# Heidelcast 10 May 2010: D. G. Hart on Union with Christ



## R. Scott Clark (May 9, 2010)

Darryl Hart visits the Heidelcast to work through questions related to the doctrine of union with Christ. Is it the doctrine that distinguishes Reformed Christians from other traditions? Is it the central doctrine of the Reformed faith? How does it relate to faith and justification?
D. G. Hart on Union with Christ

Heidelcast 10 May 2010: D. G. Hart on Union with Christ 

Darryl is Adjunct Prof of Church History at Westminster Seminary California. He also teaches at Temple University (Philadelphia) and at Eastern University in PA.

He is a ruling elder in the OPC and the author of numerous books including Defending the Faith, A Secular Faith and The Lost Soul of American Protestantism. 

Subscribe to the Heidelcast on iTunes. Search “heidelcast’ on iTunes.
Contact us directly at [email protected] or leave voice mail at 760 278 1563. Leave a message and we may use it in a future broadcast.

Thanks for listening.


----------



## DMcFadden (May 9, 2010)

Scott, this is a wonderful resource that you provide for the Reformed community and for those of us in allied groups interested in Reformed thinking. Thanks again!


----------



## Peairtach (May 9, 2010)

Indeed!


----------



## R. Scott Clark (May 9, 2010)

Thanks fellows. I appreciate it.


----------



## MW (May 9, 2010)

Interesting and thought provoking discussion.

Doing word searches on the Westminster Confession will prove as useful as doing word searches on the apostle Paul. The significance of union with Christ in Paul is not tied to the use of that word. It is his "in, through, and for Christ" language which shows the significance of it. That language is in the Confession. Further, the Puritans generally spoke of union in concrete terms -- our union with Christ by faith, and Christ's union with us by the Spirit. In the Confession, actual justification is described in terms of the work of the Holy Spirit applying Christ to the elect, WCF 11:4. This makes it clear that actual justification cannot be construed independently of the work of the Holy Spirit in believers.


----------



## Peairtach (May 9, 2010)

And surely baptism by/with the Holy Spirit into Christ/regeneration is the point at which we experience the union with Christ and this experience of union continues throughout the Christian life. This will be dealt with by the Confession under regeneration, faith, repentance, justification, adoption, sanctification, etc.

Union with Christ cannot be properly appreciated unless we truly understand its basis in justification by faith alone. 

Didn't e.g the Roman Catholic mystics like Theresa d' Avilla speak of union with Christ of an extremely different bread to that of what the Bible and the Reformed faith teaches, because they had a very erroneous view on how - or what it meant - to get right with God.


----------



## MW (May 9, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> Union with Christ cannot be properly appreciated unless we truly understand its basis in justification by faith alone.


 
That is the point at issue, as it stands. From an historical point of view, the Antinomian would make the reckoning of righteousness fundamental to the whole Christian life, and eternal justification would become the source of all other benefits. The Reformed faith, in distinction, insisted on the work of the Holy Spirit in effectual calling as the source of all benefits. This divine work produces faith, faith effects union with Christ, and in Christ the believer is justified, adopted, and sanctified. Hence there is no actual justification apart from a faith of the operation of God which is really and personally exercised by the elect.


----------



## KMK (May 10, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > Union with Christ cannot be properly appreciated unless we truly understand its basis in justification by faith alone.
> ...


 
This fact is often undermined by Calvinists who overstate the case against synergism, no?


----------



## Casey (May 10, 2010)

Where did the idea that justification is the basis of union with Christ originate from in Reformed circles?


----------



## Peairtach (May 10, 2010)

I mean that without Christ's justifying work providing a basis for the existential union of the believer with Christ at the New Birth when we are immediately justified by faith in Christ being planted in us, in this sense justification provides the basis for the existential union.

If a person doesn't truly understand (seem to understand) that his/her union with Christ is only because of what Christ has done, then the danger is that he/she is not truly united to Christ, because his/her faith isn't in Christ alone for salvation.

Hence the centrality of a proper view of justification was emphasised by the Reformers before the doctrine of union with Christ. That should remain the way today, not that the doctrine of union should be neglected.

If you have, or express, an erroneous view of justification, the probability is that you have fallen short of union with Christ, and even if you are united with Christ and you are just confused about the theology or can't express it properly, can others recognise a supposed union with Christ that does not accord with the Truth?

If you don't have an adequate moral basis for the union you say you have with Christ, namely Christ's justifying life and death, how do you know that the union will not be dissolved in the future? 

Obviously there are other senses in which the elect are _in Christ_ even before they are born e.g. in the Pactum Salutis.


----------



## MW (May 10, 2010)

KMK said:


> This fact is often undermined by Calvinists who overstate the case against synergism, no?


 
Certainly. Antinomians look on faith as an assurance that one is justified. The sytem as a whole is anything but Reformed. I continue to be amazed at the kinds of propositions which are passed off as Reformed theology today. It is as if the only thing that exists in opposition to the reformed tradition is neonomianism; but the reality is that antinomianism was a radical reaction to neonomianism which the reformed tradition equally opposed.


----------



## MW (May 10, 2010)

The names represent propositions which are out of accord with the reformed faith. Obviously it takes patience to "prove all things," and some find it tiresome, and even burdensome, but that does not relieve them of the responsibility to "prove all things."


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 10, 2010)

Is that kinda like John 1:12 and 13 which we use as a proof text for those who come to faith and the elect? I will go read it Josh.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 10, 2010)

I know what a neonomist is and an antinomian. In my understanding Baxter became a neonomist but repented later. I am not antinomian. But I am not sure what you are advocating. It sounds more like neonomism to me.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 10, 2010)

Sorry Josh, a post of mine was deleted for a while. My response was mentioned in light of Neonomism and Antinomianism.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 10, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> Certainly. Antinomians look on faith as an assurance that one is justified. The sytem as a whole is anything but Reformed. I continue to be amazed at the kinds of propositions which are passed off as Reformed theology today. It is as if the only thing that exists in opposition to the reformed tradition is neonomianism; but the reality is that antinomianism was a radical reaction to neonomianism which the reformed tradition equally opposed.


 



PuritanCovenanter said:


> I know what a neonomist is and an antinomian. In my understanding Baxter became a neonomist but repented later. I am not antinomian. But I am not sure what you are advocating. It sounds more like neonomism to me,


Rev. Winzer. What would you include as the law and adherence to it that R. Scott Clark wouldn't?

Sorry if this sounds so bold here. I am so confused.


----------



## MW (May 10, 2010)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Rev. Winzer. What would you include as the law and adherence to it that R. Scott Clark wouldn't?
> 
> Sorry if this sounds so bold here. I am so confused.


 
The question is out of place because the subject pertains to the place of justification in the order of salvation; it has nothing to do with the law per se.


----------



## TeachingTulip (May 10, 2010)

Joshua said:


> I'm saying that God has the means by which He has been pleased to save His people from their sins. Namely, the imputed righteousness of Christ, attained by the empty instrument of faith alone, and as a result of this faith being worked in them by the Holy Spirit, along with all other saving graces, God brings them to everlasting salvation. God's elect _are_ saved. They're _being_ saved. And they _will be_ saved. And from start to finish, that's the Lord's Work. It's the "way which he has appointed them to salvation." That's what the Westminster Standards are teaching too. I do not believe, as Baxter has been alleged to believe, that "faith is the new law." That's nonsense.




Holy Scripture teaches that faith establishes the law. (Romans 3:31) Do you think this might be what is meant by the "Law of Faith?" Faith in the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ is the instrumental means by which the Law is fulfilled and realized in each of the elect saints?


----------



## Peairtach (May 11, 2010)

*Quote from Ronda*


> Holy Scripture teaches that faith establishes the law. (Romans 3:31) Do you think this might be what is meant by the "Law of Faith?" Faith in the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ is the instrumental means by which the Law is fulfilled and realized in each of the elect saints?



Well it's always useful to remember that no sinner can _begin_ to _truly_ keep the law _from the heart_ without true faith in Jesus Christ, and even then his/her keeping of the law in this life is never perfect.

The law itself is explicitly or at least often implicitly evangelical because it is utterly impossible to truly keep it or rather start to keep it without a change of heart. This the Pharisees and others have ignored, but is brought out in many places of Scripture, e.g. the Sermon on the Mount.

*Quote from Josh*


> I do not believe, as Baxter has been alleged to believe, that "faith is the new law." That's nonsense.



We are in God's Word _commanded_ to believe, so in that sense it is a law that we should believe on the One God has sent for salvaion. But it must always be emphasised by the Reformed that _ the power_ to truly believe comes from God and must be sought from God. When we truly believe, all the glory goes to God, because it is by God's monergistic power alone we were regenerated and believed. Saving faith is the reflex of a regenerate heart.


----------

