Too much covenant?

[PuritanCovenanter]

From this also, we infer, that we cannot be justified freely through faith alone without at the same time living holily. For these fruits of grace are connected together, as it were, by an indissoluble tie, so that he who attempts to sever them does in a manner tear Christ in pieces. Let therefore the man who seeks to be justified through Christ, by God’s unmerited goodness, consider that this cannot be attained without his taking him at the same time for sanctification or, in other words, being renewed to innocence and purity of life.
Calvin 1 Cor. 1:30

Why, then, are we justified by faith? Because by faith we grasp Christ’s righteousness, by which alone we are reconciled to God. Yet you could not grasp this without at the same time grasping sanctification also. For he ‘is given unto us for righteousness, wisdom, sanctification, and redemption’ (I Cor.1:30). Therefore Christ justifies no one whom he does not sanctify. These benefits are joined together by an everlasting and indissoluble bond, so that those whom he illumines by his wisdom, he redeems; those whom he redeems, he justifies; those whom he justifies, he sanctifies. . . . Although we may distinguish them, Christ contains both of them inseparably in himself. Do you wish, then, to attain righteousness in Christ? You must first possess Christ; but you cannot possess him without being made partaker in his sanctification, because he cannot be divided into pieces (I Cor.1:13). Since, therefore, it is solely by expending himself that the Lord gives us these benefits to enjoy. He bestows both of them at the same time, the one never without the other.
Inst. 3.16.1

Just for reference...

 

[Philip]

I don't see how one can have either correct without the other as you seem to be saying. But what does that have to do with your concerns with Union with Christ.

My concern is this: union with Christ certainly has covenantal aspects with regard to justification. However, it also is in and of itself a benefit of regeneration and a means of sanctification and fellowship with the triune God, from the inside. Union with Christ should be understood as the Reformed reply to mysticism---through Christ we have better fellowship with God because we are united to God Himself in Christ. The Lord's Supper is understood here as a means by which the curtain is pulled back and the believer is allowed to glimpse the reality.

I'm not suggesting here that sanctification and justification aren't connected: they are inextricably linked, and are such because they are both fruits of union with Christ.

The other issue is that in terms of the historical development, a theology of the ordo salutis (and thus of union with Christ) developed much more fully much earlier than did Covenant theology as such. Certainly the covenant started to become prominent in the 16th century, but it wouldn't be until the 17th that it would develop more fully into the hallmark of reformed thought that is has become.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

My concern is this: union with Christ certainly has covenantal aspects with regard to justification.

I agree with much of what you are saying Phillip. At the same time are you saying that Union with Christ doesn't have covenantal aspects with regard to sanctification? Examples.... Conditions, repentance, faith, practice?

 

[Philip]

At the same time are you saying that Union with Christ doesn't have covenantal aspects with regard to sanctification?

Sure. What I would contend, though, is that union with Christ is a ground of covenanting. What puts us in a position where God can covenant with us such that God can fulfill all of the terms of covenant? The fact that we are in union with Christ. God covenants with us, yet He fulfills both sides of the covenant: how? God takes upon Himself the Covenant curses even though the Covenant is with His people: why? Because He is united to His people and they to Him. Union with Christ is the ground of the covenant.

 

[MW]

And penal substitution, taken on its own, without Christus Victor, fails to provide for numerous elements of biblical teaching.

Which is why I said that it will have some use when it is placed in subordination to substitution. Substitution must be fundamental; only on the basis that divine justice is satisfied can any claim for victory be substantiated. But the fact remains that Christus Victor is regularly taught as a better alternative to substitution. Hence it must be put in its place, and not permitted to roam free. The same applies in this discussion. We have two competing claims for primacy. Reformed theology cannot be both at once.

The competing system of union with Christ will create a fundamental change in these doctrines.

How so? What fundamental changes do you see coming from this?

A neo-orthodox type of subjectivity.

 

[MW]

What I would contend, though, is that union with Christ is a ground of covenanting. What puts us in a position where God can covenant with us such that God can fulfill all of the terms of covenant? The fact that we are in union with Christ.

This makes union with Christ the foundation of the covenant of grace rather than the covenant of grace the foundation of union with Christ. The reformed system is starting to be turned on its head. It is now just a matter of consistently working through this paradigm shift and "union" will redefine election, calling, justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification, as is done in the neo-orthodox system.

 

[Philip]

A neo-orthodox type of subjectivity.

I'm not sure why, given that Union with Christ is a fact, whether one is experiencing it or not. There is no covenant of grace without Christ. There is no inclusion in the covenant blessings apart from union with Christ. Are we going to deny this? As I see it, union with Christ is an objective fact.

It is now just a matter of consistently working through this paradigm shift and "union" will redefine election, calling, justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification

Certainly one is elect in Christ, called to Christ, justified through the work of Christ, adopted in Christ, sanctified in Christ, and glorified with Christ. I wasn't aware that I was proposing anything new here.

as is done in the neo-orthodox system.

Which neo-orthodox system?

With all due respect, I haven't denied the usefulness of covenant as an essential part of our theology---I merely think that to make it the organizing principle runs the risk of nominalism. Certainly in Biblical theology it, by necessity, organizes our theology, but I'm not sure that it has to in systematics.

 

[MW]

As I see it, union with Christ is an objective fact.

It is the "application" of redemption. What is applied? Redemption. The objectivity of union comes from the fact that it is based on redemption. If it is based on redemption, and redemption itself is a part of the outworking of the covenant of grace, this application cannot be the foundation for the covenant of grace. In reality something else is made the objective foundation in this kind of system -- usually an incarnational model, as in neo-orthodoxy.

Certainly one is elect in Christ, called to Christ, justified through the work of Christ, adopted in Christ, sanctified in Christ, and glorified with Christ. I wasn't aware that I was proposing anything new here.

On what basis is one elect in Christ? Is it because He took the place of man or because God gave the individual by covenant to Christ to be redeemed by Him? It appears that you are presupposing truths derived from the federal theology of reformed thought in order to protect yourself against the innovations which will follow from refocusing reformed thought away from federal theology.

Which neo-orthodox system?

With all due respect, I haven't denied the usefulness of covenant as an essential part of our theology---I merely think that to make it the organizing principle runs the risk of nominalism. Certainly in Biblical theology it, by necessity, organizes our theology, but I'm not sure that it has to in systematics.

It might be worth your while to look into the criticisms of the Torrances in this area.

You don't avoid the charge of nominalism because you have traced everything back to election in Christ and the Reformed doctrine is that election is according to the good pleasure of God's will.

 

[Philip]

It is the "application" of redemption. What is applied? Redemption. The objectivity of union comes from the fact that it is based on redemption. If it is based on redemption, and redemption itself is a part of the outworking of the covenant of grace, this application cannot be the foundation for the covenant of grace. In reality something else is made the objective foundation in this kind of system -- usually an incarnational model, as in neo-orthodoxy.

First of all, the ultimate basis here would be the pactum salutis. Second, redemption is applied because of union with Christ. In regeneration one dies and is raised with Christ.

The attempt to associate this with neo-orthodox thought is misplaced, given that I affirm federal headship and they do not.

On what basis is one elect in Christ? Is it because He took the place of man or because God gave the individual by covenant to Christ to be redeemed by Him?

Yes.

It appears that you are presupposing truths derived from the federal theology of reformed thought in order to protect yourself against the innovations which will follow from refocusing reformed thought away from federal theology.

Sure I'm drawing on federal theology. My concern, though, is that we focus on the legal and end up leaning nominalistic rationalism. Maybe it's the fact that several in my circles are still recovering from Clarkianism, but I'm leery of any sort of rationalism and excessive reliance on a covenant framework strikes me as such, just as an excessive reliance on union with Christ would make me concerned about a latent Platonistic mysticism. I do not intend to say that these frameworks are in competition, but can be complimentary.

It might be worth your while to to look into the criticisms of the Torrances in this area.

I'm looking for opportunity to study the Torrances and their critics (as I did with Barth, all too briefly, two years ago) but probably will not be able to do so for a while. But thanks for the suggestion.

I should mention that my familiarity with Covenant theology is mostly through Vos's excellent work on the subject, while my understanding of Union with Christ is mostly John Owen (mediated through a mentor who is very familiar with his thought).

 

[MW]

The attempt to associate this with neo-orthodox thought is misplaced, given that I affirm federal headship and they do not.

Then you, along with John Owen, are guilty of covenant overload, from the perspective of the other side of this discussion. Subsequently, you are bound to keep facing the same problems, according to their view. Which is as much as to say, you are now committed to the negative side of the debate, and are not able any longer to maintain a post-modern transcendence over the issue.

On union with Christ and the application of redemption, see Larger Catechism 57-58; 66-67. Actual union with Christ is a benefit procured by Christ's meditation and is a part of the application of His benefits to us. Certainly the other benefits flow out of that union, but that does not diminish the fact that union with Christ is itself an application of redemption. Any union prior to this is denominated "virtual," not "actual," and that because it is part of the federal transaction from eternity.

 

[MW]

The Reformed need to accept the charge of nominalism but refuse its criminality. God is real. What God does is real. The decree is real. God making all things ex nihilo is real. The dependence of all things upon God is real. There is a whole realm of "nominals" which cannot be proved on the basis of "sight," but it does not make them any less real.

 

[Philip]

The Reformed need to accept the charge of nominalism but refuse its criminality. God is real. What God does is real. The decree is real. God making all things ex nihilo is real. The dependence of all things upon God is real. There is a whole realm of "nominals" which cannot be proved on the basis of "sight," but it does not make them any less real.

Ok, but none of that makes you a nominalist. Nominalism would treat the covenant and union with Christ as legal fictions that don't effect a metaphysical change. Sounds like you reject this position.

Which is as much as to say, you are now committed to the negative side of the debate, and are not able any longer to maintain a post-modern transcendence over the issue.

I haven't been aiming for that anyway, given that transcending one's perspective is a contradiction in terms.

Certainly the other benefits flow out of that union, but that does not diminish the fact that union with Christ is itself an application of redemption.

But redemption is applied (in the ordo salutis) in the context of union with Christ. Union with Christ undergirds the application of covenant benefits in the ordo salutis---or can one be truly in the covenant without being in union with Christ?

This is where we are getting confused: when we start mixing up the historia salutis (redemption accomplished) with the ordo salutis (redemption applied). Certainly without the covenant promise there would be no benefits to apply, but apart from union with Christ, there is no way to apply them. Union with Christ is the mechanism of application.

Hopefully I've made a couple things clearer there.

 

[MW]

Ok, but none of that makes you a nominalist. Nominalism would treat the covenant and union with Christ as legal fictions that don't effect a metaphysical change. Sounds like you reject this position.

Any solid work on justification from a reformed perspective shows that the "fiction" in "legal fiction" is entirely in the mind of the accuser. God "calleth those things which be not as though they were." That is a fact of revelation. If people call that a fiction, Let God be true and every man a liar.

I haven't been aiming for that anyway, given that transcending one's perspective is a contradiction in terms.

We started down this track when you suggested this discussion is about a difference in vocabulary. That requires a transcendent view of the issue. If now federal headship is seen as non-negotiable I think we have descended back to the real world of commitment to our limitations.

But redemption is applied (in the ordo salutis) in the context of union with Christ. Union with Christ undergirds the application of covenant benefits in the ordo salutis---or can one be truly in the covenant without being in union with Christ?

Virtually, no; actually, yes. One either accepts or rejects actual union with Christ is a part of the application of redemption. If it is a part of the application of redemption then application per se cannot be founded on it.

Union with Christ is the mechanism of application.

That is correct. But this is altogether different to your earlier contention that union with Christ "puts us in a position where God can covenant with us such that God can fulfill all of the terms of covenant." If "mechanism" is now your considered opinion on the subject I think we have made genuine progress towards an uncompromising stand in favour of reformed federalism.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Quite a lot has happened in this discussion since I was here earlier and instead of saying what I was going to say (the conversation has move beyond that), let me just say this, Philip. It has been my experience generally that an older-style Roman Catholic (and Anglo-Catholic) will call all Protestants of any stripe nominalists.

Certainly Joseph Lortz and older types sought to tar Luther as a nominalist. Louis Boyer still does that and is widely popular with the CTC crowd. Heiko Oberman and other competent historians have shown that the smear was overdone and that nominalism was not so bad, certainly not as bad as all the Thomists played it. I think that the whole nominalist/realist debate misses the point.

All this is to say that older RC smear tactics (calling Protestants nominalists) should be determinative of nothing by way of theological response on our behalf. That Federal theology is excessively legal and not relational is a canard. Certainly the Westminster Standards, particularly the Larger Catechism, sees union as quite important. Here's my question: are you taking issue with anything that the Standards (including the TFU) say about union? Do the Standards not give it its proper place? And as for Calvin's doctrine of the Supper, Belgic Confession 35 rather nicely sets that forth.

If the problem here is that some people slap "covenantal" on various things as an adjective and hope to avoid close scrutiny by such, I agree that such should not merit a pass and avoid careful examination. If, on the other hand, what is being suggested here is some sort of fundamental criticism of the federal theology of Westminster, count me out. I regard, and will go to my grave regarding, the Westminster Standards as an expression of my faith ex animo.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Philip]

Virtually, no; actually, yes. One either accepts or rejects actual union with Christ is a part of the application of redemption. If it is a part of the application of redemption then application per se cannot be founded on it.

Are we speaking of the ordo salutis? If so, then Union with Christ is the precondition that makes the application of redemption possible.

But this is altogether different to your earlier contention that union with Christ "puts us in a position where God can covenant with us such that God can fulfill all of the terms of covenant." If "mechanism" is now your considered opinion on the subject I think we have made genuine progress towards an uncompromising stand in favour of reformed federalism.

Union with Christ is certainly the mechanism of federal headship---it is no less than this. But it is also more. It is the ground of the covenant.

That Federal theology is excessively legal and not relational is a canard.

Certainly it is. Where have I said "relational" in all of this? Legality is a relation, so we agree on this point. My question is whether relationship is all it is---is there mutual indwelling? Am I in Christ by the Spirit and is Christ in me by the Spirit?

Here's my question: are you taking issue with anything that the Standards (including the TFU) say about union? Do the Standards not give it its proper place?

No. I am simply suggesting that confessionally-informed systematics might consider emphasizing other aspects in addition to rather than in place of covenant theology. Somehow, in my reading of the WCF, I find that while covenant certainly plays a prominent role, I fail to find sufficient evidence to say that it plays a pre-eminent role.

 

[MW]

Are we speaking of the ordo salutis? If so, then Union with Christ is the precondition that makes the application of redemption possible.

Yes, this is the ordo salutis. Your second statement I will answer in the next section because there you explain what you mean by "precondition."

Union with Christ is certainly the mechanism of federal headship---it is no less than this. But it is also more. It is the ground of the covenant.

You can't possibly know the ramifications of what you are saying. If you believe this you are undone. You have made the application of redemption dependent on the work of the Spirit IN us. What preacher ever said, Be united to Christ and you shall be saved! This is preposterous. The application of redemption (the work of the Spirit IN us) must be grounded in redemption itself (the work of Christ FOR us), and both must be grounded on God's purpose of redemption before the foundation of the world. You are confusing the work of Christ FOR us and the work of the Spirit IN us. Justification is one of the benefits of redemption; it cannot possibly be grounded on anything done IN us. Please go away and think about it before you say something you cannot possibly give a good account of in the day of judgment.

 

[Philip]

You have made the application of redemption dependent on the work of the Spirit IN us.

Here's the problem. I think we both agree that redemption accomplished is necessary for the benefits of it to be applied to anyone. However, what is it that allows the benefit to be applied at all? If there is no union with Christ (by faith, a work of the Spirit), there is no application of redemption to individual people. Certainly justification and the other benefits are applied because they are (intrinsically) bound up in the finished work of Jesus in his life death and resurrection, But the context in which they are applied to the individual is union with Christ by grace through faith.

I think where we're getting tangled up here is that I'm looking at how redemption gets applied and at the necessary conditions for its application, What you seem to be looking at is redemption itself in the historia salutis and the basis for both in the pactum salutis. "Grounding" is probably a poor choice of words on my part.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

(Philip stated) Union with Christ is certainly the mechanism of federal headship---it is no less than this. But it is also more. It is the ground of the covenant.

Now I am no Scholar by any means, but it seems there are foundational things that should be considered mechanism before Union with Christ. 1. The basis of Covenant and the Father giving to the Son. 2. The Son being manifest in the Flesh (from the foundation of the world) to accomplish the work based upon the Everlasting Covenant.


How can Union with Christ (which is about us) preceed the mechanism of what the Father and Son did prior to our Union with Christ? I am sorry if I am muddying up the waters and getting you guys off track but us simple minded folk are reading also. In Adam we die. In Christ we shall be made alive.

It seems that the Ordo is just as important even considering the Historical.

Rom 8:29    For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

No. I am simply suggesting that confessionally-informed systematics might consider emphasizing other aspects in addition to rather than in place of covenant theology. Somehow, in my reading of the WCF, I find that while covenant certainly plays a prominent role, I fail to find sufficient evidence to say that it plays a pre-eminent role.

Doesn't this suggest Covenant plays a pre-eminent role?


CHAPTER VII

Of God's Covenant with Man.

I. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him, as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.


It seems that God's condescending which he expressed by way of Covenant is pre-eminent as I read this.

 

[Philip]

How can Union with Christ (which is about us) preceed the mechanism of what the Father and Son did prior to our Union with Christ?

Grounding was too strong a word, looking back. What it is, though, is the vital link---the means without which covenant cannot be applied. At the center of the covenant, fulfilling both sides, is Christ Himself, and only in union with Christ are we in the covenant at all. That's what I'm getting at.

It seems that God's condescending which he expressed by way of Covenant is pre-eminent as I read this.

God's condescension is certainly pre-eminent and it is indeed communicated to us by way of covenant, but that covenant is received through union with Christ by grace through faith.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Philip,


I may be mistaken but you seem to be bouncing all over the place. What precedes, what is pre-eminent, on what basis, what is done, these topics seem to be all bounced around in your thinking. I have the same problems myself as I work through issues. I would encourage you to go back through this thread and reread Rev. Winzer's comments and warnings and think about them. Especially posts 36 and 46. I am going to do the same thing as I try to understand you and this discussion better. In fact I want to know more about Covenant Overload which Rev. Winzer mentioned above.

 

[Iconoclast]

(Philip stated) Union with Christ is certainly the mechanism of federal headship---it is no less than this. But it is also more. It is the ground of the covenant.

Now I am no Scholar by any means, but it seems there are foundational things that should be considered mechanism before Union with Christ. 1. The basis of Covenant and the Father giving to the Son. 2. The Son being manifest in the Flesh (from the foundation of the world) to accomplish the work based upon the Everlasting Covenant.


How can Union with Christ (which is about us) preceed the mechanism of what the Father and Son did prior to our Union with Christ? I am sorry if I am muddying up the waters and getting you guys off track but us simple minded folk are reading also. In Adam we die. In Christ we shall be made alive.

It seems that the Ordo is just as important even considering the Historical.

Rom 8:29    For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

No. I am simply suggesting that confessionally-informed systematics might consider emphasizing other aspects in addition to rather than in place of covenant theology. Somehow, in my reading of the WCF, I find that while covenant certainly plays a prominent role, I fail to find sufficient evidence to say that it plays a pre-eminent role.

Doesn't this suggest Covenant plays a pre-eminent role?


CHAPTER VII

Of God's Covenant with Man.

I. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him, as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.


It seems that God's condescending which he expressed by way of Covenant is pre-eminent as I read this.

I am sorry if I am muddying up the waters and getting you guys off track but us simple minded folk are reading also.

Yes Randy...I resemble this remark,lol
While we all rejoice in the truth of Union with Christ...of necessity it is pre-supposed in the CoR.

3._____ The Lord Jesus, in his human nature thus united to the divine, in the person of the Son, was sanctified and anointed with the Holy Spirit above measure, having in Him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; in whom it pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell, to the end that being holy, harmless, undefiled, and full of grace and truth, he might be throughly furnished to execute the office of mediator and surety; which office he took not upon himself, but was thereunto called by his Father; who also put all power and judgment in his hand, and gave him commandment to execute the same.
( Psalms 45:7; Acts 10:38; John 3:34; Colossians 2:3; Colossians 1:19; Hebrews 7:26; John 1:14; Hebrews 7:22; Hebrews 5:5; John 5:22, 27; Matthew 28:18; Acts 2:36 )

Creation and the fall could not have taken place apart from the CoR being in effect with all of it's elements fixed.

 

[MW]

But the context in which they are applied to the individual is union with Christ by grace through faith.

As noted, the term "mechanism" was sound; it merely reflects the "instrumentality" of faith, which is what the Spirit works in us to unite us to Christ. The other word you used, "precondition," could be understood in the same light. Now you use the word "context." It is fine as well. But you indicated this was not enough. You made union the ground of the covenant and of the application of the other benefits to us. This would require us to consciously seek our salvation in something done WITHIN us rather than something done FOR us; it would also leave justification "grounded upon" something which the Spirit does within us, namely, uniting us to Christ. The reason justification is by faith ALONE is owing to the fact that faith itself adds nothing of the person in the application. It is empty-handed and lays hold of a righteousness outside of the person. It is of faith that it may be by grace. If justification is in any way grounded on the work of the Spirit in uniting us to Christ we will ultimately end up turning within ourselves for the ground of our righteousness before God. Please seriously reconsider your sympathy for this revisionist school of thought. Who knows where it will ultimately lead you. The old is better! Faithful and true!

 

[Philip]

I think, Rev. Winzer, I agree with everything you just said. However, the question I was asking is how the individual is brought into the covenant---on what basis are you personally counted as being in Christ?

 

[MW]

I think, Rev. Winzer, I agree with everything you just said. However, the question I was asking is how the individual is brought into the covenant---on what basis are you personally counted as being in Christ?

Virtually, by election; meritoriously, by redemption; instrumentally, by faith. The last part is usually called being "instated" in the covenant.

This work by Thomas Boston shows why the exclusivity of faith is important and how it relates to union with Christ: Boston - Sinners Instated into the Covenant by Faith

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Thanks for that Rev. Winzer.

 

[BrettLemke]

I think, Rev. Winzer, I agree with everything you just said. However, the question I was asking is how the individual is brought into the covenant---on what basis are you personally counted as being in Christ?

Virtually, by election; meritoriously, by redemption; instrumentally, by faith. The last part is usually called being "instated" in the covenant.

This work by Thomas Boston shows why the exclusivity of faith is important and how it relates to union with Christ: Boston - Sinners Instated into the Covenant by Faith

Bravo. Providentially, I was reading about this very instrumentality in A Puritan Theology last night. I have now caught the sails of this very profitable discussion!

 

[jogri17]

We live in a very restless age, illustrated by the fact that it is presumed that many things should be "revamped" and "refreshed" and "recast" every few years. That principle may be an acceptable fashion for your living room, kitchen or church magazine, but is not for theology, which evolves by degrees, building on already clearly established and confessionally- embodied truths, as the Holy Spirit works in His Church to progressively illumine the Word.

With all due respect dear brother, many are calling not for a revamping every few years; they are calling for using additional language after a few centuries. Dogmatic language has to evolve to use the language of the day and the scholastic method of the Middle Ages and 17th century isn't the only way to do so that can be faithful to the Scriptures and the spirit of the Reformed Confessions and Catechisms. A great example would be Roman Catholic Theology, in the French Language the Théologie fondamentale movement. It seeks very strongly to integrate systematic theology, exegesis, and liturgy together into one academic discipline. It is very much not traditional (i.e. aquinas, Calvin, Turretin, Berkhof), but instead on focusing of talking about various issues and shows it through an almost historical-redemptive way.