Forensic Friday: What Am I Missing?

Published on by D. G. Hart

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 Sinners”):

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?

115 thoughts on “Forensic Friday: What Am I Missing?”

  1. DGH: Am I clueless?

    Probably 😉 (join the club)

    DGH: 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.

    Definitely not!!!!!!! How then would infants dying in infancy be saved?

    Avoiding condemnation on judgment day is fully accomplished by our justification, end of story.

    Perhaps what you aren’t understanding is the “avoiding judgment on judgment day” is not the sum total of our salvation. In addition to the freedom from guilt of sin, salvation also includes breaking the dominion of sin in our experience. We can say that freedom from guilt is primary and most important — certainly true — but the central importance of the verdict does not imply that all other saving graces are derived from it.

    In Point of Fact,

    The breaking of sin in our experience is a separate action of God — a separate saving grace, to use the Catechismal language — in addition to our justification. It is not caused by our justification, else (1) it would have to begin after our justification, and (2) the saving grace that causes justification would have to indirectly cause sanctification as well.

    Like

  2. DGH,

    Would you have a conversation with Lane Tipton about this on the Reformed Forum? I think that would be very instructive.

    Chris

    Like

  3. Jeff,

    Granted, I’m as clueless as they come, but I think what can be confusing is when you affirm the “central importance” of justification, etc. but then go on to sort of flatten out the ordo such that J and S are co-equals. (And I’m not sure how charitable you’re being in your reading: nobody said that “avoiding judgment on judgment day is the sum total of our salvation.” What was said was “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.”)

    Like I have said before, I get how you think causal language can be relatively imprecise, but much as this Calvinist appreciates precision, I think your need for precisionism on this score is linguistically tortured. I don’t think anyone is saying that justifying grace is transformative by saying J causes S, any more than saying conceiving power is creative by saying mothers give life to children.

    Like

  4. Zrim: what can be confusing is when you affirm the “central importance” of justification, etc. but then go on to sort of flatten out the ordo such that J and S are co-equals.

    Be careful not to collapse two senses of “central” into one.

    Is justification “central” in the sense that it is of utmost importance? Yes.

    Is justification “central” in the sense that all other saving graces are caused by it? No.

    Zrim: I get how you think causal language can be relatively imprecise, but much as this Calvinist appreciates precision, I think your need for precisionism on this score is linguistically tortured.

    You’re welcome to your opinion, of course. However, a basic feature of causality is that A can only cause B if A comes before B in time.

    In Reformed theology, however, justification is accomplished and santification is begun at one and the same time; and those two are by different means. Read through Calvin’s commentary on Rom 6 and 8; take a look at the OPC report on justification. Both of these affirm that justification and the onset of sanctification are cotemporaneous.

    That being the case, it is impossible to say that J causes S, if we are understanding sanctification to mean the “entire process of sanctification” (which is how WCoF 13 speaks of it).

    Instead, it is repeatedly affirmed that our sanctification is begun and continued by the direct renovating work of the Spirit.

    So most importantly: why is there not a peep in the Standards about justification causing sanctification? I mean, DGH was giving me a hard time about union, that it lacks its own chapter and such. But at the end of the day, what I was saying about union really was in the Confession and Catechism, even if not given a place of prominence.

    By contrast, what you are saying about justification causing sanctification just isn’t in there.

    To quote someone famous, “Where’s your Confession, man?”

    To make this even more precise: certain aspects of salvation are said or insinuated to be caused by justification. Adoption is one; the acceptance of our good works is another. But the whole family of renovative graces — repentance unto life, sanctification, perseverance — none of these is said to depend on our justification.

    Why?

    I maintain that the reason is expressed clearly in WLC 77: there is a firewall between imputed righteousness and infused grace.

    Respect the firewall.

    Like

  6. Jeff:

    Calvin doesn’t shy away from causal language in his commentary on Ephesians 3:5-7. Commenting on verse five, Calvin employs the Aristotelian framework:

    “Three causes of our salvation are here mentioned, and a fourth is shortly afterwards added. The efficient cause is the good pleasure of the will of God, the material cause is, Jesus Christ, and the final cause is, the praise of the glory of his grace. Let us now see what he says respecting each.”

    Calvin goes on to elaborates on Christ as “material cause”:

    “The material cause both of eternal election, and of the love which is now revealed, is Christ, the Beloved. This name is given, to remind us that by him the love of God is communicated to us. Thus he is the well-beloved, in order that we may be reconciled by him.”

    Calvin devotes just two brief sentences to verse 6, before moving on to verse 7. Calvin describes verse 7 as Paul’s further illustration the material causes of our salvation. That is, he explains how Christ’s work saves us. Read it for yourself:

    “7. In whom we have redemption. The apostle is still illustrating the material cause, — the manner in which we are reconciled to God through Christ. By his death he has restored us to favor with the Father; and therefore we ought always to direct our minds to the blood of Christ, as the means by which we obtain divine grace. After mentioning that, through the blood of Christ, we obtain redemption, he immediately styles it the forgiveness of sins, — to intimate that we are redeemed, because our sins are not imputed to us. Hence it follows, that we obtain by free grace that righteousness by which we are accepted of God, and freed from the chains of the devil and of death. The close connection which is here preserved, between our redemption itself and the manner in which it is obtained, deserves our notice; for, so long as we remain exposed to the judgment of God, we are bound by miserable chains, and therefore our exemption from guilt, becomes an invaluable freedom.”

    Calvin teaches that Christ is the material cause of our salvation. And he functioned as such by obtaining for us the forgiveness of sins and the righteousness by which we are accepted by God.

    I submit to Old Life’s resident building inspector the question of whether this theological construction satisfies WLC’s firewall requirement?

    Like

  8. RL: Calvin teaches that Christ is the material cause of our salvation. And he functioned as such by obtaining for us the forgiveness of sins and the righteousness by which we are accepted by God.

    …and freed from the chains of the devil and of death. And thus, I gather, Calvin is connecting our justification and sanctification in some way.

    And so the question is whether Calvin here is in fact connecting our justification causally to our sanctification, or whether he is simply lumping it all under “salvation”, whose efficient cause is Christ.

    What do you think? Is this strong enough to say one way or the other?

    RL: I submit to Old Life’s resident building inspector the question of whether this theological construction satisfies WLC’s firewall requirement?

    Heh, heh. Can I get a badge and a cap?

    Like

  9. Jeff:

    Is this strong enough to say one way or the other?

    I think that paragraph teaches that the forgiveness of sins causes freedom from sin. Let’s focus on the last sentence of the paragraph and how it sums up the teaching. I think it will answer your question. Here’s the first part:

    “The close connection which is here preserved, between our redemption itself and the manner in which it is obtained, deserves our notice;

    This is an obvious reference to the immediately preceding teaching that we are redeemed because our sins our forgiven. That’s the unambiguous causal relationship established at the start of the paragraph.

    So to answer your question, we simply need to know in what sense Calvin is using the word “redemption.” Does he mean by it just the escape from punishment? Or does he also want to include in it breaking of the dominion of sin in our experience? He means both.

    Here’s how he ends the sentence:

    “…for, so long as we remain exposed to the judgment of God, we are bound by miserable chains, and therefore our exemption from guilt, becomes an invaluable freedom.”

    Look how beautifully he links our liberation to our forgiveness. He doesn’t say that our forgiveness will simply cause us to stand on the last day. He says that it has set us free now!

    Like

  10. Jeff, I am not saying that all other saving graces are derived from justification. I am willing to consider this but I’m not saying it. What it sounds like to me is that you are not willing to say that all other saving graced depend on justification. Yes, a not guilty verdict on judgment day is not the whole ball of salvation wax. But it’s more of that ball than any other and the ball melts without justification.

    And so, what this means for unionists is that they are talking more about union than justification, and in doing so are missing a fundamental dimension of salvation and the gospel.

    Like

  11. Dr. Hart,

    In following up on a former post you wrote to me, “You also seem to imply that union is not as important for an understanding of salvation. Doesn’t that prove the centrality of justification.”

    Yes. This is what I tried to get across in my first post. I think one can believe in the centrality of justification in some sense–I called it an ‘existential’ sense–but still know that, ontologically, even that central and sancitification-producing thing is a product of union with Christ. Let me be clear: I believe justification is prior to sanctification. The union-as-hub thing is a matter of, as I said, a more systematizing, developed aspect. As I more than implied, the sinner doesn’t have to hear union-as-hub preached to be saved. This obviously sets justification in a higher place experientially.

    It’s like election being prior to justification in some sense (more than temporal priority, too). If I talk with my inconsistent Arminian brother, we could both understand justification in the same way, he could be converted by the Holy Spirit, but not understand the proper systematic position of that justification, eg, as a result of God’s electing him preveniently. Regardless of this lack of knowledge or error, the fact is the fact: his election is real and it’s prior to what he does know to be the case. So with union-as-hub. I can call justification primary and the hinge of the Church and still know that there is a higher, birds-eye-view aspect at which union is the benefit-producing reality for the sake of Christ. So, again, I wouldn’t want to talk about union-as-hub in the pulpit more than justification. Note the ‘more systematic and precise’ emphasis I’ve put on the union thesis. It’s similar to the way you don’t dump the hypostatic union, perichoresis, and concurence on someone’s first Sunday. Still, those things do help us understand what’s going on in the Bible.

    So, I don’t think you’re clueless. I think you see implications in the union-as-hub thesis that aren’t necessarily there. It’s unfortunate if they’ve been there among folks you’ve known before, but don’t lump it all together. I, for one, really see Gaffin’s view of union in the Scriptures, and I also see Paul talking about it rarely compared to justification; although, the latter always seems to be connected to ‘in Christ,’ a subtle but reality-aligning nod to what’s going on. Anyway, we can speak of different senses of priority, different levels of definition, I think, so the vigorousness of the debate seems a little off kilter. Justification can maintain practical dominance even if union is understood as in back of it.

    Like

  12. Josh:

    Can you explain to me how you think the union-as-a-hub theology is more developed than the justification-as-the-foundation of salvation theology. Is it more precise? Certainly, it seems like more vague to say that one is justified by union than to say that one is justified by imputation, right? What gap is the union focus filling? What is it making clearer?

    Here’s an error that Gaffin makes because of his union-focused misreading of Calvin: “faith, in its Protestant understanding, entails a disposition to holiness without particular reference to justification.” That is flatly untrue. The main theme of much of Calvin’s work is represented by this quote of his: “By his [Christ’s] death he has restored us to favor with the Father; and therefore we ought always to direct our minds to the blood of Christ, as the means by which we obtain divine grace.”

    The idea that we could have a disposition to holiness without reference to justification has huge implications.

    Like

  13. RL,

    I think union is filling a gap as to how imputation works. Of course, as I’m almost tired of saying, the imputation, justification –> sanctification language is fine.

    How are my sins Christ’s and his righteousness mine? Step outside for a second and ask that question. Faith is the instrument of our justification. But an instrument accomplishes something. How does faith bring a declaration from God? What does faith have to do with our standing? How does he see us as righteous? By fiat? Well, I think the idea that, by faith, we are graciously grafted into Christ which in turn cascades out to us our gospel blessings is a clarifying and developing notion. Stopping at imputation leaves, in my opinion, the more systematically minded at a loss. How do you get from A to B? It sounds almost like magic. Union shows that, as counter-intuitive as justification is to the natural mind, our righteousness is because of a covenant-union that God makes real upon faith in what he has done in Christ. Notice I’m not jumping to our obedience as a consequence of union. I’m trying to elevate justification by providing a rationale for it: God sees us in Christ, and only for that does he pronounce, “Righteous, beloved, my son, my people.”

    Like

  14. Is justification an event which we consciously experience?

    In the Bible and in the interpretation of the Church, justification comes to us as a message, a “word.” It does not arise from ourselves, out of ourselves. That is excluded by the notion of acquittal and imputation. Hence in our faith we step outside the world of our experience; we receive the opposite of what we experience. We need to be told this again and again. When I allow myself to be TOLD, it enters my experience as a sense of freedom, joy, and release.

    Like

  15. Josh, you make some useful points, but I fear that unionists and JP’s are talking past each other because unionists may be overthinking what’s going on in salvation. You say that a union-as-hub approach is more systematic and even more precise. At least, that’s the way I read you. But it sounds to me like union is answering a question that a sinner is not asking. Union may be answering questions that theologians sometimes ask. But a sinner want to know about how he can be saved from sin — not all the mechanics of the application of redemption — which is what union is really talking about.

    Anyway, I do not know how much more clear or precise the Reformed understanding of faith could be. The Belgic Confession, article 22 is awfully clear. Union seems like it violates the rules of Strunk and White, as in good answer, wrong question:

    “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.’

    “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.”

    Like

  16. RL: Is Calvin speaking here of our daily experience or of our sanctification entire?

    As I mentioned, I am very happy to say that our justification is a cause of our daily experience of sanctification. The line I draw is at saying that justification causes our sanctification in toto — that it causes the Spirit to renovate us. So which is Calvin speaking of?

    In relationship to this question, it would be helpful for you to coordinate your reading here with what Calvin says in Comm Rom 6 and Comm Rom 8.

    Like

  17. DGH: And so, what this means for unionists is that they are talking more about union than justification, and in doing so are missing a fundamental dimension of salvation and the gospel.

    It probably depends on the topic of conversation. In our Saturday night study through Galatians, we’ve talked a whole lot about justification and sanctification, but I can’t recall saying anything about union. Rather, the thesis of the study has been, Since we are justified by faith, we are sanctified also by faith. Since we have begun in the Spirit, we must continue in the Spirit.

    Union, if mentioned at all, has been so insignificant that I don’t recall ever mentioning it.

    What I’m saying is that in practice, many unionists are probably as justification-o-centric as you might wish. But when pressed on the theology of salvation, they will affirm straightforwardly that justification and sanctification are both manifestations of our union with Christ.

    Like

  18. DGH: The Belgic Confession, article 22 is awfully clear. Union seems like it violates the rules of Strunk and White, as in good answer, wrong question. (then follows Belgic 22).

    What’s bizarre is that I look at Belgic 22 and see union!

    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.

    We have Christ (which is what union means) and therefore we have salvation entirely (not solely justification, out of which flow the other graces).

    Odd that you see justification-priority there.

    I keep thinking that you are thinking of union in some way other than “I am in Christ, and Christ is in me.”

    Like

  19. Josh,

    Faith does not bring a declaration from God. A declaration from God brings faith. God creates his new covenant people in the same manner he created in Genesis. There God created by speaking immediately, but now his speech in mediated through his New Covenant ministers. Just as in the beginning, he creates out of nothing. Where there was no faith, faith is born. Calvin calls this faith “a firm and sure knowledge of the divine favour toward us.” This word of divine favour is the good news of our free justification. Knowing that God is no longer a judge to be feared, but instead is a loving and propitious Father, we can turn to Him for all our needs.

    Calvin goes on to say that this divine favour is “founded on the truth of a free promise in Christ.” However, what is only necessary for us initially is God’s word of our reconciliation, and that alone would be sufficient reason for us to turn to Him. God is not obligated to tell us why or how He has reconciled Himself to us, but He does, and not so as to satisfy us, but to glorify His Son.

    The proclamation of free justification, that is, the forensic announcement of ‘not guilty’ is the good news that the Holy Spirit uses to create faith. Indeed, this proclamation does have a foundation, and that foundation is Christ. In earlier replies it has been claimed that if something was conditional then it was somehow causally related, and I think the same might be claimed for something that is foundational. This idea obscures the relationship between cause and effect.

    In Acts 22 Paul was about to be flogged. His announcement that he was a Roman citizen brought a quick end to the proceedings. It was his announcement of citizenship that stopped the punishment. The fact that he indeed was a citizen of Rome sustained his claim and was foundational to his release for a time, yet was not the proximate cause of the end to his flogging. In that moment that Paul was spared punishment, it was his word of citizenship that had priority. That is not to say the the actuality of his citizenship was not necessary and of vital importance. If Paul had not spoken, however, he would have been flogged.

    From God’s side of the equation, apart from His forensic decree, delivered by His messengers and accompanied by the Holy Spirit, all has be accomplished. From the sinner’s side of the equation there remains work to be done. The word of promise must be proclaimed. The Holy Spirit must partner with the word to generate faith and new life where before there was only death and unbelief. So renewed the sinner repents, turns to embrace the grace offered in Christ, and the eternal union is manifest in history.

    This scenario is not confusing, but is quite clear. It is the experience of those who have entered the bond (union) of marriage. I married my wife because she said that she loved me. I, in turn, loved her and so we were wed. I think it would be difficult indeed to explain that our love was a result of that union. Surely, that union was a result of our love. That is not to deny, that some 30 years later, love now flows from that union.

    Priority does not mean exclusion. I believe wholeheartedly in union. Priority, however, must be given to the word of His “precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.”

    Like

  20. Jeff:

    In relationship to this question, it would be helpful for you to coordinate your reading here with what Calvin says in Comm Rom 6 and Comm Rom 8.

    Workin’ on it.

    Like

  21. Jeff,

    Here’s something I’m not piecing together very well. On the one hand you complain about the hard time you’re given about union-speak. The consistent response is that no JP has any beef whatsoever with union. You then volley back that causual-speak is dangerous, even as you allow for some kind of your very own qualified causal language (“I am very happy to say that our justification is a cause of our daily experience of sanctification”); you then assert that even in your own study group you never mention union during discussions about just/sanct. If the topic of conversation on Saturday night is just./sanct., and you don’t make much hay about union, why do you demand so much union on Wednesday’s and Friday’s where the topic is exactly the same? I guess I’m clueless.

    Like

  22. It seems like part of the problem here is how we are looking at union. It appears that unionists are speaking of union as a one time, done forever, event on which one can base everything. JP’s, on the other hand think of it along the lines of marriage. Thus, in Belgic 22, I see all the more reason why I should cleave to Christ as my husband and head. He is my righteousness, reconciliation, and my justification. The more I hear of the perfections and beauties of Christ, the stronger the bond of union between us. Union isn’t the answer to my needs, but Christ is. The dialogical relationship nurtured in liturgical Word and Sacrament ministry strengthens and sustains my union with Christ. God speaks and we respond. Christ is proclaimed, we respond, and the bond of union becomes tighter and tighter. What seems odd is so much talk about union. When I talk about my marriage, I talk about my wife. Union is not a situation I am in, but an ongoing relationship that draws its power from the preaching of the gospel, the forensic declaration of a righteousness apart from works.

    Like

  23. Randy,

    You make a very important and necessary point. As I read Calvin and the tradition after him (and before him) I don’t find the newer version of union being touted as “the” Reformed theology of union. What I find, WRT Dick Gaffin’s category of existential union (which is a helpful category) is that it is usually connected with faith and usually described as a benefit of faith. One sees this in ch. 17 of Owen’s Greater Catechism where he lists union, in this sense, as a benefit of faith.

    Your point about not looking to union, but rather to Christ is just right. This focus on existential union and moving it to a logically prior place to faith and the claim that it distinguishes use from the Lutherans reminds me all too much of the way Hoeksema uses predestination.

    Calvin doesn’t want us focusing on union but on what union brings! Union is not the instrument of justification nor is it the instrument of sanctification. Union is, but we think about it a posteriori not a priori. We don’t start with union any more than we start with predestination. Existential union, like predestination, is a category of explanation but it is no substitute for faith.

    So, yes, Jeff, union is implicitly present in BC 22-24 but not quite in the way you seem to imply. The Spirit creates union through through the Spirit-wrought gift of faith but faith looks to Christ. Faith has an object. Union is a different thing. It is, as Randy says, a way of describing our relationship with Christ. Thus, Owen and many of our writers are just as likely to speak of “communion” as “union” because they don’t place “communion” logically prior to faith.

    It is believers who are united to Christ. It is not those who are existentially united to Christ who believe.

    Like

  24. Correction. Second line, third para. should read:

    Union is a reality but we think about it….

    Like

  25. Pingback: Putting Existential Union with Christ into Perspective « Heidelblog

  26. Jeff:

    Calvin’s Commentary on Romans fits nicely with my previous comments.

    They both stress the priority of justification. For Calvin, all of the blessings of salvation flow from God being propitious to us, and the only way for us to gain God’s favor is to be justified. If our sins are not forgiven, then we are damned. It’s in this sense that Calvin makes clear that all of the blessings of salvation flow from justification.

    This quote gets the ball rolling:

    “Calvin’s Commentary on Romans 1:7”
    “Grace to you and peace, etc. Nothing is more desirable than to have God propitious to us, and this is signified by grace; and then to have prosperity and success in all things flowing from him, and this is intimated by peace; for however things may seem to smile on us, if God be angry, even blessing itself is turned to a curse. The very foundation then of our felicity is the favor of God, by which we enjoy true and solid prosperity, and by which also our salvation is promoted even when we are in adversities. And then as he prays to God for peace, we must understand, that whatever good comes to us, it is the fruit of divine benevolence.”

    Clearly, all blessings flow from finding favor in God’s sight. He later explains how we become objects of divine benevolence:

    “Calvin’s Commentary on Romans 5:10”
    “Hence with regard to us, we are always enemies, until the death of Christ interposes in order to propitiate God. And this twofold aspect of things ought to be noticed; for we do not know the gratuitous mercy of God otherwise than as it appears from this — that he spared not his only-begotten Son; for he loved us at a time when there was discord between him and us: nor can we sufficiently understand the benefit brought to us by the death of Christ, except this be the beginning of our reconciliation with God, that we are persuaded that it is by the expiation that has been made, that he, who was before justly angry with us, is now propitious to us. Since then our reception into favor is ascribed to the death of Christ, the meaning is, that guilt is thereby taken away, to which we should be otherwise exposed.”

    That made it pretty obvious, right? Our reception into favor is ascribed to the death of Christ. All following benefits flow from this favor. Calvin repeats the same thing in more forceful language in his commentary on the next verse:

    “Calvin’s Commentary on Romans 5:11”
    “And not this only, etc. He now ascends into the highest strain of glorying; for when we glory that God is ours, whatever blessings can be imagined or wished, ensue and flow from this fountain; for God is not only the chief of all good things, but also possesses in himself the sum and substance of all blessings; and he becomes ours through Christ. We then attain this by faith, — that nothing is wanting to us as to happiness. Nor is it in vain that he so often mentions reconciliation: it is, first, that we may be taught to fix our eyes on the death of Christ, whenever we speak of our salvation; and, secondly, that we may know that our trust must be fixed on nothing else, but on the expiation made for our sins.”

    Again, all blessings flow from the fact that “God is ours,” and God is made ours through Christ. More specifically, God is made ours through the death of Christ and the expiation made for our sins. Through the forgiveness of sins we have been reconciled to God. Calvin lists all the benefits that flow from this reconciliation:

    “Calvin’s Commentary on Romans 5:15”
    “The grace of God and the gift of God through grace, etc. Grace is properly set in opposition to offense; the gift which proceeds from grace, to death. Hence grace means the free goodness of God or gratuitous love, of which he has given us a proof in Christ, that he might relieve our misery: and gift is the fruit of this mercy, and hath come to us, even the reconciliation by which we have obtained life and salvation, righteousness, newness of life, and every other blessing.”

    Note what flows from our reconciliation: “life and salvation, righteousness, newness of life, and every other blessing.” Calvin later confirms this interpretation:

    “Calvin’s Commentary on Romans 5:18”
    “Justification of life is to be taken, in my judgment, for remission, which restores life to us, as though he called it life-giving. For whence comes the hope of salvation, except that God is propitious to us; and we must be just, in order to be accepted. Then life proceeds from justification.”

    Remission restores life to us? Did he really say that? Yep. He also said, “life proceeds from justification.” Life proceeds from justification. One more time. Life proceeds from justification.

    Now that we have that down, let’s move on to Chapter 6. Really, I’m not sure what in Chapter 6 was supposed to be so problematic. Here’s what Calvin says on 6:2:

    “Calvin’s Commentary on Romans 6:2”
    “The state of the case is really this, — that the faithful are never reconciled to God without the gift of regeneration; nay, we are for this end justified, — that we may afterwards serve God in holiness of life.”

    Regeneration comes with reconciliation. Always. Got it. That in no way undermines my earlier points. Note how the end of the sentence strengthens them. We are justified that we may afterwards serve God in holiness of life. Afterwards.

    The afterwards is such an important point for Calvin that he stresses the point in the next sentences:

    “Calvin’s Commentary on Romans 6:2 (Continued)”
    “Christ indeed does not cleanse us by his blood, nor render God propitious to us by his expiation, in any other way than by making us partakers of his Spirit, who renews us to a holy life. It would then be a most strange inversion of the work of God were sin to gather strength on account of the grace which is offered to us in Christ; for medicine is not a feeder of the disease, which it destroys. We must further bear in mind, what I have already referred to — that Paul does not state here what God finds us to be, when he calls us to an union with his Son, but what it behoves us to be, after he has had mercy on us, and has freely adopted us; for by an adverb, denoting a future time, he shows what kind of change ought to follow righteousness.”

    Look at the point that Calvin is trying to beat into our heads: The same Spirit that works faith in us renew us to a holy life. But this isn’t how God finds us when he calls us to union. Rather, it’s what we should strive for “after he has had mercy on us.”. The key word is after! The renewal follows mercy. How does Calvin know that’s what Paul meant? “by an adverb, denoting a future time, he shows what kind of change ought to follow righteousness.” The change follows righteousness.

    This all seems pretty straight forward and compatible with what I’ve said before. Can you point to specific points that need to be coordinated?

    I hope you find rest in Christ’s righteousness this Lord’s Day.

    Like

  27. Dr, Hart,

    I’ve tried to make what you said clear; maybe it wasn’t good enough: I agree, union-as-hub is an answer to a question the sinner isn’t asking. The theologian is asking the question.

    I wasn’t talking about union as an instrument–faith plays that role–just the existential union Dr. Clark also mentioned as helpful.

    Randy, obviously a declaration from God brings faith. Saying it in reverse doesn’t deny that. Election and effectual calling are prior to faith, God draws the sinner. I was just stating a very simple thing that God declares sinners righteous upon faith in the gospel.

    Dr. Hart, I think you’re right that unionists and JPs are talking past each other. I’d say it might be because JPs seem to only care about the basic, confessional emphasis. Let me be clear, I care about these too as a first priority. There is a reason, though, for longer, more thorough treatments of an issue, like in a more elaborate theology. The basics are simple, but I’m thankful we can press on past the basic things to a more holistically defined system. Confessions broach on the system but spend more time on the heads of issues.

    I also agree that we need to focus on Christ and not union, his benefits and not the means of obtaining them. I can’t see how a union-centered view undermines this. Again, it’s something done in more rarefied air, in systematics. Just like predestination isn’t the answer to the sinner’s question, how a person might be saved is. Yet the Apostle sees fit to teach them both.

    To me the quietus in this debate is that union can be logically prior and yet not take priority in the day to day speech about how a sinner is right with God. Jeff said it just right: because we have Christ, we possess his benefits. It’s not some mystical mumbo-jumbo, it’s just saying that possessing Christ, like in Calvin book III, is, when we ask the ‘why, how’ question, the organizing principle to the application of God’s powerful work toward sinners. He unites them to his Son and they partake of what his Son has earned, righteously fulfilling what Adam failed to do.

    It seems to me that there’s too much talk of “This seems to imply,” and “This would seem to lead to,” and not enough pause, considering how an opponent in this issue could affirm everything you’re affirming, and still hold his position. He can still have the same emphases as you, and yet hold something different in a separate place.

    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.

    Like

  28. Dr. Clark makes some great points, this being a big one: “It is believers who are united to Christ. It is not those who are existentially united to Christ who believe.” Some seem to think that Gaffin’s position contradicts this. I expect he’d affirm the quote as a given.

    Like

  29. Happy Sunday, all.

    There’s a lot here, so I’m hoping I this can get at most of the issues.

    First, I agree with Randy: the point of “union” is not union itself, but of Christ himself. And the marriage analogy is perfect — in marriage, we focus generally not on marriage itself (down that path lies madness) but on the spouse. This is why earlier I made the point about pronunciation. It’s not “UNION with Christ” but “union with CHRIST.”

    Dr. Clark, there have been a whole host of posts that have gone before, so if I may, allow me to recap a couple of points. First, the “union” I’m speaking of is Berkhofian or Hodgistic in flavor. As such, I do believe that this is what BC 22 is talking about: the saved sinner is saved in Christ, and Christ is in him.

    And in particular, I’m certainly not talking about a union that is somehow appropriated prior to faith. Rather, I’m speaking of the “being united to Christ” as described in WSC 30.

    Second, I’m not qualified to comment on Gaffin’s concept of existential union. It may or may not be different from the kind of union I’m talking about. RL tells me that it is different. I can say that I find nothing objectionable in R. Reymond’s and A. Hoekema’s accounts of union.

    Third, my concern about JP is very narrow. As I’ll try to make clear below, the issue is not that justification would have central importance in our gospel proclamation; nor that out of justification flow other saving graces; nor that justification provides a substantial motivation towards our sanctification. Those propositions are perfectly fine.

    The objection rather is to the formula “justification causes sanctification.” In my view, this slogan is ambiguous, and in one reasonable reading, it re-works the architecture of Reformed soteriology. It is therefore inadvisable theology.

    Zrim and RL, see whether this helps clear things up:

    (1) Unlike justification, sanctification is ongoing. Because of this, the word “sanctification” could refer either to our day-to-day experience (as in “I am being sanctified”) or to the sum total of our sanctification starting with regeneration and ending when the Lord calls us home (as in, “This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man; yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part; whence ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh. “)

    For the purposes of this discussion, let’s call the first Daily Sanctification, and the latter, Whole Sanctification. (I would choose “Entire Sanctification”, but Wesley already put an unfortunate meaning on this term.) It is worth noting that the Confession often speaks of sanctification as a whole.

    I’ve been using “sanctification” to refer to Whole Sanctification. It is my perception that you (Zrim and RL) have been speaking of Daily Sanctification. I think this is the source of our troubles. You have been saying, I think, that “Justification is the cause of our Daily Sanctification”, which is a defensible position to take. I have been understanding you to mean “Justification is the cause of our Whole Sanctification”, the entire package, including all renovative works of the Spirit. This latter is problematic.

    (2) The structure of salvation presented in the Confession is this:

    Effectual calling leads to three benefits, received by faith. These are justification, adoption, and sanctification. Out of these flow the other saving graces.

    Adoption is explicitly dependent on justification. We can properly say that “justification causes adoption”, or “J is the ground of adoption.”

    But not so with sanctification. Instead, the onset of sanctification is the creation of the new man, the implantation of the “seeds of repentance unto life” (WLC 75). Calvin has this renovative work caused directly by faith (Inst 3.11.1: The whole may be thus summed up: Christ given to us by the kindness of God is apprehended and possessed by faith, by means of which we obtain in particular a twofold benefit; first, being reconciled by the righteousness of Christ, God becomes, instead of a judge, an indulgent Father; and, secondly, being sanctified by his Spirit, we aspire to integrity and purity of life.).

    Thus, Calvin speaks of a double grace, received by faith: we are declared righteous in Christ; we are renovated by Christ in us. (Paul Helm has an excellent explanation of this in which he simultaneously upholds JP and also explains double-grace in terms of union).

    (3) Importantly, the means of accomplishing J and S are quite different. Per WLC 77, justification is caused by imputation; sanctification, by infused grace. It was quite important to the Reformers that these be kept separate (the “firewall” notion, for which RL has ironically made me honorary Oldlife Architectural Inspector).

    (4) Crucially, justification and the onset of sanctification are simultaneous in time. The OPC report on justification affirms this point clearly.

    (5) The efficient cause of sanctification, as we all have agreed, is the renewing work of the Spirit. This idea is emphasized in multiple places in the Confession and Catechism.

    NOW

    The slogan “Justification causes Sanctification” could have two meanings.

    One is, “Our justification is used by the Spirit to renew us and mortify sin.” This is the Daily Sanctification sense. RL, I believe that your examples from Calvin adequately demonstrate this sense. In our experience of sanctification, life proceeds from the fact that I am justified.

    This sense is mostly unobjectionable, although it obscures the fact that the Spirit is the one renewing us, and that He uses a variety of means to do so. (For example, we could say in the same sense that “the Law causes Sanctification”, since the Spirit uses the Law to renew us also — WLC 76 — and yet we rightly feel uncomfortable going there).

    In the main, though, I would grant validity to this sense of the slogan.

    The other sense is, “Our Whole Sanctification, start to finish, is caused by our Justification.” This sense is the sense I have been taking you (RL and Zrim) to mean. This would mean that the renewing work of the Spirit, the creation of the new man, everything, is somehow an effect of our justification.

    But this is impossible, given that justification and sanctification both begin at the same time; and are caused by different forces (imputation/infusion). The beginnings of sanctification, whatever else may occur after, are a direct work of the Spirit, so that faith and repentance occur together.

    Further, this sense of “J causes S” would imply that we are returning to a Tridentine understanding of justification: Our justification is the cause of us becoming righteous. On this account, “justification” would no longer mean “to declare righteous” simpliciter, but it would mean “to declare and make righteous” — since our justification sanctifies us.

    And finally, it would seem to be confusing to say on the one hand that the Spirit is the cause of sanctification (affirmed over and over in Reformed teaching) and also say that justification is the cause of sanctification (not so affirmed). We can make sense of it, but as a pedagogical move it is bad practice because it keeps on having to be explained.

    —

    Given the potential confusion, even for someone willing to take the time to sort it out, it would seem that the slogan “Justification causes Sanctification” is infelicitous.

    The biggest mark against it is that the Confession and Catechisms do not teach such a thing. The closest we have gotten to such a teaching is RL’s observation that Repentance unto Life is built, among other things, by a sense of God’s mercy.

    I would argue that we can retain JP without having to say “Justification causes Sanctification.” And I would further argue that union, properly understood, is not a competitor for JP but a complement to it.

    I sure hope this is what I meant to say, because I can’t bear to proof it in this small combox. 🙂

    Y’all have a restful evening.

    Like

  30. Josh and Jeff, I think union does de-center and has de-centered justification. If you read art. 22 of the Belgic and only see union, it seems to me you have union on the brain. I read it and see justification by faith alone, which is what art. 22 says explicitly.

    Sure, there is more theology behind this. That’s why it’s only one article of many. But it does seem to me that what you (Josh) have conceded is that justification is more basic to the gospel than union. That’s one way of talking about priority.

    But to keep insisting on union when it isn’t there explicitly I get nervous and think that someone’s got an axe to grind. And if one keeps saying that justification only takes you so far and needs the additional lift of union, I sense that justification is not central.

    Like

  31. For a long time I’ve avoided blog comments because they can–somehow–obscure a point more than clarify. I’m becoming renewed in that conviction. Here’s all a union-as-hub person needs to affirm, whatever else they sometimes unfortunately link themselves to:

    “WLC
    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.”

    Note it: those graces manifest a believer’s union with Christ. That is, union with Christ cascades out the blessings of justification, etc. Said another way: on an ultimate level, the graces of forensic justification, sanctification, etc, are, in some way, caused by God by virtue of this union with Christ. Carl Trueman’s remarks about keeping a simple faith come to mind: this seems simple to me. It’s not a weird Hegelian yes/no thing.

    The way justification is still at the center is that it needs no “lift”. It is the way we’re right with God. Justified through faith. Period. If the unbeliever says, “Well how does that happen?” You tell him by trusting in the Messiah, God counts him righteous for the payment of the Messiah, Christ died for sinners taking the penalty and having lived according to God’s law. But if he keeps asking about the mechanics about how God can do that and be just, how justification is truly synthetic, against the RCC, you might have to mention union.

    Like

  32. Jeff brings up the issue of sanctification as daily progression in holiness in us versus ‘whole’ sanctification (would he be happy to use positional or definitive sanctification?). It does seem to me (a bit of a neophyte to this discussion) that the two sides are really meaning two quite different things by the term sanctification. The JPs seem to be talking about God’s work in us; the union folks seem (at least to me) to be meaning (an aspect of) God’s work for us in Christ when they talk about ‘sanctification’.

    What interested me was seeing in Thomas Wenger’s essay how much of what Calvin seems to talk about with regard to sanctification (regeneration as he calls it) is God’s work in us. When Gaffin et al apply the concept of ‘existentiality’ to those passages (like the ‘hinge’ passage) it at least makes me wonder whether a grid isn’t being put over Calvin at these points ie we already know that sanctification is extrinsic and ‘Christ for us’ so where it’s ‘in’ the believer it must be just some existential bit of sanctification or ‘sanctification in our experience’.

    I’m not sure whether I’ve missed something but I see a lot of discussion of how justification relates to sanctification but not much clarification about what the two sides mean by the word ‘sanctification’ and how they differ on that issue. Is there somewhere this is discussed? I suppose I naievely thought that the use of sanctification language to talk about definitive extra nos stuff was not where the magisterial Reformers tended to go in their language (not saying it might not be contextually there but I thought renovatio language was about Christ in us rather than Christ for us).

    Clarification on this or pointing to where I might have missed this bit would be appreciated.

    Like

  33. Nick B., I don’t have an answer but I think you’ve identified an important disagreement or source of confusion — that is, the nature of sanctification, and especially the unionists reliance upon definitive sanctification for their position.

    Josh: I don’t understand what is simple about the following proposition: “Said another way: on an ultimate level, the graces of forensic justification, sanctification, etc, are, in some way, caused by God by virtue of this union with Christ.” If you’re talking about the eternal decree, then why not say that? Or are you saying that we are justified because we are first united to Christ so that union merits justification? If you’re merely saying that salvation is monergistic, I’m not sure why union asserts this any better than justification.

    Like

  34. Brothers

    Gaffin’s category of existential union is a useful and correct formulation of one aspect of union (there are not different unions, just different aspects of our union with Christ). Dr Clark’s comments are accurate and helpful insofar as they deal with existential union. Again he is correct, that in no small part union is not the focus, rather it is the One to whom we are united and the graces that are ours as a result. I think therein lies part of our problem, the union camp has been soured by those who have made more of union than they ought – union is not the end product, important as it is. For some it seems, union has become as important as Christ himself.

    It seems to me the difficulty with this whole discussion is that we are approaching it from two different perspectives. Darryl, you want to ask the question (and only this question it seems) “How can a sinner be saved?”. You also want to give a simple answer – that’s fine. But how simple do you want to get? “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall saved, you and your household” – that’s fine too. Or maybe, “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins” – that’s fine also, but gives more information than the first answer. The thoughtful person will then ask “but how can my sins be forgiven”. Then you are obliged to provide further explanation regarding the transaction – dealing with issues of penal substitution, faith, imputation, justification and so on. So the quest for simplicity is not quite as “simple”, as Darryl, you would have us believe.

    Why dig deeper into this answer, why can’t we simply provide the nice neat answer? Necessity demands such –. Is our justification a legal fiction? Some say so. We say no (we answer the question)! On what basis? That Christ and the redeemed are identified together in his life, death and resurrection, glorification (Rom 6, Eph 2 etc). There was a formal connection between Christ and the redeemed long before individual faith was ever granted by God (note the tenses of Eph 2:5-7). For God to be both the just and the justifier, union with the Savior is an essential and indispensable component. Not existential union, but union that is foundational in every way. Even the election of the redeemed is through a union – it was “in him” Eph1:4. I say foundational, because if a man has not been united to Christ from eternity (united is in the perfect tense for the Greek geeks) he has no foundation for even receiving faith – indeed he cannot do so. And as such he can receive none of the blessings associated with faith, including justification. Dr Clark states correctly “ It is believers who are united to Christ. It is not those who are existentially united to Christ who believe”. Take out the word “existentially” and the same is false. Those are united to Christ most certainly are or become believers. Union is not divided. Yes we can make distinctions within the broad term union, but we don’t have two or three separate unions with our savior – we have one union, outworked at various times and in different manners (much like the cov of grace).

    Simple maybe nice and necessary at times, but we don’t always have the luxury of always being simple – when we preach the Word, we have to preach what is in front of us – we don’t reduce the gospel to the lowest common denominator so that the sinner can understand it.

    It is therefore incumbent upon the unionists to ensure that their language is clear and accurate, to ensure that they are not putting the theological cart before the horse. When dealing with issues of existential union they must assert the primacy of faith and justification. When speaking more broadly of union they must labor to ensure that faith and justification are seen as results of union that was established before the foundation of the world. The justification focused people also have responsibilities: they must, it seems, look beyond the narrow field of justification – failure to do so will lead to a skewed view of salvation. Justification is not the whole counsel of God. Nor does faith and justification simply happen – they themselves are part of a theological and soteriological context which fact, it seems, is sometimes forgotten.

    Hope this has helped and not hindered. As ever, am open to correction on any of the above.

    blessings
    Matt

    Like

  35. Matt, it might be helpful to unionists’ clarity if we could identify the problem that union solves. You say that some out there say justification is a legal fiction and apparently union is the response. First, maybe I don’t get around enough but I don’t hear much of the legal fiction language. I did a google search and came to a Q&A at the OPCs’ website where the answerer brought it up. But no one had asked about it. In fact, I have heard unionists talk about justification as an abstraction, as if it is a righteousness that is merely on the books but not mine. That way of understanding justification doesn’t, it seems to me, do justice to the Reformation’s teaching on justification. Because I receive Christ’s righteousness by faith, God regards me as righteous.

    The other sight that came up was Heidelblog where someone with a Roman Catholic perspective spoke about a legal fiction. But justification by faith alone is the response to this notion of legal fiction, not union, and that was the case in the 16th c.

    I’m all for doctrinal development and longer answers when necessary. But I still can’t understand the problem that union solves. At first I was told it was the problem of antinomianism. Now it is justification as legal fiction.

    BTW, the problem with the legal fiction perspective seems to involve primarily a discomfort with federal theology — the same sort of objection to being guilty for Adam’s sin as for being innocent for Christ’s righteousness.

    Like

  36. DGH: If you read art. 22 of the Belgic and only see union, it seems to me you have union on the brain. I read it and see justification by faith alone, which is what art. 22 says explicitly.

    I did NOT say “I see only union”; nor “I do not see justification.”

    What I said was, “I see union here” and “I do not see JP.”

    I most certainly see the following:

    * We are justified by faith alone.
    * We are justified because our faith embraces Christ.
    * Having Christ by faith means having salvation in its entirety.

    There’s justification, there’s union.

    I do not see

    * Justification causes sanctification, or
    * Justification is prior to all other saving graces, or is the center of all of salvation.

    The demand for “explicit” union language is unnecessarily picky. The union concept is “us being in Christ and Christ being in us.” If the concept is present (as it most certainly is in BC 22), then the word need not be present.

    DGH: Josh and Jeff, I think union does de-center and has de-centered justification.

    Don’t you really think that WTS’s version of union has de-centered justification? I mean, do you really think that Calvin, the WLC, Berkhof, and Hodge are all in error because they teach that salvation is accomplished by uniting us to Christ?

    And in any event, isn’t it possible that justification is central, but not central in every possible way? For example, haven’t we already agreed that Christ is the true center of salvation?

    Like

  37. DGH: The other sight that came up was Heidelblog where someone with a Roman Catholic perspective spoke about a legal fiction. But justification by faith alone is the response to this notion of legal fiction, not union, and that was the case in the 16th c.
    …BTW, the problem with the legal fiction perspective seems to involve primarily a discomfort with federal theology — the same sort of objection to being guilty for Adam’s sin as for being innocent for Christ’s righteousness.

    This is more common than you think. The accusation of legal fiction began almost immediately because Luther was perceived as advocating a kind of nominalist justification: “We aren’t really righteous, but God will say that we are just because.”

    For example:

    The contrast between Protestant and Catholic doctrine here becomes very striking. For according to the teaching of the Catholic Church the righteousness and sanctity which justification confers, although given to us by God as efficient cause (causa efficiens) and merited by Christ as meritorious cause (causa meritoria), become an interior sanctifying quality or formal cause (causa formalis) in the soul itself, which it makes truly just and holy in the sight of God. In the Protestant system, however, remission of sin is no real forgiveness, no blotting out of guilt. Sin is merely cloaked and concealed by the imputed merits of Christ; God no longer imputes it, whilst in reality it continues under cover its miserable existence till the hour of death. — Cath Enc. “Justification”

    That line of argument has never been abandoned.

    Bob Sungenis: Protestants understand this passage as signifying that God legally credits the sinner with a righteousness which he does not intrinsically possess. God makes, as it were, an entry of infinite righteousness into one column of the sinner’s ledger, which cancels out all the red ink in the other. Thus God can consider the sinner as righteous, and legally declare the sinner to be righteous, even though he is not, and acquit him of guilt, even though he is guilty. Catholics for centuries have justly called this concept a legal fiction. Indeed, basic Christian sense prohibits us from positing that God could declare something to be so (i.e. that the sinner is righteous), yet it not inwardly, ontologically be so. — Reply to James White on Romans 4 and Justification

    The RCC charge of legal fiction is connected to the RCC charge of Antinomianism, for (they allege) failing to require real ontological righteousness as a basis for justification MEANS that people can be justified without law-keeping — which implies (they allege) that our incentive for law-keeping is done away.

    The historic Protestant response to this was duplex gratia and union. We are not justified by a bare legal verdict “just because.” Instead, we are justified by a legal verdict grounded in being in Christ — or having Christ as our federal head. AND, that legal verdict is not based in any way on infused righteousness; and yet, it is never unaccompanied by that infused righteousness. I trust that citations on this point are unnecessary.

    So the constellation of ideas “legal fiction”, “antinomianism”, “double-grace”, and “union” (specifically, federal headship) are all intertwined here.

    DGH:I’m all for doctrinal development and longer answers when necessary. But I still can’t understand the problem that union solves. At first I was told it was the problem of antinomianism. Now it is justification as legal fiction.

    I hope that answers your question. The two problems are interconnected.

    Like

  38. Jeff,

    Actually, my last question was pretty simple, and I’d be satisfied with a simple answer. Let me plot it out a bit:

    Darryl said: “And so, what this means for unionists is that they are talking more about union than justification, and in doing so are missing a fundamental dimension of salvation and the gospel.”

    To which you responded: “It probably depends on the topic of conversation. In our Saturday night study through Galatians, we’ve talked a whole lot about justification and sanctification, but I can’t recall saying anything about union. Rather, the thesis of the study has been, Since we are justified by faith, we are sanctified also by faith. Since we have begun in the Spirit, we must continue in the Spirit.

    Union, if mentioned at all, has been so insignificant that I don’t recall ever mentioning it.”

    The topic of conversation in your Saturday night group is justification/sanctification. And, apparently, you don’t demand much unionism. Here on Wednesday’s and Friday’s the topic is the same, yet you demand a lot of union, or at least as much as there is justification. Why, what accounts for this semeing discrepancy?

    Like

  39. Now this is becoming more clear- union tries to deal with the Roman Catholic objection (which is really the same objection as the revivalist, anabapist, emergent or new perspective on Paul objection to us reformational and creedal christians today) of our justification being a legal fiction (meaning we do not really obey all of the moral law in thought, word or deed) which leads to no incentive for keeping the moral law in our daily lives. Put this way do you see the issues becoming more clear? This gets completely dicey and out of sorts. So unionists are arguing that by our union with Christ we actually do obey all of the moral law in thought, word and deed and the JP folks do not really answer the above objections properly. Thanks, but no thanks, I will stick with simul iestus et peccator. There is no other way of explaining Romans chapter 7. This is definitely a mystery and a paradox but not a contradiction. That satisfies us Lutherans buy you Reformed will probably keep arguing about it.

    Like

  41. Zrim: And, apparently, you don’t demand much unionism. Here on Wednesday’s and Friday’s the topic is the same, yet you demand a lot of union, or at least as much as there is justification. Why, what accounts for this semeing discrepancy?

    I don’t have anyone in my study who is dogmatically insisting that justification causes sanctification.

    It’s fairly simple: as long as our justification-o-centrism doesn’t swallow up union, then union can remain in the background and justification in the foreground (as in the Standards). For example, we should not say that “union manifests our justification.”

    But at the point that we start making justification the architectural center of our salvation, so that all saving graces are caused by justification, then we pull out union and WLC 69 and WSC 30 as a necessary corrective.

    Some people do theology by trying to find the High Road to Knowledge, the big idea that explains everything.

    I don’t; I do theology by establishing boundary markers and allowing freedom within those markers.

    So union for me is not a high road to understanding all of salvation. Rather, it is a boundary marker that says, “We are justified in Christ, not apart from him. Our sanctification is an infused grace distinct from, but never apart from, our justification by imputed righteousness.”

    Within those boundaries, there is room for justification to be central.

    Like

  42. John Y: union tries to deal with the Roman Catholic objection (which is really the same objection as the revivalist, anabapist, emergent or new perspective on Paul objection to us reformational and creedal christians today) of our justification being a legal fiction (meaning we do not really obey all of the moral law in thought, word or deed) which leads to no incentive for keeping the moral law in our daily lives.

    Yes, that is the objection.

    So unionists are arguing that by our union with Christ we actually do obey all of the moral law in thought, word and deed

    No, that isn’t the answer. That answer would be capitulation to Rome, saying that our justification is contingent on our obeying the moral law in thought, word, and deed. Yuck.

    The answer is that the RC objection is based on a false dichotomy. Either, they say, righteousness is ontological, or else it is fiction.

    No, the unionists say, there is a third option: righteousness is federal, obtained legally in Christ through our federal head by imputation.

    John Y: …and the JP folks do not really answer the above objections properly.

    They do alright. The problem is that JP folk tend to think of “union” as a thing instead of a state. We hear statements like “our union saves us” and such, which is awkward.

    “Union” is simply a way to express the state of being united with Christ. I am in Him, He is in me.

    The only sense in which union is central is in the sense that Jesus himself is central.

    Like

  43. John Y

    I don’t know where you are coming from on this issue, but I believe you have misread the situation. The legal fiction argument is ONE example of the issues that union deals with. You state that the union answer to this situation makes the situation “completely dicey and out of sorts” only if you have not understood that issue properly.

    I’ve not read anyone who states that the union answer to legal fiction entails going where you want to go with it! No one has advocated that WE, outside of Christ, keep the law – none at all. Though I am perfectly happy saying that by virtue of union with Christ I am reckonned to be a law-keeper. No, union deals with the issue at the front end of the process, not the back end, so to speak, at least in this discussion. I’ll grant you that I spoke of some, arguing against a legal fiction in terms of justification, but everything I said after that deals with the pre-justification elements of soteriology. Let me put it another way:

    Union states that for us to receive any of the blessings, or indeed to receive Christ himself, in his life, death, resurrection and ascension, we must have been united to him in the first place. That happens in the decree of election “chosen in him before the foundation of the world” (Eph 1:4) Thus at the cross, one aspect of union is already in play – I am eternally and federally “in Christ”. Thus, the only way God can be both just and the justifier of sinners is if His justice is fully satisfied first, and the only way that can happen is by penal substitution. But penal substitution is ‘a legal fiction’ unless the substitute can be identified with the substitutee in a way that is both substantial and legitimate as far as the law is concerned. Otherwise justification is simply an empty pronouncement and God is NOT just when he justifies. And so we have union. Union is right there at the front end of the process – it is that eternal link between Christ and the elect in his life and death etc. That’s all we are saying, nothing more, nothing less. Now when it comes to regeneration and faith, justification etc, it is not that we are brought into union from the outside, as if entering the covenant as an unbeliever. The union was already present, not least in God’s mind and found in Christ. Our apprehension of that union is brought to us as the Spirit calls and works faith in us. Union, which in a sense was outside our experience, is now made part of our experience – hence Gaffin’s label existential union.

    We are not advocating antinomianism or even neo-nominansim. Nor are we denying simul iestus et peccator. Both are evidently true, theologically and experientially. We are simply arguing that believers MUST have a connection to Christ, prior to their justification, otherwise salvation falls like a pack of cards. Again that is not to de-position or devalue justification, it simply lays the ground for it, and rightly situating it adds and not detracts to its wonder and glory.

    Darryl, I’m not sure your theological method here is helpful. What questions are answered by the union doctrine? Our theology it seems is not directed by what questions it might answer or not, so I don’t feel bound by that method. But if you want to ask such questions – union answers a whole lot of them. I outlined that in my earlier post. It’s simply a matter of depth. If you want to understand soteriology (as fully as we are able) you have to deal with union. Even justification is more than just the “believe in the Lord Jesus Christ” message, which though patently sufficient to answer the sinners question, is often not sufficient for understanding. The sinner replies “what does believe mean? which Jesus are you talking about? what is justification? how is it fair that God imputes my sin to Christ and yet I get his righteousness? etc etc” It’s simply a matter of depth. Union is a bigger picture than justification, and a necessary picture, because it is a biblical picture.

    Blessings

    Matt

    Like

  44. So, we really never do obey the moral law in thought, word and deed when we are in this state of union with Christ- right? Do we obey this moral law better because of this state of union? This is what causes me problems- when I start looking at myself for progress in this regard. This is what I see as the exercise in futility. I am just as much a sinner today as I was 34 years ago when I first became conscious that something was definitely remiss with me and I turned to the Gospel as the solution to my problem (by God’s miraculous monergistic work and convincing in my life- although I did not see it that way back then). In fact, I probably am more convinced and aware today that I do not obey the moral law in thought, word and deed (and do not even come close) then I was 34 years ago. My faith in what Christ accomplished for me and my partaking of the Supper regularly are the only things that can ease my condemning conscience in this regard. I am not sure we ever make much progress in actually obeying the moral law in thought, word and deed. We get better at convincing others and ourselves but I am not sure there is actual progress. I am not sure how the concept of union is therefore helpful or what difference it makes.

    Like

  45. Jeff, no one is advocating “just. causes sanct.” I am entertaining it in order to see where its dangers are. I haven’t been spooked yet.

    Also, don’t you think it is ironic that you are saying that union solves the charge of Roman Catholics when union is more generally appealed to to correct the errors of Lutheranism. In other words, if Rome’s objections are the problem, then justification is the answer. If Lutheranism is the problem, then we better rethink Protestantism.

    As far as your sense that union answers the problem of antinomianism, I am not as convinced as you are that this is always the Reformed answer. Heidelberg 86 says that we do good because Christ “by his Spirit is also renewing us to be like himself, so that in all our living we may show that we are thankful to God for all he has done for us, and so that he may be praised through us.” Again, I don’t see union.

    I don’t think it is picky to look for the word union, especially when there is as much imprecision about it and so much of a recent stress upon. I’m looking for guidance and I don’t think I should have to read Cagle in order to understand Heidelberg or Westminster. Somehow, it seems better for it to go the other way. (no offense)

    Matt, the reason for using the theological method of what problems does union fix is because authors like Gaffin have been arguing for some time that the older Reformed teaching is inadequate and needs to be eschatologized and unionized. So I’m asking why? What was defective, or what could be improved? And if I knew of a certain tendency in our circles that union addresses then I’d at least understand and might see the import. But if as Jeff indicates, union is supposed to clear up the problem of antinomianism, when were Presbyterians ever antinomian (except in the heyday of Gil Tennent)? If anything, our tendency is moralism.

    Like

  46. I don’t have anyone in my study who is dogmatically insisting that justification causes sanctification.

    But you also don’t have anyone here doing that. What you have are some who are less threatened by causal language because they aren’t quite as convinced as you that causal language means that the grace that justifies is transformative.

    Like

  47. DGH: No offense taken.

    Zrim: What you have are some who are less threatened by causal language because they aren’t quite as convinced as you that causal language means that the grace that justifies is transformative.

    OK. But do we agree that the grace that justifies is not transformative?

    Like

  48. John Y: I am not sure we ever make much progress in actually obeying the moral law in thought, word and deed. We get better at convincing others and ourselves but I am not sure there is actual progress. I am not sure how the concept of union is therefore helpful or what difference it makes.

    Brother, it sounds like what you’re wrestling with is the nature of sanctification, not of union. For my part, I would say that we mature at the same time that we get an ever-increasing sense of who Christ is. As a result, sanctification may well not “feel” like progress.

    Like

  49. But do we agree that the grace that justifies is not transformative?

    Jeff, I’m uncomfortable with the idea that there are two kinds of graces, which the question can seem to imply. But, yes, I’m with you as you distinguish between imputation (justification) and infusion (sanctification), and I’m pretty sure you agree that both are communicated through faith alone.

    So, for what it’s worth, I’d suggest you lay off insisting that any JP is “dogmatically insisting that justification causes sanctification.” What is being dogamtically insisted upon is that just. is prior to sanct. and it is further admitted that while causal language may not be the greatest language, it is nevertheless not as altogether heinous as you are suggesting.

    Like

  50. To whomever it may concern,

    Actually I am tired and not thinking that clearly today which probably shows in my remarks. The dialog is certainly interesting and worthwhile but I am going to have bow out for now until I am more refreshed and rested. Thanks for your comments- I enjoy reading everyone’s responses on this site and am open to your correction when you feel I am off base. Feel free to correct, exhort or encourage- whatever you think I need.

    I would like to respond to some of things said but I will wait until another time.

    Like

  51. John Y

    I think you are showing your Lutheran colors here my friend. I don’t mean to be insulting. If you are not progressing in your sanctification then there is something wrong with your faith. Scripture gives you warrant after warrant to both progress in sanctification and expect progress in such. Some examples:

    – 2 COR 7:1  Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God.
    – COL 3:5  Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. 6 On account of these the wrath of God is coming. In these you too once walked, when you were living in them.
    – 1 THESS 4:3-5 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God;

    And if you don’t think union helps you put to death the deeds of the flesh read this:
    ROM 6:3-7 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin … (11) so you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

    Dear brother, if you are not having more victory over sin now than 34 years ago, I am deeply sorry for you. The last reference from Romans 6 speaks specifically to the concept of union affecting our growth in grace and sanctification. Because you are united in his death etc, you can walk in newness of life … your old self was crucified with Christ (at the cross) and 34 years ago, and brother, Paul says you are no longer enslaved to sin. That’s union with Christ affecting your sanctification.

    May the Lord bless you
    Matt

    Like

  52. 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.

    Like

  53. 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.

    Like

  54. 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.

    Like

  55. 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

    Like

  56. 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.

    Like

  57. 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.”

    “(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.”

    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.”

    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.”

    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).

    Like

  58. 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.

    Like

  59. 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.

    Like

  60. 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

    Like

  61. 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.

    Like

  62. 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.”

    Like

  63. 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.

    Like

  64. 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”?!

    Like

  65. 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)

    Like

  67. 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.”

    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.”

    “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.”

    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.

    Like

  68. 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.

    Like

  69. 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.

    Like

  70. 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.

    Like

  71. 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

    Like

  72. 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.”

    Like

  73. 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.

    Like

  74. 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.

    Like

  75. 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.

    Like

  76. 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

    Like

  77. 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.

    Like

  78. 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?

    Like

  79. 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?”

    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.

    Like

  80. 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

    Like

  81. 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

    Like

  82. 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.

    Like

  83. 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.

    Like

  84. 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.

    Like

  85. 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.

    Like

  86. 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.”

    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.

    Like

  87. 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.

    Like

  88. 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.

    Like

  89. 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.”

    8) Eph.4:29,32- “Let no corrupting talk come out of you mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear………..be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving on another, as God in Christ forgave you.”

    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.

    Like

  91. 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.

    Like

  93. 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

    Like

  94. 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.

    Like

  95. 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?

    Like

  96. 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?

    Like

  97. 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?

    Like

  101. 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! 🙂

    Like

  103. Not a problem. Would you like a nice white wine with your bluefish? Hmm… perhaps I should go all the way and make your last meal a catered affair? 🙂

    On the serious side, I am sorry this is not a settled subject in Reformed circles. It seems that it should be clear that justification by faith is primary and that union in Christ fleshes out the solas (grace alone, faith alone, and Christ alone) – or did I miss what union is supposed to teach?

    Like

  104. Lily, savignon blanc, please. Chardonnays are usually over-buttered and -oaked.

    Apparently, what union does that justification doesn’t is teach a whole lot more than justification. But if the question is whose righteousness is going to count on judgment day, all those other benefits that union effects without the imputed righteousness of Christ and received by faith crash and burn.

    So the answer appears to be that union also promises sanctification and supposedly beats the rap of antinomianism.

    Like

  105. Savignon blanc it shall be. How about the side dishes? Dessert? Polish it all off with a good cigar and snifter of brandy?

    Re: Apparently….

    Absolutely. Everything crashes and burns without justification. That’s why we see it as central.

    Re: So the answer appears to be that union also promises sanctification and supposedly beats the rap of antinomianism.

    Huh? (Please remember that my original question asked if union fleshed out the solas.)

    I don’t understand the problem. Christ IS our sanctification (and so much more – 1 Cor 30). Wouldn’t the subject of sanctification be part of fleshing out the sola of Christ alone? We have zero sanctification apart from Christ. It is one of the gifts of salvation in Christ. We cannot earn it. It seems to me that Jesus said my work is to believe in him, the bread of life, and trust that God will do everything he promises to do for us in him. When we do what we are supposed to do, we are merely doing our duty (a lovely pride buster).

    I do not understand the concerns about antinomianism. How can you be saved AND want to live a lawless life? We want to obey him because he loves us and we love him.

    As I see it, one problem we all seem to have is the temptation to smuggle works into salvation because our default mode is works-righteousness and our culture reinforces that. Our adversary would love to subvert our faith in Christ alone with works. The other challenge seems to be learning/growing in the knowledge of Christ and how we are to live out our lives here on earth serving our neighbors. But, that is the slow process of discipleship, isn’t it?

    I can’t help scratching my head. Is the fear of antinomianism part of not understanding the gospel, not trusting God to do what he promises to do in us, or part of being a recovering Pharisee?

    Like

  106. P.S. Or… is the fear of antinomianism the fruit of not placing faith alone as the central or controlling doctrine? To understand that I really, truly, absolutely am justified by faith apart from works does cure a multitude of problems doesn’t it?

    Like

  108. DGH,

    I am glad we have harmony. I wanted to ask for clarification, but had an epiphany that I should not. I am rather disappointed at the halt of my plans to give you a pre-funeral feast. It was such fun to tease you! You do have a marvelous sense of humor.

    This is off-topic, but sort of related, and something I thought you might appreciate.

    I was listening to a lecture today that was addressing the divisions within our denomination (LCMS). He said something I thought particularly wise and that would apply to the Reformed as well. In a nutshell his words of wisdom were:

    “Our denomination does not make us Lutheran; it is our confessions that make us Lutheran. It is believing, confessing, and practicing our confessions that make us Lutheran.”

    “Ain’t it the truth,” was all I could think. It’s too easy to add superfluous teachings or wander into evangelical La-La land without realizing it.

    Like

  109. Well, phooey. At the rate I am going, I should be promoted from space cadet to space general any day now. I forgot to include the tie-in to our confessions making us Lutheran that I thought was especially good:

    When we decide matters of faith and practice, we begin with scripture and then the confessions. Then we look at what theologians past and present have to offer.

    I took this as scripture ruling our confessions, and then both scripture and our confessions ruling what the theologians had to offer. I really liked that, but then again, I am of the opinion that there are some theologians who should sit in a corner until they come to their senses.

    Like

  110. I deny that the Holy Spirit is the agent of baptism. Christ baptizes with the Holy Spirit. Nowhere does the Bible teach that the Holy Spirit baptizes into Christ.

    Faith is a result of “regeneration” but “union” is not regeneration, nor is “union” conditioned on regeneration and faith.

    Tradition assumes that the Holy Spirit is the One who puts us into the body of Christ. But no Bible text says that. 1 Corinthians 12:13 “For in (NOT by) one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.”

    It does no good to agree that “union” has different aspects, if in the end you take the “experimental” aspect, and condition everything else on this “faith-union”. The Holy Spirit is not the one who imputes Christ’s righteousness. And Christ cannot be “in us” until we are in “Christ” legally by imputation.

    Like

  111. Comfort…

    I remember reading this back when. Just linked back from Scott Clark’s HB. Essential stuff to be embraced by believers who still sin, like me.

    i request a reprise of Forensic Friday? Ask your superiors if, perchance, it is doable!

    Like

  112. The Reformers understood that grace through our works is a rebellion against God’s way of grace. Justification through our law-keeping means not more obedience but more sin. Romans 5:20–”But law came in, with the result that sin increased.” Not the knowledge of sin increased; sin increased! The result of unity around salvation by our law-keeping is always more sin. To be protestant means saying that we are justified not by our life together nor by our works, but only because of the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

    We have “become the righteousness of God in Christ” by God’s imputation of the one man’s obedience, even unto death. The Christian life is not the way we make payments back on our justification; the Christian life is the party the Father gives the returning prodigal. Neither our justification nor our life as Christians depends on our moral progress. Indeed, all our works are only acceptable if we are already justified before God.

    This is good news! This is radical grace, not the grace with strings attached and “fine print” later.

    Like

  113. The nation-states have always appreciated the moralism of the churches to make for them “good citizens”, but those nation-states have nothing to gain from the good news of grace. The rulers are happy when we repress ourselves in methodist fear of losing our salvation. The NSA and Homeland Security are glad for us to police ourselves. But what do those institutions which operate by the abcs of this age have to gain from our teaching grace, and by our living as though we believed in grace?

    William Blake

    The Moral Virtues in Great Fear
    Formed the Cross & Nails & Spear
    And the Accuser Standing By
    Cried out Crucify Crucify

    If Moral Virtue was Christianity
    Christ’s Pretensions were all Vanity

    Like

  114. But surely there’s got to be more to life than “merely” NOT having our sins imputed to us, isn’t there, Jack? At the end of the day, I say, NOT SO MUCH.

    Who in our day cares about not having sins credited to them? Can’t we now get over that basic fact, and get on with it, and concern ourselves now with moral progress? Our sins are not counted against us. So what? Who in our age now is so selfish and individualistic to still bother about if their sins are counted against them? Those of us who rejoice in the gospel…

    But isn’t it dangerous for God to not count our sins against us? Maybe there’s a not yet aspect of our justification in which God’s work in us by the Holy Spirit will be brought in as an additional factor, so that we can now still have various different motivations, including the beauty of threats and the loss of assurance, and whatever else that works to get us on the move…Jack, don’t you know that there’s a debate about too much emphasis on the forensic?

    The parasites and the prodigals say to the elder brothers, take it up with the Father, who now gives the party… But wouldn’t it be better now, in the present fight against secularism and Obamism, to keep a stoic stiff upper lip and not “rock the boat” about grace, and accept the “tension” between grace motives and other motives? So what if some works are not done from a clean conscience but done in order to keep the conscience clean? Why rock the boat just because grace happens to work for you, when being a pastor in a coalition which is more than a small sect means that we need to get along with people who operate out of different motives. .

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.