So why is it that justification prioritists (JPs) regularly receive the charge of making justification the CAUSE of sanctification when in fact they don’t? But to the unionists’ ear, to assert the logical priority of justification to sanctification (and no cheating by sneaking in definitive sanctification) is to say that justification CAUSES sanctification (often, anyway). (In fact, the powers of unionists to read meanings into words and statements are well-nigh remarkable.)
But why is it that when unionists use the explicit language of “CAUSE,” they are merely asserting the TRUTH? Here I point to Rick Phillips’ recent post at Ref 21:
5. Justification does not cause Sanctification. Sanctification, like Justification, is caused by union with Christ through faith (Rom. 6:1-14). Just as Christ justifies, Christ also sanctifies his people (1 Cor. 1:30; Col. 3:12-17). For this reason, the idea that we need only preach justification in order to gain sanctification is contrary to the biblical pattern. Paul, for instance, does not preach justification so that sanctification will occur, but rather he preaches sanctification itself (Rom. 6:12-14; 12:1-2, etc.). Peter also declares “Be holy” (1 Pet. 1:15). This being the case, gospel preaching does not consist merely of preaching Christ for justification, but also consists of preaching Christ for sanctification.
Again, the quick identification of union with almost everything good is striking — Union and Christ become synonyms in this argument. But is that what people think when they hear the word union? They think Christ? Well, why is it that unionists don’t think Christ when they hear the word justification?
Notice too the lack of precision in this post regarding the kind of union Phillips is describing. Is it federal, decretal, or mystical? I assume it’s mystical, but given the lack of a technical lexicon regarding union, those who refer to it so often and so positively may actually help by greater precision?
And finally, what kind of CAUSE are we talking about here? Aristotle held to a variety of causes, Suarez to even more. So if we are going to use causal language, might not some of those scholastic distinctions made by Reformed Orthodoxy be helpful? Or is this another example of how biblical theology sometimes disregards the precision of systematic theology?
Old Life 
Darryl,
I tend to hear “mystical” or “experiential” when union is used as a general term. It seems its the key to “knowing” Christ’s commitment to us, our acceptance, etc. I came out of a very experiential (inward) type of Christianity… it ultimately reduces down to a form of works, because I am looking for ways to “grow” in that union, find it and enter into it, to experience it and through it lay hold of power for true obedience and holiness… and assurance… At the risk of sounding Lutheran (kidding), I think “union”, as I’m hearing it, has roots in the theology of glory. From what I’m understanding, as an objective truth to encourage, union must be given content to answer questions that only justification supplies.
LikeLike
Jack,
Given your experience — which I suspect might be the experience of others also — I can understand why you would view union theology or union emphasis as the entryway into a theology of glory.
My experience is quite different. Union theology was presented to me from the beginning as having two different aspects: Christ unites us to Himself by becoming our federal head; Christ unites Himself to us through the indwelling HS.
So for me, attempts to push back against union theology look like attempts to overthrow federal headship and give us a justification based on a legal verdict outside of a headship relationship. Which is what we have in Baptist, Lutheran, and other theologies.
I’m not sure how resolution occurs from here, except to get the “theology of glory” crowd to focus less on experiencing their union with Christ and to focus more on trusting on the finished work of Christ.
LikeLike
Jeff,
As an objective truth to encourage, it seems to me that union must be given content to answer questions that only justification supplies, not only to the pardon of sin, but the pardon of imperfect obedience. Calvin: “In short, I affirm, that not by our own merit but by faith alone, are both our persons and works justified; and that the justification of works depends on the justification of the person, as the effect on the cause.”
LikeLike
As, DGH just commented in the earlier Waldo post, this seems to be about a pastoral approach… that which comforts.
…that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort… (39 Articles)
I don’t see how the same can be said of our union with Christ apart from explaining that union, which leads back to justification. It isn’t an either – or, rather (In my way of thinking) what is the heart of the gospel.
cheers…
LikeLike
Jack: It isn’t an either – or, rather (In my way of thinking) what is the heart of the gospel.
Exactly. Justification and union, properly taught, are not competitors.
LikeLike
Romans 5:11 “We rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the atonement.”
imprecise “union” talk can be very dangerous. SOME theologians (Kevin Dixon Kennedy, Torrance) are using the concept of “union” to say that the atonement which really matters is the application of Christ’s death. Therefore, no double jeopardy, they say, unless somebody for whom Christ died has been “united to Christ.” In other words, SOME OF THEM TEACH THAT CHRIST DIED ALSO FOR THOSE WHO WILL PERISH.
It’s one thing to say that Christ’s death will be effective, and another to say WHY Christ’s death must be effective. Christ’s death saves not only because of God’s sovereign will but also because of God’s justice.
Although John Owen taught that God only imputed the sins of the elect to Christ, Owen did not teach that all the elect were justified as soon as Christ bore those sins. Owen taught with Romans 6 that the elect must come into legal union with Christ’s death. Until the elect are “placed into” that death, they remain under the wrath of God.
But SOME use “union” talk to change the meaning of the atonement and accuse the rest with thinking there is no need for faith. If the substitution for sins has already been made, they say, then all for whom it was made should logically already be justified. If the righteousness has already been obtained, then all for whom it was earned should logically already be justified by it. This is the claim made by SOME who use “union” to make the application of the atonement to be the atonement.
But it’s clear that Owen did not teach justification apart from faith. It’s also clear that Owen did not teach that faith was a mere recognition that we were already justified. (See Carl Trueman’s various books and essays on John Owen). “Unionists” should not ignore Owen’s careful distinction between the atonement and the legal application of the atonement. Some unionists do, some don’t
.
Some “unionists” locate the efficacy of the atonement not in Christ’s propitiation itself but only in the efficacy of regeneration and faith to unite people with that propitiation. This is their argument: “you can’t say that there’s double jeopardy until after a person has been married to Christ by faith. Then, and only then, they say, could you say that a person was dying for the same sins twice.”
But otherwise, it is claimed, you can teach everybody that “Christ is dead for you” without that meaning that Christ has died for your sins, because according to them, Christ’s death for sinners is not the same thing legally as Christ’s death to pay for the specific sins of sinners. So, again according to them, it’s the “union” which designates for whose sins Christ died.
LikeLike
Jack: As an objective truth to encourage, it seems to me that union must be given content to answer questions that only justification supplies…
Spin this out. What content do you have in mind?
LikeLike
Mark McC: I haven’t encountered such teaching, but I agree with you — it’s dangerous.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Your statement that “Christ unites us to Himself by becoming our federal head and Christ unites Himself to us through the indwelling HS” is intriguing. What do you think of the converse i.e., that, apart from Christ, Adam unites us to himself as our federal head and Adam unites himself to us through indwelling sin?
LikeLike
Apart from Christ, Adam *is* our federal head (by birth), and we have indwelling sin as a result.
But I’m a little skeptical of a strict parallel. The indwelling Spirit does not destroy the sin nature, right?
LikeLike
Don, Hodge has some interesting things to say along those lines in Outlines ch. 31
LikeLike
Darryl, being one who has learned at the feet of a “unionist” (Dick Gaffin), I’ve appreciated the challenge to balance that you’ve given me on this topic. I’ll not deny that the points you are making in this may indeed be fair. (I’ve at least read representations of what you are saying in some “unionist” materials).
Still, I think you are quibbling quite a bit too much in this one 🙂
It is reasonable for you to ask what kind of cause of the “unionist”. It is also reasonable for the “justitifcationist” to be asked the same kind of question. I’ve read quite a bit in “jsutificationist” language that suggests a causal connection from J to S that prompted me to say, “What? Wait a minute.” You’re arguing against being asked to clarify is silly, unless of course you agree that it is silly to ask the “unionist” to clarify. I’m with you if all you want to insist on is that everyone needs to be a bit clearer when using causal language in these contexts.
As to Phillips quoted above, I think you’re missing that he has explained the causal connection he has in mind, at least sufficient for the debate between the “unionist” and “justificationist”. He says, “Santification, like Justification, is cause by Union.”
I also don’t get where you are getting the “why is it that unionists don’t think Christ when they hear the word justification?” This “unionist” always thinks Christ when he thinks justification. Phillips is not equating union with Christ. Read again where he say union with Christ. He has not argued union is Christ.
Finally, I agree with your criticism that “unionists” need to do better at technical precision. I don’t necessarily agree that Phillips is guilty in this quote (he may be elsewhere). His explanation of union is sufficient for the point he is making in this quote, to wit sanctification is not as dependent on justification as some may think.
Nevertheless, I agree that “unionists” should be more diligent in knowing their stuff. To that end, knowing you do not disagree with union per se, what materials would you recommend for a more thorough, more robust understanding of union?
Thanks, Reed.
P.S., “unionist” sounds a bit too much like a Third World political wing of a guerrilla-terrorist group bent on overthrowing a right-wing government. C’mon wordsmith extraordinaire, can’t you come up with something a tad better? 🙂
LikeLike
Mark Mc: are you thinking some Federal Visionists by the “they” you’re referencing?
(Man, that would be weird, Federal Visionist Unionists. A few more labels and we’ll have enough to actually launch a new political party. ;-)))
LikeLike
Reed, I’m curious whom you have in mind among the justificationists who use causal language. I don’t see it in the Reformed confessions, Warfield, Hodge, Berkhof — the usual suspects. But I’m willing to be corrected. At the same time, I wonder if unionists (sorry, if the word offends southern sensibilities — maybe there is more wordsmithing going on there than meets the eye) have not created a bit of a straw man. For instance, I’ve regularly seen references to a select group of mid-twentieth century Lutheran dogmaticians to make a point about Lutheranism in general.
As for your defense of Rick, that’s fine and I concede that his was a brief piece. But again I think it illustrates the point. We don’t yet have the technical language to use union with precision, and yet folks like Phillips can invoke phrases and words as if there is a body of technical literature behind his short hand. And I will dig in my heels at one point — if there are three aspects or kinds of union, should the word “union” ever be used without a modifier?
LikeLike
Jeff,
So for me, attempts to push back against union theology look like attempts to overthrow federal headship and give us a justification based on a legal verdict outside of a headship relationship. Which is what we have in Baptist, Lutheran, and other theologies.
It’s funny, I see it exactly in reverse. It seems to me that the new union emphasis threatens to overthrow federal headship by giving us a justification based on the existing condition of subjectively realized union, rather than on the merits of Christ. (I am not saying that the union advocates actually believe this.)
For example, Phillips can say that “Justification … is caused by union with Christ through faith,” which sounds an awful lot like saying that our spiritual oneness with Christ causes our justification, even if Phillips did not mean to imply that. But Berkhof cautions that the merits of Christ come to us on the basis of “our legal unity with Christ and [not] our spiritual oneness with Him.” To see things otherwise is for Berkhof “a falsification of the fundamental element in the doctrine of redemption, namely, of the doctrine of justification.” Finally, he asserts that “The judicial ground for all the special grace which we receive [which would have to include sanctification, right?] lies in the fact that the righteousness of Christ is freely imputed to us.”
So, it seems to me that the new union theology obscures some of the clarity of classic federal theology about the place of union, and about the primacy of justification.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle,
Can you explain to me why there is no question in the WLC on “sanctifying faith”? In fact, in just the place you might expect it to be there, it’s instead a question about “repentance unto life.”
LikeLike
Darryl: I had in mind someone like Dr. Horton. I remembering reading some of his stuff and going “What? Wait a minute.” Of course, I was blessed then to do the charitable thing and read bit more from him and others. While I’m not fully persuaded by his arguments, I do see some valid, indeed helpful correctives in what he says.
And no, I’m not read up enough to give you details on specific causal concerns. I’m offering rather an example of my own experience. It was responsible and fair of me to ask of Dr. Horton some more info. in terms of what he meant by some of his causal language. He (in other places) adequately answered my questions to believe there is not an issue here.
LikeLike
Darryl: I’m all for digging in one’s heels. In fact, that’s one of the things I like about you. You seem to have such thick heels. (Not to me read as a veiled reference to any aspersions that you are a “Heel!” ;-))
So let’s do this. Let’s qualify union in such a manner. This is where I put on the student hat with sincere respect and ask for your guidance. Do you know anyone (classical or otherwise) who helpfully does this? I promise to study up and be guided by such advice in my own future teaching on this topic. I agree that more careful distinguishing, not just in general but also with union, is not simply helpful, but called for.
LikeLike
David R:
Would you be more comfortable with this language? ““Justification … {strike: is caused by; insert:] happens in union with Christ through faith.”
It seems to me that this structure is less definitive on the causal relationship between J and U. This provides two benefits: 1) it calls for further explanation, and 2) the same structure is rightly used with all other redemptive benefits.
Also, appreciate the judicial causal notation. This is an example why I think Dr. Hart’s push back is helpful, while at the same time not agreeing that the polemical edges of the debate are broader than the agreed upon middle.
LikeLike
Reed,
Would you be more comfortable with this language? ““Justification … {strike: is caused by; insert:] happens in union with Christ through faith.”
That’s a little better, but I agree with you that it calls for further explanation, because it’s still vague and potentially confusing, in my opinion.
I know you asked the question of Dr. Hart, but I have found Berkhof’s article on mystical union very helpful and clarifying, in that he starts out by affirming Calvin’s famous quote about the crucial importance of union, but then he carefully explains and nuances and guards against the possibility of the doctrine of union obscuring the judicial basis for redemption: http://www.morningstarbautista.com/forum/index.php?topic=180.new
LikeLike
Oops, only the first sentence (my quote of Reed) should be italicized….
LikeLike
Reed, I did not have in mind “federal visionists”. In my post, I mentioned the Torrances and Dixon Kennedy (Union with Christ and the Extent of the Atonement). But of course I also have in mind folks like Bruce Ware, Alan Clifford, and Curt Daniel. I would say–most all the four pointers, but lots of the four pointers don’t really believe the four points either.
Folks like Garcia, Evans, Billings, and Gaffin may have as their “shelf doctrine” the fact that Christ was surety only for the elect, but their emphasis on what they call “union” moves the focus FROM the atonement and justification and forgiveness and federal headship to Christ “in you” as the condition of the application of the forensic.
As I have shown in previous posts, Gaffin “suggests” that “Christ in you” has priority. The idea that faith gets you Christ and Christ then gets you the benefit of justification. The idea is that “union” is not a benefit, but the cause of all benefits. To make that work, the definition of “union” gets switched and confused.
II Peter 1:1 –“to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ”.
Galatians 4:6–“because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of God into your hearts….
LikeLike
Reed, btw, thanks for the feedback.
LikeLike
David R wrote: “I see it exactly in reverse. It seems to me that the new “union” emphasis threatens to overthrow federal headship by giving us a justification based on the existing condition of subjectively realized union, rather than on the merits of Christ. (I am not saying that the union advocates actually believe this.)”
I say Amen.
Berkhof:(from his systematic, p452)
“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 (or future) 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 grace which we receive lies in the fact that the righteousness of Christ is freely imputed to us.”
Has anybody answered Dr Hart’s question about the OT elect’s “union” with the resurrected Christ?
I know Karlberg was quite concerned with that question when he reviewed Sinclair Ferguson’s book on Romans 6. It did seem to me that Ferguson had bought into the Gaffin reading of Romans 6.
LikeLike
Mark Mc: I anticipate push back here, but I don’t think what you’ve described is an adequate/accurate understanding of Gaffin’s emphasis on Union. I’ve yet to see where he argues that union is the cause of the ordo salutis. Instead his argument is that union is the locus, the place in which the benefits come into contact with the believer.
That is a much narrower emphasis, and one that I don’t think is arguable. Show me where this is found in Gaffin’s arguments and I’ll gladly deal with it. As it is, I’m suspecting that there may be some reading into a lack of clarity going on. If so, this only argues further for Dr. Hart’s repeated pushback.
LikeLike
Darryl: looks like permanent italicized has been turn on for comments on your blog. I didn’t mark my last comment for italics. I suspect neither did the last few, all appearing in italics.
LikeLike
Gaffin: “Typically in the Reformation tradition the hope of salvation is expressed in terms of Christ’s righteousness, especially as imputed to the believer…However, I have to wonder if ‘Christ in you’ is not more prominent as an expression of evangelical hope…” p110, Faith-Sight
And I wonder if this “wondering” has anything to do with Gaffin’s idea that “the law-gospel antithesis has been removed” for those who are now in Christ. If law has been united to the gospel for Christians so that the imperatives no longer accuse those in whom Christ lives, then the good news for Christians becomes that we are obeying the imperatives of the “gospel”.
If what Christ does in us by the Spirit precedes (logically) God’s imputation of righteousness to us, then it would seem that legal union is a consequence of “Christ in us”, and that the evidence for “Christ in us” is not a “passive faith” which is “merely enough to believe the gospel” but an active faith which locates assurance in the obedience to the imperatives.
I was married to my wife legally 30 years ago. There have some actions since then, but I am still married to her the same way I was at the beginning.
LikeLike
Reed, let me give you a bit (without comment from me) of Gaffin’s review of Horton on “Union” from Ordained Servant.
“Horton’s view of the relationship between justification and union with Christ seems unclear. For instance, … in discussing Reformation views of union, he says, “Regardless of whether union temporally preceded justification, Calvin is clear that the latter is the basis for the former” (as far as I can see, the Calvin citation in the following sentence does not support this statement and the quote from Institutes, 3.16.1 on the previous page in fact tells against it); and on page 147, “While a great deal more than justification is included as a result of being in Christ, Reformed theology has emphasized with Lutheran doctrine that justification is the judicial ground of it all.”
“Considering these statements as well as others also cited above, prompts the following questions: How is it that justification is the basis of union when union is antecedent, possibly, it appears for Horton, even temporally antecedent, to justification? How can justification be the ground of the union of which it is a result? How is justification the source or fountain of the matrix or field (union) of which it is a part? ….”
“Horton’s statement overlooks differences in the overall understanding of the application of redemption, all related, I take it, to different understandings of the place and role of union with Christ. To mention just one such difference, Reformed theology has not commonly seen justification as the judicial basis for regeneration.”
LikeLike
Again, without comment: Gaffin writes—
“Calling” as such brings into view a divine activity without yet saying anything about its results or how it is effective. “Regeneration”, in contrast, brings into view not only a specific divine activity but the specific result of that activity; the state of being regenerate. Having been called effectively involves having been regenerated, but the two are not identical. The exercise of the Spirit’s energies in calling produces an enduring change within sinners distinct from that exercise.
“The result, effected by those creating energies yet distinct from their exercise, is a permanent regenerate state marked, anthropologically, by a new and lasting disposition inherent in them, what Scripture calls a new “heart.” That is, at the core of my being, I am no longer against God and disposed to rebel against his will but, now and forever, for him and disposed in the deepest recesses of whom I am to delight in doing his will.
“In view of the undeniable reality of their own indwelling sin, believers need to be exhorted not to quench or grieve the Spirit at work in their lives. BUT his work IN the justified ungodly does not MERELY consist of an ongoing countering activity within those otherwise only disposed to be thoroughly resistant and recalcitrant. The definitive, eschatological death-to-life change effected and maintained IN believers BY THE SPIRIT provides a stable basis within them for his continuing day-by-day activity of renewing and maturing them according to their inner selves (2 Cor. 4:16), for his continuing toward completion the good work begun in them (Phil. 1:6). The Reformed use of “habitual” to describe this irreversible change, this radical dispositional reorientation, in believers seems appropriate and useful.”
LikeLike
Evans, but this time a comment from me: “The Apostle reasons from the believer’s spiritual union with Christ in his death (Romans 6:1-5) to the indicative of the believer’s freedom from the dominion of sin (Romans 6:7-11) to the imperative of the believer’s progressive sanctification (Romans 6:12-14). If this passage is any indication, the Apostle funds his doctrine of sanctification, not from justification or adoption, but from the believer’s spiritual union with Christ”.
Comment from me: “Spiritual” is a different word to put before ‘union”. Verses 1-5 of Romans 6 are supposedly about “spiritual union”. But what does “spiritual” mean in this context?
Did Christ Himself die a “spiritual death” (from corruption to a new inner regeneration)? No, He did not. So, since the death Christ died was a legal result of the imputation of the sins of the elect, the elect being placed into this SAME DEATH means that God counts THAT death as their death, so that the result is legal freedom from the guilt of sins. Romans 6:7–“justified from sin”. Sin shall not have dominion, BECAUSE you are not under law….
LikeLike
Jeff C. wrote: Apart from Christ, Adam *is* our federal head (by birth), and we have indwelling sin as a result.
But I’m a little skeptical of a strict parallel. The indwelling Spirit does not destroy the sin nature, right?
I agree — I was trying to keep the parallelism. But I do think its fair to say that because Adam is our federal head at birth, we thereby have union with him until we are joined to Christ. And since the sting of death is sin, it does have the power of the law to keep us united or enslaved to Adam. That is more along the lines of what I was thinking. As to the Spirit destroying the sin nature, I have consistently argued that the sin nature is neither destroyed or in any way restored by the Spirit.
LikeLike
DGH: If you wish to turn off the italics, go to the place where the italics should stop and insert the following text there as it appears on the screen:
</i>
JRC
LikeLike
David R: Phillips can say that “Justification … is caused by union with Christ through faith,” which sounds an awful lot like saying that our spiritual oneness with Christ causes our justification
And yet you would agree that Christ’s federal headship over us causes, or is at least logically prior to, our justification, right?
And is that headship not an aspect of our oneness with Christ? (so taught Calvin, Fisher, etc. …)
And thus Hodge: “The effect of our union is justification.”
See, the problem is that JPers have loaded the dice in this discussion by assuming that “union” means “experiential union.” And maybe some people out there teach it that way. So then, they treat statements about union and justification as if those statements mean that the experiential relationship with Christ causes us to be justified. Which it doesn’t.
But that’s not what union has historically meant!!!!
The classic term “union” encompassed both legal and experiential categories while keeping their benefits distinct.
And that’s why I recommend the Hodges so highly. They make the distinction very clear.
LikeLike
Attempting to un-italicize everything
Did it work?
LikeLike
Brian, I’m sorry, but I don’t understand the thrust of your question. I’ve never looked at the WLC and thought, “Hm. I was expecting a question about sanctifying faith there.”
Clearly you have something in mind…
LikeLike
Mark Mc: uhh dude, that’s a bit of a dump, don’t yah think? 🙂 I was inclined to maybe discuss/debate your reading of one passage. I’ve not time to go through all these.
Suffice to say, I don’t think any of these passages demonstrate that Gaffin believes union is the cause of the ordo salutis. They all just as easily fit my locus reading.
LikeLike
And Mark Mc, do you track with the notion of forensic (legal) union, as Jeff C. references above?
LikeLike
Jeff,
“See, the problem is that JPers have loaded the dice in this discussion by assuming that ‘union’ means ‘experiential union.’ And maybe some people out there teach it that way. So then, they treat statements about union and justification as if those statements mean that the experiential relationship with Christ causes us to be justified. Which it doesn’t.”
Please tell me whether the following Gaffin quote (from By Faith, not by Sight) about union (which btw for Gaffin, is not just “the center of Paul’s soteriology,” but is also “at the center of his theology as a whole“) indicates something experiential or not:
LikeLike
David R: I have two separate reactions to the Gaffin quote.
First, to answer your question, I don’t see anything in this quote that makes me think that Gaffin is equating union with experience. He is attempting to locate the “center of Paul’s soteriology”, and he considers union to be that center. Gaffin seems to be trying to arrange Paul’s thoughts in a systematic way.
Clearly, the bolded part made you think of experiential religion … but in what way?
But second, I really have trouble when people want to find “centers” of everything. It’s very 19th century, and it implies that Paul is a one-idea guy who takes everything down to a single nub.
In real life, people don’t think in that way. There are multiple central ideas — for Paul, Christ, justification, and union are clearly central — that interconnect with each other.
So I don’t agree with Gaffin; but I also don’t see him equating union and the experience of the Christian life.
LikeLike
Second attempt to de-italicize
Did it work now?
LikeLike
But Jeff, you’re not saying that the quote from Gaffin sounds like federal union. Plus, most of the unionist criticisms of JPers is overemphasizing the forensic. So if unionists often mean federal union, then they are stressing a forensic idea. The covenant, as I see it, has law written all over it.
LikeLike
DGH: But Jeff, you’re not saying that the quote from Gaffin sounds like federal union.
*checks the score* No, I don’t have a “federal union” line written in until measure 35, where we start hashing out wherein justification and sanctification differ.
Although the thought of parking one’s money in Gaffin Federal Union is amusing. Wonder if it’s also a Trust.
DGH: Plus, most of the unionist criticisms of JPers is overemphasizing the forensic.
Having observed things, I would disagree with them. I actually appreciate and have benefitted from your emphasis of the forensic. Keep it up.
My criticism is that you don’t seem to “get” union. You seem to want to equate it with experiential stuff and don’t seem to realize (or admit? I keep suspecting that your professed confusion is a mask) that historic “union” encompasses forensic and experiential categories, without confusing the two.
Which is why Horton and RS Clark both admit that we are justified in union with Christ, as I’ve cited here before.
DGH: The covenant, as I see it, has law written all over it.
I assume you mean “the covenant of salvation in the unionist’s theology has law written all over it.”
Who knows? I cannot speak for “unionists” — I don’t belong to Theological Local #430, you recall — but I can say that Calvin (a) had an undifferentiated union, (b) had no problem being justification-oriented, (c) didn’t get confused on the point, and (d) thought that union answered the charge of antinomianism.
I keep hammering this home for a simple reason. It’s not to say that since Calvin said it, you have to believe it. (Although … he is a good starting point, and I think one could do worse). Rather, it’s to say that C. is one acknowledged example of a pro-union guy who did not compromise on justification.
And if there’s one, there could be many. And if there could be many, then it’s not right to automatically assume that pro-union means a low view of justification.
LikeLike
I am left to assume that the recent rash of italicized responses indicates that everyone really means what they are talking about.
LikeLike
Or else, that they’re quoting someone else without citation. Perhaps DGH and I have switched places and are arguing on each other’s behalf.
LikeLike
Jeff,
JC: First, to answer your question, I don’t see anything in this quote that makes me think that Gaffin is equating union with experience. He is attempting to locate the “center of Paul’s soteriology”, and he considers union to be that center. Gaffin seems to be trying to arrange Paul’s thoughts in a systematic way.
Wow, “union with the exalted Christ by Spirit-created faith” sure sounds pretty experiential to me. But if that doesn’t do it for you, how about this one?
Among other things, the modifier “existential” seems pretty decisive.
JC: Clearly, the bolded part made you think of experiential religion … but in what way?
Sorry, I only bolded that part because I was marveling that Gaffin sees union as the center, not just of soteriology, but of the entire theological enterprise.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Compare Berkhof’s treatment of union:
LikeLike
Sorry, I botched the first paragraph of the quote. The part that begins “Reformed theology, on the other hand, deals with the union of believers with Christ theologically” is a new section, in which he contrasts the Reformed treatment of union to the Lutheran treatment.
LikeLike
David R:
Not to me. I read it as “we have union [which by standard Calvinistic usage includes forensic and experiential components] with Christ, who is exalted, by Spirit-created faith.”
You and I would agree that what I’ve been calling the “forensic component”, that is, federal headship, is to be had by Spirit-created faith and that our federal headship is under Christ, who is exalted. Right?
So no, that doesn’t ring experiential bells with me. But again, that’s because I’m not conditioned to read “union means experiential.”
But your next quote raises more serious issues.
Gaffin:
I would say that Gaffin here has merged the concepts of temporal order and logical order. There’s more to say, but basically he’s taking a Dutch position on the ordo. You might compare this to A. Hoekema’s Saved by Grace.
Again, are we talking temporal order or logical? Union has logical priority over both J&S because it is the way in which we receive J&S. But it has no temporal priority over justification: to be united to Christ is, by definition, to receive the verdict of righteousness on the basis of imputation. We are not first united then justified, but justified by being united.
LikeLike
Berkhof, on the other hand, is expressing much of what I’ve been saying. To wit:
(1) Reformed theology has historically used “union” to encompass both subjective union and federal union.
(2) It is important that we are justified in union with Christ.
(3) There is a valid distinction between federal union and subjective union.
(4) Federal union is synonymous with imputation.
I think you’ll agree that all of these are represented in my comments throughout.
Where Berkhof and I diverge is that he pushes federal union back into eternity, thus affirming a kind of “justification from eternity.” I’m not comfortable with that.
My short-and-sweet on Berkhof is, “He has the right categories, but he pushes justification back prior to faith.”
LikeLike
Jeff,
“Where Berkhof and I diverge is that he pushes federal union back into eternity, thus affirming a kind of “justification from eternity.” I’m not comfortable with that.”
Are you uncomfortable with the classic Reformed formulation of the pactum salutis?
LikeLike
Jeff,
Here’s where the nuancing of a system provides a corrective. Both of these are true at the same time:
(1) Justification is received by faith.
(2) Justifying faith is granted to the elect sinner through the effectual call of the Holy Spirit on the legal basis of the objective, forensic work of active and passive righteousness offered for us which constitutes the material cause for our justification.
Do you disagree with #2? In my reading of Berkhof (plus Bavinck and Horton, while we’re at it), all he’s doing when he points to “justification from eternity” containing a vital truth is making sure that our affirmation of #1 does not also entail the denial of #2.
LikeLike
Something interesting I came across while looking through Calvin’s Commentary on I Thessalonians was how he explicitly puts sanctification, new life, death to sin in the context of justification, saying “because of justification.” Here is the quotation:
1Th 5:10
10Who died. From the design of Christ’s death he confirms what he has said, for if he died with this view — that he might make us partakers of his life, there is no reason why we should be in doubt as to our salvation. It is doubtful, however, what he means now by sleeping and waking, for it might seem as if he meant life and death, and this meaning would be more complete. At the same time, we might not unsuitably interpret it as meaning ordinary sleep. The sum is this — that Christ died with this view, that he might bestow upon us his life, which is perpetual and has no end. It is not to be wondered, however, that he affirms that we now live with Christ, inasmuch as we have, by entering through faith into the kingdom of Christ, passed from death into life. (John 5:24) Christ himself, into whose body we are ingrafted, quickens us by his power, and the Spirit that dwelleth in us is life, because of justification (601)
(601) “Comme il est dit en l’Epistre aux Rom 8:0. b. 10;” — “As is stated in the Epistle to the Romans Rom 8:10.” (Emphasis Added)
LikeLike
“Faith-union,” the only phrase that brings Calvinists and anti-Calvinists together:
LikeLike