# Gaffin and Union with Christ



## DaveJes1979 (Sep 7, 2006)

I see Richard Gaffin has a new book, "By Faith, Not By Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation." Here is the thesis of the book:

"œThe central soteriological reality is union with the exalted Christ by Spirit-created faith. That is the nub, the essence, of the way or order of salvation for Paul. The center of Paul´s soteriology"¦is neither justification by faith nor sanctification, neither the imputation of Christ´s righteousness nor the renewing work of the Spirit. To draw that conclusion, however, is not to "˜de-center´ justification (or sanctification), as if justification is somehow less important for Paul than the Reformation claims. Justification is supremely important, it is absolutely crucial in Paul´s "˜gospel of salvation´ (cf. Eph. 1:13). Deny or distort his teaching on justification and that gospel ceases to be gospel; there is no longer saving "˜good news´ for sinners. But no matter how close justification is to the heart of Paul´s gospel, in our salvation, as he sees it, there is an antecedent consideration, a reality, that is deeper, more fundamental, more decisive, more crucial: Christ and our union with him, the crucified and resurrected, the exalted, Christ. Union with Christ by faith"”that is the essence of Paul´s ordo salutis."

I have noticed that alot of the FV folks (following the Mercersberg guys) have a rather lofty, and often muddled, view of the doctrine of union with Christ. Does this thesis of Gaffin's rub anybody wrong? 

What say you? I was thinking of buying the book.


----------



## bradofshaw (Sep 7, 2006)

I'm intrigued actually. I'll be very interested to see what people think of the book.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 7, 2006)

The thesis that union with Christ is more central to Paul's theology than justification has roots in 19th century German theology. That doesn't make it false, but it also doesn't recommend it. 

This version of this thesis is better than it's 19th century antecedent, but it suffers from some of the same weaknesses. It's been Dick's major argument since 1977 or so.

We should be cautious. There are some important points regarding union that are not always being observed now:

1. the distinction between vital and legal union;

2. the connection between union and faith. Our confessions don't speak of union as the source of all blessings. They typically speak of union relative to faith;

3. overemphasis or the wrong use of union suffers from the same dangers as overemphasis or the wrong use of predestination: i.e., as a central dogma from which all other doctrines are deduced. 

I rather prefer David VanDrunen's and Mike Horton's model of using "covenant" as the organizing rubric or principle or structure for theology (see the Strimple Festschrift and Covenant and Eschatology). 

rsc



> _Originally posted by DaveJes1979_
> I see Richard Gaffin has a new book, "By Faith, Not By Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation." Here is the thesis of the book:
> 
> "œThe central soteriological reality is union with the exalted Christ by Spirit-created faith. That is the nub, the essence, of the way or order of salvation for Paul. The center of Paul´s soteriology"¦is neither justification by faith nor sanctification, neither the imputation of Christ´s righteousness nor the renewing work of the Spirit. To draw that conclusion, however, is not to "˜de-center´ justification (or sanctification), as if justification is somehow less important for Paul than the Reformation claims. Justification is supremely important, it is absolutely crucial in Paul´s "˜gospel of salvation´ (cf. Eph. 1:13). Deny or distort his teaching on justification and that gospel ceases to be gospel; there is no longer saving "˜good news´ for sinners. But no matter how close justification is to the heart of Paul´s gospel, in our salvation, as he sees it, there is an antecedent consideration, a reality, that is deeper, more fundamental, more decisive, more crucial: Christ and our union with him, the crucified and resurrected, the exalted, Christ. Union with Christ by faith"”that is the essence of Paul´s ordo salutis."
> ...


----------



## MW (Sep 7, 2006)

I will need to read the book and see what he makes of his thesis, but as the thesis stands it is sound enough. The centrum Paulinum is a modern phenomenon. I don't believe reformed theologians have ever suggested that the doctrine of justification was the pivotal point or organising centre of Paul's thought. They didn't really pay that much attention to the human element of Scripture. When they spoke of the importance of justification they were concerned with its theoretico-practical bearing in the system of theology. Theirs was a functional view of centrality, better described as cruciality (cross-iality). This is the point where the faith (credenda) meets life (agenda).


----------



## DaveJes1979 (Sep 8, 2006)

I think the difficulty with overemphasizing the doctrine of union is seen especially in Rich Lusk's works. For him, imputation of Christ's righteousness is at best superfluous since we have Christ's righteous verdict if we are in union with Him. So the relationship between imputation, justification, and union is muddled. Indeed, he says:

"Perhaps it would be best to speak of faith as the "œalone instrument" of union with Christ, and then reformulate our doctrine of justification accordingly"

Oy vey!

[Edited on 9-8-2006 by DaveJes1979]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 8, 2006)

Definitely the doctrine of a saint's union with Christ is a central, and important one -- one that is overlooked and under-emphasized in our churches today. However, it should also not be over-emphasized, or taken to an unBiblical extreme. It is one of those doctrines we must be very careful with!


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 9, 2006)

WCF 3.5 does rightly say that we are chosen "in Christ." This, however, has reference to the decree, not to the totality of our union with Christ. There are two aspects to union with Christ, legal and vital. Within the legal aspects there are distinctions to be made (see below). A A Hodge is right to say that the decree is the foundation of union with Christ but the vital aspect of this union must be effected in time. The Confession speaks to union as such in 26.1.



> All saints, that are united to Jesus Christ their Head, by his Spirit, and by faith, have fellowship with him in his graces, sufferings, death, resurrection, and glory: and, being united to one another in love, they have communion in each other's gifts and graces, and are obliged to the performance of such duties, public and private, as do conduce to their mutual good, both in the inward and outward man.



The legal union pre-exists the vital union. As AAH says, in this aspect of union, Christ acts as our federal head. With respect to the establishment of the vital union, he says,



> As to the manner in which this union is established, the Scriptures teach that the elect, having been in the divine idea comprehended under the headship of Christ from eternity, are in time actually united to him (commenting on WCF 26).



These distinctions are clearer than Ridderbos who says,



> On what this unity rests, whether it must be viewed, for example, as "realistic" or as "federal," is not further elucidated. Adam and Christ are spoken of here as "universal personalities...construed cosmically and eschatologically," who comprehend within themselves all the members of the generations of men pertaining to them....



I don't know if perhaps Ridderbos is clearer elsewhere, but this language seems to me to be representative of a way of speaking of union.

It's true that Paul does not "say" exactly in every passage how he's thinking of union, but that doesn't mean that we cannot speak clearly about which aspect of union is in view. When Paul is speaking of Adam's or Christ's headship of humanity or redeemed humanity, he has legal union in view in Rom 5. Elsewhere he has vital union in view. I think that the the reluctance in 19th and 20th century Bib-Theology might have contributed to my own fuzziness on union in the past. This fuzziness has also facilitated the FV claims about baptismal union with Christ (i.e., a union effected by baptism as the "instrument" whereby the baptized are said to be conditionally elect, justified etc. This fuzziness has also given license to the FV folk to say as Barb Harvey did on her blog recently that we are justified because we are sanctified (to which I replied by saying that this is the ROMAN doctrine of justification!). In other words, by failing to distinguish between the aspects of union, it's quite possible to confuse justification and sanctification.

AAH says vital union is established, by the regenerating, quickening work of the Spirit (through the Word, we should add) or else we would not believe, and this is the union which WLC 66 has in view:



> Q66: What is that union which the elect have with Christ?
> 
> The union which the elect have with Christ is the work of God's grace, whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ as their head and husband; which is done in their effectual calling.



Notice, however, how the WLC connects this aspect of union to the work of the Spirit in effectual calling which comes through the preaching of the Word.

We should also note that the Confession moves quickly to faith and AAH says it is also established "By the actings of faith upon their part, whereby they grasp Christ and appropriate him and his grace."

Dabney says:



> The instrumental bond of the union is evidently faith -- i. e., when the believer exercises faith, the union begins; and by the exercise of faith it is on his part perpetuated. See Eph. iii: 17; Jno. xiv; 23, Gal. iii: 26, 27, 28. First: God embraces us with His electing and renewing love; and we then embrace Him by the actings of our faith, so that the union is consummated on both sides. One of the results, or, if you please, forms, of the union is justification. Of this, faith is the instrument; for, "being justified by faith, we have peace with God." The other form is sanctification. Faith has the instrumental relation to this also; for He "purifieth our hearts by faith;" "faith worketh by love; " and it is the victory which overcometh the world.



It seems to me that we should not think or speak of vital union apart from faith. This is implied when AAH says,



> On the basis of this union a most intimate fellowship or interchange of mutual offices ever continues to be sustained between believers and Christ. (1.) They have fellowship with Christ (a.) In all the covenant merits of his active and passive obedience. Forensically they are " complete in him."



We certainly cannot think of being forensically "complete in him," apart from the faith which alone apprehends Christ and his benefits and yet this faith is not possible apart from the prior work of the Spirit through the preaching of the Gospel. In this regard I'm influenced by the language of HC 65 (which is quite similar to WSC 88):



> Q65: Since, then, we are made partakers of Christ and all his benefits by faith only, where does this faith come from?
> 
> The Holy Spirit works faith in our hearts by the preaching of the Holy Gospel, and confirms it by the use of the holy sacraments.



Certainly this vital union grows reciprocally and mystically and is nourished by Word and sacrament ("the due use of ordinary means"). Here I think of HC 76:



> Q. 76: What does it mean to eat the crucified body and drink the shed blood of Christ?
> 
> It means not only to embrace with a believing heart all the sufferings and death of Christ, and thereby to obtain the forgiveness of sins and life eternal; but moreover, also, to be so united more and more to His sacred body by the Holy Spirit, who dwells both in Christ and in us, that, although He is in heaven and we on earth, we are nevertheless flesh of His flesh and bone of His bone, and live and are governed forever by one Spirit, as members of the same body are governed by one soul.



Witsius is also helpful on union. I especially like that he accounts for the aspect of legal union that exists not only by virtue of the decree but also by virtue of Christ's consent, in the pactum salutis, to be the federal head of the redeemed. His language about how vital union occurs is quite helpful. 



> I If these things be properly considered, it will not be difficult to explain, Whether, and in what way, the elect are united to Christ before faith, or whether they are not. Doubtless they are united to him, 1. In the eternal decree of God, which, however, includes nothing, except that their actual union shall take place; as was already demonstrated.
> 
> II. By an union of eternal consent, wherein Christ was constitute by the Father the head of all those who were to be saved, and that he should represent their persons; hence it was, that Christ obeying the commandment of the Father, and suffering for them, they are reckoned in the judgment of God to have obeyed and suffered in him. All these things, however, do not hinder, but that considered in themselves, before their regeneration, they are far from God and Christ, according to that their present state.
> 
> ...



rsc

[Edited on 9-9-2006 by R. Scott Clark]

[Edited on 9-12-2006 by R. Scott Clark]


----------

