In my ongoing search for historical evidence to prove that union with Christ is crucial to Reformed Protestantism and distinguishes the Reformed tradition from Lutheranism, I did a word search in the Canons of Dort. Lo and behold, I discovered that the patriarchs of the Dutch Reformed tradition (from whence Gerheerdus Vos cometh) did not use the word “union” once (or at least their translators found no reason to use the term).
This is fairly remarkable since the Third and Fourth headings in Dort address specifically the nature of conversion, regeneration, and the role of faith. If union were going to be an important piece of Reformed orthodoxy in understanding the ordo salutis, Dort would be the place to find it since the Synod took place at a time when Reformed scholastics were beginning to engage in high level polemics. And yet, we can’t find Waldo in Dort.
Here’s an excerpt:
Article 10: Conversion as the Work of God
The fact that others who are called through the ministry of the gospel do come and are brought to conversion must not be credited to man, as though one distinguishes himself by free choice from others who are furnished with equal or sufficient grace for faith and conversion (as the proud heresy of Pelagius maintains). No, it must be credited to God: just as from eternity he chose his own in Christ, so within time he effectively calls them, grants them faith and repentance, and, having rescued them from the dominion of darkness, brings them into the kingdom of his Son, in order that they may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called them out of darkness into this marvelous light, and may boast not in themselves, but in the Lord, as apostolic words frequently testify in Scripture.
Article 11: The Holy Spirit’s Work in Conversion
Moreover, when God carries out this good pleasure in his chosen ones, or works true conversion in them, he not only sees to it that the gospel is proclaimed to them outwardly, and enlightens their minds powerfully by the Holy Spirit so that they may rightly understand and discern the things of the Spirit of God, but, by the effective operation of the same regenerating Spirit, he also penetrates into the inmost being of man, opens the closed heart, softens the hard heart, and circumcises the heart that is uncircumcised. He infuses new qualities into the will, making the dead will alive, the evil one good, the unwilling one willing, and the stubborn one compliant; he activates and strengthens the will so that, like a good tree, it may be enabled to produce the fruits of good deeds.
Article 12: Regeneration a Supernatural Work
And this is the regeneration, the new creation, the raising from the dead, and the making alive so clearly proclaimed in the Scriptures, which God works in us without our help. But this certainly does not happen only by outward teaching, by moral persuasion, or by such a way of working that, after God has done his work, it remains in man’s power whether or not to be reborn or converted. Rather, it is an entirely supernatural work, one that is at the same time most powerful and most pleasing, a marvelous, hidden, and inexpressible work, which is not lesser than or inferior in power to that of creation or of raising the dead, as Scripture (inspired by the author of this work) teaches. As a result, all those in whose hearts God works in this marvelous way are certainly, unfailingly, and effectively reborn and do actually believe. And then the will, now renewed, is not only activated and motivated by God but in being activated by God is also itself active. For this reason, man himself, by that grace which he has received, is also rightly said to believe and to repent.
Article 13: The Incomprehensible Way of Regeneration
In this life believers cannot fully understand the way this work occurs; meanwhile, they rest content with knowing and experiencing that by this grace of God they do believe with the heart and love their Savior.
Article 14: The Way God Gives Faith
In this way, therefore, faith is a gift of God, not in the sense that it is offered by God for man to choose, but that it is in actual fact bestowed on man, breathed and infused into him. Nor is it a gift in the sense that God bestows only the potential to believe, but then awaits assent–the act of believing–from man’s choice; rather, it is a gift in the sense that he who works both willing and acting and, indeed, works all things in all people produces in man both the will to believe and the belief itself.
Does this mean that union with Christ is wrong or that those who argue for its importance are wrongheaded? Of course, not. History doesn’t work that way. But claims about union have escalated to levels that rely on historical judgments. It is not simply a question of what the Bible says. Unionists are making assertions that affect the way we read the history of the Reformation (how did the Reformers read Paul and did they get it right?) and the history of Reformed Protestantism (what was basic to the way that Reformed pastors and theologians explained the Reformed faith?).
So far, the unionists appear to be overreaching. I understand the appeal of finding your cherished doctrine safe near the core of Reformed Protestantism (hence the appeal to Calvin). But sometimes your belief in the truth means you need to say that the tradition has been wrong and that your insights are right. Maybe if we could clarify the history of Reformed thought, the debates over union could be more fruitful than they are now when exegetes are making historical claims they appear to be unable to support.
Old Life 
DG, this part is unclear to me: “But sometimes your belief in the truth means you need to say that the tradition has been wrong and that your insights are right.” Who, please, are the pronouns and possessives in the sentence?
Also, are you following the Tebow-Plummer tussle over how often one ought publicly to profess faith?
LikeLike
Could you change the title of this post? Not only would Meredith not have been against you on this, but I don’t need any more ostracism.
Your point is well-taken for those who want to see the doctrine of justification as being substantively different for the Reformed than it is for Lutherans. Although, for whatever it’s worth, they would probably argue that the “in Christ” and “in the Lord” language of Article 10 is Pauline shorthand for union.
LikeLike
Interesting that your quotes provide powerful evidence of the duplex gratia view in Dort. And yet, isn’t your core theological objection to unionists the fact that they hold to two graces bestowed without a logical order between them?
Here we have Dort doing something similar.
LikeLike
D.G., does this have anything to do with the recent headline: “Ohio Voters Reject Republican-Backed Union Limits”?
LikeLike
Dave, “you” is generic. Either side, the justifiers (like myself) or the unionists, need to be honest about the past and if we are not representing it accurately, or highlighting certain parts in order to vindicate recent theological expressions, then we are not being honest. But since hardly any historical theologian who writes about the Reformed tradition stresses union, the “you” here could well apply more to biblical theologians than to others who dabble in theology.
LikeLike
Jeff, I do not object to the duplex gratia as much as I object to it being the basis for union priority and also for leveling the functions of justification and sanctification. You never want to say that you are justified because you are sanctified. But I can well imagine saying you are sanctified because you are justified. Saying that you are justified and sanctified because you are united to Christ doesn’t help adjudicate what’s wrong or right with the previous two assertions.
LikeLike
DGH, if we’re calling union “Waldo”, then let’s call justification priority “Wizard Whitebeard.”
Where’s Wizard Whitebeard in the document above?
DGH: You never want to say that you are justified because you are sanctified. But I can well imagine saying you are sanctified because you are justified. Saying that you are justified and sanctified because you are united to Christ doesn’t help adjudicate what’s wrong or right with the previous two assertions.
Agree to the first. Disagree to the second; it’s sloppy at best.
I could say that the justification is logically prior to my sanctification in the sense that the indicative precedes the imperative.
But I cannot say that I am sanctified because I am justified.
Rather, I would say that I am sanctified through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, by His Word and Spirit dwelling in [me].
Even if we take the virtue of Christ’s death to be the forensic ground, still it is incomplete for our sanctification without (a) the resurrection, and (b) the indwelling Spirit.
So justification as a cause of sanctification is incomplete.
Union, BTW, helps us to see that point clearly; JP muddles it.
LikeLike
It’s difficult for me to forgive Dort for its confusion of state and church, and also for its compromises in regard to the “sufficient/efficient” formula. But some redemptive-history folks do historical theology better than others. NT Wright seems to know very little about the history of theology in the last thousand years. I think not only of his caricatures and false generalizations about the Reformation, but also about his arrogant notion that he is saying things that have never been said before (think Cardinal Newman, John Wesley, Socinius).
Garcia and Evans (with Gaffin) seem to be following the lead of the Torrances in attempting to find their own theology in Calvin. And we who disagree with their theology need to be cautious in following that example.
But it occurs to me that there are more than two parties in debates about “biblical theology”. While it may be true that those who care most about justification (not under law but under grace) are less concerned about redemptive history (the law was our schoolmaster until Christ) than many “unionists”, the “unionists” also are committed to an order of salvation distributed in which “union” is neither justification nor sanctification. And then there is a third party, which wants to jump past that debate and get to the commands, duties, and “applications”. I am thinking of Jay Adams.
Geoff Thomas: “Elements of this neo-orthodox approach seem to have influenced conservatives, especially many of those who claim to do ‘biblical-theological preaching.’ I am not impugning the use of biblical theology. Indeed, biblical theology helps the preacher avoid moralizing and makes a sermon Christian. But a preacher should no more be known as a ‘biblical-theological preacher’ than he should be known as a ‘systematic-theological preacher.’ As a preacher of the Word, he is ideally both a theologian and an exegete, using both theology and exegesis in the preparation of his messages. Properly used in sermon preparation, both systematic and biblical theology play important, indeed, essential roles. But when the minister of the Word reduces a sermon to little more than a biblical-theological lecture (or meditation), he is no more preaching than if he were delivering a lecture on systematic theology” (“Truth Applied” Wakeman Trust, 1990, London, p.20).
“Jay Adams has in fact written a few pages on the subject of “The Proper Use of Biblical Theology in Preaching” (“The Journal of Pastoral Practice”, Vol.9, no.1, pp.47-49) … on that fine book of Geerhardus Vos’s sermons published by the Banner of Truth, “Grace and Glory”, Adams writes:
‘Although these sermons are beautifully written and full of instructive matter, there is no application in them. Sometimes young pastors are intimidated by the charge that application is ‘moralistic.’ But morality is not the same as moralism: the former is biblical and Christ-honoring: the latter is not”.
“Jay Adams concludes his concerns about history of redemption preaching with these words: ‘Conservative biblical-theological preachers, sailing in the wake of Geerhardus Vos tend to ignore (or even oppose) the use of application in a sermon. They expect the listener to make his own application (if any) of the sweeping truths they set forth on their excursions from Genesis to Revelation as they chase down a figure or a theme. Or, like Barth, they leave the application to God. The two major differences between some present-day preachers and Barth is that the former (1) do not hold to the neo-orthodox ‘encounter’, and (2) are less concerned about the contemporary scene than Barth’.
‘Abhorrence of direct application leads biblical-theological preachers of this sort into common ground with many liberals who believe that the use of the indicative alone, to the exclusion of the imperative, is adequate. At best, such preaching is applied (if at all) by implication; at worst, only by inference. Application becomes the task of the listener rather than the preacher’
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
I might be asking a dumb question, so forgive me if that’s the case. Is this emphasis on union in the Reformed tradition in any way parallel to the Finnish school on Luther? Just a coincidence?
LikeLike
Jeff, the point is not causal. The point is that justification takes precedence in understanding salvation to sanctification. If you look at salvation through the lens of salvation all sorts of errors may follow. If you look at it through justification, the errors do not. Since unionists sometimes flatten those distinctions, I don’t see how union helps. The great insight that union was supposed to provide was an acknowledgement that I am not under sins power (even though I have just sinned and shown my propensity to sin). I’m still confused about the wonder working powers of union.
BTW, since Dort affirmed Heidelberg and the Belgic, justification was pretty clear even though both of those parts of the Three Forms do no mention union.
History matters.
LikeLike
Nate, I think it’s coincidental, unless the Finns were reading Vos.
LikeLike
DG, just letting you know I agree with this post 100%. History matters. I also agree that there can be different emphasis put on central tenets of theology (i.e. union vs justi.) and sometimes a correction is in order to the old emphasis. However, I find no need to reorient the emphasis here, as those favoring union do, and rather, find justif. the historical emphasis. Good honest post DG.
LikeLike
I have no dog in this fight and frankly I think Reformed theologians (biblical, historical, and systematic) would do better in trying to explain the sacrements and what it means they are a ”means of grace” but not in any federal visiony/Lutheran/Romaist kind of way of course….. I digress. My library had this book with a title that peeked my interest. I’m not sure if it is relevant to the discussion, but voilà:
Union with Christ : the new Finnish interpretation of Luther / edited by Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson.
LikeLike
Chris,
You’re right, those of us who believe that All the benefits of redemption become ours when we are united to Christ by Spirit wrought faith, would probably argue that the language of “in Christ” gives credence to our position. Was Dort addressing a denial of the doctrine of union with Christ?
Thankfully the Westminster Standards are much clearer on this subject. Those (OPCer’s and the like) of us who hold to the Westminster Standards should ackknowledge the central importance the doctrine of union plays in our understanding of the personal application of redemption. And not to neglect its corporate aspects either. Are the Westminster Standards historical documents that express biblical Christianity? I would even argue they are a more mature expression of the Christian faith that the Three Forms of Unity.
That being said, as important and critical as historical theology is, sound exegetical arguments trump historical arguments every time. I’m not trying to pit biblical theology against historical theology here. I just want us recognize that the debates about the doctrine of union with Christ need to be first and foremost argued by the sound exegesis of the Scriptures. Which I believe Dr. Gaffin and Dr. Tipton are trying to do. Are some “unionists” overreaching to find historical support for their positions? Maybe, maybe not. Are we to believe that historical theologians who tend to prioritize justification are neutral in their historical findings. No one is completely neutral, unbiased, or objective whether they are reading history or doing biblical exegesis. We all know that.
LikeLike
Tim, so you’re suggesting that Drs. Gaffin and Tipton are not neutral in their exegesis?
LikeLike
Dr. Hart, I’m saying it seems to me and others they are trying to be consistent and faithful in their exegesis of the biblical text. From what I have read and heard from Drs. Gaffin and TIpton I have found to be very helpful in understanding the Christian life. It has also shed more light on the Apostle Paul’s writings in particular. I agree that Biblical Theologians and Historical Theologians need to recognize the limitations of their respective disciplines. But I would not want to say either would be completley inadaquate to “dabble” in one anothers discipline.Thanks for the interaction.
LikeLike
Where do Gaffin and Tipton exegete Romans 6:7 (justified from sin)? To conclude that Romans 6 is about sanctification and not about justification, you need to do more than beg the question by assuming that “the power of sin” is not legal condemnation.
1. How was the Lord Jesus “free from sin”? Not by “union”, not by “faith”, but by His death.
2. How are the elect “free from sin” in the Romans 6 context? Not by the work of the Holy Spirit, but by legal union with Christ’s death to sin.
3. Why is that Romans 6:14 promises that “sin will have no dominion over you”? Is it because of an advance in redemptive history, so that we now live in an age with the Holy Spirit? That answer is NOT given in Romans 6:14. Rather, the explanation is “you are not under the law but under grace.”
And why are the justified not under the law? Because they are legally united to Christ’s death. Faith in the gospel is imparted to them, yes, but the basis of that is God’s imputation.
LikeLike
Tim, I was just curious why you thought those who disagree with Gaffin and Tipton are not neutral in their reading of church history, or for that matter why you don’t suspect that the unionists read history with an interest in finding what they want to find.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart, I would say that we all want and even try to be objective in these matters, but it can be difficult to lay aside our preconceived ideas. Depending on our presuppositions we may tend to slant things into our favor. Two men may read the exact same material (historical or Scriptural) and come to two different conclusions depending on what they were hoping to find. So I do think it is possible, as I stated above, that some “unionists” may be overreaching to find historical support. But it also possible that those who disagree will brush off actual support as overreaching. As a side note, I’m not an historian or an exegete so I appreciate the hard work men like yourself and Drs. Gaffin and Tipton and others are doing. I’m just putting my two cents in. Thanks again for the interaction and I look forward to reading more about your ongoing search for historical evidence to prove that union with Christ is crucial to Reformed Protestantism and distinguishes the Reformed tradition from Lutheranism.
LikeLike
Tim, thanks. Isn’t it ironic that so much effort is being put into distinguishing Reformed from Lutherans but so few people care about differences between Reformed and Baptists?
LikeLike
Very ironic indeed! I do think that issue deserves much more attention considering the many parachurch organizations that seem to gloss over the fundamental differences between Reformed and Baptist communions. I’ve appreciated that you and Dr. Clark have addressed this issue many times with clarity and very compelling arguments.
LikeLike
Charles Hodge on union with Christ from The Way Of Life 1841 pages 362-370
http://books.google.com/books?id=sqNFAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
LikeLike