Historically Reformed theologians have recognized that union with Christ is not merely one aspect of the order of salvation but is the hub from which the spokes are drawn. One can find such conclusions in the theology of Reformed luminaries such as John Owen, Herman Witsius, and Thomas Boston, to name a few. That union undergirds the whole of the order of salvation is evident from Paul’s book-end statements that we were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world and that only those who are in Christ will be raised from the dead and clothed in immortality. In fact, we may say that there are three phases of our union with Christ, the predestinarian “in Christ,” the redemptive-historical “in Christ,” the union involved in the once-for-all accomplishment of salvation, and the applicatory “in Christ,” which is the union in the actual possession or application of salvation. These three phases refer not to different unions but rather to different aspects of the same union.
Given these conclusions, it is no wonder that the Westminster Larger Catechism states that justification, adoption, sanctification, and whatever other benefits flow from Christ to the believer manifest the believer’s union with him (Q/A 69). When we see that our being found “in Christ” underlies the whole order of salvation, including the legal portions, such as justification and adoption, hopefully we begin to see how the Reformed understanding of the relationship between justification and union are not in any way at odds or redundant. From here, we can identify three concepts that we must understand to have a proper understanding of the relationship between union with Christ and justification: (1) that the legal aspects of our redemption are relational; (2) justification is the legal aspect of our union with Christ; and (3) that justification is the ground of our sanctification.
Justification and Union with Christ: The Legal Is Relational
We should make two important observations concerning the relationship between justification and union with Christ. First, there is the unchecked assumption that just because justification is legal in character therefore means that it is not relational. For some unknown reason, whether in the theology of nineteenth-century liberalism or contemporary expressions from Lusk, for example, both think that the so-called legal and relational are incompatible. Yet, we must understand that there are such things as legal relationships. Or, in terms of our redemption, there are legal aspects of our relationship with God. For example, Paul tells us that we have received “the Spirit of adoption as sons” (Rom. 8:15; cf. Gal. 4:5; Eph. 1:5). Here is a clear instance where we see the wedding of the so-called legal and relational categories-adoption is a legal term but is also bound with it is the idea of sonship, a relational term. However, rather than see adoption as legal and sonship as relational, we should understand that the legal and filial are both relational. (John Fesko, “Toward A More Perfect Union?†Modern Reformation)
Old Life 
An interesting and related discussion by Lee Irons HERE.
http://upper-register.typepad.com/blog/2010/07/romans-2613-response-to-sam-waldron-pt-3.html
LikeLike
Am I the only person who is baffled and disappointed that the Fesko’s Forensic Friday and then this Where’s Waldo posts have had so few comments? I get the impression that folks get fired up about cultural and contemporary issues with comments coming in thick and fast on these matters, but when such beautiful and arresting topics like these last two are posted then there is almost a deadly silence.
My thoughts on these posts are that they are not ones which should generate esoteric comments and exchanges. I would be intrigued rather to see if folks out there could share some pithy comments (think Luther….) which concisely expand upon these magnificent foundations of the Reformed faith, ie. the sight or contemplation of what it is to be taken by the tri-une God and creator of all and made a legal subject of His justifying grace and love in the Lord Jesus Christ.
These last two posts deserve far greater comment as they should be the best meat and drink to every Reformed believer, stirring up the minds and hearts before any contemporary topic, and generating the helpful and encouraging debates this web site excels at.
LikeLike
Paul, part of it might well be that we are suckers for controversy and I’ll admit that. The other side of the issue is simply that some of these posts are so poignant that it is hard to expand much on them. With Jeff Cagle’s absence around these parts lately the intensity of the union discussions have cooled a bit.
LikeLike
Jed, think of it as “reflective observation” rather than absence. Paul, union is an issue near and dear to my heart, but I lack the skill to be pithy without omitting detail.
DGH, I support the Fesko quote whole-heartedly. I am glad that he is able to say these things in a way that can be heard.
JRC
LikeLike
Jeff! Good to see you back buddy. I am curious though, with some of Dr. Hart’s recent posts on Union and JP, do you see the WSC position as stated by Fesko as an appropriate balance on the issue?
LikeLike
Hey Jed,
Good to see you around also.
I would say that Fesko’s quote hits a lot of right and important notes. In particular, I appreciate the fact that he can make union the architectural center of salvation (the “hub of the wheel”) without feeling that this detracts from justification. This is a healthy point of view. I also appreciate his insistence (found in the larger article) that union and ordo need not be at odds with one another.
His choice of words — justification is the ground of our sanctification — is more precise than the other terms we’ve seen, such as “the priority of justification” or “sanctification flows from justification.” By keeping justification over in the “legal ground” category, he avoids making justification have a transformative effect. This preserves the firewall between justification and sanctification, which I believe to be essential.
So yes: Fesko represents one of the best attempts to exposit union from a “JP” stance.
JRC
LikeLike
Jeff,
Your comments are exactly what I was hoping for in response to mine: short, concise and with words which give a sermon-like ‘hook’, such as justification being described as the ground of our sanctification. And the word firewall has taken on a new application in it’s strict use here of keeping justification and sanctification separate. It would be helpful if folks could likewise bring in such descriptive and image related words to give life to these vast areas which the Reformers thrived on by debating them.
One word you used Jeff especially hits home: architectural. These ‘architectural’ topics of union and justification remind me of our English cathedrals: at their best they are big, beautiful, awe inspiring, rich in minute detail, and built ostensibly raised for the glory of God. The architecture of Romans and these themes should likewise draw us to putting aside sometimes our heart strong passion for modern controversies and refresh us or even introduce us to these Christ centred subjects and make us slow down and reflect upon their arresting and commanding nature. The legal hub of justification, if it can be described as that, feeds through to the relational side of salvation without the relationship side becoming the evangelical and charismatic focus it often is these days. So, justification should have the priority in our thinking and worship as it gives indeed the firm ground for any subsequent thoughts on adoption and sanctification.
These posts should send us with curiosity and interest to read in depth the Scriptures and the articles by John Fesko and also those who saw the legal, justifying priority in salvation. And Jed, thank you for stirring up the comments for these posts; both Jeff and Jed are here models of brevity and constructive thoughts helpful to all.
LikeLike
For what it’s worth, I suspect Fesko will not pass muster at WTS because his views are insufficiently eschatological. As I understand it, the Pauline eschatology is what is driving union-centrism in some circles. I don’t think Fesko mentions Vos once.
LikeLike