At a conference last weekend on the family and liberty in the early American republic, I read the following from James Wilson’s Lectures on Law (Wilson was, of course, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and one of George Washington’s original appointees to the Supreme Court). When I read it I couldn’t help but think it made union with Christ concrete in ways that “mystical†union do not. Wilson writes:
In pursuance of this principle, a crime, except treason and murder, committed by the husband and wife, shall be charged against him solely; because the law will supposed that she acted under his influence or coercion. In pursuance of the same principle, a husband and wife cannot be witnesses for or against one another; if they were permitted to give testimony for one another, one maxim of the law would be violated – No one can be a witness in his own cause: if they were permitted to give testimony against one another, another maxim of the law would be violated – No one is obliged to accuse himself. . . .
The refined delicacy of the maxim – that husband and wife are considered as one person by our law – appears now in a beautiful and striking point of view. The rights, the enjoyments, the obligations, and the infelicities of the matrimonial state are so far removed from her protection or redress, that she will not appear as an arbitress; but, like a candid and benevolent neighbour, will presume, for she wishes, all to be well.
I know Zrim has been trying to make this point about marriage as a window on union. So I am not claiming anything new. What is striking about Wilson’s lecture, though, is the idea that by virtue of the law, a married couple are one person, so that the benefits and liabilities of each partner extend to the other. If that’s what union with is driving at, giddy up. Also, worthy of note is Wilson’s remark about the effects of union on the wife, as in prompting her to presume “all to be well,†which suggests that the forensic reality changes the wife’s disposition.
Makes perfect sense to me.
Old Life 
The problem with this analogy is that the declaration creates the union.
Meanwhile, as WSC 30 makes clear, the union is manifested by the declaration.
LikeLike
I think that there is an inherent flaw with this analogy that keeps being brought up to bolster the JP view. If we are going to use this analogy then it seems we would not be talking about the existential union of individual believers to Christ. We are not, individually, wed to Christ. To follow the analogy we would want to look at the final consummate union between Christ and the Church in the future. That kind of union is in the future and, in a sense, separated from and following from the justification of individual believers (though related).
But this is not what the existential union is speaking of in relationship to justification.
LikeLike
Hey Darryl,
I think you hit on something very important here in the debate. I think the marriage-union has deep forensic roots that lend credence to the priority of justification. In traditional western weddings, we usually DECLARE IN THE EYES OF THE LAW a man and woman to be husband and wife after the vows have all been made AND THEN we let them go to their hotel room TO BE HUSBAND AND WIFE (“one flesh”). We don’t usually reverse that order, do we? I know this is just an illustration, but this imagery and order also has deep biblical roots where marriage ceremonies not only open the door to physical union, but also presupposes a legal declaration of entering into a marriage covenant (cf. Gen. 3.21; Ezek. 16; see also Kingdom Prologue, p. 151ff; Images of the Spirit, pp. 50ff).
LikeLike
BTW, after the legal declaration of marriage (“I now pronounce you husband and wife”), they are husband and wife. The legal declaration becomes the legal reality that allows the other realities to be legitimate, i.e. they can do “husband and wife stuff”, (“marital relations”) that they would not be able to apart this legal reality.
This is the reason why I counsel young couples to have as short an engagement as they possibly can, because as the Westminster Directory for Worship states, “undue delay of marriage is sin”.
LikeLike
James ~ do you think it odd, at all, to push a western view of how marriage happens upon how our salvation happens? Isn’t this working backwards? Where, in scripture, do you see the particularly western and US model for marriage?
LikeLike
dgh,
I just heard your interview on the heidelcast and enjoyed it. I thought you were far more gracious and cautious than R. Scott Clark was. I liked the way you did not hammer the ordo even though he wanted you to. But I wonder why you didn’t bring up the hub of the matter? I mean, if the point of disagreement here is definitive sanctification then why do we keep bantering about JP versus Union? I don’t think that the Union view is a new way to think about justification – as you put it in the interview – but a way to talk about salvation. I don’t think it is new. I am currently building a bibliography for my current research on union and, to be honest, I am finding it everywhere. My hope, once I complete this work, is to begin laboring on the question of definitive sanctification.
I agree with you, fwiw, on the point that we don’t believe in being saved differently from Lutherans. Both Reformed and Lutheran believe in salvation through faith in Christ alone. That is not in question. There is a question in how we discuss it in our respective theologies. That is not speaking judgment against the Lutherans, though, but saying that we have disagreements on how to describing soteriology.
LikeLike
Hey cnh,
It’s just an illustration that has similarities to that of Scripture. And, it’s not a complete stretch to see how some western common grace legal insights about the nature of marriage and law compares to that described in Scripture.
It made me think of Jacob’s wedding to Leah and how he got “stuck” with her after the ceremony and wedding night. Now, I’m not saying that every single marriage reflects the way we do it in the west, today. But, it just serves as a good analogy for theological reflection.
Don’t we use “contemporary western” illustrations all the time to describe Scriptural truths? i.e., Justification (law courts), Adoption, Covenant-making (international treaties), etc.
FWIW, I believe in the centrality of Union for the context of salvation, but I also see the priority of Justification in the application of Christ and His benefits. I think you can keep them both in their proper relationship without doing violence to the importance of either.
What I think is problematic is the idea that union, although central, erases any priorities or order in the ordo salutis. For example, we say that “regeneration precedes faith”, right? That is what distinguishes us from Arminians. But, if they are both in Christ and no benefit has any priority over any other because all that matters is our union with Christ, then we have no ground upon which to distinguish ourselves from Arminians.
LikeLike
Dear Dr. Hart,
Thank you for your books and writings, blogs, etc., that you have done. I have truly appreciated your work and have benefited from it. In particular, I have been reading lately your writings on unionists.
I confess I don’t understand everything that is said by you or your foes. However, I understand enough to say that I heartily agree with you.
I recently heard you on the Heidelblog talking about this issue and the dialogue you have had with unionists. I think your lament toward the end of the interview said it all: why are we so reluctant to question the confessions’s understanding of justification by faith alone? It is such a comforting doctrine that frees us to at last forget ourselves. Why do so many in the Reformed camp seem so quick to add to it- or to not believe it at all? Why are we so quick to make it confusing?
Your lament seems to encapsulate and summarize the whole issue.
It seems that many churches in my area hold to fuzzy views of justification- there is a real lack of clarity. Some may not even KNOW what Federal Vision is, but I think they have been influenced by it… touched by it’s ubiquitous tentacles. The result is the WHI’s category of go-laws-pel. This is very sad.
Anyway, I am simply writing as an effort to encourage you in your fight… and to thank you. What you are doing is so important and helpful. I know it is not in vain (1 Cor. 15:58).
With friendship and gratitude,
chuck fry
LikeLike
James ~ you obviously have a good point about illustrations, which is why I tend to not use them in my preaching.
Anyway, you seem to be where I was when I started conversing on this blog. That is, I used to think that the two views were compatible. I did some talking with proponents from each coast and found out, much to my chagrin, that I was being naive. The two are not compatible. Union says that justification, adoption and definitive sanctification all take place simultaneously. The ordo view, well, says there’s an order. Incompatible.
That said, I don’t believe that the Calvinist defense against Arminianism falls. That is, it would still be God, by the Spirit, moving our wills to take hold of Christ by faith. That is not to say, though, that justification can have no priority over sanctification. I have stated before that it I view it as a conceptual priority. But it is not a temporal priority nor is it causal of the other benefits.
Thank you for the challenge, though, on the illustration. I had in mind Isaac and Rebekah, particularly Genesis 24:67 where the marriage is official after she goes into the tent with him. My only point was that I don’t know if using our western marriage customs as the governing factor in understanding our salvation is altogether helpful. At least it isn’t for me.
LikeLike
Point well taken. It’s nice to meet you, albeit in such an informal forum. Thanks for your gracious response. I’ll keep your comments in mind.
BTW, Isaac and Rebekah’s “wedding” is still shocking to me, no matter how many times I read it.
LikeLike
cnh,
I think that there is an inherent flaw with this analogy that keeps being brought up to bolster the JP view. If we are going to use this analogy then it seems we would not be talking about the existential union of individual believers to Christ. We are not, individually, wed to Christ. To follow the analogy we would want to look at the final consummate union between Christ and the Church in the future.
Granted, an individual is not united the same way a corporate entity is. But if I am part of the church, and if the church is wed to Christ, may I not say that I am united to Christ? If a woman with children marries a man, and he legally adopts them, may we not say that the children he adopts, though not wed to him, are nevertheless united to him? She is united to him by marriage, they by adoption.
But analogies always break down, because they are merely analogies. I think the point of the analogy is that without a necessarily prior declaration two entities are now as united as they formerly were separate. If the analogy doesn’t work for you how about a parallel: your daughter decides to shack up with her boyfriend, claiming she is as united to him as you are to mom and doesn’t need the “necessary paperwork†to make it legit. How does the priority of a legal declaration look now?
LikeLike
Zrim,
I grant that I would want my daughter to have a legal declaration prior to “shacking up”. My point was not that. It was that we don’t want to force our western marriage rules as the way we see salvation. That was all. I still think that the analogy is inherently flawed because our union with Christ, in the marriage sense, is not consummated until He returns. My individual, existential union to Christ is not my marriage to Him. The Church is the Bride and I am merely a brick in the New Jerusalem. Correct me, biblically or theologically, if I am wrong.
I have never heard of adopting children spoken of as a ‘union’. I am intrigued. Say more. I have never adopted a child so is this standard language in such a situation? Is it Biblical language for adoption? Confessional?
I am united to Christ now even as I wait for the final marriage union between the Bride and the Groom. I just think that the analogy is poor. That said, in our Western way of viewing things we do see the legal declaration as coming prior to the union. But we would not want to hold that in the area of salvation – as Jeff pointed out – the benefits are a manifestation of our union with Christ. The union is obviously prior. It is so in Calvin, Beza, Perkins, the Divines, Owen, Berkhof, Vos, Ridderbos, etc, etc, etc. This is not taking away from justification that which it does as a benefit of union (as dgh says, it solves the guilt problem). It is simply looking at salvation as a whole rather than at each gem, individually. Adore the gem of justification – but realize, as Calvin says, that we can nothing so long as we are separated from Christ.
Maybe we are just talking past one another…perhaps the ‘legal’ aspect in the analogy would be found in the pactum salutis. That covenant comes before my union with Christ. I just don’t think that my justification comes before my union with Christ.
LikeLike
cnh,
But the comment I was responding to came before James’ point about legal declarations. And in that comment you were questioning the marital analogy, which, along with the rest of your comment, seemed to suggest you’re not sold on the priority of justification. And my point is that, if we can see how necessary and prior a legal declaration is in temporal affairs, how much more so must it be in eternal concerns? This isn’t to foist western notions of marriage onto the project of salvation, it is merely to employ an admittedly limited analogy to help make the point.
Re adoption, well, we are said to be adopted sons, yes? We aren’t natural sons, that’s for sure. But, just as in temporal ways, we cannot be said to even be adopted until something legal has been declared. And once it is declared we are as good as natural. But the temporal version of downplaying the priority of eternal legal declarations is the one who wants an inheritance from someone he never got around to legally binding himself to.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I am downplaying priority in a temporal sense, yes. The Westminster Catechism binds my conscience in that regard. I have taken vows to agree with the system of doctrine taught in those Standards and I take that seriously. I am sorry if you do not agree. This is not taking away from justification its importance – not in the least.
You said, “But the temporal version of downplaying the priority of eternal legal declarations is the one who wants an inheritance from someone he never got around to legally binding himself to.”
I am not quite sure what to make of this statement. First of all, I don’t legally bind myself to Christ…the Spirit unites me to Him. It is not my choice…God draws me. He is the one who works in my salvation.
I am still not certain that the analogy makes the point you want it to make. If we say that the analogy is better fitted to Christ and the Church and that the consummation comes in the end then I don’t know, exactly, what is left of the analogy except to keep pushing the “declaration before union” mantra, which is not Confessional and I don’t think it is Scriptural. Now, I am not certain of your perspective. Maybe the Catechism you subscribe to begins by speaking of justification rather than “belonging to Christ”. I don’t know. But as I survey the historical theological landscape, yes, when talking about justification it is extremely important…but none of the benefits (not even justification) come apart from or prior to union. I’m not sure what is difficult about that to understand.
Can you explain to me, apart from the limited marriage analogy, why you believe that justification must come prior to union. I don’t even think that Dr. Hart argues this way. He seems ok with ideas like simultaneity union so long as the material principle of the Reformation is maintained. He has me sold on that, by the way. But I don’t quite understand your reasoning. Maybe I am missing something else you have written? I am happy to learn.
LikeLike
Martin LutherGeerhardus Vos thinks that justification is the act in which religion celebrates its triumph:“Ultimately, the absoluteness of the divine self-committal inhering in this one act of justifying the sinner is due to the feature of its being a “God-interesting†act in the strongest sense of the word. It is the act in which religion celebrates its triumph, and therefore the act in which the religious and the eschatological are inseparably united.†The Pauline Eschatology pg. 58.
Martin LutherGeerhardus Vos also thinks that the forensic is “supremeâ€:“So far this is only looking at the question from the purely human standpoint of the religious thinker. But we dare not dismiss the point without reminding ourselves that the completeness and logical coherence of the truth taught through its organs is a preeminent postulate of revelation. It is for these reasons a priori to be expected that the two strands discoverable shall not be entirely equal in rank within the system of doctrine, for that would yield a dualism hard to put up with. And so soon as the question is raised, through the principal superiority of which of the two spheres the necessary balance and symmetry is safeguarded, the solution can be hardly other than that the forensic principle is supreme and keeps in subordination to itself the transforming principle. Justification and sanctification are not the same, and an endless amount of harm has been done by the short-sighted attempt to identify them.†The Pauline Eschatology pg. 149.
Martin LutherLouis Berkhof thinks that sanctification is the fruit of justification:“Especially in view of the activism that is such a characteristic feature of the American religious life, and which glorifies the work of man rather than the grace of God, it is necessary to stress the fact over and over again that sanctification is the fruit of justification, that the former is simply impossible without the latter, and that both are the fruits of the grace of God in the redemption of sinners.†Systematic Theology pg. 535.
And on the next page, an interesting word pops up that seems to indicate priority:
“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 his 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 workout this holiness for ourselves, He freely works it within us through the Holy Spirit on the basis of the righteousness of Jesus Christ 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.†Systematic Theology pg. 535.
On the same page (it spills over to 536), note what Berkhof condemns:
“Barth has a rather unusual representation of the relation between justification and sanctification. In order to ward off all self-righteousness, he insists on it that the two always be considered jointly. They go together and should not be considered quantitatively, as if the one followed the other….McConnachie, who is a very sympathetic interpreter of Barth, says: “Justification and sanctification are, therefore, to Barth, two sides of one act of God upon men. Justification is the pardon of the sinner (justification impii), by which God declares the sinner righteous. Sanctification is the sanctification of the sinner (sanctificatio impii) by which God declares the sinner “holyâ€.†However laudable the desire of Barth to destroy every vestige of work-righteousness, he certainly goes to an unwarranted extreme, in which he virtually confuses justification and sanctification, negatives the Christian life, and rules out the possibility of confident assurance.â€
Now that sounds familiar.
LikeLike
RL – Some of your quotes are out of context. That’s fine. We can all proof-text our views, I suppose. The problem with the Barth section (nice tactic, though) is that Barth is making justification and progressive sanctification two sides of the same coin. I’ve read Barth on the matter. He is not dealing with what Murray calls definitive sanctification. That is where this discussion needs to go. Of course justification has priority, even temporal priority, to progressive sanctification. But not to definitive sanctification. Furthermore, none of your quotes are actually talking about union. Find the quotes in most all of these authors on union and you will find that they give it a place before justification. You are jumping into the middle of the discussion with quotes that are irrelevant to the post. But thanks for the quote list.
LikeLike
cnh:
Is the debate really about definitive sanctification? Here’s what Garcia said in his article in ordained servant reviewing Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry:
“This brings us to a related problem, this time only with a view to CJPM. Despite the clear witness in the texts of the tradition, especially but far from exclusively in Calvin (see especially his commentary on 1 Cor. 1:30), that justification, sanctification, and any other graces of salvation are distinct, inseparable, and simultaneously bestowed aspects of union with Christ, the contributors to CJPM argue otherwise, and do so with evident passion. They prefer instead the classical Lutheran construct in which sanctification flows from justification, and to identify the Reformed tradition wholly with it.”
For example, Clark insists that, in excluding sanctity from the ground or instrument of justification, the Heidelberg Catechism teaches instead “that sanctification is the only and always the result of justification, (sic)” referring to questions 21, 56, and 60.[14] For VanDrunen, those who teach a view other than the allegedly “Reformed teaching on justifying faith and the obedience that flows from it …,” i.e., that “… obedience … inevitably flows from justifying faith …,” belong to a class of “Reformed Revisionists” (49). Indeed, according to VanDrunen, “the Reformation has always taught that sanctification is a fruit of justifying faith” (50). He claims that attacks on our (Westminster) confessional doctrine of justification involve a “denial that good works are to be seen entirely as the fruits of justifying faith” (50).[15] The impression is clear that the only alternative to confusion on the meritorious grounds and instrumentality in justification is to speak of obedience in classically Lutheran terms. Indeed Clark frames the Reformation in just this way: “Before the Reformation,” he writes, “we were said to be justified to the extent that we were sanctified. In the Reformation that pattern was reversed: sanctification was made the result of justification” (21). Compare VanDrunen’s identical way of framing the relationship (30), Godfrey’s similar discussion of justification and “its fruit in holiness” (280), and Jones on justification as the “launchpad for sanctification” (296), as further examples of a persistent theme.”
The phrase “definitive sanctification” appears nowhere in the article. There is no doubt that this article and the response to it is one of the flash points in the debate, and it is nowhere indicated that Garcia is criticizing the book’s view of definitive sanctification.
LikeLike
CNH:
You wanted Berkhof on union. Here’s Berkhof on union:
he says:
“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 aspects of that union, namely, its subjective realization by the operation of the Holy Spirit, and it is this aspect of it that is naturally in the foreground in soteriology. All that is said in the rest of this chapter bears on this subjective union.” Systematic Theology page 450.
Still in the same chapter and a mere two pages later, Berkhof says:
“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 the basis of our oneness with Him that such an imputation could be reasonable. But this view fails to distinguish between our legal unity with Christ and our spiritual oneness with Him, and is a falsification of the fundamental element in the doctrine of redemption, namely, the doctrine of justification. Justification is always a declaration of God, not on the basis of an existing condition, but on that of a gracious imputation, — a declaration which is not in harmony with the existing condition of the sinner. The judicial ground for all the special grace which we receive lies in the fact that the righteousness of Christ is freely imputed to us.”
LikeLike
RL: good point. Garcia doesn’t mention DS. I guess that means it isn’t the point. Thanks for playing. I am sorry that he doesn’t mention it. Gaffin points out in the address he gave at the GA last year that justification is prior to progressive sanctification but not definitive. I hear that someone from WSC has an article coming out on the topic this year and R. Scott Clark has already blasted Murray for being less than Reformed on the topic. So, I will stand by my assertion.
Thanks again for the Berkhof quotes. I will have more time in the future to interact with them. I would whole heartedly concur that union is not a judicial ground. That would be silly. Justification is the judicial ground. The union view does not in any way remove from justification its forensic character. It’s almost like you are purposely misunderstanding the view being put forward. It’s as though justification must so overshadow union that it comes after justification. But that can’t be right…is it? Once more, I am not talking about the relationship between justification and sanctification (but thanks for the Garcia quotes) but the relationship between justification and union. While DS is the crux of the matter…sorry if you don’t agree…the post is a question of the relationship of J to U.
Thanks again for the interaction.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I think your adoption analogy is right on the money. Berkhof says something similar. He first notes that “We distinguish two elements in justification, the one negative, and the other positive.” ST 514. The negative is, of course, “the remission of sins on the ground of the atoning work of Jesus Christ.” Id. The positive element “is based more on the active obedience of Christ.” And he further divides the positive into two subparts: (a) The adoption of children and (b) The right to eternal life.
Says Berkhof:
“The right to eternal life. This element is virtually included in the preceding one [i.e. adoption]. When sinners are adopted to be the children of God, they are invested with all the legal and filial rights, and become heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, Rom 8:17. This means first of all that they become heirs of all the blessings of salvation in the present life, the most fundamental of which is described in the words, “the promise of the Spirit,” that is, the promised blessing in the form of the Spirit, Gal. 3:14; and in the slightly different phrase, “the Spirit of His Son,” Gal. 4:6. And in and with the Spirit they receive all the gifts of Christ. But this is not all; their inheritance also includes the eternal blessings of the future life. The glory of which Paul speaks in Rom. 8:17 follows after the sufferings of the present time. According to Rom. 8:23 the redemption of the body, which is called “the adoption,” also belongs to the future inheritance. And in the ordo salutis of Rom. 8:29,30 glorification connects up immediately with justification. Being justified by faith, believers are heirs of eternal life.” ST 516.
So, it’s just like you said, our inheritance is based on our legal standing, and that inheritance includes the promised Spirit, all the gifts of Christ, and all of the other blessings of salvation in the present life. On the basis of this analysis, Berkhof relates justification to spiritual union like this:
“It is said this doctrine [justification by faith alone] is ethically subversive, because it leads to licentiousness. But there is no truth in this whatsoever, as even the lives of the justified clearly show. In justification the sure foundation is laid for that vital spiritual union with Christ which secures our sanctification. It really leads right on to the only conditions under which we can be truly holy in principle. The man who is justified also receives the spirit of sanctification, and is the only who can about in good works which will glorify God.” 524.
Berkhof answers the ever-vexing charge of lawlessness by showing not that justification is a fruit of union but that justification is the foundation of union. This is the orthodox Protestant position.
LikeLike
Any number of quotes from Berkhof cannot overturn the teaching of the Standards.
(1) Justification is a manifestation of union.
A manifestation of something cannot also be its foundation.
(2) Redemption is applied to us by creating faith in us, thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling.
Unless we want to think of justification as something other than an application of redemption (anyone want to make THAT case?), then uniting us to Christ is prior to justification.
It’s interesting that the Confession and Confession provide very little in the way of establishing an ordo — but here they do.
ANY account that seeks to make justification the ground of, basis of, or cause of union must first address these two facts in a satisfactory way.
RL, Berkhof deals with ordo in terms of sanctification. He says:
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. — ST, 536.
What we notice here about B. is that he treats sanctification in its progressive aspect only. Thus, it is incorrect to treat his arguments concerning sanctification as if they were proxies for union.
When he speaks of regeneration, he speaks of it as the “beginning of sanctification.” This is (or includes) what cnh and others have been talking about as “definitive sanctification.” To establish that justification is the basis for definitive sanctification, one must establish that justification is the basis for regeneration. Terms must be mapped properly, and Berkhof’s “sanctification” does not map properly to sanctification as cnh and I have been using it.
Additionally, as you know well, B. distinguishes between mystical union and vital union. Your use of the quote from 524 passes without comment between Berkhof’s “vital union” and more general “union.”
Finally, I’m surprised that you, a Confessional man, would assert Berkhof as “the orthodox Protestant position”, using him to argue for something that is in apparent contradiction to the Standards.
LikeLike
Is marriage really only an analogy. It is one of the metaphors that Scripture uses to describe our union to Christ. In which case I belong to him in a way that my wife belongs to me. I guess by adding “in a way” means that the similarity is not exact. And yet I find it odd that the unionists want to down play marriage when it is finally a concrete and biblical metaphor for a truth that proponents of “mystical union” lack (i.e., I’m still trying to wrap my head around what union to Christ means — except for that it rules out justification priority.)
LikeLike
dgh, my intention (if I am the mentioned ‘unionist’) is not to downplay the marriage union…it was to downplay the ‘how’ of it all. Making western marriage customs the rule for understanding how salvation happens is where my concern was. I am sorry if I did not state it that way. But it seemed to be a constant drum of “legal declaration THEN union” which would mean that justification comes before our union with Christ. This is contra the Standards, Calvin and, I believe, Scripture.
Once more, this does not rob justification of its crucial role in salvation…but it is looking at salvation through another lens. I don’t know why that is improper. Justification remains the hinge, the material principle of the reformation and the declaratory benefit that it always was. But it is a benefit of union with Christ. That is also how our Standards view it.
LikeLike
Jeff and cnh,
On this matter of definitive sanctification, I still think you guys need to recognize it is not there in
Berkhof and others. We used to talk about regeneration. If they had wanted to talk about DS, the way Murray did, they could have, but they didn’t.
It think it is also important to see that regeneration and sanctification are different, which is why WCF 13 uses the language of regeneration in distinction from sanctification. Regeneration is about turning the heart of stone into one of flesh. It is a way of explaining how someone who is dead can have faith. Sanctification is about, as the unionists keep telling us, moral renovation. In other words, it seems to me that regeneration is necessary to explain faith, while sanctification is necessary to explain good works.
I also wonder if you see how garbled the union view is if you insist on DS the way you do. The point of union is to say that just. and sanct. are simultaneous but distinct, no priority, no order. But with DS in view, DS precedes justification. And with DS in view, justification precedes PS (progressive sanctification). So the whole point about simultaneity crumbles. I mean, if you want to insist that JP is wrong because it denies simultaneity, wouldn’t it be good for you to abide by your own rules?
Jeff, I’ll take the bait on justification as an application of redemption. You are very precise in claiming that justification is a manifestation of union. Well, a similar precision would regard justification not as application but a benefit, as in what benefits do they that are effectually called partake of in this life? And to be additionally precise, union is application of redemption, as in how does the spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ — working faith in us, thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling.
So as Zrim pointed out in another thread, union is about the Spirit and the application of redemption, justification is about the redemption — that is, the benefits purchased by Christ. I do think that the disagreements here stem from benefits discourse talking past application terminology. But I blame unionists for this — surprise — because of the propensity of BT to eclipse the precision of ST.
LikeLike
You have a lot more work to do if you’re going to use that one. For example, I would maintain it is not entirely improper to say a house is manifested by its parts, roof, walls, and its foundation. That a foundation can be part of the whole does have some support in Scripture in 1 Cor 3:10 “According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.”
While there may be some more narrow ways or circumstances in which that quoted assertion may be true, it is not true in the general sense, and you provided no argumentation that a) such circumstances actually exist, or b) demonstrated that your reference to the confession’s statement of the benefits of salvation manifesting our union witch Christ is one of those.
To make such a broad assertion at the starting point of your argument does more to undermine it than to support it, at least for this reader.
LikeLike
dgh, thank you for the challenges. I think I could actually get on board with your view of JP because I think it is in contradiction to what some others hold. I could tell that tension even a bit in your interview on the Heidelcast.
I have not done all of the historical work to declare whether DS is anywhere other than in Murray. That is something I am interested in. If he posited a completely new idea in Reformed Theology then it needs to be considered carefully and, if it is found wanting, then it needs to be discarded. I don’t know that he made it up nor do I know that it should be discarded. Ask me in a couple of years. But I do think that is the topic over which the discussion needs to take place. I think this for two reasons:
1. Unionists admit a kind of priority of justification to progressive sanctification. Now, dgh, I don’t believe this is a temporal priority, strictly speaking, so that they are guilty of breaking up their understanding of simultaneity. Rather, I think that J, A, DS and the beginnings of PS are received through union with Christ. They are benefits that manifest our union to use Confessional language.
2. Several JPers seem to admit a sort of simultaneity. VanDrunen does so in one of his addresses at WSC, you seem to be alright with it and I have read some by Horton that seems to go in that direction.
Where the two coasts (and views) differ is on the topic of DS.
But I don’t believe, as you seem to imply, that this causes DS to eclipse everything else. It certainly does not make DS do what J does.
LikeLike
DGH: On this matter of definitive sanctification, I still think you guys need to recognize it is not there in Berkhof and others. We used to talk about regeneration. If they had wanted to talk about DS, the way Murray did, they could have, but they didn’t.
I agree with you. The terminology of “definitive sanctification” is of relatively recent origin (Murray, I guess – I’m not aware of it being earlier).
BUT
Berkhof and others, in fact going all the way back to Calvin, speak of regeneration as the beginning of sanctification.
So I don’t care much whether we speak of “definitive sanctification” or “the beginning of sanctification.” The point remains that the beginning of sanctification is not justification, but simultaneous with it.
The core point here is that certain transformations — specifically, the creation of the new man — occur prior to justification. They are by no means the ground for justification (not logical priority) but occur in time — a split second! — prior to justification.
So making justification “the cause” of sanctification overlooks these transformative events.
The point of union is to say that just. and sanct. are simultaneous but distinct, no priority, no order.
You need to distinguish between logical order and temporal order here. Logical priority, yes. Temporal priority (and thus causation), no. Part of what has happened here is that you’ve taken a legitimate logical priority and tried to re-cast it as a temporal priority: justification comes before union and creates it.
DGH: Well, a similar precision would regard justification not as application but a benefit, as in what benefits do they that are effectually called partake of in this life?
Those are not said to be benefits of union. Those are said to be benefits of Christ’s mediation (WLC 57). Union is the method of application of those benefits.
DGH: And to be additionally precise, union is application of redemption, as in how does the spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ — working faith in us, thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling.
Exactly so. Union is nothing more nor less than the application of redemption to us: justification, sanctification, adoption, and the rest. All of our salvation occurs in Christ.
Fisher’s Commentary on WSC 30:
Q. 1. What is the special work of the Spirit in the application of redemption?
A. It is the uniting us to Christ, Rom. 8:9, 11.
Q. 2. Can we have no share in the redemption purchased by Christ, without union to his person?
A. No; because all purchased blessings are lodged in his person, John 3:35, and go along with it, 1 John 5:12.
Q. 3. What is it to be united to his person?
A. It is to be joined to, or made one with him, 1 Cor. 6:17.
Q. 28. Is it a legal union that is between Christ and believers?
A. Though not a mere legal union, yet it is a union sustained in law, in so far, as that upon the union taking place, what Christ did and suffered for them, is reckoned in law as if they had done and suffered it themselves: hence they are said to be “crucified with Christ,” Gal. 2:20; to be “buried with him,” Col. 2:12; and to be “raised up together,” Eph. 2:6.
Q. 29. What are the bonds of this union?
A. The Spirit on Christ’s part, 1 John 3:24, and faith on ours, Eph. 3:17.
Q. 30. Is it the Spirit on Christ’s part, or faith on ours, that unites the sinner to Christ?
A. They both concur in their order: Christ first apprehends the sinner by his Spirit, 1 Cor. 12:13; and the sinner thus apprehended, apprehends Christ by faith, Phil. 3:12.
Q. 39. When does the Spirit work faith in us, and thereby unite us to Christ?
A. He does it in our effectual calling, 1 Cor. 1:9.
Fisher’s understanding of WSC 30, at least, is quite obviously union –> justification.
LikeLike
Andrew: For example, I would maintain it is not entirely improper to say a house is manifested by its parts, roof, walls, and its foundation.
To “manifest” something means to show it, display it, or prove it. I can’t understand how a house could be manifested by its parts.
I can understand seeing the parts of a house and saying, “There’s the house.” But in that case, the parts constitute the house; they do not manifest it. The parts are not displaying anything; they are the thing.
To say that A manifests (shows, displays) B means that A is the evidence and B the root or cause of that evidence.
For example, “The heavens display the glory of God” means that God’s glory, the more basic thing, is seen in its effect in the heavens.
LikeLike
Guys, does anyone have on hand Vos’s commentary on the WLC? I think it might shed some light on some of these questions.
LikeLike