After saying my morning prayers (see, I am devout), tending to the livestock, and fixing the coffee, I tuned into my favorite radio show (my wife’s most hated) to learn not only that Phillies had lost but that Osama Bin Laden had lost his life. To hear sports-talk radio hosts commenting on life, death, and terrorism was obviously strange, though they would have also been my path to news of 9-11 if streaming audio were available back in the dark days of Windows XP.
But even stranger and more inappropriate was to listen to sports fans chime in with glee about Mr. Laden’s death. To treat this man’s execution and burial like another Joe Blanton loss is clearly not fitting. What the event seems to call for is a ceremony – akin to the one in which President participated at the National Cathedral after 9/11. My Old Life sensibility tempts me to conclude that our culture cannot ceremonialize the death of a national enemy because we are no longer a ceremonial culture – too much Praise & Worship worship. But this would be a cheap shot in the worship wars. What is actually the case is that human beings have a long history of celebrating an enemy’s death in a manner more appropriate to a sporting even. Just think of what the Italians did to Mussolini. The communist Partisans captured him, executed him, and then hung him by his feet in a public square in Milano where the locals proceeded to jeer and throw rocks. Don’t underestimate human vindictiveness.
But don’t underestimate either the dark side of this bright moment in this chapter in the chronicles of justice. Since I have been re-watching Season Three of The Wire – the season where the fate of the drug lords, Stringer Bell and Avon Barksdale is settled – I have thought about the events of last night through the lens of human frailty so brilliantly depicted in that award-winning HBO series.
First, I heard on NPR that one of the oddities about Mr. Laden’s compound was that such a massive and expensive place would not have either internet or phone service. Boy, does that have The Wire written all over it. To evade the special unit given the task of catching Avon, which had used a fairly sophisticated system of wire taps, even to be able to track disposable phones, the head of the entire drug enterprise went without a phone altogether. To contact him, people had to talk to his minions, or executive minions. Mr. Laden didn’t need to be a fan of The Wire to see the logic of going without electronic communication, but sometimes life does imitate art.
Second, if Mr. Laden were an American citizen selling drugs or directing terror, chances are the authorities would not have had the freedom to kill him on sight. Their first action would have been to capture him, read him his rights, and then start the wheels of U.S. jurisprudence rolling – which might involve some roughing up behind closed doors in police office buildings. But if Mr. Laden were like Avon, he would likely still be alive (if he did not resist arrest).
Third, what kind of strategy did the American military use in killing Mr. Laden? In The Wire the mayor and police chief are often more interested in symbolic victories – declines in statistics, or drugs piled on tables for journalists to see and photograph – than the real source of the problem. In other words, they are more interested in winning re-election than in strategic allocation of resources. In which case, was Mr. Laden a target of military and intelligence officials? Or was he a trophy for administrators in the Pentagon to maintain budgets and for the White House to look tough on terror?
Another layer in managing the publicity of Mr. Laden’s death is the relationship among the United States, its Western and middle-Eastern allies, and Pakistan. Military and civilian authorities are choosing their words carefully to prevent embarrassment for the Pakistanis. What The Wire’s police chief Burrell says to his Colonels is different from what he says to the mayor behind closed doors which is different from what Burrell says to the press. Another instance of personal, professional, and civic calculations is Tommy Carcetti’s decision to run for mayor of Baltimore. As one of the few white councilmen in the city, the only shot he has to defeat the black incumbent is if another black councilman runs in the Democratic primary and splits the African-American vote, thereby letting Tommy emerge as the great white hope – who even during the mayoral campaign is calculating how to manage city politics in a way that will allow him to run for state (governor) and or federal (senator) office. Celebrators should not let Mr. Laden’s death prevent them from seeing the layers of interests – what the Coen brothers do when exploring the mixed motives of their characters – that inform presidents, generals, chiefs of staff, kings, ministers of parliament and journalists in their massaging of, taking credit for, or distancing from this event.
Last, celebrators should remember the experience of Bushy Top, Jimmy McNulty, once he finally hit his target. Jimmy had to do some real soul searching about whether he was going after Avon and Stringer for the sake of the city, his commander, or personal fulfillment – colleagues did tell him he needed to get a life. To the degree that his own identity was bound up with convicting one of B&B Enterprises’ co-owners, Jimmy also saw how incomplete he was. The defeat of Avon and Stringer turned out to be a thin reed on which to hang Jimmy’s search for meaning. The death of Mr. Laden will generate great ebullience. Americans should beware of the rapid and scary descent on the other side of this roller coaster ride.
What in anyway does any of this have to do with Reformed faith and practice? In keeping with the neo-Puritan insistence on application, the theological payoff of a Wired reading of Mr. Laden’s death is this: although the Bible teaches human depravity God’s word doesn’t really explore it in its amazing and complicated depth – as in the wickedness that clings to the best of human actions – the way that productions like The Wire do, or the Coen Brothers’ movies, or even the occasional French film like Jean de Florette. To be alert to the variety and tenacity of human sinfulness, you need to look at the poignant portrayals of human existence that come from some of the best artistic expressions (though the Old Testament has its moments).
What the Bible does teach is the remedy for sin. Its salvation is not a government that enforces God’s law or even that reinforces the rule of law, as good as those forms of rule may be. The only remedy is a savior whose work of redemption is so amazing that he could even, pending faith and repentance, save Mr. Laden from his obvious sin.
Old Life 
This is quite a thought-provoking response, Dr. Hart.
LikeLike
As with Baltimore’s finest, I suppose it’s on to the next case in the war on terror.
LikeLike
It’s a good post.
DGH: [A]lthough the Bible teaches human depravity God’s word doesn’t really explore it in its amazing and complicated depth – as in the wickedness that clings to the best of human actions – the way that productions like The Wire do, or the Coen Brothers’ movies, or even the occasional French film like Jean de Florette.
Doesn’t this point to the need for special revelation and general to go hand-in-hand?
Without general revelation, we don’t fully understand what depravity looks like. Without special revelation, we don’t understand that depravity is depraved.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Without general revelation, we don’t fully understand what depravity looks like. Without special revelation, we don’t understand that depravity is depraved.
There are plenty of real life and fictional (even fairy tales descrbe the depravity of villans) examples of human delving into the depths of depravity. I can think of the not so distant example here in SoCal of the Chelsea King and Amber DuBois murder case (teenagers reaped and murdered). The public was aghast at the evil committed by John Gardener III; talk radio, op-ed, barber-shop and pub discussions all voiced a collective outcry at how the criminal justice system could have allowed such an evil (and unrepentant) man, and already convicted sex offender, anywhere near these girls.
There was no doubt that this was depraved, the fundamental human impulse to know depravity when seen only proved the veracity of Scripture here. There were plenty of non-Christian voices describing the effects of these depraved acts by a depraved man, even if they didn’t understand the inworkings of the biblical doctrine, they could identify depravity when it is manifested so grossly. We might be blind to many effects of depravity as natural man, but we certainly are not ignorant of depravity.
If we say we can’t know depravity is depraved without scripture, then why hold the Nurenberg Trials, or have various Centers for the Holocaust, or decry terrorist attacks, or fight disease. Basic human decency, when pressed, must allow for the notion of depravity, or we would have no way to name the evil that we often encounter
I think special and general revelation go hand-in-hand, but not the way you are arguing here Jeff. I think it discounts human reason to the degree that we cannot know evil unless the bible says so. The facts just don’t bear that out. Humans believe certain things are evil by prima facie examination. Murder, unprovoked violence, preying on the weak and defensless, theft, and deception are hardly admirable to the human mind, and most rational people believe that these are wrong, evil, and even depraved. A lack of a comprehensive awareness doesn’t mean humans can’t know anything of depravity without Scripture
LikeLike
“First, I heard on NPR that one of the oddities about Mr. Laden’s compound was that such a massive and expensive place would not have either internet or phone service”
I wonder if Osama was taken alive, we would have heard an interesting take on media ecology (e.g. if a man uses these forms of communication he will die quicker than if he used a courier service). Hmmm.
LikeLike
Jed, I think everyone understands that these things are *bad*.
But not everyone understands that they are part of the human condition. A large percentage of people believe that everyone is basically good, but society | economic conditions | parental abuse | [insert other external factor here] make us do bad things.
That’s what I mean by “depravity.”
LikeLike
I can’t believe your referenced Jean de Florette!! That was my first experience of viewing a foreign film – watched in a small artsy movie theater in Washington D.C. back in the late eighties and it has become one of my favorite films along with its sequel Manon of the Spring.
Have you see Manon? If you haven’t you must- the ending in phenomenal. I watched the two films with a young man in my congregation just a few months ago on DVD and it had been long enough since I had seen them that I had forgotten the ending. When the ending came, the both of us erupted in audible expressions of suprise and delight.
I know it is besides the point, but I just had to comment on this- I’ve never met (or read) of anyone else who had seen the film. Fantastic!
LikeLike
“…although the Bible teaches human depravity God’s word doesn’t really explore it in its amazing and complicated depth…”
Huh?!? Are we reading the same Bible?
The second halves of each of the NT gospels dont explore depravity in its depth? The Psalms dont explore depravity in depth? The wisdom literature of the OT is shallow?
LikeLike
Weighing in on Jed’s and Jeff’s comments:
Yes, mankind can know something of good and evil, justice and injustice, right and wrong.
But Jeff is right that it is the Bible which tells us about depravity–its source, its deceitfulness, its cure.
I think that dgh is wrong to say “we need” to look at film and other portrayals for understanding of how depravity clings to our best actions. Looking just at the book of Genesis one sees more than enough of this.
When the WCF says that the Word of God is sufficient for faith and life, I take it that it means that we do not “need” films, history, etc. to know and understand depravity. The in’s and out’s of plumbing, yes, the in’s and out’s of depravity, no.
LikeLike
Eliza, I might defend DGH a little bit in this way: It’s easy to read Scripture and think, “That was then; this is now. Back then, they abused concubines to death and cut their bodies into pieces as a message (Jdg. 19), but we are more civilized.”
It takes looking around at current life — our enthusiasm for the death of ObL, for example — to realize that we’re not so different from them.
But there I go again, mixing Scripture and general revelation. *Sigh* One almost might accuse me of paleo-Calvinism.
LikeLike
As a follow-up: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/02/is-it-morally-right-to-celebrate-bin-ladens-death/?hpt=T1
LikeLike
Hi Eliza,
Re: the Word of God is sufficient for faith and life, I take it that it means that we do not “need” films, history, etc. to know and understand depravity.
You makes good points. I would remind that the Bible tells the history of man through the time of the apostles and as such, it is also historical . We are also told in the Bible:
But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. Therefore it says, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.” – Ephesians 4: 7-8
Thus, we have been given men with the gift to tell the story of the depravity of man and the history of the world not only in factual accounts but fictional accounts. Men such as Augustine, Tolkien, Lewis, and Chesterton come to mind. Perhaps, it may not be wise to limit the ways he uses the gifts he has given men for his good pleasure. Perhaps, it pleases God to use these men to help others recognize the truth and G.K. Chesterton’s quip rings true: “Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved.” Open any newspaper and it is filled to the brim with mankind’s sinfulness. 😉
LikeLike
Hi Jeff,
May I ask what paleo-Calvinism is?
LikeLike
paleo-Calvinism (lit.: “old Calvinism”) is a term with two referents. Before ever encountering OldLife, I used to jokingly refer to myself as paleo-Calvinist meaning:
* Strong view of visible church
* Committed to an exegetical + systematic method of theology
* Strong view of sacraments
* Compatibilist view of predestination
* Committed to a strong view of general revelation, confirmed by special revelation.
* A view of ordo salutis that begins with Calvin’s premise in Inst 3.1: all of our benefits flow out of being united with Christ.
And the first thing to be attended to is, that so long as we are without Christ and separated from him, nothing which he suffered and did for the salvation of the human race is of the least benefit to us. To communicate to us the blessings which he received from the Father, he must become ours and dwell in us. — Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.1.1.
DGH, as it turns out, applies that term to himself also, but I’ll let him explain why.
LikeLike
Lily & Jeff,
I agree that fiction and nonfiction can demonstrate more of man’s depravity. It’s hard to miss in daily life. The news is appalling; hard to read some of it. But I quibble with the word dgh used–“need”. I think the Bible does do justice to the variety and tenacity of human evil. Do I discount the witness of humans who continue to explore it? Not at all. For example, I think Hannah Arendt’s book on Eichmann’s trial is very interesting–though she was highly criticized for it–amazing evil can be done by unthinking bureaucrats. This does not diminish the evil that he did, but it helps us understand a little more about history and ourselves. But still I can’t say we “need” it.That was my only point.
LikeLike
Many thanks, Jeff, I appreciate your help.
Eliza, in the interest of a friendly discussion, may I press on with some things?
I find church history fascinating. In some ways, it reminds me of the OT and NT stories where we have our scriptural villains and heroes who are men with clay feet – not unlike David, Moses, Peter, and others who had enormous falls. Such a rich romp it can be through salvation history and all of the characters in the Bible. It can also be a rich romp through church history with all of the twist and turns, the villains and heros with clay feet.
What we would have done without the early church creeds addressing heresy? What would we have done without Augustine addressing the sacking of Rome? Or the early Reformers who addressed the way the church had lost the gospel? It seems to me that it is a never ending struggle for the church while in this in-between-age of waiting for Christ to return.
I would give you a friendly nudge to consider if we “need” these men to show us evil after the canon of scripture was closed with the book of Revelation. Evil seems to morph and wear different faces in each era in order to seduce and deceive men. Thus in each era, we need men to step up to the plate and retell the stories of the past over and over again. We need men in each current age to expose evil’s new disguises and name/call evil what it is. Thus we will have all of these lovely debates over truth, error, doctrine, and contending for the faith – the continuing saga of good versus evil until Christ’s return?
LikeLike
Jeff, I’d hesitate saying special revelation “needs” anything. I think it is sufficient on its own. I think you’d agree. Where we likely disagree is on how wise general revelation makes us (without special revelation). I think it makes us wise. But the cross if folly.
LikeLike
Doug, Yes, I’ve seen Manon. Both are great movies. But the problem is that once you know how they turn out, it’s hard to find them suspenseful and so the only thing that adds to your experience on re-watching is not detecting multiple plot lines or intricacies of character development but instead the beauty of Aix en Provence and Yves Montand (what a moustach!).
LikeLike
David, the point is that the Bible affirms depravity. Yes it shows it also, but not the artistic expressions may. The point of Scripture is not to show the blackness of the human heart. It only has to affirm it.
LikeLike
Eliza, glad to know I’m always wrong.
LikeLike
Jeff – and thus to Lily’s question: you also forgot the easy comparison in explaining “paleo-Calvinist” as opposite of neo-Calvinist, with it’s associated ideas of cultural transformation, penchant for “kingdom work” as outside the sphere of Church ministry, penchant for kingdom of God distinct from, more comprehensive than Church. Also, perhaps paleo-Calvinist, informed by John Calvin; neo-Calvinist, informed by Abraham Kuyper.
-=Cris=-
LikeLike
Eliza, have you seen The Wire? Have you watched a Coen Brothers’ movie? Have you considered that we ourselves don’t know our own intentions always, that we may have layer upon layer of selfishness, all under the guise of being “normal.” I would recommend you watch some of these expressions if you can handle an R-rating.
If the Coens were to treat Jacob, it would look very different. In other words, if the OT was not given to present us with moral heroes, neither was it given to illustrate moral (the favorite word in the Mr. Laden analysis) “monsters.”
LikeLike
Jeff, on paleo-Calvinism, also needlessly throws in union with Christ. But I think it was designed to provoke. There I go, going to motives.
LikeLike
Cris, yes, I’m aware of the neo-Cal side of things. But my “paleo-Calvinism” has little to do with that controversy, so I omitted it. My “paleo-” has more to do with views of sacraments and church than to do with kingdoms and governments.
DGH: I “threw in” union because I view it as a central feature of Calvinism. I toyed with omitting it lest it be too provocative and then decided I just needed to be straight up about it.
But if we’re provoking one another, then: It’s hard to see how the lead paragraph of a book entitled “The Mode of Obtaining the Grace of Christ” could be seen as needless. Thesis statement and all that?
But what about the lady’s question: What do you mean when you call yourself “paleo-Calvinist”?
LikeLike
More at DGH: Keep in mind that the “union” I’m professing is the paleo-Calvin kind, the Old Princeton kind, which may-or-may-not have much to do with Garcia and Gaffin.
I’m frankly relatively ignorant of the newer theologies of union, though I’ve read a bit here and there.
So when I say “union”, think “us in Christ” (forensic) and “Christ in us” (vital), rather than a debate over what is central (which seems to me to be a quibble over definitions — are we talking architectural center, or center of importance, or what?).
LikeLike
Lily, I think one criteria of paleo-Calvinism also has to do with affirming the sufficiency of natural revelation to govern civil life and its insufficiency to govern ecclesial life (the way special revelation is sufficient to given ecclesial life and insufficient to govern civil life). I’m not sure where that places Jeff, since he at once is “committed to a strong view of general revelation” but denies its sufficiency to do its appointed task, namely govern civil life.
LikeLike
Zrim, I’m sorry, but that criterion is simply counterfactual.
For the paleo-est of Calvins, Calvin himself, taught that the office of ruler is a sacred office; that the purpose of civil government is to have a form of civil religion among men; and that the duty of the magistrate is to both tables of the Law.
There’s no hint in Calvin of your “sufficiency / insufficiency” formula. Calvin does not split knowledge into two books that have exclusive jurisdictions over different kingdoms. Instead, he takes the two as hand-in-hand:
Now, as it is evident that the law of God which we call moral, is nothing else than the testimony of natural law, and of that conscience which God has engraven on the minds of men, the whole of this equity of which we now speak is prescribed in it. Hence it alone ought to be the aim, the rule, and the end of all laws.
Wherever laws are formed after this rule, directed to this aim, and restricted to this end, there is no reason why they should be disapproved by us, however much they may differ from the Jewish law, or from each other, (August. de Civil. Dei, Lib. 19 c. 17.)
The law of God forbids to steal…
It is clear that for Calvin, the “it” which ought to be the aim, rule, and end of all laws is *simultaneously* the moral law and the natural law, not one or the other. He is equally comfortable with appealing to natural law and to the two tables as confirmations of one another.
Whereas, you resist this very notion of mutual confirmation as a confusion of Law and Gospel, a confusion of the kingdoms, etc.
There’s just no basis in fact for the sufficiency / insufficiency criterion. Calvin himself did not hold to it, and the very existence of Geneva (in which consistory and council worked together, though not comfortably) is proof of this.
LikeLike
Thanks, Chris, Zrim, and Dr. Hart, for more clarification on paleo-Calvin.
Zrim, I do wish there was a good way to end the 2k controversy. Scripture seems clear regarding 2k and the fact that Luther (more so) and Calvin (much less so) gave us the beginnings of 2k (if memory serves, Luther pulled 2k out of one of the RC warehouses and dusted it off), it’s guidance in our perilous times could be vital. Both men had clay feet and made mistakes in their applications of 2k in their time and had different 2k challenges than we have now. So much has happened since Luther and Calvin – 450+ years of changes with the industrial revolution, modern governments, our current technology, and so forth… we need 2k more now than ever before – there I go singing to the choir again. 😉
Re: when I say “union”, think “us in Christ” (forensic) and “Christ in us” (vital)
Why does union with Christ have to be atomized? If Lutherettes are allowed to vote, may I vote for this word picture?
.[F]aith does not merely mean that the soul realizes that the divine word is full of grace, free and holy; it also unites the soul with Christ, as a bride is united with her bridegroom. From such a marriage, as St. Paul says, it follows that Christ and the soul become one body, so that they hold all things in common, whether for better or worse. This means that what Christ possesses belongs to the believing soul; and what the soul possesses belongs to Christ. Thus Christ possesses all good things and holiness; these now belong to the soul. The soul possesses lots of vice and sin; these now belong to Christ. Here we have a happy exchange and struggle. Christ is God and human being, who has never sinned and who’s holiness is unconquerable, eternal and almighty. So he makes the sin of the living soul his own through its wedding ring, which is faith, and acts as if he had done it himself, so that sin could be swallowed up in him. For his unconquerable righteousness is too strong for all sin, so that it is made single and free from all its sins on account of its pledge, that is its faith, and can turn to the eternal righteousness of its bridegroom, Christ. Now is this not a happy business? Christ, the rich, noble, holy bridegroom, takes in marriage this poor, contemptible and sinful little prostitute, takes away all her evil, and bestows all his goodness upon her! It is no longer possible for sin to overwhelm her, for she is now found in Christ and is swallowed up by him, so that she possesses a rich righteousness in her bridegroom.
(The Christian Theology Reader–Alister McGrath, page 229, Cited Luther’s Works 25.26-26.9)
LikeLike
Lily: Why does union with Christ have to be atomized?
I’m very happy with your picture and affirm it whole-heartedly.
The atomization is a throwback to a previous conversation, in which yours truly was not permitted to simply say “We are saved in union with Christ”, but had to atomize, triple-cite, qualify, and re-clarify just to demonstrate that he is not positing justification on the basis of sanctification. Hence the distinction between forensic and vital.
It’s kind of like the present situation, where I can’t just say “Here’s why I call myself paleo-Calvinist” without the choir rushing in to say “No, you aren’t.”
LikeLike
Thanks, Jeff. I appreciate even more clarification – I was wondering if you were getting all mathematical with your theology and wandering into Einstein land. I’m glad you like word pictures – it seems little bit more akin to the descriptive biblical language on union with Christ – ya think? ; )
Honestly, I think you will eventually surrender on 2k and finally put Calvin under the authority of what scripture says about 2k and see that he mucked up. I’m beginning to think Calvin didn’t discern Luther’s 2k in Germany and applied his errors in Geneva (Your mission Dr. Hart, should you decide to accept it. As always, should you or any of your Historian Task Force be caught or killed, the Lutherette will disavow any knowledge of your actions). Anywho, please subject Calvin to scripture, consider the link to Luther on the 2k stuff, and receive the honorable 2k doctrine (you can thank me with a chocolate cake later). ; P
LikeLike
We’ve been watching the old M:I shows at home. My favorite piece of TV music.
LikeLike
Jeff, I don’t think the point of paleo-Calvinism is to correspond to every jot and tittle of what John Calvin wrote or did. Like Lily says, and has been repeatedly admitted, Calvin was a man of his Constantinian times. I’ll stand with Kuyper who said he’d rather be unReformed and disagree with Calvin if to be Reformed meant to affirm that the duty of the magistrate is to enforce both tables of the Decalogue (and civilly punish idolaters). Nobody needs the Bible to know that stealing does not a well arranged society make; general revelation is perfectly sufficient for that. Otherwise, what’s to keep anyone from pleading not guilty by reason of having never read the Bible?
Lily, I like your singing but my Reformed sensibilities keep me out of choirs.
LikeLike
MI is great opening music – has the series held up with time? I haven’t seen it since it went off the air, but the line – your mission, Jim, should you decide to accept it… is still burned into the brain. Then again so are some of the old commercials (esp. Alka-Seltzer and Oscar Mayer). One thing nice about the cold war era was all of the great TV series. Do you watch any of the other spy series from that era?
Just for fun – here’s an old pre-PC commercial!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPngdP93qQ0
LikeLike
Zrim, I’ll play the piano if you’ll sing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8fykuW4IHk
LikeLike
P.S. Zrim & Jeff – sorry about the warped sense of humor, but we have high pollen counts here almost year-round so I’m pretty much hopeless in the humor department. 😉
LikeLike
Lily, deal, but I don’t do bowties. I find them ostentatious. Sort of like emoticons.
LikeLike
Zrim, I am glad we have a deal and am looking forward to your solos (but I am still fond of Alfalfa’s outfit and cowlick)! Agreed on the emoticons, but I haven’t figured out how to not use them since I don’t know how else to let others know I’m friendly, teasing, or etc?
LikeLike
The series works well after about the first season — they had to work out pacing, plot twists, etc.
It was really interesting watching the Tom Cruise movie after seeing the old shows — the M:I tropes were much very noticeable.
LikeLike
Zrim: Jeff, I don’t think the point of paleo-Calvinism is to correspond to every jot and tittle of what John Calvin wrote or did.
Right, exactly. So it’s legitimate for you (and I) to take on the paleo-Cal label as a general description, even though you (and I) disagree with him about Inst. 4.20.
My point is that you can’t make sufficiency / insufficiency a defining characteristic of paleo-Calvinism, since Calvin himself didn’t hold to it. You can’t hold others to it, as you tried to do above.
You’re welcome to your view of sufficiency and insufficiency (as crazy-headed as it may be 😉 ). Just be conscious of the fact that it is a departure from Calvin, not an essential feature of paleo-Calvinism.
Fair?
LikeLike
Zrim, if I lived in Grand Rapids I wouldn’t wear bowties either.
LikeLike
Eliza said:
“When the WCF says that the Word of God is sufficient for faith and life, I take it that it means that we do not need films, history, etc. to know and understand depravity.”
CVT said:
“God’s revelation in nature, together with God’s revelation is Scripture, form God’s one grand scheme of covenant revelation of himself to man. The two forms of revelation must therefore be seen as presupposing and supplementing one another….Revelation in nature and revelation in Scripture are mutually meaningless without one another and mutually fruitful when taken together.”
And to show he was aware of the WCF:
“…Natural or general revelation speaks with as much authority and as directly as does the Bible, albeit in a different manner and not on redemption.
It is this complementary and supplementary character of supernatural and natural revelation that must be borne in mind when approach is made to the question of the indications of the divinity of Scripture. The Westminster Confession of Faith speaks eloquently of the heavenly character, the consent of all the parts, etc., of Scripture.”
LikeLike
I think Spanky and Buckwheat enjoyed the humiliation of Alfalfa more than anything else. That was pretty funny. Who started that Alfalfa and Buckwheat thing anyways?
LikeLike
Nice article on Luther and 2K too. You are hitting homeruns lately Lily!! And I meant Alfalfa and Spanky (not Buckwheat)
LikeLike
Nice references from Randy too- that was helpful.
LikeLike
Jeff, ‘the Provocateur,’ Cagle said:
“But if we’re provoking one another, then: It’s hard to see how the lead paragraph of a book entitled “The Mode of Obtaining the Grace of Christ” could be seen as needless. Thesis statement and all that.”
I think that if one wanted the thesis for Book III, one would start with Calvin’s Argument, given as a preface. Since Calvin included it we would have no warrant to deem it superfluous. His thesis for the book is:
“The subject is comprehended under seven principal heads, which almost all point to the same end, namely, the doctrine of faith.”
If Calvin considers the theme to be faith, shouldn’t we also?
Just saying.
LikeLike
Jeff, I don’t think I suggested that sufficiency / insufficiency is a defining characteristic of paleo-Calvinism. I said I thought it was one criterion, which is why I wondered where it might place one like yourself who denies it. But is it really so crazy to think that nobody needs the Bible to know that stealing isn’t conducive to a well ordered society? Even the scantest of observation of human history reveals as much. Maybe crazy is as crazy does.
LikeLike
But another thing, Jeff. If general revelation is good enough to judge us eternally (as Paul tells us) then why in the heck isn’t it sufficient to govern temporal life?
LikeLike
Randy, good point. Where are you going with it? For it is in no way contrary to say that
“The doctrine of faith is the principal subject”
and
“Calvin’s thesis is that we receive all of Christ’s benefits by being united with him by faith.”
Right?
LikeLike
Zrim: I don’t think I suggested that sufficiency / insufficiency is a defining characteristic of paleo-Calvinism. I said I thought it was one criterion…
That’s a thin hair to split.
But while you get out your katana and magnifying glass, consider that Calvin didn’t meet your criterion. That point is sufficient to exclude the criterion of sufficiency / insufficiency.
Zrim: If general revelation is good enough to judge us eternally (as Paul tells us) then why in the heck isn’t it sufficient to govern temporal life?
Why did Paul give Christians instructions about their temporal lives? Seems like a waste of papyrus under the “sufficiency” theory.
LikeLike
Zrim: But is it really so crazy to think that nobody needs the Bible to know that stealing isn’t conducive to a well ordered society?
Is it really so crazy to think that if God gives Scripture to Christians, containing (among other things) instructions for their temporal lives, that they ought to seek to follow them rather than treat them as superfluous?
“Temporal lives” covers a lot more ground than civil government. Unless one thinks that government ought to order every bit of our civil lives?
LikeLike
“Calvin’s thesis is that we receive all of Christ’s benefits by being united with him by faith.”
The point is evident in your response. You need to qualify union by adding ‘by faith’ to contrast it with the possibility that one might be united by works. Faith, strictly speaking, needs no qualification, so why not start there? I am not opposed to union with Christ, nor am I against the proper teaching of it. The question, as I recall from earlier posts, seemed to be related to priority So again, why not make gratuitous justification the starting point.
LikeLike
Jeff said:
“Why did Paul give Christians instructions about their temporal lives? Seems like a waste of papyrus under the “sufficiency” theory.”
Possibly because they now had dual citizenship, and the exhortations reflected the ethic of the age to come, much like the “you have heard it said, but I say” of the Sermon on the Mount.
I don’t think anyone is denying that Christians, in light of the gospel, should lead lives that are governed by Scripture where Scripture speaks. It’s that liberty of conscience thing. But since Christians only have been graced by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, expecting the unregenerate to follow the dictates of Scripture are misguided.
If, as Paul says, the unregenerate suppress the truth of God revealed in nature, can we suppose that they will somehow do better with the special revelation of the Bible? Even though the brutish and unregenerate distort God’s clear revelation in nature, common grace allows enough light for men to govern themselves without the special revelation of Holy Scripture. Admittedly, this governance is far from approaching perfect, and is one of the reasons that they deemed to be without excuse.
If general revelation and common grace are not sufficient for men to at least sinfully and imperfectly govern themselves within the confines of God’s providence, are we reduced, at least in this country, of only voting for the regenerate?
LikeLike
Jeff, it comes back to the difference between spheres and individuals. Paul instructs individuals who enjoy certain eternal indicatives in the way they should temporally live for what I think are obvious reasons. The in/sufficiency point has to do with how the two books correspond to their respective spheres.
LikeLike
Hi John T,
I appreciate your thoughtful reply, but we appear to be at square one, so I would offer you this test:
Make up your mind to love your neighbor as Christ loves you. Focus on their needs and not your own. Serve your neighbor with all of your heart to love them perfectly and make them the object of all of your time, energy, and good works. After faithfully doing this for a month – you will be ready to talk about the reality of the two natures and the grace of God for us in Christ. A cross-centered piety.
LikeLike
Hi Eliza,
Re: transformation is not the Christian’s vocation
Personal transformation or the pursuit of progressive sanctification is not our work (or vocation). We do have multiple simultaneous vocations as a child to our parents, as spouses, parents to children, members of churches, employee or employer, and so forth. This is where the rubber of our Christian life hits the road and where we live out of Christian lives. It is in our vocations that we focus our energies in serving our neighbors (eg: love and good works). Sanctification is God’s hidden work in us and in his hands not ours.
Re: Bonhoeffer
Bonhoeffer’s cheap grace is not the theology of the cross. Confessional Lutheranism views Bonhoeffer’s theology as problematic and the only book I know that is recommended by him is: Life Together: The Classic Exploration of Faith in Community
P.S. Since you agree with John T., I suggest you take the test too.
LikeLike
Randy: You need to qualify union by adding ‘by faith’ to contrast it with the possibility that one might be united by works.
Fair point. We certainly do not want a union based on works.
Randy: Faith, strictly speaking, needs no qualification, so why not start there?
Well, faith also needs some explanation. What does faith do? Does God justify us on the ground of our faith? No. Does God justify us by faith but sanctify us by works? Not that either.
Faith, rather, is the alone instrument by which we are united to Christ, thus receiving His benefits (WSC 30), including our justification.
So faith and union are really two sides of the same coin. How do we become Christ’s? By faith. How does faith justify us? By bringing us under the federal headship of Christ, so that his righteousness is imputed to us.
So I think Calvin *starts* with union as the first part of the doctrine of faith.
Randy: The question, as I recall from earlier posts, seemed to be related to priority So again, why not make gratuitous justification the starting point.
I’m a bit confused — you spoke of starting with faith, but now you’re speaking of starting with justification. What do you have in mind?
LikeLike
Randy: I don’t think anyone is denying that Christians, in light of the gospel, should lead lives that are governed by Scripture where Scripture speaks.
Well, that’s the thing. On the one hand, Zrim says that Christians have to obey Scripture at all times. Good.
But then he says that general revelation is sufficient for our temporal lives. Which directly implies that special revelation is superfluous for our temporal lives. Which is entirely in conflict with saying that Christians must obey Scripture in their temporal lives.
So no, Zrim is not directly denying it, but he is indirectly denying it.
Randy: It’s that liberty of conscience thing. But since Christians only have been graced by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, expecting the unregenerate to follow the dictates of Scripture are misguided.
Perhaps so.
But my concern is not to place unbelievers under the Law, nor even to place Christians under the Law (!). Rather, my concern is to not use language that unintentionally says that Christians may consider Scripture superfluous for their temporal lives.
That is: the group about whom I am thinking is the church, not civil society at large.
LikeLike
Zrim: Jeff, it comes back to the difference between spheres and individuals. Paul instructs individuals who enjoy certain eternal indicatives in the way they should temporally live for what I think are obvious reasons. The in/sufficiency point has to do with how the two books correspond to their respective spheres.
Could you try saying it a different way? The problem is conflicting language in re Christians.
On the one hand, you grant that Paul instructs certain individuals about their temporal lives.
We might say,
“If A is a Christian, special revelation is necessary for his temporal life.”
On the other, you insist that general revelation is sufficient for the temporal sphere; which means
“If B is a person, general revelation is sufficient for his temporal life.”
which implies
“If B is a person, special revelation is unnecessary for his temporal life.”
And the problem shows up right here: if Zrim is a Christian, he is also a person. So special revelation is both necessary and unnecessary for him at the same time.
Can you see the problem?
LikeLike
A couple of points.
1, With D Sheddon above, the full depravity of the human heart is revealed nowhere else as it is at the cross. The work of the Holy Spirit in the world is to convince of sin ‘because they believe not in me’.
2. There are aspects of depravity that we are better to know nothing about for they are so vile. There is a prurience in the human heart that delights in these things and is easily corrupted by them.
LikeLike
Lily: (Found your reply to the other thread).
You apparently believe that sanctification is monergistic. I disagree. At least in my (OP) church they teach that it is synergistic.
“Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind…”
“Be ye holy as I am holy…”
“Make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.”
“good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith: and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are…” WCF
“This ability is wholly from the spirit of Christ…there is required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit to work in them to will and to do of his good pleasure, yet they are not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty unless upon a special motion of the Spirit; but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them.” WCF
As for your test, I wonder why we are being taught in our a.m. sermons to do these very things? Probably because I John tells us to do so.
LikeLike
Hi Eliza,
Re: You apparently believe that sanctification is monergistic. I disagree.
Is salvation monergistic? Is it Christ + your efforts to sanctify yourself? Is it Christ + your obedience? Or are you saved by grace alone, faith alone, in Christ alone? If you do not believe salvation is monergistic then you are a Roman Catholic.
Re: be transformed by the renewal of your mind…
Is this not what growing in the grace and knowledge of Christ is about?
Re: “Be ye holy as I am holy…”
That’s the whole point of my comments. Can you make yourself holy? Is so, how do you make yourself holy?
Re: “Make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.”
Why do you continually break this command?
Re: As for your test, I wonder why we are being taught in our a.m. sermons to do these very things? Probably because I John tells us to do so.
If you are so well taught in the law, then why do you continually break the law?
LikeLike
Lily, you may remember that previously I cited several Reformed theologians (mainstream ones) who affirmed that sanctification is synergistic.
This may be a point of disagreement between Reformed and Lutheran; or it may be a matter of perspective.
I would agree with you that God alone changes the heart, which is the principal thing in sanctification. Yet we have a responsibility in sanctification to repent of sin, to diligently pursue the means of grace, to rest in Christ.
This responsibility sets sanctification apart from justification. For in justification, we are previously dead in sin. God creates faith in us monergistically, bringing us from death to life.
What you wish to guard against, it seems, is moralism: Sanctification by human effort or the flesh, sanctification by the Law. And I would fully agree with you. Our sanctification is by faith, not by obedience to the Law. And yet, the faith that is exercised in our sanctification is cooperative, at least in the Reformed understanding.
LikeLike
One more point, Lily: We are very much on the same page with regard to the Law as a way to expose our sin and thus drive us to Christ. It is certainly the case that we Christians continue to break the Law, which brings us back to the cross as the source of our whole salvation. So let’s agree to continue to agree on this point!
LikeLike
Lily, We break the law because we are not sinless, not yet! But we are told to strive toward holiness and against sin.
I think you confuse justification and sanctification.Yes, sanctification is brought about by God (“it is an act of God’s free grace”) but there is a human element, unlike regeneration where no human element is present. But that does not make it works. A perennial battle even among the Reformed. See:
http://patrickspensees.wordpress.com/2011/05/02/good-works-in-the-reformed-tradition/#more-1806
LikeLike
Jeff,
Re: This responsibility sets sanctification apart from justification
When you put it that way you are saying that obedience to the law is done because of duty not gratitude and it is your job to sanctify yourself. Sure sounds RC to me. You are separating justification and sanctification which cannot be done – it’s a package deal. You end up with Christ + my efforts – not faith alone, grace alone, in Christ alone.
Re: we have a responsibility in sanctification to repent of sin
Is our daily repentance our work or the Holy Spirit’s work in us? Who are you giving credit to here – yourself?
Re: I would fully agree with you. Our sanctification is by faith, not by obedience to the Law. And yet, the faith that is exercised in our sanctification is cooperative, at least in the Reformed understanding.
Then the Reformed need to admit that they do not believe in salvation by grace alone and sanctification is not pure gift given to us freely because of Christ’s death and resurrection. If it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
LikeLike
Jeff, I’m not sure synergistic is the word used. Do Christians have a responsibility? Yes. But can Christians change their hearts to they can repent? Well, I don’t think so. So I think a little more clarification needs to be given to this notion of “synergism” among the Reformed, because if you’re not careful it leads straight to Wesley.
LikeLike
Eliza,
Re: I think you confuse justification and sanctification
I am not confused. I would need to deny my Savior to accept what you are saying.
Re: the link and the excerpt: “Geerhardus Vos correctly observes that the Reformed, unlike the Lutherans, are not reluctant to include new obedience as a condition or requirement of the covenant of grace since they understand the covenant and salvation to be broader than justification.”
Here grace is made conditional upon a new obedience and justification by grace alone, faith alone, for Christ’s sake alone is no longer enough to save a Christian.
LikeLike
Lily,
I’m not well read in G. Vos. Maybe dgh can help (again). However, (again) our church teaches that “good works” are required for salvation. And (at least) one of the pastors uses the word synergistic in regard to sanctification. He who began a good work in us will continue it to the end. The conditional or dependence is upon Almighty God who will never lose a one.
As for Bonhoeffer: he uses the term “cheap grace” in contrast to the theology of the cross. He calls it something like “grace without Christ, without the cross, etc.” He opposed cheap grace; embraced the theology of the Cross. Hence, The Cost of Discipleship.
The encouragement is not our flesh, our work, our efforts, but the work of Him who shed His Blood, “will He not also freely give us all things?”
LikeLike
DGH: Well, OK, I can appreciate that there are landmines here with regard to the language surrounding sanctification. How would you explain the element of cooperation that occurs in sanctification?
Lily and Eliza: Vos is as grace-oriented as they come. There is a problem with using the word “condition.”
Here’s why: There are grounds, which are preconditions. A must happen before B.
Good works are not, in any sense, ever, a ground for salvation.
Then there are consequences, which necessarily follow. If A happens, B must happen as a result.
Good works are a necessary consequence of our salvation. If we are justified, it will occur that good works will follow. (To deny this would be to deny the doctrine of perseverance).
So good works are a “condition” of salvation in the necessary consequence sense, not in the precondition sense.
I personally don’t use the condition language because it is ambiguous.
LikeLike
Eliza: I think you and I both have spoken so much of responsibility and the necessity of obeying the Law that we might be guilty of over-emphasis.
Lily: I encourage perusal of some of the quotes below and the sources from which they come. By way of introduction, the site Monergism.com is exactly what it says: a site devoted to upholding the monergistic work of God in justification. Kim Riddlebarger, in particular, is one of those very friendly to DGH’s corner of Reformed theology.
My concern for you as you seek to make sanctification monergistic is that you might let pietism in through the back door (!). Upon a time, there was a famous but wrong teaching in the Protestant world called the Keswick Teaching or Higher Life Movement. Its slogan was highly monergistic: “Let Go and Let God.”
So part of the insistence on cooperation here is to keep the door closed to Higher Life.
All: Some quotes on sanctification via the famous Monergism.com site
Sanctification, however, is in one sense synergistic – it is an ongoing cooperative process in which regenerate persons, alive to God and freed from sin’s dominion (Rom. 6:11, 14-18), are required to exert themselves in sustained obedience. God’s method of sanctification is neither activism (self-reliant activity) nor apathy (God-reliant passivity), but God-dependent effort (2 Cor. 7:1; Phil. 3:10-14; Heb. 12:14). Knowing that without Christ’s enabling we can do nothing, morally speaking, as we should, and that he is ready to strengthen us for all that we have to do (Phil. 4:13), we “stay put” (remain, abide) in Christ, asking for his help constantly – and we receive it (Col. 1:11; 1 Tim. 1:12; 2 Tim. 1:7; 2:1). — J.I. Packer, “Sanctification”
Riddlebarger strikes an excellent note, emphasizing the work of God in our sanctification but also this:
The confession points out a third aspect of sanctification; that is, it extends to the entire person. There is no part of us that God leaves unsanctified. God not only sanctifies the soul, he sanctifies our minds, emotions and wills as well. There is no radical dichotomy in our sanctification, where God supposedly sanctifies the spiritual part of the Christian, and then leaves the rest of the person completely corrupted by Adam’s fall. Since God indeed sanctifies the entire person, new birth and sanctification inevitably manifest themselves in a cooperative effort with the grace of God.
A. A. Hodge makes the point nicely. “It must be remembered that while the subject is passive with respect to that divine act of grace whereby he is regenerated, after he is regenerated he cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the work of sanctification. The Holy Ghost gives the grace, and prompts and directs in its exercise, and the soul exercises it. Kim Riddlebarger, “God Glorified in Sanctification”
Berkhof also:
Especially in view of the Activism that is such a characteristic feature of 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. Though man is privileged to cooperate with the Spirit of God, he can do this only in virtue of the strength which the Spirit imparts to him from day to day. The spiritual development of man is not a human achievement, but a work of divine grace. Man deserves no credit whatsoever for that which he contributes to it instrumentally. — Louis Berkhof, “Sanctification”
And finally, I invite you all to consider Beisner’s Roles of Faith in Justification and Sanctification, which cannot be sound-bitten here.
LikeLike
Eliza,
I am familiar with Bonhoeffer. If you wish to be confused by Bonhoeffer and misunderstand the theology of the cross that is your prerogative.
Re: He who began a good work in us will continue it to the end. The conditional or dependence is upon Almighty God who will never lose a one. The encouragement is not our flesh, our work, our efforts, but the work of Him who shed His Blood, “will He not also freely give us all things?”
If you believe this, then why the continual self-centered focus and fuss about your obedience to law for your sanctification? Can you not see your sanctification-centered piety?
LikeLike
Jeff,
I understand why math guys love formulas but that gift is not particularly helpful when it comes to understanding salvation. I believe you are making this much harder than it needs to be. Salvation is a package deal. If you are saved, you will love God, you will have fruit, you will do good works, and you are justified, sanctified, etal – basically all that is Christ’s is yours. It’s pure gift received by faith and as such, we walk by faith not sight.
LikeLike
And the problem shows up right here: if Zrim is a Christian, he is also a person. So special revelation is both necessary and unnecessary for him at the same time.
Jeff, it seems to me that you are only thinking of this in terms of the individual point and not the sphere point. Yes, Christian individuals (and the Christian institution, the church) need SR for their temporal lives. But the temporal sphere doesn’t need SR to function. The in/sufficiency point is one pertaining to spheres, not individuals. But even as a Christian individual I don’t need SR to know how to do any temporal work. I need it to know why, which is to say that while I share the same imperatives with unbelievers I have indicatives that make all the difference.
Also, on sanctification I think Lily-the-Lutheran is capturing the Reformational understanding better. The way I have always understood it, if the Spirit is the power of our sanctification then the law is the structure of our sanctification. In other words, the Spirit alone is the author of our sanctification, and while the Spirit is doing this inward work we are given the law to structure our outward obedience. Our outward obedience isn’t adding anything to our sanctification, it’s just what grateful people do. The way Jeff and Eliza are speaking here makes it sound like he who began a good work within needs some help in carrying it on to completion until the day of Christ.
LikeLike
“Our outward obedience isn’t adding anything to our sanctification, it’s just what grateful people do.”
Amen!
LikeLike
Zrim, I wonder if you could define “temporal sphere”? I have been taking it to mean “Any action or object encompassed in time and space”, which is obviously not how you mean it.
But you’re right, I am thinking of the individual Christian here.
—
I think Lily (and you) have captured one half of the Reformed doctrine very well. The Spirit is most definitely the power of our sanctification. I think you have missed the other half, which is attested amply by the quotes above (which seem to be “awaiting moderation”, although they are not immoderate).
LikeLike
Eliza: He who began a good work in us will continue it to the end. The conditional or dependence is upon Almighty God who will never lose a one. The encouragement is not our flesh, our work, our efforts, but the work of Him who shed His Blood, “will He not also freely give us all things?”
Lily: If you believe this, then why the continual self-centered focus and fuss about your obedience to law for your sanctification? Can you not see your sanctification-centered piety?
Lily, a word of caution: So as, a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law; and not under grace. — WCoF 19.6.
You are very free with calling others self-centered or pietistic. Perhaps you might be mistaken?
LikeLike
Jeff, I consider the temporal sphere to be that which encompasses common or creational life: family, state, education, medicine, art, commerce, etc.
LikeLike
Randy says:
May 4, 2011 at 1:45 pm
why not make gratuitous justification the starting point.
That’s fine, Randy, but just realize that is a Lutheran formulation, and a Lutheran doctrinal structure you’re setting out. The Reformed insight is that Christ is central, not justification. And thus, it is union with Christ that is central in relation to our salvation. We receive the benefits of Christ only as we receive Christ, or are united to him. In this regard, Calvin and Reformed theology are being quite Pauline. Christ is the Center of “Paul’s theology” – Christ crucified and risen and ascended. Or “Christ Crucified”, with the understanding that his death is a complex event that entails resurrection/ascension; ou can’t speak of Christ’s death without implying and understand that it also entails his resurrection and ascension.
Calvin:
Therefore, that joining together of Head and members, that indwelling of Christ in our hearts—in short, that mystical union—are accorded by us the highest degree of importance, so that Christ, having been made ours, makes us sharers with him in the gifts with which he has been endowed. We do not, therefore, contemplate him outside ourselves from afar in order that his righteousness may be imputed to us but because we put on Christ and are engrafted into his body—in short, because he deigns to make us one with him. Institutes III.11.10 (p. 737, vol 1 of Battles edition)
Union with Christ precedes all of his benefits. We have no benefits of or from the Mediator prior to having union with the Mediator himself.
This can even be seen in comparing the old OPC Directory for Public Worship with the Revised DPW:
On the Lord’s Supper, Old DPW:
The physical elements, representing the broken body and the shed blood of the Saviour, are received by true believers as signs and seals of all the benefits of his sacrifice upon the cross.
The Revised DPW now reads:
The bread and the wine represent the crucified body and shed blood of the Savior, which he gave for his people. And again”
Through the humble elements of bread and wine, our Lord graciously gives himself and all his benefits to sincere believers.
Took awhile to filter into the (revised) DPW, but it’s there now.
-=Cris=-
LikeLike
Aw.. Jeff, I’m not half-right, you just haven’t figured that out yet. ; )
Re: WCoF 19.6
You know I’m not an adherent of your confession and vice-versa with the BOC
Re: You are very free with calling others self-centered or pietistic. Perhaps you might be mistaken?
Please reread the question I asked. Perhaps it might be good to reread the numerous past comments that describe a sanctification-centered piety. Perhaps you might be mistaken in understanding the harm caused by a sanctification-centered piety and that it might be love to address it?
LikeLike
I am clearly with Jeff and Eliza on this, more importantly so is the Bible as Eliza has repeatedly demonstrated without any responses coming that engage seriously with the texts cited – a few among a plethora that could be cited. Why oh why is there little or no attempt to engage with Scripture? I really do not understand this. It is utterly tragic.
Re the monergistic/synergistic debate. In some ways it is a red herring. We all agree (I think) that in one sense all is monergistic at source (it is God who works in you to will and do) yet it is self evidently the case that it is we who do the believing, loving, praying, etc, that is, it is synergistic (work out your own salvation with fear and trembling).
Incidentally where I may in a minor way disagree with Jeff is when he describes sanctification as being by faith. I sort of think I know what he means (since everything we receive is sourced in faith). However, a more specific way to describe it is that used by Paul: ‘faith working through love’ Gals 5. Sanctification is activity of both faith and love (synergistic) though of course both are sourced in God (monergistic).
LikeLike
Lily: Perhaps you might be mistaken in understanding the harm caused by a sanctification-centered piety and that it might be love to address it?
Administering medicine with an incomplete diagnosis is a harmful act, not a loving one.
You have said of Eliza that she has a “continual self-centered focus” and a “sanctification-centered piety.” Those are diagnoses of sinful conditions. You need a lot of evidence, Dr. Lily, before ordering the I.V. pull!
LikeLike
Zrim, more help, please:
Yes, Christian individuals (and the Christian institution, the church) need SR for their temporal lives. But the temporal sphere doesn’t need SR to function.
Jeff, I consider the temporal sphere to be that which encompasses common or creational life: family, state, education, medicine, art, commerce, etc.
You’re making some kind of distinction between our temporal lives (which need SR) and common or creational life (which doesn’t). What is that distinction?
LikeLike
John T:
Try this: Cal Beisner: The Roles of Faith in Justification and Sanctification.
I think you’ll find it sufficiently Scriptural and nuanced.
LikeLike
Jeff, let me try it this way: believers straddle two kingdoms, one temporal and one eternal. We share the temporal with unbelievers and play by the same temporal rules they do, all of which can be found in GR, which is to say that none of us need the Bible to know how to construe family, etc. But unlike unbelievers, at the same time we also inhabit the eternal and must play by those rules and so need the Bible to tell us those rules.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I have no desire to embarrass Eliza or harm her. To pull up the comments as evidence in order to answer your sarcasm would be cruel. Not gonna play that game. If you and others are determined to believe pursuing progressive sanctification and a sanctification-centered piety is biblical that is your prerogative.
John T,
The reason there is no engagement with people who want to duel with scriptures is that they merely want to use the law to dismiss the gospel. I have yet to meet anyone who uses this ploy who understands the law, the power of the gospel, or the depth of their sin.
LikeLike
Cris, before you start speaking for the Reformed tradition, it was Calvin who spoke of justification being central to the church and reform, not union. Plus, how is Christ central apart from salvation? We as sinners only know Christ in relation to damnation or salvation. So to say that Christ is central, not justification, what on earth or heaven does that mean?
So are you trying to say that union is central to salvation? Funny, I’ve heard that before, and it still doesn’t make sense. As Randy said before, union by faith or by works. Union only confuses and if anything, the Reformers were not confusing.
LikeLike
Jeff, I’m not sure how to explain. I don’t even think you can. It’s a mystery. How do we explain that all things work together for good? Does that really make sense after the loss of a loved one? Yes and no. But we believe it. So we believe that we trust in Christ and repent of our sins, and we believe that God accepts our filthy rags as pure. But do we explain it?
LikeLike
Lily, I’m sorry that I was sarcastic towards you. My intent was to be light-hearted in a tense moment, but the effect was to treat you dismissively. Please forgive my rudeness.
LikeLike
Zrim: Jeff, let me try it this way: believers straddle two kingdoms, one temporal and one eternal.
Good so far.
We share the temporal with unbelievers and play by the same temporal rules they do, all of which can be found in GR
OK, certainly none of the temporal rules are suspended for Christians. So yes, we play by the same rules they do.
, which is to say that none of us need the Bible to know how to construe family, etc. But unlike unbelievers, at the same time we also inhabit the eternal and must play by those rules and so need the Bible to tell us those rules.
Lost me. It sounds like you’re saying that we don’t need the Bible to construe family and commerce, but we also need the Bible to tell us various rules (some of which cover things like family and commerce). The need / not-need is the corollary to sufficient / insufficient, which is where I’m having trouble.
Thanks for your patience here.
LikeLike
JRC: How would you explain the element of cooperation that occurs in sanctification?
DGH: Jeff, I’m not sure how to explain. I don’t even think you can. It’s a mystery.
Fair enough. But you wouldn’t deny, would you, that there is an element of cooperation in sanctification that is not present in our justification? Do you agree or disagree with Riddlebarger above?
LikeLike
DGH: So to say that Christ is central, not justification, what on earth or heaven does that mean?
Most importantly, it means federal headship, which as you know was considered a key point in the polemic against Rome’s charges of “legal fiction.”
We are justified because Christ is our head, because we belong to him. We are not first justified, then brought into Christ. That would be to confuse our union with our adoption.
This is why union must precede justification (as indeed it does in Reformed soteriology), and not the other way round.
Also notice the wording of WSC 30: “working faith in us and thereby uniting us to Christ.” It is taken as a given that faith is what unites us to Christ, and not our justification.
FWIW, I think the word “center” is tripping us up. “Center of importantance”? The “center from which all else flows”? Something else? What kind of center?
LikeLike
Jeff, I apologize for possibly being a bit sloppy. Faith is not naked, and is in need of an object. I simply listed the the beginning object of saving faith.
For Chris, I guess I should have unpacked gratuitous justification a bit. I assumed we were all in agreement that this was a benefit of Christ’s work on our behalf, since we are talking about how the blessings Christ obtained for us men and our salvation are to be possessed by us.
Your Calvin quote was good, too. In my Beveridge edition Chapter 11 is titled ‘Justification by Faith.’ Since we are fond of opening paragraphs:
“I trust that I have now sufficiently shown how man’s only resource for escaping from the curse of the law, and recovering salvation, lies in faith; and also what the nature of faith is, what the benefits which it confer, and the fruits which it produces.” (could have some impact on the sanctification thread)
Then Jeff said:
“Also notice the wording of WSC 30: “working faith in us and thereby uniting us to Christ.” It is taken as a given that faith is what unites us to Christ, and not our justification.”
So what is the object of this faith? It cannot be union, as this has not yet occurred. You will say Christ, and to this I will agree, and I will ask which Christ as there are many false Christs. I would, to borrow a phrase from a Lutheran, G. Forde, say the Christ preached, and what to be preached is forgiveness and reconciliation in His name. So it is the preaching of this gratuitous righteousness, and hence justification, that the Holy Spirit uses to generate this faith that unites us to Christ.
Union is important, but it is not preached. It is taught, and it is used, as Calvin demonstrates, to support the doctrine of free justification through faith in Christ.
LikeLike
Hi Jeff – of course you are forgiven with an e-hug to boot. ; )
I did not receive your comment with the notes in my RSS so just saw it a few minutes ago. I appreciate your concern, but if viewing sanctification as monergistic and a hidden work of God is a backdoor to pietism – my denomination is in trouble! But, since we direct our good works towards our neighbors and shun moralism, enthusiasm, and other such ilk, I think our chances of catching pietism are fairly slim.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
Re: tending the livestock???
I’ve been wanting to ask about this… I thought you lived in town? May I ask what kind of livestock and if the smells of these critters played a role in Isabelle’s discomfort in your new home? How is Isabelle – is she happier now?
LikeLike
It sounds like you’re saying that we don’t need the Bible to construe family and commerce, but we also need the Bible to tell us various rules (some of which cover things like family and commerce).
Jeff, maybe a simple example. I raise my children very similarly to my unbelieving neighbors by following myriad precepts we all find in general revelation but not necessarily in the Bible. But I also baptize and compel mine to catechism and attending to the means of grace, precepts found only in the Bible.
My concern for you as you seek to make sanctification monergistic is that you might let pietism in through the back door (!). Upon a time, there was a famous but wrong teaching in the Protestant world called the Keswick Teaching or Higher Life Movement. Its slogan was highly monergistic: “Let Go and Let God.”
The suggestion that a monergistic view of sanctification leads to piestism is sort of odd and pretty reach-y. I cut my Christian teeth among the “let go and let God” eeeevangelical crowd. The pietistic synergism was high octane and Calvinism was disdained. What it doesn’t understand about Calvinism is that it maintains two concepts that are seemingly counter-intuitive: the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. Calvinism doesn’t pretend to know how those two realities co-exist but rests in the mystery, all the while never giving up one iota on either. So you saying that a monergistic view of sanctification leads to pietism (instead of gratitude) on our part seems like the synergistic Keswickians saying that monergism leads to determinism (instead of sovereignty) on God’s part. Like I said, pretty reach-y of you both.
BTW, Keswick doesn’t descend from the Protestant Reformation. It descends from the Radical Reformation.
LikeLike
Re: Like I said, pretty reach-y of you both.
You’re right. A monergistic view of sanctification would exclude perfectionism.
LikeLike
Jeff, I’m not sure I disagree and I’m not sure I agree with the quote. I know people who are sanctified who are jerks. Some people have very bad dispositions and are unlikeable personalities. Does the Holy Spirit change personality? I don’t know. Because I don’t think the Holy Spirit grants better hand-eye coordination through sanctification, I am not sure what to make of all the sanctifying aspects to which Kim refers.
I’m not trying to be stubborn. What I’m trying to do is avoid easy answers about sanctification.
LikeLike
Jeff, and in the quote you give, faith precedes union and if it is faith by which we receive justification, then justification precedes union. Again, I don’t care for micromanaging the ordo salutis. But the priority of union is not the slam dunk you think it is.
LikeLike
Lily, the livestock reference is to the felines, Cordelia and Isabelle. It is an homage to Mencken’s use of the word when referring to pets.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart said: So we believe that we trust in Christ and repent of our sins, and we believe that God accepts our filthy rags as pure.
Are you saying that the good works believers perform (described in Eph. 2:10) are “filthy rags?”
LikeLike
DGH: Cris, before you start speaking for the Reformed tradition
[chuckle] This is the interwebs, we are all presuming to speak for entire traditions. I am likely guilty of the charge, but not alone there.
I believe in the pointed controversies of the 16th century, when the slogan “Justicatin by Grace Alone” could get you killed, that was a obviously and necessarily a central issue. The question is, is justification the starting point for Reformed theology. Reformed theology as opposed to the Reformation as a movement or cause; Reformed theology as distinct from other systems, even other protestant or “Reformation” systems.
DGH: So to say that Christ is central, not justification, what on earth or heaven does that mean?
It means that salvation is a broader word & concept than justification. It means that justification does not exahaust the scriptural teaching on salvation and that justification is not the master concept from which everything is derived. It is not the architectural starting or central point. Justification is one of the benefits of redemption, but there are other benefits besides justification. So, add that one: justification does not exhaust all that is entailed in the scriptural teaching of redemption.
I understand that some might not think it correct to equate the Scruptural system of doctrine with the Reformed system, but properly qualified, that’s is exactly what it means to be a confessional Presbyterian or a confessional Reformed (3 Forms Unity) person.
DGH: So are you trying to say that union is central to salvation?
Yes, precisely, and precisely because this is what is meant: Central to Salvation is being united to the Savior (Calvin likes “Mediator”, eh); united by faith to the Mediator of the Covenant of grace means the believer recieves in that union Christ himself, and all his benefits. Salvation does not mean that first I am justified, and then I am united to Christ, as if Christ is a subordinate benefit to Justication. That is what I mean and I don’t find it “funny” and I don’t find it confuses anything unless one insists on some other structure or priority. I don’t find this at all out of step with the famous chart in Warfield’s Plan of Salvation, with the order od decrees compared acros various systems. There is a Reformed system of doctrine that is distinjct from the Lutheran, the Weslyan, the Roman or the Remonstrant, etc.
-=Cris=-
LikeLike
This discussion, which pops up frequently at oldlife, often goes down the rabbit holes (Alice in Wonderland), because, I think, it stays focused on the theoretical and not very much on the pastoral. Sanctification is very tricky business. What does one say to the alcoholic who knows everything he needs to do to quit his alcoholism (maybe has even been disciplined for it) but often still lapses when tempted? And there are too many scriptural verses which blow away our theories of sanctification and the efforts we congratulate ourselves for. How can one understand the Pharisee and the publican and Christ’s attitude towards those who were outcasts in society and hold views of sanctification which would not have much tolerance to those who we tend to look down upon. It is just a very complicated subject which is mysteriously dealt with in scripture. I think this is why Lutherans hold to the attitude about it which they do. I still advocate the wearing of “Weak on Sanctification” t-shirts.
LikeLike
Good synopsis, John Y. I don’t wear T-Shirts… can I have a BB cap?
LikeLike
K, I’m affirming Confession of Faith, 16.5:
LikeLike
Cris, so if the standard for what is central is where Reformed teaching on salvation begins, then it sure isn’t union since you concede that union wasn’t really part of the issue of the Reformation.
Whoever said that justification was the sum of teaching about salvation? Not even Lutherans say that. And by the way, Luther teaches union and Lillback argues, as I seem to recall, that Calvin learned union from Luther.
But since union was not part of the debates with Rome about how I am right with God, it is really hard to say that union is crucial to the Reformed teaching on salvation. And since union can be explained in a variety of ways, and since union has many aspects, it is always going to depend on the doctrine of justification for answering the question of how we are right with God. Even Murray knew that.
LikeLike
And re filthy rags, don’t forget HC Q/A 62:
But why cannot our good works be the whole, or part of our righteousness before God?
Answer: Because, that the righteousness, which can be approved of before the tribunal of God, must be absolutely perfect, (a) and in all respects conformable to the divine law; and also, that our best works in this life are all imperfect and defiled with sin. (b)
(a) Gal.3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. Deut.27:26 Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen. (b) Isa.64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
LikeLike
Darryl: Are you saying that the structure, organization or Reformed theology, the relationship of topics within Reformed Theology, can only be set forth or determined with respect to Roman Catholic theology? Or that Reformed theology can only be expounded and set forth as contrary to Rome?
But since union was not part of the debates with Rome about how I am right with God, it is really hard to say that union is crucial to the Reformed teaching on salvation.
That sentence exhibits your blind-spot (so to speak). All you’re saying is union was not the way that they conducted the 16th-century Reformation debates concerning justification. That is no doubt an accurate statement, but that doesn’t mean the Reformers of the 16th-century or their theological descendants didn’t also write and develop their theology in a positive way, or in response to other things besides the justification controversy.
When that occurs, one can study Scripture and find that there is more to Paul’s epistles than justification by faith alone, as central as that is in writing to Galatia, that was not what he had to address or needed to communicate to every church in every epistle he penned (or dictated). This is reflected in the seal of WTS: the whole counsel of God.
-=Cris=-
LikeLike
I too affirm WCF 16.5 and HC Q/A 62. Our justification must never rest on our good works. In that theological context, I will readily call them filthy rags.
But there are other contexts in which that appelation seems inappropriate. Take, for example, WCF 16.2:
These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith: and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.
Should fruits which “adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God” be ever degraded as laced with the “wickedness that clings to the best of human actions” (to use your words) rather than received with thanksgiving?
The Apostle Paul, in his prayers for the churches, did not say things like:
Let us not allow our tenacious defense of justification by faith to so warp our understanding of the whole counsel of God that we cease to call good things good.
LikeLike
DGH, I still think that the problem is ambiguity about the word “central.”
You exchange the terms “central” and “crucial” as if importance were the … erm … central point being debated. Maybe it is for some?
Clearly, justification is “central” if we are talking about “What is the most important difference between Geneva and Rome.”
But just as clearly, union is “central” if we are talking about “How do we receive the benefits of Christ?” (Answer: By being united to Him by faith)
You said earlier
DGH: In the quote you give, faith precedes union and if it is faith by which we receive justification, then justification precedes union. Again, I don’t care for micromanaging the ordo salutis. But the priority of union is not the slam dunk you think it is.
First, Calvin repudiates the notion that justification precedes union:
To communicate to us the blessings which he received from the Father, he must become ours and dwell in us. Accordingly, he is called our Head, and the first-born among many brethren, while, on the other hand, we are said to be ingrafted into him and clothed with him, all which he possesses being, as I have said, nothing to us until we become one with him.
Calvin at least thought it was critically important that we cannot be justified, or regenerated (Calvinic usage, not “effectual calling”), without first being united to Christ.
And for Calvin, this is wrapped up with the idea that Christ is our head.
Here’s how he leads off the argument on justification (Inst 3.11 ff.):
1. I TRUST I have now sufficiently shown how man’s only resource for escaping from the curse of the law, and recovering salvation, lies in faith; and also what the nature of faith is, what the benefits which it confers, and the fruits which it produces. The whole may be thus summed up: Christ given to us by the kindness of God is apprehended and possessed by faith, by means of which we obtain in particular a twofold benefit; first, being reconciled by the righteousness of Christ, God becomes, instead of a judge, an indulgent Father; and, secondly, being sanctified by his Spirit, we aspire to integrity and purity of life.
Calvin considers “Christ given to us” to be the summary of what faith accomplishes. Union with Christ (Calvin calls it “being one with Him”) is the hub out of which all of our salvation flows.
You may recall that both Fisher, Owen, Hodges, Dabney, Berkhof, Hoekema, Horton, and more all agree with me on this point. And I just got Bavinck for Christmas … let’s see …
Yep. “…what keeps coming back in Calvin is the idea that there is no participation in the benefits of Christ other than by communion with his person.” (Bavinck, Ref Dog Vol 3 p. 523).
In fact, Bavinck goes back further and locates mystical union as beginning with election (similar to Berkhof). Now there’s centrality for ya!
The point is simply this: I could with confidence open up a Reformed systematic theology and expect to find an affirmation that the benefits of Christ flow from union.
This seems, if not a slam-dunk, then a hard-fought battle to the basket with an easy layup.
And anyway, why such resistance to union-as-hub? It’s not like affirmation of union makes one automatically agree with Gaffin and Garcia on every point, right?
LikeLike
Cris, and at WTS, where Murray taught, he defended the idea that justification was still the crux of the matter for how people — whether in the 16th or 20th centuries — were right with God. Don’t you think it amazing that Paul says in Romans 5:1 that we have peace with God, not because of union, but because of justification. I know, I know, WTS grads have the capacity to read Paul’s subtext.
Still, why divide confessional Protestants on salvation? I thought WTS was friendly to the Gospel Coalition? Why isn’t a Justification Coalition acceptable?
LikeLike
K, and let’s remember that the Divines wrote 16.5 after 16.2, perhaps to warn people away from self-righteousness that usually follows sanctification inspection.
LikeLike
Jeff, the reason for the opposition to union as central is that Paul almost never writes about union in the way he does about justification (i.e. Rom. 5:1). In my experience, yes, it is about me, and yes I have experiences too, union never reassures the way that justification does. Maybe union produces intellectual cartwheels for those doing theology, but for us poor sinners justification really does the trick — and lo and behold, it is central to the Reformed churches and their creeds. Meanwhile in the Shorter Catechism union is a drive by that is really hanging around the centrality of effectual calling. Why no arguments for the centrality of effectual calling?
Are you really saying these men agree with YOU?
LikeLike
DGH: Are you really saying these men agree with YOU?
Yes, it is all about me, as it turns out. Owen and Fisher wrote presciently, solely to bolster my argument on this website.
Seriously though. Are you sure that Paul never writes about union the way he does about justification?
More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and (X)the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; — Phil 3.8 – 10.
Not does Paul here talk about “knowing Christ” to be of surpassing value, but he wants to be “found in Him” so that … justification will result (has already resulted, by the time he writes this).
Does union bring assurance?
Question 1. What is thy only comfort in life and death?
Answer: That I with body and soul, both in life and death, (a) am not my own, (b) but belong unto my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ
I think it does.
For this poor sinner, belonging to Christ and having Him not be ashamed to call me His brother means the world.
LikeLike
Randy, you made an interesting and good point back there:
So what is the object of [our] faith? It cannot be union, as this has not yet occurred. You will say Christ, and to this I will agree, and I will ask which Christ as there are many false Christs. I would, to borrow a phrase from a Lutheran, G. Forde, say the Christ preached, and what to be preached is forgiveness and reconciliation in His name. So it is the preaching of this gratuitous righteousness, and hence justification, that the Holy Spirit uses to generate this faith that unites us to Christ.
Union is important, but it is not preached. It is taught, and it is used, as Calvin demonstrates, to support the doctrine of free justification through faith in Christ.
There’s something to this, but it’s not fully clear yet. A couple of questions:
(1) When we believe in Jesus, we believe in Him as Savior and Lord both, right? So we place our trust in Him for forgiveness of our sins; but Scripture also expresses this as “confessing Him as Lord” (cf. Rom 10).
So I wonder what this does to your point? Clearly, we cannot take Christ’s Lordship into a salvation by works direction; but it does seem that the Jesus we believe in is not a Savior-without-being-Lord.
I’m asking this for exploratory purposes, not to try to smuggle works into our justification.
(2) I agree with you that union is not preached. We don’t seem to see in the Gospels, “Be united to Christ!” Instead, the “in Christ” language is used after the fact, to describe our salvation. “In him, we have redemption through his blood …”
So I wonder what this means.
LikeLike
I think Lily (and you) have captured one half of the Reformed doctrine very well. The Spirit is most definitely the power of our sanctification. I think you have missed the other half, which is attested amply by the quotes above (which seem to be “awaiting moderation”, although they are not immoderate).
Jeff, I finally see the moderated quotes to which you were referring. And this part stands out as it relates to your above point:
A. A. Hodge makes the point nicely. “It must be remembered that while the subject is passive with respect to that divine act of grace whereby he is regenerated, after he is regenerated he cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the work of sanctification…
Here is my problem. On the one hand you seem to agree that sanctification is the work of God alone. But then on the other you want to make the point that sanctification is a cooperative effort. Well, I don’t just don’t see how those two concepts can really co-exist. They don’t co-exist for justification, so why sanctification? I can understand someone saying that sanctification is a the work of God alone and we do not cooperate with God in it, or that sanctification is the work of both God and sinner together and so sinners do cooperate with God in it. But I don’t understand maintaining it being both the work of God alone and a cooperative effort. If you agree that the Spirit is the power of our sanctification then how can it be cooperative? So it seems like you take away with one hand what you give with the other.
But for my part, I still understand that our sanctification is God’s work alone, which obviously casts doubt on the notion that it is cooperative. Here is the part where you suggest an open door to pietism with the “let go and let God” jazz. But I would reiterate my bookend point regarding the Spirit being the power of our sanctification with the one about the law being the structure of our sanctification, which seems to stop the gap. I’d also reiterate my point in our 2k discussions about the Christian life being summed up in the word obedience, not to mention the whole third section of the HC. Do you really see “let go and let God” flowing from those kinds of emphases?
LikeLike
Yes, that’s actually Riddlebarger quoting A.A. Hodge there with approval.
Here’s how I would put it:
(1) DGH is right — there’s an element of mystery here.
(2) That element of mystery is kin to what the Confession says about our good works:
3. Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ. And that they may be enabled thereunto, beside the graces they have already received, there is required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit to work in them to will, and to do, of His good pleasure: yet are they not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty unless upon a special motion of the Spirit; but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them.
There it is … seemingly incompatible items thrown together and jointly affirmed. I believe you call that “paradox”?
(3) The problem with stopping at “sanctification is monergistic” is that it raises the important question, “What is the difference then between justification and sanctification”?
And of course we remember:
Question 77: Wherein do justification and sanctification differ?
Answer: Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification, yet they differ, in that God in justification imputes the righteousness of Christ;in sanctification his Spirit infuses grace, and enables to the exercise thereof; in the former, sin is pardoned; in the other, it is subdued:the one does equally free all believers from the revenging wrath of God, and that perfectly in this life, that they never fall into condemnation; the other is neither equal in all, nor in this life perfect in any, but growing up to perfection.
And also we remember that prior to our justification, we are dead in our sins and enslaved by them; afterwards, we are made alive in Christ and are no longer slaves to sin.
Sometimes, you almost seem to speak as if we are still dead in our sins. Wouldn’t that be the logical endpoint of a purely monergistic sanctification? We are utterly unable to obey God, until He causes us to do X action? We’re back to “we’re not bound to obey unless the Spirit moves us first.”
And that blurs the line between indicatives and imperatives so that the imperatives simply become indicatives.
Whereas, I would say that in Christ, we receive a new nature: not one that is autonomous from God such that we have new power to do good things on our own, but one that is continually Spirit-empowered, so that we may say No to sin (or Yes to righteousness).
Or even better: “In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires.”
—
No, I don’t see you (nor Lily) as advocating “Let Go and Let God.” That was more by way of explaining where the extreme could lead.
I do see the possibility of a kind of quietism or passivity, though. You speak of glorifying God in a cardboard box; invisible sanctification; purely monergistic sanctification. I wonder where is the place for what the Confession speaks of: stirring up the grace of God that is in you?
LikeLike
Jeff, no, not still dead in our sins. Instead “…we do good works, but nor for merit– for what would we merit? Rather, we are indebted to God for the good works we do, and not he to us, since it is he who ‘works in us both to will and do according to his good pleasure’– thus keeping in mind what is written: ‘When you have done all that is commanded you, then you shall say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have done what it was our duty to do.’ Yet we do not wish to deny that God rewards good works– but it is by his grace that he crowns his gifts.” (BC 24, The Sanctification of Sinners).
What I don’t read in any of this description (nor that which you provide) is the notion that we in point of fact “cooperate with God in our sanctification.” I pick up that God enables us or empowers us to do these good works to which we have been called. But how does that imply that we are contributing to the essence of our sanctification? Yes, I do think that the way to describe the co-existence of God’s sovereign work and human responsibility is to call it paradox. But what I think is a contradiction in terms is to say that God alone sanctifies and we cooperate or contribute to it. Huh? I can live quite comfortably with the mystery of paradox, but I find it hard to abide contradictions.
But what’s wrong with being quiet and passive? It’s not as if the case hasn’t been made for good works, obedience and human responsibility. And those traits attended the cross. I understand that quiet and passive don’t get much truck in American Protestantism, but maybe they have more to do with a theology of the cross, and maybe activism has more to do with a theology of glory.
LikeLike
But Jeff, where does Paul talk about “union” the way he talks about “justification.” For all the time that Paul spends trying to clarify justification by faith — and critiquing works based accounts of salvation, wouldn’t you expect him to talk about “union” explicitly and explain it the way he does justification? I’m not trying to be mean about this, but I do wonder about reading skills of those who look at “in him” rhetoric as being as clear as Justification by faith alone in Pauline theology.
LikeLike
Zrim and Jeff, and to add to this point, the Shorter Catechism describes sanctification as the “work” of God. And when the catechism talks about us, it uses the passive voice, as in “we are renewed in the whole man” and “are enable” more and more to die unto sin and live unto Christ. I am a stickler for passive constructions. But in this context the passivity makes sense and is tolerable grammatically speaking.
LikeLike
Jeff, forgive me for butting in, but the “let go and let God” stuff (i.e. Keswick) has nothing to do with what Zrim is saying. It is all about a crisis moment where sanctification is jump-started and the believer is almost instantaneously and fully sanctified. I’d say the folks who are into revival are much more prone to this one. You might want to check out Andy Naselli’s work on Keswick. He does describe the “reformed” view of sanctification as synergistic, but he’s a baptist.
LikeLike
Nate: Noted.
Zrim: You seem to be interchanging “cooperate” and “contribute” as if they were the same; but I don’t think of them in the same way. I *would* say that we cooperate in sanctification — notice that a lot of Reformed authors much better than I also say this — but not that we contribute to our sanctification, especially not the essence of it.
What I haven’t seen yet is your interaction with those authors. Leave me out of it for a moment and tell me about Hodge and Riddlebarger and Packer and Hoekema. Notice that they come from various wings of the Reformed tradition, yet they seem to be speaking unanimously here.
If we’re going to settle on “the Reformed view of sanctification is X”, then we don’t get to just strike out on our own, right?
For example, let’s consider Belgic 24. You cited the back half. Here’s what precedes: We believe that this true faith, produced in man by the hearing of God’s Word and by the work of the Holy Spirit, regenerates him and makes him a “new man,” causing him to live the “new life” and freeing him from the slavery of sin.
Therefore, far from making people cold toward living in a pious and holy way, this justifying faith, quite to the contrary, so works within them that apart from it they will never do a thing out of love for God but only out of love for themselves and fear of being condemned.
So far, the work of God.
So then, it is impossible for this holy faith to be unfruitful in a human being, seeing that we do not speak of an empty faith but of what Scripture calls “faith working through love,” which leads a man to do by himself the works that God has commanded in his Word.
To do by himself? That’s not the language of monergism.
So I am happy to say that sanctification is the work of God, and that our change of heart comes entirely from the Spirit. I’m happy to say that our good works are done in gratitude because of our justification.
Nevertheless, I think you’re truncating the full Reformed doctrine of sanctification by denying validity to the term “cooperation”, which shows up all over the place in Reformed systematic theologies.
What is Owen getting at when he charges us to “bring your lust to the Gospel”?
In other words: If you want to convince me of the “sanctification is monergistic” formula, then you’ll (a) need to deal with Reformed theologians who say otherwise, and (b) do some homework to show that this is genuinely Reformed theology and not a Zrimician reduction.
And perhaps you could start here: if sanctification is monergistic, why does it involve struggle? Is God weak enough that he must struggle with us and our sin nature? That doesn’t happen when the Spirit creates justifying faith!
And I am listening, so please don’t take that as a dismissal.
LikeLike
DGH: I’m not trying to be mean about this, but I do wonder about reading skills of those who look at “in him” rhetoric as being as clear as Justification by faith alone in Pauline theology.
Not to be mean back, but when so many different authors see the “in Him” language as referring to union, then why is it hard? The term “union” is an invented theological term used to refer to the “in Him” language; it applies by definition.
Or put it this way, when was the last time you read a Reformed author who said, “Some people see the ‘in Him’ language as referring to union, but they are wrong because of X”?
So …
But look at it this way: You wouldn’t deny the clarity of federal headship theology, right? And that we are justified because and only because Christ is our head?
If so, then you are looking at one aspect of union theology, the forensic aspect. What’s to be gained, then, by denying it?
From one of my favorite Calvinistic authors:
27. As many of you as have been baptized. The greater and loftier the privilege is of being the children of God, the farther is it removed from our senses, and the more difficult to obtain belief. He therefore explains, in a few words, what is implied in our being united, or rather, made one with the Son of God; so as to remove all doubt, that what belongs to him is communicated to us. He employs the metaphor of a garment, when he says that the Galatians have put on Christ; but he means that they are so closely united to him, that, in the presence of God, they bear the name and character of Christ, and are viewed in him rather than in themselves. This metaphor or similitude, taken from garments, occurs frequently, and has been treated by us in other places. — Calv Comm Gal 3.27.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I’m thinking there may be some misunderstandings and offer some thoughts to consider.
Re: what Scripture calls “faith working through love,”
Who gave you faith? Whose love is imparted to you? Whose fruit is imparted to you? If it is from God for Christ’s sake, it is gift and should be viewed as such.
Re: But look at it this way: You wouldn’t deny the clarity of federal headship theology, right? And that we are justified because and only because Christ is our head?
Does our justification come because Christ is head or because he was crucified, died, buried, and rose again? Surely you see the error when it is put in this way? If you maintain a firm foundational understanding of justification (the solas) and that is is pure gift – a lot of other things fall into place.
Re: monergism
If sanctification is gift, it is his work in us. This leaves the Christian free to do everything from a free and merry spirit and this is different than being under a law of cooperation. Good works flow from the Gospel not the law. A monergistic view creates a different attitude than cooperation. A monergistic view gives gladness of heart and boasts in God. Cooperation takes credit for cooperating and the Old Adam wants to find merit in itself for cooperating. It does not see that it is merely doing what should be done in the first place.
The New Testament’s view of the Holy Spirit can be stated in one sentence: Where Christ is, there is the Holy Spirit; where the Holy Spirit is, there is Christ. Christ and the Holy Spirit belong together. The Holy Spirit gives us what is Christ’s and Christ IS our sanctification.
LikeLike
You seem to be interchanging “cooperate” and “contribute” as if they were the same; but I don’t think of them in the same way. I *would* say that we cooperate in sanctification…but not that we contribute to our sanctification, especially not the essence of it.
Jeff, what if the subject was justification and someone was maintaining that to cooperate in justification wasn’t the same as contributing to it? Does cooperate in become synonymous with contribute to in this case but not in the case of sanctification? What about the other elements of the ordo? Do we also cooperate in but not ocntribute to our glorification?
LikeLike
Jeff, the point is not to deny union. The point is what was Paul writing his letters to explain? Justification or union? If union, then you’d expect to see the word “union” explicitly, no? I mean, Paul was not reluctant to use the word justification.
So then how can people say that union is more important to Paul’s theology than justification, or that union is more central to the Reformed doctrine of salvation than justification when Paul mentions one explicitly and not the other?
I am not denying that lots of Reformed writers spill a lot of ink over union. I am not denying the doctrine of union. What I am questioning is the idea that justification doesn’t capture the central dynamic of salvation. Paul’s writings suggest otherwise. And the idea that justification was important to the 16th c. but not to the present is rather easily pushed aside by the fact that justification seems to be an important concern going all the way back to the church’s beginning.
LikeLike
Zrim: Hope you’re having a good Sunday.
What if the subject was justification and someone was maintaining that to cooperate in justification wasn’t the same as contributing to it? Does cooperate in become synonymous with contribute to in this case but not in the case of sanctification?
Yes, that’s correct. In justification, the question is one of merit: How do we attain to the righteous status needed to be in fellowship with God? The classic reason given for guarding monergistic justification so stringently is that if we cooperate in our justification, we contribute to it — our cooperation would be meritorious (E.g. Dordt 1 Error 2).
But sanctification is not meritorious in any sense, so the question “Who contributes what in sanctification?” has no meaning. The question presupposes that merit can be awarded, when there is no issue of merit on the table.
But in any event, these questions need to be taken to Riddlebarger, or Hodges junior and senior, or Packer, or Hoekema, or Reymond, or Berkhof, all of whom use the term “cooperate” or “synergistic” (Packer). Wrestle with them, not with me.
I’m just some guy on the ‘Net whose opinions you often disagree with. I’m not in a position to explain very credibly to you.
But if were to ask, “Does the Reformed tradition teach that sanctification is monergistic?’, then the systematic guys are the ones to go to. You’ve said that the Reformed view disallows the term “cooperation”; they all use the term anyway — and this throws a huge wrench into your theory.
For my part, I’m confident that you’ll that the answer is that the Reformed tradition teaches that sanctification is a work of God, but it involves our cooperation. But you’ll never be able to hear that answer from me. So ad fontes!
LikeLike
DGH: Jeff, the point is not to deny union.
I mostly believe you, up to the point where someone starts saying that our justification is the ground of our union, or that union flows from justification instead of the other way round. That’s the point where the doctrine of union is being denied.
The point is what was Paul writing his letters to explain? Justification or union? If union, then you’d expect to see the word “union” explicitly, no? I mean, Paul was not reluctant to use the word justification.
I agree: Paul is trying to explain justification. And he uses the concept of union (specifically, federal headship) to do it. Look at how he equates concepts in Romans 6: Being baptized into Christ means being baptized into his death means being united with Him in his death. Or in Col 2: When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. Not “because of Christ” or “by means of Christ”, but “with Christ.” The justification and the union go together.
So to my mind, justification and union ought not be competitors. They occupy different spaces: The one is the central benefit that we receive from Christ; the other is the way in which that benefit comes to us.
So then how can people say that union is more important to Paul’s theology than justification, or that union is more central to the Reformed doctrine of salvation than justification when Paul mentions one explicitly and not the other?
You won’t hear that from me! I think the quest to find a “center” is anachronistic, a relic of the 19th century when we searched for the One Big Idea That Explains It All. To my mind, there is no one “center” of Paul’s thought, whether it be justification or union or eschatology; there is no one “center” of Calvin’s thought either.
There are instead several big ideas that work together.
For Paul, it is clear that justification is one of those big ideas: Personally, he sees himself as the chief of sinners, saved by Christ; Ethnically, he sees his people as needing the justification that comes through the faith of Abraham; Cosmically, he sees Christ as the way in which all men are reconciled to God.
But being united to Christ is not more or less important that this. When Paul speaks of the life he lives, it is the life “crucified with Christ.” The justification and the relationship go hand in hand.
And so it ought to be with our doctrines of justification and union. They ought to complement one another, not compete with one another.
And that’s really the problem I have here. For whatever reason, a reasonable statement that “all the benefits of Christ flow out of being united with Christ” looks to you like a threat to the central importance of justification. But there’s no threat implied or delivered. Yes, justification is centrally important. Yes, justification flows out of union. Yes, both are true and are taught in all the Reformed systematic theologies.
So where’s the problem? Does someone out there teach that “because of union, justification is not centrally important”? Then push back against the error, not the truth. Give ground on the truth; give no ground on the error.
LikeLike
Jeff, so “cooperate in” is synonymous with “contribute to” when talking about justification but not when talking about sanctification because the former involves merit and the latter does not. I appreciate that you want to maintain this theologically but I am having a hard time maintaining it with common sense or common language. It seems to me that no matter the topic “cooperate in” is always synonymous with “contribute to,” and I don’t see how waving the category of “merit” helps. It seems to me better to admit that to say we cooperate in our own sanctification is to say that we indeed contribute to it.
And I get that certain Reformed writers maintain with you the cooperative view. But they are not here to answer these questions for me. And whatever I read in more ecclesiastical formulations doesn’t easily lend itself to the cooperative idea, at least to me. Instead, like dgh suggested, they seem to strongly suggest that it is the work of God and that we are passive agents of it instead of active agents cooperating in the process.
LikeLike
DGH: Cris, and at WTS, where Murray taught, he defended the idea that justification was still the crux of the matter for how people — whether in the 16th or 20th centuries — were right with God.
But getting right with God is only half of the issue* and is not the sole point which we should think we communicate and share the gospel with unbelievers. The message of the gospel, the gospel of the kingdom, is the King himself. “We preach Christ crucified” – that is not exhausted by or confined to “we preach justification by faith alone, by grace alone.” The latter proclamation is founder on the prior, and is a narrower concept, a narrower focus, one aspect of the salvation we proclaim when “we preach Christ crucified.”
*Redemption answers the twofold problem we have before God: Guilt for sin AND a corrupt nature (bondage to sin): Shorter Catechism, 18. Being guilty, liable before God, is addressed by God’s declarative acts to us, in redemption, such as justification and adoption. Being freed from the bondage to sin is addressed in God’s transforming works in us, such as sanctification and glorification. All of these, God’s redemptive acts and his redemptive works are given to us in the giving of the Son to us. We are given, we are gifted, redemption when we are given the Redeemer. When we are given the Redeemer, in Him, we are given the benefits of redemption.
DGH: Don’t you think it amazing that Paul says in Romans 5:1 that we have peace with God, not because of union, but because of justification.
Of course that’s amazing. So is the reconciliation we have in him, Rom 5:11. Amazing that we have been united with him in his death and resurrection, so that we have a resurrection like his, Rom 6:3-5. Amazing that we have received the Spirit of adoption and are heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, Rom 8:15-17. Amazing that we are “in Christ” and that entails such a richness of blessing that it is woven through Ephesians and Colossians and indeed the Gospel of John, John 14:23; John 17:20-23 (united to the Son we are also united to the Father).
Still, why divide confessional Protestants on salvation? Read the sources and let the chips fall where they will. Are you going to try and claim that where Calvin differs from Luther he’s deliberately being different for its own sake? Are you saying that Lutheran and Reformed theology differ – and you know they did and still do – for petty or non-exegetical reasons? Or are you the one now advocating some lowest common form of Christianity?
I thought WTS was friendly to the Gospel Coalition? Why isn’t a Justification Coalition acceptable? Ah, now you tempt to speak on behalf of WTS. Stayed tuned… *wink and grin*
-=Cris=-
LikeLike
Letting “WTS” speak for itself:
In Redemption: Accomplished and Applied, Murray chose to discuss union with Christ after touching on the distinct acts and processes of the application of redemption, such as calling, regeneration, faith, justification, adoption, sanctification, etc. Murray finally comes to Union as penultimate, leaving only glorification to come after union and all the others as an organizational matter of his book. He opens that chapter with this:
Intelligent readers may have wondered why there has not been up to this point some treatment of union with Christ. Obviously it is an important aspect of the application of redemption and, if we did not take account of it, not only would our presentation of the application of redemption be defective but our view of the Christian life would be gravely distorted. Nothing is more central or basic than union and communion with Christ. (p. 161)
There is, however, a good reason why the subject of union with Christ should not be co-ordinated with the other phases of the application of redemption with which we have dealt. That reason is that union with Christ is in itself a very broad and embracive subject. It is not simply a step in the application of redemption; when viewed, according to the teaching of Scripture, in its broader aspects it underlies every step of the application of redemption. Union with Christ is really the central truth of the whole doctrine of salvation not only in its application but also in its once-for-all accomplishment in the finished work of Christ. Indeed the whole process of salvation has its origin in one phase of union with Christ and salvation has in view the realization of other phases of union with Christ. This can be readily seen if we remember that brief expression which is so common in the New Testament, namely, “in Christ.” It is that which is meant by “in Christ” that we have in mind when we speak of “union with Christ”. It is quite apparent that the Scripture applies the expression “in Christ” to much more than the application of redemption. (p. 161)
Union is entailed the eternal decree, in election:
the fact is plain enough that there was no election of the Father in eternity apart from Christ. And that means that those who will be saved were not even contemplated by the Father in the ultimate counsel of his predestinating love apart from union with Christ – they were chosen in Christ. As far back as we can go in tracing salvation to its fountain we find “union with Christ”; it is not something tacked on; it is there from the outset. (p. 162)
We are united to Christ in his death, resurrection and exaltation:
It is also because the people of God were in Christ when he gave his life a ransom and redeemed by his blood that salvation has been secured for them; they are represented as united to Christ in his death, resurrection, and exaltation to heaven (Rom. 6:2-11; Eph. 2:4-6; Col. 3:3, 4). (p. 162)
It should not surprise us that the beginning of salvation in actual possession should be in union with Christ because we have found already that it is in Christ that salvation had its origin in the eternal election of the Father and that it is in Christ salvation was once for all secured by Jesus’ ransom blood. We could not think of such union with Christ as suspended when the people of God become the actual partakers of redemption – they are created anew in Christ. (p. 163)
It is in Christ that believers die. They have fallen asleep in Christ or through Christ and they are dead in Christ (1 Thess. 4:14, 16). Could anything illustrate the indissolubility of union with Christ more plainly than the fact that this union is not severed even in death? Death, of course, is real-spirit and body are rent asunder. But the separated elements of the person are still united to Christ. (p. 163) [A subtle reference to Shorter Cat., 37, the bodies of believers even in returning to dust are still united to Christ, awaiting the resurrection. Cris]
Finally, it is in Christ that the people of God will be resurrected [163] and glorified. It is in Christ they will be made alive when the last trumpet will sound and the dead will be raised incorruptible (1 Cor. 15:22). It is with Christ they will be glorified (Rom. 8:17). (p. 162-163)
Union with Christ is immensely practical:
What is it that binds past and present and future together in the life of faith and in the hope of glory? Why does the believer entertain the thought of God’s determinate counsel with such joy? Why can he have patience in the perplexities and adversities of the present? Why can he have confident assurance with reference to the future and rejoice in hope of the glory of God? It is because he cannot think of past, present, or future apart from union with Christ. It is union with Christ now in the virtue of his death and the power of his resurrection that certifies to him the reality of his election in Christ before the foundation of the world – he is blessed by the Father with all spiritual blessings in the heavenlies in Christ just as he was chosen in Christ from eternal ages (cf. Eph. 1:3, 4). And he has the seal of an eternal inheritance because it is in Christ that he is sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise as the earnest of his inheritance unto the redemption of the purchased possession (cf. Eph. 1:13, 14). Apart from union with Christ we cannot view past, present, or future with anything but dismay and Christless dread. By union with Christ the whole complexion of time and eternity is changed and the people of God may rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory.
(p. 163-164)
Union with Christ is a very inclusive subject. It embraces the wide span of salvation from its ultimate source in the eternal election of God to its final fruition in the glorification of the elect. It is not simply a phase of the application of redemption; it underlies every aspect of redemption both in its accomplishment and in its application. Union with Christ binds all together and insures that to all for whom Christ has purchased redemption he effectively applies and communicates the same. (p. 165)
Union with Christ is the central truth of the whole doctrine of salvation. All to which the people of God have been predestined in the eternal election of God, all that has been secured and procured for them in the once-for-all accomplishment of redemption, all of which they become the actual partakers in the application of redemption, and all that by God’s grace they will become in the state of consummated bliss is embraced within the compass of union and communion with Christ. p. 170
Emphasized elements of the citations are pedantically my doing. But this is John Murray on the foundational and comprehensive importance of union with Christ in the accomplishment and application of redemption to us.
-=Cris=-
LikeLike
Zrim, then it seems that your only choice is to posit that these Reformed writers misunderstood the Reformed faith, and that you got it right.
I think you have to do some serious homework here.
LikeLike
Cris, in those sections of Paul you refer to, which union is it? Gaffin talks about three types of union.
Have you read the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism on justification? Do you think they are deficient because they don’t mention union?
Sorry, but Murray doesn’t move me. And I don’t really understand how union (which union again) keeps it all together.
What I do understand is that I am a sinner and I need to be righteous before God. The doctrine of justification describes how I become righteous. The doctrine of union would appear to describe the application of redemption. But since the gospel is about how Christ died for sinners, and since justification describes the transaction involved in Christ’s death, it sure does seem to be pivotal to salvation. I know it gives me hope.
BTW, I thought Lillback argued that Calvin learned union from Luther.
LikeLike
Jeff, actually it is the unionists who seem to think that justification is in competition with union. When Cris writes above that getting right with God is only half the issue he seems to imply that justification or a justification centric understand of salvation is deficient. I would quote his sometime running partner on the importance of justification in contrast to other doctrines that might be organized to understand salvation, but then I might have to issue another apology.
LikeLike
Question: Is there any difference between this seemingly new Reformed doctrine of union with Christ and theosis?
LikeLike
Jeff, let’s not overstate matters. The point here isn’t to suggest anybody “misunderstood the Reformed faith.” I’m simply wondering how any of your explanation holds up, namely how “cooperate with” is synonymous with “contribute to” here but not there. I know, merit is the great unequalizer, but it just seems like sanctification gets to play by different grammatical rules than justification, which also end up different theological implications. But it seems to me that God alone is the author of our salvation, from election to glorification.
LikeLike
Lily, yes. Theosis is bad. Union with Christ is good but confusing. And it may not be the elixir that justification is. Here is what the union affirming John Murray wrote of the Reformation:
I bet, if I were willing to violate the eighth commandment, that Lutherans would agree with that.
LikeLike
Thanks, Dr. Hart. If that’s the Lutheran 8th and not the Reformed 8th, the excerpt won your bet. ; )
It was the comments about union to Christ making it unnecessary for justification to be primary or the grounds of our union that was throwing me. All I could think of was Osiander and the EO. This may be a backwards or goofy way of looking at theosis, but I could never understand how they reconcile:
1. Adam and Eve’s sin was trying to be like God
2. God’s wrath could only be satisfied by his Son becoming incarnate and dying for us
3. Theosis puts us in danger of repeating #1
LikeLike
P.S. Dr. Hart,
I don’t see how justification cannot be central and primary since we are sinner/saints and daily in need of forgiveness. Do the unionists see the dangers of the Wesleyan theosis?
LikeLike
Luther’s sublime comment on Psalm 5:2-3:
By the reign of His humanity or (as the Apostle says) His flesh, which takes place in faith, He conforms us to Himself and crucibles us, making genuine men, that is wretches and sinners, out of unhappy and haughty gods. For because we rose in Adam towards the likeness of God, He came down into our likeness, in order to lead us back to a knowledge of ourselves. And this takes place in the mystery [sacramentum] of the Incarnation. This is the reign of faith, in which the Cross of Christ holds sway, throwing down a divinity perversely sought and calling back a humanity [with its] despised weakness of the flesh, which had been perversely abandoned. But by the reign of [His] divinity and glory He will conform [conjigurabit] us to the body of His glory, that we might be like Him, now neither sinners nor weak, neither led nor ruled, but ourselves kings and sons of God like the angels. Then will be said in fact “my God,” which is now said in hope. For it is not unfitting that he says first “my King” and then “my God,” just as Thomas the Apostle, in the last chapter of Saint John, says, “My Lord and my God.” For Christ must be grasped first as Man and then as God, and the Cross of His humanity must be sought before the glory of His divinity. Once we have got Christ the Man, He will bring along Christ the God of His Own accord.
LikeLike
Lily, agreed and we would seem to have the examples of Paul and the Reformers demonstrating the centrality of justification.
LikeLike
Darryl: Have you read the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism on justification? Do you think they are deficient because they don’t mention union?
Darryl – but they do mention “union”. Belgic Confession (Canadian Reformed Churches trans):
Article 21 – The Satisfaction of Christ our High Priest
2nd paragraph:
Therefore we justly say, with Paul, that we know nothing except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. We count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Jesus our Lord. We find comfort in His wounds and have no need to seek or invent any other means of reconciliation with God than this only sacrifice, once offered, by which the believers are perfected for all times. This is also the reason why the angel of God called Him Jesus, that is, Saviour, because He would save His people from their sins.
Article 22 – Our Justification through faith in Christ
We believe that, in order that we may obtain the true knowledge of this great mystery [i.e., the satisfaction of Christ], the Holy Spirit kindles in our hearts a true faith. This faith embraces Jesus Christ with all His merits, makes Him our own, and does not seek anything besides Him. For it must necessarily follow, either that all we need for our salvation is not in Jesus Christ or, if it is all in Him, that one who has Jesus Christ through faith, has complete salvation. It is, therefore, a terrible blasphemy to assert that Christ is not sufficient, but that something else is needed besides Him; for the conclusion would then be that Christ is only half a Saviour.
Therefore we rightly say with Paul that we are justified by faith alone, or by faith apart from works of law. Meanwhile, strictly speaking, we do not mean that faith as such justifies us, for faith is only the instrument by which we embrace Christ our righteousness; He imputes to us all His
merits and as many holy works as He has done for us and in our place. Therefore Jesus Christ is our righteousness, and faith is the instrument that keeps us with Him in the communion of all His benefits. When those benefits have become ours, they are more than sufficient to acquit us of our sins.
* * *
Fully half the article on Justification is a broader perspective than some might expect.
I will try and get back to you on the other questions you raise. But I have a few other responsibilities to attend to.
-=Cris=-
LikeLike
Too funny! The RC have picked up on the Hans Fiene videos and have been posting different ones on their blogs the last few weeks (with the usual caveats decrying the BOC)! Anywho, so what has that to do with justification and union in Christ debate? Well… it’s been settled – the conspiracy theory of justification by faith alone has been exposed!
Hmm… does this make Hans the new Godfather?
Joe Fox: “The Godfather is the I Ching. The Godfather is the sum of all wisdom. The Godfather is the answer to any question. What should I take on my vacation? Leave the gun, take the cannoli. What day is it? Maunday, Tuesday, Thursday, Wednesday. The answer to your problem is Go to the mattresses…”
LikeLike
Lily:
It was the comments about union to Christ making it unnecessary for justification to be primary or the grounds of our union that was throwing me.
Those are two different issues. Yes: Justification is primary (and this is necessary). No: Justification is not the ground of our union.
Are we united to Christ because we have been justified? Or are we justified because Christ’s righteousness becomes ours? The first gives makes justification prior to union; the second, and proper Reformed teaching, makes union prior to justification. The first undermines the doctrine of federal headship.
There is an unfortunate equivocation going on around here on the word “priority.” Does that mean “importance” or “logical order”? Those two are not the same, but they’re being used interchangeably.
LikeLike
Oops! Forgot to list two of the RC blogs this video shows up on: First Thoughts and Mark Shea!
ok, Ok, OK! Other people may not find this as hilarious as I do, but if you understand the history of the conflict over justification by faith between the RC and Lutherans – well… it’s ROFL!
http://markshea.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-they-say-ecumenism-is-waste-of-time.html
LikeLike
Jeff, if you don’t get justification by faith alone straight and keep it central and prior to union, the path seems to start veering off and ends with some kind of version of theosis, mysticism, or pietism – caution lights should start flashing and attention needs to be paid to what is being taught about these verses:
The main NT verse used for theosis: 2 Peter 1:4: (AV: “partakers of the divine nature”; NEB: “come to share in the very being of God). Certainly John 17:23 is to the point: “The glory which Thou gavest Me I have given to them, that they may be one, as We are one; I in them and Thou in Me, may they be perfectly one” This at once suggests the divine nuptial mystery (Ephesians 5:25-32; one may compare 2:19-22 and Colossians 1:26-27), with its implied “wondrous exchange.” That the final “transfiguration” of believers into “conformity” with Christ’s glorious body (Philippians 3:21; one may compare 1 Corinthians 15:49) has begun already in the spiritual-sacramental life of faith, is clear from “icon” texts like Romans 8:29, Colossians 3:10, and especially 2 Corinthians 3:18: “thus we are transfigured into His likeness, from splendor to splendor”. One may also wish to compare 2 Corinthians 4:16 and Ephesians 3:14-19.
And that’s all I have to say about that.
LikeLike
Lily,
This is simply an area where the Reformed and Lutheran traditions disagree. For Calvin, our justification comes through sharing in Christ (Inst 3.16.1). The benefits of Christ are applied to us by uniting us to Christ (WSC 30).
LikeLike
Cris, this is what I don’t get. The Belgic does not mention union explicitly. But you see it everywhere.
And then you say that justification here offers a much “broader perspective” on salvation. So then why say that justification only goes so far and needs the uplift of union?
LikeLike
Darryl:
OK, by saying the Belgic Confession article on Justification is a “broader perspective” I meant to point to the fact that it is not written from a dogmatic, definitional perspective. It describes Christ and his satisfaction and warns against only having a partial Savior if we truncate our concepts. Even in the paragraph that does affirm that justification is by faith, and that by the instrumentality of faith we embrace his righteousness, it affirms that all of Christ’s merits are imputed to us. It is not a simple two-line assertion to unpack sola fide. The article does not even explicitly say that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us as an external righteousness. It isn’t the definitional kind of document in the same way some of the other Reformation creeds and confessions.
-=Cris=-
LikeLike
Cris,
I’m not sure what your point is. The Belgic functions in the life of Reformed communions the same was as the Westminster Confession. It is binding, dogmatic (as in church dogma), and it does define.
LikeLike
Darryl: Cris, this is what I don’t get. The Belgic does not mention union explicitly. But you see it everywhere.
Darryl, you’re joking, right?
We believe that, in order that we may obtain the true knowledge of this great mystery, the Holy Spirit kindles in our hearts a true faith. This faith embraces Jesus Christ with all His merits, makes Him our own, and does not seek anything besides Him./b BC, art 21.
It’s Christ, and in him all his merits. We embrace him by faith because he is given to us by the Father; and the Father gives us (the elect) to the Son. This is a recurring theme of John’s Gospel, as well as Paul’s epistles. Even in it’s affirmation that we are justified by faith, the Belgic Confession puts it in terms of Christ and making “him” our own.
Therefore Jesus Christ is our righteousness, and faith is the instrument that keeps us with Him in the communion of all His benefits. When those benefits have become ours, they are more than sufficient to acquit us of our sins. BC, art 21.
You don’t see “union” in communion? I am not attempting any humor here. You don’t see these two words as synonyms, or at least partially overlapping synonyms? You don’t see union & communion referring to the same concept?
You can’t find concepts independently of a one-to-one word/concept relationship? What about “fellowship”? What about “fellow-heirs” with Christ? What about verbal forms, “unite” – “united”?
To come back to the expressed preference for holding to justification as opposed to “union with Christ” that’s me driving to Phila. International Airport to meet my wife, and when she walks out the secured area I kiss my wedding ring (or hers) or a picture of my wife instead of kissing my wife. Why restrict my joy to the ring or certificate – the forensic seals of my marriage – when I can rejoice in a person, in The Wife?
-=Cris=-
LikeLike
Darryl – May 8, 2011 at 2:31 pm – you asked about Gaffin’s three types of union. Thanks for the opportunity to share.
1st, there is this caution:
“In making such distinctions it is important to keep in mind that they refer to different aspects of the same union, not different unions.”
The trio then is:
“There is the predestinarian “in Christ” (Eph 1:4), the redemptive-historical “in Christ,” the union involved in the once-for-all accomplishment of salvation, and the existential or perhaps better, applicatory “in Christ,” union in the actual possession or application of salvation.
But in noting it extends from eternity to consummation in glory you could frame it thus:
• In eternity past
• In redemptive history
• In faith & life
• In eternity beyond this life
And in terms of where this is seen in Paul and the rest of Scripture:
• In eternity – United to Christ in election – Eph 1:4, 9
• In history – United to Christ in the once for all accomplishment of redemption – Rom 6:3-7; 8:1; Gal 2:20; Eph 2:5-6
• In faith & life – United to Christ in application of redemption – Col 1:26-27; Col 3:1-4; Rom 5:12-19;* 1 Cor 15:20-23; Rom 8:9-10 (in the Spirit/in Christ/belong to Christ and the Spirit in believer/Christ in you); Eph 3:16-17 (“his Spirit in your inner being” is for “Christ … [to] dwell in your hearts “)
• In eternity – United to Christ in our glorification, Rom 8:17; 1 Cor 15:22
In this we see that union with Christ, being in Christ, Christ dwelling in us is not an alternative, not a coordinate, not simply complementary, much less a competitive doctrine to justification by faith alone in Christ alone. Neither does it compete with adoption in Christ, regeneration or sanctification, but it is the foundational truth that undergirds every aspect of the accomplishment and application of redemption. It is the fulfillment of the covenantal promise: “I will be your God and you will be my people.” The Lord is our portion and we are his: Ps 73:26; 119:57; Jer 10:16; Deut 32:9
R. B. Gaffin, “Union with Christ: Some Biblical and Theological Reflections”
Published in A. T. B. McGowan, ed., Always Reforming. Explorations in Systematic Theology (Leicester: Apollo/IVP; Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006), pp. 271-88.
Thanks for the time & space.
-=Cris=-
LikeLike
Unless you want me to continue citing Dr. Gaffin – who notes in the essay cited above, that 5 years after publishing Redemption: Accomplished and Applied, where union with Christ was next to last topic, Murray resequenced his class lectures and treated Union immediately following effectual calling.
So, while I’m happy to continue representing (however poorly) Dr. Gaffin, I want to come back to this:
May 8, 2011 at 2:36 pm – Darryl to Jeff
When Cris writes above that getting right with God is only half the issue he seems to imply that justification or a justification centric understand of salvation is deficient.
Not deficient, but it is not the sole issue. There’s the duplex gratia of Christ that answers our two-fold need: freedom from guilt of sin and freedom from power of sin. Justification and adoption both relate to freedom from guilt; sanctification and glorification both related to freedom from power of sin. All of these facets of salvation are embraced within, undergirded by the effectual call into union with the Saviour.
Not deficient, but it’s not the sole issue. Justification does not exhaust the riches of our redemption in Christ. Look at our post-modern society. Broadly speaking, there are many with no objective or external moral standards. Families and personal relationships are often dysfunctional. People don’t care about being right with their neighbors that they can see. Why would they care about being right with a God they can’t see? In that environment it can be just as effective to bring the gospel from the standpoint of adoption (using our theological categories), just as much as from the standpoint of justification. The gospel can be powerfully communicated both ways, through the lens of either one.
-=Cris=-
LikeLike
So let me get this right, Cris, justification has an already and not yet dimension, but not union. How non-BT!
LikeLike
Cris, how does union free us from the power of sin if we continue to sin and if our good works are polluted with sin? You seem to suggest that union is the cure all for all spiritual diseases. But it sure looks to me like the righteousness of Christ is the cure, and that is what the doctrine of justification explains.
Plus, I don’t see how union is the solution for dysfunctional families. I don’t see how justification is either. Sin happens. It extends through this mortal life. If the earth groans under the weight of sin, so do God’s children.
BTW, why the italics? Is this a quotation? Emphasis? Technological glitch?
LikeLike
Are you saying that we are not freed from the power of sin unless we stop sinning altogether and do good works unpolluted by sin?
You seem to suggest that “freedom from the power of sin” must mean “sinless perfection.”
LikeLike
For what it’s worth, Calvin sounds as if justification without regeneration is deficient:
Since faith embraces Christ as he is offered by the Father, and he is offered not only for justification, for forgiveness of sins and peace, but also for sanctification, as the fountain of living waters, it is certain that no man will ever know him aright without at the same time receiving the sanctification of the Spirit; or, to express the matter more plainly, faith consists in the knowledge of Christ; Christ cannot be known without the sanctification of his Spirit: therefore faith cannot possibly be disjoined from pious affection. — Inst 3.2.8.
(Did he say “affection”?!)
Clearly, faith embraces Christ for both justification and sanctification; so much so that Christ cannot be known without receiving his sanctification.
More Calvin:
The sum of the Gospel is, not without good reason, made to consist in repentance and forgiveness of sins; and, therefore, where these two heads are omitted, any discussion concerning faith will be meager and defective, and indeed almost useless. — Calv Inst 3.3.1.
Ah, there’s the word “defective.” A discussion of faith that contains only justification, and not sanctification as well, is defective.
This gives a lot of food for thought:
Both of these [mortification of the flesh and quickening of the Spirit] we obtain by union with Christ. For if we have true fellowship in his death, our old man is crucified by his power, and the body of sin becomes dead, so that the corruption of our original nature is never again in full vigor, (Rom. 6: 5, 6.) If we are partakers in his resurrection, we are raised up by means of it to newness of life, which conforms us to the righteousness of God. In one word, then, by repentance I understand regeneration, the only aim of which is to form in us anew the image of God, which was sullied, and all but effaced by the transgression of Adam. … Accordingly through the blessing of Christ we are renewed by that regeneration into the righteousness of God from which we had fallen through Adam, the Lord being pleased in this manner to restore the integrity of all whom he appoints to the inheritance of life. This renewal, indeed, is not accomplished in a moment, a day, or a year, but by uninterrupted, sometimes even by slow progress God abolishes the remains of carnal corruption in his elect, cleanses them from pollution, and consecrates them as his temples, restoring all their inclinations to real purity, so that during their whole lives they may practice repentance, and know that death is the only termination to this warfare. The greater is the effrontery of an impure raver and apostate, named Staphylus, who pretends that I confound the condition of the present life with the celestial glory, when, after Paul, I make the image of God to consist in righteousness and true holiness; as if in every definition it were not necessary to take the thing defined in its integrity and perfection. It is not denied that there is room for improvement; but what I maintain is, that the nearer any one approaches in resemblance to God, the more does the image of God appear in him. That believers may attain to it, God assigns repentance as the goal towards which they must keep running during the whole course of their lives. — Inst. 3.3.9
We note:
(1) Union supplies sanctification.
(2) Requiring sinless perfection as the definition of freedom from sin is “effrontery.”
(3) The image of God is “all but effaced” in fallen man.
LikeLike
Jeff, no I affirm WCF 20.1:
I am no longer under bondage. But I’m not sure how to conceive of this without thinking of it first and foremost as forensic since when it comes to renovation, I’m still polluted and need pardon from guilt.
LikeLike
Jeff, union supplies sanctification? Can a doctrine really do that? Doesn’t the Holy Spirit?
And what about mongergism or synergism?
One more comment, Calvin didn’t say that union or regeneration or effectual calling is the doctrine on which the church stands or falls (or whatever the line is). Why?
LikeLike
DGH “the italics? Is this a quotation? Emphasis? Technological glitch?” => Sorry, editorial glitch, aka typo. Intended to set your words in italics.
DGH: You seem to suggest that union is the cure all for all spiritual diseases. YES! Now you get it. Yes, union with Christ is the “cure all” because union with Christ is simply the short-hand, the label, for saying that when God calls us into life from spiritual death, from the domain of darkness into the kingdom of his beloved Son, He justifies, forgives, pardons, adopts, and sanctifies us. We are sealed with the promised Holy Spirit in Him (in Christ). Union with Christ means that in our salvation, our redemption we are given Christ, and in Him, we are given all the benefits of redemption: the forensic benefits, and the transformational benefits. We are justified and made alive. We are joined to Christ – who is our righteousness and our holiness.
ESV 1Cor 1:30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
Understanding union with Christ liberates us to realize that we preach Christ and in him, we can preach all the benefits to believers for their comfort and edification, and to unbelievers that they might be saved. We preach the Gospel – we preach Christ crucified, risen and ascended, for the gathering of God’s people among the nations.
We preach Christ – that is not a cipher for justification by faith.
ESV 1Cor 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.
What is of first importance is Christ died and was raised for our sins – That embraces all aspects of our redemption – that is not a cipher for justification by faith, but it includes it!
LikeLike
Cris, how does union free us from the power of sin if we continue to sin and if our good works are polluted with sin?
>> “Union” frees us from the power of sin because Christ becomes our sanctification, and imparts that in some small way to us in our regeneration. I was dead in sin, but am now alive in Christ (Eph 2:1 ff). This is not fully realized in us in this life, in this mortal body. It awaits the end, the consummation, glorification.
But as the Heidelberg Catechism notes, LD 44, Q/A 114:
Q. But can those converted to God keep these commandments perfectly?
A. No. In this life even the holiest have only a small beginning of this obedience. Nevertheless, with earnest purpose they do begin to live not only according to some but to all the commandments of God.
Consider:
NASB Rom 6:11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, 13 and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace. 15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! 16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
NASB Rom 7:4 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.
NASB Rom 8:9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. 10 If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you. 12 So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh– 13 for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.
NASB Gal 2:19 “For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God.
NASB Col 3:5 Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry.
ESV 1Peter 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.
I am one who is only making a small beginning in hating my sins, and delighting in righteousness.
-=Cris=-
LikeLike
Re: …it can be just as effective to bring the gospel from the standpoint of adoption (using our theological categories), just as much as from the standpoint of justification. The gospel can be powerfully communicated both ways, through the lens of either one.
Only if they understand that they were bought with a price and they were adopted via the blood of Christ. There is no remission of sin apart from the blood of the lamb and those who have not had their robes washed in the blood of the lamb will not be accepted into the wedding feast (Matthew 22, Revelation 7 – Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?…These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb). Christianity is a religion soaked in blood because we have a bloody Savior.
LikeLike
Apparently, there is a paucity of understanding about the cross and the blood of Christ. You may think can approach God via election/union, but I know I am a blood-bought child of God washed in the blood of the lamb and I only approach God via the blood of my Savior, the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world.
1 Cothinthians 1:18,23
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God…. But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness
Hebrews 2:14
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Hebrews 9:12-14
Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Hebrews 9:22
And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission
Hebrews 10:19
Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus
Hebrews 10:29
Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Hebrews 13:20
Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
Revelation 5:9
And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation
Revelation 7:14
And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Revelation 12:11
And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
Revelation 19:12-13
His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
LikeLike
Lily: Apparently, there is a paucity of understanding about the cross and the blood of Christ.
*looks around*
Don’t see any paucity of understanding about the cross around here.
Receiving our justification by faith in Christ alone is not in any way different from receiving our justification by being united to Him in faith.
The first describes *what* we receive (justification) and the *instrument by which we receive it* (faith). The second describes *what* we receive (justification) and the *person through whom it comes* (Christ).
Those are perfectly harmonious.
LikeLike
DGH: Jeff, union supplies sanctification? Can a doctrine really do that? Doesn’t the Holy Spirit?
That’s plain silly. If we’re going to play word games, then can the doctrine of justification make me right before God?
Of course not. It’s our actual justification that makes us right before God; it’s our actual union with Christ that supplies our sanctification.
What’s up with that? You’re not usually so obtuse!
LikeLike
In What Senses is Justification Central?
* Affirm: Justification is a free declaration of “righteous and not guilty” in God’s sight.
* Affirm: This declaration is on the basis of Christ’s merit alone and received through resting in His work alone.
* Affirm: Justification is the pastoral ground of our progressive sanctification; and is therefore central in the life of the believer.
* Affirm: Justification is our primary need before God; and is therefore the central anthropological problem to be solved.
(That is: If Bob hears the Gospel and believes it, and is then hit by a bus, then he needs nothing else to stand before God as reconciled. His justification suffices).
* Affirm: Our adoption is grounded in our justification.
—
* Deny: The faith that receives justification is in no way a faith combined with works or combined with a tendency to produce works. Rather, works accompany faith because faith receives the Spirit, who works in us.
* Deny: The union we have with Christ is not grounded in our justification. Rather, our justification is grounded in the fact that Christ is our head, and his righteousness is therefore imputed to me. Justification is therefore not the central architectural principle out of which flows the rest of our salvation.
* Deny: The righteousness of Christ that becomes our in justification is not infused, but imputed.
LikeLike
In What Sense is Union With Christ Central to our Salvation?
* Affirm: The benefits of Christ’s redemption become ours when the Spirit creates faith in us, thereby uniting us to Christ. (WSC 30). It is therefore proper to say that our union with Christ is the architectural center of our salvation. From being united to Christ, all the benefits of Christ come to us.
* Affirm: None of the benefits of Christ’s work avail us until we are united with him (cf. Inst 3.1.1).
* Affirm: What we receive from Christ is not one grace, but two: justification and regeneration (or sanctification) (cf. Inst 3.3). The two operate on entirely different principles: Justification is by imputation; sanctification is by infusion (WLC 77).
—
* Deny: Our sanctification flows out of gratitude for our justification; but it is not caused by it. For such a doctrine would be a monstrosity, giving to justification a principle of infusion and not imputation only.
* Deny: Our sanctification in no way contributes to our justification.
* Deny: Our union with Christ is not effected by works nor by baptism nor by any other thing but by faith alone, created by the Spirit alone.
LikeLike
Re: …our justification is grounded in the fact that Christ is our head, and his righteousness is therefore imputed to me. Justification is therefore not the central architectural principle out of which flows the rest of our salvation.
If justification is grounded in headship, then why does the Bible (Romans 5:9) teach that we are justified by his blood? Why does Hebrews 10:10 say we are sanctified through the offering of Christ’s body for us? Why do we receive the body and blood of Christ in communion? Why does scripture teach that we overcome by the blood of the Lamb? Does not scripture teach that it is the blood of Christ that continually cleanses us from sin? The scriptures are plain about justification by Christ’s blood, your headship theory is not. Do you ever submit your commentaries to scripture?
Here is yet another partial listing:
Romans 3:25
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Romans 5:9
Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Ephesians 1:7
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Hebrews 10:10
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
1 Corinthians 10:16
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
Colossians 1:20
And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
1 John 1:7
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
Revelation 12:11
And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
LikeLike
Re: Our union with Christ is not effected by works nor by baptism nor by any other thing but by faith alone, created by the Spirit alone.
Well… what do you put your faith in? Christ crucified or Christ in the manger or Christ in heaven?
LikeLike
Re: Our sanctification in no way contributes to our justification.
So you think they can be separated?
LikeLike
Re: It is therefore proper to say that our union with Christ is the architectural center of our salvation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNhh0IjcroA
LikeLike
Justification is the pastoral ground of our progressive sanctification; and is therefore central in the life of the believer.
But Jeff, doesn’t that introduce, even if ever so slightly, a renovative element into justification?
Justification is our primary need before God; and is therefore the central anthropological problem to be solved
Justification is our primary forensic need.
As the rebellious creature, guilty and corrupt covenant breakers our primary need is a covenant head who will stand in our place for life and death and restore us and our marred image to God. The anthropological problem is a theological problem.
Concerning Bob & the bus: Bob would stand before God reconciled, justified, adopted and even sanctified. In believing the Gospel, Christ was his and he was Christ’s. In believing the Gospel, God had become his Father.
-=Cris=-
LikeLike
Here’s a beautiful Ambrose quote:
I will glory not because I am righteous but because I am redeemed; I will glory not because I am free from sins but because my sins are forgiven me. I will glory not because I have done good nor because someone has done good to me but because Christ is my advocate with the Father and because the blood of Christ has been shed for me.
LikeLike
The only way I can see that union would be central for justification is if election is seen as the cause of salvation rather than the blood of Christ. If that is the case then faith would have to be placed in election rather than the blood of Christ. And… if that is true, Paul was screwed up for preaching Christ crucified and that our faith is to be in Christ crucified (shorthand for crucified/dead/buried/risen).
LikeLike
Lily, I’m nonplussed.
On the one hand, you profess (rightly) a doctrine of grace that holds us up as sinners with no hope save in the death of the Righteous One. It is a beautiful picture of our salvation, and I rejoice with you in it.
On the other hand … the Family Feud Buzzer? Really? Where’s the grace in that? I’m not sure what you intended, but the effect was … ugly. I was expecting perhaps a Lutheran take on Federal Headship and received instead a rude slap.
As for Federal Headship, it is not “my theory”, but classic Reformed Theology. And ironically, one of the principal passages of Scripture used to uphold it is Romans 5, the very passage you presume to teach me.
If you would teach, then first learn.
LikeLike
Lily : If justification is grounded in headship, then why does the Bible (Romans 5:9) teach that we are justified by his blood?
Because right after Rom 5:9 comes Rom 5:12-21 – Christ death, which is what “blood” is about, was in our place and for us as the Second Adam.
I appreciate the Scripture references to Christ’s death as a blood sacrifice. It ties Christ’s death directly to the sacrifices of the OT as the anti-type to types. So the blood is short-hand for the death of the sacrifice. References to Christ’s blood are references to his death. Included in Christ’s death is that it was a blood (life) sacrifice: substitution and atonement.
It is not necessarily a problem or doctrinal deficiency if “blood” is not mentioned when discussing Christ death or its efficacy for our redemption. None of the NT authors were constrained to always explicitly use “blood” when discussing “death.”
-=Cris=-
LikeLike
Jeff – I’ve never been one to be impressed by Christian cant.
Cris – Re: It is not necessarily a problem or doctrinal deficiency if “blood” is not mentioned when discussing Christ death or its efficacy for our redemption. None of the NT authors were constrained to always explicitly use “blood” when discussing “death.”
True, but it also appears that the groundwork had already been laid about Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross.
LikeLike
Cris, I keep hearing that with union I understand salvation to be “so much more” than simply justification. And yet, when you describe the sanctification that comes with union (and justification) I hear talk of “in some small way” a little bit and a beginning of sanctification. Since the question of salvation in the western church has been how am I right with God, and since with justification I receive all of Christ’s righteousness as my very own, I don’t see how union adds some bigger more breath-taking perspective on the central thing in salvation — my sin and God’s righteous standard.
LikeLike
Jeff, I am not obtuse. The statement you made – sanctification supplies sanctification — is clumsy and much too simple to accomplish what you think it does.
LikeLike
Jeff, does faith really receive the Spirit if the Spirit is at work in us to produce faith. Effectual calling is missing. Could it be because folks are looking for the trees of union and missing the forest of effectual calling?
LikeLike
Jeff, and again I say, where is effectual calling? Hint: it’s chapter 10 in the confession.
LikeLike
DGH, effectual calling is also in WSC 30, which I’ve quoted ad nauseum. Not sure why you think I missed it.
I don’t see where to go from here. Your goal is quite opaque to me. You say, “I don’t have a problem with the doctrine of union”, but when presented with the doctrine of union, which I’ve now tackled from the angles of Scripture, the Standards, Calvin, and Reformed systematic theologians across the spectrum, you want to bicker about … what? Whether union or justification is more important?!
Make justification as important as you want to — great. I’m happy to support you.
But the importance of justification doesn’t mean that the ordo gets reordered.
And what little the Confession teaches about the ordo, it teaches this:
* Our union occurs in our effectual calling (WLC 66), which is therefore clearly prior to justification.
* Out of that union flows the benefits of Christ’s redemption (WSC 30, WLC 69), including our justification, which is named by name in WLC 69 as one item that manifests our union with Christ.
Those are the doctrinal points that I *will not move from*, whatever may be said. Those are the standards of the Reformed faith.
And, I should say, those are the doctrinal points that you should be defending as a Presbyterian elder, when others deny them as some do here.
LikeLike
Lily, I’m not trying to impress you, but to warn you. You have earlier said that you did not want to tread on Lutheran / Reformed doctrinal distinctives.
Federal headship is a Reformed doctrinal distinctive. Your contempt for it is not helpful.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Re: Federal headship is a Reformed doctrinal distinctive.
You well know that I do not want to tread on distinctives. It is my understanding that your view of it is problematic.
Re: Your contempt is not helpful.
I think you can do better than continue with Christian cant.
LikeLike
Lily, it seems like you want me to be very blunt, and I’m not eager to be blunt here. I think it would be better to leave it at this:
* A good resource on the Reformed view of federal headship and union is A.A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, Chap. 31. Hodge explains federal headship, its relationship to union with Christ, and its relationship to justification. link.
Let me know if anything I’ve said here seems different from Hodge.
* When you ask, “Well… what do you put your faith in? Christ crucified or Christ in the manger or Christ in heaven?”, the answer is “all three.”
Christ’s active obedience in the life he lived on earth is a necessary component of our justification (Eg., Heb 5.7-10). Christ’s death on the cross as our once-for-all satisfaction for sin is certainly a necessary component of our justification. And the fact that Jesus did not remain on the cross, but was “raised for our justification” (Rom 4.25), delivered the blow to sin and death, so that our sin might fully and finally overcome, is a necessary component of our justification.
So I’m not sure what answer you were thinking of, but the Biblically correct answer is “all three”, as indeed the Apostle’s Creed has it:
* born of the virgin Mary,
* suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified died and was buried;
* descended into hell and on the third day rose again.
Take away any part of that, and you no longer have a Christian doctrine of justification.
Finally, you said:
The only way I can see that union would be central for justification is if election is seen as the cause of salvation rather than the blood of Christ.
Here is the real nub of it. The reason that union is central for justification is this:
Jesus died for our sins. But for whom did he die? Not for all, but for His elect. Are they then eternally justified? No. (We’re good so far, right?) His redemption has to be applied.
How is that redemption applied? The Holy Spirit creates faith in us (which is our effectual calling), and our faith lays hold of Christ. It unites to Christ, so that in the moment of saving faith, what is His becomes ours. We receive Him as our savior, our Lord, our head, the one whose righteousness I can rest in because it is imputed to me.
That’s the forensic side of our union with Christ: nothing more nor less than the fact that His righteousness becomes mine. This is Luther’s “alien righteousness.”
So when you rail against union, what I hear you doing is trying to take away the fact that Christ’s righteousness becomes ours. Your cross-centered emphasis, without union, has us being justified by Christ’s suffering, but not His righteousness.
Reformed theology has rightly rejected such a view for the same reason that Luther required the alien righteousness: To be genuinely justified, we must be seen as righteous. How? By being clothed with Christ’s righteousness.
That’s union. That’s the importance of union for our justification.
Please don’t try to take that away.
LikeLike
Jeff, I am defending those standards, and those standards do not stress union the way unionists do. The only way to stress it that was is to go to individual theologians who develop the doctrine. But when I look for a lengthy treatment of union — as lengthy as justification or effectual calling — in those standards, I don’t find it.
And as you know from reading posts and discussions here, my concerns have to do with the diminished regard for justification. And that has been going on since the days of Norman Shepherd, who also affirmed these Standards.
But really, why do Presbyterians not get as worked up to defend effectual calling? Talk about chopped liver.
LikeLike
Darryl G. Hart says:
May 10, 2011 at 7:09 pm
Cris, I keep hearing that with union I understand salvation to be “so much more” than simply justification. And yet, when you describe the sanctification that comes with union (and justification) I hear talk of “in some small way” a little bit and a beginning of sanctification.
>> Are you deliberately missing the point? Are there other benefits of Christ’s mediatorial work besides justification? However reluctantly, however you organize them, I assume you’ll say yes. The whole point is quite plain, do the Mediator’s benefits come to us, are the Mediator’s benefits given to us (any of the, all of them, or even just one or two), prior to, or in abstract from, the Mediator himself being given to us, prior to us believing in the Lord as he has given us a living heart to believe? The jailer asked, what must I do to be saved? The answer: believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. We believe in the Lord Jesus, not just certain works of his, not just certain points of the ordo. Paul and Calvin would both caution us that Christ is not to be divided.
To cite Lord’s Day 44 of the Heidelberg Catechism, reminding us that we don’t teach some “victorious life” or some Weslyan pseudo-perfectionism, and have you quibble at it is… I don’t know, disingenuous? You cited the vary same Q/A much earlier in this thread, I believe.
-=Cris=-
LikeLike
my concerns have to do with the diminished regard for justification. And that has been going on since the days of Norman Shepherd, who also affirmed these Standards.
Darryl, thank you for spelling out what you are concerned about, for explaining the construct behind your remarks.
The history of confessional churches (Reformed, Lutheran, etc.) is a repeated story of dealing with a verbal assent to the standards while speaking against, around their standards, or simply ignoring them. It is proper for you to hold to your standards (same ones I do), and see that people are not disregarding or denying them and only giving lip-service.
You could be a lot more clear about this than you have been. If you think I’m secretly cribbing from Shepherd’s 34 Theses, than say so. If you think there’s a necessary cause or link between wanting to speak about union with Christ and Shepherd’s errors, then lay it out. Be the historian, take us through the “Shepherd Controversy” and it’s aftermath. Connect the dots, draw the lines. I would buy a copy and read it.
I don’t recall Shepherd making a lot of “union with Christ” – but hey maybe I was asleep at the switch – working nights in security and afternoons at the WTS bookstore – that’s not merely a metaphor.
This is a proper and honorable concern, so don’t go about it in a way that you marginalize yourself – don’t become a John Robbins (don’t misquote and misrepresent).
-=Cris=-
LikeLike
DGH: And as you know from reading posts and discussions here, my concerns have to do with the diminished regard for justification.
Yes, I do know that. And appreciate it, by the way. But what I don’t get is when someone like me, who has a demonstrated high regard for justification, says the word “union”, you start bringing up the priority argument again. I’m not Gaffin, and I should not be treated as a proxy for him.
Look, perhaps I’m off my feed here … we’ve been up all hours since Friday … but the “Can a doctrine really do that?” thing just looked like a bald attempt at playing games. What did you actually mean by it?
And why no interaction with the affirmations and denials above? I was trying the bridge the gap and … crickets.
DGH: But really, why do Presbyterians not get as worked up to defend effectual calling?
Um … you ever see a Presbie talk with a Baptist?
Put it this way: When I teach communicant’s class, effectual calling is explicitly taught; union is (pedagogically) subordinated to it.
LikeLike
Jeff, I’m not railing against union nor diminishing it. There appears to be a misunderstanding what Lutherans believe – Lutherans believe that just as Christ is at the center of the doctrine of justification, so justification is at the center of all Christian doctrine – I apologize for not explaining this better. Based on what you present, it appears that the Reformed view is that election and union are central rather than justification. It does appear that I have misunderstood and it is not correct that the Lutherans and the Reformed share the same understanding of justification – the fault is mine for believing this was a shared doctrine.
LikeLike
Lily, I’m not sure that there’s a great space between us on justification. The difference might rather be on what “union” includes.
Reformed “union” includes a forensic element, while it appears (correct me if I’m wrong) that Lutheran “union” refers only to Christ’s transforming work within us.
If I’m right about that, then it would make sense that you would object to “union –> justification.” On the Lutheran definition of union, that would make our justification depend on God’s transformation of us, which takes us straight back to Rome. Blech.
LikeLike
No, Jeff, you do misunderstand our doctrine and from our vantage point, the direction you have taken looks like the EO.
LikeLike
Interesting. Well, for the sake of understanding rather than disputation, what is your understanding of union?
LikeLike
Cris, who is dividing Christ? Since when is the priority of justification a case of division? Do you really think that people who affirm the centrality of justification deny union or the other benefits? (BTW, the 16th c. creeds don’t mention union.) Or do you think that they overestimate justification?
Then again, you don’t really address the problem of righteousness. You seem to run to the comprehensiveness of union and seem to overlook what Murray regarded as the crux of the Reformation — right standing before God. It looks to me like that is not just the crux of the Reformation but also of the last day. And if I get the entire righteousness of Christ by faith, imputed, how is that not a major piece of business accomplished for the legal proceedings of the last day? And how are my “good” works going to avail on that day when they are polluted?
LikeLike
Cris, I don’t expect commenters here to read everything posted at Old Life. But the ties between union and Shepherd are not new here. See here and here for instance. Not that you don’t have a life, but you may also see some links between the dots if you look at the exchanges in the comments sections.
LikeLike
Jeff, I’m not Luther but I get accused of being Lutheran. I think I know how I differ from Lutherans — federal headship would be one area. But I’m not sure I know where you differ with Gaffin. Plus, part of the reason for the union-suspicion come from the contributions from other comments in this thread. I would be interested to see how you and Cris differ over union.
I’m glad to hear you teach eff. calling. But do you write many comments about it, as much as about union? Does Eff. Calling organize your understanding of the ordo? It sure does seem to control the Shorter Catechism’s teaching on the application of redemption. “What benefits do they which are effectually called partake of in this life?” Union? Don’t see it.
So I sense a lot of hype over union, and my impulse is to take on hype.
LikeLike
DGH: Jeff, I’m not Luther but I get accused of being Lutheran.
Well, we can create a new phrase: “Swim the Elbe.” Then we can snarkily tell you to swim the Elbe already. 🙂
I don’t know where I differ from Gaffin, either, not being steeped in Gaffin. The view of union that I find clearest is Hodge the younger’s.
DGH: But do you write many comments about [eff call], as much as about union?
I’ve not had occasion to, here. Do you write many comments about the importance of the Trinity or the errors of subordinationism?
DGH: Does Eff. Calling organize your understanding of the ordo?
Yes.
DGH: So I sense a lot of hype over union, and my impulse is to take on hype.
Understood. But I sense in your pushback a squishiness on WSC 30 suck that you aren’t willing to take on “justification precedes union” talk. And I think that’s an important boundary to maintain.
WRT Shepherd: To my mind, the fatal flaw for Shepherd is the same as the fatal flaw for the FV. They both absolutize the visible church so that all members of the VC are “in union with Christ in some sense.” The union talk is a distractor; the real error from which all the rest flows is the doctrine of the visible church.
LikeLike
The Very Unfortunate Typo above should have read
“on WSC such that you aren’t willing to take on…”
I apologize for the inadvertent vulgarity.
LikeLike
Jeff, in my view Shepherd’s fatal flaw is neo-nomianism, which is also an achilles heel of FV. Whether or not unionists are also guilty, I also sense that union has become important to beat the charge of antinomianism, or at least to say, see, we also believe in good works. There’s good (Christ’s) and then there’s good (mine).
LikeLike
DGH: BTW, the 16th c. creeds don’t mention union.
Point of order. The Gallic Confession speaks of the Lord’s Supper as the symbol of the union we have with Christ. The Consensus Tigurnus says this:
Article 6. Spiritual Communion. Institution of the Sacraments.
The spiritual communion which we have with the Son of God takes place when he, dwelling in us by his Spirit, makes all who believe capable of all the blessings which reside in him. In order to testify this, both the preaching of the gospel was appointed, and the use of the sacraments committed to us, namely, the sacraments of holy Baptism and the holy Supper.
Belgic 35 does much the same.
Genevan Catechism speaks of union and communion interchangeably:
M. Does not the manner of receiving consist in faith?
S. I admit it does. But I at the same time add, that this is done when we not only believe float he died in order to free us from death, and was raised up that he might purchase life for us, but recognize that he dwells in us, and that we are united to him by a union the same in kind as that which unites the members to the head, that by virtue of this union we may become partakers of all his blessings.
M. Do we obtain this communion by the Supper alone?
S. No, indeed. For by the gospel also, as Paul declares, Christ is communicated to us. And Paul justly declares this, seeing we are there told that we are flesh of his flesh and bones of his bones — that he is the living bread which came down from heaven to nourish our souls — that we are one with him as he is one with the Father, etc. (1 Corinthians 1:6; Ephesians 5:30; John 6:51; John 17:21.)
The Genevan Confession speaks of our “Salvation in Jesus” and “Righteousness in Jesus”, which uses the “in Jesus” language that Calvin used synonymously with union. It also represents the Lord’s Supper as the sign of “the true spiritual communion which we have with his body and blood.”
And of course there is HC 1: “Q. 1. What is your only comfort, in life and in death?
A. That I belong–body and soul, in life and in death–not to myself but to my faithful Savior, Jesus Christ, who at the cost of his own blood has fully paid for all my sins and has completely freed me from the dominion of the devil…”
And we find out from Ursinus’ commentary on HC 1 that he specifically has in mind our ingrafting into Christ.
So the evidence is all there: Union is very much woven throughout the 16th century confessions and catechisms. And interestingly, it is commonly tied together with sacramentology.
LikeLike
DGH: Jeff, in my view Shepherd’s fatal flaw is neo-nomianism
Yes, absolutely. But they are forced to go there (or justify going there) on the grounds of the “covenantal perspective.” This was striking while reading Steve Wilkins’ contribution to The Federal Vision.
Theology of the church ==> neo-nomianism ==> redefinition of faith.
LikeLike
Jeff, their high view of the church seems to me to go toward Constantinianism and church as polis, in which case you have members embodying a different ethic from the surrounding culture, which is why works and sanctification become so important. But in my understanding of high church Calvinism, the church and its ministry becomes the means for sustaining the faith (in Christ alone) of pilgrims who need to have their faith strengthened — either because of their sin or because they are tempted to look at their own works and say shazaam!
LikeLike
Interesting and persuasive.
LikeLike
Jeff, as I have tried to state before, salvation is a package deal. If we are justified (grace alone, faith alone, for Christ’s sake alone) we are in Christ with the fullness of all that entails. One reason for the importance of keeping justification central is that Christ does not cease to be Mediator after we have been renewed. He daily and richly forgives all believers of their sins – this is the real lived Christian life.
Theologians in both our traditions state in various ways that the sanctification of the holiest of saints is like a drop in a bucket and this kind of realism is good, IMO. The danger of not keeping justification central means it will drift and become one of many doctrines. Another reason for the importance of keeping justification central is so that the gospel message is kept clear and unadulterated.
And as Herbert Bouman puts it: “…to attempt to give the proper emphasis to each aspect of justification, God’s eternal grace in Christ, my personal response created by the Holy Spirit, the transforming power in my life, and, as the sum of all, my endless and holy hallelujahs before the throne of the Lamb that was slain for me and has reconciled me to God by His blood and restored me to full fellowship with God. In this way I shall, by the grace of God, be preserved both from a mechanical view of justification and from synergistic perversions.”
LikeLike
Thanks, Lily. In the Bouman quote, are the eternal grace, personal response, transforming power, and hallelujahs each an “aspect of justification” to which he refers, or are those something else?
LikeLike
Yes, Jeff, he’s extolling the solas of justification and the gift of righteousness/forgiveness. Here’s the full quote if it will help:
For all that, neither Luther nor Melanchthon nor Chemnitz nor Walther nor Pieper can ever do full justice to this high and holy, yet inexpressibly tender and comforting truth. I can’t even begin. But my concern must be to attempt to give the proper emphasis to each aspect of justification, God’s eternal grace in Christ, my personal response created by the Holy Spirit, the transforming power in my life, and, as the sum of all, my endless and holy hallelujahs before the throne of the Lamb that was slain for me and has reconciled me to God by His blood and restored me to full fellowship with God. In this way I shall, by the grace of God, be preserved both from a mechanical view of justification and from synergistic perversions. Both abridge the soli Deo gloria.
LikeLike
Darryl – I’ll look over those links you’ve supplied to see the local (Old Life) background, I must have not read those. But I know of no reason to assume or suspect all “unionists” are to be equated with Norman Shepherd.
(Unionists? puh-lease, that sounds like the War Between the States rhetoric)
In answer to your question… Certainly sounds like Jeff C & I are close, or overlapping, or occupy much the same territory in how we see the federal headship of Christ and union with him. We only know of each other via a couple of blogs.
-=Cris=-
LikeLike
Cris, who said “equate”? My point was that unionists (sorry, but I’m willing to live with justification prioritists) and Shepherd were both responding the the apparent problem of antinomianism (which has never been a symptom of American Protestants who lean more Wesleyan than Lutheran) and to me seem to respond with something friend to neonomianism. Also similar among both is an apparent debt to Murray. Which is only to say that these are not as isolated phenomena as some would like them to be.
LikeLike
Well, OK, so be more plain. I assume that Gaffin is one of these unionists.
You have said previously
“we further apologize for implying that Dr. Gaffin’s views are contrary to the Protestant confessional consensus on justification and for writing that they constitute a new perspective on Paul, which uses eschatology to overturn the consensus of the Reformers and the Reformed creeds; and we acknowledge that the biblical notion of union with Christ does not contradict or contravene, directly or impliedly, anything taught in the Westminster Standards.”
which apology seems to be sincere.
But here you are concerned that unionists respond with something friendly to neo-nomianism.
It looks like you’re trying to thread a needle here, but I can’t see the needle’s eye very clearly. Is, or is not, Gaffin a neo-nomian? And if so, wouldn’t that contradict the Westminster Standards (specifically, 11.1, “or any other evangelical obedience”)?
I know that in asking this question, I’m asking you to possibly directly criticize some colleagues, but let’s face it: Where things stand now, it looks like you are charging Gaffin and friends with neo-nomianism or moralism. It would be better (IMHO) to be precise and direct rather than vague and indirect. What is the exact concern?
LikeLike
Darryl, preach the 4th commandment if you want to see how antinomian American Protestants are.
LikeLike
That would be “justification priorists.”
Which would make Westminster West the Justification Priory.
🙂
LikeLike
The gladness of our feast, my brethren, is always near at hand, and never fails those who wish to celebrate it. For the Word is near, Who is all things on our behalf, even our Lord Jesus Christ, Who, having promised that His habitation with us should be perpetual, in virtue thereof cried, saying, ‘Lo, I am with you all the days of the world Matthew 28:20.’ For as He is the Shepherd, and the High Priest, and the Way and the Door, and everything at once to us, so again, He is shown to us as the Feast, and the Holy day, according to the blessed Apostle; Our Passover, Christ, is sacrificed 1 Corinthians 5:7. — St. Athanasius, Letter 14
LikeLike
Darryl, Jeff, Lily, Cris,
That discussion did not clarify much for me. You are all probably tired of discussing it by now but I have a few questions if anyone has the where-with-all to comment again. I am confused as to why “federal headship” distinquishes the Presbyterian and Reformed view from the Lutheran view of justification. It would also be helpful to clearly list each category in the order of salvation that you seem to be debating about and then how union encompasses what category and what categories justification in the Lutheran view encompasses. I can see why the Lutherans got frustrated discussing the whole gamut of justification with Calvinists because they just seemed to add categories as time went on. Perhaps it was necessary to do this in order to present a more clear sytematic or dogmatic theology from the data of the historical and biblical that kept growing from the inputs of different theologians.
Darryl seems to be claiming that an emphasis on union rather than justification priority may lead to a neonomian error when it was intented to deal with antinomianism. That still is not that clear but I am trying to understand whether it has any significance or not. Perhaps it is just our effort to try to diminish the fact that the behaviour of those who have faith in Christ is really not much different than those who posses no faith. And it is trying to spur “others” on to a greater degree of sanctification. The question I would ask is what keeps us going to feed on Word and Sacrament each Sunday if we have no struggle with sin in our life? That is what keeps me going and it is the only place I can get some relief and help from that ongoing struggle.
LikeLike
John, like I suggested in an earlier reply to Cris, some other posts at Old Life might help to connect the dots between pro-union arguments and neonomianism.
As for the differences between Lutherans and Reformed on federal theology, I can’t produce a long argument. But it does seem to me that federal theology has not been as prominent in Lutheran as in Reformed theology. But I am willing to be corrected.
LikeLike
Darryl, I’m assuming the federal theology you are talking about is the one articulated by the Princeton theologians (Adam and Christ as the federal heads who respectively imputed their sin-Adam, and righteousness-Christ, to human beings; drawn from Romans 5) which came their way via the reformed scholastics of the 17th century who started developing a more clearly thought out covenant theology ie., God deals with man through the covenants He made with man throughout the Old and New Testaments. And then this covenant theology was further explained and creatively added to a bit by Meredith Kline in our current day. That is the progression as I understand it. It is also my understanding that Richard Muller also articulated a more clear Reformed or Calvinist theology which was covenantal in nature too which is what most theologians at Westminster West draw from (along with Kline). This gets very confusing and those at Westminster East tend to drift towards a covenant theology that has union priority more at its core than justification priority. Both sides seem to draw from John Murray too, like both draw from Calvin. That may be a stretch, so, if anyone would want to intervene please do so.
Lutherans, on the other hand, never went the route of federal headship and covenant theology but maintained the simpler promise (Gospel) and threat (Law) language. This, to me, seems to be the same concept as the Covenant of Grace and Covenant of Works. From what I know of the Lutheran and Calvinist dialog they seemed to split from each other after Chemnitz et al. and didn’t interact much after that. If I was in seminary that would be a topic I would spend much time indulging in. I would try to find sources of interaction between the two groups, why they split from each other and why they disagreed. I am not sure much scholarship has been done in this area. So, that is about as far as I can take it.
The union issue seems to have more to do with sanctification than justification and Lutherans do not separate justification and sanctification like Calvinists do. I think this has to do more with each others attitudes towards the Law. Lutherans are more satisfied with the attitude that we either obey the Law 100% or it condemns us. There is no middle ground of effort put forth in obeying the law as “best we can.” This just seems like a neonomianism to me.
Why can’t union just be the mystery that takes place inside us when we continue to feed on Word and Sacrament each week?
LikeLike
John, you also see covenant theology in its confessional form in the Westminster Confession, irrespective of the quirks of individual theologians. From my own view, as much as I appreciate the law-gospel hermeneutic and believe it accounts for a central dynamic in Scripture, the covenant of works-covenant of grace hermeneutic does justice to historical developments in the Bible and to some of the holes that law-gospel misses.
You’re asking the wrong guy about union.
LikeLike
Hi John,
It is true that Lutherans do not separate justification and sanctification; we distinguish or make distinctions between them. The same is true of the two kingdoms and law/gospel; we do not separate them but distinguish them. I think misunderstanding that we do not separate, but distinguish may cause problems in understanding what Lutherans are saying. And Dr. Hart is right about using law/gospel for hermeneutics and I would add that there are cautions to not fall into law/gospel reductionism (see John Warwick Montgomery for info on that matter).
As I understand it, Lutherans have the theology of the cross as their overarching framework whereas the Reformed have federal headship/covenant theology as their overarching framework. This is the way Dr. Robert Kolb explains it:
“Luther’s “theology of the cross,” however, is precisely a framework that is designed to embrace all of biblical teaching and guide the use of all its parts. It employs the cross of Christ as the focal point and fulcrum for understanding and presenting a wide range of speci?c topics within the biblical message.”
Christ’s cross is seen as central to biblical history and if I understand things correctly, this is another reason why we don’t share the Reformed covenantal theology. Christ’s cross is central to all of Lutheran theology. The Lutheran and the Reformed also have different understandings on the sacraments and thus on Christology. It’s an old argument that dates back to the early Reformation that will not be resolved before Christ returns.
As I see it, the problem with making union the priority rather than justification the priority, is that justification becomes one of many doctrines and thus the gospel becomes obscured and/or lost which is not only grievous, but dangerous for the church. As Luther put it: the church stands or falls upon the doctrine of justification (which is the gospel). It is also a problem for the sinning saint, where does he turn to if justification is not central – too often he is turned to works as the answer. Our answer too often looks antinomian to non-Lutherans and fails to see that we do take sin seriously and are not opposed to the law or works. Most non-Lutherans fail to understand the difference between a theology of glory and a theology of the cross.
LikeLike
Lily and John, what is interesting to me is that in the few places we *do* see “union” in the 16th century Reformed creeds, it is often in connection with the sacraments:
* Our baptism is the sign of our ingrafting into Christ.
* In the Lord’s Supper, we have a sign of our union with Christ, AND we experience our union with Him by feeding on body and blood:
We confess that the Lord’s Supper, which is the second sacraments, is a witness of the union which we have with Christ, inasmuch as he not only died and rose again for us once, but also feeds and nourishes us truly with his flesh and blood, so that we may be one in him, and that our life may be in common. — Gallic 36
That one sentence packs a lot of theological punch!
LikeLike
Darryl,
The union remarks were aimed more at Jeff and Cris rather than you. And, as Jeff’s recent post seems to convey, he might agree that union is more related to the sacraments than anything else.
LikeLike
Lily,
I would agree with all that you said. I am not sure what you meant by Montgomery’s law/gospel reductionism. Do you have any links for that? Perhaps you can take a shot at the “holes” the law/gospel and/or the theology of the cross misses. I am not sure what holes Darryl is talking about in the historical developments in the scriptures. I am willing to wait for further discussions that may come up at oldlife to try to tackle that one. It could make for a good discussion in future posts. I will try to keep it in the back of my mind.
LikeLike
“Michael Mann”,
Since you have resurfaced again how is the new project coming along? It probably is already done filming- I saw some previews of it the other day; looks pretty good to me. I still don’t believe that you are the real Michael Mann- and I am sure you will not answer this post. I am enjoying the Game of Thrones you suggested awhile back. I am pretty well locked into the story now and can’t wait for the next episode tomorrow night.
LikeLike
Jeff, while it true that both Reformers see union in the sacraments, I believe they are also seen as extra nos gospel. Lutherans and Reformed also understand the scraments differently. The best way I know how to explain the difference is to say that we understand the bible to teach them as literal truth whereas ya’ll understand them as spiritual truth. Please note the language in your comment where you call them signs and if I remember correctly, your theologians teach that ya’ll experience them spiritually. I do not see the Gallic 36 stating it the same way as you do. If my understanding is correct, the issue of our sacramental differences with Zwingli precedes Calvin and Calvin sought a middle road between Luther and Zwingli. If my understanding is correct, I would doubt that the fundamental understandings on the sacraments were ever the same between the Lutherans and the Calvinists.
LikeLike
Hi John,
The law/gospel reductionism was what John Warwick Montgomery saw the liberals using in their higher-criticism when our synod was battling over the inerrancy of the bible in the 60’s and 70’s. It’s also still being used by the liberals in our synod to try to import the social gospel and missional junk into our synod. UGH!
It seems like it would be best to ask Dr. Hart what kind of holes he believes there are since he would know these things and I wouldn’t plus he’s a heck of a lot smarter than I!
LikeLike
John, wait till you see my “Underlying Poser” episode.
LikeLike
Michael,
I guess I will accept that and I can’t wait to watch that episode. I also noticed that the Aporetic Christian no longer has his web site. Maybe your in cahoots with him- you did seem to side with him on occasion.
LikeLike
Michael, can you send me some footage of that episode via my email? And are Dustin Hoffman and Anthony Hopkins major players in the scenes. The title would make sense because there are a lot of underlying posers that hang out at horse-racing tracks.
LikeLike
Michael,
I hope you know that I was not being serious.
LikeLike
Lily: As I see it, the problem with making union the priority rather than justification the priority, is that justification becomes one of many doctrines and thus the gospel becomes obscured and/or lost which is not only grievous, but dangerous for the church.
I’ve said before and will say again: I think the words “priority” and “center” are squishy. Your concern makes sense if we are trying to make union the doctrine that overshadows justification.
But for Calvin, at least, it is not. Rather, for him, union is the doctrine that allows him to preserve the free-ness of free justification. That is:
* We receive Christ (are united to Him) by faith.
* What we receive from Christ are two distinct blessings: justification and regeneration — that is, the forensic and the transformative.
* The two always come together (as a “package deal”, to quote someone famous), but they do not depend on each other.
Calvin is very definite about that last point. His opponent is the Catholic scholastics, whom he accuses of smuggling works into justification *by* making justification a transformative grace.
No, says Calvin: justification is a free forensic verdict, based not at all on God’s regeneration of us (as he puts it: we cannot expect forgiveness without repentance; but we are not forgiven because of our forgiveness). Justification and regeneration are entirely separate graces, that always come together *when* we receive Christ.
So I don’t agree that union obscures justification. Rather, union makes justification truly free: We can receive the benefits of justification *and* transformation through the common source, Christ, without having one depend upon the other.
—
I would also say that Calvin seems to have the right of it with regard to Scriptural language.
For Paul certainly appears to teach, repeatedly, that our justification occurs by being united to Christ. Eph 1; Col 2.9-12; 2 Cor 5.19, 21. Our sins are forgiven *in Christ*, not merely *because of Christ*.
LikeLike
John, Lily, in re sacraments:
My point was not expressed well, but what I meant was that the theology of the sacraments helps guide us in understanding the theology of union.
For our baptism is a baptism of justification: that is, it signs the forgiveness of sins. And yet it is also the sign of our ingrafting into Christ.
This suggests to us the proper doctrine of union: that our forgiveness takes place by being ingrafted into Christ.
Likewise, the Lord’s Supper (in which we truly partake of body and blood of Christ by the agency of the Spirit, who brings us into Christ’s presence at the right hand of the Father) is a reflection of John 6. In order to be saved, we must believe (John 6.35, 40), which is depicted as eating and drinking Christ – not receiving his benefits from afar, but receiving Him into us.
In both cases, the sacraments symbolize that we are saved by being united to Christ by faith.
And this, I believe, is the point of the Gallic Confession ch 35, 36.
LikeLike
Jeff, there are differences between the Lutherans and Calvinists that will not resolved before Christ returns. Prior to Calvin, the Lutherans scripturally proved the RC’s semi-pelagian ‘faith working by love’ was wrong without separating justification and sanctification, and scripturally proved both to be the monergistic work of God. Naked faith alone in the death of Christ saves and it’s even enough to save the Christian because it is faith in the shed blood of Christ for me that justifies not faith in the union with Christ. Lutherans do not believe that the sacraments are signs/symbols, but effectual. It is the Word of God that makes the sacraments effectual.
LikeLike
Lily, you of course are welcome to your views, but I do ask that you be accurate in representing the Reformed views.
because it is faith in the shed blood of Christ for me that justifies not faith in the union with Christ.
The Reformed view is that it is faith in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ that justifies us. The concept of union explains how that happens; it is not the object of faith. Jesus himself is the object of faith.
Lutherans do not believe that the sacraments are signs/symbols, but effectual. It is the Word of God that makes the sacraments effectual.
The Reformed do not believe that the sacraments are bare signs either, but effectual. It is the preached word that makes the sacrament a sacrament, and it is *faith* that makes the sacrament effectual.
I don’t expect that you’ll agree, of course, and no problem there; but for truth’s sake, those are the views.
LikeLike
Jeff, I believe that I’ve always been clear on the differences. I do believe that you presented union and the sacraments differently at the beginning of this discussion which was quite awhile ago. Thanks.
LikeLike
I don’t perceive a change in my views. Could you help me to be more clear by pointing out how my presentation has changed?
Thanks.
LikeLike
But I am confused. If you *are* clear on the differences, then why did you write what you wrote at May 16, 5:05AM? It seemed like you were drawing a contrast between Lutherans and Calvinists. If so, then that contrast was factually inaccurate on the Calvinist side of things.
LikeLike
Jeff, for whatever reason, I’m not capable of communicating in way you can hear me. I see no point in rehashing the changes in your comments over time. I may be wrong, but I do not believe I misunderstand the differences between the classical Reformed and the classical Lutheran positions in justification and the sacraments = I do not recognize the way you are using union as central with justification as only one of the benefits of salvation. My objections regarding union have been in it being made central and making justification one of many benefits instead of keeping it primary/central. I have said all I can say about why justification needs to be central/primary = it is the gospel.
Lutherans and Reformed have very different views on the sacraments and for some reason, the Reformed think we share the same views, so the Lutherans always seem to be the ones who have to point out that we do not believe the same things. The Reformed believe the sacraments are signs/symbols and the Lutheran do not. The Reformed do not believe the same thing as Lutherans do about the sacraments being effectual which is why we do not believe they are signs/symbols. This is a difference in our Christology, among other things. Since comment boxes are not appropriate for this depth of discussion and it falls into our distinctives, it seems best to stop here. I am sure you have access to good resources if you want to pursue the subject.
LikeLike
Lily: Lutherans and Reformed have very different views on the sacraments and for some reason, the Reformed think we share the same views, so the Lutherans always seem to be the ones who have to point out that we do not believe the same things.
Be that as it may, the fact that you contrast “sign” with “effectual” indicates clearly that you do not understand the Reformed doctrine of sacraments, and in particular, the doctrine of sacramental efficacy.
—
Lily, if you want to stay away from doctrinal distinctives, then you are free to do so. But it seems that you keep suggesting or stating directly that the *Lutheran* doctrine of so-and-so preserves the gospel, while the *Reformed* doctrine of so-and-so does not.
I hope you can understand why I might object to statements like that. I would certainly expect you to do the same, and rightly so.
I can *listen* to you when you extol and exposit sound doctrine for the sake of building up the church. It makes my heart glad. Even though I don’t think justification is central in every way, I think it is central in a lot of ways, and I rejoice with you when you rejoice in those ways. That part that is *right* about justification-centrality is more important than the part that is *wrong* (speaking from a Reformed point of view).
But I can’t listen to you very well when you are trying to zero in on my errors and attach various labels to me. It’s just not a mode that will have great success with me. Especially in public places.
The keys to speaking so I will listen are these:
* Go to the Scriptures.
* Be factual rather than rhetorical.
* Throw the point out there and let me draw my own conclusions. Too much steering wrecks the argument.
Believe it or not, I do listen closely, and I would like to improve the way we communicate. I’m sure my weaknesses contribute to the problem, especially my stubborn streak.
LikeLike
Jeff, your comment is a good illustration of what I am saying about not being able to communicate in way that you can hear/understand me. For whatever reason, what I say seems to be taken personally and the expectation for me to 1) communicate non-publicly in a public forum is not possible 2) communicate in a way that always suits your tastes is not possible.
Re: Be that as it may, the fact that you contrast “sign” with “effectual” indicates clearly that you do not understand the Reformed doctrine of sacraments, and in particular, the doctrine of sacramental efficacy.
From a Lutheran point of view, it clearly indicates that I do understand the doctrinal differences between the two traditions views in the sacraments, efficacy, and Christology.
Re: it seems that you keep suggesting or stating directly that the *Lutheran* doctrine of so-and-so preserves the gospel, while the *Reformed* doctrine of so-and-so does not.
There’s not much I can do except make it clear that I am coming from a Lutheran point of view so people are not confused and hopefully parse my comments. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me and for better or worse, I will address issues like the gospel and pietism as best I can.
LikeLike
Lily and Jeff, at the risk of butting in here, I’d add to Jeff’s comment that the sacraments become effectual by faith as well as the blessing of Christ and the work of the Spirit. But on the objectivity side of things, a sacrament is also effectual if it doesn’t take effect in that it brings judgment on those who partake without faith. So something is happening in the sacrament, just as preaching is the voice of Christ, even if no one is in the woods to hear the tree fall.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart, I appreciate you stepping in and you are always welcome in any conversation as far as I am concerned.
Re: I’d add to Jeff’s comment that the sacraments become effectual by faith as well as the blessing of Christ and the work of the Spirit.
I’m not disagreeing that this is the view held by the Reformed, but trying to state that Lutherans do not hold the same view. I’ve been trying to avoid discussion of the specifics, but perhaps this essay will help?
http://www.wlsessays.net/files/KomReformed.rtf
Re: But on the objectivity side of things, a sacrament is also effectual if it doesn’t take effect in that it brings judgment on those who partake without faith. So something is happening in the sacrament, just as preaching is the voice of Christ, even if no one is in the woods to hear the tree fall.
It was my understanding that the Reformed believed that the Lord’s Supper was not effectual apart from faith (see the Calvin quotes in the essay saying it is not effectual apart from faith). The reason we practice close communion is because of our beliefs about the efficacy of the Lord’s Supper and the warning of judgement.
LikeLike
J.G. Machen wrote how, in the throes of his conflict, he received some of his most dear support from Missouri-Synod Lutherans, who praised his orthodox stand against the tide of unbelief in the PC-USA, despite their doctrinal disagreements. They got it, perhaps because of their own difficulties in standing for confessional orthodoxy, while many who should have stood by Machen’s side were out-to-lunch.
Most pew-sitters in both Reformed and Lutheran churches understand the “sound-bite” expression of the differences between these two children of the Reformation. But that is as far as it goes, and usually the stock expression then gets tossed in the mental bin with the rest of the stuff in the “junk-drawer.” It’s only taken out on occasion to serve as a place-holder in discussions, both in-house and in the commons.
This is unfortunate, but the truth is that almost as many theologues (professional or amateur) uncritically use the same sound-bites to pigeonhole the different Christian types they encounter. It takes work and a willing spirit to investigate the actual differences that give rise to the sound-bite. The catchy catchphrase that summarizes the distinctive is really incomplete without the balanced, measured explanation.
The reason we rightly admire teachers like Bavinck is that, except for actually disagreeing with the Lutheran (or Baptist, or Romanist, etc.) they could probably have taught theology in one of their seminaries, presenting their system of doctrine without compromise. That level of sympathy is probably beyond the range of most of us.
But it isn’t beyond the range of our sympathies to simply listen for a while to the other side, and over time to come to understand the other position “from within it,” as it were. I recommend listening to Issues Etc., the Lutheran radio program, for weeks on end (as I have); and it is amazing both how much you learn we have in common, as well as the true nature of our differences. Many times, I have been frustrated with their own “reformed” caricature, again a product (I think) more of sound-bites filtered through a Lutheran-grid than true engagement with our Confessions. But they are listening too, in the nature of the business, and demonstrate their own learning-curve over time.
There are certain fundamental differences between the Reformed and Lutheran commitments. Principally (as I see it) the differences arise within Christology and Sacramentology. If we widen our lens a little, we see how those basics effect other differences within Theology-proper, and Worship/Ecclesiology.
On the subject of predestination, both camps are largely monergistic, mainly because both sides begin with a strong Augustinian/anti-Pelagian foundation. Lutherans then follow closer the modifications of the later catholic “Council of Orange,” while Reformed maintain the stronger position of Augustin himself. And the differences on this doctrine then proceed along the appropriate developmental lines. This is why the Reformed appreciate much of the declarations of Orange, but do not admit to its departures from a stricter Augustinianism.
One problem I’ve encountered is that Lutherans generally attempt to reduce Reformed doctrine to an erst pricip, namely the Eternal Decree, in a manner that mirrors their own view of Justification. Because this is a methodological difference deeply rooted in each tradition, when it is applied to the Reformed it results in an unrecognizable caricature, an imposition from outside.
From within, it is very hard for the Reformed to speak of an irreducible first-principle, for it is not the ordinary way we think theologically. A “system of doctrine” is not necessarily the product of an original axiom, from which flows a deductive product. No more than an automobile (a system of transportation) is reducible to a first article, (say, an engine) from which we attempt to deduce or prove the necessity of the whole street-ready sled.
We Reformed are self-consciously “systematic.” It is important to us that the system “cohere,” just as it is important that the car use all the parts from the box, and maintain its integrity. Our “part-package” is Scripture, and we understand it is given to us as the sum total of our components for theology. The Lutherans often accuse us of importing “philosophy” alongside Scripture (as if Lutherans were pristine) in order to bring the product together. No, we are quite comfortable with our limits as men, and preserve “mystery” within our doctrinal formulae. But we believe it is our duty as recipients of revelation, and made in the image of God, to organize the components according to the blueprints that are part of the package.
The Lutherans are openly comfortable with the “parts-package” motif, and seek to maintain it inviolate, even if they dogmatically declare that certain parts do not “fit,” and will never fit, and this is our lot as men. It is not that they have no “system” (they do), nor even that they have not had recourse to more of a “philosophical resolution” at times to a very critical connection within their theology (as in their division of “objective” and “subjective” justification).
It IS that Lutherans lay their stress on what are the “vital components” of the faith, and believe the best way of preserving them is not in building them together into a seamless, gleaming product (a system); but in reserving them in a kind of order that highlights the particular grace in each. It is a distinctly secondary concern for the Lutheran theologian that the doctrines *fully* harmonize.
So, it is not a great concern for the Lutheran (as it is for the Reformed) to “work out” how God saves AND preserves, and yet account for apostasy. The Lutheran admits a real and effectual salvation, which is monergistic in character and does not depend one whit on man’s contribution. He admits the requirement of faith, and that such faith when present is a gift of God whose gifts are without repentance. And yet this very real salvation–an objective presentation by God to an individual, most patent in baptism, and an objective possession of unfeigned faith by the individual recipient being (objectively) baptized–can nevertheless be lost. What God said in invincibly baptism can be thwarted by man’s departure–a pure paradox.
You see how Lutheran Sacramentology, the prior axiomatic and inviolate commitment, forces this conclusion, this hermeneutical conviction. Sacramentology has priority. Its as simple as that. As far as the Lutheran is concerned, this is nothing but letting the Bible speak for itself. It may be impossible to reconcile, but the faithful Christian just accepts it as fact, and moves on.
I hope this has been an actual contribution, and not just many words.
LikeLike
some quick responses to the Lutheran Marcus Johnson who teaches “sacramental realism” in his book One With Christ (Crossway, 2013)
Johnson: Many have assumed that justification is a synthetic declaration that takes into account no prior relationship of the believer to the person of Christ. p 92
mark: The “unionists” assume that justification is a legal fiction (as if) unless it’s an analytic declaration that takes into account an already existing personal relationship to Christ. They don’t talk about justification of the ungodly, but only about a justification of those united to Christ.
Johnson: It is because of this union that the believer is justified.
mark: it is because of God’s imputation that the believer is united to Christ. A bride becomes really married because she is legally married..
Johnson: The benefits of Christ’s saving work are received only insofar as Christ Himself is received. p 93
mark: Christ Himself is received by the ungodly elect only insofar as these ungodly elect are imputed with Christ’s righteousness.
Johnson: Justification is a legal benefit of a personal reality.
mark: The personal indwelling of Christ is a benefit of the legal reality of God’s imputation.
Johnson: God justifies us because we are joined to Christ.
mark: God joins us to Christ when God imputes to us (while we are ungodly) the righteousness of Christ. God joins us to Christ because God imputes to us the death of Christ.
Johnson: In Philippians 3, we are only imputed with righteousness because we are found in Christ. p 95
mark: In Philippians 3, we are only found in Christ because of the righteousness imputed.
Johnson: Berkhof thinks that justification cannot be the result of any existing condition in the sinner, not even an intimate, vital, spiritual, person union with Christ. This strikes me as enormously confusing. p 97
mark: Johnson thinks that both the atonement and justification are fictions unless the incarnation means that all sinners are already in some kind of union with Christ before legal imputation. This strikes me as an universalism which removes the reality of God’s justice in giving Christ as a propitiation for sins legally imputed.
Johnson: What exactly is this union which can be REDUCED to either justification or the results of justification? p 98
mark: What is the reality of God’s imputation of righteousness to the ungodly elect if it’s not real apart from some other previous (and more than merely legal) connection?
LikeLike