East Side or the West Side? (Westminster Seminary, that is)

[Marrow Man]

Derek Thomas references a debate involving representatives of Westminster Seminary and Westminster Seminary California here. Two articles appear in Ordained Servant: a response by Dr. Robert Godfrey and Dr. David VanDrunen to Mark Garcia concerning the latter's review of the book Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry: Essays by the Faculty of Westminster Seminary California, and a response to the response by Dr. Garcia here.

Is there really a deep divide between the two seminaries on justification, union with Christ, and Christ's active obedience?

 

[Andres]

People, have Biggie and Tupac taught us nothing?

 

[Marrow Man]

Andrew, you have my vote for the Puritan Shug Knight...

 

[Andres]

Andrew, you have my vote for the Puritan Shug Knight...

you made my day

 

[Miller]

People, have Biggie and Tupac taught us nothing?

Yeah, don't trust the cops. At least that's what Talib Kweli would say.

 

[Curt]

Are these people are Puritan authors I've missed?

 

[Ivan]

Divide between the Westminsters?

 

[VictorBravo]

Wow, I think I have to go back to culture school. The only part of this thread I understand is the original post. . . .

 

[LawrenceU]

Don't feel badly, Vic. I'm at a total loss. At times I feel like there is some alternate universe out there.

 

[Ivan]

Is there really a deep divide between the two seminaries on justification, union with Christ, and Christ's active obedience?

Is there?

 

[greenbaggins]

It kind of depends on the person you ask. WSC tends to phrase things in a way that has sanctification following upon justification. WTS tends to say that union with Christ is the overarching category of which justification and sanctification are inseparable yet distinct components, and that sanctification starts at the same moment as justification. So WSC tends to make sanctification depend on justification, whereas WTS makes justification and sanctification both depend on the deeper reality of union with Christ. In wrestling with these issues, what I see is that both sides have a point. On the one hand, sanctification does follow upon justification for the vast majority of sanctification, and there is definitely a logical priority of justification over sanctification. On the other hand, both justification and sanctification can be said to be aspects of union with Christ. WSC is, I think, focusing more on the distinction between justification and sanctification, while WTS is focusing more on the inseparability of justification and sanctification. Neither seminary would teach that the inseparability or the distinction is more or less important than the other. What is happening, I think, is that both seminaries feel that the aspect they are focusing on is more attacked in the culture. At the end of the day, I don't see them as incompatible.

 

[Marrow Man]

My systematic theology professor was educated at WTS, and he definitely holds to the union with Christ paradigm that Lane describes above. But, then again, Norm Shepherd was his ST professor.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

The gang reference was LOL funny! Keep it up and I'll bust a cap.... (that's a joke!)

1. I don't think it's accurate to think or say that the two seminaries are at odds. The person who reviewed CJPM for OS is not a faculty member at WTS.

2. There's no question about the chronology of justification and sanctification. The question is of the logical order. A closely related question is of the nature of what Dick Gaffin calls existential union with Christ. There's no question whether the elect have a decretal union, i.e., whether the elect are "in Christ" from all eternity. There is no question whether Christ was acting on behalf of his elect (federal union). The issue is whether we believe because we have an "existential union" with Christ or whether it is through faith that we come to have existential union with Christ. I think that several of us at WSC are fairly sure that the Scripture teaches, the tradition has taught, and the churches confess, that we come into possession of union with Christ through faith alone.

3. I don't know what all the faculty at WTS think about the logical relations between justification and sanctification but some of us want to say with the mainstream of the Reformed tradition that justification and sanctification are (Calvin) a duplex gratia (or with Olevianus and a great number of writers, a duplex beneficium) i.e., justification and sanctification are twin benefits flowing from Christ to the believer. The same writers who taught that scheme also taught that it is the justified who are progressively sanctified. On this see my book on Caspar Olevianus. There are links at the HB. I've written a few essays on this topic. Westminster Seminary California clark

4. A closely related issue is the question of definitive sanctification. On this see this post: What is Definitive Sanctification and is It Reformed? « Heidelblog

I think we're all agreed that we're justified sola gratia et sola fide though I worry that some constructions of union seem almost to replace faith with existential union so that faith becomes a sort of technical formality but union is where the "action is" in Reformed theology. I doubt that Scripture, our tradition, or the confessions justify this sort of approach.

Union with Christ is a very important doctrine but it's not the be all and end all of Reformed theology. We don't have a central dogma (predestination or union or adoption or whatever) or a central doctrine. Covenant theology organizes our theology, gives us categories and ways to relate our system to the history of redemption

On union see:

Union with Christ In Caspar Olevianus’ Exposition of the Apostles’ Creed « Heidelblog

Putting Existential Union with Christ into Perspective « Heidelblog

https://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2010/05/09/heidelcast-10-may-2010-d-g-hart-on-union-with-Christ/

https://heidelblog.wordpress.com/category/union-with-Christ/

 

[Ivan]

Thanks for the clarification.