# Who taught “relative” union with Christ?



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 24, 2014)

Thomas Boston made this passing criticism of "relative union" with Christ in his sermon on union with Christ (Works. Vol. 1, pg. 546): 

“There is a real union betwixt Christ and believers. Some, to advocate their legal scheme of doctrine, acknowledge no other union but a relative one betwixt Christ and believers, such as may be betwixt a persons and things wholly separated.” He listed some example analogies used to explain this “relative union” in the next paragraph, “a king and his subjects, a master and his servants”. 

So my question: Who is Boston talking about? Who advocated this faulty view of union with Christ back then? Who’s legal scheme of doctrine did he have in mind? Arminians? Socinians? Neonomians? Boston didn't name any names. If you have some specific references I would appreciate it. Thanks.


----------



## MW (Jun 24, 2014)

From "Gospel Truth Accurately Stated:"



> The legal scheme of doctrine, maintained by Mr. Baxter and others, had now spread its pernicious influence in many places in Scotland, particularly among ministers; this as usual paved the way for exhibiting a charge of Antinomianism against all those ministers who most accurately preached the doctrines of grace, especially those who taught the absolute freeness of the covenant of grace, and the unlimited grant that God had made of Christ, and salvation with him, to mankind-sinners as such.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 24, 2014)

So Baxter denied the mystical union?


----------



## MW (Jun 24, 2014)

Puritan Sailor said:


> So Baxter denied the mystical union?



I can only recall that he had some difficulty with saying real union is an "union" in the proper sense of the term because he thought this meant an essential oneness, which is what the fanatics were teaching. In general Baxter's anti-antinomianism led him to struggle with the connection between the real and relative aspects of salvation.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 24, 2014)

Interesting. Sounds similar to FV who teach a relative union with Christ. Their similarities to Baxter are his redefinition of faith with faithfulness.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 24, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> > So Baxter denied the mystical union?
> ...



So can you think of any critics of the Marrow who advocated this view of relative union or shared the same confusion as Baxter?


----------



## MW (Jun 24, 2014)

Puritan Sailor said:


> So can you think of any critics of the Marrow who advocated this view of relative union or shared the same confusion as Baxter?



Robert Riccaltoun's Sober Inquiry singled out Principal Hadow as diminishing union with Christ into a mere relation.

To put it in evangelical terms, having Christ the believer has all things. This makes "real" benefits like repentance, holiness, good works, etc. dependent on "really" having Christ. That which does not come from union with Christ is not acceptable. For a neonomian the thought that one must have these things as benefits through union with Christ meant that they were not properly the work of the individual and lessened their normative value.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 25, 2014)

And the antinomians would then use real union with Christ as a basis for the flip side of the neonomian error then, attributing all to Christ in such a way that there are no duties or conditions left for man? Who do you mean by the "fanatics" in this case?


----------



## MW (Jun 25, 2014)

Yes, the Antinomians would say that Christ became a sinner, and also that Christ believed, repented, loved, obeyed, and persevered for the believer.

Some of the fanatics were a type of mystic and taught things like the believer is Christed or Godded, that is, really and essentially Christ and God.


----------

