirs.â€
A.A. has strong words for anyone who tampers with these two points: “The principles are of the very essence of Protestant soteriology. To modify, and much more, of course, to ignore or to deny them, destroys absolutely the thing known as Protestantism, and ought to incur the forfeiture of all recognize right to wear the name.†I agree.
Hodge is making the same point that I made above, when I made all of those citations to Calvin’s Comm on Romans.
More Hodge: “By consequence, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us is the necessary precondition of the restoration to us of the influences of the Holy Ghost, and that restoration leads by necessary consequences to our regeneration and sanctification.†That sounds like causal language to me.
Hodge again: “The notion that the necessary precondition of the imputation to us of Christ’s righteousness is our own faith, of which the necessary precondition is regeneration, is analogous to the rejected theory that the inherent personal moral corruption of each of Adam’s descendents is the necessary precondition of the imputation of his guilt to them. On the contrary, if the imputation of guilt is the causal antecedent of inherent depravity, in like manner the imputation of righteousness must be the causal antecedent of regeneration and faith.â€
Finally, Hodge nails the conclusion: “As in past times, many have made shipwreck of the faith by refusing to see that the only worthy end and complement of forgiveness of sins and divine acceptance is the actual restoration of the moral image of God, so now many make a shipwreck equally disastrous on the opposite side by refusing to acknowledge that even the first and least improvement in character and life must be preceded by atonement and reconciliation. The prime need for expiation and reconciliation is retired into the shade, ignored, or denied.â€
And he does all of this within a union framework that has your approval. (If I remember correctly you previously stated approval of Hodge’s union analysis).
Josh Downs:
You said, “Holding union-as-hub doesn’t make one blither around his room talking about union, nor, as Dr. Gaffin points out, does it de-center justification. If you can’t see how, a book-length study may be the thing.
You’re right. But it does make on blither around saying things like this:
“Calvin destroys Rome’s charge by showing thatfaith, in its Protestant understanding, entails a disposition to holiness without particular reference to justification….†(Emphasis added).
To deny that justification causes sanctification is one thing, but to claim faith entails a disposition to holiness without particular reference to justification is just bonkers. But it’s the tip of the iceberg. Gaffin goes on:
“It will also help the heirs of the Reformation to keep clear to themselves something they have not always or uniformly appreciated, namely how integral, no less essential than justification, to the salvation accomplished and applied in Christ sanctification is, involving as it does the pursuit of that “holiness without which no one will see the Lord.†(Emphasis added).
What’s next?
“In fact, from Rom 8:29-30, to take but one instance briefly, it is fair to say that in our salvation our sanctification is strategically more ultimate than our justification. For there sanctification, seen as culminating in our glorification, is the goal aimed at, all told, in our predestination.†(Emphasis added).
So sanctification toward glorification is the goal of our election. That’s an interesting take on it. I want to hear more:
“Further, sanctification, in view as our being “conformed to the image of his Son,†contemplates and effects the even more ultimate end, “that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.†(Emphasis added).
Boy, for those who want to shy away from the causal language of justification this has to be some pretty potent stuff. Sanctification “contemplates and effects†our status as Christ’s brothers. That’s some pretty serious causal language.
All of these quotes are from Richard B. Gaffin Jr., “Biblical Theology and the Westminster Standards,†WTJ 65 (2003) 165– 79.
Can anyone give me some scriptures which hint at the idea of infusion of grace and restoration of the moral image of God into our subjective selves? Imputation is definitely talked about in Romans chapter 5 which as far as I can tell has nothing to do with any kind of internal change in us. Regeneration and sanctification imply some kind of internal change but how do we know this except by our experience? And what if our experience is not a constant awareness of some kind of internal change or awareness- it seems to fluctuate with varying degrees of intensity; sometimes being non-existent in our awareness.
No one has really dealt with the problematic Romans chapter 7 in any of the above comments either. I am still miffed but still hold on to my faith in Christ’s justifying work for me. This awareness never seems to leave me even in my most despairing moments when I feel the least sanctified.
Brothers
I want you to know that I am not soft on justification in anyway, and my appreciation for the doctrine of union with my savior heightens and does not detract from my appreciation for justification.
But to talk about union as if it is somehow subjective, unable to motivate me to sanctification, somehow less valuable a doctrine than justification in the Christian’s walk, or is not part of the gospel is, for me at least, mind boggling.
Just go and read Romans 6, Ephesians 1-2 (to name but two places) and if you can’t see the richness and depth of union with Christ, I can’t help you. Parishoner or not, it matters not. The fact I belong to my savior and he to me, the fact that what is true of my savior in his work of redemption is also true of me should be plenty for you to meditate on. Maybe the fact that some of the contributors are struggling to progress in their own sanctification (by their own admission) is perhaps a signal that that they are not taking what they ought from God’s word. Growing in grace involves – yes – an deeper knowledge and hatred of sin, but also a turning from sin unto righteousness. What John Owen wrote about sanctification seems appropriate here – one of the foremost reasons why we struggle to mortify sin ? A lack of familiarity with our privileges!
I’m bowing out now. Thanks brothers and may the peace of God which passes understanding guard our hearts and minds in Christ Jesus (Phil 4:7)
Matt
Matt,
Are you asserting that you excel in sanctification because of your understanding of union? If so, this confirms my observation about this discussion – union being articulated in such a way that if you don’t get it (ie: understand union clearly), then you don’t get it (sanctification). I don’t want to devalue the reality of union, that I am Christ’s, and he is mine, and the rich NT instruction on the subject. However, it is the notion of sanctity that flows from this discussion that I think is a bit misleading. Even the most sanctified saint among us is woefully less than he should be, and I am not sure how union, or justification readily resolves this issue, it seems to be one of the constants of our earthly pilgrimage.
You’ve got to remember that Romans 7 follows Romans 6, and the outworking of union is messy, if you take Paul to be writing about his experience as a believer in ch. 7. I won’t pretend to have the answers here, but I am highly suspicious of any rhetoric that claims that if you just understand x theological category, then your entire Christian experience will be different. I have heard that line before for different categories, I have even bit from time to time and have a hard time buying in from where I sit now. The most significant growth that most parishioners like me experience is from due use of the ordinary means. I am sure that as the gospel is proclaimed, union will be addressed as it should be, but it certainly isn’t the whole picture.
With that said, I will certainly chew on your responses, my suspicions notwithstanding.
I can’t say it any better than Matt and Jeff have been doing.
RL, as regards your disgust of Gaffin’s scheme: What else does it mean to say “For you are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10)? Does this not mean that our holiness is a goal in some sense?
And is it bad to say that a feeling of guilt and duty to God spurs us on to holiness? Paul tells us it does (Rom. 2, 7), but he also says those two feelings are ineffectual; the law kills. Nevertheless, faith, insofar as it is an expression of those two Spirit-wrought affections (conviction and the concomitant duty), does create a disposition to holiness. When we find our abilities wanting, we fly to Christ. What else does it mean to say the law is a schoolmaster? And after conversion, our sin in the face of so much grace in the gospel does convict us and prompt us to live pleasing to God. Ultimately, this is because of the wind of the gospel, but if I had no conviction that I was sinning in the first place, it would be hard to see how to put to death the deeds of the body.
And, really, I don’t accept Gaffin’s union thesis because of the sanctity issue. I promise that’s not my motivation. It’s about Romans 6 and 1 Cor. 1:30. As Jeff and Matt have said, the grace of God to me, whatever it is according to the uber-precise categories some are applying here, is by virtue of being Christ’s, in him, united to him by faith through the Spirit’s power.
RL, are you denying the salvation as justification-sanctification-glorification model? If you’re not, then one part is just as integral as the next, since they’re all constitutive. The Reformation separates j and s, but it doesn’t obliterate the necessity of s.
I would like someone to show me how WLC 69 doesn’t teach union as a soteriological hub in some sense.
“Q. 69. What is the communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ?
A. The communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ, is their partaking of the virtue of his mediation, in their justification, adoption, sanctification, and whatever else, in this life, manifests their union with him.”
I think some might be equating union with Christ and imitating Christ. I think they’re distinct. Union is a kind of metaphysical thing–which may have consequences in being Christ-like–but it’s not the same thing as being made like Christ over time. Union is being grafted into Christ mystically or metaphysically at the moment of conversion, as I understand it from the union-as-hub folks. It’s more than forensic, but it is God-wrought and happens in a moment for the sake of Christ. It’s not wrought over time by us nor is it imputed to us. Hence ‘mystical union’ in some of our most prominent theologians. Correct me if this isn’t right.
RL: You make a powerful and persuasive argument. It would be helpful to have the Hodge citation — I’m poking around in Outlines and not finding your quotes yet (no doubt implied; I just want to see context).
Two points spring to mind immediately.
First, Hodge uses the term “regeneration”, much as Calvin does, to mean a change in disposition. “Sanctification”, meanwhile, is reserved for what he calls “progressive sanctification.” Whether rightly or wrongly, I’ve taken both together to be our Whole Sanctification — both the definitive sanctification (Murray’s term, also used by Reymond) and the progressive.
If we want to say that justification is a cause of progressive sanctification, then no problem. It’s the definitive aspect that I maintain is distinctly caused by infusion and not by justification.
Hodge argues thus:
5. What Relation does Sanctification Sustain to Regeneration?
Regeneration is the creative act of the Holy Spirit, implanting a new principle of spiritual life into the soul. Conversion is the first exercise of that new gracious principle, in the spontaneous turning of the sinner to God. Sanctification is the sustaining and developing work of the Holy Ghost, bringing all of the faculties of the soul more and more perfectly under the purifying and regulating influence of the implanted principle of spiritual life. — Outlines 32.5, p. 410.
I think this clearly establishes the limit of Hodge’s term of “sanctification” to the progressive aspect.
6. What is the Relation that Justification and Sanctification Sustain to Each Other?
In the order of nature, regeneration precedes justification, although as to time they are always necessarily contemporaneous. The instant God regenerates a sinner he acts faith in Christ; the instant he acts faith in Christ he is justified; and sanctification, which is the work of carrying on and perfecting that which is done in regeneration, is accomplished under those conditions into which he is introduced by justification. Outlines 32.6, p. 411
Here, the order is clear: regeneration (which is similar to the inward effectual calling in Hodge — see ch. 25.11 — but not the same in that it also involves a moral change of disposition) precedes justification precedes sanctification.
In light of that, I don’t know what to make of your two citations.
By consequence, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us is the necessary precondition of the restoration to us of the influences of the Holy Ghost, and that restoration leads by necessary consequences to our regeneration and sanctification.
On the contrary, if the imputation of guilt is the causal antecedent of inherent depravity, in like manner the imputation of righteousness must be the causal antecedent of regeneration and faith.
Notice here that imputation is the causal antecedent of faith ?! Something’s going on that I don’t get yet… I suspect that “imputation” is not a synonym for “justification” as you are seeming to take it.
But wait … there’s more Hodge for us:
The instant a sinner is united to Christ in the exercise of faith, there is accomplished in him simultaneously and inseparably — 1. a total change of relation to God, and to the law as a covenant; and 2. a change of inward condition or nature. The change of relation is represented by justification; the change of nature is represented by the term regeneration. Regeneration is an act of God, originating by a new creation a new spiritual life into the subject. The first and instant act of the new creature, consequent on his regeneration, is faith, or a believing, trusting embrace of the person and work of Christ. Upon the exercise of the faith by the regenerated subject, justification is the instant act of God… Outlines 31.2, p. 405.
I find this baffling. Apparently, justification and regeneration are accomplished at the same time, together, upon faith; but regeneration precedes faith, which leads to justification.
I confess myself confused about Hodge’s idea of ordo. It almost seems that he’s using “regeneration” in two different senses. What do you make of it? And what do you make of his “imputation is the causal antecedent of faith”?!
Oops, I was so confused that I never got around to …
… Second, I just wanted to point out the “the instant the sinner is united to Christ” bit … there goes Hodge making union prior to justification. (But we’re not sure yet what he’s on about anyways).
—
Over to Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 418:
1. TH E REFORME D VIEW. Proceeding on the assumption that man’s spiritual condition depends on his state, that is, on his relation to the law; and that it is only on the basis of the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ that the sinner can be delivered from the corrupting and destructive influence of sin, — Reformed Soteriology takes its starting point in the union established in the pactum salutis between Christ and those whom the Father has given Him, in virtue of which there is an eternal imputation of the righteousness of Christ to those who are His. In view of this precedence of the legal over the moral some theologians, such as Maccovius, Comrie, A. Kuyper Sr., and A. Kuyper Jr., begin the ordo salutis with justification rather than regeneration. In doing this they apply the name “justification” also to the ideal imputation of the righteousness of Christ to the elect in the eternal counsel of God. Dr. Kuyper further says that the Reformed differ from the Lutherans in that the former teach justification per justitiam Christi, while the latter represent the justification per fidem as completing the work of Christ.1 The great majority of Reformed theologians, however, while presupposing the imputation of the righteousness of Christ in the pactum salutis, discuss only justification by faith in the order of salvation, and naturally take up its discussion in connection with or immediately after that of faith. They begin the ordo salutis with regeneration or with calling, and thus emphasize the fact that the application of the redemptive work of Christ is in its incipiency a work of God. This is followed by a discussion of conversion, in which the work of regeneration penetrates to the conscious life of the sinner, and he turns from self, the world, and Satan, to God. Conversion includes repentance and faith, but because of its great importance the latter is generally treated separately. The discussion of faith naturally leads to that of justification, inasmuch as this is mediated to us by faith. And because justification places man in a new relation to God, which carries with it the gift of the Spirit of adoption, and which obliges man to a new obedience and also enables him to do the will of God from the heart, the work of sanctification next comes into consideration. Finally, the order of salvation is concluded with the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints and their final glorification.
That perhaps sheds some light on Hodge’s use of “imputation” — perhaps it is a federal category and not a synonym for justification after all.
Note also the rather wide variety in terms and in ordos. For example, my use of “sanctification” to cover both the change in nature (following Murray, Reymond) and also progressive sanctification, is at odds with Berkhof and Hodge. Can’t help that; I’ve got to be inconsistent with somebody.
More Berkhof (419-420): In connection with the various movements in the work of application we should bear in mind that the judicial acts of God constitute the basis for His recreative acts, so that justification, though not temporally, is yet logically prior to all the rest; — that the work of God’s grace in the subconscious, precedes that in the conscious life, so that regeneration precedes conversion; — and that the judicial acts of God (justification, including the forgiveness of sins and the adoption of children) always address themselves to the consciousness, while of the recreative acts one, namely, regeneration, takes place in the subconscious life.
Note the “though not temporally” bit. This is the key point in the architecture. It’s one thing to talk about logical priority (a potentially confusing concept). It’s quite another to talk about temporal order.
And cause language is temporal.
That’s the bottom line.
More Berkhof (536): It is of considerable importance to have a correct conception of the relation between sanctification and some of the other stages in the work of redemption.
1. To REGENERATION. There is both difference and similarity here. Regeneration is completed at once, for a man cannot be more or less regenerated; he is either dead or alive spiritually. Sanctification is a process, bringing about gradual changes, so that different grades may be distinguished in the resulting holiness. Hence we are admonished to perfect holiness in the fear of the Lord, II Cor. 7:1 . The Heidelberg Catechism also presupposes that there are degrees of holiness, when it says that even “the holiest men, when in this life, have only a small beginning of this obedience.”1 At the same time regeneration is the beginning of sanctification. The work of renewal, begun in the former, is continued in the latter, Phil. 1:6. Strong says: “It (sanctification) is distinguished from regeneration as growth from birth, or as the strengthening of a holy disposition from the original impartation of it.”2
2. To JUSTIFICATION. Justification precedes and is basic to sanctification
in the covenant of grace. In the covenant of works the order of righteousness and holiness was just the reverse. Adam was created with a holy disposition and inclination to serve God, but on the basis of this holiness he had to work out the righteousness that would entitle him to eternal life. Justification is the judicial basis for sanctification. God has the right to demand of us holiness of life, but because we cannot work out this holiness for ourselves, He freely works’ it within us through the Holy Spirit on the basis of the righteousness of Jesus Christ, which is imputed to us in justification. The very fact that it is based on justification, in which the free grace of God stands out with the greatest prominence, excludes the idea that we can ever merit anything in sanctification. The Roman Catholic idea that justification enables man to perform meritorious works is contrary to Scripture. Justification as such does not effect a change in our inner being and therefore needs sanctification as its complement. It is not sufficient that the sinner stands righteous before God; he must also be holy in his inmost life.
Two things of note:
(1) Berkhof places justification prior to sanctification, which he conceives of as progressive sanctification.
(2) Justification is, according to Berkhof, not a transformative grace and requires something different (sanctification) to complement it.
Berkhof’s more of a moralist than I am! (just kidding)
Jeff:
My bad for not supplying the citation. I even have a link! The article is aptly titled The Ordo Salutis. I think you’ll find it helpful. Tell me if he persuades you:
The Princeton Review Vol. 1 (1878) The Ordo Salutis by Archibald Alexander Hodge (Page 304) .
Josh:
You’re right. Our holiness is certainly a goal of Christ’s work, but it should never be pursued “without particular reference to the gospel.” I agree that you have to preach the law and the gospel. A great article on the law-gospel preaching is “Letter and Spirit” by R. Scott Clark in Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry. I don’t see where you can plausibly claim that I reject that.
I just find it hard to believe that Calvin taught that Christians had a disposition to holiness without reference to justification, when he said this:
“For unless you understand first of all what your position is before God, and what the judgment which he passes upon you, you have no foundation on which your salvation can be laid, or on which piety towards God can be reared. The necessity of thoroughly understanding this subject will become more apparent as we proceed with it.†(Institutes 3.11.1).
On the question of whether sanctification is integral, I quoted these sentences from Gaffin: “It will also help the heirs of the Reformation to keep clear to themselves something they have not always or uniformly appreciated, namely how integral, no less essential than justification, to the salvation accomplished and applied in Christ sanctification is, involving as it does the pursuit of that “holiness without which no one will see the Lord.â€
Now, it’s true that if something is a part of a whole it is integral, and the whole of salvation includes sanctification, so sanctification is an integral part of salvation. But I take Gaffin to be using the term in a looser sense. The same is about sanctification’s being essential to salvation. But Gaffin is not using these terms in this sense. In this sense, the terms are absolute adjectives like dead or unanimous. Something is either integral or it’s not, in the same way that a person is either dead or he’s not (zombies excluded). This leaves no room for comparison. One part cannot be more integral than another, just like one vote cannot be more unanimous than another. But notice how Gaffin employs this usage “how integral†and “no less essential.†Certainly, it would be awkward if a person wanted to note “how dead†a person was or how “one vote was no less unanimous than another. With this construction, he must be employing a more casual meaning, something like important or central. I think that this reading is supported by a the broader thrust of Gaffin’s writing on the point.
The main question is whether Calvin thinks that the relative priority of or relationship between “justification and sanctification is indifferent theologically,†as Gaffin claims. Calvin, a trained rhetorician, correctly employs an adjective of degree:
“This second benefit—viz. regeneration, appears to have been already sufficiently discussed. On the other hand, the subject of justification was discussed more cursorily, because it seemed of more consequence first to explain that the faith by which alone, through the mercy of God, we obtain free justification, is not destitute of good works; and also to show the true nature of these good works on which this question partly turns. The doctrine of Justification is now to be fully discussed, and discussed under the conviction, that as it is the principal ground on which religion must be supported, so it requires greater care and attention†(Institutes 3.11.1).
This part of the Institutes is not unfamiliar to Gaffin and his supporters. They quote the first two sentences all the time and make much of the order in which Calvin presented the material. Often, they leave off the last sentence because it explicitly contradicts the point they wish to make. Calvin is clear that it is “the principle ground on which religion must be supported.†If we let Calvin speak for himself, things are pretty clear.
But my biggest issue is that though Gaffin is weary of causal language when used to describe the relationship between justification and sanctification, he plays fast and loose with it when it comes to the relationship between sanctification and glorification and the relationship between sanctification and adoption. That sanctification causes glorification seems much more controversial to than that justification causes sanctification. Here are the quotes on that:
“For there sanctification, seen as culminating in our glorification, is the goal aimed at, all told, in our predestination.â€
“Further, sanctification, in view as our being “conformed to the image of his Son,†contemplates and effects the even more ultimate end, “that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.â€
By taking issues with these statements, I meant in no way to deny that glorification or adoption. I simply think it is preposterous to claim that our glorification is the culmination of our sanctification. It’s also wrong to say that our sanctification effects our adoption.
I think I may have to bow out, too. RL, I think we may agree on a lot more than seems evident here. I think we’re misreading each other. My gut says you’re seeing things in Gaffin that I don’t see. You said, “I don’t see where you can plausibly claim that I reject that,” regarding sanctification being integral and a necessary goal of Christ’s work. I guess I see this as Gaffin’s point in the quotes which you balked at. Again, I think we’re missing each other. I see Gaffin standing on a lot of what you’re saying, then qualifying a NEW statement–he uses the word ‘strategically’.
With regard to your taxonomy of absolute adjectives versus those of degree: I’d say that the implications you see may be there, but I don’t think that’s a necessary conclusion nor do I think those occurrences are inexplicable vis-a-vis idiosyncratic language. Often that’s made necessary in pushing out our understanding, ie, in development, mixing traditional vocabulary in with it. (Heidegger comes to mind. He’ll be saying something which is pretty unobjectionable sometimes, but because of the language, it’ll be pounced on. Maybe it’s unnecessary in-house language.)
My main point in all this is that union-as-hub is as basic and historical a doctrine as WLC 69, and, as has been acknowledged by Hart, I believe, in Calvin book III. Even if one takes issue with Gaffin’s formulation of it, the basic concept is there and I think that’s what Gaffin is trying to defend primarily.
This language of ‘with reference to’ in statements like ‘how can he say Y without reference to X,’ to me, has been out of accord with obligations to charity. If you’re dealing with Joel Osteen, clearly you can say, ‘he says all this without regard to the gospel.’ A guy like Gaffin is another story. You know his gospel-, Christ-centered hermeneutic. Among my friends I’m often the hair-splitter, but to go after this kind of use of language seems excessive. Aspects, aspects, aspects. Many things are lawful to be said that aren’t constantly pointing to the central doctrine or central aspect. Maybe you don’t think it’s the most helpful way to say it. Fine. That seems like one of those things you cover in love or modestly correct in a footnote. The rhetoric makes it sound like he’s occupying a place out of bounds.
The causal language with sanctification, glorification, I think, finds an explanation in Gaffin’s emphasis on eschatology and pneumatology, two correctors I think are developed in a helpful, reformed, and historically-connected way. Our theology is full of warnings that the decree of God is one and that any investigation beyond that into the diversity must always walk humbly keeping the former point in mind. Perhaps this accounts for some of the tension the two camps are under in the current discussion.
PS, I’ve consulted R. Scott Clark’s work on this subject and I find it helpful, too. Again, maybe I’m missing some huge discrepancy you see. I count it small potatoes. I think there’s room for the small differences in the brotherhood of the Reformed faith. Shepherdism is not one of those small differences. That’s not linked to a basic union-as-hub view as I see it, and that basic thesis is worth preserving in our weekly church preaching and practice.
I think the place that you want to look in Berkhof’s Systematic Theology is 447-453. On page 452, you’ll find this quote:
“The mystical union in the sense in which we are now speaking of it is not the judicial ground, on the basis of which we become partakers of the riches that are in Christ. It is sometimes said that the merits of Christ cannot be imputed to us as long as we are not in Christ, since it is only on the basis of our oneness with Him that such an imputation could be reasonable. But this view fails to distinguish between our legal unity with Christ and our spiritual oneness with Him, and is a falsification of the fundamental element in the doctrine of redemption, namely, of the doctrine of justification.”
The type of union that he is talking about is described on page 450:
“From the preceding it appears that the term “mystical union” can be, and often is, used in a broad sense, including the various aspects (legal, objective, subjective) of the union between Christ and believers. Most generally, however, it denotes only the crowning aspect of that union, namely, its subjective realization by the operation of the Holy Spirit and it is this aspect of it that is in the foreground in soteriology. All that is said in the rest of this chapter bears on this subjective union.”
Thus, for Berkhof, the aspect of union that precedes faith is the legal union. I think this is the same for Hodge. That’s what he means by imputation being the cause of regeneration.
Josh:
I apologize if I offended you, and I didn’t mean to violate any obligations of charity. For the record though, the “without reference to” language was always taken directly from Gaffin’s own writing. The language that seems most upsetting is Gaffin’s, not mine. The article is online: Biblical Theology and the Westminster Standards.
Brothers
The ideas that union is somehow less objective than justification, is less useful to the Christian’s efforts in sanctification, is somehow less clear than justification are simply and wholly wrong. Brothers, this is a call to deeper study and contemplation, that’s all. Union is every as bit objective as justification, is foundational in progressive sanctification and is less clear probably because people have not studied it as much.
Growing in grace involves two things (at least) – first the greater awareness of sin (the thrust of John’s second post on the topic) and the putting to death the deeds of the flesh (the thrust of John’s first post). Both are necessary and possible, at least according to Scripture. The concpet of union – especially and principally the One to whom we are united and the blessings that are ours in him, is of great use. Could John Owen be right: why do we struggle so much to mortify sin? His answer “a lack of familiarity with our privileges.” Christ and our union with him are part of the answer.
May the peace of God which passes all understanding guard and guide our hearts, in Christ Jesus. (Phil 4:7)
Blessings
Matt
I agree with Matt. Although it’s an imperfect analogy, our union with Christ is like the attachment of a hose to a water spigot. Though we might technically say that “the water in the hose flows out of the attachment”, most reasonable people would say that “the water in the hose comes out of the spigot”, and the attachment’s sole function is to connect the one to the other.
So it is with UX. The sole function of union is to attach the sinner to the sinless, so that righteousness (both imputed and infused) may come from Christ. One might technically say that “justification and sanctification flow out of union”, but most reasonable people would say that “justification and sanctification come to us from Christ.”
That is to say: union is not a subjectively realized thing inside of a person that does the work of saving. Rather, union is an objective connection to Christ. As such, it is identical to “we in Christ, Christ in us.”
Jeff, sorry if I sound frustrated but your quotes from Berkhof highlight what drives me bonkers when talking about union.
First, you quote the following: “Proceeding on the assumption that man’s spiritual condition depends on his state, that is, on his relation to the law; and that it is only on the basis of the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ that the sinner can be delivered from the corrupting and destructive influence of sin, — Reformed Soteriology takes its starting point in the union established in the pactum salutis between Christ and those whom the Father has given Him . . .”
How could you not have a better assertion of forensic priority? (Thanks, btw, for my next Forensic Friday post.) Sure he mentions union, but this union is something very different from the union discussed in WSC 29ff. I keep asking which union people mean, and I don’t get many answers. Union is one big melting pot. BTW, Murray and his students are not big fans of the pactum salutis.
Then you confidently assert that for Berkhof just. is prior to progressive sanctification. But Berkhof never teaches prog. sanct. It is a novel idea of Murray (could be right but it doesn’t have deep roots in the Reformed tradition). What Berkhof says is that just. is prior to sanct. But the union position takes an obvious point for JP’s and turns into a point for Union Priority.
This is not a fair debate if the terms can keep slipping and sliding around. And part of the reason for that slipping and sliding is that the ST rendering of union has not been done. There has been exegesis, but it hasn’t been put back into the ST.
Josh, and now I’ll vent some of my frustrations with the unionists directly to you. You write in response to RL at one point: “And is it bad to say that a feeling of guilt and duty to God spurs us on to holiness?”
Why did you ask this question? When have the JPers ever said that guilt and duty are the motive for honliness or good works? It is precisely the case that JP leads to gratitude and love as the motivation for good works, not the idea that holiness is the end goal of it all — if holiness is the end, and we know we are not going to be holy in this life, isn’t the idea of holiness as the telos a bit scary?
But my point is that just like the bogey of “just. causes sanct.” you seem to create another bogey to support your side. But if the other side of the debate isn’t saying your bogey says, then why bring it up. Again, as I just said to Jeff, the terms and arguments keep getting slogged around.
And as for RL’s reading of Gaffin, I’d encourage you not to shoot the messenger. After all, lots of knit picking goes on here over union and JP, and this is only a blog. BTW, that is partly the function of a blog. How much more knit picking should go on over a theological quarterly article. It is the nature of scholarship to pick knits. The union side cannot fairly wrap itself in the piety of its proponents, without making it seem — quite uncharitably I might add — that union’s critics are impious. So just because Murray was a godly man doesn’t make him right. Imagine if that logic were applied to Billy Graham.
Matt, which union? Pactum salutis or effectual calling union? Really, it would help if we could be clear about union. But again, to speak of union as a benefit like justification is not confessional. Union (mystical) is part of the work of the spirit in applying to us the benefits of redemption.
I also would second Jed’s question about motivation. Do you really think that if I knew the benefits better, or studied union more, I’d be more patient when a car is taking so long to make a turn in front of me? This is a further puzzle to me as I consider union. It not only becomes a substitute for justification — we have all of Christ with union as if we only had part of Christ with justification and need more Christ. But union also becomes the wonder working pastoral cure for what ails the Christian.
I agree that union heightens the monergistic quality of salvation and for that I am grateful. It does seem to me to be a very helpful way for understanding the work of the Spirit. But again, union is usually defended as if the doctrine is about getting the whole Christ. I can see that indirectly. But directly union is about the work of the Spirit.
So while you want to caution union questioners about taking issue with the doctrine, it sure would be nice if we didn’t have a moving target that also shoots back. Darn, I hate when that happens.
Jed et al,
I’m bowing back in, so to speak.
No-one has spoken of “excelling” in sanctification except you – I certainly haven’t. I simply drew a connection between the doctrine of union and it’s practical application, which co-incidentally what Paul does in Romans 6. To say that union doesn’t function this way to deny the plain meaning of the text. To infer that union doesn’t explain everything in terms of Romans 7 and that union is “messy” is a reflection of your understanding not mine. Union is a fact, so too is indwelling sin. It is through Christ, his life death and resurrection, and our conjoining to him by God, and our indwelling by his Spirit, that we seek to put to death the deeds of the flesh. I’m not saying anything about full achievement of such, or any thoughts of perfectionism. Furthermore, to say that union needs explaining and therefore demonstrates your point is simply wrong-headed of you. Does not justification need explaining? Have we not spent the last 500 years explaining, rediscovering, redefining it according to Scripture.
It seems to me, that some of you who don’t get what we are saying, (by “we” I mean Josh, me et al, not Shepherd etc) simply haven’t done enough thinking on this issue. I don’t mean to be insulting, neither had I until a few years ago, and I freely confess, I am only scratching the surface, and am open to correction. Union was a doctrine which was subsumed into other doctrines in my experience, hence my late appreciation of it. My problem is I read and hear rhetoric in this discussion more than arguments against this position. My arguments re: Rom 6, Eph 2 have not even been touched by any, skeptical of the union angle. Poor argumentation brothers, deal with the text! Neither has my argument concerning the nature of our union / legal fiction been examined. This argument does not simply deal with the Roman Catholic objections to reformed soteriology, but it defines the very context of what Christ has done for us, how we prior to faith participated in his work. That is why union is important – and again, I affirm the Reformed and Confessional view of justification, which has a high priority in my theology and preaching. It’s not one or the other. You are setting bride and groom against each other. – You reply “I don’t see the great benefit of union” – well, seek to learn more brothers. It will become precious to you, I hope. You’ll note that none of the unionists have spoken in such a manner about justification. It is not us (in this discussion at least) driving a wedge between union and justification.
Darryl, I’ve given you plenty of answers on how union plays out in eternity and time – what aspect of union, remembering there is only one union and two or three manifestations of it. You are throwing up a smoke screen in raising this again. Perhaps I need to work on something a little more comprehensive. A project, me thinks – I’ll be in touch.
Peace in Christ
Matt
Matt, no offense but your invoking Rom 6 and Eph 2 in the course of comments on a blog hardly establishes the “thus, sayeth the Lord” slam dunk to point us wayward JPers on the right path. I don’t expect you to settle the matter here. But I’m not sure why you need to devalue the questions here.
And one reason for those questions comes from Rom 6 itself. The union described there is predicated on the priority of the forensic. Unbelievers are slaves to sin; believers are slaves to Christ. Slavery is a legal and economic relationship. I don’t know how you can understand union then apart from first understanding what it means to be freed from the law. Union in fact makes no sense of the master-slave relationship: a slave united to his master? What, what, what?!!? But a slave liberated by a master, that makes more sense.
Could it be, Matt, that union isn’t as clear to everyone? Could it be that it hasn’t been worked out sufficiently? Maybe you could recount for us what was the turning point consideration for you — of course, no tears or emotions. This is oldlife.org.
Matt:
I don’t think you understand our concerns. As far as I can tell, you have in mind a single union that has multiple aspects. One of those aspects is predestinarian; another is existential (or mystical). None of us deny that these two unions exists. The main point of contention regards existential union. Does it come before justification? Is it produced by faith or does it produce faith? Is the source of both my sanctification and justification? If it is the source of both, does this leave any room for logical priority between the two?
Dr. Hart,
You said, “Josh, and now I’ll vent some of my frustrations with the unionists directly to you. You write in response to RL at one point: “And is it bad to say that a feeling of guilt and duty to God spurs us on to holiness?â€
Why did you ask this question? When have the JPers ever said that guilt and duty are the motive for honliness or good works?”
Read the question. It was framed to imply that certain JPers on the blog deny it, not that they say it.
Men
Darryl, invoking Scripture is always a good start. When those arguments are not dealt with until the point is pressed, several times as it happens, that is simply not good argumentation on your part.
But, thanks to your last post and to RL’s response (both of which have helped me), I think now I am beginning to see where you are coming from. I will rally the troops and come back with a more comprehensive union statement. Give me time, and as Arnie once said “I’ll be back”.
Blessings
Matt
Dr. Hart,
I agree with your assessment that union-speak has not been sufficiently standardized, and that this represents a real lacuna in ST. I think Reymond takes a stab in that direction.
The same is true, BTW, of “sanctification.” The term in some authors encompasses only the progressive aspect; for others, the progressive and definitive aspects. That’s why “Justification causes Sanctification” is ambiguous.
In case things haven’t been clear, here are the terms as I am using them:
On my account, we are united to Christ at the moment of faith (per the WLC). Out of this union flow justification and sanctification; this is how redemption is applied to us.
I’m happy to let Berkhof et al speak of a union established in pactum salutis — but we recognize that he knows that this union does not become actualized until received by faith. Likewise, LB and Hodge both speak of an “imputation” that is prior to faith, but we recognize that this is not the same as the received imputation that justifies us.
Likewise, on my account, “sanctification” refers to the whole class of transformative benefits wrought by the Spirit, whose onset is definitive sanctification and whose continuance is progressive sanctification. This may be overly broad, but at least that’s what I’ve been talking about.
While we’re talking about terms: When you say that the forensic has priority, do you mean “logical priority”, “causal priority in the application of redemption”, “first place in importance”, or all three, or even something else?
And think also about your new FF topic: the forensic that Berkhof is speaking of not justification at all, but something that occurs way prior to justification, back in our election. And while it is true that election is prior to everything else, it’s not really the same thing as the kind of priority we’ve been discussing, is it?
—
Finally, I can’t resist the situational irony: “nits” (not “knits”) are picked. They’re the eggs that lice lay in hair, removed with a fine-toothed comb.
Pedantically yours,
Jeff
Dr. Hart,
I can’t get this out of my head. You really missed my point, I think. I wasn’t playing the holy-character card to say Gaffin’s right. I was just pointing out that we have to remember that we all have the same gospel-, and Christ-centered hermeneutic and that this fact should nuance our accusations with regard to error. One can’t just forget all the things a guy like Gaffin clearly holds because it seems to him that he denies them implicitly in a particular instance. It’s more likely he’s read Gaffin wrongly. And I most definitely was not meaning to imply that his critics are therefore less holy.
I have to say that, because you’re an elder in my denomination, your words are particularly stinging. Please, read me charitably. If you stand by what you said, I must have been a real twerp. At this point, though, it seems the Internet is sucking out all nuance as I don’t recognize what I said in your critique of it.
Matt:
If you have time, I’d like to hear what you have to say about this: everyone on the union-focus side is trying attempting to maintain one union with three aspects (or manifestations). At the same time, everyone seems to maintain that you can’t have just one part of Christ; you can’t tear Christ apart. That’s why justification and sanctification are always together, right? But if you can’t tear Christ or his benefits apart, why don’t all of the benefits come at once? Christ has more in store for me than sanctification, right? Aren’t justification and sanctification just parts? Why don’t I get glorification now too? All the conditions for glorification have been met by Christ, right? Having it linger out there makes it seem like there’s something I need to do.
I’m just seeking a conceptual understanding. I’m not in anyway denying that justification and sanctification are inseparable. I’m just wondering out loud whether union language is the best way to explain their inseparability.
Jeff, for the record, I pick knits.
I see that Berkhof isn’t talking about justification. But he is talking about the legal basis of the covenant and our relationship to God as prior. And so, I think you can do the math. If the forensic is prior to the renovative, then justification . . .
BTW, I still don’t see definitive sanctification anywhere other than in Murray.
Josh, don’t go all subservient on me. I’m not speaking ex presbyterion here. I’m simply engaging in discussion and disputes as a layman, historian, and cat companion.
And part of my point about character and piety was in response to what I have experienced when raising the sorts of points that RL does. People have judged me to be uncharitable and going after motives. I am not accusing you of doing that with me. But you may be doing it with Gaffin — that is, reverse judgment of motives — if you grant him all sorts of room that you won’t grant to us union knit pickers.
RL: I don’t think you understand our concerns. As far as I can tell, you have in mind a single union that has multiple aspects. One of those aspects is predestinarian; another is existential (or mystical).
As much as I like Berkhof and Hodge, I have to say that their speaking of imputation and union prior to faith confuses matters. It’s not that they’re incorrect; it’s just that they create multiple senses of the same word.
What I appreciate about Reymond is that he simplifies a bit and uses union to speak only of the experiential union. And in doing so, he brings the term “union” back more in line with the univocal term used in the Catechisms.
More later.
Jeff:
Well, I think we can agree that apart from our own understandings of how salvation is applied, the notion of union part of Reformed theology, but wherever mystical union appears alongside forensic or legal union, the mystical is subordinated. I haven’t read Reymond.
I have a question as it relates to confessional interpretation. I ask you because I know you take these things seriously. I’m sure you know that one can build a circumstantial case that WCF teaches an ordo. It’s the one found in 3.6: “Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.†Though “adoption†is missing, it’s otherwise repeated in 8.1: “unto whom He did from all eternity give a people, to be His seed, and to be by Him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.â€
The same called-justified-adopted-sanctified pattern is found in the organization of the chapters of the confession and the questions of the catechisms:
WCF Chapters 10-13
Chapter X: Of Effectual Calling
Chapter XI: Of Justification
Chapter XII: Of Adoption
Chapter XIII: Of Sanctification
WLC Questions 67-76
Question 67: What is effectual calling?
Question 68: Are the elect only effectually called?
Question 69: What is the communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ?
Question 70: What is justification?
Question 71: How is justification an act of God’s free grace?
Question 72: What is justifying faith?
Question 73: How does faith justify a sinner in the sight of God?
Question 74: What is adoption?
Question 75: What is sanctification?
WSC Questions 31-35
Q. 31. What is effectual calling?
Q. 32. What benefits do they that are effectually called partake of in this life?
Q. 33. What is justification?
Q. 34. What is adoption?
Q. 35. What is sanctification?
This, I admit is circumstantial. Though Gaffin rejects this ordo, he is willing to say this about it: “Sequencing such as “. . . effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season; . . . justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation†and “. . . effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved . . .†(Confession of Faith 3:6), as well as “. . . called, justified, sanctified, and glorified†(8:1), no doubt reflects the ordo adopted by many, perhaps all, of the Divines. (I added the bold; The ellipses were in the original). This is from footnote 20 of Richard B. Gaffin Jr., “Biblical Theology and the Westminster Standards,†WTJ 65 (2003) 165– 79.
What do you make of this? I’m most interested in this as a question of confessional practice. There’s circumstantial evidence that an ordo is taught plus historical evidence that “many, perhaps all of the Divines†held to that ordo. How do you think we ought to use these data points to interpret the standards? I’m not picking fights. I’m really at a loss.
Dr. Clark runs into an issue in his discussion of union, paradoxically titled “Union with Christ: It’s Not That Difficult.”
He says, There is no question whether, in some respect, the benefits of Christ flow from union. The useful thing here is to remember what is in question. There’s no question whether we have a decretal union or a federal union prior to faith. We were elect “in Christ,†from all eternity. Christ acted as our federal head before we existed. We come into possession of Christ and his benefits by faith alone and the same Spirit who operated through the gospel to make us alive, to give us faith, also creates that vital union.
In the article, he distinguishes our decretal union, our federal/legal union, and our vital union, and he cites the same Berkhof passage that DGH has cited several times, to the effect that our vital union is not the cause, but the result of being justified.
For RSC, the first two occur prior to faith; the last flows out of faith.
The problem that arises is that the “union” in the Catechisms is (a) manifested in justification and sanctification both; and (b) is the way in which redemption is applied to us; and (c) is accomplished by faith.
So which of RSC’s three “unions” would correspond to the “union” in the Catechisms? Not decretal or legal, since those precede faith. Not vital, since for him justification precedes the vital union.
So we’re left with these categories (that RSC declares are easy and necessary for understanding union!) that don’t correspond to the union found in the Catechisms. I can’t affirm WSC 30 and WLC 69 while reading any of RSC’s three unions here.
Part of the problem is taking Berkhof’s distinction between federal union and vital union and treating these as two kinds of union. But actually, Berkhof’s view of union is very strongly oriented towards election. For Berkhof, the union starts all the way back at election as a “justification from eternity” (ST 448), is objectively realized in the atonement (ibid), and is subjectively realized by the work of the Spirit in creating faith in us (449).
The federal and vital unions, then, in Berkhof are the same union, ante- and post- subjective realization. It is important for Berkhof that we not view “union” as something that we capture by faith, but rather that creates faith in us, so that its fulness can be realized in us.
In view of what was said, it is quite evident that it is not correct to say that the mystical union is the fruit of man’s believing acceptance of Christ, as if faith were not one of the blessings of the covenant which flow unto us from the fulness of Christ, but a condition which man must meet partly or wholly in his own strength, in order to enter into living relationship with Jesus Christ. Faith is first of all a gift of God, and as such a part of the treasures that are hidden in Christ. It enables us to appropriate on our part what is given unto us in Christ, and to enter ever-increasingly into conscious enjoyment of the blessed union with Christ, which is the source of all our spiritual riches. (ST 449).
So Berkhof’s conception of union is united, not divided. But when it comes down to the subjectively realized union, he says
If the discussion of this aspect of the mystical union is taken up first of
all in the ordo salutis, it should be borne in mind (a) that it would seem to be desirable to consider it in connection with what precedes it, ideally in the counsel of redemption, and objectively in the work of Christ; and (b) that the order is logical rather than chronological. Since the believer is “a new creature” (II Cor. 5:17), or is’ “justified” (Acts 13:39) only in Christ, union with Him logicallv precedes both regeneration and justification by faith, while yet, chronologically, the moment when we are united with Christ is also the moment of our regeneration and justification.
This is unmistakably clear, and it is at odds with RSC’s presentation of vital union.
Consistent with this, Berkhof says directly after the famous “union is not the judicial ground” quote that
But this state of affairs, namely, that the sinner has nothing in himself and receives everything freely from Christ, must be reflected in the conscious-ness of the sinner. And this takes place through the mediation of the mystical union. While the union is effected when the sinner is renewed by the operation of the Holy Spirit, he does not become cognizant of it and does not actively cultivate it until the conscious operation of faith begins. Then he becomes aware of the fact that he has no righteousness of his own, and that the righteousness by which he appears just in the sight of God is imputed to him. But even so something additional is required. The sinner must feel his dependence on Christ in the very depths of his being, — in the sub-conscious life. Hence he is incorporated in Christ, and as a result experiences that all the grace which he receives flows from Christ. The constant feeling of dependence thus engendered, is an antidote against all self-righteousness. (ST 452)
Notice that what Berkhof describes here is the creation of saving faith, taking place at effectual calling. This is the moment of transition from legal union to vital union.
So I think the “union is not the judicial ground” quote has not been read out correctly by the JP side in this discussion. Berkhof is not saying justification first, then union. Rather, he’s speaking of “imputation” in the sense of our “justification from eternity.” It is this that is the judicial ground of everything, including our union broadly conceived.
FWIW: Hodge’s treatment of union is less confusing. Hodge has two aspects of union, legal and vital. The one corresponds to forensic graces, the other to transformative. The whole thing is prepared before the foundation of the world but appropriated by faith.
I would conclude that the distinction between types of unions (a) needs to be standardized (I agree with DGH on this) and (b) brought into conformity with the Catechisms so that people aren’t always saying, “which union was that again?” I would think it best to have a single term, and to subsume “decretal union” under election and limited atonement.
RL: Everyone on the union-focus side is trying attempting to maintain one union with three aspects (or manifestations).
Actually, I would prefer that we make “union” be univocal, and treat it as having two distinct aspects, forensic and vital. The use of “union” to describe things prior to faith has the unfortunate effect of making WSC 30 formally false.
For this reason, even though I endorse the Berkhofian picture, I don’t think he’s pedagogically moving in the right direction.
Matt said: “Maybe the fact that some of the contributors are struggling to progress in their own sanctification (by their own admission) is perhaps a signal that that they are not taking what they ought from God’s word. Growing in grace involves – yes – an deeper knowledge and hatred of sin, but also a turning from sin unto righteousness. What John Owen wrote about sanctification seems appropriate here – one of the foremost reasons why we struggle to mortify sin ? A lack of familiarity with our privileges!”
I have learned a lot through reading the above comments and this morning I actually put Matt’s exhortation into practice (I am feeling so holy). I went through the books of Ephesians and Colossians looking for evidence of the subjective infusion of grace which brings about an internal change leading to progress in our sanctification and real moral improvement. I really saw no evidence of this, only a power that allowed Paul to labor outside himself and made him much more patient, forgiving, tenderhearted, loving (things which he was not in his natural self) and more aware that it was what Christ did for him that caused him to do and be these things. It is very interesting the way Paul talks about these issues (the scriptural references will be forthcoming). He seems to do it with fear and trembling and in a way that seems odd- constantly exhorting us also to be tenderhearted towards one another, always forgiving one another like Christ forgave us and encouraging everyone to continue on in the faith when things are not looking so good around them.
I also went to the book of 1John which always puts the fear of God in me. We definitely cannot play fast and loose with our sin which is something I hope I have not communicated that I do. I have found that I am probably hyper-aware of my sin and it has caused problems in my life. Although I think it is what drove me to reformational theology. This seems to have been the problem with Luther too and is probably why he emphasized what he did in his theological writings. So, with that introduction here are the scriptures- you all probably know them but notice the emphasis:
1) Eph. 1:18-19- “having the eyes of your heart enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places.”;
2) Eph 2:4-7- “But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, ‘made us alive together with Christ’-by grace you have been saved- and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.”
3) Eph.3:7- “Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God’s grace, which was given me by the working of his power.” ………… “So I ask you not to lose heart over what I am suffering for you, which is your glory.”
4) Eph 3:14-20- “For this reason I bow my kneees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith- that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge that you may be filled with all the fullness of God. Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen.”
5) Eph. 4:1-3, 7- “I therefore, ‘a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with on another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace……….But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift.”
6) Eph 4:14-16- “so that we may no longer be children, ‘tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ.”
7) Eph. 4;21-24- “assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and to be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.”
9) Eph 6:10-20- “Put on the whole armor of God”……….”take up the whole armor of God”…….”stand firm”
10) Col. 1:11- “May you be strengthened with all power according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy, giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”
11) Col. 1:21-23- “And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, if indeed you continue in the faith stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation, under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.”
12) Col1:24,29- “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is , the church of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known,”………”for this I toil, struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me.”
13) Col. 2:1-5- “For I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you and for those at Laodicea and for all who have not seen me face to face, that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, which is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments. For though I am absent in body, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to your good order and the firmness of your faith in Christ.”
14) Col. 2:18-19 “Let no one disqualify you , insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.”
15) Col 2:23- “These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.”
16) Col. 3:1-4- “If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.
17) Col. 3:5-11- “Put to death therefore what is earthly in you, sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these the wrath of God is coming. In these you too once walked, when you were living in them. But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator. Here there is not ‘Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.
18) Col.3:12-16- “Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly”
19) Col.4:5-6- “conduct yourselves wisely toward outsiders, making the best use of the time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.”
20) 1John 3:4-10- I am not going to type it out
I think the important point to notice in these verses is that God does the work and it seems to be something outside of us that we “put on.” The works of the flesh are still there but we have to put them to death by our faith. The old man and the new man are always a part of us. Nothing gives evidence of some kind of inward change that makes us more progressively moral. Everything points to outside of us and serving others with the gifts and grace God has given us with the power he works in us to accomplish our serving work towards others. He is renewing us into the image of Himself when we perform these tasks outside of us. That seems to be the emphasis here. Also, that it is Christ’s work that makes us acceptable to God and sets us in the heavenly realm. Notice also the love, graciousness, patience, tenderheartedness and forgiveness we are constantly commanded to show towards our brothers and sisters. This is something we “put on” not something that progressively grows stronger within us;
I will let others discuss the union and JP issues which may arise from these scriptures.
I’m not sure how that hip and shadded smiley face got there- I did not do it on purpose
RL, I think two non-competing hypotheses could account for the order there.
(1) It could well be that the divines had a particular ordo in mind. The strongest point in favor of this is when the ordo does formally develop, it indeed develops along these lines.
The strongest point against this is that no ordo is explicitly taught.
If this is so, then the order reflects the architecture of salvation.
(2) Or, it could be that it was necessary to place sanctification after justification to make clear that justification does not depend upon sanctification in any way.
If this is so, then the order reflects the pedagogy of salvation.
Both may well be true, or neither.
Jeff:
I agree it needs to be standardized. Right now, it’s like playing thimblerig.
John
You should have done what I recommended not what you thought I recommended. Your constant negativity leads you again to miss the point. No-one has mentioned anything like “the subjective infusion of grace which brings about an internal change leading to progress in our sanctification and real moral improvement”.
No-one disputes the God ordained nature of sanctification – if you think that is what we are saying, you missed the point. That is the standard understanding of sanctification. But you still have to do something – most of the verses cited contain an imperative which you have to do. This discussion, at least my comments to your initial statement about NOT growing in sanctification (which I actually find hard to believe, but nonetheless you stated as much) were intended to direct you in the way of sanctification. How you oneness with your Savior, which includes your justification and the Supper, is designed to aid you in this process. A process of sanctification, God-ordained from beginning to end but you still have to do something (here we have the idea of instrumentality).
Hope that the Lord blesses you brother.
RL and Darryl, thanks for the questions – I need some time to ponder them. I will endeavor to reply sometime soon.
Matt
Matt,
I did not mean to come off as negative. The point, I think, is that talk of order, causality, union resulting in sanctification or justification resulting in sanctification is not the way Paul thought when he was dealing with people in these Church’s. He had a very different mentality. That is what I was trying to show by appealing to these passages. That might not have been what you suggested but that is what it turned into when I started reflecting on these passages. I know creeds and confessions of faith are summaries and conclusions of what great theologians in the past thought the scriptures as a whole were saying for the benefit of the their various denominations. Sometimes it is helpful to appeal to and read the scriptures themselves and see if it helps in any way. That is all I was trying to do- not be negative and grinding some kind of axe. There is still a lot I want to think about that has been written in previous comments and I am still trying to get a handle on and determining whether the discussion is worth putting more time into. I still appreciate your comments- be patient with me as I seek further understanding.
I will stick up for John on this point: our sanctification *does not* mean a kind of autonomous transformation that changes our essence. It is at all times upheld and maintained by the Spirit, so that if He (hypothetically) were to withdraw from us, we would revert to our sin nature in a heartbeat.
That said, our sanctification is indeed enough of a change of nature that Paul describes it as a “new man” and “no longer a slave to sin.” I should think that counts as transformative language, right?
Your garden hose has developed a leak. Apart from the leak the hose is in very workable condition. You go to the hardware store to buy one of those plastic gadgets to join hose in order to make repair. After you cut out the section with the leak, you begin to join the pieces together. You take the piece you marked ‘federal/legal’ and join it to the gadget you purchased. You then take the remaining piece that you marked with ‘existential/vital’ and join it to the other side of the gadget. Two joinings making one union.
On to the new covenant promise in Jeremiah 31:
“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”
There are two parts to this covenant promise. God is going to have a people, and these people will have Him for their God. In the old covenant, although God was a faithful husband, those led out of Egypt would not be His bride. God said, “I do,” and their reply was, “No thanks.” In the new covenant things will be different. He promises inner renovation. In place of the negative response, the new bride will answer, “I do.”
Now God already has a people. They are His elect, chosen out of sinful mankind, set aside and consecrated by the blood of His Beloved Son. This is the piece of the hose marked ‘federal/legal.’ It remains for these people to have Him for their God. The Holy Spirit now joins the Word in effectually calling these people of God, giving them the gift of faith so that they turn and so complete the covenant promise and have God as their God. This is the piece of hose marked ‘existential/vital.’
So WSC 30 can be formally true.
Q30: How doth the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ?
A30: 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.
The redemption purchased by Christ for the elect is God having His people. The Spirit uniting us to Christ the people is having Him as their God. Until both are complete the promise remains as promise. The promise is realized when both parts of the promise are fulfilled. Two joinings making one union.
Maybe?
Would it be correct to say that God the Father joins Himself to the elect by the mediating work of God the Son, and that God the Holy Spirit joins the elect to God the Son by the proclamation of this mediating work? Does this fit in the already-not yet idea? Could we then put what is said about union in one of three places: the Father’s joining to the elect, the elect’s joining to Christ, or the two ‘unions’ considered as a single entity?
Interesting ideas. Gotta chew on them.
.-~ I am very thankful to this topic because it really gives up to date information ~;.
Shaving Brushes, YOU are welcome.
DGH asks: Am I clueless?
Of course not.
Justification by faith alone is the doctrine by which the church stands or falls. Without it we have zip, zero, nada.
P.S. Has anyone told you lately what a complete pain in the arse you are? Harrumph… You made me do all kinds of research, reading, and now I finally stumble on this post by you. You really could have emailed the answer to my question, but no… I’m tempted to have one of my Italian friends drop off a dead fish wrapped in newspaper…. you wascally wabbit!
One Trackback