Is Union with Christ related exclusively to sanctification?

[ColdSilverMoon]

I've been enjoying the Federal Vision threads at Green Baggins and this thread at Old Life dealing with the place of Union within the ordo salutis.

I reviewed Calvin on the matter, and in Romans 6 he seems to treat union as the basis for sanctification, not at all justification. In fact, his commentaries on Romans basically treat justification as a past event for Christians and union as the foundation for sanctification, beginning with baptism. In other words, he believes we are justified and then unified with Christ at baptism. This union allows the Old Man to be put to death with Christ and the New Man to gradually take hold.

My question is if Calvin is correct in his thinking (or am I interpreting Calvin correctly?). Is union related at all to justification, or is it exclusively the foundation for sanctification? Is there any aspect of FV theology that is somewhat correct dealing with the union/justification link, or is it completely wrong?

 

[py3ak]

1 Corithians 1:30 relates union with Christ (an effect of God's working) with righteousness. You might find Charles Hodge's comments on the matter interesting.

 

[rbcbob]

I believe that a solid argument can be made that all of our salvation, including our sanctification, is grounded in our union with Christ.

Ephesians 1:3-6 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the Beloved.

 

[Scott1]

I've been enjoying the Federal Vision threads at Green Baggins and this thread at Old Life dealing with the place of Union within the ordo salutis.

I reviewed Calvin on the matter, and in Romans 6 he seems to treat union as the basis for sanctification, not at all justification. In fact, his commentaries on Romans basically treat justification as a past event for Christians and union as the foundation for sanctification, beginning with baptism. In other words, he believes we are justified and then unified with Christ at baptism. This union allows the Old Man to be put to death with Christ and the New Man to gradually take hold.

My question is if Calvin is correct in his thinking (or am I interpreting Calvin correctly?). Is union related at all to justification, or is it exclusively the foundation for sanctification? Is there any aspect of FV theology that is somewhat correct dealing with the union/justification link, or is it completely wrong?

I'm not sure what Mr. Calvin has commented on this, and whether that was a consistent position through his life, only that he always deserves weighty consideration.

....justification as a past event for Christians and union as the foundation for sanctification, beginning with baptism.
....

It's hard to imagine baptism as beginning union with Christ, though it certainly is a sign and seal of it. The thing signified being salvation, a process of election, inner calling, justification, adoption and sanctification.

The more I think about the process of redemption, the more it seems these things all happen virtually at the same time. For example, union with Christ, sanctification and justification. All this immediately and necessarily flows from election, in eternity past.

 

[Iconoclast]

Hello Mason,
In the op you said this;

I reviewed Calvin on the matter, and in Romans 6 he seems to treat union as the basis for sanctification, not at all justification. In fact, his commentaries on Romans basically treat justification as a past event for Christians and union as the foundation for sanctification, beginning with baptism. In other words, he believes we are justified and then unified with Christ at baptism. This union allows the Old Man to be put to death with Christ and the New Man to gradually take hold.

In Romans 5 the justified person is said to have peace with God. In romans 6 the justified person is told why he cannot continue in sin as a practice. It begins with Spirit baptism placing us in Saving Union In Christ. water baptism does not do this.
Scott posted this:

It's hard to imagine baptism as beginning union with Christ, though it certainly is a sign and seal of it.

Scott it is hard to imagine it,because it is not so. Although you correctly state;

The more I think about the process of redemption, the more it seems these things all happen virtually at the same time. For example, union with Christ, sanctification and justification. All this immediately and necessarily flows from election, in eternity past.

Scott while planned in the Covenant of redemption, this saving union with an elect sinner only begins at the time of new birth, where Spirit baptism is sealed to the believer by the Spirit himself being the seal, quickening the sinner and indwelling them at that point in time , what was planned in eternity ,comes to pass in time.
Mason.....this statement;

In other words, he believes we are justified and then unified with Christ at baptism.

Would be speaking of baptismal regeneration, which none of us believe. I do not have Calvins commentary on romans with me right now,[i am on the road] but i do not imagine he would say this.

 

[Scott1]

Iconoclast
....this saving union with an elect sinner only begins at the time of new birth, where Spirit baptism is sealed to the believer by the Spirit himself being the seal, quickening the sinner and indwelling them at that point in time what was planned in eternity ,comes to pass in time.... ,

Yes, this sounds exactly right, and what Mr. Calvin would have taught. Baptism is a sign and seal of this "new birth" happening, but not the cause of it or its beginning point.

Baptism looks in faith toward it happening, but in no way causes it to happen or guarantees that it will happen.

It seems that we might say that election is the cause, but not the [temporal] point in time at which this occurs.

 

[MW]

My question is if Calvin is correct in his thinking (or am I interpreting Calvin correctly?).

Institutes 3:17:11, "For how does true faith justify unless by uniting us to Christ, so that being made one with him, we may be admitted to a participation in his righteousness? It does not justify because it forms an idea of the divine existence, but because it reclines with confidence on the divine mercy."

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Hello Mason,
In the op you said this;

I reviewed Calvin on the matter, and in Romans 6 he seems to treat union as the basis for sanctification, not at all justification. In fact, his commentaries on Romans basically treat justification as a past event for Christians and union as the foundation for sanctification, beginning with baptism. In other words, he believes we are justified and then unified with Christ at baptism. This union allows the Old Man to be put to death with Christ and the New Man to gradually take hold.

In Romans 5 the justified person is said to have peace with God. In romans 6 the justified person is told why he cannot continue in sin as a practice. It begins with Spirit baptism placing us in Saving Union In Christ. water baptism does not do this.
Scott posted this:

It's hard to imagine baptism as beginning union with Christ, though it certainly is a sign and seal of it.

Scott it is hard to imagine it,because it is not so. Although you correctly state;

The more I think about the process of redemption, the more it seems these things all happen virtually at the same time. For example, union with Christ, sanctification and justification. All this immediately and necessarily flows from election, in eternity past.

Scott while planned in the Covenant of redemption, this saving union with an elect sinner only begins at the time of new birth, where Spirit baptism is sealed to the believer by the Spirit himself being the seal, quickening the sinner and indwelling them at that point in time , what was planned in eternity ,comes to pass in time.
Mason.....this statement;

In other words, he believes we are justified and then unified with Christ at baptism.

Would be speaking of baptismal regeneration, which none of us believe. I do not have Calvins commentary on romans with me right now,[i am on the road] but i do not imagine he would say this.

Anthony - thanks for your response. Just to be clear, I wasn't implying that Calvin believed (or that I believe) in water baptismal regeneration. Clearly that isn't the case, though spiritual baptism is the beginning of our union with Christ.

My question was the placement of union in the ordo, and whether I was reading Calvin's commentary correctly. It appears I was not based on Rev. Winzer's quote from the Institutes. Calvin's commentaries were intended to be a companion to the Institutes, so it was a mistake not to reference his much more expanded view on union.

So it seems Calvin and Hodge (thanks Ruben) both believed justification is intimately related to union. So are they simultaneous events in that case? Are we justified as a result of our union, which comes through faith and repentance? Is it incorrect to say that justification precedes union?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I have always found 1 Cor 1:2 and 6:11 an interesting component in this debate (I would recommend reading John Murray on these two verses in Vol. 2 of his works).

 

[Iconoclast]

Is it incorrect to say that justification precedes union?

Hello Mason,
I think it would be incorrect. Here are some quotes fron JL Dagg, and the confession of faith 1689
The 1689;

Paragraph 4. God did from all eternity decree to justify all the elect,11 and Christ did in the fullness of time die for their sins, and rise again for their justification;12 nevertheless, they are not justified personally, until the Holy Spirit in time does actually apply Christ to them.13
11 Gal. 3:8, 1 Pet. 1:2, 1 Tim. 2:6
12 Rom. 4:25
13 Col. 1:21,22, Titus 3:4-7

Here is JL Dagg

2. There is a spiritual union. As Adam was the natural head of his posterity, so Christ is the spiritual head of his people. Adam's descendants are born from him according to the flesh, and possess the nature which existed in him as its beginning or fountain. Christ's people are born of the Spirit, and possess the spirit which was in Christ without measure; so that, "If any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his."[80] This union is like that of the head and members of the human body: "and by one spirit believers are all baptised into this one body.[81] It is like the union of the vine and its branches; through all which the same vitalizing and fructifying sap circulates. This union secures the perfect consent, which has already been notice, between Christ and his people; and further illustrates the fitness of that arrangement by which they are regarded as one in the administration of God's moral government.

A difference of opinion has existed as to the proper date of justification. Some have regarded the day of judgment as its proper date. It is an act of God, as Judge; and, in the judgment of the great day, the Judge will publicly pronounce, on every individual, the sentence which will determine his condition through eternity. Then God's judgments will be fully revealed; but a partial revelation of them is made in the present life: "Even now, the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness, and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness."[93] It is true, "He that believeth not, shall be damned;[94] but it is also true, "He that believeth not, is condemned already."[95] In like manner, it is true that Christ will publicly own his people in the great day, and pronounce the final sentence in their favor; but it is also true, that they are justified in the present life. Hence Paul says: "Ye are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ."[96] "All that believe are justified from all things."[97] The same rule by which the eternal state of men will be determined in the great day, is now made known on the authority of him who will sit on the throne of judgment then, and who is now the Judge of all the earth. By this revelation, men are already condemned or justified, according to their character. That character is often secret here. In the great day, God will judge the secrets of all hearts; but he will not establish a new rule of judgment: so far as that rule has been correctly applied here, its decision will be confirmed in the last day by the final sentence.

Some have dated justification in eternity past, regarding it as grace given in Christ Jesus before the world began. Justification is not a secret purpose in the bosom of God, but a revelation from him, and therefore it cannot be eternal. It implies, not only the accounting of the sinner righteous, but the declaring of him righteous; other wise, it would not be the opposite of condemnation; and neither justification nor condemnation can be from eternity. God's purpose to justify is eternal, and so is his purpose to glorify; but it is improper to say that believers are justified from eternity, as to say that they are glorified from eternity. It is clearly the doctrine of Scripture, that, on believing in Christ, men pass from a state of condemnation into a state of justification.

John Murray Redemption Accomplished and Applied is a must read on the topic of Union with Christ. He points out it is a central and core doctrine. This is a great book ,make sure you obtain this book.
Mason padeos apply water baptism first following the Ot pattern of sign first hopefully leading to ,or pointing to an eventual reality ..water baptism they believe allows an infant - into- an external administration of the covenant of grace, which is not necessarily a saving covenant relationship in that they believe it is breakable.
Credos see Spirit baptism being applied to a believing sinner by the Spirit indwelling them first ,,,at new birth. The person being saved by God can never perish, be lost, or outside of the covenant of grace. Water baptism is then a public confession of this God given faith which declares that the person being baptized now in water,has already been placed savingly into the body of Christ. Romans 6:3-17 1cor 12:12,13, 18 , Gal 3
So we believe that a person cannot be rightly said to be a part of the church,ie, those for whom Jesus died covenantly, the sheep, unless and until they are born of God by the work of the Spirit [Spirit Baptism placing them savingly in Christ,put to their account when they are indwelt and born from above.]
This is different from the OT pattern, but we see it as part of the newness of the NC.

 

[MW]

John Murray Redemption Accomplished and Applied is a must read on the topic of Union with Christ. He points out it is a central and core doctrine. This is a great book ,make sure you obtain this book.
Mason padeos apply water baptism first following the Ot pattern of sign first hopefully leading to ,or pointing to an eventual reality ..water baptism they believe allows an infant - into- an external administration of the covenant of grace, which is not necessarily a saving covenant relationship in that they believe it is breakable.
Credos see Spirit baptism being applied to a believing sinner by the Spirit indwelling them first ,,,at new birth. The person being saved by God can never perish, be lost, or outside of the covenant of grace. Water baptism is then a public confession of this God given faith which declares that the person being baptized now in water,has already been placed savingly into the body of Christ. Romans 6:3-17 1cor 12:12,13, 18 , Gal 3
So we believe that a person cannot be rightly said to be a part of the church,ie, those for whom Jesus died covenantly, the sheep, unless and until they are born of God by the work of the Spirit [Spirit Baptism placing them savingly in Christ,put to their account when they are indwelt and born from above.]
This is different from the OT pattern, but we see it as part of the newness of the NC.

Anthony, it might be worthwhile pointing out that John Murray's name should only be associated with your union with Christ statement, and that he would have had nothing to do with your view of the new covenant. Prof. Murray was a firm believer in infant salvation. Once again, the way you have stated the matter places infants beyond the scope of the saving work of Christ. This is undoubtedly unintentional on your part; but the very fact it is unintentional demonstrates there is something in the theological system of antipaedobaptism which creates this problem.

 

[Iconoclast]

Hello Matthew,
I understand what you are saying here in reference to professor Murray;

Anthony, it might be worthwhile pointing out that John Murray's name should only be associated with your union with Christ statement, and that he would have had nothing to do with your view of the new covenant. Prof. Murray was a firm believer in infant salvation. Once again, the way you have stated the matter places infants beyond the scope of the saving work of Christ. This is undoubtedly unintentional on your part; but the very fact it is unintentional demonstrates there is something in the theological system of antipaedobaptism which creates this problem.

I would like to point out that knowing professor Murray's view on infants I still recommend this book to everyone. You can see I urged Mason to purchase this book. Perhaps DR.Murray would not share my view... this might be true,as I am sure he must have had many pastors and believers who could try and make the case much stronger than I can to interact with.
I would like to discuss however your statement when you say this:

Once again, the way you have stated the matter places infants beyond the scope of the saving work of Christ.

I think this is not at all the case. As we both believe [and professor Murray would agree,and in fact does agree] on page 165 of the chapter on union with Christ this teaching spans from our eternal election,until our glorification. he saysit underlies every aspect of redemption both in it's accomplishmentand in it's application
My view prevents no one from being beyond the scope of the saving work of Christ! If God has been saving infants in droves apart from them yet knowing who Jesus is, or what sin is, or repentance, or saving faith that is His sovereign will then so be it.
As they grow older and can learn to speak and come to understand life,who they are, who Jesus is, what sin and salvation are, the fruit of the Spirit will be in evidence.
If according to your view I have somehow hindered them by not applying an external covenant sign to them,yet God in His mercy has planned to save them ,they will be saved and in time will come to grow in the grace and knowledge of this great salvation.
On the other hand, your infant if not yet indwelt by the Spirit of God is no closer, or has no advantage to the baptist parents infant

8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Your child must be saved as does mine. The bible nowhere says that Jesus died for the elect[and their children]. Those very same children would have to be a part of the covenant of redemption as the believing parent would. All believers are covenant children given by the Father to Jesus

9But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

10For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

11For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

12Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

13And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.

14Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

15And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

16For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

We are the children of verse 13,14, 16 by virtue of our union with Christ by Spirit Baptism.
There is no universal redemption for all children of believers. If God has designed that many if not most children of believers are also elected to salvation,that is to the praise and glory of His grace alone. All believing parents have a prayerful hope and hearts desire that all their offspring would be saved. All those verses that deal with households, and all the Ot verses speaking of blessings upon our descendants are great blessings.
The fact that the scripture warns about a failure to lay hold of the promise by faith demonstates this very fact.
Yes, I understand where as you might believe that if you follow the Ot paradigm and tell your child they are a covenant child and a partof the church,that they need to improveupon their baptism ,that this is the "door of the house " you refered to the other day. How ever you say it...
they still must be born again to be in the body savingly. External membership does not get them into the assembly described in Heb,12:22-24.
When I explain to my children that we are sinners, and that Jesus came to save sinners. And just because they have the advantage of having believing parents who have prayed for them ,and used the means of grace to set before them the promise of resurrection life.....they still need to deal directly with God for their salvation. That advantage of being in a believing home 1cor7:14 will be a curse to them if they remain in unbelief.
If God saves them they will desire to obey the command to be baptized.
I have Murrays 4 volume set of collected writings. It is this book however,and in particular this chapter on union with Christ that strengthens my view of how to view the covenant of grace/covenant of redemption , continuity/discontinuity teaching. At this point I see the padeo as inconsistent in their theology, although they have a logical system of theology, with Ot support which most RB are in agreement with.[as far as the ot saints were concerned]
I just do not agree that the New Covenant gives us, or instructs us that we are now allowed to be Ot saints...after the cross. That somehow that which was an example, or typical becomes the model for us,rather than the New Covenant actually being new.

Matthew, You are commited to uphold your confession as are all the other Padeo pastors are. I know that. I as a Reformed Baptist, or particular baptist if you would prefer seek for truth in the scripture and am greatly blessed by many of the reformers ,pastors and theologians who have been used of God.
I do not think they are infallable however. I agree when I can clearly see the scriptural evidence and what I believe I could biblically defend.
some of the "good and necessary inference " however,I do not feel commited to.
As great as some of these men were they were only men. No one man has all truth. If most of these men we read were commited to the same confessions and creeds, without questioning them as perhaps the baptists were not quite up to speed on the doctrines of grace at that time, who was around to challenge them on these points without being executed for presenting a baptist view of the covenants.
Coming out of the dark ages, Calvin and some of these men were way too formidable for some believing farmer to engage biblically. With Rome persecuting on one side, and the calvinist reformers on the other , baptists I am sure were hard pressed to take a stand.
So I do not think it should come down to what history book we read, but what saith the scripture.
As always I am thankful for your responses, and although I am not always seeing things quite the same way I find that as i listen to sermonaudio sermons during the week, or reading some of these books i am mindful of our discussions here, and am constsntly trying to re-examine my present understandings.

 

[MW]

My view prevents no one from being beyond the scope of the saving work of Christ! If God has been saving infants in droves apart from them yet knowing who Jesus is, or what sin is, or repentance, or saving faith that is His sovereign will then so be it.

That is good, Anthony, but your previous statement left infants outside of the covenant of grace. That statement was that "credos," that is, antipaedobaptists, "see Spirit baptism being applied to a believing sinner by the Spirit indwelling them first ,,,at new birth. The person being saved by God can never perish, be lost, or outside of the covenant of grace. Water baptism is then a public confession of this God given faith which declares that the person being baptized now in water,has already been placed savingly into the body of Christ. Romans 6:3-17 1cor 12:12,13, 18 , Gal 3." Once you call water baptism a sign of being in the covenant of grace, and then proceed to deny infants the privilege of water baptism, your theology leaves infants outside of the covenant of grace. Again, you might feel the need to reject the conclusion, but the theology undoubtedly requires that specific conclusion.

 

[Peairtach]

I enjoyed while browsing in Louis Berkhof's "Systematic Theology" recently, to read his chapter on "Union with Christ", and to remind myself of my union with Christ. It refreshed my soul.

 

[Casey]

Is union related at all to justification, or is it exclusively the foundation for sanctification? Is there any aspect of FV theology that is somewhat correct dealing with the union/justification link, or is it completely wrong?

Is someone you're reading suggesting that this is an FV position?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

There are some who make the Murray/Gaffin to Shepherd to FV link when it comes to discussing Union with Christ.

 

[Iconoclast]

Matthew,
I see what you are saying,and I think I understand from this and other posts how you understand the relationship of the infant to the covenant.
The different conclusion obviously is because you believe they are "in" the covenant [at least externally] by physical birth as Ot saints were included by virtue of an external sign .That Ot covenant was breakable.
Believing that someone is only "in" the covenant by Spiritual birth and applying an external sign afterward does by its nature seem as if we leave the infants out.
If God has saved them they are "in" without having the external sign just as an adult who believes by God given faith is "in" even before any external sign is administered. the witholding of the external sign would not hinder this,if as I contend Spirit baptism applied at new birth is indeed essential. We do not leave them out as much as we leave them in God's hands. We do not tell themthey are in,or out but that new birth is required.
. If God has designed it to happen this way He would be fine with this process. If not your point would win the day,and I would need to focus on verses dealing with those who have been given an external sign,but never indicate an improvement of their baptism, or any fruit of the Spirit being manifest.
In the Nt the Spirit is said to be the seal. Once given and Spirit baptism put to the persons account,it is not possible that this covenant can be broken.
This view of the COG is the difference essentially in our view,but perhaps that would be another thread.....although possibly we have had a few such threads already.

 

[MW]

The different conclusion obviously is because you believe they are "in" the covenant [at least externally] by physical birth as Ot saints were included by virtue of an external sign .That Ot covenant was breakable.

On this particular subject, as it pertains to union with Christ and salvation, I am not referring to infants being externally in the covenant, but actually saved in the covenant of grace by Christ. The antipaedobaptist "sign" declares that they have no part nor lot in salvation by union with Christ.