Christ the Center was blessed to welcome Lane G. Tipton and Michael S. Horton for two interviews on the subject of union with Christ. The Reformed Forum site has been busy with comments, and it has become apparent to me that several of us are using different categories. Much confusion abounds when we talk past each other. As a result, I thought it would be beneficial to share a few thoughts on several soteriological categories which I believe can be helpful in this ongoing dialogue.
I think we should devote most of our attention to the distinction between historia and ordo salutis. In similar (perhaps more familiar) categories, we speak of redemption accomplished and applied. Dr. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. has done the Church a tremendous service in his book Resurrection & Redemption.1 In this work, Gaffin navigates the connection between Christ’s death and resurrection (historia salutis) and the application of that work to believers (ordo salutis). He provides insightful exegesis that demonstrates convincingly that Christ’s resurrection is simultaneously his justification (1 Tim 3:16), adoption (Rom 1:3-4), sanctification (Rom 6:1ff; Acts 20:32), and glorification (1 Cor 15:42ff; 2 Cor 3:17f; 4:4-6).
The fundamental category—the “ground” of it all—is Christ’s person and work, which is neither exclusively forensic nor renovative. From what I gather, it is possible we need further clarification regarding what we mean by forensic. It is a term referring to the procedures of law. It is often used to distinguish the Reformed from the Roman Catholic view of justification. The Reformed argue that justification is entirely extrinsic. It does not make one righteous in themselves, rather Christ’s righteousness is imputed, and justification is the acquittal of guilt on that account. Conversely, Roman Catholics argue that justification imparts grace. It makes the sinner righteous intrinsically. I gather from my interactions with people on this subject that some prefer to invest the word forensic with the notion of monergistic. I do not find the two synonymous. For instance, regeneration is entirely monergistic, but in no way forensic; it is renovative—a work that changes the subject intrinsically.
I believe we can move forward in this discussion by further exploring what is entailed by Christ’s resurrection, particularly as his justification (1 Tim 3:16). I believe this may help to crystallize Dr. Horton’s concerns in his interview response. We ought to develop the sense in which we may speak of the open declaration of Christ’s righteousness in his resurrection. Specifically, we must detail the way this wonderful truth interfaces with preaching (cf. Rom 10:17). This may clarify how Christ’s justification in historia salutis relates to the believer’s justification in the ordo salutis.
For example, there is a real union with Christ in his death on the cross and subsequent resurrection. As Christ accomplished his work, he accomplishes it for his chosen people. But there is also a real transition from wrath to grace in the life of the sinner saved by grace. There is no point when a declaration can be made to a sinner that their sins have been forgiven until they receive Christ’s imputed righteousness by faith. Christians are not justified in the preaching of the Word. They are justified when God acquits them of their guilt on account of an alien righteousness. To keep with the forensic/legal metaphor, without that righteousness, received by faith, there is no case.
[1] Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul’s Soteriology, 2nd ed. (Phillipsburg NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1987).
Those are helpful clarifying comments, Camden. This interchange has raised whole host of issues, both pastoral and theological.
Thank you for your comment: ‘The fundamental category—the “ground” of it all—is Christ’s person and work, which is neither exclusively forensic nor renovative. From what I gather, it is possible we need further clarification regarding what we mean by forensic. It is a term referring to the procedures of law. It is often used to distinguish the Reformed from the Roman Catholic view of justification. The Reformed argue that justification is entirely extrinsic.’
Union can never be the ground of justification. Christ’s imputed righteous life alone is the ground and hope of any sinner’s rigtheousness.
Q: Does Calvin anywhere say that ‘union is the ground of our justification’? I don’t recall Lane quoting him in three Youtube videos on this.
I put ground in quotations intentionally. The ground of justification is the imputed righteousness of Christ. But the fundamental basis, reason, and possibility of salvation is the person and work of Christ, not simply a forensic benefit or act.
Camden
What is a person?
What if you had said “meritorious ground”? Do you view that as synonymous with “forensic” or not? Would you still have had to use the quotes?
Camden,
This is constructive and helpful. Thanks.
I asked this on the other thread, but maybe it got lost in the sea of 77 comments: Can you (or someone) comment on the forensic and renovative aspects of the atonement with respect to how it might relate to this discussion? We’ve already heard lots about the simultaneity and equality of forensic and renovative aspects of the ordo, and the same with respect to Christ’s resurrection, but how would you parse this out when it comes to the atonement?
I ask this because it seems to me that Reformed systematic theologies universally and overwhelmingly emphasize the forensic aspects of the atonement over the renovative. But would you (and Gaffin and Tipton) argue that the forensic and renovative aspects really ought to receive equal weight?
David,
I saw your comment on the other thread, but simply didn’t have the time to respond until now. This is an excellent question. Dr. Gaffin addresses this subject a bit in Christ the Center 57. Dr. Gaffin at times will say that there is, in a sense, a priority of the forensic within historia salutis. It is my understanding that Dr. Tipton would not.
Certainly the atonement precedes Christ’s resurrection, but the Spirit’s climactic work to defeat sin occurs in the resurrection event. I see no priority of the forensic over the renovative in the resurrection. I think Gaffin’s exegesis on Resurrection and Redemption makes a compelling case.
If our experience of salvation patterns Christ’s “salvation” (as being identified with sinners) in historia salutis, then I don’t see any causal or logical priority for forensic benefits. In my understanding, that is where the “priority” language is focused. Does the forensic cause the renovative in ordo salutis? Must the forensic be the logical basis of the renovative in the application of redemption? I don’t see that it must. When we are saved, we receive Christ, and Christ cannot be divided or prioritized.
The atonement precedes the resurrection in time. It is a necessary precondition for the resurrection. But we can speak about portions of Christ’s redemptive work before the atonement. We could also argue that Christ, in his passive obedience, partook of a corrupted human nature. Moreover, it seems Adam’s fall into sin simultaneously brought him guilt and corruption (compare with forensic/renovative). This certainly deserves more attention!
At the end of the day, the “priority” question for me is about soteriological structure. If we think of diagramming the ordo salutis, we must ask whether we should draw a line from faith-union with Christ directly to sanctification or whether we have to draw a causal/logical line from faith-union with Christ to justification and then to sanctification. Seeing that we’re sanctified by faith in Christ (1 Cor 1:2, 30; 6:11; Acts 26:18), I wouldn’t draw the line through justification.
Thanks for the fruitful interaction. These are more of the questions I would prefer for us to deal with! The other thread is quickly going downhill. Apparently I’m a perfectionist a la Phoebe Palmer now.
Camden, thanks very much. I had listened to the Gaffin interview you linked to above once before, but listened again. This is very difficult but absorbing stuff. Lots to think through.
I’ve been speaking about this issue with a couple other people. Here are a few other thoughts on the subject of the forensic and renovative. I certainly can’t claim these as original.
First, though the atonement is an expiation and propitiation, it also puts sin to death (cf. Rom 6:6-7). This mortification is involved with renovation. Can we prioritize one aspect over the other? I could be persuaded, but I don’t see an exegetical or confessional case for that at the moment. Therefore, we see a two-fold aspect to the single event of the atonement—just as there is a two-fold aspect to the problem of sin (guilt and corruption), Christ’s resurrection (forensic and renovative) and the application of redemption (cf. Calvin’s duplex gratia Dei).
Second, we can ask about Adam’s condition when he fell. He was not guilty until he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That guilt arose ex pacto (from the covenant), because of the situation God established. Eve sinned first, but covenantal guilt did not come until Adam sinned.
Interestingly, we could argue convincingly that Adam must have been corrupted for him to eat of the tree. He was created in the image of God in true knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. But would Adam have eaten of the tree had he not already been corrupted in his thoughts and will before he physically grabbed the fruit and ate it? In that consideration, corruption would have preceded guilt (though certainly followed his created state).
It’s a thought. The exegesis needs to be conducted, but I thought I’d share the thought with you since we’re on the subject.
Athanasius brings out both aspects in his interpretation of the cross in “On the Incarnation”:
“The body of the Word, then, being a real human body, in spite of its having been uniquely formed from a virgin, was of itself mortal and, like other bodies, liable to death. But the indwelling of the Word loosed it from this natural liability, so that corruption could not touch it. Thus it happened that two opposite marvels took place at once: the death of all was consummated in the Lord’s body; yet, because the Word was in it, death and corruption were in the same act utterly abolished. Death there had to be, and death for all, so that the due of all might be paid. Wherefore, the Word, as I said, being Himself incapable of death, assumed a mortal body, that He might offer it as His own in place of all, and suffering for the sake of all through His union with it, ” might bring to nought Him that had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might deliver them who all their lifetime were enslaved by the fear of death.” Have no fears then. Now that the common Savior of all has died on our behalf, we who believe in Christ no longer die, as men died aforetime, in fulfillment of the threat of the law. That condemnation has come to an end; and now that, by the grace of the resurrection, corruption has been banished and done away, we are loosed from our mortal bodies in God’s good time for each, so that we may obtain thereby a better resurrection. Like seeds cast into the earth, we do not perish in our dissolution, but like them shall rise again, death having been brought to nought by the grace of the Savior. That is why blessed Paul, through whom we all have surety of the resurrection, says: “This corruptible must put on incorruption and this mortal must put on immortality; but when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, ‘Death is swallowed up in victory. O Death, where is thy sting? O Grave, where is thy victory?’”"
Athanasius here is representative of the patristic mindset: Incarnation, cross, and resurrection are inseparable aspects of the work of redemption. The work of Christ taken as a whole (and it can’t be taken any other way) is irreducibly *both* forensic *and* rennovative in its scope.
Excellent – thanks for the quotation.
Thanks for that. I appreciate what you’re saying here. I also re-listened to the Q&A portion of the recent conference lectures featuring Gaffin and Tipton. There is a section in that episode (beginning I think around 27:13) in which Tipton and Gaffin both address this issue. As you suggest, Tipton clearly argues for the simultaneity and inseparability of guilt and corruption, as well as that of forensic and renovative benefits of salvation, both in historia and in the ordo (much as you argue above); while Gaffin seems to argue for the priority of the forensic on the grounds that the problem it deals with, namely wrath, is vertically dimensioned.
I think Tipton makes a good case, but if you’ll bear with me, I have another related question that if resolved, I think would bring some more clarity:
In thinking through this issue, I am trying to work through the ramifications that this discussion has on our federal theology. What I mean is: the way we traditionally conceive things is that Christ, as the second Adam, accomplishes our salvation by vicariously bearing the penal sanction of the covenant of works, as well as meriting our entitlement to heaven. Obviously, this conception throws all the emphasis on the forensic nature of Christ’s work (even if we do grant that His death also deals with sin as enslaving power). In this scenario, the merit of Christ is seen as providing the forensic ground for our justification, but it is also viewed as providing the forensic basis for the entirety of our salvation, including its renovative benefits. In other words, it seems to me that our covenant theology suggests that the renovative aspect of the atonement, namely, Christ’s triumph over the power of sin, forms the basis for renovative benefits in the ordo, but the forensic aspect of the atonement forms the basis for both renovative and forensic benefits in the ordo.
Am I making sense here, and if so, does this not suggest a certain priority of the forensic aspect of the atonement (the helpful Athenasius citation below notwithstanding) over the renovative aspect? Thanks again for helping me think through all this!
Camden,
I’m not sure how clearly I stated that. In the interests of trying to clarify, here is a quote from Dr. Gaffin, in his response to Fesko, that says more or less what I was attempting to say:
If what Dr. Gaffin is saying here (and I think this is pretty standard Reformed theology), namely that the atonement provides the forensic ground for both forensic and renovative benefits in the ordo, then wouldn’t this suggest that the forensic aspect of the atonement has a certain priority?
You say:
“Therefore, we see a two-fold aspect to the single event of the atonement—just as there is a two-fold aspect to the problem of sin (guilt and corruption) …”
Though I’m no doubt talking to myself at this point, I would point out that the atonement does more than free us from the guilt and corruption of sin. It also merits the heavenly inheritance, which is an additional forensic aspect. So even granting that sin has a two-fold profile of guilt and corruption (which I’m happy to do), and that therefore the atonement must obtain for us a two-fold deliverance (which I also have no problem with), it still seems that we need to reckon with what the atonement does beyond freeing us from the guilt and corruption of sin, namely its meriting of the heavenly inheritance. Hence, even granting the two-fold profile of both sin and our deliverance from it in the historia salutis, the atonement is still weighted more heavily in the direction of the forensic.
I agree with you, Camden. Regarding the other thread, as I indicated before, there are huge pastoral and theological matters coming out of these discussions.
I agree. It’s always a balance between providing an open forum and getting to an actually fruitful discussion.
David:
You refer to Christ’s passive obedience here (suffering the penalty for his people). But what about his active obedience (obeying the law) ?
Bill,
I probably wasn’t clear enough. I didn’t use the term “active obedience,” but I intended it by the phrase, “meriting our entitlement to heaven.” Thanks for helping me clarify.
David:
I should have read it a few more times. Thanks for the clarification.
Camden,
Thank you for interviewing Tipton and Horton so graciously as well as for starting this new thread with a view toward constructive dialog. This is the type of dialog which is much needed in the church, not only in terms of the content but the tenor.
I have benefitted greatly from the Reformed Forum and from Dr. Tipton and from Dr. Horton. I really appreciate this quote from your interview with Dr. Horton where you ask him how we should move forward. He replies:
“My firm belief is that we differ a lot less than we think we do but there have been a lot of polemics in our circles that in my view have drawn really sharp contrasts not only between Lutheran and Reformed systems, which are sometimes justified, but really unjustified contrasts between different paradigms among people who really don’t differ that much.”
I don’t minimize the importance of clarity and precision in doctrine, but I do think charity and appreciateion for nuanced differences is critical. We might be able to learn from history here, as this type of disputing among believers is not uncommon. In the concluding paragraphs of his wonderful piece, Short Treatise on the Supper of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Calvin reflects with dismay on the controversy among the godly men (Luther & Zwingli) who should have known better but rather than promoting the unity of the church ended up alienating one another and unsettling the consciences of those observing the tenor of the dispute. Calvin writes:
“After the contention was once begun it got more inflamed by time, and has thus continued too bitterly for the space of fifteen years or so without the parties ever listening to each other in a peaceful temper. For though they once had a conference, there was such alienation that they parted without any agreement. Instead of meeting on some good ground, they have always receded more and more, looking to nothing else than to defend their own view and refute the opposite.”
Again, I’m not saying we should ignore significant differences. Rather we should appoach our differences with civility, humility and charity. In this regard we may appreciate and learn from each other. Though I tend to side with Dr. Horton in his contention that the GROUND is forensic, I also appreciate the understanding of union which Dr. Tipton brings so that, united with Christ, we do not have a partial salvation but enter into a complete, renovative new creation. (Of course I think Horton would not disagree.)
I’m just a layman, still trying to figure it out but your forum is a very helpful service in that regard. God bless you, brother.
This is a very helpful interaction. I wonder if thinking through the role of the Holy Spirit would help us understand the relationship between union with Christ and the atonement.
I wonder if it would be helpful to ground the categories of forensic and renovative in the categories of Christ’s work “for us” and “in us.” What Christ did “for us” includes the obedience to the point of death, which accomplished the atonement. As a result of this act of obedience, (his work “for us,”), Christ receives a reward. The reward includes the Holy Spirit who unites believers to Christ. It is only logically subsequent to the sending of the Spirit that we can begin to think of what Christ does “in us.” That’s because the Holy Spirit is who unites believers to Christ, and there is no benefit to salvation apart from “being grown into one body with Him.”
Camden said that there is a renovative component to the atonement. I believe he meant the death to sin that believers experience in Christ (Rom 6). However, I wonder if we can say that this renovative benefit is predicated on the completed work of Christ as an objective reality apart from the believer’s benefit in his death and resurrection. That’s because the believer has only died with Christ because of the Spirit connects the believer to Christ, and the Holy Spirit is only given on the basis of Christ’s objective obedience as a completed reality.
We could say that in the structure of historia salutis there is a priority of the objective obedience of Christ (which I guess we could call forensic) apart from the benefits (including renovative benefits) of that obedience being applied to the believer. However, this does not necessitate or imply a forensic priority in the ordo salutis, nor does it imply a priority of justification over sanctification in the ordo salutis or historia solutis. In terms of union with Christ, the forensic aspect of union (i.e., justification in Christ) is not logically or temporally prior to the renovative (i.e., being alive together with Christ). Both have their ground in Christ. However, in terms of the accomplishment of redemption, there is a priority to the work of Christ viewed as an act of obedience (passive and active) which is offered to God apart from any direct benefit with believers.
Mike,
From the reading I’ve done on this recently, it seems to me that Reformed theology has almost universally viewed the atonement in exclusively forensic terms (as I think you’re suggesting we do?). The Athanasius quote above seems to mingle the two aspects (renovative and forensic). John Murray focused on the forensic aspect, but also highlighted that the atonement has a renovative aspect as well, i.e., not only does it provide the forensic ground of justification (and also sanctification?) but it also breaks the corrupting and enslaving power of sin. For example, Murray says (in Redemption Accomplished and Applied):
And:
Also, in “The Agency in Definitive Sanctification,” he says:
Finally:
It seems to me that Gaffin and Tipton followed Murray in his teaching regarding the direct bearing the atonement has on deliverance from the power of sin (sanctification), and possibly made it more central, or focus on it more, than he had. It does seem to me that viewing the atonement as renovative is largely (totally?) unprecedented in Reformed theology prior to Murray.
It may be unpopular, but I don’t think it can be considered “unprecedented.” The Westminster Larger Catechism for instance, in response to the question, “Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be man?” gives as the very first answer: “that he might advance out nature.” I’m not sure how advancement of nature can be considered strictly forensic.
Hmm, that seems pretty tenuous, especially considering there is no additional evidence in the Confession or Catechisms that the divines considered the atonement to be anything other than forensic.
I don’t think it’s tenuous at all. How else might it be understood? And advancement of nature is an elevation, a raising, a bringing out of one state into another. And it’s *our* nature he advances. That statement is there for a reason.
Yes, the *death* of Christ is not given anything but forensic import in the Confession and Catechisms. But you can’t sever the death of Christ from the work of Christ in its entirety. I suspect this is the concern the “Murrayites” have. Christ can’t be divided. His work can’t be divided. And the application of his work can’t be divided. When the etirety of his work–incarnation, life, death, resurrection, ascension, outpouring of the Spirit–is taken into consideration, it becomes clear that it’s both forensic and renovative. Sure, the forensic may take some form of priority (call it “legal ground,” if you will). But you can’t sever the various aspects of redemption from each other. There arent renovative benefits that hang out there somewhere in the abstract.
And, by the way, it becomes even less “tenuous” when you note that the Scripture proof offered for the statement is 2 Peter 1.4.
It agree that “advancing our nature” is not strictly forensic, but my question is whether or not He advances our nature through a strictly forensic atonement or one that also has renovative aspects. It seems to me that Reformed theology for the most part confines the renovative to the ordo.
I don’t particularly have a problem with the atonement being more than strictly forensic, and I think Murray makes some sense. I think I agree with your second paragraph. At this point I’m just trying to grasp how this works out in our systematic theology, hence my questions, e.g., Is there a relationship between the forensic aspect of the atonement and our sanctification (it seems to me Murray, Gaffin and Reformed theology would answer in the affirmative), or does the forensic facet of the atonement only procure our justification (this is what I hear Tipton and Bucey arguing)?
Calvin (from his comment on Heb. 2.11): “It avails not a little to increase our confidence, that we are united to the Son of God by a bond so close, that we can find in our nature that holiness of which we are in want; for he sanctifies us not only as God, but there is also the power of sanctifying in his human nature; not that it has it from itself, but that God had poured upon it a perfect fulness of holiness, so that from it we may all draw.”
Here Calvin draws a direct line from the holiness of Christ in his human nature to our sanctification.
Interesting. I wonder why the Reformed tradition doesn’t seem to have closely followed Calvin here.
Also note that one purpose of Christ’s resurrection was for the church’s “quickening in grace” (WLC 52).
That answer does indeed seem to be a bit more Murrayesque, especially: “… he declared himself … to have vanquished death, and him that had the power of it …”
Here’s a question: Did Christ, by His obedience and death, merit our entire salvation, or just our justification?
Christ, by just his death merited nothing. Christ by his death and resurrection merited everything.
So Christ’s resurrection was meritorious? Hmm…
Nope. His death and resurrection. “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.” Death without resurrection equals futility.
I’m simply speaking in terms of WCF 8.5, “The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, has fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for those whom the Father has given unto Him.”
Greetings.
Will Drs. Tipton and Horton be meeting to discuss these issues directly on Reformed Forum?
Also, may I suggest a show with the Rev. Allen Strange of Mid-America Reformed Seminary (Dyer, Indiana) who is working on his PhD. regarding Charles Hodge and the Spirituality of the Church?
Blessings—
CM
We’re working on it.
Turretin says the following, Institutes, volume 2, p. 690:
Question: When we speak of the merit of Christ, are we speaking in exclusively forensic categories, in both forensic and renovative categories, or neither? “Purchase” is clearly a marketplace metaphor, not a courtroom one, so perhaps making this distinction clearly would help to remove some of the confusion?
There is some further discussion of this on the White Horse Inn blog with arguments from both sides.
http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/01/07/historical-claims-concerning-union-with-christ/
By and large, the posts are clear about the weighty implications of the different positions, but at the same time are mostly irenic in nature. Obviously there won’t be a meeting of the minds overnight (if ever) but a furthering of the discussion is needed. I pray that humility and teachablity will prevail among these great minds and goldy men, for the sake of Christ’s body and His gospel.
You wrote, “The fundamental category—the “ground” of it all—is Christ’s person and work, which is neither exclusively forensic nor renovative.”
Please cite Reformed Confessional literature which explicitly teaches this.
From what I can tell, our Confessions speak of Christ’s work in terms of vicariously satisfying the penal and preceptive requirements of the law to purchase our redemption. These accomplishments undoubtedly result in the APPLICATION of redemption, which includes both forensic and renovative benefits, but I am concerned that your statement goes far beyond this and constitutes a soteriological innovation (which is not a good thing!).
So, once again, please cite any Confessional statements (or pre-20th century theologians) who explicitly teach that redemption ACCOMPLISHED is both forensic and transformative IN ITS ACCOMPLISHMENT (not merely in its application).
Adam,
I would love an answer to this question as well. I asked related questions and also posted numerous citations above. It certainly seems like Murray was the pioneer in this way of speaking of renovative components to the atonement.
Already cited above. WLC: a. The mediator became man in order to advance our nature (in the context of the person and work of the Mediator, not in the application of redemption)–2 Pet. 1.4 cited as proof text. b. The resurrection was for the church’s “quckening in grace.” A transiformative element once again located in the catechism’s discussion of Christ’s person and work.
And you really can’t *separate* accomplishment and application. To put it in an important, though oft neglected, Calvinist formula: distinctio sed non separatio.
I appreciate that. It just seems like very slim evidence to in view of the complete dearth of any Reformed theologians prior to Murray elaborating this in any other way than the forensic. If you know of anyone, I’d love to know.
David,
Understood. But the point’s that it is there. The demand was for *any* evidence. I provided it. So it’d be nice to have it be at least acknowledged that such elements are present in the Reformed tradition, even if not over-abundantly. More citations from private authors could be multiplied (there’s much in Calvin and other 16th c. Reformed). I just brought the WLC quotes to the table because, of course, confessional documents hold most weight, and also because, as a pastor and church planter, I don’t have the time that’d be necessary to go scouring through Calvin, Bucer, Vermigli, Zanchi, et al, for the relevant quotes. I did, however, give one from Calvin above.
Jonathan,
I hear you and I appreciate the continued interaction. I’ll continue to ponder the evidence you cited in the WLC. I don’t really have the time to scour the theologians either … though often I find myself doing it anyway, no doubt sometimes at the expense of other stuff I ought to be doing.
How would you answer the question I posed with the Flavel quote? Is it improper to speak in terms of Christ meriting the entirety of our salvation, including our sanctification?
I’m currently scouring thorough Walter Marshall’s The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification to see if he posits the notion of a renovative component to the atonement. And it appears that he does, for example here, in chapter three:
And by the way: Transformative elements in the historia salutis are clearly present in the theologians of the earliest church (beginning with Ignatius, and through to Iranaeus, Athanasius, the Cappadocians, and Augustine, among others). So, *even if* we were to agree that it’s not in Reformed sources (which I emphatically *do not*), it cannot be considered a theological innovation, because the Reformed also claim the early fathers as our fathers.
I’m waiting for an answer to this question: Do the unionist folks have any problem with the entirety of our salvation being viewed in terms of a “purchase”? (Or must we use different language to convey the means by which Christ procured our sanctification?)
Here is an example of this manner of speaking from John Flavel (who interestingly appears to hold to a form of definitive sanctification):
Is this way of speaking acceptable, or not?
cited from John Flavel,The Fountain of Life, sermon 15
I think it is unwise when someone, who, just because he/she finished reading couple pages, a book, an essay by Owen, Vos, or even worse (!) Turretin go around and starts quoting all over the blogs. Sorry, but that’s just wrong. All three authors above are quite known for being cumbersome to read, let alone to comprehend (no, I’m not a Gnostic here)! It irritates me for several reasons:
1. I have 6 (six and counting) Ph.D/Th.M dissertations on John Owen’s Christology, Covenant Theology and/or Soteriology. Please note: only one actually studied at WTS Philadelphia (unfortunately that makes him automatically a Murrayite, Gaffin-esque, FVist, whatever-else-you-want-to-include). All of them have read the entire corpus of Owen’s works and when it comes to the union and justification question, they’re all in agreement for the fact that Owen locates justification by faith in the doctrine of union with the Person of Christ. The point: please be very careful when you’re trying to quote from someone, I remember when I started learning Greek in college someone told me: “a little Greek is a dangerous thing” perhaps, just perhaps, this same statement can be applied here with respect to ANY theologians that one is willing to quote. I am a student of history: context, context, context–people change their minds (often!).
2. When it comes to quoting Vos, again, please be careful in quoting him. Yes, everyone may quote from his “Alleged Legalism” essay to *prove* that for Vos, forensic has priority than union. But, here’s my question: whom did he had in mind when he wrote that essay? What’s the problem with that particular guy? Hint, hint: he’s the author of Die Entstehung der alt-kathol. Kirche. Vos wrote several essays criticizing this guy for de-emphasizing the forensic aspect of our salvation. Please note also that there’s a shift, or progression in Vos’ way of thinking; in his later career in 1932, he writes “The Pauline Eschatology.” In the preface he states that historically with the Reformation, justification by faith has been seen as central to Paul. He understands why. He understands the necessity given what was happening–polemical with Rome (yes, even today!). But he says, look, the entrance (or, gateway, according to Ridderbos) into Paul is not justification, but eschatology. How should we understand Vos (let alone quoting him and declaring him on “that” side or “this” side of the debate)??
3. In the end, please be more careful, let’s be responsible and please ENGAGE the author(s) first: his/her idea, context, setting, etc. Until you’re sure, able to grasp what he/she’s trying to say, then please stop this quote-wars. It embarrasses those who have done years of hard work of research and study (and $$). If one is not sure, then, ask the proper individual, one who has more knowledge about such and such person.
Grace and Peace!
On the one hand, I take your general point and I don’t pretend to any sort of expertise on the people I’m citing. Nor can I explain the historical context that prompted “The Alleged Legalism.” But on the other hand, a few things (at the risk of making myself vulnerable to further rebuke):
1. I began citing Vos, Hodge and Berkhof etc. because it seemed obvious to me, even as a non-expert, that the accusations of Lutheranism hurled at Horton would also stick to these others who came before him. I was not actually defending Horton so much as trying to gain some clarity for myself on the issue. To those who accused Horton of being Lutheran I wanted to find out whether they would say the same of these others, who clearly stand in the Reformed mainstream. (And some of what I’ve heard in response suggests that they might.)
2. Yes, context is crucial, but I’m sorry, it is impossible to relativize some of the sweeping statements Vos makes in “The Alleged Legalism.” Included in his response to the particular situation he was dealing with are general universally-applicable principles such as (forgive me for citing it again):
It is impossible to read that and reasonably come away with any other conclusion than that Paul, at least when he wrote The Alleged Legalism, was convinced that Vos viewed justification as “the center of Paul’s teaching.”
3. Is it possible that Vos eventually changed his mind and would not have stated things quite this way in his later years? Could it be that later on he decided that the forensic element of salvation did not deserve priority over the renovative? Or that it didn’t deserve as much priority? Well sure it’s possible, but I’d like to see some real proof. After all, even in The Pauline Eschatology he can say:
I don’t know that this is substantially different from what he had said earlier (his highlighting of the eschatological import of the doctrine notwithstanding). So, while it is may be true that Vos is, in general, hard to read and fully understand, his assertion of the priority of justification does seem pretty clear and unequivocal (even to non-experts).
Oops. That sentence directly under the first quote should read:
“It is impossible to read that and reasonably come away with any other conclusion than that Vos, at least when he wrote The Alleged Legalism, was convinced that the doctrine of justification was ‘the center of Paul’s teaching.’”
Ok, David, you’ve proved your point. Congrats!
David: From one non-expert to another, thank you for your insights!