Justification and final basis article

[arapahoepark]

Another interesting and controversial article I found. What do you think of his thoughts on Shepherd? Admittedly, I know little other than Frame standing by him (so perhaps it is ambiguous?).
Justification: imputation, and final basis | Thoughts Theological

 

[greenbaggins]

Another interesting and controversial article I found. What do you think of his thoughts on Shepherd? Admittedly, I know little other than Frame standing by him (so perhaps it is ambiguous?).
Justification: imputation, and final basis | Thoughts Theological

The article is definitely heading in a heterodox direction. The classic ploy by men such as him is to pit imputation over against union (to the abandonment of imputation). This is certainly the direction that Michael Bird went (and whom this guy quotes favorably). The reality is that union with Christ is what makes imputation not a legal fiction. It is a marriage union whereby the possession of Christ (namely, His alien righteousness) becomes ours, not only by the declaration, but also by the marriage.

Shepherd's view is entirely wrong and unorthodox. His view of the end-point of justification is completely off-base. The works are the evidence of a genuine faith at the final judgment. The works of believers are what God is going to show the world to prove that we really had been completely justified when we came to faith in Christ. The argument looks like this: A genuine justifying faith will inevitably and always produce good works. Truly good works can come from no other source than genuine justifying faith. So it is just as true to say that justifying faith always produces good works, as it is to say that truly good works will always come from genuine justifying faith. Therefore, these works that the Christians do will be trotted out in front of the disbelieving world as proof that we really were justified. This is what the Westminster Standards means by "openly acquitted."

 

[MW]

Works were, are, and always will be fruits and evidence of justifying faith. A person's gifts cannot be accepted before the person himself is accepted. If the person is a criminal in the eyes of the law an appeal to gifts is seen as bribery and a perversion of justice.

Union with Christ cannot be the "ground" of justification because it would make Christ a minister of sin. The ground in law must be a federal substitution which satisfies the demands of justice. This satisfaction must itself be the "ground" of union with Christ which enables the act of imputation to proceed justly.

 

[greenbaggins]

Works were, are, and always will be fruits and evidence of justifying faith. A person's gifts cannot be accepted before the person himself is accepted. If the person is a criminal in the eyes of the law an appeal to gifts is seen as bribery and a perversion of justice.

Union with Christ cannot be the "ground" of justification because it would make Christ a minister of sin. The ground in law must be a federal substitution which satisfies the demands of justice. This satisfaction must itself be the "ground" of union with Christ which enables the act of imputation to proceed justly.

I agree with your first paragraph completely.

On your second paragraph, I don't see why you are separating the federal substutition from union with Christ. The whole reason why Christ substituted Himself was that He was uniting the church to Himself. I certainly don't see how it is that saying "union with Christ grounds justification" makes Christ a minister of sin. That is, quite frankly, a ridiculous charge, and one that would have to be made against the entire faculty of WTS Philly (see their book Justified in Christ).

 

[timmopussycat]

Works were, are, and always will be fruits and evidence of justifying faith. A person's gifts cannot be accepted before the person himself is accepted. If the person is a criminal in the eyes of the law an appeal to gifts is seen as bribery and a perversion of justice.

Union with Christ cannot be the "ground" of justification because it would make Christ a minister of sin. The ground in law must be a federal substitution which satisfies the demands of justice. This satisfaction must itself be the "ground" of union with Christ which enables the act of imputation to proceed justly.

I agree with your first paragraph completely.

On your second paragraph, I don't see why you are separating the federal substutition from union with Christ. The whole reason why Christ substituted Himself was that He was uniting the church to Himself. I certainly don't see how it is that saying "union with Christ grounds justification" makes Christ a minister of sin. That is, quite frankly, a ridiculous charge, and one that would have to be made against the entire faculty of WTS Philly (see their book Justified in Christ).

Is it MW who is separating federal substitution from union with Christ or is it the FV advocates (as MW understands them)? If the latter, even though the first sentence of MW's second paragraph may be true, I'd like to see a more detailed statement of the reasoning behind it.

 

[MW]

I agree with your first paragraph completely.

If so, then you must agree that something WITHIN a sinner cannot be the ground of justification. Everything about the sinner is condemned by law. The ground of justification must be OUTSIDE the sinner.

On your second paragraph, I don't see why you are separating the federal substutition from union with Christ. The whole reason why Christ substituted Himself was that He was uniting the church to Himself. I certainly don't see how it is that saying "union with Christ grounds justification" makes Christ a minister of sin. That is, quite frankly, a ridiculous charge, and one that would have to be made against the entire faculty of WTS Philly (see their book Justified in Christ).

If it helps one may distinguish federal union (in terms of Larger Catechism 31) from that effectual union which is the result of calling (LC 66). But it is still a fact that the ground of justification is OUTSIDE of the sinner in the work of Christ done FOR him. To ground justification in effectual union is to make justification dependent on something WITHIN the sinner, which only serves to replace the rock of salvation with the sinking sand of fallen humanity.

If union with Christ grounds justification, then there is no law-claim for union with Christ, which means Christ would be effectually uniting with one who is pursued by the law as a sinner. According to law that is aiding and abetting the criminal. The only answer to the objection that justification makes Christ a minister of sin is plainly stated in Gal. 2:19, "I through the law am dead to the law that I might live unto God." The ground of justification must be something that is done outside the sinner to satisfy the punishment of death which the law requires as the due penalty for sin. The effectual union of Gal. 2:20 only follows on the supposition that the man is crucified with Christ and thereby dead to the law. Faith takes the sinner out of himself to Christ. It does not lead him to look within himself for a mystical union to save him.

 

[greenbaggins]

I agree with your first paragraph completely.

If so, then you must agree that something WITHIN a sinner cannot be the ground of justification. Everything about the sinner is condemned by law. The ground of justification must be OUTSIDE the sinner.

On your second paragraph, I don't see why you are separating the federal substutition from union with Christ. The whole reason why Christ substituted Himself was that He was uniting the church to Himself. I certainly don't see how it is that saying "union with Christ grounds justification" makes Christ a minister of sin. That is, quite frankly, a ridiculous charge, and one that would have to be made against the entire faculty of WTS Philly (see their book Justified in Christ).

If it helps one may distinguish federal union (in terms of Larger Catechism 31) from that effectual union which is the result of calling (LC 66). But it is still a fact that the ground of justification is OUTSIDE of the sinner in the work of Christ done FOR him. To ground justification in effectual union is to make justification dependent on something WITHIN the sinner, which only serves to replace the rock of salvation with the sinking sand of fallen humanity.

If union with Christ grounds justification, then there is no law-claim for union with Christ, which means Christ would be effectually uniting with one who is pursued by the law as a sinner. According to law that is aiding and abetting the criminal. The only answer to the objection that justification makes Christ a minister of sin is plainly stated in Gal. 2:19, "I through the law am dead to the law that I might live unto God." The ground of justification must be something that is done outside the sinner to satisfy the punishment of death which the law requires as the due penalty for sin. The effectual union of Gal. 2:20 only follows on the supposition that the man is crucified with Christ and thereby dead to the law. Faith takes the sinner out of himself to Christ. It does not lead him to look within himself for a mystical union to save him.

Let me try to clarify what I mean, because I think the term "ground" can be used in more than one sense. Christ's alien righteousness is what is imputed to us. It originates outside of us. And, it does not go into us at any point in order for us to be justified. I'm sure we agree on that. What I have in mind here is what Calvin talks about at the beginning of book 3 of the Institutes, namely, that Christ and all of His benefits are of no value to us until we are united to Christ.

Second point: union with Christ (which is another way of saying our Spirit-given faith-connection to Jesus Christ) is simultaneous with justification. It does not come before in any temporal sense. I agree with the WTS Philly faculty that union with Christ is the umbrella benefit, inside of which are two types of benefits (duplex gratia): justification-type benefits and sanctification-type benefits, which two types are always distinct, and yet inseparable.

Third point: what I mean by union grounding justification has to do with the charge of legal fiction often leveled at Protestants by the Roman Catholics. How is it that we can say that an alien righteousness imputed to us is not a legal fiction? The answer is that it occurs in the context of union with Christ. Union with Christ is what makes imputation not a legal fiction. The marriage analogy is helpful here. When we become married to Christ, all His vast (alien!) wealth becomes ours by right and title, and all our (equally alien!) sin-debt is taken up by Christ. Hopefully this is a bit clearer.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I was waiting for you to weigh in again Matthew because I could detect a distinction you were trying to make. Just to add a couple of quotes:

The Puritans agreed with Calvin on the necessity of union with Christ. For John Owen (1616–1683), union with Christ is the “principle and measure of all spiritual enjoyments and expectations.”13 He notes moreover that the first spiritual grace is “dignity,” that is, “it is the greatest, most honourable, and glorious of all graces that we are made partakers of.”14 Thomas Goodwin similarly comments that “being in Christ, and united to him, is the fundamental constitution of a Christian.”15 These comments provide insight into how union with Christ relates to justification, adoption, and sanctification.

Beeke, J. R., & Jones, M. (2012). A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (p. 483). Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books.

Dutch theologian Herman Witsius (1636–1708), writing on the Continent in the same period as Owen and Goodwin—his work was a contribution to the British Antinomian and Neonomian debates—takes a similar position concerning the relationship between regeneration and union with Christ. He affirms,

"By a true and real union, (but which is only passive on their part,) [the elect] are united to Christ when his Spirit first takes possession of them, and infuses into them a principle of new life: the beginning of which life can be from nothing else but from union with the Spirit of Christ.… Further, since faith is an act flowing from the principle of spiritual life, it is plain, that in a sound sense, it may be said, an elect person is truly and really united to Christ before actual faith."

Witsius sounds very much like Goodwin and Owen in insisting that the elect are united to Christ when Christ’s Spirit “takes possession of them” and regenerates them. And he likewise affirms that union precedes actual faith. But then he makes a similar point to Goodwin’s, namely, that a “mutual union” inevitably follows from the principle of regeneration:

Beeke, J. R., & Jones, M. (2012). A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (pp. 485–486). Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books.

I think what Lane is getting at is this idea when he uses the word "ground" but I also agree that your distinction is something that we need to remember lest we somehow miss that the reason that we can be united to Christ is grounded in Christ's accomplishment. I'm kind of working through this. Does that make sense to both of you?

 

[MW]

We now have two different terms being used -- the "ground" of justification and the "grounding" of justification.

The former I take to be obedience. The covenant of works required personal obedience and the covenant of grace provides surety obedience. It is this "obedience" which saves justification from being a legal fiction. If union were the "ground" of justification it would be a legal fiction because there would be no actual obedience which meets the demands of the law and requires the verdict of "righteousness." If union were the ground of justification the law itself would be guilty of being a respecter of persons. Christ's righteousness would then only serve to relax the demands of the law.

The latter term, "grounding of justification," merely relates to the appropriation of (making one's own) the benefit offered. This cannot be outside of Christ. It is the office of faith to unite to Christ, but faith does this by looking outside of self to Christ alone. Upon being united to Christ these benefits really and personally are in the possession of the believer. But justification itself is the appropriation of a righteousness which is OUTSIDE the person, so it can never be imputed on the grounds that the person is united to Christ. The union may facilitate the appropriation of the benefit, but the union will never be a proper ground in law for the act of justification itself.

 

[greenbaggins]

We now have two different terms being used -- the "ground" of justification and the "grounding" of justification.

The former I take to be obedience. The covenant of works required personal obedience and the covenant of grace provides surety obedience. It is this "obedience" which saves justification from being a legal fiction. If union were the "ground" of justification it would be a legal fiction because there would be no actual obedience which meets the demands of the law and requires the verdict of "righteousness." If union were the ground of justification the law itself would be guilty of being a respecter of persons. Christ's righteousness would then only serve to relax the demands of the law.

The latter term, "grounding of justification," merely relates to the appropriation of (making one's own) the benefit offered. This cannot be outside of Christ. It is the office of faith to unite to Christ, but faith does this by looking outside of self to Christ alone. Upon being united to Christ these benefits really and personally are in the possession of the believer. But justification itself is the appropriation of a righteousness which is OUTSIDE the person, so it can never be imputed on the grounds that the person is united to Christ. The union may facilitate the appropriation of the benefit, but the union will never be a proper ground in law for the act of justification itself.

I don't think we're really disagreeing here. I don't think I'm saying what you're objecting to. But I'm not sure I can articulate it, to be honest.

 

[MW]

I don't think we're really disagreeing here. I don't think I'm saying what you're objecting to. But I'm not sure I can articulate it, to be honest.

There is definitely a complexity here which is hard to interrelate in brief statements. I should follow Owen's example in granting charity of expression on these things. Sorry if I have failed in this. My main concern was to make sure we don't create a mechanism whereby we have to look into ourselves to find Christ and His benefits.

 

[greenbaggins]

I don't think we're really disagreeing here. I don't think I'm saying what you're objecting to. But I'm not sure I can articulate it, to be honest.

There is definitely a complexity here which is hard to interrelate in brief statements. I should follow Owen's example in granting charity of expression on these things. Sorry if I have failed in this. My main concern was to make sure we don't create a mechanism whereby we have to look into ourselves to find Christ and His benefits.

Preserving an extraspective faith is definitely essential, I certainly agree. I did not intend for anything I have said to jeopardize that. My feeling is that we were addressing different concerns.

 

[timmopussycat]

I agree with your first paragraph completely.

If so, then you must agree that something WITHIN a sinner cannot be the ground of justification. Everything about the sinner is condemned by law. The ground of justification must be OUTSIDE the sinner.

On your second paragraph, I don't see why you are separating the federal substutition from union with Christ. The whole reason why Christ substituted Himself was that He was uniting the church to Himself. I certainly don't see how it is that saying "union with Christ grounds justification" makes Christ a minister of sin. That is, quite frankly, a ridiculous charge, and one that would have to be made against the entire faculty of WTS Philly (see their book Justified in Christ).

If it helps one may distinguish federal union (in terms of Larger Catechism 31) from that effectual union which is the result of calling (LC 66). But it is still a fact that the ground of justification is OUTSIDE of the sinner in the work of Christ done FOR him. To ground justification in effectual union is to make justification dependent on something WITHIN the sinner, which only serves to replace the rock of salvation with the sinking sand of fallen humanity.

If union with Christ grounds justification, then there is no law-claim for union with Christ, which means Christ would be effectually uniting with one who is pursued by the law as a sinner. According to law that is aiding and abetting the criminal. The only answer to the objection that justification makes Christ a minister of sin is plainly stated in Gal. 2:19, "I through the law am dead to the law that I might live unto God." The ground of justification must be something that is done outside the sinner to satisfy the punishment of death which the law requires as the due penalty for sin. The effectual union of Gal. 2:20 only follows on the supposition that the man is crucified with Christ and thereby dead to the law. Faith takes the sinner out of himself to Christ. It does not lead him to look within himself for a mystical union to save him.

Let me try to clarify what I mean, because I think the term "ground" can be used in more than one sense. Christ's alien righteousness is what is imputed to us. It originates outside of us. And, it does not go into us at any point in order for us to be justified. I'm sure we agree on that. What I have in mind here is what Calvin talks about at the beginning of book 3 of the Institutes, namely, that Christ and all of His benefits are of no value to us until we are united to Christ.

Second point: union with Christ (which is another way of saying our Spirit-given faith-connection to Jesus Christ) is simultaneous with justification. It does not come before in any temporal sense. I agree with the WTS Philly faculty that union with Christ is the umbrella benefit, inside of which are two types of benefits (duplex gratia): justification-type benefits and sanctification-type benefits, which two types are always distinct, and yet inseparable.

Third point: what I mean by union grounding justification has to do with the charge of legal fiction often leveled at Protestants by the Roman Catholics. How is it that we can say that an alien righteousness imputed to us is not a legal fiction? The answer is that it occurs in the context of union with Christ. Union with Christ is what makes imputation not a legal fiction. The marriage analogy is helpful here. When we become married to Christ, all His vast (alien!) wealth becomes ours by right and title, and all our (equally alien!) sin-debt is taken up by Christ. Hopefully this is a bit clearer.

Thank you both very much for this helpful expansion and elaboration.

On Lane's third point: would it not be correct to say that when God regenerates a sinner, he simultanously unites with him and justfies him through the application of the death of Christ to pay the penalty for his sins? This would seem to eliminate the problem of having any element of our justification being grounded in any human condition or action, the problem with which MW has pointed out below.

The latter term, "grounding of justification," merely relates to the appropriation of (making one's own) the benefit offered. This cannot be outside of Christ. It is the office of faith to unite to Christ, but faith does this by looking outside of self to Christ alone. Upon being united to Christ these benefits really and personally are in the possession of the believer. But justification itself is the appropriation of a righteousness which is OUTSIDE the person, so it can never be imputed on the grounds that the person is united to Christ. The union may facilitate the appropriation of the benefit, but the union will never be a proper ground in law for the act of justification itself.

 

[MW]

Yes, it is very important to see regeneration and justification are simultaneous, and intricately connected in the divine plan of salvation. At the same time, it is apparent from biblical testimony that they are distinct benefits with different connections to the person and work of Christ. This is brought out well by James Buchanan, Justification, 396-7:

"the Holy Spirit did no part of the work by which our redemption was secured; and it is Christ's work alone, therefore, which is the ground of our Justification. That is said of Christ and His work, in this respect, which is never said of the Spirit and His work. It is said of the Son, — but never of the Spirit, — that He became incarnate, and 'took upon Him the form of a servant, and appeared in the likeness of men,' — that 'He was made under law,' — that He was 'made sin for us,' — that 'He was made a curse for us,' — that 'He bore our sins in His own body on the tree,' — that 'He died for us, the just for the unjust,' — that 'He redeemed us to God by His blood,' — that 'He is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth on His name,' — that 'He obtained eternal redemption for us,' — that 'now once in the end of the world hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself,' — and that 'this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.' From these testimonies it is manifest that a peculiar work is ascribed to Christ which is nowhere ascribed, in whole or in part, to the Holy Spirit; a work which was 'finished' on the Cross, and is different even from that which He is still carrying on in the Church by the agency of His Spirit, and the instrumentality of His Word, — a work which had a direct reference to the expiation of human guilt, and the satisfaction of the law and justice of God, — and a work which constitutes the only, but all-sufficient, ground of our Justification. If that work accomplished the end for which it was designed, no other ground of acceptance is either necessary, or possible; and the work of the Spirit Himself cannot be supposed to supersede, or even to supplement, it, without dishonour to the efficacy of that 'precious blood,' and the merits of that perfect righteousness, by which Christ satisfied the Law and Justice of God.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

As I reflected upon this thread this AM and what Matthew is drawing out, I realized why it's particularly important in a thread that is exploring FV tendencies. I think the very error that Matthew is warning against is at work with FV thinkers, namely a union with Christ of some sort that is not based on the appropriation of Christ and His Work that has occurred outside of the believer. Many FV advocates are fond of arguing (seemingly like the Reformers) that union with Christ is the primary evangelical grace (out of which we receive all the graces of the ordo salutis) but they then conceive of that union in such a way that makes that union very un-Reformed by denying essential aspects of Christ's work that make that union possible.

 

[MW]

Rich, that contrast is helpful. I suppose a consistent test of any teaching is to see what it leads us to focus our faith upon. If union with Christ is taught in such a way that I have to look within myself to find Christ and justification, it is a fair indication that the teaching has lost its biblical bearings.