# Union with Christ



## johnny_redeemed (Nov 28, 2007)

I am working through some issues and wanted to run my thoughts by you guys. This will be brief.

In a nut shell is this good Westminsterian Reformed theology? A

All persons baptized are covenantly united to Christ. All persons who have faith are vitally united to Christ. 

I do not care to quibble about which words to use to describe this distinction, but the heart of issue is this, a person who is baptized is united to Christ in a sense and a person who has faith is united to Christ in another sense. 

If I am off, please explain why? I really am wrestling through these issues and I want to be biblical and within the historic reformed faith. 

Thanks for the help!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 29, 2007)

Well the words are sort of important here. I would not, and the Confession does not, say that a person is Covenantally united to Christ in a sense when they are baptized.

Rather baptism _signifies_ union with Christ. The confession states that it is a _sign_ and a _seal_ of being ingrafted into Christ. A few things to highlight:



> Chapter XXVIII
> Of Baptism
> 
> I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,1 not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;2 but also *to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace*,3 of his ingrafting into Christ,4 of regeneration,5 of remission of sins,6 and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.7Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.8
> ...



If you notice what is held forth in baptism is admission to the visible Church as well as a sign and and a seal to the one baptized of all the promises attached to it. It is careful to distinguish, however, that none of these benefits are _necessarily_ conferred simply by the administration of it but that that Holy Spirit only seals those benefits to those who "...that grace belongs to..." - that is to say those that are elect according to the foreknowledge of God.

Those whom God foreknows, calls, and regenerates will believe upon His Son. Faith, then, is the instrument that lays hold of Christ. In faith, the regenerated Saint is united to Christ in His death and resurrection and all the benefits _promised_ in baptism are _actually_ true of that person.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Poimen (Nov 29, 2007)

Honestly Josh I (personally) wouldn't have a problem with it but some people may object to the "covenantal union" language especially with the Federal Vision problem looming large in so many ecclesiastical circles. 

Thus you would really be required to explain what covenantal union entailed, especially in contrast with what those who were vitally united to Christ receive. After all some may use or understand the word 'union' to mean different things. 

And since you are a student, I would caution you in your use of this language (especially at your examination) but it doesn't look like you are in error. Berkhof, after all, talked about legal and vital aspects to the covenant of grace.


----------



## spicedparrot (Nov 29, 2007)

*See Other post*

Interesting you should ask. That is essentially the question I'm trying to determine in another thread. Of course I'm trying to understand reformed theology and how it differs from Lutheran theology. Here's a link:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/saving-faith-26855/#post328063


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 29, 2007)

Josh,

Some resources:

Westminster Seminary California Bookstore

The Confessional Presbyterian » R. Scott Clark: Baptism and the Benefits of Christ (CPJ 2)

Westminster Seminary California clark

rsc


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 29, 2007)

I think Josh is working on a "friday-phonecall"

Just a guess.


----------



## johnny_redeemed (Nov 29, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> If you notice what is held forth in baptism is admission to the visible Church...



I would like to follow up on this. Is not the Church the body of Christ? Even if we say that it is the "visible" body of Christ, it is nonetheless the body of Christ. Right?? Again, I am just working through this issue. I do not have any of this figured out.

But it seems to me that if they are _really in_ the visible Church, then they are in Christ, his body, in some sense. NOT in a saving way in any sense. But my thought is that we can still say that this person is still _in Christ_. 

What are your thoughts???


----------



## johnny_redeemed (Nov 29, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I think Josh is working on a "friday-phonecall"
> 
> Just a guess.



I do not get it...what did I miss?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 29, 2007)

Josh,
I just heard a certain radio personality this week talking about how he "just can't understand" how some folks hold to a view at variance with his (especially when there's so much they agree on), when it seems so obvious to him.

I just thought your question indicated you were working on a response. No bigee.


----------



## johnny_redeemed (Nov 29, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Josh,
> I just heard a certain radio personality this week talking about how he "just can't understand" how some folks hold to a view at variance with his (especially when there's so much they agree on), when it seems so obvious to him.
> 
> I just thought your question indicated you were working on a response. No bigee.



I think I heard "this guy." Does he live in So. CAL?


----------



## spicedparrot (Nov 29, 2007)

*Good Question*



johnny_redeemed said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> > If you notice what is held forth in baptism is admission to the visible Church...
> ...




I think your question is a good one, and one that I myself am asking. I'm not sure how one can say one thing but then really mean another. I find it a bit duplicitous. Which in the other thread led me to ask a similar question as to the means of grace. It seems to me that either they do convey grace or they don't. If the latter we probably should find another term to describe them.

Likewise with your question. If people "aren't" in Christ via their baptism then we probably shouldn't say that they are - perhaps we shoudl simply say "they could be in Christ IF they later believe". 

Really it seems to me that the question you are asking, and the issue that arose on the other thread are the same. After all - isn't it supposed to be the Means of Grace that unite us to Christ (namely Baptism)? It seems to me that these are issues that ought to be squared away. I think I know the logic that a Lutheran would use to answer these issues, but this is a reformed board and I more curious in how the reformed would approach the issue. 

Well, I don't know the answer to your question but I hope you'll keep asking. These are the same kinds of things I'm hoping to learn from others on this board - how these seemingly contradictory concepts are reconciled.


----------



## wsw201 (Nov 29, 2007)

johnny_redeemed said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> > If you notice what is held forth in baptism is admission to the visible Church...
> ...



I think a question you should consider is when Paul uses that language in 1 Cor is he using it as a simile? Obviously the Church is not the physical Body of Christ as he makes comparisons with eyes, nose, ears, etc. Members of the church are not literally eyes, ears and noses of a whole body. I tend to think that those who use this language take it far beyond the context of the passage. 

But in those passages in 1 Cor 12, his emphasis is on the various gifts of the Spirit that unite the church and it is God the Holy Spirit that is the key that unites believers to Christ. For without the Holy Spirit there is no Church. In my humble opinion, the role of the Holy Spirit is not considered enough when we look at the Church.

Your use of the term "in some sense" I think creates confusion. It forces the question; In what sense?? A real sense? an existential sense? what sense could it be?? 

For what it's worth, I believe that there is really only one sense and that is the real sense that believers are united to Christ and that is by God the Holy Spirit. Though I would also agree with Berkhoff that the unregenerated are united to the church in a legal sense due to their vows.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 29, 2007)

johnny_redeemed said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > Josh,
> ...



[twitches ears]
[chews carrot noisily]
"Mmeeeeah, _*could be, DOC!*_"

(p.s. sorry to everyone who is annoyed by this ridiculous digression from the thread's purpose)


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 29, 2007)

Why isn't it sufficient to say that there are two ways of being in the one covenant of grace? 

Jacob and Esau were really in the covenant of grace but they were in the covenant of grace in two distinct ways. Both participated in the administration of the covenant of grace but only Jacob was united to Christ. Only Jacob had an internal/inward/spiritual union with Christ (Rom 2:28). 

Esau belongs to Hebrews 6 and Heb 10. He tasted of the powers of the age to come but, being a reprobate in the covenant community, he "spurned the Son of God and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified and has outraged the Spirit of grace." 

We ought to affirm the reality of membership in the covenant of grace but we ought also to distinguish clearly between the two ways of relating to the one covenant of grace. To speak of "covenantal union" is misleading because it confuses two categories: administration of the covenant of grace" and the "substance of the covenant of grace." Union is a term that we use to describe one of the benefits of the covenant of grace: union with Christ. So, we're equivocating on an essential Reformed doctrine: union with Christ. It has the same problems as speaking of "covenantal election," and the like.

I won't repeat the rest of the arguments that you can find in the CPJ essay and the booklet from Reformed Fellowship.

rsc


----------



## spicedparrot (Nov 29, 2007)

*A distinction*

I agree with you that there are two ways of being in the Covenant of Grace.

However, I'm curious then what are the benefits of being a party to that Covenant? Is it Christ and all his benefits? If so, how do we distinguish these benefits from salvation? To put it another way - are you saying that there are two ways of being in "ONE" covenant of Grace, or that there are really two steps, or divisions to the Covenant of Grace. The first step/tier having different benefits than the second tier, and then both having different "entrance" requirements?

Secondly, could you distinguish this position from the Lutheran doctrine of reprobation?


----------



## johnny_redeemed (Nov 29, 2007)

spicedparrot said:


> I agree with you that there are two ways of being in the Covenant of Grace.
> 
> However, I'm curious then what are the benefits of being a party to that Covenant? Is it Christ and all his benefits? If so, how do we distinguish these benefits from salvation? To put it another way - are you saying that there are two ways of being in "ONE" covenant of Grace, or that there are really two steps, or divisions to the Covenant of Grace. The first step/tier having different benefits than the second tier, and then both having different "entrance" requirements?
> 
> Secondly, could you distinguish this position from the Lutheran doctrine of reprobation?



First off, thank to everyone who has posted here, all the posts are extremely helpful. 

Second, your questions are particularly helpful. I guess my thoughts were in this line: that there are two divisions (though I am not fond of this term, I prefer distinctions) to the Covenant of Grace--blessing and cursing. 

Further, to interact with Dr. Clark (who,by the way, I am very thankful that you took the time to help me work through this issue), I find it difficult to speak of being in the Covenant of Grace and not be under the mediatorship of Christ. Also, it seems to me that the New Testament speaks of people _in a real sense _falling from grace and union with Christ. Not that they are losing their salvation mind you (I am not an FV nut job!!!!), but falling from Christ in a, for lack of a better term, covenantal sense (John 15 is a one text I have in mind). This two ways of being in Christ would help solve these problems, but in the end they may create more problems than they fit. 

Also, I am ignorant of Lutheran theology as a whole, so I do not feel equipped to speak on the second question. Sorry, I need to read more on this.


----------



## etexas (Nov 29, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> johnny_redeemed said:
> 
> 
> > Contra_Mundum said:
> ...


Bruce, the "visual" of you with rabit ears munching a carrot...was worth the digression. Oh, sorry for my digression!


----------



## MW (Nov 29, 2007)

It's worth noting the figure of speech used by our Lord in John 15. He says there are branches "in Him" that shall be cut off; but He also says these branches do not bear fruit. They are dead appendages with no vital union to Christ. Hence we are bound to conclude that there is no *real* participation in the spiritual benefits of Christ. They might have a name that they live, but the sad reality is that they are dead.

Consider these balanced statements from two Scots Worthies, James Fergusson and George Hutcheson:



> Fergusson: Not only particular believers, but also whole visible churches, are in Christ, though in a much different way: real believers are in him savingly, so as to be freed from condemnation by him, Rom. 8:1; being knit to him by the band of saving faith, Eph. 3:17, and receiving the influence of saving graces from him, John 7:38, 39. Again, visible churches are in Christ in the respects presently mentioned, only as to the better part of them, and with regard had to real believers, who always are among them; but besides this, the whole bulk of visible churches, and of visible church-members, are in Christ, so, as they enjoy from him outward privileges and divine ordinances, Ps. 147:19, 20; the communication of common gifts from the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 12:8; and some measure of divine protection more than the rest of the world, Isa. 27:2, 3; and these all by virtue of their union with him; the bond whereof is the profession of his name, and of those substantial truths which relate unto him either personally or parentally; which external union betwixt Christ and the visible church is sealed up by baptism: “the churches of Judea, which were in Christ.” (Epistles, 26.)





> Hutcheson: Besides Christ’s common interest in all mankind as their Creator, and his special interest in his own elect and converted people, he hath also an interest in a visible church, and they in him, which no other people have, and that by virtue of a visible covenant and election to the external privileges of the church, for in this respect the body of Israel are his own, or his peculiar people. This interest may give self-condemned sinners a liberty to go to him, as born in his own house, when other privileges are obscured from them… Common relations betwixt Christ and a visible church are so far from proving a people’s good condition as to the particular state of their soul, that such may, and oftentimes do, refuse to make Christ and his offer welcome, for “his own received him not.” … As the great sin without the church is ignorance, and not acknowledging and glorifying of God, so the great sin within the church is contempt of Christ, and not embracing of him nor his offer, for “the world knew him not,” but “his own received him not.” (John, 15.)


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 29, 2007)

Chad,

The confessional Lutherans deny the doctrine of reprobation. They speak of having a "lacuna" in their theology and they accuse the Reformed of filling it in with human reason. We reply that it is clearly taught in Rom 9 and that their lacuna is a refusal to account for the clear teaching of Scripture.

There are genuine benefits of being in the one covenant of grace, of participating in the administration. We don't know who is an isn't elect or who or won't come to faith. We administer the gospel to all members in Word and sacrament and we trust the Spirit of God to do his sovereign work. We don't judge who, among those who make profession of faith, is or isn't elect. We make a judgment of charity toward all in congregation who are not under discipline (excommunicated). We know that whoever comes to faith does so through the administration of the covenant of grace. That's the benefit! It's how the Spirit has promised to work. It's where the Spirit of Christ operates ordinarily. Therefore, it's of the greatest benefit to be included in the administration of the covenant of grace.

Reformed theology appeals to election and reprobation _a posteriori_ to explain how one came to faith and why others do not come to faith. There is a certain asymmetry to these two categories since we never know with finality who is reprobate, though we know there are reprobates and hypocrites in the congregation.

Please get the pamphlet and read the other stuff I linked where these lines of argument are sketched more fully.

rsc



spicedparrot said:


> I agree with you that there are two ways of being in the Covenant of Grace.
> 
> However, I'm curious then what are the benefits of being a party to that Covenant? Is it Christ and all his benefits? If so, how do we distinguish these benefits from salvation? To put it another way - are you saying that there are two ways of being in "ONE" covenant of Grace, or that there are really two steps, or divisions to the Covenant of Grace. The first step/tier having different benefits than the second tier, and then both having different "entrance" requirements?
> 
> Secondly, could you distinguish this position from the Lutheran doctrine of reprobation?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 29, 2007)

Chad,

before you make a judgment about this distinction you should do some reading. A few internet discussions do not qualify as reading. Get Witsius. Get a copy of the CPJ essay I linked (you can get the whole thing from Chris Coldwell who is on this board) and read them carefully on this very thing. This doctrine of the double mode of communion in the one covenant of grace is widely taught in our theologians and confessions. 

Without having done serious reading on this any judgment would be most premature.

rsc



johnny_redeemed said:


> spicedparrot said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with you that there are two ways of being in the Covenant of Grace.
> ...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 30, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> It's worth noting the figure of speech used by our Lord in John 15. He says there are branches "in Him" that shall be cut off; but He also says these branches do not bear fruit. They are dead appendages with no vital union to Christ. Hence we are bound to conclude that there is no *real* participation in the spiritual benefits of Christ. They might have a name that they live, but the sad reality is that they are dead.
> 
> Consider these balanced statements from two Scots Worthies, James Fergusson and George Hutcheson:
> 
> ...



I like these two quotes. I don't know if you believe I said too much in trying to "push back" a little bit on the idea that the reprobate are Covenentally united to Christ while the elect are vitally united to Christ. I guess, depending upon how the language is used, it might be OK but I am nervous about it for the reasons that some misuse the idea of "Covenantal union with Christ" to mean that as long as one remains in the Covenant that they are in Christ and participate in the benefits that come from union with Christ. Those that are united to Christ in His death and resurrection do not have "halfway" sense in which they receive regeneration, forgiveness of sins, sanctificaiton, and eventually glorification until they stop being a member of the Covenant. I know you're not arguing for this but I'm kind of typing this "out loud" to you to make sure that others don't misunderstand this.

The instrument by which men are united to Christ is by faith and it is the gift of God to the elect. There is no such thing as Christ's blood somehow "half-mediating" for the others that haven't yet left the Covenant. This is really where some Baptists rightly get concerned if they misunderstand the Reformed position as essentially saying that Christ's sacrifice is mediated to the reprobate but yet still doesn't save them. I think your quotes above as well as this statement from Dr. Clark are really quite excellent:


> There are genuine benefits of being in the one covenant of grace, of participating in the administration. We don't know who is an isn't elect or who or won't come to faith. We administer the gospel to all members in Word and sacrament and we trust the Spirit of God to do his sovereign work. We don't judge who, among those who make profession of faith, is or isn't elect. We make a judgment of charity toward all in congregation who are not under discipline (excommunicated). We know that whoever comes to faith does so through the administration of the covenant of grace. That's the benefit! It's how the Spirit has promised to work. It's where the Spirit of Christ operates ordinarily. Therefore, it's of the greatest benefit to be included in the administration of the covenant of grace.
> 
> Reformed theology appeals to election and reprobation a posteriori to explain how one came to faith and why others do not come to faith. There is a certain asymmetry to these two categories since we never know with finality who is reprobate, though we know there are reprobates and hypocrites in the congregation.



I think there is a tendency to say that a person cannot be in the New Covenant _unless_ the sacrifice of Christ is mediated to them. If this position is maintained then Reformed Baptists are absolutely correct in maintaining that _only_ the elect are in the New Covenant.

I do believe, however, that one can be a part of the visible New Covenant Church, and joined to the institution where Christ and His benefits are held out to be apprehended by faith. Then, like the Jews of Romans 10, God is right in condemning all in that Covenant for neglecting the great salvation that they participated in but never believed in. That they did not believe is not charged to God's account for not electing them (unless one wishes to raise his hand against God) but it does not remove them from the New Covenant just because they did not. They will be judged, and more harshly, for tasting of the heavenly gift and hypocritically turning their back on it.

The note that Dr. Clark made is something I've noted repeatedly in discussions regarding Baptism. The external administration of the Covenant of Grace is given to all. The same promises, the same injunctions, the same encouragements, the same hopes, the same treatment to _all_. God uses those means to convert and sanctify His elect but, at the same time, you can't go around figuring out for yourself who they are and who is really benefitting from them and who is going to reap increasing wrath because they are neglecting the great salvation constantly being proclaimed in their midst.

So I can teach on Romans 5-11 to a room full of men and women and plead with, encourage, and enjoin _as if_ they are united to Christ and speak with them about the sweet benefits of salvation from eternity past to a glorious future with our Savior. Some will have their eyes opened, some whose eyes were opened will be built up, while others will be like rocky soil where the seed has no effect. They're all baptized, they all have the same promise, they're all in the same Church and so they're nurtured the same way.

But _God_ gives the increase and _God_ knows who the elect are and _God_ has revealed that _only_ the elect have union with Christ that began with His foreknowledge toward the end of their glorification.


----------



## MW (Nov 30, 2007)

Rich, I appreciated reading your post because of its emphasis on electing grace. This is really what is meant by the essence of the covenant -- an unconditional election to enjoy blessed communion with God. It can only be considered, in this internal aspect, as a particular and unconditional covenant. What we call the external aspect of the covenant, or its outward administration, is simply the historical process whereby God manifests this electing grace. It is necessarily general and conditional, so as to take up the elect in their historical situation as sinners. The outward administration therefore does not discriminate between sinners, and allows for the possibility that some sinners, who are not true beneficiaries of the covenant, may be attached to it for a time, until the historical process reveals their true status before God. Any blessing they receive from this attachment to the covenant is therefore by definition conditional, general, outward, and temporal; whereas the true beneficiaries of the covenant, the elect, enjoy the blessings of the covenant unconditionally, particularly, spiritually, and eternally.


----------



## Iconoclast (Nov 30, 2007)

*Union with Christ/Spirit Baptism*



johnny_redeemed said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> > If you notice what is held forth in baptism is admission to the visible Church...
> ...


----------



## Ron (Dec 1, 2007)

johnny_redeemed said:


> I am working through some issues and wanted to run my thoughts by you guys. This will be brief.
> 
> In a nut shell is this good Westminsterian Reformed theology? A
> 
> ...



Josh,

The covenant of grace is _established _with Christ as the Second Adam and with all those who are elected in Him. Notwithstanding, the covenant of grace is to be _outwardly administered_ to all who profess Christ along with their household. Within these two fundamental truths we find the doctrine of the visible-invisible church, a most troublesome teaching indeed for both Baptists and Federal Visionists (yet for different reasons). Although the covenant of grace is established with the _true _Israel of God, we are to treat / regard as God’s elect all who have a biblical interest in the outward administration of the covenant. Accordingly, we are not to treat covenant children as “vipers in diapers” but rather as united to Christ, which is the reason why they are to baptized. This does not suggest that those who are baptized with water need not “improve upon” their baptism through faith and repentance all their days (not just once!). Indeed they must! Notwithstanding, children of the covenant are to be regarded as having the seed of faith, which must be _exercised _by believing all that the Bible teaches and primarily in the embracing of Christ as he is offered in the gospel. 

With that as a background, those who have been passed over, or elected unto damnation if you will, have no union with Christ no matter whether they receive the outdward administration of the covenant or not. What's a wet hypocrite after all?

Reformed Apologist: Federal Vision, Augustinian not Reformed

Blessings,

Ron


----------

