By faith [the Christian] is a member of the covenant [of grace], and that faith has a wide outlook, a comprehensive character, which not only points to justification but also to all the benefits which are in Christ.  Whereas the Lutheran tends to view faith one-sidedly – only in its connection with justification – for the Reformed Christian it is saving faith in all the magnitude of the word.  According to the Lutheran, the Holy Spirit first generates faith in the sinner who temporarily still remains outside of union with Christ; then justification follows faith and only then, in turn, does the mystical union with the Mediator take place … The covenantal (of Reformed) outlook is the reverse.  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.  Faith embraces all this too; it not only grasps justification, but lays hold of Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King, as his rich and full Messiah.  (Geerhardus Vos and Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. ed., “Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology” in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation, 256).
Vos recognizes the structural difference between a Reformed and a Lutheran soteriology. Â The principal issue is the structural positioning of union with Christ relative to justification and the other salvific benefits. Â For Vos and the Reformed, the benefits flow out of union. Â Union is primary. Â Vos’s reason is that each of the benefits are received by faith through which believers lay hold of Christ. Â This is saving faith “in all the magnitude of the word.” Â Consequently, salvation is bigger than the single benefit of justification. Â It is a possession and laying hold of Christ in His entire person as Prophet, Priest, and King: the full Messiah.
Camden,
Great Quote! I’ll use this in a book one day!! Thanks
Camden,
This was written in 1891 In 1903 he wrote the following:
“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 of subjective spiritual blessings enjoyed by the believer as the direct outcome of the forensic work of Christ applied in justification.†p. 384
Vos, G. In Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation; Gaffin, R.B., Eds.; Presbyterian andReformed Publishing Co.: Phillipsburg, New Jersey, 1980; PDF.
Did Vos later move toward a “lutheran” understanding? or are the two comments compatible?
If they are compatible then what aspect of Luther’s soteriology was Vos criticizing?
Or am I just wrong in my reading?
Thanks!
-kyle
That’s a good question. I’m inclined to think it’s the particular context that accounts for the differences, but I must read the latter before I would be able to say much more.
In treating union with Christ theologically rather than anthropologically (i.e., as does Lutheran theology) it recognizes that there are objective and subjective aspects of union. In the quote that sounds favorable to the Lutheran view Vos is addressing union from the subjective perspective, not from the objective perspective which is basic to soteriology.
not sure how i got two posts. this one could be deleted.
In treating union with Christ theologically rather than anthropologically (i.e., as does Lutheran theology) reformed theology recognizes that there are objective and subjective aspects of union. In the quote that sounds favorable to the Lutheran view Vos is addressing union from the subjective perspective, not from the objective perspective which is basic to soteriology.