The following passage from Luther’s daily readings left me thinking:
What more could God do? How could a heart restrain itself from being happy, glad, and obedient in God and Christ? What work or suffering could befall to which it would not gladly submit, singing with love and joyful praise to God? If it fails to do so, faith has certainly broken down. The more faith there is, the more joy and freedom there is; the less faith, the less joy. Behold, this is the true Christian salvation and freedom from the Law and from the judgment of the Law, that is, from sin and death. Not that there is no Law or death, but that both death and Law become as if they were not. The Law does not lead to sin, nor death to doom, but faith walks through them into everlasting life.
I know, Luther does not mention justification but he might as well since we are justified by faith and our acquittal in justification is precisely what we need to beat the rap of guilt for sin and the accompanying penalty of death. I suppose someone might be able to write about union in such glowing ways, but I doubt it would make as much sense in the forensic world of law, guilt, judgment, and acquittal.
Is there more to salvation than justification? Sure. But can any other doctrine in the realm of the application of redemption pull off what justification by faith alone does? I doubt it.
Old Life 
Once more with feeling:
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; (c) who, with his precious blood, has fully satisfied for all my sins, (d) and delivered me from all the power of the devil; (e) and so preserves me (f) that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head; (g) yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation, (h) and therefore, by his Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, (i) and makes me sincerely willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto him. (j)
Oddly, Ursinus doesn’t seem to think that union (“belonging to my faithful Savior” — see also his commentary) is in competition with justification.
LikeLike
Dittoes to Mr. Cagle.
And as you asked what “doctrine in the realm of the application of redemption” could “comfort the way justification does,” I’d point out that the Comforter comforts us with the reality of our adoption (Rom 8:16).
Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any specific biblical admonition for the Saints to be “comforted” by the doctrine of justification. Can you think of one?
LikeLike
“Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any specific biblical admonition for the Saints to be “comforted” by the doctrine of justification. Can you think of one?”
Rom 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
LikeLike
Dittos to K’s point re: adoption and todd’s re: justification.
Paul seems to take comfort from adoption, the Spirit of adoption, justification, and even sufferings.
LikeLike
So DGH, the answer to this Waldo Wednesday’s question is Yes!
“Therefore if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind….” (Phil 2)
The encouragement that we have from being united with Christ is that we are united with Him in His death so that we may also share in his life. Union and justification go hand in hand.
LikeLike
Jeff, but you see union everywhere and credit it with everything. The verse you quote lists union with Christ’s love, sharing in the Spirit, and tenderness and compassion (the saint’s own, I guess). If this is an example of the comfort that comes from union, it seems like special pleading, or at least like challenged reading.
As for Heidelberg q&a 1, don’t you know that that document is Lutheran?
LikeLike
DGH: Jeff, but you see union everywhere and credit it with everything.
Given that I see union as the architectural center of our salvation, what do you expect?
And, how is that a refutation of anything? Maybe *you* should see union everywhere and credit it with everything. 🙂
And as for Heidelberg being Lutheran, well, if the Lutherans have got union, then it must be safe for you as well.
LikeLike
BTW, Jeff, I don’t believe that Ursinus uses union to answer the question, how am I right with God?
For instance:
or
Where’s Waldo indeed.
LikeLike
You missed it: “… imputes to me the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ. … as if I had fully accomplished all that obedience which Christ has accomplished for me.”
First note that imputation is, in classic Reformed theologic, the forensic aspect of union: Christ’s righteousness becomes mine in a forensic sense. You may recall the copious citations of various theologians to that effect.
Second, notice Ursinus’ commentary on Qn 60. How does the righteousness of Christ justify us, given that it is outside of us? Answer: it does not remain outside of us, but God applies it to us; faith receives the righteousness of Christ, with which we are clothed like a garment.
Third, notice Qn. 59: Question 59. But what does it profit thee now that thou believest all this?
Answer: That I am righteous in Christ, before God, and an heir of eternal life.
He also affirms that the benefits of Christ are of no use saved to those who are “united to Christ by faith” (Ursinus Comm. HC Qn 54 under “Predestination”, Obj 2)
This is important, because it establishes that union is actually logically prior to justification in Ursinus’ mind. We also notice the echo of Calv Inst 3.1.1.
And again that faith “implants us into Christ” (Qn 64).
Fourth, consider the theology of sacraments that Ursinus articulates (Qn. 67): The thing signified in the sacraments is our communion, and participation of Christ and his benefits. Sacraments are the sign that God communicates Christ to those who receive Him by faith. These are all reasonable synonyms for being united to Christ.
The reason I see union all over the place is because I keep tripping over it when I read the Reformers.
Here is the key, again from Ursinus (Comm Qn 64):
To be justified by faith alone is the same thing as to be justified by the blood and merits of Christ apprehended by faith.
The union that we have in Christ is that his righteousness becomes ours. To be justified by faith means to be justified by an alien righteousness that becomes ours. It is the joining of Christ’s righteousness to us that is termed “(forensic) union.”
—
I feel that we’ve been over this several times. Clearly my answers don’t satisfy, but I don’t see why not. Originally (back in the day), I would have thought that the exhaustive references from various systematic theologians would satisfy, but no.
And then I would have thought that demonstrating union from Calvin would satisfy, but no.
And then I thought an appeal to sacramental theology might work: Baptism is the symbol of being united to Christ in his death; baptism is equally the symbol of being washed of sins; put that together. But no.
And now Ursinus, but I suspect that this isn’t going to satisfy either.
So what exactly are you waiting for, to be convinced that we are justified by being united to Christ by faith? Surely you agree that by faith, we receive Christ and his benefits, right? So then … “receive” … “be joined to” … “be united with” … ?
Waldo wants to know: Where’s the problem?
LikeLike
Jeff, why does Ursinus not use the word “union”? I mean, the way you see union everywhere I could then use to see justification everywhere. Don’t you see a problem with having a notion about union — your mind made up — and then reading it into language where it is at best indirect? I feel like this game is fixed. And you wonder what the problem is? Maybe part of it is that people won’t let union be union and justification be justification but instead turn justification into union.
LikeLike
DGH, he does in fact use the word union, as I quoted above (in re Qn. 54).
But even if not, you’re too smart to do theology by word-hunt.
Don’t you see a problem with having a notion about union — your mind made up — and then reading it into language where it is at best indirect?
That’s an utterly false characterization. My concept of union was developed by noticing that there is a concept, clearly expressed by a variety of terms in many, many places: We are made partakers of Christ; we have communion with Christ; we are in Christ; we are united with Christ. All of these terms are used interchangeably, and in context they seem to point to one idea: That we receive the benefits of Christ by being joined to him.
This one concept is explicitly taught by Calvin in Inst 3.1.1. And this one concept is explicitly taught in WSC 30, which we have been over and over: The benefits of Christ are applied to us by the HS working faith in us, thereby uniting us to Christ.
There’s the word, there’s the concept. What else is needed here?
(And if in fact you want union to be union, then why have you not articulated a theology of union? It’s time to play cards other than the “Where’s Waldo?” card.)
LikeLike
DGH, my tone above is more haranguing than it ought to be. I apologize.
In the end, I’m part mystified and part alarmed.
Mystified, because I’ve presented over the course of our discussion a number of different lines of evidence, all pointing the same way. So I don’t understand the characterization of “having a notion about union — your mind made up — and then reading it into language where it is at best indirect.”
I can certainly see that I’m taking certain words to be synonyms for union. But that’s unremarkable. We take certain words to be synonyms for justification also.
But the part about having a (preconceived) notion about union is a real stretch.
Alarmed, because it’s not like I’m presenting a theological novelty. I’ve demonstrated that my view of union is held by Reformed systematic theologians, taught in the Catechism, taught by the early Reformers, affirmed in the early Confessions. To my mind, there’s a lot of confirming evidence there *and* a lot of weight of the voice of the Reformed church.
And what alarms me is that you seem to be impervious to that voice. It would be one thing if, you know, I had presented Fisher’s Commentary on WSC 30 and you had engaged with it and ultimately showed that he’s not saying what I think he’s saying, etc. But you really have glossed over much of what I’ve presented and then seemed to treat it as of no import.
Well: it would be one thing if I were a lone voice arguing, say, that the traditional Reformed view of faith is incorrect (I’ve been reading Gordon Clark recently).
But on this issue, I think I’m arguing for the historically mainstream view. It doesn’t bother me that you haven’t really engaged with me; it *does* bother me that Calvin and Fisher and Hodge &c. don’t seem to make a dent.
Vizzini: “You ever heard of Socrates? Plato? Morons.”
LikeLike
Jeff, you have yet to grapple with the silence of all the Reformed creeds on union. Is there a chapter on union anywhere? I don’t think so. Why not if it is the be all and end all of the application of redemption? That is what I am trying to figure out. I can well imagine unionists today including a chapter on union and I don’t think I’d object. But that such a chapter does not exist in the Reformed creeds is at least indicative historically — that today it is more important than it once was, in which case unionists are doing something new (not necessarily novel). As a historian, I’d like some historical honesty.
LikeLike
DGH: Jeff, you have yet to grapple with the silence of all the Reformed creeds on union. Is there a chapter on union anywhere? I don’t think so.
“Lack of chapter” is not the same as “silence.” I’ve refuted the “silence of Reformed creeds on union” before, starting with the early creeds.
Nor is splitting catechisms from creeds particularly useful, as if one were an expression of Reformed faith and the other not. WSC and WLC are very explicit about union and they say what I say.
So there’s nothing there to grapple with — an argument from silence that turns out not to be silence after all!
But that such a chapter does not exist in the Reformed creeds is at least indicative historically — that today it is more important than it once was, in which case unionists are doing something new (not necessarily novel)
OK, I can somewhat see the point. There is a shift in degree of emphasis. We have two statements:
We are justified by being united to Christ by faith and receiving his benefits.
We are justified through faith in Christ alone.
These two statements are clearly not in conflict, but the first is receiving more relative emphasis now than it receives in early Reformed theologians. And you wonder, Why is this, and What does it mean? Is it a shift over into moralism, in which our justification is somehow combined with or conflated with our sanctification? And you see the moralism of some (Shepherd) as linked to his view of union.
Fair?
And I respond: A “shift in emphasis” may reflect more than one factor at work. It might be the case that Shepherd plays up union in order to create wiggle room for his view of faith (again, I think his driving flaw is his defective notion of “covenantal perspective”); while another plays up union for different reasons.
It also might be the case that an emphasis reflects the polemics of a particular situation.
In my case, you’ve heard a lot more from me on union than anyone else ever has, for a simple reason: I see you as diminishing or denying a sound Reformed teaching. So my drum sounds the note that I think deserves being heard. Call me stubborn. Or Ishmael. Or both.
So ironically, the harder you push the “Where’s Waldo?” theme, the more I respond with a flurry of pro-union stuff. If, on the other hand, you were pushing a more moralistic agenda, I would be (have been, in other situations) more emphatic about JFBA and its relationship to our sanctification.
LikeLike
And again: If you wish to right the ship, then that can’t happen by simply putting your thumb heavily on JFBA. Ships turn over that way. What is sorely lacking is a positive account from you of union — say, of WSC 30 and WLC 65, 66, and 69 — that goes beyond “Where’s Waldo?”
Cause in the real Where’s Waldo books, once we find Waldo, we stop looking. And there he is, in WLC 65, 66, 69. Prior to justification, done in our effectual calling. Now there’s a solid fact to grapple with.
LikeLike
Jeff, if union is important, wouldn’t you devote a chapter to it? Effectual Calling receives one. Faith receives one. Good works receives one. Again I ask, where’s waldo?
And again I say this not to deny union but to recover a proper estimate of the doctrine as it functioned in the life of Reformed churches (which is a different matter from how it functioned in an individual theologian’s system).
LikeLike
Jeff, but you’ve missed the point of the post. Union doesn’t make sense or offer comfort the way that justification does. In order to answer the how am I right with God question union has to resort to justification. Union is so comprehensive in your account (and others for that matter) that it won’t do the very important work of explaining to me the benefits of redemption and how a righteous God can accept me an unworthy sinner. And it is that question that I believe pushes justification and its related questions to the foreground. If you want to do BT, or practical divinity, or ordo salutis, fine, use union all you want. But when I want to know the basis of my salvation, justification tells me about the righteousness of Christ, not the eternal decree, the work of the Spirit, or Christ’s federal headship, all of which have their place in a system but don’t cut to the chase of my sin, guilt, and my death sentence.
LikeLike
DGH: And again I say this not to deny union but to recover a proper estimate of the doctrine as it functioned in the life of Reformed churches…
Then please show your cards. Currently, there’s no recovery effort visible. What’s visible is a skeptical sundering of justification and union that appears to insinuate that we can be justified without first being united to Christ. Is that what you want to convey? Because that’s what at least two of your readers (Zrim, Lily) have told me is proper doctrine.
DGH: Union doesn’t make sense or offer comfort the way that justification does.
Again, HC Qn. 1. Ursinus’ commentary on this: “The substance of this comfort consists in this: that we are ingrafted into Christ by faith, that through him we are reconciled unto, and beloved of God, that thus He may care for us and save us eternally.”
Two points:
(1) Ursinus not only finds comfort in union, but considers it the chief thing in the substance of comfort: that we are ingrafted into Christ.
(2) That Ursinus’ explanation of the language “I am not my own, but belong to my faithful savior Jesus” shows that the concept of union is precisely in view here in this language.
Now come back to your complaint, that I “see union everywhere.” And I reply, that’s because when the Reformers go about explaining their language, they appeal to union.
DGH: Union is so comprehensive in your account (and others for that matter) that it won’t do the very important work of explaining to me the benefits of redemption and how a righteous God can accept me an unworthy sinner.
Recall the point about polemic and emphasis. If you were in my communicants’ class, you’d hear very little about union and a whole lot about justification.
But you aren’t — you’re posting a series about how union is hard to find in Reformed theology. You’ve pushed the issue so far that the doctrine of union is now obscure and seemingly treated with hostility.
Consider my Johnny-one-note-unionism to be the equivalent of the famous DGH “Huh?”
LikeLike
What’s visible is a skeptical sundering of justification and union that appears to insinuate that we can be justified without first being united to Christ. Is that what you want to convey? Because that’s what at least two of your readers (Zrim, Lily) have told me is proper doctrine.
Jeff, if the analogy is both marital and legal (and it is biblically) then I’m not united to my wife before being declared married but only after, and I’m not actually free from potential punishment before being declared innocent but only after. So, no, I don’t think the doctrine of union is being obscured or treated with hostility; it’s being put into proper perspective. Yours seems like an overreaction here, not too unlike the reaction one might get when it is suggested to that troubadourian yet unmarried pair that they really do need that forensic piece of paper before they may be considered united.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Thanks for the post. Consider this quote from Lutheran theologian Gerhard O. Forde:
“Sanctification, if it is to be spoken of as something other than justification, is perhaps best defined as the art of getting used to the unconditional justification wrought by the grace of God for Jesus’ sake…Sanctification is thus simply the art of getting used to justification.”
Christian Spirituality: Five Views of Sanctification. Edited by Donald Alexander. IVP 1988, p. 13.
There is a lot of wisdom in those words.
LikeLike
I don’t have a big dog in this fight–it seems there are already two big dogs in it–but maybe a few small ones.
I scratch my head a bit at Jeff saying that “belonging to my faithful Savior” is equivalent to union. I think this supports Darryl’s contention that “union” is read over-broadly.
Belonging to someone because you have been purchased by their blood, reconciled, is not the same thing as being united to them. Yes, Ursinus talks about ingrafting in the commentary, but a) the commentary is not the catechism, and b) this is not simply a description of what “belonging” means in the text of the catechism, but part of a characterization of what Christian comfort consist of.
The commentary uses “ingrafted” in parallel with “reconciled” as two related and parallel concepts in its introductory paragraph. It also talks about the six parts of this comfort, part one and two being “reconciliation” and “the manner of reconciliation.” The texts listed are 1 Cor 7.23; 1 Pet 1.18; and 1 John 1.7. Those all have to do with being purchased, ransomed, etc.
Sorry, that ain’t union language. So “ingrafting by faith” is certainly a part of our comfort according to Ursinus’ commentary, but in the plain language of the catechism itself and the commentary puts a much heavier emphasis on the purchase, ransom, and reconciliation wrought by the blood of Christ.
LikeLike
Further point: Of course, the best place to look for union language in the catechism is in the sacramental theology, particularly the Supper. But note the full text of Q&A 76:
Q. What is it to eat the crucified body and drink the shed blood of Christ?
A. It is not only to embrace with a believing heart all the sufferings and death of Christ, and thereby to obtain the forgiveness of sins and life eternal, but, further, also to become more and more united to His sacred body, by the Holy Spirit, who dwells both in Christ and in us, so that, though Christ is in heaven and we are on earth, we are nevertheless flesh of His flesh and bone of His bones, and live and are governed by one Spirit, as members of the same body are by one soul.
“Not only” to obtain forgiveness by embracing with a believing heart (faith), “but further” to become more and more united to His sacred body. Union is important, but it seems that faith is logically primary.
This is backed up in the commentary on this section: “This question has respect to the thing which is signified… 1. Faith in his sufferings and death. 2. The forgiveness of sins, and the gift of eternal life through faith. 3. Our union with Christ through the Holy Spirit, who dwells both in Christ and in us. 4. The quickening influence of the same Spirit.” Faith and union are both there, but forgiveness is tied directly to faith distinct from union.
LikeLike
Jeff, what I don’t understand is the idea that I can be united to Christ mystically, not forensically (if there is a difference), while I am totally depraved and Christ is sinless. How could that union possibly happen without some kind of justification or sanctification happening first? This kind of thought, which seems pretty simple to me, doesn’t seem to occur to those who propose union as preceding justification. So maybe I’m not hostile, just confused. But simply reasserting union, finding it everywhere, and claiming the pedigree of numerous theologians, does not answer these questions.
I’d be all for a union-centric confession of faith. Maybe then we could get the clarity we need. But so far the clarity is much more in the minds of union’s beholders.
LikeLike
Dave, I’d like to reply, “indeed,” but then people might think I really am Lutheran.
LikeLike
Brian, I’ll take your little dog any day.
LikeLike
And Brian, I have long been thinking that the only place you see a discussion of union in the Reformed creeds comes in the teaching on the Lord’s Supper. But the only unionists that go that road are the Visionaries. It’s a strange Reformed world out there.
LikeLike
If I, having been terrified by the threats of the Law, was in misery and fear of eternal damnation, and someone offered that Another had paid the penalty and debt of righteousness that I justly owed, and that God had accepted this payment as if it were my own, and I was freed to live a life of gratitude, I would would be blissfully comforted. – Q2 Heidelberg
Now if I were told about union, I am certain that I would find additional comfort, or that my comfort might in some way become more certain. However, I do not think the process could be reversed. Telling me about union would generate no comfort until the information in the first paragraph was added.
Someone might object by saying that union is implicit in the first paragraph, but that just introduces a circularity that makes reasonable discourse difficult.
The problem arises from a failure to differentiate the two aspects of union. Anyone who has been married for any length of time knows well that there are two sides to their marriage. My wife does not always share my opinion of our union. Actually, the two sides of the union between man and wife is evident from the beginning as there are two ‘I do”s needed to complete the union.
Christ has already issued forth his ‘I do’ for all that the Father has given him. In that sense we are already justified in him. What remains is for His elect to respond individually with their ‘I do’ to complete the union. As we are told of Christ’s work on our behalf and his ‘I do’ the Holy Spirit generates faith and we respond with our ‘I do’ and thus cleave to Christ and complete the union.
If we do not keep clear the two aspects of union and try to talk about it as if it is not consummated individually in space and time, we will likely never find consensus. After all. there are two parts to the New Covenant promise – I will be their God, and they will be my people.
LikeLike
Jeff, pardon me for jumping in the game late here. Also, my apologies if I’m swimming over my head and not understanding what you’re saying. You say “What’s visible is a skeptical sundering of justification and union that appears to insinuate that we can be justified without first being united to Christ. Is that what you want to convey?”. Are we talking logical or chronological order? Because to inverse that and say that one can be united to Christ without first being justified seems nonsensical. In my understanding at least, are these doctrines not essentially bound together as parts of the same thing? I don’t think Dr. Hart is denying union but think he is pointing out (and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, Dr. Hart) that justification gets a much more explicit emphasis in reformed confessional documents because the doctrine of justification was more explicitly needed at the time.
I feel out of my league, so I’m done now. My apologies if I missed something.
LikeLike
DGH: Jeff, what I don’t understand is the idea that I can be united to Christ mystically, not forensically (if there is a difference), while I am totally depraved and Christ is sinless. How could that union possibly happen without some kind of justification or sanctification happening first?
John Knox: Because to inverse that and say that one can be united to Christ without first being justified seems nonsensical.
Both of these statements illustrate the basic error that I’ve been trying to address. Contrast what you say with what Calvin says:
We must now see in what way we become possessed of the blessings which God has bestowed on his only-begotten Son, not for private use, but to enrich the poor and needy. 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. — Inst 3.1.1.
And what the catechism says:
Answer: The union which the elect have with Christ is the work of God’s grace, whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ as their head and husband; which is done in their effectual calling. — WLC 66.
Notice the timing: the union is done in effectual calling.
And again:
Question 69: What is the communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ?
Answer: The communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ, is their partaking of the virtue of his mediation, in their justification, adoption, sanctification, and: Whatever else, in this life, manifests their union with him. — WLC 69.
Notice that justification manifests — makes evident — our union with Christ. Now what is made evident must logically precede that which makes it evident, since one cannot make evident that which does not yet exist.
So the clear teaching is that our union is logically prior to our justification.
And what is troubling is that, ignoring the catechism and Calvin, y’all have “logic-ed” yourselves into thinking the exact opposite.
This seem to me to be a basic and fundamental point: the benefits of Christ are of no use to us unless we are united to him. Or to put another way, we cannot be justified unless Christ’s righteousness actually becomes ours — we are *clothed* with it.
DGH, that’s why I think it’s time for you to provide an account of union. You apparently believe that you have some compelling reason to think that justification precedes union. If in fact you do, then you need to show why your reason does not end up overturning WCL 65, 66, and 69.
And, that’s why I’ve appealed so much to various systematic theologians from various sides of the spectrum: I wanted to confirm that my reading of Calvin and the Catechism is correct.
—
Brian, faith is indeed logically prior to union: We are united to Christ by faith (see WSC 30). But it does not follow that therefore justification is also logically prior to union.
I scratch my head a bit at Jeff saying that “belonging to my faithful Savior” is equivalent to union. I think this supports Darryl’s contention that “union” is read over-broadly….So “ingrafting by faith” is certainly a part of our comfort according to Ursinus’ commentary, but in the plain language of the catechism itself and the commentary puts a much heavier emphasis on the purchase, ransom, and reconciliation wrought by the blood of Christ.
Two points are missing from your analysis. First, take a look at what Ursinus means by the word “union” in his discussion of the hypostatic union. For Ursinus, “union” means simply “joining together.” From this, it is fairly evident that “ingrafting into” is a reasonable synonym for “uniting with.”
Second, Ursinus does not characterize “ingrafting by faith” as a part of our comfort, but as the essence of it, out of which the rest flows. That’s quite different.
LikeLike
Jeff, thanks for the reply and clarity. I have no problem with what you said so long as it stays logical and not chronological in nature. I don’t believe that a person can be justified and not united to Christ any more than I believe that a person can be united to Christ and not justified. In my understanding they seem to be a package deal.
LikeLike
John, agreed.
LikeLike
Several have questioned whether I’m over-reading union into things by treating several phrases as synonyms for union.
As apologetic, I would point out that “union” is not treated as a technical term by Calvin or Ursinus. It simply means “joining together.” And for that reason, I have taken words that indicate joining together to be synonymous with the terms “union” or “uniting.”
These include: in Christ; ingrafting into him, clothed with Christ, etc.
If one is inclined to view this as an overreach, I recommend reading Reymond. And as defense of the view that union encompasses imputation, I call AA Hodge as witness:
1st. The first aspect of this union is its federal and representative character, whereby Christ, as the second Adam (1 Corinthians 15:22), assumes in the covenant of grace those broken obligations of the covenant of works which the first Adam failed to discharge, and fulfills them all in behalf of all his “sheep,” “they whom the Father has given him.” The consequences which arise from our union with Christ under this aspect of it are such as the imputation of our sins to him, and of his righteousness to us, and all of the forensic benefits of justification and adoption, etc. — AA Hodge, Outlines of Systematic Theology, Ch 31.
Those charging over-reading have a reasonable obligation to show how a term like ingrafting is distinguished from, has a different meaning from, the term uniting.
LikeLike
Jeff, sorry but I don’t see how your Calvin or catechism quote really address the issue of justification’s logical priority to union. What you seem to be addressing is the idea that union is relatively immaterial, or that we don’t need to be clothed on Christ’s righteousness. I don’t think that’s what is being said at all. All I think is being said is that justification is the impetus for all that, the way a verdict of innocense is the impetus for freedom or a declaration is the impetus for marital union.
LikeLike
Zrim: In order for X to happen, Y must happen. Y is therefore logically prior to X — that’s the definition of logical priority. Wouldn’t that make the Calvin quote a clear statement of logical priority?
Zrim: What you seem to be addressing is the idea that union is relatively immaterial, or that we don’t need to be clothed on Christ’s righteousness.
Well, yes, I do think that in Calvin’s context, he insists on union over against Catholic views of justification and the charge of “legal fiction.” So to my mind, getting union wrong has the effect of undermining imputation and federal theology — and I’m sure you would not wish to do that!
Zrim: All I think is being said is that justification is the impetus for all that, the way a verdict of innocense is the impetus for freedom or a declaration is the impetus for marital union.
It makes sense to go to marriage as a useful analogy, but there are a couple of hiccups. First, note that we are united to Christ in our effectual calling. That’s actually prior to justification.
Second, we note that the way justification happens is monergistically — the righteousness of Christ is given to those who belong to Christ. The belonging must be prior to the imputation.
By contrast, a marriage declaration is made synergistically: the husband and wife make pledges to one another; and the declaration cannot happen until both have pledged.
I’m not saying that you are angling for synergistic justification, but just that the dynamic of marriage declarations and justification are somewhat different.
LikeLike
Jeff, I always thought the Protestant response to the charge of “legal fiction” was the futility of works and sufficiency of faith alone, not the efficacy of union.
But I know, as they say, all analogies break down at some point. So I’m not inclined to push it too far. My intent in using it is to buttress the point that the forensic carries way more weight than seems is getting credit here. I mean, even when the requisite pledges (marriage) or arguments (courtroom) are made or the declaration is what sets into motion the death of an old reality and inaugurates a new and completely opposite one.
LikeLike
Zrim, I always thought the response was Federal Theology. Perhaps I’m mistaken.
LikeLike
Jeff,
If Calvin doesn’t use the term “union” in a technical sense, that means you can’t simply quote Calvin’s use of “union” as support of the technical sense, much less other words that may or may not imply union in any sense. Instead, you appear to be reasoning that Calvin’s sense of union is general, therefore anything between “union” and “in” could fit into Calvin’s general sense, therefore it’s all possibly related to union in the technical sense. That last step seems like quite a leap.
LikeLike
Mike, so what *does* Calvin mean? And the Catechism?
LikeLike
Zrim: It strikes me that what you are saying about union is actually very true about our *adoption*. I wonder whether you are thinking about union in purely adoption terms?
LikeLike
Jeff, but what is union? There is not catechetical answer to that like what we have for justification, effectual calling, or adoption? Would you really say that union is “partaking of the virtue of Christ’s mediation”? What is “the virtue of Christ’s mediation”? I’m not trying to be stupid. I’m asking for unionists to be clear. Union can mean federal headship or the work of the spirit. The range of meanings is so vast as to be unhelpful. And yet some folks seem to go slack jawed over union. I don’t get it.
LikeLike
Jeff, don’t you mean what does Calvin mean technically?
LikeLike
DGH: Technically, yes.
—
DGH: I’m not trying to be stupid.
I know. I don’t fully know exactly what you’re driving at, but I don’t perceive it as stupidity.
DGH: I’m asking for unionists to be clear. Union can mean federal headship or the work of the spirit. The range of meanings is so vast as to be unhelpful.
OK, but the problem with that approach is that what the “unionists” mean is really secondary to what the Catechism means. So asking the unionists to be clear might be interesting … perhaps revealing … but it’s not nearly as helpful as getting at what the Catechism means.
Which is what I’m asking you to take a stab at, if you wouldn’t mind.
The way I’ve approached that question has been to tackle the secondary literature surrounding and informing the Catechism: Fisher’s commentary, Ursinus’ commentary, the Institutes, e.g., and the systematics that stick close to the Catechism. You don’t seem to like that approach, or the results of that approach.
So what other possible approach are you suggesting?
And why so coy about your own view?
—
My own view is that “union” is “joining.” By faith, we (a) are joined to Christ as our Federal Head, which headship is the ground of our imputation; and (b) have Christ joined to us by the giving of the Spirit.
LikeLike
Darryl’s June 2 2:51 pm comment reminds of the critique of those who hold high justification by faith that putting regeneration prior to faith is akin to Rome’s justification by infused righteousness (i.e. God works something in the sinner to make him able to grasp Christ prior to his having Christ’s righteousness). As per Darryl’s comment, isn’t it a problem to have this connection (union?) via the Holy Spirit prior to one’s being righteous (even forensically)? I seem to remember this as a Lutheran critique. Since this group seems to be Lutheran friendly and definitely JBF friendly, perhaps there is good answer to this question that has dogged me throughout my years as a Reformed confessionalist.
LikeLike
Jeff, you make it seem like it’s as simple as the catechism. But the catechism has no question about union specifically or technically. What you quoted above was a question about communion. I get it, union is part of communion but they are two different words. And is “partaking of the virtue of his mediation” all that simple?
I’m willing to live with the catechism where union is almost everywhere subordinate to effectual calling. What I’m not willing to live with is a red letter edition of the catechism which highlights everything that apparently reads like union. And I’d like some admission that union is not “central” to the system in any of the confessions, creeds, or catechisms. It’s there. Sure. It’s not the organizing principle.
LikeLike
Terry,
At least some explanations of union span the predestination of Eph. 1:11 through glorification. I think the criticism fits. The only thing distinguishing that view from eternal justification is a denial that justification is necessary for union.
Jeff,
I’m not a Calvin scholar, or a scholar at all, but when I read the Garcia / Fesko dueling papers in Ordained Servant, I sided with Fesko. Muller’s arguments against finding a central doctrine in Calvin apply equally to union as they do to predestination, although this is something I saw more in Gaffin/Garcia than what you write. (though my reading of them was cursory; I could be off the mark.)
I haven’t seen anything that convinced me that Calvin or the confessions could have spoken to the contemporary discussion of union. Wouldn’t it at least require the refinements of the protestant scholastics to get to the question? But again, I’m not Muller, and even my copy of PROD has thus far been more of a shelf decoration than bedtime reading.
To interact with your use of the term, if union engulfs the traditional ordo, then it’s either a redundancy or it must be adding something to the understanding of the ordo that we otherwise share. I’d like that part to be called out. If it’s just what Terry was mentioning, I think that’s a strange point to get uppity over, but I’m open to correction.
Alternatively, if this emphasis on union is more a correction than an addition, that also needs to be specified. The only time I’ve seen something on union that really grabbed me was in Bonomo’s book on Nevin, explaining his view on the implications of Christ as the second Adam/firstfruits of the new creation, in contrast to Hodge’s emphasis on a very individual, forensic atonement.
This alternative view … what would you call it? the Gaffinean or Framean union emphasis? … OTOH doesn’t seem to be used for much beyond groundwork for emphasizing the distinctly Christian life or the imperative nature of sanctification, both of which are debated and addressed in far more direct terms elsewhere.
LikeLike
DGH: Jeff, you make it seem like it’s as simple as the catechism.
Then I’m being too glib or breezy or something, because I don’t think it’s simple. It’s more along the line of being driven by stubborn facts. See below.
DGH: But the catechism has no question about union specifically or technically.
I’m baffled by this. WLC 66 is specifically and technically about union. It even defines it.
—
You and I both, I think, are driven on this issue by some stubborn facts. For you, if I’m reading correctly, the stubborn fact is that union is given relatively little treatment. This falsifies the notion that union is the central, organizing principle that deserves to be in the foreground of soteriology.
And I actually agree with you. Whatever we might say about union, we still must admit that JFBA is what drives the Reformation, soterically speaking.
For me, however, the stubborn fact is that Calvin and the catechisms tell us that the benefits of Christ come to us by being united to Christ, which is done in our effectual calling.
Whatever union might mean, and whatever nuances we might want to place on it (mystical, forensic, vital), still — this stubborn fact remains.
And that fact falsifies several theories of salvation. For instance, it falsifies Bavinck’s account (Ref Dog Vol 3 p. 523) that faith is simply our epistemological discovery that we are elect (he seems to be tracking with Kuyper’s eternal justification).
It also seems to falsify Zrim’s hypothesis that union is initiated by the verdict of justification. For if this were so, then the Catechism would have to say that our union is done in our justification, rather than what it actually says: that our union is done in our effectual calling.
What has been a bit frustrating to me is that you won’t acknowledge the stubborn fact that the benefits of Christ are applied to us by being united to Christ.
If you think that fact is incorrect, then it would help if you made that case directly ; or if you agree that it is correct, an acknowledgment would help, so that I can stop repeating myself.
LikeLike
Mike K: I agree with you that union is not the center of Calvin’s thought. I actually don’t go much for “centers” in general.
My understanding of the Fesko/Garcia issue is that it has to do with the relationship of justification to sanctification.
However, I’m not sure that Fesko has properly read Garcia. Here was Gaffin’s response to Fesko:
This priority of justification to sanctification, if it needs to be said, is not at issue or in any way disputed by me (or Garcia; in my view he has been clear about that in his published writings and more than once in previous issues of Ordained Servant). For Calvin and, more importantly, in Scripture, justification is prior to sanctification in the sense that the latter, as a life-long and imperfect process, follows the former as complete and perfect from the inception of the Christian life. …. I hope that the future discussion Fesko envisions can proceed with the recognition that the priority, logical and temporal, of justification to progressive sanctification is not in dispute. — Gaffin, A Response to John Fesko’s Review
You can see that there’s a bit of a food-fight going on here that I’d rather stay out of. It appears to this outsider that the two sides are not engaging one another squarely.
My concern is to bypass the current issue over union and to go back a bit. What do previous theologians prior to the current “union craze” have to say about union?
So I’ve focused attention on sources like Calvin and Ursinus, commentaries on the Confession, and AA Hodge as representatives of “pre-WTS” views of union. Does that make sense?
LikeLike
Jeff, I have a question about your view of union concerning part (a). If Christ is our Federal Head, then isn’t he already united to us? Didn’t that happen in the counsel of peace, that covenant of redemption between the Father and the Son? When the Father promised a people to the Son, and the Son agreed to bear the punishment of their sin and fulfill all righteousness on their behalf, did this not effect the legal, covenantal union that is the basis for all subsequent blessings, including the outpouring of the Spirit? And if Christ is already united to us as our Federal Head, then isn’t the Spirit given to draw and unite us to Christ in the mystical union that seems to be the focus of this discussion?
Union, as we talk about it, involves persons, and is effected by words, oaths, and promises. God does what he does by words; He has done it that way from the beginning. In the covenant of redemption it is the imputation of our sins to Christ and the imputation of his righteousness to us that actually is the essence of the union. Imputation, and thus justification, is the speech-act of God that really unites the parties involved. Additionally, if we need to be united to Christ before God can make the forensic announcement of justification, the declaration becomes analytic, and thus moves closer to Rome.
I don’t think your idea of union as ‘joining’ is adequate for what actually occurs. I can join two pieces of wood, or I could join my friends for an evening out, but none of these require the promises and stipulations required for the covenantal idea of union that we find in Scripture.
It is the interchange between persons that make them united. Union isn’t the cause of the interchange, but the result. Can two walk together except they be agreed?
LikeLike
Jeff, I know about WLC 66. But you quoted WLC 69 (I think) on communion. And this is what I find frustrating. Union is a moving target — I mean — definition. Any and every thing in the application of redemption gets credited to union. That’s not inspiring. It’s sloppy, technically speaking.
My problem over all is that I don’t know at the end of the day what union means. I know what justification, adoption, and effectual calling, for instance, mean. I also know what the federal headship of Christ means (union), and I know something about the imagery of the head and the body, or the vine and the branches. I believe that I belong to Christ. But to hear some people speak, union with Christ is almost as concrete as the United States.
Here’s another part of my frustration — much of Jesus’ teaching was to prepare his disciples for being apart (not united) with him. He has gone away to prepare a place. He was with us (united in a sense) and will be with us again. In the meantime he sends his Spirit. So what does union mean in this case where Christ is apart from us physically speaking but is present by his Spirit.
And to play devil’s advocate even more, if justification needs to be eschatologized (already/not yet), does union also? Were the OT saints united to Christ? They didn’t have the Spirit the way we do, right? So what about union then?
And through it all has been the point — not by you — that union opens up such a wider understanding of salvation than justification, as if justification is chopped liver. But that view in my view fails to consider the fundamental reality of the covenant and the law and the centrality of the forensic aspect of our relationship to God. I fear that trying to foreground union and questions about the application of redemption will obscure the ultimate question of how man fell and what God did to restore our relationship to him. God could send the Spirit all he wanted, but it wouldn’t have helped a lick unless Christ lived a sinless life and bore our guilt upon the cross, thereby carrying our sin and providing a righteousness that will not go up in smoke on judgment day.
LikeLike
Jeff, this is not what Gaffin has always said about the matter. And it is not what Garcia has said. Meanwhile, the charge of “Lutheran” is still out there. In which case, why is it that if you don’t quote Calvin on union you are guilty of being Lutheran (as if that’s a sin)?
LikeLike
It strikes me that what you are saying about union is actually very true about our *adoption*. I wonder whether you are thinking about union in purely adoption terms?
Perhaps. WLC 74 devotes time to it in ways I don’t see given to union. And the description seems enough to me without having to do so:
Question 74: What is adoption?
Answer: Adoption is an act of the free grace of God, in and for his only Son Jesus Christ, whereby all those that are justified are received into the number of his children, have his name put upon them, the Spirit of his Son given to them, are under his fatherly care and dispensations, admitted to all the liberties and privileges of the sons of God, made heirs of all the promises, and fellow heirs with Christ in glory.
I don’t know about you, but that all sounds pretty complete and assuring and implies some kind of union to boot. I guess I don’t understand why more is needed.
LikeLike
Randy: Jeff, I have a question about your view of union concerning part (a). If Christ is our Federal Head, then isn’t he already united to us?
What you’re suggesting is distinguishing between different kinds of union, and several theologians do so. See for example Berkhof’s treatment.
However, I would suggest caution on two points.
First, it sounds like you want to push Federal Headship back to eternity past. And some Reformed theologians (Kuyper, Bavinck) appear to do so. But the consequence is that you end up with our justification also being pushed back into eternity past; to my mind, that’s a non-starter. Would you agree?
Second, you say
In the covenant of redemption it is the imputation of our sins to Christ and the imputation of his righteousness to us that actually is the essence of the union. Imputation, and thus justification, is the speech-act of God that really unites the parties involved.
But the Confession doesn’t speak like this, nor does Calvin. The principle that justification is the declaration that unites us to Christ is really the non-Confessional teaching that animates me in this discussion. Calvin says quite the opposite: that the benefits of Christ (which he calls regeneration and justification) are of no avail to us until we are first united to Christ. And WSC 30 says clearly that the benefits of Christ’s redemption are applied to us by the Spirit creating faith in us, and thus uniting us to Christ.
So I would ask you and Zrim to consider critically and skeptically examining your own thesis: that justification is the declaration necessary for uniting us to Christ.
* Is that thesis taught in the Scriptures?
* Is that thesis taught by the Reformers? In the Confessions and Catechisms? By various sound systematic theologians?
What is the basis for that thesis, OTHER THAN your conviction that it must be so?
—
Randy: I don’t think your idea of union as ‘joining’ is adequate for what actually occurs.
Well, start with WLC 66. How would you define union with reference to the catechism?
LikeLike
DGH: Union is a moving target — I mean — definition. Any and every thing in the application of redemption gets credited to union.
Given WSC 30, I think it’s reasonable to attribute the application of redemption to union in general. Now, it does appear that the benefits of redemption are differentiated in some respect. Adoption, for example, flows out of justification. So not everything is simply union –> benefit.
But WSC 30 is the baseline, and I would appreciate it if you could acknowledge that fact.
DGH: And to play devil’s advocate even more, if justification needs to be eschatologized (already/not yet), does union also?
“Future justification” is a term we’d be better off without. In my view, Gaffin’s search for super-symmetry requires it, rather than Scripture. I would prefer to call the final judgment our vindication, and wrap it up as a part of glorification.
Likewise, in my view, it is the absolute quest for Justification Priority that is creating a block for y’all in wrt union. The catechisms don’t answer every question, but they give us enough to see that
* Union is accomplished in our effectual calling,
* Union is the joining of us to Christ as our head and husband.
* Union is the way in which the benefits of Christ’s redemption are applied to us.
And Calvin is clear enough that
* The benefits of Christ’s redemption are of no benefit to us unless we first are united to Him.
Not only is this the plain reading of the catechisms, but it is the reading favored by *every single author I’ve read* concerning the catechisms. And unless someone can come up with a really good reason to read the catechisms in a different way, I’m afraid I must be stubborn on these points. I believe I *should* be stubborn on these points.
In fact, I’ve never met anyone at all who had a problem with this, prior to encountering Oldlifers. Yikes, man! This is my “walk you back from the cliff” moment.
DGH: And through it all has been the point — not by you — that union opens up such a wider understanding of salvation than justification, as if justification is chopped liver. But that view in my view fails to consider the fundamental reality of the covenant and the law and the centrality of the forensic aspect of our relationship to God. I fear that trying to foreground union and questions about the application of redemption will obscure the ultimate question of how man fell and what God did to restore our relationship to him.
And see, this is why I really don’t like “What is the center?” questions. Should justification be in the foreground? YES, YES, YES! Is union with Christ the way in which God applies all the benefits of Christ’s redemption to us? YES, YES, YES!
Can we play a ground-bass and a melody at the same time? Of course. And the two complement one another quite nicely.
The quest for “centers” turns us all into intellectual monophonists.
DGH: God could send the Spirit all he wanted, but it wouldn’t have helped a lick unless Christ lived a sinless life and bore our guilt upon the cross, thereby carrying our sin and providing a righteousness that will not go up in smoke on judgment day.
Here’s a point to ponder. Is there anything wrong with Lutheranism on justification? Only one thing that I can see: in Lutheranism, justification is defectable. If one ceases to believe, one can lose one’s justification.
Is there a connection between their view of union and justification, and their view that the saints do not all persevere?
LikeLike
So why *does* Calvin say that both our justification and our regeneration are received by being united to Christ?
Some have suggested that this is an antidote to antinomianism. However, considered in its polemic context, I would suggest that the doctrine of union is a defense against Catholicism.
By positing that both justification and sanctification come jointly but distinctly, Calvin neatly refutes the Catholic charge of antinomianism and in so doing, allows justification to be free of works.
Consider Institutes 3.16.
The allegation is that justification by faith destroys good works … They allege. that when faith is so highly extolled, works are deprived of their proper place. But what if they are rather ennobled and established? We dream not of a faith which is devoid of good works, nor of a justification which can exist without them: the only difference is, that while we acknowledge that faith and works are necessarily connected, we, however, place justification in faith, not in works. How this is done is easily explained, if we turn to Christ only, to whom our faith is directed and from whom it derives all its power. Why, then, are we justified by faith? Because by faith we apprehend the righteousness of Christ, which alone reconciles us to God. This faith, however, you cannot apprehend without at the same time apprehending sanctification; for Christ “is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption,” (1 Cor. 1:30). Christ, therefore, justifies no man without also sanctifying him. These blessings are conjoined by a perpetual and inseparable tie. Those whom he enlightens by his wisdom he redeems; whom he redeems he justifies; whom he justifies he sanctifies. But as the question relates only to justification and sanctification, to them let us confine ourselves. Though we distinguish between them, they are both inseparably comprehended in Christ. Would ye then obtain justification in Christ? You must previously possess Christ. But you cannot possess him without being made a partaker of his sanctification: for Christ cannot be divided. Since the Lord, therefore, does not grant us the enjoyment of these blessings without bestowing himself, he bestows both at once but never the one without the other. Thus it appears how true it is that we are justified not without, and yet not by works, since in the participation of Christ, by which we are justified, is contained not less sanctification than justification.
Notice the brilliant chess-move on Calvin’s part. By recognizing that justification and sanctification come always together (the duplex gratia), Calvin draws the sting of the papists’ charge of antinomianism. And in so doing, he makes justification entirely free of works. The two graces are utterly distinct from one another.
And again: they both come by first possessing Christ.
LikeLike
Jeff, sorry, but I’ve been reading the catechisms for a while and union has never been plain to me. To say that it is is either to claim too much or to make me out to be a fool. But since Paul, the one to whom most unionists go for union, wrote at least two letters explaining justification and none explaining union, I’m not sure union is as plain as you make it.
Speaking of plain, the catechism says that we are made partakers of redemption by the work of the spirit through faith which unites to us to Christ. It looks to me like WSC 29 puts faith before union. What is more, it lumps both under the umbrella of effectual calling.
LikeLike
Jeff, I’ve written about this before, but I don’t see the brilliance since by adding sanctification to justification — both being God’s work — now we have really no reason to do good works. That would be one way a Roman Catholic could respond. I’m not disputing Calvin’s point about separating Christ. Now, if you want to equate sanctification with good works I guess we can and maybe Calvin did. But as a historian I can see that 100 years later the Divines decided to treat sanctification separately from good works.
Sorry, but it may seem plain and brilliant to you because you have a rooting interest.
LikeLike
DGH: It looks to me like WSC 29 puts faith before union.
Well, at least we agree there.
So when can we expect you to put your own union cards on the table?
LikeLike
Hey Jeff,
“My concern is to bypass the current issue over union and to go back a bit. What do previous theologians prior to the current “union craze” have to say about union?
So I’ve focused attention on sources like Calvin and Ursinus, commentaries on the Confession, and AA Hodge as representatives of “pre-WTS” views of union. Does that make sense?”
That makes sense, and the effort is something that any confessionalist could appreciate. But if union as a theological construct didn’t exist prior to the current “union craze”, then citing ambiguous 16th- and 17th-century prepositional phrases as speaking to it just begs the question.
While I agree with you wrt the dubious nature of central dogma forensics, I don’t think that the boldface sentence method of historical argumentation advances a debate over what someone believed, even if the entire paragraph is included for context. The participants at GB trying to turn Machen into a transformationalist postmill based on a sentence, or at most a couple of paragraphs, were a case in point. Muller, from “Was Calvin a Calvinist,” is illustrative, if extended (for a blog comment):
“There is a final, deeper problem with this approach as well. The question also
assumes that the theological tradition in which both Calvin and the later thinkers
who have been identified as Calvinists reside was rather exclusivistically founded on
the theology of Calvin himself and that Calvin’s theology — typically identified with
Calvin’s Institutes in the final edition of 1559 — supplies the foundational index by
which membership in that tradition ought to be assessed. This form of the question
assumes that later Reformed theologians either intended to be or should have been
precise followers of Calvin rather than also followers of Zwingli, Bucer,
Oecolampadius, Bullinger, and others, and not merely followers of Calvin in general
or Calvin of the tracts, treatises, commentaries, and sermons, nor the Calvin of the
1539, 1543, or 1550 Institutes, but the Calvin of the 1559 Institutes. This form of the
question is aided and abetted by the numerous books on Calvin’s theology that are
based solely or almost solely on the Institutes and that do not examine the thought
of any of Calvin’s predecessors or contemporaries: his thought becomes its own
criterion for its assessment and, by extension, the sole guide to all that is Calvinistic.
This view is so misguided that it needs no extended rebuttal: it abstracts Calvin from
himself by denying the importance of the larger portion of his work even as it
abstracts him from his historical context and from the tradition in which he was a
participant.”
Reiterating that I’m not a scholar, I take Calvin’s commentary on Eph. 1 (using http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom41.iv.ii.ii.html as source) as a counterexample. Most telling, Calvin uses “in” and “through” interchangeably, and mentions union only in the sense of Christ gathering men and angels into his body to unite them with God the Father.
LikeLike
Jeff, I’m not trying to be coy, but my union cards are right there in the Confession of Faith and Catechism which are neither as clear on the matter or as brilliant as some seem to think. I think they say enough of what may be said, granting that I am no fan of using a microscope to inspect the ordo.
LikeLike
Alright, if the Confession and Catechism are unclear on union (were the writers “sloppy”, then?), then clear it up for us. What is the proper view of union? And why is Calvin less than brilliant in Inst 3.16?
I know I’m being stubborn. And I appreciate that you don’t want to be made out to be a fool — which is certainly not the intent.
But somewhere along the line, you decided to offer up “Where’s Waldo?” posts. I’m finding Waldo. Why do you ridicule the effort?
I’ve put more work than it’s worth into trying to verify or falsify my reading of Calvin, all because you have been prodding me (with a fair amount of sarcasm and insult) to do so. But then you don’t like the results because … because … why? It doesn’t make any sense.
It seems like you ought to bring more to this table than “I doubt it.” You can’t say, “My cards are in the Confession, but I don’t know what they say.”
LikeLike
I wonder whether Horton’s new Systematic Theology will take the same line on union as Horton himself did in 1992:
LikeLike
Horton’s book has two chapters on the subject (it’s been out for a while), but I haven’t had the chance to read through it.
LikeLike
Jeff, I appreciate your efforts. But you also know that your efforts may not be the same as those who sometimes use union to diminish the importance of justification. If you want to understand “Where’s Waldo,” that’s where you need to look.
BTW, I have heard Calvin quoted so many times on union that I suspect a red-letter edition of the Institutes is now in print.
LikeLike
DGH, I can appreciate the pushback against the diminishing of the importance of justification. In fact, I will cheerfully push with you.
The “here’s Waldo” responses are intended as a way to try to harmonize the two concepts instead of thinking of them antithetically. The controlling metaphor for me is ground bass + melody.
As we sweep through Inst Ch 3 we find the bass line of union articulated right up front. In that section (3.1), Calvin explicitly joins the various phrases that we’ve been talking about: Christ as head; being clothed with Christ; being ingrafted into Christ; communion with Christ — he takes all of these terms from Scripture and lumps them under the umbrella of being united with Christ.
To me, this seems to be an announcement of purpose, especially since Calvin declares union to be the “first thing to attend to.” Not necessarily the most important, but the foundational.
From there, we see the theme of being united to Christ returned to with great frequency. Sometimes obliquely, but sometimes quite explicitly. And for Calvin, “union” seems to be a polemic against Catholic views of faith and justification.
Consider Inst 3.2, which takes up the question “What is faith?” In section 24, he says
— Inst 3.2.24
(Aside: compare what Calvin says here with Ursinus’ commentary on HC Qn 1)
And so it goes throughout the Institutes. The ground-bass theme of union serves to undergird the certainty of our justification; it serves to sever justification from works (3.16); it serves to explain how we may be justified apart from works (3.11).
Union is used by Calvin as the antidote to legalism. Inst 3.15.1: “The principal point in this subject has been now explained: as justification if dependent upon works, cannot possibly stand in the sight of God, it must depend solely on the mercy of God and communion with Christ, and therefore on faith alone.”
Once we alerted to Calvin’s vocabulary of union — ingrafting, being clothed with Christ, communion with Christ, possessing Christ — we really do see union everywhere.
That’s the perspective I’m coming from. It’s not based on isolate proof-texting, but on a sustained reading of Inst 3 in relationship to the catechisms and Reformed thinkers. If you can appreciate that, then you can also appreciate why I seem to be impervious or oblivious to the “but justification is the important thing!” posts that you present. It’s not that I disagree with them; it’s just that I don’t see them as contrary to the point that I’m making!
Is justification in the foreground? Yes. Is union, which is our ingrafting into Christ and our being clothed with Christ’s alien righteousness, the way in which justification comes to us? Yes.
Both points are true, and neither one nullifies or diminishes the other one.
If we can agree to that, then I’ll be quite content.
LikeLike
Mike K: Thanks. Perhaps I’ll make that a summer reading project. Care to join me?
LikeLike
Jeff,
If I have pushed Federal Headship back into eternity, I was lead there by Berkhof. In fact, the title of the Chapter is THE FEDERAL UNION OF CHRIST WITH THOSE WHOM THE FATHER HAS GIVEN HIM, IN THE COUNSEL OF REDEMPTION. Quoting:”This imputation of the righteousness of Christ of to His people in the counsel of redemption is sometimes represented as a justification from eternity. It is certainly the eternal basis of our justification by faith, and is the ground on which we receive all spiritual blessings and the gift of life eternal.”
Note here that he is speaking of union and imputation in one breath, as if this ‘marvelous exchange’ constitutes the union. This is like the union of husband and wife in marriage, since it is the exchange of vows that constitutes this union, and indeed, WLC 66 refers to Christ as our husband. This double imputation of our sins to Christ and his righteousness to us, this ‘marvelous exchange’ by divine fiat IS the Union. That is why Berkhof can speak of it the way he does.
This Federal Union is also referred to as being legal. With this legal union in place, God can now graciously bestow all blessings upon his elect while maintaining his righteousness. Returning to WLC 66, we find the mystical union as being done in our effectual calling. Having the legal aspect of union in place permits the mystical, Spiritual Union to to take place with no violation of God’s righteousness.
What is your basis for effectual calling? The mystical, subjective, Spirit wrought union cannot be the basis, or we are led back into the circularity I had mentioned earlier. If union is defined as the exchange or sharing, as is found in our common experience, are we not better able to comprehend and relate to to others the aspects of union found in Scripture? Our common experience is, after all, a revelation of God and to be used in consort with special revelation.
Your definition of union is tautological, and does not do justice to the personal, covenantal nature of union as it is expressed in nature or scripture.
Also, Calvin says that our possession of the benefits of redemption depend on the mystical union, not that the benefits themselves are dependent upon this union. Doesn’t his argument in Book III actually presuppose the benefits? Were these not settled in eternity?
LikeLike
Randy,
Thanks. Yes, I agree that Berkhof goes in that direction: Federal union goes back to eternity past. In that regard, I find him easier to read in terms of Dutch theology and harder to read in terms of Calvin and catechism.
For both of the latter, our union takes place in the effectual calling. For the former, the Dutch school, the union has always existed (then for Berkhof, a different kind of union takes place with faith). My own way to make peace with Berkhof is to see him as using the same concepts as the catechism, but applying different terminology to those concepts.
I should point out that Berkhof does *not* go in the direction that Bavinck and Kuyper go, to a doctrine of eternal justification. I can’t recall off the top exactly how he treats it, but I seem to recall that Berkhof rejects EJ.
By contrast (odd man out?) Hoekema goes the Calvin route.
Hodge, meanwhile, is much easier to read in parallel with the Confession.
Randy: What is your basis for effectual calling? The mystical, subjective, Spirit wrought union cannot be the basis, or we are led back into the circularity I had mentioned earlier.
I agree again: Union is not the basis for effectual calling. Rather: Effectual calling is the process of creating faith in us, which unites us to Christ. The ground is election, the method is the HS creating faith in us.
Election grounds effectual calling; effectual calling is the process of creating faith; faith unites us to Christ; justification and sanctification are grounded in Christ’s righteousness, which we possess in two modes (imputation, infusion) via union.
So union itself is never the ground of anything. It the mechanism by which we possess Christ. Does that make sense?
LikeLike
Jeff,
I am trying to understand your position, and have a few other questions. When are my sins imputed to Christ, and is that at a different point than when his righteousness is imputed to me? It would seem that this ‘double imputation’ would be one event and would of necessity be prior to the incarnation, else how could he live and die for me?
Strictly, isn’t the object of our faith the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and not his righteousness alone? Even the demons believe that Christ is righteous, yet tremble. Do we possess the righteousness of Christ by imputation, or by faith in imputation? It seems that we must possess it in two ways. First, we must possess it by the completed work of Christ on our behalf, and then, by the working of the Spirit, becoming aware of it and possessing it by faith. Here we see the justification from eternity differentiated from the justification that is by by faith. It is that distinction without separation idea.
I would agree that the mystical, subjective, Spirit wrought union is a mechanism. It is, however, an aspect of a union that is founded in eternity. In the counsel of peace, when the Father gave an elect people to the Son, and the Son covenanted with the Father to be their Head and Surety, a union was formed. It is my understanding that here, in this ‘marvelous exchange’ of my sin for the righteousness of Christ, a forensic and legal union was constituted.
Isn’t this ‘double imputation’ the union, and thus the foundation and basis for all subsequent activity of the Godhead?
LikeLike
Randy: When are my sins imputed to Christ, and is that at a different point than when his righteousness is imputed to me? It would seem that this ‘double imputation’ would be one event and would of necessity be prior to the incarnation, else how could he live and die for me?
Interesting idea, and I think you’re articulating well the argument that drives Kuyper.
Several things cause me to doubt, and perhaps you can address them.
* First, Scripture appears to teach that we experience an status change in justification, a kingdom transfer. We go from being “objects of wrath” to “those who are saved.” And again, we go from being “separate from Christ” to “citizens of God’s household.” (Eph. 2)
It would appear that having Christ’s righteousness imputed to me at, say, the cross or even from eternity past, would negate the possibility of a kingdom transfer.
If I’m eternally justified, then I’m never an object of wrath, right?
* Second, Scripture seems to place *faith* as the instrument of justification and not (as Kuyper had it) the means by which I become aware of my elect and justified status. Rom 4 and Eph 2.7-9 seem determinative here.
If we are justified by faith as the alone instrument, then isn’t it the case that prior to faith, there is no justification?
You say,
In the counsel of peace, when the Father gave an elect people to the Son, and the Son covenanted with the Father to be their Head and Surety, a union was formed. It is my understanding that here, in this ‘marvelous exchange’ of my sin for the righteousness of Christ, a forensic and legal union was constituted.
What about “a forensic and legal union was prepared“? What pushes you to go for “constituted” over “prepared”?
Thanks,
LikeLike
Jeff,
Keeping in the mind the ‘already, not yet’ tension, consider the following:
I am poor, living in poverty with no visible hope of ever being able to lift myself from my wretched condition. Without my knowledge a benefactor takes interest in me and secretly opens an account, deposits a large sum of money, and provides for my access to the funds. Until I have become aware of these circumstances, however, I am still plagued by my miserable state. I am rich, yet I am poor.
So it is with salvation. It has been ‘prepared’, or else how could we neglect it. Now that it has been revealed to us and we have been united to Christ, we have knowledge of the great treasure we have in Him. We have transferred kingdoms, but ours is a kingdom yet to be realized in its fullness. Like the example above, we lived under the wrath of God even though we were rich. Without starting another thread, I would contend that the wrath of God yet abides. Our bodies get ill and age, and eventually die. We will not be fully freed until Christ comes again and inaugurates His kingdom in full. We live in a fallen world until then, and the sad side of human affairs is the result of our sin and and God’s judgement against it. His wrath is revealed in this condition, but like the coming kingdom, not in its fullness, but in a tempered manner.
There is a tension in Scripture that maybe we cannot fully appreciate now. We were elect in Christ before the foundation of the world, and this has been described as God’s electing love.
It seems as if we were loved and under wrath at the same time, a mystery for sure.
As far as using constituted, I wanted to keep the idea that it involved parts, that is, double imputation. I have no problem with prepared. If I prepare a large banquet, I have a large banquet. Everyone, including those for whom the banquet was prepared, remains hungry until they eat.
Faith is a the instrument of justification as you say, but this is what faith does. What faith is is knowledge, or belief of the truth, as Paul tells the Thessalonians, and trusting in that Truth to the saving of our souls. I have a lawn mower; that is what it is. Cutting grass is what it does. Much to my chagrin, cutting grass is to what I must now attend.
LikeLike
Jeff, thanks, but again, union is not a technical term and it not the way that we speak of receiving justification.
LikeLike
DGH: …union is not a technical term and it not the way that we speak of receiving justification.
John Wayne: Who’s we, pardner?
John Calvin: I believe I have also explained what faith itself is, and those benefits of God which it confers upon man, and the fruits it brings forth in him. Let us sum these up. Christ was given to us by God’s generosity, to be grasped and possessed by us in faith. By partaking of him, we principally receive a double grace: namely, that being reconciled to God through Christ’s blamelessness, we may have in heaven instead of a judge a gracious Father; and secondly, that sanctified by Christ’s spirit we may cultivate blamelessness and purity of life. — Inst 3.11.1.
Calvin seems to think that faith causes us to “grasp and possess” Christ, by which we are justified.
Do you maintain that he has something other than union in mind?
LikeLike
William a Brakel joins the long list of witnesses who affirm that our justification comes through being united with Christ.
Hey! A glossary!
… and a nice distinction between union and communion …
… and an affirmation that we partake of Christ’s benefits due to being united
— all quotes from William a Brakel, A Christian’s Reasonable Service, Ch 26.
… and an affirmation that one of the benefits of union is our justification.
So far, I *still* cannot find any Reformed guys (outside of Oldlifers) who do not say that we are justified by being united with Christ by faith.
Nope, I’m wrong. Dabney doesn’t touch union, IIRC. But no-one, and I really mean no-one, affirms that union comes about by being justified.
Time to be provocative, my friend: How much *more* evidence do you need?
LikeLike
Jeff,
I am unsure as to whether you would classify Berkhof as an Oldlifer, but:
“The mystical union in the sense in which we are now speaking of it is not the judicial ground, on the basis of which we become partakers of the riches that are in Christ. It is sometimes said that the merits of Christ cannot be imputed to us as long as we are not in Christ, since it is only on the basis of our oneness with Him that such an imputation could be reasonable. But this view fails to distinguish between our legal unity with Christ and our spiritual oneness with Him, and is a falsification of the fundamental element in the doctrine of redemption, namely, of the doctrine of justification. Justification is always a declaration of God, not on the basis of an existing condition, but on that of a gracious imputation – a declaration which is not in harmony with the existing condition of the sinner. The judicial ground for all the special grace which we receive lies in the fact that the righteousness of Christ is freely imputed to us.”
“But this state of affairs, namely, that the sinner has nothing in himself and receives everything freely from Christ, must be reflected in the consciousness of the sinner. And this takes place through the mediation of the mystical union.”
Systematic Theology, pg 452
LikeLike
No, Berkhof is not in the same category as Oldlifers. I’ll have to re-borrow a copy of Berkhof to adequately deal with him, but it is my distinct recollection that he is here making a distinction between the forensic aspect of union and the vital aspect of union; and that later, he affirms that justification comes through union.
If you have a copy in front of you, take a look at p. 450. I’ll be shamelessly cut-n-pasting from a previous OldLife discussion here
Then: From the preceding it appears that the term “mystical union” can be. and often is, used in a broad sense, including the various aspects (legal, objective, subjective) of the union between Christ and believers. Most generally, however, it denotes only the crowning aspect of that union, namely, its subjective realization bv the operation of the Holv Spirit, and it is this aspect of it that is naturally in the foreground in soteriology. All that is said in the rest of this chapter bears on this subjective union. (p. 450).
And then your quote on p. 452 follows — which is therefore clearly in reference to Berkhof’s “subjective union.”
So the short answer to the question is that Berkhof is talking apples and oranges. Frankly, I found his treatment to be somewhat confusing because he introduces multiple categories of union, the “subjective” being the most confusing.
But in the end, even LB says that union logically precedes both justification and sanctification, as you can see.
LikeLike
Jeff, but I don’t confess Calvin. Do you? Look, in the Shorter Catechism union, faith, the work of the Spirit come fast and furious. What holds them together “technically” is effectual calling, which also receives its own chapter in the confession.
If you mean by union that that the Spirit of Christ is alive and at work in me, well, sure, I believe in union. I’m also okay with federal headship. But I don’t see union doing the work that justification does.
LikeLike
Jeff, how’s this? Justification is an act of God’s free grace wherein he freely pardons all our sins and accepts us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and received by faith alone.
Where’s Waldo?
LikeLike
DGH: Where’s Waldo?
It’s in the word “imputation.”
DGH: If you mean by union that that the Spirit of Christ is alive and at work in me, well, sure, I believe in union.
No, actually that’s not (all) of what it means. If it meant only that, then we would certainly have to locate that after justification.
Union, however, means that two things happen:
* We are made Christ’s — that’s federal headship.
* Christ is made ours — that’s the Spirit being alive and at work.
LikeLike
OK gents,
One final push on union. From the et tu, Brute? file.
One R.S. Clark — I think you’ve heard of him — delivers some pithy quotes from various Reformers that he believes represent “Classical Covenant Theology.” He quotes these two notables on union:
Now Clark, of course, is probably being sloppy. 😉 But just in case he isn’t, I just thought I’d re-mention that union precedes justification. And that fact is a prominent feature of … Classical Covenant Theology.
Y’all have a wonderful summer. Keep pushing on JFBA while I try to inculcate it in my progeny.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I’m taking a class until late July (plus work), but I’ll be happy to read through Horton’s Systematic after that.
LikeLike
Jeff, okay, you win. You can see union everywhere. Where do I get the glasses?
But since Paul doesn’t devote letters to union, and since the Reformed creeds don’t address union technically the way they do a host of other matters, I’ll continue to see union only as a subtext until I get the glasses. Do they come with a second blessing?
LikeLike