Historical Claims Concerning Union with Christ
“Union with Christ is finally getting its just place as a central dogma in organizing the Reformed view of how we are saved.” “Charles Hodge, among others, placed the forensic (especially justification) at the center, rather than union.” “Reformed paradigm: justification and sanctification have their source in union; Lutheran paradigm: minor role for union, if anything, and sanctification has its source in justification.”
These statements illustrate a type of exaggeration that I’d like to unpack very briefly, in part because there different nuances in this discussion that have pretty significant implications. Since my focus here is the historical claim about defining the Reformed consensus on this point, rather than exegesis.
- Union with Christ at the center
Hunting down central dogmas that distinguish one tradition or school from others was a hallmark of 19th-century historians. Yet a host of specialists in Calvin and Reformed orthodoxy have shown conclusively that this is a wrong approach. It imposes our own constructs on historical views and, furthermore, there is no central dogma in Calvin, much less in Reformed theology. A central dogma is not just an important truth; it functions as a theory from which everything else is deduced.
For Calvin and the whole Reformed tradition, Christ’s person is the source of everything and his work is inseparable from Christ himself. Christ himself, not any one of his gifts, is the center and object of our faith. (That’s Lutheran, too, by the way.) However, there’s a big difference between something being important—even in tying together other important doctrines—and something being a central dogma. Many are discovering union with Christ, and that’s great, but it has been there in our Reformed bloodstream all along. It is not something that was somehow buried after Calvin and then just uncovered recently in a particular school or circle of contemporary Reformed thought.
Part of the danger is that some are using the “centrality” of union with Christ as a way of equalizing justification and sanctification or, in some extreme cases, to collapse both together with “union” as the whole. It’s treated in most of our major systems—including Hodge’s, though according to some he’s a “Lutheran” in his prioritizing of justification. I devote the first chapter in my discussion of the application of redemption to union with Christ, so I readily acknowledge its importance. It is wonderfully true that faith clings to Christ for both justification and sanctification together: the double grace. This marvelous union influences Reformed thinking on a variety of topics, including the sacraments.
However, union with Christ isn’t treated as a distinct topic in any Reformed confession or catechism (including Calvin’s), while justification and sanctification are considerable attention. Calvin called justification “the main hinge on which true religion turns,” “the principal article,” and of “most importance” in our understanding of salvation. Union with Christ is a way of relating everything from election to glorification, but is not itself a deductive center of the system. If Calvin thought so much of union with Christ and also treated sanctification as having its source in justification, what’s all the fuss about?
- “Reformed: union with Christ; Lutheran: justification leading to sanctification.”
There is so much debate—in my view, confusion—over the historical theology of the “Lutheran” vs. “Reformed” paradigm that one hardly knows where to begin. I certainly can’t do any justice to the arguments here. A lot of this goes back, I think, to the controversy in the 1970s at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, surrounding the teaching of Norman Shepherd.
Rejecting the whole covenant of works-covenant of grace (i.e., law-gospel) scheme of federal Calvinism, and taught in the Westminster Standards, Dr. Shepherd also revised radically the confessional view of justification and justifying faith. Everyone who didn’t agree with his revisions (although they were departures from the Reformed confessions) was labeled “Lutheran” by him and his supporters. “Union with Christ” became a way of upholding that everything is from Christ while confusing justification and sanctification at crucial points.
Dr. Shepherd did resign from his post, and many who emphasize union as a central dogma do not follow him all the way. However, there is still a lingering notion that even on this important question that most historical theologians believe to have united the churches of the Reformation, Lutheran and Reformed views of justification are radically different. In the “Lutheran” paradigm, justification is the central dogma and sanctification flows out of it; in the “Reformed” paradigm, the mystical union has priority, with no logical dependence of sanctification on justification.
If I may be so bold, this is an arbitrary construct that has no support in the primary sources. There is no point in a brief blog post to offer a syllabus of quotations, but everyone from Calvin, Vermigli, Knox, Bullinger, Zanchi, and Owen all the way to Berkhof held that while we receive all spiritual blessings in union with Christ, the forensic (Christ’s mediatorial work and forensic justification) is the source or basis of personal renewal and sanctification. Vos expressly says that this is the emphatic Reformed position: “In Paul, the mystical is always subordinated to the forensic.” Same as Berkhof, Hodge, et al..
A case needs to be made for the new view that if we receive justification and sanctification together in our union with Christ, sanctification cannot have any relationship to justification. That case has not been made, in my view, but assumed. This means that any talk of sanctification being grounded in our justification is dismissed as “Lutheran.” Ironically, many who have followed Norman Shepherd (directly or indirectly) along this path have jettisoned justification altogether. The Federal Vision controversy springs to mind.
- “Union” a distinctive feature of Reformed soteriology?
At the height of the “central dogma” era of historians, Lutheran historical theologian Mathias Schneckenberger argued that the central dogma of Lutheranism is…union with Christ. That’s right, union with Christ. In fact, the New Finnish School within mainline Lutheranism today goes so far as to dissolve justification in a version of union that is close to that of Osiander. (Osiander was a 16th-century Lutheran. Calvin devoted a whole section to refuting Osiander in the 1559 Institutes and Lutheran orthodoxy condemned his views.)
Besides Paul, the medieval theologian Bernard of Clairvaux was a principal source of Luther’s emphasis on the “marvelous exchange”—union with Christ along the lines of the marriage analogy. When Calvin talks about union, he often quotes Bernard and Luther. So much for the central dogma thesis in the general and the odd contention that union with Christ distinguishes Reformed from Lutheran theology.
Like any new discovery of a wonderful and biblically-grounded truth, the doctrine of union with Christ can put a lot of pieces of the puzzle together, but it can also swallow the horizon. That’s true of justification as well, or sanctification, not to mention election and other precious truths. As wonderful and important as it is, this doctrine of union must not be understood as a way of relativizing the forensic basis of our salvation or of treating justification and sanctification as if they were related only to union but not also, within that union, to each other.
There are different nuances, emphases, and formulations between Lutherans and Calvinists, just as there are between representatives within these traditions. However, if our confessions are any indication, sharp contrasts, reductionisms, and exaggerations regarding “Lutheran” vs. “Reformed” paradigms is unhelpful, especially when they are often motivated by the old criticism of Reformation teaching, expressed by Schweitzer: “There is no motive for ethics in that system.” Creating caricatures of Lutheranism as the foil for distortions of Reformed theology hardly leads to understanding of the Reformed consensus; it just makes for “schools” of idiosyncratic interpretations.
So I join those who are impressed with the importance and implications of union with Christ. However, with all historical interpretations of an important truth, the motto holds: “Look before you leap.”
January 7th, 2012 at 9:08 am
Michael – along these same lines; would you briefly explain why the ‘golden chain’ in Rom 8:29-30 does not include sanctification? Paul goes from justification to glorification.
January 7th, 2012 at 10:24 am
Southern Presbyterian John L. Girardeau, on ‘The Federal Theology’, writes the following, “It is evident that a sinner cannot be regenerated and perform holy acts, until in some sense his guilt is removed and his obligation to punishment remitted. In a word, he must be pardoned before he can be renewed and exert holy energies – not consciously pardoned – but pardoned representatively In Christ. Those who oppose this view are shut up to the necessity of holding, that an unpardoned, that is, a condemned, sinner is the recipient of the transcendent blessing of regeneration; that he then, as still unpardoned, puts forth the holy exercise of faith, and is then for the first time pardoned and invested with a right to life.”
Scottish Presbyterian John Brown of Haddington (in his Systematic Theology) describes sanctification as “our inestimable privilege, fully purchased with Christ’s blood (Heb. 13: 12; Eph. 5:15-27; Titus 2:14); freely exhibited, offered, and given in his promises (Ezek. 36:25-27; I Thes. 5:23-24); FIRMLY SECURED BY THE IMPUTATION OF HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS (Rom. 5:1-5, 10, 21; 6:14; 7:4, 6); and graciously effected by his almighty power and Spirit (I Cor. 6:11; Ps. 110:3).”
If the Westminster Standards (WCF 6.2, WLC 22-28) are correct that the corruption of our nature is a just penalty for the guilt of Adam’s sin, then how could God justly begin removing the effects of this penalty (i.e. sanctifying our nature) apart from the more fundamental act of pardoning the guilt of our sin? Earthly judges must pardon a criminal before he is freed from the shackles of prison, because the release is legally grounded in the pardon. In the same way, must not our release from the bondage of sin’s corruption be legally grounded in the pardon of our crimes against God?
John Murray denies the Confessional view that depravity is forensically grounded in guilt in his book ‘The Imputation of Adam’s Sin’. Could it be that this has led his followers to deny the corresponding implication: namely, that the removal of depravity is forensically grounded in the removal of guilt? And, by including both guilt AND depravity in the imputation of Adam’s sin, doesn’t Murray pave the way for the confusion of justification and sanctification? These are questions that need to be answered by his contemporary followers!
Murray: “[T]he infliction with depravity is involved in the imputation of Adam’s sin; our involvement in and identification with the sin of Adam carries with it as a necessary ingredient the pravity or perversity apart from which sin does not exist. In other words, the imputation of Adam’s sin carries with it, not merely as consequence but as implicate, the depravity with which all the members of the race begin their existence as distinct individuals. The imputation is not thus conceived of as something causally antecedent to the depravity but as that which includes depravity as an element.”
I do not agree with Dr. Horton on every issue, but this post is right on the money. The “union with Christ” folks need to address their apparent departure from the careful Scriptural balance employed by our most prominent Reformed Confessions and theologians!
January 7th, 2012 at 1:45 pm
Dr. Horton,
First, constructing a guilt-by-association link between those who prioritize union to Norman Shepherd and Federal Vision isn’t helpful. Emphasizing similarity between them certainly doesn’t account for crystal clear difference and nuance, as you are well aware.
Second, I fail to see how the “central dogma” accusation doesn’t apply to those who seek to place justification as the grounds for union. It’s been made abundantly evident through writings on the topic from those who see the person of Christ as the grounds for his benefits that no one claims union as a central dogma. So, work needs to be done to demonstrate that the central dogma fallacy is a direct implication for claiming union as the grounds for the ordo while you make the same formal claim yet substitute union for justification
Third, I have not yet seen the following statements from within the Reformed tradition *directly* addressed by those who see justification as the grounds for sanctification, not to mention how they fit squarely into what is sometimes claimed to be the overwhelming consensus:
The most obvious WLC 69: A. 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.
Owen: “The principle foundation hereof is, that Christ and the Church, in this design, were one mystical person, which state they actually coalesce in, through the uniting efficacy of the Holy Spirit. He is the head, and believers are the members of that one person, as the Apostle declares, 1 Cor. 12:12-13. Hence as what he did is imputed to them, as if done by them, so what they deserved on the account of sin was charged upon him.”
and
“That our sins were transferred to Christ and made his; that thereon he underwent the punishment that was due to us for them; and that the ground hereof, whereinto its equity is resolved, is the union between him and us, is fully declared in this discourse.”
and
“This then I say is the foundation of the imputation of the sins of the church to Christ, namely, that he and it are one person, the grounds whereof we must inquire into.”
“wherein all the precedent causes of the union between Christ and believers, whence they become one mystical person, centre, and whereby they are rendered a complete foundation of the imputation of their sins to him, and of his righteousness to them, is the communication of his Spirit, the same Spirit that dwelleth in him, to them, to abide in, to animate, and guide the whole mystical body and all its members.”
Flavel: “The effectual application of Christ principally consists in our union with him.”
and
“Union with Christ is, in order of nature, antecedent to the communication of his privileges.”
and
“No saving benefit is to be had by Christ without union with his person, no union with his person without faith.”
Vos: “Whereas the Lutheran tends to view faith one-sidedly – only in connection to justification – for the Reformed Christian it is saving faith in all the magnitude of the word…One is first united to Christ, the Mediator of the covenant, by a mystical union, which finds its conscious recognition by faith. By this union with Christ all that is in Christ is simultaneously given.”
Sinclair Ferguson: “Union with Christ in his death and resurrection is the element of union which Paul most extensively expounds…if we are united to Christ, then we are united to him at all points of his activity on our behalf. We share in his death (we were baptized into his death), in his resurrection (we are resurrected with Christ), in his ascension (we have been raised with him), in his heavenly session (we sit with him in heavenly places, so that our life is hidden with Christ in God), and we will share in his promised return (when Christ, who is our life, appears, we also will appear with him in glory) (Rom. 6:14; Col. 2:11-12; 3:1-3).
This, then, is the foundation of sanctification in Reformed theology.”
Now, are these statements in line, identical with, or stating the same thing as the following Lutheran theologians?
Mueller:
“justification produces sanctification…sanctification follows justification as its effect.”
and
“Justification effects the mystical union by which the Holy Trinity, in particular the Holy Spirit, dwells in the believer…”
Pieper: “In Lutheran theology the article of justification is the chief article by which the Christian doctrine and the Christian church stands and falls…”
Forde: “Sanctification is thus simply the art of getting used to justification.”
No. Clearly these two strands of teaching are different when it comes to the priority of the person of Christ and our union with him and the benefit of justification. As you and others quote statements from Berkhof, Hodge, and others who make statements that prioritize justification as primary, it would be supremely beneficial for the church if the kinds of statements above were addressed and incorporated into claims that
1) The Reformed tradition is unanimous in its priority given to justification as primary.
2) The priority given to justification as primary doesn’t have more identity within the unanimous Lutheran tradition on this topic.
Thanks for the interaction.
January 7th, 2012 at 3:51 pm
Witsius on the Purchase-Price of Sanctification:
“However, Christ the Mediator, acts here a special part both as to impetration and application. Christ impetrated, or PURCHASED BY HIS MERIT, the SANCTIFICATION of the elect. . . The image of God being defaced and lost, could not possibly be restored to sinful man, unless he who is the personal image of God the Father, should first assume the image of man, and that of a sinner and a slave, and so expose himself to the unjust hatred of men, and the most righteous vengeance of God, as if he had been the greatest of all criminals: and thus he is MADE UNTO US BY HIS MERIT, SANCTIFICATION, I Cor. i. 32. But that which he IMPETRATED, he APPLIES, he UNITES the elect to himself by his Spirit.” [Economy of the Covenants, Vol. 2 - P&R, p. 19, my caps]
January 7th, 2012 at 4:48 pm
Chuck,
I’m not sure how Dr. Horton would answer your question about Romans 8:29-30, but I think the best explanation is this:
Glorification is the culmination of sanctification, at which moment the believer is perfected in holiness. Hence, the term “glorification” here includes both the progress and culmination of sanctification under the name of the latter.
AK
January 8th, 2012 at 5:12 am
Thank you for this insightful post. This will help me to revise where I have been going in my mind for a class I will be teaching in my church in Christology. I was going to start with Union, but I see now that I must start with the objective/forensic nature of the work of Christ first before the application of the atonement i.e. union.
Thank you again.
January 8th, 2012 at 2:43 pm
Jared,
John Calvin states the benefits sanctification flow from justification in his commentary on I Thessalonians:
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)
Those who would make Union some kind of nebulous priority with no forensic priority within the ordo salutis are working within Cartesian causal terms and trying to overcome it with Schweitzer’s personal-relational dilemma (Lessing’s Ditch anyone?). The Reformed were using pre-critical uses of causality and thus could speak of varying kinds of causality without diminishing either the forensic or relational categories. The Reformers and their heirs have always said Justification is the Cause of Sanctification.
“The second characteristic mark of Protestant soteriology is the principle that the change of relation to the law signalized by the term justification, involving remission of penalty and restoration to favor, necessarily precedes and renders possible the real moral change of character signalized by the terms regeneration and sanctification. The continuance of judicial condemnation excludes the exercise of grace in the heart. Remission of punishment must be preceded by remission of guilt, and must itself precede the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart. Hence it must be entirely unconditioned upon any legal standing, or moral or gracious condition of the subject. We are pardoned in order that we may be good, never made good in order that we may be pardoned. We are freely made co-heirs with Christ in order that we may become willing co-workers with him, but we are never made co-workers in order that we may become co-heirs.
“These principles are of the very essence of Protestant soteriology. To modify, and much more, of course, to ignore or to deny them, destroys absolutely the thing known as Protestantism, and ought to incur the forfeiture of all recognized right to wear the name.”
“Thus it follows that the satisfaction and merit of Christ are the antecedent cause of regeneration; and yet, nevertheless, the participation of the believer in the satisfaction and merit of Christ (i.e., his justification) is conditioned upon his faith, which in turn is conditioned upon his regeneration. He must have part in Christ so far forth as to be regenerated in order to have part in him so far forth as to be justified.
“This question is obviously one as to order, not of time, but of cause and effect. All admit, (1) That the satisfaction and merit of Christ are the necessary precondition of regeneration and faith as directly as of justification; (2) That regeneration and justification are both gracious acts of God; (3) That they take place at the same moment of time. The only question is, What is the true order of causation? Is the righteousness of Christ imputed to us that we may believe, or is it imputed to us because we believe? Is justification an analytic judgment, to the effect that this man, though a sinner, yet being a believer, is justified? Or is it a synthetic judgment, to the effect that this sinner is justified for Christ’s sake. Our catechism suggests the latter by the order of its phrases. God justifies us, ‘only for the righteousness of Christ, imputed to us, and received by faith alone.’ The same seems to be included in the very act of justifying faith itself, which is the trustful recognition and embrace of Christ, who had previously ‘loved me, and given himself for me’ (Gal. 2:20).”
“By consequence, the imputation of Christ’s righteous to us is the necessary precondition of the restoration to us of the influences of the Holy Ghost, and that restoration leads by necessary consequence to our regeneration and sanctification.
“The notion that the necessary precondition of the imputation to us of Christ’s righteousness is our own faith, of which the necessary precondition is regeneration, is analogous to the rejected theory that the inherent personal moral corruption of each of Adam’s descendants is the necessary precondition of the imputation of his guilt to them. On the contrary, if the imputation of guilt is the causal antecedent of inherent depravity, in like manner the imputation of righteousness must be the causal antecedent of regeneration and faith.” From The Princeton Review —A. A. Hodge, “The Ordo Salutis”
Misunderstanding the varying forms of causality will make it impossible to see how these Reformed theologians are saying the same thing as those you cited above so sparingly, and still believe in three aspects of Union with Christ.
Jared, if you listen to his recent interview with the Reformed Forum you will hear that he is saying nothing different than Vos:
“To view the resurrection with all that clusters around it, has behind it a still more potential principle, a principle from which in fact it springs, and in whose depths it lies anchored. And this deeper principle is that of the acquisition of righteousness, a forensic principle through and through, and yet no less than the resurrection a transforming principle also. It is especially by considering the nexus between Christ and the believer that this can be most clearly perceived: in the justification of Christ lies the certainty and the root of the Christian’s resurrection. For the supreme fruit of Christ’s justification, on the basis of passive and active obedience, is nothing else but the Spirit, and in turn the Spirit bears in Himself the efficacious principle of all transformation to come, the resurrection with its entire compass included.” (The Pauline Eschatology, p. 151)
“In our opinion Paul consciously and consistently subordinated the mystical aspect of the relation to Christ to the forensic one. Paul’s mind was to such an extent forensically oriented that he regarded the entire complex of subjective spiritual changes that take place in the believer and subjective spiritual blessings enjoyed by the believer as the direct outcome of the forensic work of Christ applied in justification. The mystical is based on the forensic, not the forensic on the mystical.” (“‘Legalism’ in Paul’s Doctrine of Justification,” in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., p. 384)
Here is Warfield on the matter: “There is no evidence presented here that the New Testament represents sanctification as received immediately by faith. In point of fact there is no direct statement to that effect in the New Testament. It is to Jellinghaus’* credit that he does not adduce for it either Acts xv.9 or xxvi.18, which are often made to do duty in this sense. His strong conviction that sanctification is obtained directly and immediately by faith is a product not of his Scriptural studies, but of his ‘mediating theology.’ According to that theology, when we receive Christ by faith we receive in Him all that He is to us at once; all the benefits which we receive in Him are conceived as received immediately and directly by the faith through which we are united with Him and become sharers in all that He is. Justification and sanctification, for example, are thought of as parallel products of faith. This is not, however, the New Testament representation. According to its teaching, sanctification is not related to faith directly and immediately, so that in believing in Jesus we receive both justification and sanctification as parallel products of our faith; or either the one or the other, according as our faith is directed to the one or the other. Sanctification is related directly not to faith but to justification; and as faith is the instrumental cause of justification, so is justification the instrumental cause of sanctification. The vinculum which binds justification and sanctification together is not that they are both effects of faith – so that he who believes must have both – because faith is the prius of both alike. Nor is it even that both are obtained in Christ, so that he who has Christ, who is made to us both righteousness and sanctification, must have both because Christ is the common source of both. It is true that he who has faith has and must have both; and it is true that he who has Christ has and must have both. But they do not come out of faith or from Christ in the same way. Justification comes through faith; sanctification through justification, and only mediately, through justification, through faith. So that the order is invariable, faith, justification, sanctification; not arbitrarily, but in the nature of the case.” (B. B. Warfield, “The German Higher Life Movement,” in Perfectionism, vol. 1, pp. 362-363)
Just some thoughts to move the discussion beyond the mudslinging and misinterpretations of what the Reformed have meant by “Cause”.
January 8th, 2012 at 4:47 pm
I’ll repeat, and keep in mind I fully acknowledge that the statements made above by Timothy give priority to justification in the ordo. Granted. Loud and clear. Warfield, Vos, Hodge, and others do state it. I’m not disputing that. But again, I have not yet seen the statements above from within the Reformed tradition *directly* addressed by those who see justification as the grounds for sanctification, not to mention how they fit squarely into what is sometimes claimed to be the overwhelming consensus. Pinning “Cartesian cause” on those who understand union as primary doesn’t cut it as an explanation, at least not in those general terms. Specifics are needed, and an explanation as to how the statements above fit into what others see as a forensic-centric overwhelming historical Reformed consensus should be quite easy if that claim is true. That’s what I’m asking. Quoting more won’t answer that question. Addressing the statements within the tradition that seem to indicate otherwise is what is being asked.
January 9th, 2012 at 11:03 am
@ AK – thanks for the thought.
January 9th, 2012 at 12:51 pm
Looks like John Murray agrees with Horton that “justification is the foundation of sanctification”. I wonder if that makes him a Lutheran too! Check it out:
http://thesolasystem.blogspot.com/2012/01/john-murray-on-how-justification-is.html
January 10th, 2012 at 3:36 am
Salvation by works is the problem.
The unionists (Gaffin) say
1.”definitive sanctification” and “progressive sanctification” are also by grace, not by works.
2. But then they also say that the “grace-works” antithesis is removed once you are “united” and justified.
3. And then finally they say that justification is not by a synergy, but that “sanctification” is by a synergy.
p73, Gaffin, By Faith Not by Sight—”Here is what may be fairly called a synergy but it is not a 50/50 undertaking (not even 99.9% God and 0.1% ourselves). Involved here is the ‘mysterious math’ of the creator and his image-bearing creature, whereby 100% plus 100% =100%. Sanctification is 100% the work of God, and for that reason, is to engage the full 100% activity of the believer.”
My concern is not about the motives of anybody. I have not been connected in any way with either seminary. I am concerned about the results of this kind of “unionism”.
1. Justification is not seen as part of the “union”.
2. “Union” is defined by antithesis so that “union” is not justification, not sanctification, not any of the benefits, but rather the presence of the person of Christ (naked, alone, without His benefits).
3. “Union” is nevertheless conditioned on “faith”, and faith means not only Christ already indwelling but already a “break with sin”, and that “freedom from sin” is defined NOT IN FORENSIC TERMS but in ontological terms.
4. The Holy Spirit’s work in us is read into Romans 6. Christ’s “break with sin” is read out of Romans 6.
5. Justification is left out of “union”, and “sanctification” is put back into “union” and not seen as only a result.
6. So supposedly sanctification is by grace also. But also sanctification is a synergy, where works by grace are different than works without grace, and thus sanctification by grace is by both grace and works.
Beware of “mysterious math”.
January 10th, 2012 at 10:09 am
Good food for thought, Mark. Without conceding anything to the “unionists”, would you agree that:
1. Sanctification (proper) is the monergistic renewal of the believer’s nature, which God along can do. And yet…
2. Scripture sometimes speaks of “sanctification” in a broader (less proper) sense, which would include BOTH God’s “willing and working” AND the RESULTING “willing and working” of the believer?
Just curious.
January 10th, 2012 at 11:59 am
I am asking two things.
1. I ask that we define “union”. It does no good to agree that “union” has various aspects (ie, it’s by election and it’s legal also) if we then go on from that to use the word “union” to mean something very close to “regeneration” or “definitive sanctification” or “break with the pattern of sin”.
Supposedly, regeneration and sanctification and break with sin are all also results of “union”. So what is “union” and why does it come down in the end to assuming that it means the work of the Spirit in the elect sinner? (btw, we need to define words like “regeneration” and “sanctification” also).
2. I am asking that we locate what we say in specific Biblical texts. For example, Romans 6 is certainly a key text on the relationship of justification and the Christian life. Many read Romans 6 as if it were saying: don’t worry about that two legal heads stuff in Romans 5, because there is another answer besides justification as to why we don’t sin, and that is “union”.
Others (like Haldane and Smeaton) read Romans to say that the answer to the question about the Christian life is not something else besides legal identity with Christ’s death and resurrection. We read Romans 6:7 as saying that the answer continues to be “justified from sin”.
We insist on that because Christ became dead to sin, was justified from sin, and that certainly was NOT “regeneration” or the monergistic work of the Spirit in Him. We insist on reading Romans 6 in terms of “sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law”.
Others of course read Holy Spirit baptism into Romans 6. They don’t talk about Christ giving the Spirit (which is not in Romans 6). They talk about the Spirit giving Christ (which is also not in Romans 6). But it seems in no way acceptable to them to think of Romans 6 as still about justification and legal identification. They already have their minds made up that imputation is not a good enough answer to the question of Romans 6.
God’s word about the Righteousness of Christ creates hearing with faith. God’s legal imputation applies the righteousness Christ obtained for the elect to the elect
But right now, I want some folks to tell me what that language means. What biblical texts are you thinking about? Does the Spirit “applying the work of Christ” make imputation secondary or even unnecessary? And when you say “sanctification”, are you saying “by the blood” (Hebrews 10:10-14) or the work that creates initial faith in the gospel (II Thess 2:13) or something else besides those two biblical uses of the word….?
January 10th, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Adam K,
I agree with much of what you say, but I’m not sure the case can really be made that depravity is forensically grounded in guilt, as A.A. Hodge and others claim. I also don’t really see this as clear in the Confession either. It seems more likely that guilt and depravity are two inseparable facets of sin, along the lines of WLC #25:
Wherein consisteth the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?
A. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consisteth in the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want of that righteousness wherein he was created, and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually; which is commonly called original sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions.
January 10th, 2012 at 2:29 pm
Jared,
As I stated previously,
Those who would make Union some kind of nebulous priority with no forensic priority within the ordo salutis are working within Cartesian causal terms and trying to overcome it with Schweitzer’s personal-relational dilemma (Lessing’s Ditch anyone?). The Reformed were using pre-critical uses of causality and thus could speak of varying kinds of causality without diminishing either the forensic or relational categories. The Reformers and their heirs have always said Justification is the Cause of Sanctification.
Now, what does that entail or look like?
Within Cartesian causality determinism is in view, but it can denote mechanisitic relationship, especially since there is an philosophical connection between Baconian science and Descartes’ Method. In as much as an act causes something by personal determination, it may be said to be deterministic rather than some impersonal force. But both have in common the idea that something is caused by a preceding force or natural law. Those who hear us using the terminology of causation with reference to justification and ordo, may hear us speaking of impersonal laws of nature in which justification is ‘stuff’ that has inherent within it transformative properties by which sanctification is formed within us.
Thus, many like Tipton and Jim Cassidy think we are importing all of salvation into Justification and thus are returning to Rome. This is patently not the case as to how the Reformed have used the term ’cause’. ‘Cartesian’ most likely is referring to determinism since their is a personal force behind the cause and effect in view, but it need not delimit any mechanism ‘used’ in the process. It simply denies multiple forms of causation and the Reformed doctrine of concursus.
As to the causal relationship between Just. and Sanct. This is where things definitely become difficult in that one may speak of varying relationships when different objects and subjects are in view. For instance, Warfield argued that faith has no direct relationship to sanctification in the Christian life but it is mediated through justification. (He argues these twin benefits are not simultaneous) So, when faith, justification and sanctification alone are in view there can be an instrumental relationship of justification to sanctification (faith as subject and sanctification as the object). (B. B. Warfield, “The German Higher Life Movement,” in Perfectionism, vol. 1, pp. 362-363)
We could also say justification is the a necessary cause and condition for those who would be sanctified.
Turretin argued that in relationship to the righteousness of Christ, faith is instrumental cause of justification. Christ’s righteousness is the meritorious/material cause of our justification, and the formal cause of sanctification. Turretin wanted to lodge this in the person and work of Christ (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 2, p. 633-ff). The guilt of sin and remission is given in justification and grants us eternal life only because of the alien righteousness of Christ. This act and declaration is not constitutive properly speaking but is instrumental in breaking the power of sin in our lives via adoption, which begins to take shape as we die to sin and live to Christ which is the fruit of sanctification. The Reformed distinguish “good works” from “sanctification” as fruit from its root. There is a legal and powerful priority with justification but the righteousness and legal power resides extra nos throughout in the work of Christ and then comes to us with justification and adoption. Thus, there is not one form of causality as in Cartesian or Rationalist schemes.
If there is a material/meritorious cause of sanctification, it too resides in the righteousness of Christ who purchased legally the right as the second Adam to bestow a beginning of the eschatological life in this age by the sending the Spirit.
The whole debate is really unnecessary but really is the fruit of Neo-Calvinism and schools like WTS attempting to become more sophisticated in theology without using scholastic categories (i.e. recasting the ordo in biblical theological categories). They find themselves bumping up against this causal language and it doesn’t jive with their preconceived philosophical beliefs they are unaware they possess, Or that they are attempting to speak against a COMMON enemy of Cartesian Determinism.
Hope this fleshes out more what I was referring to.
January 10th, 2012 at 2:59 pm
from the Protestant Reformed Seminary Journal, April 2002, by David Engelsma
“Against the interpretation of Calvin that has him teaching original guilt, albeit in embryonic form, however, stands Calvin’s commentary on Romans 5:12ff. He explains our relation to Adam in terms of Adam’s extending his corruption to us, which corruption constitutes our only guilt in the matter of Adam’s sin. Calvin explicitly rejects the doctrine of original guilt in the sense of our responsibility for Adam’s deed of disobedience.
“There are indeed some who contend, that we are so lost through Adam’s sin, as though we perished through no fault of our own, but only, because he had sinned for us. But Paul distinctly affirms, that sin extends to all who suffer its punishment: and this he after wards more fully declares, when subsequently he assigns a reason why all the posterity of Adam are subject to the dominion of death; and it is even this—because we have all, he says, sinned. But to sin in this case, is to become corrupt and vicious; for the natural depravity which we bring from our mother’s womb, though it brings not forth immediately its own fruits, is yet sin before God, and deserves his vengeance: and this is that sin which they call original.
Commenting on verse 17, which compares death’s reigning by Adam and our reigning in life by Jesus Christ, Calvin calls attention to a “difference between Christ and Adam”:
“By Adam’s sin we are not condemned through imputation alone, as though we were punished only for the sin of another; but we suffer his punishment, because we also ourselves are guilty; for as our nature is vitiated in him, it is regarded by God as having committed sin. But through the righteousness of Christ we are restored in a different way to salvation.”
For Calvin, our sinning in Adam, as taught in Romans 5:12, is strictly that “we are all imbued with natural corruption, and so are become sinful and wicked.” The race becomes guilty for Adam’s transgression only by sharing in Adam’s depraved nature. Adam sinned. The punishment for Adam was, in part, the immediate corruption of his nature. But this is the nature of all his posterity (Christ excepted). All of Adam’s posterity are held responsible for the corrupted nature. Not sheer legal representation by a covenant head, but involvement in a corporate nature renders the race guilty before God. I am not responsible for Adam’s disobedience of eating the forbidden fruit. But I am responsible for the sinful nature with which God punished Adam for his act of disobedience.
mcmark: I agree with Engelsma that “This view of original sin leaves Calvin with a huge problem. By what right did God inflict the punishment of a corrupt nature on Adam’s posterity? That the corruption of human nature was divine punishment on Adam, Calvin acknowledges. But it was as well punishment of Adam’s posterity. This, Calvin does not like to acknowledge. Rather, he likes to regard the depraved nature only as the guilt of Adam’s posterity. The question that exposes the weakness — serious weakness — of Calvin’s doctrine here is this: If I am not guilty for Adam’s act of disobedience, with what right does God punish me — not Adam, but me — with a totally depraved nature?
Calvin’s explanation of the origin of the sin of the human race also has an important implication for the headship of Adam. Adam was head of the race, to be sure. But his headship consisted only of his depraving the human nature of which all partake. His was not the headship of legal representation. Adam did not stand in such a covenantal relation to all men, that, altogether apart from the consequent corrupting of the nature, all are responsible before God for Adam’s act of disobedience.
In view of the apostle’s comparison between Adam and Christ in Romans 5:12ff. (“as by the offence of one … even so by the righteousness of one,” v. 18), Calvin’s explanation of the headship of Adam would mean that Christ’s headship also consists only of His being the source of righteousness to His people by actually infusing it into them. If Adam’s headship was not legal representation, neither is Christ’s headship legal representation. But this destroys the fundamental gospel-truth of justification as the imputation of Christ’s obedience.
Calvin recognizes the danger. Therefore, in his commentary on Romans 5:17 Calvin proposes a “difference between Christ and Adam.” “By Adam’s sin we are not condemned through imputation alone,” but “through the righteousness of Christ we are restored in a different way to salvation.”
The trouble is that Paul does not teach such a “difference between Christ and Adam.” Paul rather declares, “as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life” (Rom. 5:18).
If our guilt in Adam is not by imputation of a deed of disobedience, neither is our righteousness in Christ by imputation of a deed of obedience. The “difference between Christ and Adam” that Calvin injects into Romans 5:12ff. does not exist. Verse 18 teaches that the transgression of one man — Adam, according to verse 14 — was the condemnation of all men. In verse 19, the apostle states that the disobedience of the one man rendered many people sinners. The verb translated “made” by the King James Version means “constituted” in the sense of a legal standing of guilt before God the judge.
One could translate: “By one man’s disobedience many were declared sinners.” Even so, the righteousness of one — Jesus Christ — was the justification of all whom He represented, and His obedience constitutes many people righteous.
The comparison between the two covenant heads of the human race in history consists exactly of this, that both are legal representatives of others, Adam, of the entire human race, Christ only excepted, and Christ, of the new human race of the elect church. Because Adam was covenant (federal) head of the race, his act of disobedience was imputed to the race as their guilt. Because Christ is covenant (federal) head of the elect, His obedience is imputed to the elect as our righteousness.
January 10th, 2012 at 6:34 pm
When, very recently on another blog, numerous citations from the Reformed tradition were provided affirming the priority of justification, and the request was made for some interaction, Jared’s response was that the discussion should focus on exegesis rather than what the tradition has said, and that interaction with these Reformed voices should be delayed. Interesting that he is now posting citations and demanding interaction. Why the double standard?
January 16th, 2012 at 6:20 pm
And all this goes to show that the agnostics are right when they claim you can make the bible say whatever you want. You might as well follow Nostradamus. Thanks for demonstrating that Christianity is really just a farce.
May 7th, 2012 at 12:30 pm
Really, Maggie, and by that vague drive-by comment of yours, you’re not adding to the ‘farce’?
September 13th, 2012 at 5:18 pm
I’m reading a book, called ‘Danger in the Camp’ regarding the Norman Shepherd theology -one of the subjects being confusion over sanctification/justification. It sounds like the same arguments regarding the Gaffin/Unionists discussions. Why hasn’t anyone brought up the fact that Gaffin and Shepherd’s theologies are very similar? No one questions their desire to change the order salute? I find it strange that WTS folks who were taught by Shepherd all those years (how many?) don’t see the same problem repeating itself with sanctification smothering justification. They are both vital but the confusion is seriously dangerous. The phrases made that we are reforming theology – it’s a process – is exactly what the NPP folks said. Maybe the book I’m reading isn’t recommended by everyone? would appreciate thoughts on that as well?
What is the crux of the matter? the cross? How can we be sanctified without first being pardoned? The Holy Spirit enables us to believe we’re sinners & run to the cross…isn’t sanctification the Spirit residing in us (In Christ) to transform us into Christ’s image?