Some union advocates don’t like the theological approach of asking what problem a specific doctrine solves (sorry Matt). But since we are in the arena of salvation, which is supposed to be a remedy for sin, inquiries about effects of certain doctrines, whether doctrinal or personal, seems fair.
So as near as I can tell, one of union’s greatest benefits is that it solves the Roman Catholic charge against Protestants of antinomianism, with added benefit of leaving Lutherans alone to bear the charge. (Why we don’t want to stand by our Lutheran brothers and offer aid and encouragement in a time of need is perhaps an indication of the failed Calvinist battle with spitefulness.) With union we receive justification and sanctification simultaneously, distinctly, without confusion or sequence. This means that we receive both the imputed righteousness and the infused righteousness of Christ. Which also means that we are both legally righteous and personally holy. It’s a win-win, again with the added benefit of leaving Lutherans in the dust of antinomianism since they allegedly don’t configure union this way, don’t receive sanctification at the same time, and so really are antinomian.
The added appeal of the union scheme has to do with the synecdoches of justification and sanctification, namely, faith and works (sorry cnh, whoever you are). If justification is used interchangeably with faith and sanctification with good works, which is a common usage both in the creeds and in the experience of believers, then union would appear to solve the antinomian problem, again by insuring that good works accompany justification and faith. In other words, via union, voila, I can look a Roman Catholic in the eye and tell him, when he accuses me of lacking virtue, “pound sand.†I mean to say, warm and fuzzy Calvinist that I am, “Listen fellow, I’m united to Christ. I’m both righteous in God’s sight and I have good works steaming off my body. Go find a Lutheran.â€
Where this scheme breaks down, of course, is that justification and sanctification are both by faith alone. We are not justified by faith and sanctified by good works. In point of fact, justification and sanctification are acts, works of God. He is the one who declares a believer righteous. He is the one who quickens so that the believer lives to Christ.
Instead of solving the antinomian problem, then, union only makes the matter worse. By saying that I am both justified and sanctified simultaneously through union with Christ, the incentives for living a holy life virtually disappear. With the justification priority scheme, good works were a fruit and evidence of saving faith, in which case the believer would examine himself to see if he showed signs of grace. But with union, it’s all good – I am both righteous in God’s sight and I am infused with Christ’s righteousness, so conceivably I don’t need to lift a good works finger.
Now to union’s credit, it does help us see more clearly that justification and sanctification are both equally by faith. It also clarifies that sanctification is as gracious as justification because it is all of God through the application of Christ’s redemption by the Holy Spirit.
But I don’t see how it solves the antinomian problem. Justification, sanctification, and union are all about God’s good works. They are not about mine. So how am I, united to Christ, still not standing there next to my Lutheran friend, just as vulnerable to the Roman Catholic kvetch about antinomianism?
61 Comments
Jeff,
Here is what you said:
“I think you’re combining two concepts here. Both are true, but I don’t see them tied together in the same way.
“(1) I have the righteousness of Christ as my own because I am justified.
“Absolutely, fundamentally true.
“(2) No matter how bloody the ongoing battle is, the outcome of that battle is assured.
“Also fundamentally true.
“But the ground of (2) is only partially (1). The additional ground is the fact that the Spirit of Christ dwells within. He is the deposit guaranteeing our inheritance.”
So it sounds to me like you are saying justification only gets us part way there. Now, of course, most of this is hypothetical since justification is never alone in a person. It’s a fiction to speak of a justified only person — the other graces are there always. (Though I think it is curious that unionists act as if JPer’s are denying those other benefits are there.)
Both sides say it’s a package. But unionists seem to be uncomfortable with the claim about the priority, centrality, importance of justification. I don’t get that at all. And the reason has to do with our standing before God and the judgment that awaits us on the Last Day. Without the perfect righteousness of Christ, which I receive completely and perfectly in justification, I am toast. The infused righteousness of Christ, while good, won’t stand on judgment day. Nor will the presence of the HS in me. I need perfection. And I get that with justification. And that is why justification is such a comfort to all wasted sinners, and why it is so incredible and sound antinomian. But without out it, I have no hope. I don’t see union, definitive sanctification, progressive sanctification, or mystical union capable of generating that hope and assurance.
Dr. Hart, the topic under discussion was glorification. You morphed that into a question of a not-guilty verdict.
I need perfection. And I get that with justification. And that is why justification is such a comfort to all wasted sinners, and why it is so incredible and sound antinomian. But without out it, I have no hope.
I agree with all this (except for the “sounds antinomian” part — justification doesn’t sound antinomian to me).
I don’t see union, definitive sanctification, progressive sanctification, or mystical union capable of generating that hope and assurance.
Being united to Christ is how redemption is applied to us. Being in Christ is how we are justified.
So saying that “being justified generates hope and assurance, but union doesn’t” is like saying “food satiates me, but eating doesn’t.”
Are you sure that you understand what union means?
Being in Christ is how we are justified.
Yeow. This is the sort of statement that I just find so utterly confusing. The Reformation, following Paul, said that the instrumentality of our justification is by grace alone, through faith alone on account of Christ alone—not union.
I know you don’t like it said that union flows from justification, but I am mystified as to how you can re-write the material principle of the Reformation like this (and with such ease, no less), and it’s what worries me so much about what is afoot in all this Reformed unionism.
Zrim: The Reformation, following Paul, said that the instrumentality of our justification is by grace alone, through faith alone on account of Christ alone.
JRC: The Reformation, following Paul, said that the instrumentality of our justification is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
The “in” subsumes “on account of.”
So the question now is, which of these accounts better expresses the Reformation teaching?
I would suggest that the Institutes, Fisher’s comm. on WSC 30, Owen’s Catechism are all early sources that bolster my view. As do WLC 66 – 69 and WSC 30. And the later systematics, like Hodge, Berkhof, and Reymond also bolster my view.
Which Reformers or systematics would you cite that says we are forgiven “on account of Christ, but not in union with Christ”?
As for Paul:
In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.
In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.
Two things leap out:
First, for Paul, there are two senses of “in Christ.” On the one hand, we are chosen “in Christ.” On the other, we are “included in Christ” when we believe.
Second, our forgiveness of sins is “in Christ.”
In general this is the case: to the extent that Paul speaks of being “in Christ”, he thinks of our forgiveness as being “in Christ.”
NOT “on account of, but not in” Christ.
I’m sorry to say that you have a high burden of proof here, because the concept of “in” includes the concept of “on account of.” So to establish your position of “on account, not in union” needs not merely to show “on account of” — to which we agree — but you have to specifically exclude in the “in union with.”
Once again, this substance of this debate is a moving target. Can’t I say that I believe in one union with two aspects: legal (forensic) and vital (transformative) and still hold that the latter is the fruit of the former? Does that violate the Standards?
Faith unites us to Christ. The first benefit of this union is forensic. The second benefit is transformative. The relationship between the two aspects is organic. Thus, the latter is the fruit of the former. Or, one could say, the former blossoms into the latter. Why is this a problem?
Hodge: “The proximate effect of this union, and, consequently, the second effect of faith, is justification.” [The first effect of faith was union, broadly speaking].
After the legal, comes the vital. Hodge again: “The third effect of faith, or of union with Christ, is a participation of his life. Those united with Christ, the Apostle teaches (Rom. vi. 4-10), so as to be partakers of his death, are partakers also of his life. “Because I live, ye shall live also.†(John xiv. 19.) Christ dwells in our hearts by faith. (Eph. iii. 17.) Christ is in us. (Rom. viii. 10.) It is not we that live, but Christ liveth in us. (Gal. ii. 20.) Our Lord’s illustration of this vital union is derived from a vine and its branches. (John xv. 1-6.) As the life of the vine is diffused through the branches, and as they live only as connected with the vine, so the life of Christ is diffused through his people, and they are partakers of spiritual and eternal life, only in virtue of their union with Him.”
Here’s Hodge explaining how sanctification is effected:
“The soul by this act of faith becomes united to Christ. We are in Him by faith. The consequences of this union are:
“(a.) Participation in his merits. His perfect righteousness, agreeably to the stipulations of the covenant of redemption, is imputed to the believer. He is thereby justified. He is introduced into a state of favour or grace, and rejoices in hope of the glory of God. (Rom. v. 1-3.) This is, as the Bible teaches, the essential preliminary condition of sanctification. While under the law we are under the curse. While under the curse we are the enemies of God and bring forth fruit unto death. It is only when delivered from the law by the body or death of Christ, and united to Him, that we bring forth fruit unto God. (Rom. vi. 8; vii. 4-6.) Sin, therefore, says the Apostle, shall not reign over us, because we are not under the law. (Rom. vi. 14.) Deliverance from the law is the necessary condition of deliverance from sin. All the relations of the believer are thus changed. He is translated from the kingdom of darkness and introduced into the glorious liberty of the sons of God. Instead of an outcast, a slave under condemnation, he becomes a child of God, assured of his love, of his tenderness, and of his care. He may come to Him with confidence. He is brought under all the influences which in their full effect constitute heaven. He therefore becomes a new creature. He has passed from death to life; from darkness to light, from hell (the kingdom of Satan) to heaven. He sits with Christ in heavenly places. (Eph. ii. 6.)”
“(b.) Another consequence of the union with Christ effected by faith, is the indwelling of the Spirit. Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law by being made a curse for us, in order that we might receive the promise of the Holy Ghost. (Gal. iii. 13, 14.)”
This distinction is essential to Berkhof’s analysis, and he everywhere (like Paul, Vos, and Calvin) subordinates the vital to the legal. That the Standards don’t teach an ordo doesn’t mean that they teach that all benefits of salvation are simultaneous.
The legal union effected through faith blossoms into the vital union because it is on the basis of the Christ’s merit imputed to the believer that he is immediately rewarded by with the gift of the Spirit.
RL: Can’t I say that I believe in one union with two aspects: legal (forensic) and vital (transformative) and still hold that the latter is the fruit of the former? Does that violate the Standards?
Yes, I’m fine with that. It was the undifferentiated use of “union” that had me bloviating. That, and being grumpy this morning (no connection to present company).
Which Reformers or systematics would you cite that says we are forgiven “on account of Christ, but not in union with Christâ€?… In general this is the case: to the extent that Paul speaks of being “in Christâ€, he thinks of our forgiveness as being “in Christ.â€
Jeff,
I’ve no problem with interchanging “in Christ†with “on account of Christ.†Justification is by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone. Fine.
But I take “in Christ alone†to mean “faith in,†not “union with,†which is to say Christ is the object of faith and thus the ground of our justification. The instrument is faith, not union. And I don’t see how that is a problem, since to have faith in Christ is to then have union with Christ, to be found in him, etc.
Zrim: But I take “in Christ alone†to mean “faith in,†not “union with,â€
I don’t follow the re-wording. The word “union” is defined as, I am in Christ and He in me. So “in Christ alone” is axiomatically linked to union.
To be (forensically) in union with Christ means having him as federal head. You don’t dispute that we are justified by having Jesus as our federal head, right? If you grant that, then granting that we are justified in union with Christ is a simple matter of definition.
I think you think of “union” as something weird and esoteric, a kind of subjective experience, instead of in terms of its basic meaning.
The origin of the term is the “in Christ” language of Paul. Union with Christ is an objective reality, a description of the believer’s status and state: reckoned in Christ legally, indwellt with Christ experientially.
Have you read Fisher on WSC 30 yet?
Jeff, can you hang all the weight of union on a preposition? “In Christ” is hardly a precise phrase and can be used in a variety of ways. For instance, here are ways that Calvin uses the phrase in his catechism.
“In short, he alone makes room in us for them. He regenerates us and makes us to be new creatures. Accordingly, whatever gifts are offered us IN CHRIST, we receive by the agency of the Spirit.”
“I understand so; and therefore mere mercy, without any respect to works, (Titus iii. 5,) embraces and accepts us freely IN CHRIST, by attributing his righteousness to us as if it were our own, and not imputing our sins to us.”
“In regard to the ceremony, I hold that it was abolished, as the reality existed IN CHRIST. (Col. ii. 17.) ”
“First, while they learn from it that they cannot obtain righteousness by works, they are trained to humility, which is the true preparation for seeking salvation IN CHRIST. Secondly, inasmuch as it requires of them much more than they are able to perform, it urges them to seek strength from the Lord, and at the same time reminds them of their perpetual guilt, that they may not presume to be proud.”
Not every time that Calvin uses the phrase is he talking about union. The point of this exercise is that the phrase, which seems decisive to unionists, is one that can be used in a variety of theological contexts. In which case, I do wonder if unionists need to think about why Paul explains what he does in his epistles and what he doesn’t explain. And then a further calculation needs to happen — why put so much weight on something that Paul doesn’t elaborate, especially when the less explained parts begin to become as important as the explained bits.
To make this concrete, you seem to want to say that we are “justified by union with Christ.” That may be true but it is not the way that Paul or our tradition has spoken, as in “justified by faith alone in Christ alone.” (Interesting here that the “in” is not indicating union but pointing toward the object of faith.) So again, the point isn’t to deny union. It is to show the way that unionists speak in a new and different way. The cause of that newness is the doctrine of union. And that suggests to me an effort to make union central, which would mean de-centering justification.
Jeff,
No, I don’t think of “union as something weird and esoteric.” I’m not sure how you’ve construed that since I think I’ve been pretty clear on the importance of union.
I do think, however, that to de-center justification by making union at least as important as justification does begin to make union lean in a direction that is pietistic. I think there may be good reason that unionism appeals to evangelicals (read: pietists), who glaze over whenever justification is hammered and cue the dead orthodoxy mantra. So it just isn’t at all clear to me what is to be gained by tinkering with justification by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone and surfacing with justification by union (alone?) with Christ, unless one wants to make peace with the descendants of that second battle front of the Protestant Reformation known as the Radical Reformation.
DGH: To make this concrete, you seem to want to say that we are “justified by union with Christ.†That may be true but it is not the way that Paul or our tradition has spoken, as in “justified by faith alone in Christ alone.†(Interesting here that the “in†is not indicating union but pointing toward the object of faith.) So again, the point isn’t to deny union. It is to show the way that unionists speak in a new and different way.
So your concern is that the preposition “in” in Eph. 1 might not refer to “union”; that is, I might have been over-reading. And in so doing, I (and “unionists”) have come up with a new and different way of speaking. Certainly, prepositions are notoriously multi-vocal, so you suggest that perhaps I’ve been wandering too far unanchored.
It’s a fair question. But we actually consider the way Paul speaks and the way the tradition reads Paul, it turns out that there is an ample tradition of reading “in Christ” as a reference to union; and in saying that we are “justified in union with Christ.”
Rather than clutter up the discussion with full cites, I’ll throw these out there for your own perusal.
(1) The proof-texts for WLC 69 and WSC 30 demonstrate that the Westminster divines read the Pauline “in Christ” as an expression of union. Of note is 1 Cor 1.30, with content quite similar to Eph 1.
(2) The same clearly show that union is the way that redemption is applied to us.
(3) Calvin’s discussion in Inst 3.1.1-4 show clearly that he thought of “union” (he uses the term in 3.1.3) as that which makes Jesus profitable to us. Until we are united to Him, His work on the cross does not avail us.
(4) Fisher’s commentary on WSC 30 is plain and clear: justification occurs by us being united to Christ, by faith.
(5) Hodge’s discussion of the union and its benefits (Outlines, 376ff) are precise and clear: justification is a consequence of union. Significantly, Hodge cites Eph 1 as a prooftext for this point (379).
(6) Berkhof is likewise clear:
Calvin repeatedly expresses the idea that the sinner cannot share in the saving benefits of Christ’s redemptive work, unless he be in union with Him, and thus emphasizes a very important truth. As Adam was the representative head of the old humanity, so Christ is the representative head of the new humanity. All the blessings of the covenant of grace flow from Him who is the Mediator of the covenant. Even the very first blessing of the saving grace of God which we receive already presupposes a union with the Person of the Mediator. — ST, 447.
From all these, I conclude that the proposition, “We are justified in union with Christ” is genuinely Pauline and genuinely a part of the Reformed tradition.
What evidence do you have to the contrary?