Article 22: The Righteousness of Faith
We believe that for us to acquire the true knowledge of this great mystery the Holy Spirit kindles in our hearts a true faith that embraces Jesus Christ, with all his merits, and makes him its own, and no longer looks for anything apart from him.
For it must necessarily follow that either all that is required for our salvation is not in Christ or, if all is in him, then he who has Christ by faith has his salvation entirely.
Therefore, to say that Christ is not enough but that something else is needed as well is a most enormous blasphemy against God– for it then would follow that Jesus Christ is only half a Savior. And therefore we justly say with Paul that we are justified “by faith alone” or by faith “apart from works.” (Rom. 3:28)
However, we do not mean, properly speaking, that it is faith itself that justifies us– for faith is only the instrument by which we embrace Christ, our righteousness.
But Jesus Christ is our righteousness in making available to us all his merits and all the holy works he has done for us and in our place. And faith is the instrument that keeps us in communion with him and with all his benefits.
When those benefits are made ours they are more than enough to absolve us of our sins.
Old Life 
I sure hope that the union is obvious here!
LikeLike
I have been observing the back and forth between you and DGH on the issue of union, and I am beginning to suspect that union is your unified theory through which you are interpreting the whole of soteriology. Even at a basic syntactical level the verbs in question here are surrounding who is being justified, and by whom are they made just. Substitute “united” for “justified” and I could see your point, I “just” can’t see it here.
LikeLike
Hi Jed,
There’s an element of truth to what you say: I think that we receive all of the benefits of redemption by being “in Christ.” Of course, so did the writers of the WLC.
But the substitution is not “justified” for “united.”
Rather, it is “united” for “in Him”, as in
“For it must necessarily follow that either all that is required for our salvation is not in Christ or, if all is in him, then he who has Christ by faith has his salvation entirely.”
or “united” for “His being ours”, as in
“But Jesus Christ is our righteousness in making available to us all his merits and all the holy works he has done for us and in our place.”
Think about how you are united with your wife. That’s a Scriptural metaphor for how we are united with Christ.
LikeLike
Think about how you are united with your wife. That’s a Scriptural metaphor for how we are united with Christ.
I’m united to mine by way of a legal, forensic declaration. Is that what you mean, Jeff, or do you mean there is another or additional way to be united to her?
LikeLike
That’s precisely what I mean.
In point of fact, our union with Christ goes beyond the marriage analogy; for not only are we “in Christ”, but he is “in us” through the agency of the Spirit, which leads to all of the renovative blessings of redemption. Obviously, this doesn’t happen in marriage.
But on the justification side of things, which is what Article 22 is talking about, the union is forensic: we are “in Christ”, clothed with his righteousness.
LikeLike
Side note: Dr. Hart, do you have a thumbnail summary of the Mercersberg position on baptism?
LikeLike
Jeff is a troll. A troll on the most serious subject matter. That he keeps getting fed says not very good things about you Reformed blog contributors.
LikeLike
Jeff, so why didn’t the reformers use the word “union”? Do you have their Cliff Notes? (Can you not see how arbitrary you position seems. No matter what a justification-centric person quotes, you say it’s really union.)
I can’t summarize Mercersburg on anything. I don’t think it was a coherent system but it was an attempt at a high church Reformed expression. Schaff did not remain a proponent (if he ever was), and Nevin almost went nuts.
LikeLike
Jeff, so why didn’t the reformers use the word “unionâ€?
What???
They did. That’s been amply demonstrated. “Union” leads off Calvin’s discussion of how we are saved (Inst. 3.1).
Can you not see how arbitrary you position seems. No matter what a justification-centric person quotes, you say it’s really union.
That’s because union encompasses the benefits of salvation. So unless you think there’s two different salvations (which would be nonsense), there must be a correspondence between ordo and union.
And there is.
And I keep pointing that fact out in an apparently vain effort to convince you to stop pitting justification against union. (pretty please?)
LikeLike
To put it more confessionally:
If our justification manifests our union with Him per WLC 69, it ought to be able the case that one can see union in justification.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I don’t think anybody is pitting justification against union so much as trying to delineate that union comes by way of justification. What you seem to be saying is that justification comes by way of both, which is confusing. To keep the marriage analogy going, it’s like saying I’m united to my wife through a forensic/judicial/legal declaration as well by being married to her. But there’s only one way to be united to her—the forensic/judicial/legal declaration. Absent that, we’re not united.
If I say I’m only united to my wife through legal declaration, would you say I’m pitting my marriage against my relationship? Or would you say I’m giving the necessary priority to what actually makes Mr. and Mrs. Zrimec?
LikeLike
I mean…
“I don’t think anybody is pitting justification against union so much as trying to delineate that union comes by way of justification. What you seem to be saying is that union comes by way of justification and union, which is confusing.”
LikeLike
Jeff, your reading of documents from the 16th century is sort of like reading the Declaration of Independence and saying that because Jefferson affirm’s Nature’s God he’s a trinitarian. I think you are taking categories from 20th c. Pauline theology and reading them back into the entire tradition. I get it, Calvin uses union at the beginning of book 3. He didn’t use union in his catechism. If union is so important why didn’t he bother to take time and instruct his catechumens in the doctrine?
Confessionally speaking, you don’t see union. And the slim thread you find in the Larger Catechism has union in view regarding effectual calling. It’s communion that leads to the other benefits.
I know, you think union and communion are interchangeable. Like I said, you seem to me to have an odd way of always seeing in texts what you want to see.
Sorry for the snark, but this interpretive dealing from the bottom of the deck gets old when discussing union.
LikeLike
In that case, you’d be definitely incorrect, because your understanding of union is limited to the experiential, renovative side aspect of union.
Imputation means that Christ, as my federal head, is accounted unto to me for righteousness. What’s his is mine.
LikeLike
Not to pile on here Jeff, but I didn’t have time to reply directly to your response. I am not a Greek student, so my observation can only be derived contextually, but it seems unreasonable to me to derive union from “in Christ” unilaterally.
I ran a brief search, and the only instance that “in Christ” is closely tied to union is in Romans 6 (see 6:11), which is the only place I am aware of that Paul develops the notion of the believers union “in Christ”.
Often “in Christ” denotes an instrumental nexus of action in the person of Christ (e.g. “In Christ, God was reconciling the world to himself…” – I Cor. 5:19). Also is can be a marker of identification of those who are “in Christ” (Gal 5:6; Eph. 1:3; Rom. 8:1), these are not stressing a mystical union, rather an identification that demarcates those who are in some sort of relationship with Christ. There are others to be sure, however if you do even a cursory search of “in Christ” and “united” you will find that the contextual referent is usually not union, and with the exception of Romans 6 the “union” referents do not denote a full-fledged theological concept.
At least this should be some food for thought.
LikeLike
Jeff, is Calvin talking about mystical or legal union? Berkhof writes that mystical union includes an “organic union,” a “vital union,” mediation by the Holy Spirit, implies reciprocal action, a personal union, and a transforming union. But he also says that mystical union is not “the judicial ground, on the basis of which we become partakers of the riches that are in Christ.” He adds, “It is sometimes said that the merits of Christ canno 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, the doctrine of justification.”
Since you have written here that justification is simply the legal aspect of our union with Christ, I wonder what you make of this distinction. You have also written that union is the mechanism by which we receive the benefit of justification. But a distinction between legal and mystical union would seem to be in order.
I don’t know who is clearer, but Berkhof seems to make a useful distinction that your reading of Calvin does not.
LikeLike
Jed, thanks for the food.
I agree with your characterization of 2 Cor 5.19 as “instrumental nexus” and Gal 5.6 etc. as “marker of identification.”
Some food back at you:
* 2 Cor 5.17 demonstrates that by participation in Christ, we become a part of the new creation. The “instrumental nexus” that you speak of is in fact something that we experience by being “in Christ” — by being united to him.
* In your reading of Eph 1, continue on and see how the “in him” functions in the whole chapter.
* When we speak of “forensic union”, as for example AA Hodge does, it means “identification with Christ” in a legal sense. Thus, the markers of identification of relationship, which would be termed as “federal headship” in the classic language, are markers of (forensic) union.
That is: to be “in Christ” means “to have Christ as my head.” (Compare this to the language of Eph 5.22 – 33.) And to have Christ as my head means that in Him, I am reckoned with his righteousness, clothed in him as a garment.
LikeLike
He doesn’t distinguish.
As I explained before, twice, I agree with Berkhof’s distinction. There is a forensic aspect of union and an experiential aspect of union. My reading of Calvin doesn’t mention it because .. he doesnt.
LikeLike
Jeff, I don’t understand. Calvin doesn’t distinguish, you say. Berkhof says its a mistake not to distinguish. You say you agree with Calvin. You say you agree with Berkhof. I don’t get it.
And just to keep it going, what aspect of union does sanctification represent? Or adoption?
LikeLike
I see it as a case of doctrinal development. Calvin distinguished in concept, but not language, between forensic aspects of salvation and experiential aspects. That was, as you have pointed out, the sine qua non of the Reformation. That he attributed them all to “union” was unproblematic at that time.
Berkhof is operating at a later date and sees the need to distinguish. I’m happy with his distinction. I don’t agree that it’s an “error” to fail to use distinguishing language. Reymond and Hoekema, for example, do not make this distinction in language, even though each does in concept.
I would say experiential and forensic, respectively. The former is a work of the Spirit of grace infused in us. The latter is a work of the Spirit of a change in relationship between us and God.
LikeLike
Jeff,
It is always dangerous when someone who isn’t properly a theologian theologizes, with that said here is my two cents:
I think that the fundamental flaw here still remains, you are reading “in Christ” and “in him” flatly as “united to Christ”, which means you are overlooking the diverse function of the preposition “in”.
In 2 Cor. 5:17, union doesn’t seem to be what is at stake here at all. The nexus is referential, that is being “in Christ” is the antecedent that refers to the subsequent “new creation”. In the whole if-then continuum “in Christ” is the locus of creative action that makes one a new creature. “In Christ” here has a verbal quality in that phrase that denotes action rather than a static relational union. Any sense of union, mystical, forensic or otherwise is tangential to Paul’s argument here. In v. 19 “in Christ God…” follows a similar referential nexus as it did in v. 17.
In Ephesians 1, you have a point inasmuch as union is the sequential culmination (v.10) of all the prior benefits being derived from being “in Christ”. However in v. 3 the blessings we receive “in Christ” are referential, not as a product of union any more than these blessings are somehow united to the “heavenly places.” Being chosen in him (v.4) is the same active nexus as above, God’s choosing is carried out instrumentally “in him”. In the same way our adoption is carried out instrumentally “in love”, not “united to love”. The cumulative effect of these blessings are part of the execution of God’s mysterious will “to unite all things in him”. However, the cumulative union is not antecedent here, rather subsequent, and the union itself is still being instrumentally carried out “in Christ”
Even in Ephesians where union looms large there are all kinds of actions in Christ (predestination, adoption, forgiveness, redemption, etc.) that are prior to God’s cumulative, ultimate uniting of all things heavenly and earthly in Christ. These prior acts are not union-ish in and of themselves even if they result in union.
I think this bears on the priority of justification to union. It seems to me that you are mixing the sequence and priority. I am still delving into Reformed theology, but this seems manifestly clear even to a newbie.
LikeLike
Thanks for the thoughts. I commend the works I’ve referenced earlier, especially the ones that predate the current controversy.
LikeLike
Jeff, I thought sanctification had to do with moral renovation. I find it hard to conceive of moral awakening as experiential.
I’d also caution you against some notion of doctrinal development since Calvin on union is usually touted as the zenith. What comes after him should not be an improvement. But Berkhof’s clarity would seem to be just that.
LikeLike
Sorry, I don’t understand. I’m using the term “experiential” to mean that “we experience it.” I would think that if I had a moral awakening I would definitely experience it. If the term communicates something else to you, we could substitute “subjective” as Berkhof does. The term is less important than the concept: sanctification has to do with infused grace, as the Standards teach, and not imputed grace.
If any touters object, I’ll just have to take my lumps. Calvin is da man, but he’s not God. Berkhof may very well have improved on his language.
OR
He may have simply addressed questions that hadn’t arisen by Calvin’s time. Perhaps the memory is faulty, but isn’t Berkhof writing just about the time that Klaas Schilder and Abraham Kuyper are disagreeing over the meaning of the covenant? Berkhof’s distinction between “subjective” and “federal” union would certainly have had impact on this question (think Shepherd).
—
The doctrine of ordo itself falls in the same category as Berkhof’s distinction. Ordo is not found in Calvin, nor in the Confession, as an explicit teaching. It first appears, AFAIK, in Perkin’s Golden Chain (1580s IIRC), which was written to help clarify questions of Protestant soteriology vis-a-vis Catholic. As such, it was a welcome … wait for it … doctrinal development in soteriology.
So there it is: Ordo is a positive development not found explicitly in Calvin.
(In point of fact, I feel it necessary to point that you’ve been pounding away with the hammer called “union isn’t found frequently in the Standards and early Reformers.” But ordo isn’t found AT ALL in the Standards and early Reformers. Pot, I’m kettle. Nice to meetcha.)
—
The key point here is that the later development of ordo was amenable to prior Reformed doctrine. And as such, it was also amenable to the established doctrine of union. And that doctrine included, at minimum, what Calvin taught in Institutes 3. I encourage all of you to take a look at Fisher’s commentary on WSC 30.
Or as Berkhof says,
Lutherans generally treat the doctrine of the mystical union anthropologically, and therefore conceive of it as established by faith. Hence they naturally take it up at a later point in their soteriology. But this method fails to do full justice to the idea of our union with Christ, since it loses’ sight of the eternal basis of the union and of its objective realization in Christ, and deals exclusively with the subjective realization of it in our lives, and even so only with our personal conscious entrance into this union. Reformed theology, on the other hand, deals with the union of believers with Christ theologically, and as such does far greater justice to this important subject. In doing so it employs the term “mystical union” in a broad sense as a designation not only of the subjective union of Christ and believers, but also of the union that lies back of it, that is basic to it, and of which it is only the culminating expression, namely, the federal union of Christ and those who are His in the counsel of redemption, the mystical union ideally established in that eternal counsel, and the union as it is objectively effected in the incarnation and the redemptive work of Christ. Berkhof, 447.
(I know you don’t think much of my reading of WLC 69, but think about it: how is it that justification “manifests” our union with Christ?
How you can avoid the conclusion that justification is an aspect of union?)
If you want to later refine union (per Berkhof, Hodge) into forensic and subjective, or federal and experiential, I’m very supportive of that.
But please, could we stop talking as if union is some new-fangled theological innovation, a threat to justification by grace through faith?
If what you really mean is that the WTS version of union is the wrong version, then say that, and defend it. But taking broad aim at union and sundering it from justification, as you have here, is cutting off the limb you’re sitting on.
Or to play the “confusion” card — if what you’re trying to accomplish is to move the WTS ball a little further West, then what you’ve actually accomplished is confusing the heck out of a host of people — see the various commentators here — who have no dog in that fight.
LikeLike
Sorry about the frustration expressed in the last three paras.
LikeLike
Jeff, at the level of the petty, WLC does not say union. It says justification manifests not union with Christ but “communion in grace.” What is communion in grace? It does not say, communion in grace with Christ, just communion in grace. I’m not opposing that construction. But again, it seems to me that your understanding of union has built-in confusion because it seems to gloss over differences in phrases, words, and even the absence of a term.
At the macro level, I am concerned that you seem to talk about union as if it were the material principle of the Reformation. In other words, justification is only, merely, simply wrapped up in a larger, more profound, more basic idea — union. It seems that justification pales in importance compared to union which solves every single riddle in soteriology.
And yet, a union man like Murray could write (what I’ve already quoted in another post): “The basic question is: How can man be just with God? If man had never sinned the all-important question would have been: How can man be right with God? He would continue to be right with God by fulfilling the will of God perfectly. But the question takes on a radically different complexion with the entrance of sin. Man is wrong with God. And the question is: How can man become right with God? This was Luther’s burning question. He found the answer in Paul’s Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians, that we are justified by faith alone, through grace alone . . . .
“It is to be acknowledged and appreciated that theologians of the Roman Catholic Church are giving a great deal of renewed attention to this subject, and there is a gratifying recognition that “to justify†is “to declare to be righteousâ€, that it is a declarative act on God’s part. But the central issue of the Reformation remains. Rome still maintains and declares that justification consists in renovation and sanctification, and the decrees of the Council of Trent have not been retracted or repudiated. . .”
Now as important as union was to Murray, he didn’t see union as answering this basic question.
I am not trying to separate union from justification, nor am I denying union. What I am trying to do is recover for some the import of justification so that folks like you will say “wow” rather than “ho hum, can we discuss union?” I get this impression not just from WTS folks.
LikeLike
Well, if your purpose is to have us say “wow” about justification, then I’ll join you.
And if your purpose is further to say that a man is justified prior to sanctification, I’ll join you also.
In return, can you consider the thesis that union and ordo are complementary and genuinely Reformed ways to express the totality of salvation?
Even if I’m not persuasive, take the word of Hodge and Reymond on it.
That thesis is not, and has never been, that “union was the material principle of the Reformation.”
—
Not to be outdone in pettiness:
Question 69: What is the communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ?
Answer: The communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ, is their partaking of the virtue of his mediation, in their justification, adoption, sanctification, and: Whatever else, in this life, manifests their union with him.
So the reason I said that justification manifests our union with him is that, well, justification manifests our union with him.
LikeLike
Jeff, I think you and others should propose a revision to the confession that would include a chapter on union. That way it might be clear on ordo and union questions.
I also wonder what unionists make of chapter 26 which could in your view function as a chapter on union since it is about communion and you say they are interchangeable. This chapter would seem to make union and communion not parts of the mechanics of redemption but actual benefits.
But again, I do think this is fairly novel in that you don’t see these chapters or assertions in sixteenth-century Creeds, at least not the biggies like Belgic, Gallican, Scottish, and Helvetic.
LikeLike
dgh – will you propose a revision that would make the nicely laid out ordo salutis part of the confession? My reading of it seems clear that they did not create a chain of salvation events.
Curious, do you see union with Christ as a benefit of justification? What is the order of salvation as you understand it?
LikeLike
cnh — are you a fellow h?
I’ve written before and I’ll write again, I am not a fan of prying into the internal workings of the application of redemption. I like Paul’s ordo at the end of Romans 8 and don’t see the value of pressing beyond that.
I am open to instruction on why this may be shortsighted.
LikeLike
I feel compelled to respond, but please don’t interpret the response as trying to take away from the “wow – justification!” point.
—
Dr. Hart, let’s turn this around. Pardon my provocativeness, but what if the Standards are actually reasonably clear on union, and you’ve just missed it? Fisher thought so. Did you take a look at his commentary on WSC 30 linked to above? Owen thought so too (Greater Catechism, ch 18 Q2, ch21 Q1, 2).
What if “communion” is in fact related to “union”, and you’ve simply not known it because you think, “Different word, different concept”? Take a look at Heidelberg 55 and the prooftexts involved. What do think it means to be a “member of Christ”, if not being united with Him?
DGH: I also wonder what unionists make of chapter 26 which could in your view function as a chapter on union since it is about communion and you say they are interchangeable. This chapter would seem to make union and communion not parts of the mechanics of redemption but actual benefits.
WCoF 26.1: All saints, that are united to Jesus Christ their Head, by His Spirit, and by faith, have fellowship with Him in His grace, sufferings, death, resurrection, and glory: and, being united to one another in love, they have communion in each other’s gifts and graces, and are obliged to the performance of such duties, public and private, as do conduce to their mutual good, both in the inward and outward man.
Yes, I would say that union is in view here. But I don’t understand the “benefit not mechanics” bit. The logic of 26.1 is,
Because you are united to Christ the Head,
–> You share with Him grace, sufferings, etc.
–> You are united to one another,
—–> And share with one another gifts and graces also.
Looks like mechanics to me.
—
As I’ve been looking again at this issue, it strikes me that union is important for our sacramentology. Calvin and the WCoF give one function of baptism as a sign of our union (WCoF: “sign of our ingrafting”) with Him.
(Note: baptism does NOT cause union in any sense).
It strikes me that if we think of union as secondary or unclear, then we don’t fully understand what we’re signifying in baptism.
LikeLike
Search Westminster Stds: “union”
7 hits/6 units (word occurs in both the Q & A of WLC 66)
Search Westminster Stds:”communion”
25 hits in 20 units
Search Westminster Stds: union & communion together
2 hits
Noteworthy:
WLC 65 What special benefits do the members of the invisible church enjoy by Christ? A. The members of the invisible church by Christ enjoy union and communion with him in grace and glory.
WLC 66 What is that union which the elect have with Christ? A. The union which the elect have with Christ is the work of God’s grace, whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ as their head and husband; which is done in their effectual calling.
WLC 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.
Note WLC 69 – communion is in the question, union (and communion) found in the answer.
If the discussion is not touching communion of saints with one another, it seems clear that union & communion of Christ and his benefits are synonymous or closely overlapping phrases in Westminster Stds.
During the Reformation debates (16th & 17th centuries), in contesting with Rome, justification concepts and terminology were the heart of the confrontation. “Union with Christ,” by whatever lexical items it might be found, was a significant theological concept, a part of the larger whole, of which justification was the collision point. Union with Christ never percolated to the top of the controversy. You might say it was (is) too foundational to become the Heading for an article, chapter or book of Calvin’s Institutes…. or a parlimentary committee of theologians drafting a confession. That historic situation should not preclude all further reflection or discussion, or even organizing principle for all other times and places.
LikeLike
Jeff, thanks for the links to Fisher. What I see there in his unpacking of union is a lot of federal theology, headship, union between man and wife, branches and vines. I’ve never been uncomfortable with this.
What has made me uncomfortable has been in the insistence by some union folks of no priority of justification to sanctification. That is not what Fisher says:
Q. 15. How do they differ in their order?
A. Although, as to time, they are simultaneous; yet, as to the order of nature, justification goes BEFORE sanctification, as the cause before the effect, or as fire is before light and heat.
If all the proposals arguing for union would assert this (a sentiment echoed by Murray), I don’t think the concerns would be as great at least for me.
LikeLike
dgh, no I am not a fellow h, sorry.
I agree with you that we can go no further than scripture. Personally, I try to avoid speculation. But that is why I am trying to understand the union discussion. It seems that Paul speaks much more about being ‘in Christ’ than is discussed on this blog. Also, you quoted Romans 8:30, which I find interesting, because all the verbs there speak in a completed sense. So, we are called, justified and glorified already Paul is saying…already seated with him in the heavenly places. It seems that the union doctrine allows for this.
What say ye?
LikeLike
Thanks for the irenic response. I’ve gotten a bit exercised here, perhaps overly so.
I think we’re roughly on the same page, even if not speaking the same language (I’m reminded of the situation in the 11th century when the East spoke Greek and the West spoke Latin…)
I would affirm with you that
* Union language is bound up with AND bounded by the Biblical metaphors, like headship and vine-and-branches.
* Justification has a priority before sanctification in the sense that one is fully justified before God at the instant of faith; whereas sanctification begins at faith and continues throughout life; AND in the sense that our justification is in no way grounded in our sanctification, whereas sanctification is in some way a working out of our justification.
—
I’m not comfortable with “justification is the cause of sanctification” in that justification is based on legal imputation, while sanctification is caused by infused grace — that is, the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts by faith. There is a firewall between the two because they are caused by different mechanisms, imputation v. infusion.
It seems to me that the sentence “justification causes sanctification” breaks down the firewall between them.
—
It’s interesting to me that a relatively strong ordo guy like Reymond would also be a strong union guy. I think that’s the model I would like to uphold here.
LikeLike