So for my devotions this morning I used a prayer from Calvin and needed to pause to consider what I was requesting (I guess this an argument against forms). Calvin wrote (in French, of course):
Grant, Almighty God, that since thou hast deigned in thy mercy to gather us to thy Church, and to enclose us within the boundaries of thy word, by which thou preserveth us in the true and right worship of thy majesty, O grant that we may continue contended in this obedience to thee; and though Satan may, in many ways, attempt to draw us here and there, and we be also ourselves by nature inclined to evil, O grant, that being confirmed in faith and united to thee by that sacred bond, we may be constantly abide under the restraint of thy word, and thus cleave to Christ thine only begotten Son who has joined us forever to himself, and that we may never by any means turn aside from thee, but be, on the contrary, confirmed in the faith of his gospel, until at length he will receive us all into his kingdom. (Devotions and Prayers of John Calvin, p. 15)
Here is my confusion:
1) Is being united to God different from union with Christ? In this prayer Calvin speaks of union to God, Almighty before union with Christ.
2) If we are united to Christ how do we cleave to him? Doesn’t union suggest a oneness that exists independent of cleaving, such as that between a husband and wife?
3) If we are united to Christ how would we turn aside? Wouldn’t Christ be there when we turned since he is united to us?
My intention is not to mock union. It is to show that its usage is not altogether clear or free of confusion unless we have a map and glossary. Union advocates would really help us out if they could identify the balls.
Old Life 
From the hip:
(1) I don’t think the “thus” in the prayer is a “first this, then that” thus, but a “in this way” thus.
The contextual clue is that we may “thus cleave to Christ who has joined us forever to himself”: there is no sense of cleaving to Christ in the future.
So we have a prayer that (the triune) God may unite us with himself, which would automatically necessarily unite us to Christ, who is God.
(2) You’re right that there is ambiguity in the being united forever language and the cleaving so that we constantly abide language. I don’t think this is a matter of confusion about the term “union” so much as it is confusion about Calvin’s understanding of our perseverance. Does Calvin believe that our perseverance is a settled matter, or an unsettled one?
One could easily read out of this (taken in a vacuum, of course) an unsettled perseverance. We would “persevere in order to remain united to Christ.”
But taken in the context of Calvin’s other teachings on perseverance, I would hazard that Calvin is reflecting on our experience of being saved within the framework of having been saved. Our perseverance is settled, but sure looks unsettled this side of glory.
In favor of this read is that Calvin frequently appeals to “what God sees / what we see” as two different items. I think they are likely joined here in this prayer.
Now, not yet.
LikeLike