We must take our definition from the etymology of the word. When men grasp the conception of things with the mind and the understanding they are said “to know,†from which the word “knowledge†is derived. In like manner, when men have an awareness of divine judgment adjoined to them as a witness which does not let them hide their sins but arraigns them as guilty before the judgment seat – this awareness is called “conscience.†It is a certain mean between God and man, for it does not allow man to suppress within himself what he knows, but pursues him to the point of making him acknowledge his guilt. This is what Paul means when he teaches that conscience testifies to men, while their thoughts accuse or excuse them in God’s judgment (Rom. 2:15-16). A simple awareness could repose in man, bottled up, as it were. Therefore, this feeling, which draws men to God’s judgment, is like a keeper assigned to man, that watches and observes all his secrets so that nothing may remain buried in darkness. Hence that ancient proverb: conscience is a thousand witnesses. By like reasoning, Peter also put “the response of a good conscience to God†(1 Peter 3:21) as equivalent to peace of mind, when, convinced of Christ’s grace, we fearlessly present ourselves before God. And when the author of of The Letter to the Hebrews states that we “no longer have any consciousness of sin†(Heb. 10:2), he means that we are freed or absolved so that sin can no longer accuse us.
Therefore, just as works concern men, so the conscience relates to God in such a way that a good conscience is nothing but an inward uprightness of heart. In this sense, Paul writes that “the fulfillment of the law is love, out of a pure . . . conscience and faith unfeigned†(1 Tim. 1:5 p.). Afterward, in the same chapter, he shows how much it differs from understanding, saying that certain ones “made shipwreck of faith†because they had “forsaken a good conscience (1 Tim. 1:19). For by these words he indicates that is a lively longing to worship God and a sincere intent to live a godly and holy life. (Institutes, IV. x. 3-4.)
A couple of points are worth noting. One is the importance (there goes that squishy word) of justification to a clean conscience. Since justification is precisely a verdict of not guilty, that benefit alone can give the wounded and grieved conscience what it so desperately needs. I am not saying the doctrine does this logocentrically – as if propositions have consequences – or that this happens apart from the work of the Spirit. I am saying that a guilty conscience is important for all people because of the reality and pressing demands of the law. To have that burden lifted because of the perfect righteousness of Christ imputed to us by faith alone is an amazingly liberating moment and life.
The second point is how much Calvin sees love and holy living springing from this forensic reality of a clear conscience. Conscience goes far down in all of us thanks to being created in the image of God. So to change that legal torments that goes to the core of our being as sinners may also involve something truly renovative. At least, it is responsible to say that the significance of conscience in the life of every person means that justification can in no way be merely a book keeping matter, as if our account is credited with Christ’s righteousness way over there but then we need to have a moral transformation way deep down over here inside us for salvation to play out. Justification solves the guilty conscience problem. It’s a remedy for what is basic and deep down in each human being.
Old Life 
Amen! dgh, you are so clear when you speak of justification on its own and even in relationship to progressive sanctification. I just don’t see someone like Gaffin disagreeing with this statement…do you? Do you really think that, in the theology of union, the theology and importance of justification is done away with? It seems that you get less clear when you speak of justification in relationship to our union with Christ (though I think we agree on many points even there) or definitive sanctification.
But, as always, great post and even better picture!
LikeLike
Amen from this corner, too.
Have a forensic Friday, all.
LikeLike
cnh, I see Gaffin wanting to tinker and improve this. I’m not sure why it needs improvement and I’m not convinced the resulting contributions are an improvement. I mean, why do you think the doctrine of union has produced debate and disagreement? It could be that JPer’s are perverse and stubborn. It could also be that union is confusing.
And I fear my own claims may be confusing because unionists have a code and a glossary that has yet to be published. If all of us could see that reference work, we might be able to speak more clearly to the unionists. But so far it seems like a discourse that has yet to be circulated widely or widely vetted.
LikeLike
I don’t know that unionists have a code and glossary. You seem to put them all into the same camp. There are reasons to dislike FV, NPP and the like aside from their union doctrine. In other words, it is what they do with union and justification that is disturbing. But there is a Reformed doctrine of union with Christ and a reformed way to understand how union relates to the benefits of salvation. That is clear in the Standards as well as in the writings of the Reformers. My concern with some JP folk (not necessarily you) is that union is clouded out of the picture or made to be a result of justification. Rather than saying, “yeah, that might be a helpful way to continue the discussion” there is an almost a knee-jerk reaction toward any discussion of union to the point that the reformed ordo starts looking like something other than how it has been described, historically.
I don’t even think that my view of Union and your view of JP is really at odds with one another. I think that JPers who insist on justification being causal or on union flowing from justification are off base. But those who insist on a priority of sorts for justification and I are on the same page. In other words, we can both agree with the Justification Report.
As for Gaffin wanting to tinker and improve – maybe they should stop offering doctorates in theology since the purpose of such a degree is to tinker and improve on theology. For a great example of that, check out Dave Garner’s dissertation on Adoption. It only receives a small section in the Standards but Dave did a great job of tinkering and improving our understanding of that particular benefit of salvation. Is that Gaffin is doing? If he isn’t changing the substance of the doctrine of justification but only looking at salvation from a different perspective (union with Christ) and finding that perspective in Calvin and other Reformers. What’s so wrong with that?
I’m curious, because I have been talking with several Presbyterian and Reformed ministers, if you think that the JP is currently in the minority position? In other words, do you think that the priority of justification is at a point (particularly in the PCA and OPC) where it will be pushed aside? In spite of the report? I am just curious of your thoughts. Also, I noticed that you inspired another blogger to post ‘Union Tuesday’, which is great.
For the record, I don’t think JPers are perverse. Stubborn, maybe. But Justification is a good doctrine to be stubborn over. It’s still one of the main reasons I am not a Catholic. It is the hinge. None of this, though, makes justification temporally prior to Union with Christ.
Maybe the two camps are talking past one another…I think that justification can retain its role and place in salvation even when it is seen as a benefit, given simultaneously with other benefits, of a believer’s union with Christ. Do you disagree? Do you think that if justification is a benefit of union then it loses its importance?
LikeLike
cnh, who are you?
As for the code, definitive sanctification is not part of our confessional tradition, and yet for unionists the distinction between DS and progressive is taken for granted, as if the rest of the church has taught it.
As for tinkering, you equivocate. On the one hand you say that union is confessional (and I agree). But then you think we need improvements and tinkering. If it’s being fixed then it must be broken.
I’m curious what you think of assertions like “justification is by union.” Isn’t that a new and unnecessary way of putting it, unless you have an axe to grind about union, to make sure that it gets as much attention as justification. (To which I constantly asked, whatever happened to effectual calling?) If union is so important that you say, justification by union, then why not also say justification by effectual calling? Or justification by the Holy Spirit? Or justification by election? Or justification by Christ?
LikeLike
dgh, I am sorry that this seems to keep going round and round. I suppose this ought to be my final post – what with my anonymity and all.
I would have a hard time with someone who said justification is by union. That is imprecise. I, like you, very much appreciate systematic theology. I like precision. That is why I have tried to be cautious in talking about union and its relationship to justification. (That is also why I have been surprised to hear you say that, while you like precision and ST, you won’t get all specific on the ordo as far as justification relating to union is concerned. This seems to be a contradiction to me, fwiw.)
I would not say that justification is by union…it is by imputation. We receive Christ’s righteousness. Is there a sense in which justification comes through our union with Christ? Yes…it flows from it. But the way it flows is through imputation. But we also receive Christ’s holiness (sanctification) and, through our union, we receive sonship (adoption). We are heirs with Christ. I have found Garner to be helpful on this as well as VanDixhoorn.
As for the effectual calling question – I think that it is the right one. The Catechism says that we are united in our effectual calling (consequently, that is why it does not bother me that the Confession itself does not use the word ‘union’ contra R. Scott Clark…it is subsumed under effectual calling in the Confession). This lines up with several of the second-generation reformers as well as a number of the Puritans. This is why I contend that justification comes after union.
I don’t know that you are being fair to my words. We were talking about tinkering and improving an explanation or understanding and you inferred from that that something is broken. I like to tinker with cars to improve their performance…but they are aren’t broken. Bad analogy.
As to the DS question – that is where this will have to go next. I have been encouraged to hear that some scholars are moving in this direction. I would like to do some work on this topic as well but I am bogged down at the moment and others will most likely beat me to it…not to mention the fact that there are also many others who are far more qualified than I am to study these things out.
Thank you again for all the interactions, Dr. Hart. I have learned a great deal and, hopefully, my labors for the kingdom will be enhanced through my learning.
LikeLike
cnh, it is not only a question of precision but one of the way we speak, and the common usages of words. In point of fact, we usually say justification by faith alone, not by imputation. Imputation is obviously part of the doctrine of justification. But again it seems to me the unionists have gotten so used to speaking in different ways that the traditional language is no longer traditional.
Your car analogy is a good one. It seems to me that unionists are tinkering with their cars when automobiles are under attack. I would appreciate the tinkering more if the tinkerers were out there leading rallies in defense of automobiles (though I wish this analogy did not assume the value of fossil fuels). Here it does seem that the context of Shepherd and WTS has hamfisted the unionists, making their tinkering seem like a luxury to his car (read: justification) driver.
Why the anonymity?
LikeLike
I prefer anonymity so that I can live my regular life. That’s all. I learned from someone over at the Confessional Outhouse and I thought it prudent. If it bothers you then I can back off.
I guess, at the end of the day, I don’t see the end of the world the way you do regarding union. I still don’t see what is lost when justification (and all other benefits) flow simultaneously from our union with Christ. I find your discomfort with union language, which is historical and confessional, to be very peculiar. Justification is by faith alone – yes. It comes by way of imputation – yes. Looking at the larger gem of salvation, it flows (like all other benefits) from our union with Christ. I just don’t know that sounding the warning against such language is warranted.
I like the common usage of words…I also like the traditional language. That’s why I am comfortable saying that justification manifests union with Christ. Again, it changes not one iota what is meant by justification. We are talking about soteriology here…and precision. That, I think, warrants the precise use and definition of words. Which is also why I think that definitive sanctification is important. The confession speaks of being “further sanctified” and I think it will be shown that, historically, there is an understanding of a once and for all aspect of sanctification and an ongoing one. It might not have been called DS and that’s ok…but it’s still there.
LikeLike
dgh, I suppose if you really think that justification is under attack…and certainly it is in some corners…then go after those who are attacking it. Why attack those who, in your own circle, agree with you on the definition of justification? Continuing with our imperfect illustration – it seems you are fighting against someone tinkering with the car rather than fighting with the people that are smashing in its windows. I would have just as many, if not more, misgivings with FV, NPP and the like than you do.
LikeLike
DGH: It seems to me that unionists are tinkering with their cars when automobiles are under attack.
I would put it slightly differently from cnh.
It seems to me that the current expressions of JP are historically Reformed in their emphasis on the logical priority of justification to (progressive) sanctification; and in their emphasis on the centrality of justification to salvation.
But they appear *not* to be historically Reformed on moving union to a place subordinate to justification.
So I don’t view our union discussions here as “tinkering” but as “repristination” — rearticulating the doctrine of union that has become the ugly stepchild in certain circles.
If you want allies in your fight against covenantal nomism, you could sign cnh and me up. We just don’t want union moved to a location in the ordo that comes after justification. That really would be Lutheran.
—
To give an example: We just started this year’s communicants’ class last Sunday. I’m starting with Salvation: what does it mean to be saved. The first lesson walks through Rom 1 – 4 and centers around these questions:
* What is the state of people’s hearts?
* Why do we need salvation?
* What is salvation?
And the answer we come to is that salvation IS NOT a second chance to follow the law; it IS NOT maintaining your relationship with God by being good; it IS a righteousness imputed to us, by faith, so that God no longer reckons our sins to us, but instead reckons righteousness to us. Salvation, we said, is not a change of nature but a change of status.
I can’t imagine that you would want a more justification-o-centric explanation of salvation, would you?
One of the kids asked, though, Don’t the Catholics think that this is the easy way out?
So we talked a little bit about the complaint of “legal fiction”, the complaint that God is lying when he sees us as righteous even though in our nature we remain sinners. And we came to understand that God is righteous to justify us because we are “in Christ” — he is our federal head, just as Adam was our federal head. Our justification is not legal fiction because we really and truly belong to Christ, and He to us.
The “union-speak” and the “justification-speak” are not one bit in competition here! Instead, they complement one another perfectly.
LikeLike
DGH: If all of us could see that reference work, we might be able to speak more clearly to the unionists.
Here’s my dictionary:
“union with Christ” means a legal and vital joining to Christ in which He indwells the individual (vital) and the individual has Him as federal head (legal). There are not two unions, but two aspects of one union.
The following notions express all or some of that union: federal headship, “belonging to Christ”, “receiving Christ”, “Christ in us”, imputation, infusion.
Our union with Christ is established ontologically before the foundation of the world; but it is appropriated at faith in our effectual calling.
Does that clear anything up?
LikeLike
Jeff, I would agree with your “push” above. I did not mean tinkering in the sense that this is something new…if anything, it is recovering something that has been misunderstood. That said, I do think that the discussion of definitive sanctification – as it is called that – is a bit of tinkering. But it is certainly not a new thing. In speaking of sanctification (and I believe, definitive) Calvin says, “It avails not, indeed, a little to increase our confidence, that we are united to the Son of God by a bond so close, that we can find in our nature that holiness of which we are in want.” This would not be an appropriate way to look at progressive sanctification, right? I don’t look at my progressive sanctification and find assurance…I look to Christ and the fact that I am not just wholly righteous in him but also completely holy.
My point has been, and continues to be, in stressing the relationship of union to justification that the latter manifests the former. That is, union is more basic. Justification, adoption and sanctification are benefits received simultaneously through our union with Christ.
LikeLike
That said, I do think that the discussion of definitive sanctification – as it is called that – is a bit of tinkering.
Yes, one thing that has come out in this discussion is that DS is a part of regeneration. The up side of that is that it recognizes that certain transformative benefits are temporally prior to justification, not as a ground but as a “thing that God does when he calls us”: “taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good”…
The down side is that it confuses the conversation about sanctification: we now have two “flavors”, and justification is logically prior to one, but not the other. Bleah.
LikeLike
Jeff:
If DS is part of regeneration and regeneration is prior to faith, then DS is prior to faith. So do you accept that this “transformation” is prior to union (the West. Standards concept of union)?
LikeLike
RL, my take is that effectual calling is that process of creating faith and the new man:
All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by His word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.
That is, if we put a stopwatch to it, at the beginning of effectual calling we would have someone in the state of sin and death, unsaved, unenlightened, having a heart of stone, with an unrenewing will, determined towards evil; by the end of that process, we would have someone in the state of life, saved, enlightened, with a heart of flesh, with a renewed will (in the DS sense, but not the PS sense), determined to that which is good.
If you want me to further subdivide that process into which comes first, I’ll have to beg off.
LikeLike
The “union-speak†and the “justification-speak†are not one bit in competition here! Instead, they complement one another perfectly.
Except it is said by some that “justification is by union (with Christ),†where others say that “justification is through faith (in Christ).†I understand that some want these two formulations to co-exist, but others are somewhat confused as to how that can be and don’t understand what’s wrong with saying that “in order to have union with Christ (good thing) one must first have faith in Christ (necessary thing).â€
LikeLike
Zrim: I understand that some want these two formulations to co-exist, but others are somewhat confused as to how that can be …
Add this one also: “justification happens when God imputes Christ’s righteousness to us…”
How can these three co-exist?
Like so:
Effectual calling creates faith in us, thus uniting us to Christ. One aspect of that union is the legal, that His righteousness is imputed to us.
Faith is the instrument that receives Christ. Union is the word to describe our relationship to Christ. Imputation is the legal term that describes what that union implies.
Question 73: How does faith justify a sinner in the sight of God?
Answer: Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it, nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification; but only as it is an instrument by which he receives and applies Christ and his righteousness.
We see that’s equally valid to say, “We are justified by faith” (instrument) and “We are justified by receiving and applying Christ” (mechanism) — a statement of union.
The one side, the faith side, focuses on our action as the instrument. The other side, the union side, focuses on God’s work in connecting us to Christ and making the benefits of his mediation available to us. That’s why I’ve been stressing the objective nature of union. It is something that God does, and is therefore something that is objectively real.
—
There is no problem saying that one must have faith to be united with Christ. It’s the “one must be justified to be united with Christ” that is problematic.
LikeLike
Zrim, for the record, to avoid confusion, I would say that justification occurs “in union” with Christ, reserving “by” for faith as the alone instrument.
That’s a preference for pedagogical purposes, not a mandate.
LikeLike
cnh and Jeff, the union position has been not to budge on the priority of justification to sanctifcation. Those benefits are distinguishable but simultaneous. This is the line in the sand for unionists (at least some). We have been round and round on this and I don’t see what is so important about this assertion. As I have said many times, it is a curious time in the life of our churches to insist on this when justification is under assault. To use the analogies of the auto and step child, it’s as if unionists want to draw attention to the carborater of a 457 hp engine (with the engine being justification).
And while I appreciate Jeff’s glossary, this is not the terminology of the church (at least yet). It’s certainly not outside the church. But it’s not the receive opinion, otherwise it would not be the step child.
Again, the reason for simultaneity seems to be to deny the charge of antinomianism — see, we are both justified and sanctified. But the folks who are most uncomfortable with antinomianism are the people who shouldn’t be working on cars. I mean, when are the union tinkerers going to notice who is also interested in the carborater and why. Don’t you mechanics ever talk to each other?
LikeLike
See dgh, what it seems you are saying is that right now, given the historic situation, we should not focus on the union question. I can respect that position. I think you are wrong, but I respect it. But that is not the line of most JPers. I said it before, you are much milder than some. Others are looking at motives and questioning orthodoxy. To follow the analogy – it would seem as though some are denying the existence of the carborater. That I cannot follow. I am content with your position because you don’t deny simultaneity…and I can follow your desire to stress and define justification. That’s fine. I think that more can be said and that, when the understanding of justification in a person’s mind is secure, then we can talk about these other questions of union and such.
That is a polemical decision, though.
There are some that seem to want to make Justification the central dogma of soteriology such that all else flows from it. This is a position that I believe is unreformed and unhelpful to the discussion.
As for mechanics talking to each other – isn’t that what we’re doing right now? I’m reformed, you’re reformed…we’re talking to each other. Or, at least blogging to each other. Do I talk with FV and NPP guys…you betchya. And when I do, I take them to task in their understanding of justification and it’s relationship to sanctification. I have said it before – the problem with those views is not the union doctrine. Far from it. They seem to misunderstand many of the benefits of salvation as well as union.
I just don’t know why you, in a desire to defend justification, throw out the historical and confessional view of union. It seems you spend more time going after those in your own circles than you do those who are actually denying the important doctrines of the reformation.
LikeLike
DGH: cnh and Jeff, the union position has been not to budge on the priority of justification to sanctifcation.
That’s a fair cop, and I think it’s time for a distinction to be drawn.
In older treatments of soteriology, regeneration is used synonymously with effectual calling. (In Calvin, not so … which is confusing). Sanctification is used, OTOH, to refer to progressive sanctification.
On that scheme, we can draw a clear ordo:
(1) Regeneration precedes justification precedes sanctification.
We all agree to (1), right?
The hiccup occurs, however, when we realize that the transformative benefits of regeneration are said to be the “beginning of sanctification” (the cite that comes to mind is Hodge, but also Fisher WSC 35:
Q. 26. What is the difference between the renewing of the whole man in sanctification, and the renewing mentioned in effectual calling?
A. The renovation in effectual calling is only begun; but this of sanctification, is carried on by degrees, till perfected in glory, Phil. 1:6:there, the seed of grace is sown; here, it is watered, in order to growth: there, the habit is implanted, John 1:13; here, it is strengthened for exercise, Eph. 2:10.)
(Aside: Fisher also says this, which will simultaneously please and displease all of us at parts:
Q. 15. How do they differ in their order?
A. Although, as to time, they are simultaneous; yet, as to the order of nature, justification goes BEFORE sanctification, as the cause before the effect, or as fire is before light and heat. — RL will be happy with the causation language; cnh will be happy with the simultaneous bit; etc.
I commend his discussion on Q. 35 — it’s worth some careful reading, as is the discussion of Q. 36)
So the hiccup is seen in this question: how can regeneration be “the beginning of sanctification” but not be considered a part of sanctification?
I think Murray’s “definitive sanctification” is a stab at reconciling that hiccup, by taking the transformative features of effectual calling and bringing them under the umbrella of “sanctification.”
The cost of making this move, though, is that it muddies the question of order. The result is that union-folk simply end up downplaying order. I have to admit, I much prefer temporal ordos to logical ordos, and I think that is the cause of some of my preference for union models over justification priority models.
So here’s the distinction:
If we are using “sanctification” to refer only to the classic terminology, the ongoing work of God in making us “actually holy” (holy in action), then it is reasonable to say that justification has a logical but not temporal priority.
If on the other hand, sanctification is going to extend to the beginning of sanctification, the creation of the new man in our regeneration, then there is no logical priority between the two.
—
A second distinction, the one that the OPC report also draws, is whether we are talking about a temporal order or logical.
Can we all agree that (ongoing, classical) sanctification is logically after justification, but temporally simultaneous with it?
LikeLike
DGH: As I have said many times, it is a curious time in the life of our churches to insist on this when justification is under assault.
Maybe it’s my background, but I view sanctification as under assault. Too, too many sermons have I heard (not at current church) that preached an entrance into the kingdom by grace through faith alone, but a Christian life lived under the law.
That’s why I’m so particular to say that sanctification is a work of the Spirit and is by faith. Not that anyone here has denied that. I’m just explaining my particular bee-in-bonnet.
LikeLike
DGH: And while I appreciate Jeff’s glossary, this is not the terminology of the church (at least yet).
Let’s be concrete. Which things have I said that are not the terminology of the church? That’s not a defensive question, but a puzzled one.
It’s certainly not outside the church. But it’s not the receive opinion, otherwise it would not be the step child.
It could be, if the received opinion (interesting term!) has been partially forgotten or obscured. Isn’t that what happened in the hyperCalvinism debates?
LikeLike
I think Murray’s “definitive sanctification†is a stab at reconciling that hiccup, by taking the transformative features of effectual calling and bringing them under the umbrella of “sanctification.â€
It also has the most unfortunate consequence of making sanctification a necessary prerequisite for justification.
LikeLike
chn, but you beg the question. Why focus on union? Why now? You seem to think that insisting on the import of justification, or its priority to justification means that the carborater doesn’t exist. That is a real failure of theological imagination and seems to reflect living within a ghetto of discourse where if you don’t say “union” the right way then you deny it.
But it’s still not clear why union, why now. Jeff makes a stab at it. There’s a hiccup in the ordo, supposedly. Though I tend to think that the minds of the 16th c. saw something weightier at stake with justification and so either didn’t notice the hiccup, could live with, or didn’t think it existed. Either way, justification remains the material principle though not the central dogma.
But why is it your insisting upon a “focus” on union doesn’t lead to union as central dogma? It sure seems pretty central to you.
LikeLike
Jeff, no offense, but I don’t consider Fischer, Murray or Cagle to constitute an assembly with their words constituting a creed of the church. Again, I’d like some ST to go along with your formulations. But because union is coming from BT, and BTers have resisted the schemes of ST (possibly because union isn’t in the foreground?), then I wait for the creed or the ST that makes union so important.
But I don’t understand your pastoral point. People aren’t hearing enough about sanctification these days? Your program seems to tell them they are sanctified in addition to telling them they are justified. So how is this a remedy for antinomianism? Doesn’t it simply go all in on monergism? (a la my previous post)
LikeLike
dgh, you make me laugh. Actually, it is YOU who seems focused on this topic. I live my life quite well apart from union speak (or anti-union speak) constantly. At any rate, I just think that the focus on justification and ordo as opposed to union is wrong-headed. Maybe the church you are attending is in danger of losing justification. Maybe your denomination is. Maybe Robbins is right and neither the OPC nor the PCA can be saved. I just disagree. I don’t think that this takes away from the material principle of the reformation at all. You know, they did talk about union and its relationship to justification (and the other benefits like sanctification and adoption) but you seem to always want to focus on justification. I know you have your reason…but do you ever move on from that reason? I mean, do you ever consider the relationship between justification and union and praise God for the union you have in Christ?
What more, than that, are others doing?
LikeLike
DGH: Jeff, no offense, but I don’t consider Fischer, Murray or Cagle to constitute an assembly with their words constituting a creed of the church. Again, I’d like some ST to go along with your formulations.
Dr. Hart, I’m not a bit offended. But I do need to ask again: which specific things have I said that are not the terminology of the church?
DGH: But I don’t understand your pastoral point. People aren’t hearing enough about sanctification these days?
No, I think a lot of people are hearing about a kind of sanctification that is by human effort. Be good! Do the Law! That’s what is at stake in emphasizing that sanctification is a work of the Spirit, received by faith.
And yes, I do think that monergism ought to take care of this.
LikeLike
dgh, I am sorry that I am only just now poking around the rest of your website here but, in light of calling union unconfessional in language and calling Gaffin’s teaching into question – how does this line up with the unreserved apology you signed under the section on apologies? How are your readers to understand the way you continue to write with that which you were apologizing for?
LikeLike
No, I think a lot of people are hearing about a kind of sanctification that is by human effort. Be good! Do the Law! That’s what is at stake in emphasizing that sanctification is a work of the Spirit, received by faith.
If that’s the case, I think we may agree on the problem, but it is still unclear to me how justification by union is the solution instead of (or alongeside of) justification by faith. Isn’t justification by faith alone always the antidote to any reckless notion of sanctification?
LikeLike
Zrim: but it is still unclear to me how justification by union is the solution instead of (or alongeside of) justification by faith.
Why do you persist in saying “justification by union”? I’ve been pretty clear: Justification in union with Christ, by faith as the alone instrument.
It almost seems like you’re being deliberate?
LikeLike
Why do you persist in saying “justification by unionâ€? I’ve been pretty clear: Justification in union with Christ, by faith as the alone instrument.
I think it’s stuff like:
“Being in Christ is how we are justified…But we actually consider the way Paul speaks and the way the tradition reads Paul, it turns out that there is an ample tradition of reading ‘in Christ’ as a reference to union; and in saying that we are ‘justified in union with Christ.’â€
It sure sounds like justification is by union with Christ. And when it is suggested that the older formulation—justification by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone—should be how we speak you equivocate with “justification in union with Christ, by faith as the alone instrumentâ€, which suggests you think the older formulation is saying something different than your formulation. Which makes it clear to me that you think something about the older formulation is somehow lacking. And since you place union before faith in your formulation it would seem that you think that what the old formulation lacks is an emphasis on union instead of faith.
LikeLike
I know it’s annoying when I get all hyper-precise and all, but the issue turns on the preposition. I keep saying “justified in union with Christ”, even in the things you cited. You keep rewording it as “justified by union with Christ”, then dinging me for saying “by union with Christ.”
The difference between the two prepositions is deliberate, and they cannot be accurately conflated.
And when it is suggested that the older formulation—justification by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone—should be how we speak you equivocate with “justification in union with Christ, by faith as the alone instrumentâ€, which suggests you think the older formulation is saying something different than your formulation. Which makes it clear to me that you think something about the older formulation is somehow lacking. And since you place union before faith in your formulation it would seem that you think that what the old formulation lacks is an emphasis on union instead of faith.
The old formulation is just fine. In the old formulation, the one in the Standards, faith is the alone instrument of justification; redemption is applied to us by creating faith in us, thus uniting us to Christ; justification, sanctification, and adoption are all manifestations of our union with Christ.
In the old formulation, the one read by Fisher and Hodge and Berkhof, justification is a consequence of union (Hodge’s words, not mine). It occurs upon union by faith (Fisher’s words, not mine). In the old formulation, phrases like “fellowship with Christ” and “in Christ” were taken as expressions of union (as in the WLC prooftexts).
On the other hand, In the *new* formulation, the “justification priority” formulation, faith still is the alone instrument of justification (which is good), but union is logically dependent upon justification.
In the old formulation, Francis Turretin could say
This calling is an act of the grace of God in Christ by which he calls men dead in sin and lost in Adam through the preaching of the gospel and the power of the Holy Spirit, to union with Christ and to the salvation obtained in him.
and no-one would blink an eye.
In the old formulation, Communion and Baptism are simultaneously symbols of our union with Christ and also of our justification (cf Geneva catechism, Gallic Confession).
—
In the new formulation, phrases like “justification is a consequence of union” (Hodge) or “Q. 12. What is the end, or design, of the Spirit in working faith in us? A. It is the uniting us to Christ, Eph. 3:17.” (Fisher) are treated as novelties or as unintelligible. Scriptural phrases like “in Christ” are no longer read as expressions of union, but as something else, like the object of faith.
In the new formulation, union is viewed as a threat to justification.
It is this new formulation, the “justification priority” formulation, that I object to. If the sole point of JP were to re-affirm that justification is through faith as the alone instrument, there could be no objection. But the secondary point of JP appears to be to re-write the doctrine of union in relationship to justification. That’s what I’m objecting to.
—
We’ve been around the bush a lot on this issue. I need to be really direct here. Earlier, I presented a raft of evidence that “justification in union with Christ” has a legitimate Reformed pedigree, starting with Calvin and the Standards.
I’ve asked for any evidence to the contrary. Do you have any?
LikeLike
It may well be that the Gaffin/Garcia version of union is a novelty. RL has suggested that, and I’m open to considering it. My only point is that JP, as a pushback against Gaffin/Garcia, has also engaged in novelty by distorting the relationship of union to justification.
LikeLike
cnh, the “others” are not defending justification against Shepherd and FV. And the “others” are attacking Lutherans as defective. Curious.
BTW, I know I am spending a lot of time on union. It is because a certain seminary has taken a preposition in Paul and turned it into a bumper sticker. But you used the word “focus.” And you are the one to lament central dogmas. How is union not your central dogma? So central dogmas are okay as long as they are the right one?
LikeLike
Jeff, So which is it? Is union for more precision? Is the current resurrection of the doctrine a repristination? Or is it a function of pastoral theology to get people to be really good without telling them to be good? Sorry, but the target keeps shifting. I haven’t denied union. What has happened is that unionists deny the priority of just. to sanct. We keep trying to find out why, and why so adamant in that denial.
This is the question. And the adamance, while using traditional language, seems to be excluding or rejecting justification priority as wrong and un-Reformed.
I’m willing to make improvements, even tinker, but I’d like to know what’s at stake if I don’t. I am not persuaded that the reason can be that JP is un-Reformed since JPers can find as much support for JP within the tradition as Fisher appealed to union. So what’s at stake?
LikeLike
cnh, your question about the apology will only be answered if you come out of hiding. I mean, how fair is it for me to be open about my identity, concerns, and even have the apology on the website, and for you to ask awkward questions under the cloak of anonymity?
LikeLike
From my seat, the version of union that I’m arguing for is the classically taught version. I believe I’ve put forward the classical understanding of the relationship of union to justification.
And until someone, anyone provides evidence to the contrary, I feel obligated to doggedly stick to it.
And the adamance, while using traditional language, seems to be excluding or rejecting justification priority as wrong and un-Reformed.
You can of course supply boatloads of evidence that justification is the material principle of the Reformation; or that justification is logically prior to (progressive) sanctification. I’ll cheerfully grant all that — what’s more, I think it’s important and will argue for it alongside of you against all comers.
JP, however, appears to entail something more (or less) than this. It also appears to rethink union so as to deny
(1) That our justification occurs in union with Christ, and
(2) That justification is a consequence of union.
(If you affirm these two things, then we can avoid a lot of misunderstanding if you will just say so. If, as you say, you really aren’t denying union, then why have you been so coy about your understanding of WLC 66, 69 and WSC 30? Why have you dismissed Fisher and the Hodges and Berkhof and Calvin and Turretin and Reymond and Hoekema?
Zrim, at least, has positively argued against both (1) and (2). You appear to also.)
—
So saying that I “reject justification priority” is both true and misleading. I *do* reject the version that’s been circulating on this blog; but what I reject is not the central importance of justification, but rather the additional distortions of union that have come with it.
What’s at stake theologically? Preserving the classic Reformed version of union.
What’s at stake pastorally? Preserving the understanding that I am justified *in Christ*, not brought into Christ because I have been previously justified (as the Lutherans would have it). It’s all about retaining the centrality of the person and work of Jesus in our salvation.
LikeLike
Jeff,
In all my Reformed years I simply have never understood the priority of justification as being anything either new or a threat to union. In point of fact, as it is propounded in these parts, it is both very old and a deep boon to union—you know, the way prioritizing a declaration of marriage is a boon to a relationship. Verily, your beef with JP just seems like picking a fight with the priority of marriage, saying to so prioritize obscures a relationship. It’s befuddling. Even in present debates over marriage laws, no matter whatever else is disagreed, everyone seems to fundamentally agree on the priority of it to bolster and give legitimacy to a relationship.
You say that what is at stake theologically is preserving the classic Reformed version of union. I think you’re right, but for apparently different reasons. The classic Reformed view of union, I think, is dependant upon a priority of justification. The parallel is that nobody can have that most intimate of human status—husband or wife—with another without first being declared married. And one cannot be said to be in Christ without first being declared righteous. Indeed, what could be more a friend to union than the priority of justification?
LikeLike
Zrim, you keep overlooking the fact that your marriage analogy is precisely backwards.
In a marriage, the declaration (“I now pronounce you man and wife”) creates the marriage.
In our salvation, the union precedes the justification.
You keep pushing an analogy which, if taken at face value, would make union a consequence of justification. In point of fact, justification is a consequence of union.
No matter how beloved your marriage analogy is, it gets the doctrine backwards.
And that’s actually the origin of my worry. My perceptions of JP began to change from ambivalent to negative the day that you said that union manifests justification (and you’ve never retracted it).
Whatever can be said in favor of JP, the downside is that it leaves its adherents absolutely confused about union.
LikeLike
Jeff, you wrote: “What’s at stake theologically? Preserving the classic Reformed version of union.” How do you arrive at the classic Reformed view when the 16th c. creeds don’t even mention union the way that Westminster does? This is a historical point that I’m not sure you have the bona fides to answer.
You also said: “What’s at stake pastorally? Preserving the understanding that I am justified *in Christ*, not brought into Christ because I have been previously justified (as the Lutherans would have it). It’s all about retaining the centrality of the person and work of Jesus in our salvation.” But union is about the work of the Holy Spirit applying the work of Christ. Union in the section of the application of redemption. Justification is one of the benefits purchased by Christ. Again, this is a category distortion that I believe points to a failure of theological imagination over a preposition in one particular apostle.
LikeLike
DGH: How do you arrive at the classic Reformed view when the 16th c. creeds don’t even mention union the way that Westminster does? This is a historical point that I’m not sure you have the bona fides to answer.
I can understand your reluctance to take the word of some guy on the ‘Net. Expertise does matter. But evidence matters more.
In trying to understand the historic Reformed view of union, I put my pants on the same way anyone else does: I read the sources I can get my hands on, giving weight to primary sources and reputable secondary sources. In this case, I’ve tried to get as many different systematic theologians as I can, representing various schools of thought and various time periods.
The thing is, the primaries and secondaries keep turning up the same answer, the one that I’ve outlined here:
When union is discussed, going back to Calvin, it
* Occurs in our effectual calling (thus prior to justification),
* Is the way in which Christ is applied to us, both forensically and transformatively, and
* Is a necessary precondition for justification: not as a separate benefit in the ordo, but as the way in which we receive our salvation.
Since you *do* in fact possess the necessary bona fides, it must be the case that you’ve got more evidence at your disposal than I, something that leads you to believe that I’m engaging in a category distortion.
Union in the section of the application of redemption. Justification is one of the benefits purchased by Christ. Again, this is a category distortion that I believe points to a failure of theological imagination over a preposition in one particular apostle.
So you’re saying that while you concede that union is the way that redemption is applied, justification does not fall into the category of “redemption” but rather in the category of “the benefits purchased by Christ”?
If that distinction is valid, then why does Paul conflate the two in Eph 1.7?
“In whom (or him) we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of his grace.”
“εν ω εχομεν την απολυτÏωσιν δια του αιματος αυτου την αφεσιν των παÏαπτωματων κατα το πλουτος της χαÏιτος αυτου”
This isn’t the only place, either. So what do you mean by “category distortion” and “failure of theological imagination”?
LikeLike
Whatever can be said in favor of JP, the downside is that it leaves its adherents absolutely confused about union.
Jeff,
Clearly we disagree, and clearly each sees the other as quite turned around. But it seems to me altogether preferable to be (allegedly) confused about the nature of union than to be confused about the priority of justification, and not just because I cast me lot with the latter, but because the principle question is: How are we right with God? Which seems to be quite a justification-ish question that seems to demand a justification-ish answer, no? So the downside of JP may be to leave its adherents scratching their heads about unionism. But I fail to see what’s (allegedly) lost when the human problem is justification.
LikeLike
Zrim,
If I had to choose between being confused over justification or confused over union, I would side with you.
What I don’t get, though, is that we should have to be confused over union at all. Did you read the sources I provided? Shouldn’t the WLC and WSC convince you?
When A.A. Hodge says (direct quote) “justification is a consequence of union”, do we really have so little confidence in his judgment that we can just ignore or dismiss it?
I’m a nobody — but I’ve amassed in these posts a relatively large number of citations from “somebodies” (as it seems to matter whether or not people have bona fides) from a broad spectrum of the Reformed community, all arguing in one way or another that justification happens in union with Christ.
Forget me. Tole, lege — go read the Hodges, and Berkhof, and Hoekema. Heck, go read Fesko. Go read Strong. Go read Horton, who deals with the marriage analogy in quite a different way — he likens the wedding to the Spirit’s baptism.
Read, actually, anyone Reformed that you wish. Tell me when you find someone who says that justification is prior to union.
LikeLike
Jeff, I am not sure the point you are trying to make with Eph. 1:7.
The historical point I am making is that if union were as important as you say, why is it not explained the way that just., Sanct. Adoption, etc. are? If it is especially so crucial to a Reformed understanding of salvation, it is remarkably absent from the creeds in which Reformed distinguished themselves from Lutherans (think of the different understandings of the Lord’s Supper and the distinctions made).
I do not think that the Standards are as clear as you say, nor is the union position as lacking in confusion as you think. The WSC is especially spotty on union and on the order. In 30 faith is prior to prior to union, which is prior to effectual calling. In 31 effectual calling is prior to union (if embracing Christ is synonymous with union — or is embracing synonymous with faith?). So you see, where you see clarity others are scratching their heads at the amount of precision and detail read into something that is sketchy. And I do think this is where the glossary of union comes in. There is a Union Guide to Reading the Westminster Standards, that is not widely accessible and has yet to be vetted by editors. It seems to teach how to read the Standards with great precision. But until we see the Guide, it’s hard to know whether it’s helpful.
I also think that the union position is far from clear and hardly settled. For instance, I do not think that you and cnh are on the same page (though on the same side). Apparently the Guide is still being revised. But the really interesting thing about our exchanges here is that you and cnh, for instance, never bring up eschatology or the Pauline eschatology. This is the sine qua non of union theology as Gaffin explains it in By Faith Not By Sight. Union is all about the centrality of Christ’s death and resurrection in Paul’s two-age construction. That is why Gaffin’s point is much more about historia than ordo salutis. And yet the unionists wind up micromanaging the ordoo salutis.
I’m only left saying “huh?”
LikeLike
Dr. Hart: (aside … I’m happy to call you Darryl if you prefer … the formal address is just an attempt to convey a bit of respect, a habit I picked up from a mutual friend of ours)
The point about Ephesians 1.7 is this. You’ve declared that
Union in the section of the application of redemption. Justification is one of the benefits purchased by Christ. Again, this is a category distortion that I believe points to a failure of theological imagination over a preposition in one particular apostle.
This was admittedly confusing to me. I think you are saying that “redemption” is a different category from “the benefits purchased by Christ.” And on this basis, you see a category distortion (same as category mistake?).
Presumably, this category distortion causes unionists to wrongly morph “union” as the way that redemption is applied (true) into “union” as the way in which we are justified (contested).
Is this reading correct?
If so, then I was presenting evidence that perhaps “redemption” and “the benefits purchased by Christ” are not separate categories after all. It was a rush job, and I’m happy to provide more evidence, both Scriptural and Confessional, if needed. But Eph 1.7 appears to me to be decisive: in Paul’s mind, “forgiveness of sins” falls under the category of “redemption.”
LikeLike
DGH: I also think that the union position is far from clear and hardly settled. For instance, I do not think that you and cnh are on the same page (though on the same side).
cnh and I appear to be pretty darn close. Our one difference would probably be that he makes a principled argument that Murray’s term “definitive sanctification” is a better, more Biblical term; I’m willing to concede that, for pedagogical and continuity reasons, it might be better to limit “sanctification” to the purely progressive.
But that doesn’t mean that I see a different picture from cnh. It just means that I’m a little more flexible about the labels on the deck chairs.
DGH: But the really interesting thing about our exchanges here is that you and cnh, for instance, never bring up eschatology or the Pauline eschatology. This is the sine qua non of union theology as Gaffin explains it in By Faith Not By Sight. Union is all about the centrality of Christ’s death and resurrection in Paul’s two-age construction. That is why Gaffin’s point is much more about historia than ordo salutis.
That is interesting. Keep in mind that I haven’t (still!) read the Gaffin / Garcia portion of my queue. The reason is simple — aside from time, I’ve been trying to construct a position without being *initially* heavily influenced by either side in the current debate.
So for my part, “union” may well look different from Gaffin.
I do indeed believe that historia salutis is relevant to union. The beginning of our salvation in eternity past starts with Christ identifying us, his people, apart from those who are not; and at the cross, in his identification with us, His people.
That is, I see a strong connection between the doctrine of union and the doctrine of limited atonement.
But that hasn’t come up here because I’ve been focusing on union as presented in the Standards.
Here’s another topic that hasn’t come up, but is part of my background thought: Rom. 6 clearly speaks of “being united with Christ in baptism.” (NOTE: I do not take this as a statement of baptismal regeneration!!!!!) The early discussions of union, such as the Gallic Confession, and the Institutes, focus on the sacraments as symbols of our union with Christ.
It strikes me that if the sacraments are symbols of our union AND symbols of our justification, then there is a closer connection between union and justification than y’all have allowed here.
DGH: And yet the unionists wind up micromanaging the ordoo salutis.
Perhaps that’s my fault. I’ve been working hard to try to “map” union-think over into ordo-think, so as to show the complementary nature of the two. But as we get into the weeds, it may have appeared that I want to micro-manage ordo.
In point of fact, my view of ordo is what I expressed to RL. WCoF 10.1 lays out the effectual calling. When the stopwatch starts, the unsaved man is unregenerate, unjustified, a child of wrath. When the stopwatch stops, the saved man is regenerate, justified, adopted. We can work out some logical relations between these, but not temporal. And to me, the temporal picture matters more in terms of getting a clear picture of “what’s happening.”
LikeLike
DGH: I do not think that the Standards are as clear as you say, nor is the union position as lacking in confusion as you think. The WSC is especially spotty on union and on the order. In 30 faith is prior to prior to union, which is prior to effectual calling. In 31 effectual calling is prior to union (if embracing Christ is synonymous with union — or is embracing synonymous with faith?)
Hm. I don’t agree with the read of 30. Faith is prior to union, which is done in our effectual calling.
To me, it seems clear in both 30 and 31 that effectual calling is the process of connecting us to Christ (Fisher again). So there’s no question of priority between EC and UX: the latter happens in the former.
More later.
LikeLike
Just a quick thought: If the WSC is incoherent on union, as you suggest, have any systematic theologians noticed and pointed out this fact? I’ve not seen any discussion of incoherence.
LikeLike
Jeff, I am curious. Do you distinguish ‘connecting us to Christ’ from us apprehending Christ or embracing the grace offered in Christ? It seems that Calvin, at least at times, speaks of our activity in possessing Christ and not so much as our passivity in being connected to Christ. Our activity in this union seems to agree with the example of marriage; we are apprehended by Christ and we in turn apprehend him for all that he done on our behalf. I am trying to nail down this elusive target of union.
LikeLike
Fisher addresses this question also in the commentary on the WSC , Q30.
Q. 16. Is Christ united to us before we become united to him?
A. The union is mutual, but it begins first on his side, 1 John 4:19.
Q. 17. How does it begin first on his side?
A. By unition, which is before union.
Q. 18. What do you understand by unition?
A. It is the Spirit of Christ uniting himself first to us, according to the promise, “I will put my Spirit within you,” Ezek. 36:27.
Q. 19. How does the Spirit of Christ unite himself first to us?
A. By coming into the soul, at the happy moment appointed for the spiritual marriage with Christ, and quickening it, so that it is no more morally dead, but alive, having new spiritual powers put into it, Eph. 2:5 — “Even when we were dead in sins, he hath quickened us.”
Q. 20. Is the Spirit of Christ, upon his first entrance, actively or passively received?
A. The soul, morally dead in sin, can be no more than a mere passive recipient, Ezek. 37:14 — “And shall put my Spirit in you, and ye shall live.”
Q. 21. What is the immediate effect of quickening the dead soul, by the Spirit of Christ passively received?
A. The immediate effect of it is actual believing: Christ being come in by his Spirit, the dead soul is thereby quickened, and the immediate effect of this is, the embracing him by faith, by which the union is completed, John 5:25.
LikeLike
Jeff,
WSC 30: The Spirit applies to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling. (the order, faith results in effectual calling). They could have said by effectually calling us, thereby working faith in us etc.
WSC 31: Effectual calling is the work of God’s spirit whereby, . . . he persuades and enables us to embrace Jesus Christ freely offered to us in the gospel. (the order: effectual calling then embracing [united with] Christ)
Again, I’m not offering a definitive reading. I am suggesting that WSC is not as clear as you suggest.
Darryl is fine. dgh is easier.
LikeLike
It’s the “thereby” that is the sticking point, I think. I take it to be a synonym for “thus” or “by this”
So:
(1) The Spirit applies redemption by working faith
(2) by this action of creating faith, He unites us to Christ in our effectual calling.
So the creating faith is synonymous with the effectual calling.
This would accord well with 31, which clarifies that effectual calling is the action of creating faith.
LikeLike
Jeff, I do not disagree. But would you agree that the Divines may not have been engaging in the most precise discussion of order in this?
LikeLike
Jeff, I do not disagree.
Yipeee!
But would you agree that the Divines may not have been engaging in the most precise discussion of order in this?
I do agree, if we’re talking about “logical order.”
If however we are talking about temporal order, then I think the picture laid out is fairly clear. Election is the ground of our effectual calling which creates faith which unites us to Christ, from whom flow benefits of His mediation, all moving towards the eschaton and our final judgment and glorification.
What’s undefined here, mostly, is a relationship between the various “benefits”, which is where a logical ordo comes into play.
Yes? No?
LikeLike
Jeff,
I’m not sure what order conclusions to draw from the Standards. I mean, the chapters on faith, repentance, good works and perseverance come AFTER just., adopt., and sanctification. Not trying to be disagreeable (mainly), but I’m still not sure why we need to micromanage the Holy Spirit.
LikeLike