Very different is the conception of faith which prevails in the liberal Church. According to modern liberalism, faith is essentially the same as “making Christ Master†in one’s life; at least it is by making Christ Master in the life that the welfare of men is sought. But that simply means that salvation is thought to be obtained by our own obedience to the commands of Christ. Such teaching is just a sublimated form of legalism. Not the sacrifice of Christ, on this view, but our own obedience to God’s law, is the ground of hope.
In this way the whole achievement of the Reformation has been given up, and there has been a return to the religion of the Middle Ages. At the beginning of the sixteenth century, God raised up a man who began to read the Epistle to the Galatians with his own eyes. The result was the rediscovery of the doctrine of justification by faith. Upon that rediscovery has been based the whole of our evangelical freedom. As expounded by Luther and Calvin the Epistle to the Galatians became the “magna Charta of Christian liberty.†But modern liberalism has returned the old interpretation of Galations which was urged against the Reformers. . . . it has returned to an anti-Reformation exegesis, by which Paul is thought to be attacking in the Epistle only the piecemeal morality of the Pharisees. In reality, of course, the object of Paul’s attack is the thought that in any way man can earn his acceptance with God. What Paul is primarily interested in is not spiritual religion over against ceremonialism, but the free grace of God over against human merit.
The grace of God is rejected by modern liberalism. And the result is slavery – the slavery of the law, the wretched bondage by which man undertakes the impossible task of establishing his own righteousness as a ground of acceptance with God. It may seem strange at first sight that “liberalism, of which the very name means freedom, should in reality be wretched slavery. But the phenomenon is not really so strange. Emancipation from the blessed will of God always involves bondage to some worse taskmaster. (Christianity and Liberalism, pp. 143-44)
Good point here on why the forensic is prior to moral renovation, not to mention the ricochet against the legalism inherent in the “Lordship of Christ†over all things without first establishing the saviorship of Christ.
Old Life 
dgh – I understand the desire to maintain the distinction between justification and sanctification, between forensic declaration and moral renovation. And by this distinction, to maintain a priority of sorts (not necessarily temporal, though). But, how does simultaneous reception of justification and sanctification take away that distinction in your opinion? I know this is another question then the union one, strictly speaking, but they are often tied together.
How would you critique (if at all) this quote:
“But they only amongst men are righteous, who being united and grafted in Christ by faith, yea, and also rooted in him, and being made one body with him, are in him and by him justified and sanctified, that is, made righteous and holy.”
It seems to put union with Christ as central as well as keep justification and sanctification tied together. In fact, this particular author rarely treats the two separately in his writings, generally referring to them together. I’ll give you a sucker if you can guess who he is.
LikeLike
cnh, I’ve quoted before from the OPC’s report on justification and the priority of justification to sanctification. I’ve also quoted from the Belgic and Gallican Confessions that seem to make a similar point (and are explicitely silent about union).
How about Trent’s Decree on Justification, ch. 7: “For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet is this done in the said justification of the impious, when by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit, in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein: whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity. For faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His body. For which reason it is most truly said, that Faith without works is dead and profitless; and, In Christ Jesus neither circumcision, availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by charity. This faith, Catechumen’s beg of the Church-agreeably to a tradition of the apostles-previously to the sacrament of Baptism; when they beg for the faith which bestows life everlasting, which, without hope and charity, faith cannot bestow: whence also do they immediately hear that word of Christ; If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Wherefore, when receiving true and Christian justice, they are bidden, immediately on being born again, to preserve it pure and spotless, as the first robe given them through Jesus Christ in lieu of that which Adam, by his disobedience, lost for himself and for us, that so they may bear it before the judgment-seat of our Lord Jesus Christ, and may have life everlasting.”
It seems to me that Rome would not have anathematized Protestants (that is, Lutherans and Reformed) if they said that by faith a Christian receives simultaneously the imputed and infused righteousness (i.e. justification and sanctification) at the same time. What was objectionable was to say that imputation was necessary for infusion (hence the priority of justification to sanctification).
LikeLike
Thanks for highlighting another great passage from Machen. Amazing that as we approach the 75th anniversary of the OPC, Dr. Machen’s insights are still so cogent. It’s time to put some Machen on the To Be Read pile.
LikeLike
dgh, it seems to me that Rome argued with the Lutheran and Reformed because of their stance on justification as an imputed, forensic and declarative moment *distinct* from infusion and sanctification. One can have simultaneity while still maintaining distinction, can’t they? Rome’s problem was the fact that they denied the declarative and blended justification and sanctification together.
It seems to me that by forcing the union question to the back (as you so often do, stating that it doesn’t matter or is not clear in the reformers when it happens) and forcing the priority the way you do, you are saying more than the Reformers did (one of whom I quoted for you above). Justification can have a priority that is not temporal even while we declare, with Calvin, “The answer is very easy: as Christ cannot be divided into parts, so the two things, justification and sanctification, which we perceive to be united together in him, are inseparable.”
What is your take on the difference between the Lutheran and Reformed ordo salutis? Is there a difference?
LikeLike
cnh, Rome did not fault Protestants for denying infused righteousness. The reason is that the Reformed did not deny infused righteousness, nor did Lutherans. What Rome objected to was imputed righteousness, which in Rome’s view deemphasized infused. In other words, Rome saw imputed as prior and more threatening than infused, no matter how much they might be separate.
I’m not trying to be evasive, but what is Reformed dogma on ordo? Do we actually have one? I don’t see it in the 3 Forms. I do see some trying to read one in the Standards, but again, if you look at WSC 29 and see that the H.S. appears to work faith in us before effectual calling, I’m not sure you can say there is one ordo there.
But since you’re asking, what do you think about the Lutheran ordo? Do you think it threatens the gospel?
LikeLike
dgh, I think we agree, then, that the question was over imputation. I just want to make sure that I am understanding things here. You are the professional church historian. I am not.
As for the Lutheran versus Reformed Ordo, as I understand it, is that the Lutheran ordo is: Calling, Illumination, Repentance, Regeneration, Justification, Mystical Union, Adoption, Sanctification, Perseverance and Glorification. While the Reformed Ordo, again as I understand it, is: Predestination, Election, Calling/Mystical Union, Regeneration, Faith, Repentance, Justification, Sanctification, Perseverance, Glorification.
I put the union with calling because, first, the Catechism does (I know you disagree with this, but it is how I see it) and furthermore, Vos writes, “For the Reformed, therefore, the entire ordo salutis,
beginning with regeneration as its first stage, is bound to the mystical union with Christ. There is no
gift that has not been earned by Him. Neither is there a gift that is not bestowed by Him that does
not elevate God’s glory through His bestowal. Now the basis for this order lies in none other than
in the covenant of salvation with Christ.”
Of course, Vos seems to be linking union with regeneration but I don’t think that is what he is saying – at least not how I read it. He is talking about the first “step” of the ordo as it pertains to what happens to us. We are first regenerated and this does not take place outside of the mystical union. If we put mystical union as the first “step” along with effectual calling (after, of course, the eternal decree, etc) then I don’t see why we can’t, with Calvin, Beza and a whole host of other Reformers, see all of the benefits of Christ coming to us, distinct, and yet together in our union with Christ.
I think that most Reformed theologians have at least tried to state a reformed ordo as they see it in scripture. I mean, you are certainly pushing for a particular version of it. My question is whether you see the subtle differences between the Reformed and Lutheran ordos at all. I am all for hugging Lutherans but we have to know where we differ with them. There are only a few places but those are not insignificant, as I see them.
I am certainly willing to be taught on this. If you have some writings I can look at then please tell me. I mean, it seems you keep putting up quotes that are cherry picked for forensic Friday…and trust me, I love the forensic and declarative justification of the Reformation…it is the hinge! I just think that you say too much when you try to bash all forms of union and simultaneity of reception of the benefits.
Just because we receive them at the same time, in union with Christ, does not mean that justification becomes something less than justification. At least Calvin didn’t think so.
LikeLike
WSC 29,
How are we made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ? We are made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ, by the effectual application of it to us by his Holy Spirit.
Is this the one you were talking about? Or was it question 30:
How doth the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ? 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.
I guess I would have to cite this question as showing that union is linked to effectual calling and, on any version of the Ordo that came out of the Reformation – effectual calling comes prior to justification.
I will grant your point that the Divines are not giving an Ordo…and I think that the reason is because they were much more in line with Calvin and those who came after him, in seeing the benefits coming to believers all at once, bound up in our union with Christ.
LikeLike
cnh, not that you’re reading every word I write here, but I’ve said many times I don’t care about ordo. As long as salvation is monergistic, I don’t see the import. Granted, I understand that some of these points have implications for theology down the line. But on the whole I am not a proponent of exploring the interior life and the subjective side of salvation. When did I have faith, was regeneration before it, was I convicted of sin first? I’m much more concerned with believing in the promises and confessing Christ and getting on with the life of pilgrimage.
I also will repeat. I find it amazing that the historia salutis was supposed to get us away from ordo. But now the Pauline theology advocates have determined that a specific ordo is REFORMED, and the Lutheran ordo is defective. That one, as a historian, is a very interesting irony.
As for a Reformed ordo, I don’t know of any session or presbytery that has examined an elder or ministerial candidate for a precise ordo. Granted, I’ve not been to a lot of exams. And granted, most minuites don’t include such information. But I’d be amazed if any session or presbytery adopted an ordo to which prospective officers needed to conform.
For instance, just look at the order of chapters in WCF: effectual calling, justification, adoption, sanctification, saving faith, repentance, good works, perseverance, assurance. Is that any kind of ordo? I know, there is a difference between teaching and saving ordo. I suspect the divines here are following a teaching order. So that leaves me asking what is THE Reformed ordo.
Your outline of the Lutheran and Reformed ordos looks about right to the degree that I know (or care) about it. What I don’t understand is why the Lutheran ordo is considered by some unionists to be defective to the point of jeopardizing the gospel.
LikeLike
dgh, I don’t think that the ordo question is huge…but just about every presbytery exam I have witnessed (which has been quite a few, including my own) has included the ordo question. I was even asked how it differed from the Lutheran ordo. You know how they say the OPC can get really specific…they’re right. Does that mean that there is ONE that they are looking for…not necessarily. But I did learn that if you accidentally leave the ‘repentance’ step out then they will catch you on it. That was licensure. I didn’t make the same mistake twice.
Actually, I am of the opinion that because the divines were in line with Calvin and Beza (and maybe even Perkins) that they were less concerned about order than they were about being ‘in Christ’. It is the fact that you are both against union as the primary benefit from which all others flow and yet against any set ordo that I find interesting. No ordo, you say. But you want ordo enough to keep justification prior…first. I am just trying to understand your objections to union and what you see is lost when being ‘in Christ’ is set as the primary benefit of salvation with all others flowing from that status…even simultaneously. How does the union position, as put forth by someone like Gaffin, make salvation not monergistic? I think that if someone held that view, and taught it, then they would be brought up on charges.
I like the priority of justification. You cannot have righteousness before God apart from it. This, however, seems to be a completely different question than the union one. Maybe you can help me understand how it is that having the benefits given simultaneously through union with Christ (linked to effectual calling) de-prioritizes justification?
To be honest, I don’t understand the vehemence against Lutherans either. I think that their ordo is defective in that it has union coming after justification but I don’t think that it jeopardizes the gospel. Maybe you can point me to some writers that state that it does. I know that Vos seemed pretty stuck on the difference but I don’t know if he would have taken it that far.
LikeLike
cnh, Please don’t misunderstand. I am not against union. What I am trying to figure out is how union requires a denial of the priority of justification to sanctification. That has been Gaffin’s position at times. Upon further qualification he has said that justification is prior to progressive sanctification. But then definitive sanctification — a view I find dubious, or at least synonymous with regeneration — IS prior to justification. I don’t have any problem with an order that puts regeneration in the application of redemption prior to justification. I don’t see how you can say otherwise. But the simultaneity of justification and sanctification, as some unionists insist, gets really confusing then. Def. sanct. is prior to justification, but justification is prior to progressive sanctification. That way, it sure looks like justification and sanctification are not simultaneous.
BTW, in the context of the Shepherd teaching on obedient faith, the simultaneity language looks like it could, and I emphasize COULD, be construed to argue for Shepherd’s notion of obedient faith, a phrase that Gaffin does employ, as I recall, in By Faith, Not By Sight.
I find a couple of your assertions about union confusing. You say that the priority of justification is “a completely different question than the union one.” What is the union question? I think I know what the justification question is: “how am I right with God?” I can see how union is not trying to answer that. But I’m not sure what the union question is.
The other point of confusion is your assertion that union is the “primary” benefit from which all others flow. I understand that some talk about union as a benefit. But that is not how the Standards speak of it, at least in the Shorter Catechism. Union there is together with faith and effectual calling. It is part of the how in the application of redemption. The SC goes on to ask what are the benefits that those that are effectually called enjoy. In which case, just., adoption, and sanct. are benefits.
Does that help?
LikeLike
Not having read Gaffin on this point, is he using “regeneration” in its Calvinic sense (which corresponds to repentance), or in its later systematic sense (which corresponds to effectual calling)?
The change in terminology is terribly confusing, and I wish it hadn’t occurred…
The other point of confusion is your assertion that union is the “primary†benefit from which all others flow. I understand that some talk about union as a benefit. But that is not how the Standards speak of it, at least in the Shorter Catechism. Union there is together with faith and effectual calling. It is part of the how in the application of redemption.
I agree with you, DGH. The union is the “how” and not a separate benefit.
LikeLike
dgh, sorry for the late reply – Sundays are very busy for me.
I think that we have more agreement than disagreement at this point. I certainly don’t mean to be confusing. The distinction I was making between the “union question” and the “justification question” was the one that I have been trying to pose off and on – where does union fall. As you admit, the Standards tie it to faith and effectual calling. In that case, even on an ordo construction, union would come before justification and sanctification.
You call definitive sanctification “dubious” but wasn’t it Murray, a theologian who often makes the ‘forensic Friday’ quote list, that argued strongly for def. sanctification?
I guess I don’t see how union denies the priority of J to S. It seemed to me that this was your position and I was simply trying to engage it. I have no qualms with talking of priority so long as we understand what is meant by priority. I like Vos’ language of the sun and heat quoted above. I don’t know how you can think of J & S separately though I do assert that they must be thought of distinctively. This is my position: distinct (and a sort of priority) but simultaneous. This is what I read in a number of the reformers. It was a slip to call it the “primary benefit”. I see it as the the language of salvation in Scripture and all of the benefits flow from it. Thank you for asking that question.
As for Gaffin’s changes over the years – I suppose that is the danger of doing live theology. It might not be ideal, and I certainly disagree with Shepherd, Kinnaird, et al, but I was happy with the OPC justification report. It seemed, to me, to maintain the essentials.
Thank you for your clarifications. You certainly do not owe them to me. I appreciate your blog as well as a number of things you say on the crazy brothers blog.
LikeLike
Sorry, not “crazy brothers blog” but the “Out of our minds, too…” blog!
LikeLike
cnh, thanks. I don’t see how union requires a denial of justification’s priority to sanctification, except that it seems a useful point to make if you are trying to beat down antinomianism (which was what motivated Shepherd). How antinomianism instead of legalism was the OPC’s problem in the 1970s is beyond me.
LikeLike
Great and timely quote! I like his point how liberalism is a “wretched slavery” in disguise…
LikeLike
How antinomianism instead of legalism is ever the OPC’s problem is beyond me! Thank you for the discussion.
LikeLike