Lutheranized version of Reformed theology

[Claudiu]

In a recent article posted here on the PB, William B. Evans says "a Lutheranized version of Reformed theology emanating from people such as Michael Horton at Westminster Seminary in California." What does he mean by this?

 

[Douglas P.]

Horton puts justification prior to union with Christ in the ordo salutis, which is essentially what Lutherans do. Traditional Reformed theology sees all blessing flowing from union with Christ.

Here's (Ordained Servant Online) an article by Richard B. Gaffin Jr. critiquing Horton's position. It's a bit dense but worth a read.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Horton puts justification prior to union with Christ in the ordo salutis, which is essentially what Lutherans do. Traditional Reformed theology sees all blessing flowing from union with Christ.

Huh? I'm reading his Christian Theology and he doesn't argue for justification as prior to union with Christ. He argues for justification being one of the effects/benefits of being united to Christ.

For example, on page 587 he writes: "Union with Christ is not to be understood as a 'moment' in the application of salvation to believers. Rather, it is a way of speaking about the way in which believers share in Christ in eternity (by election), in past history (by redemption), in the present (by effectual calling, justification, and sanctification), and in the future (by glorification)... We will first treat union and then its effects in the following chapters."

Then, at the beginning of his chapter on justification and adoption (the chapter right after the chapter on union with Christ), he writes, "With the wider analogy of union with Christ we may now move through the ordo salutis..."

Anyway, he seems to very clearly and consistently advocate the position you articulate in your second sentence.

 

[Jack K]

I'd just assumed it was Horton's eagerness to say that a believer's sanctification progresses as he better learns to appreciate his justification. Luther liked to say the same thing.

Is there something more to it than that?

 

[Brandon1]

I don't have a quote readily available from Covenant and Salvation, but in that book he posits union being enjoyed as a result of justification.

He wants to move away from mystical and existential union to a forensic, covenantal union which is established in justification. The review of Covenant and Salvation by Gaffin should provide a sense of what Evans is referring to about the "Lutheranizing" tendencies.

 

[Douglas P.]

Horton puts justification prior to union with Christ in the ordo salutis, which is essentially what Lutherans do. Traditional Reformed theology sees all blessing flowing from union with Christ.

Huh? I'm reading his Christian Theology and he doesn't argue for justification as prior to union with Christ. He argues for justification being one of the effects/benefits of being united to Christ.

For example, on page 587 he writes: "Union with Christ is not to be understood as a 'moment' in the application of salvation to believers. Rather, it is a way of speaking about the way in which believers share in Christ in eternity (by election), in past history (by redemption), in the present (by effectual calling, justification, and sanctification), and in the future (by glorification)... We will first treat union and then its effects in the following chapters."

Then, at the beginning of his chapter on justification and adoption (the chapter right after the chapter on union with Christ), he writes, "With the wider analogy of union with Christ we may now move through the ordo salutis..."

Anyway, he seems to very clearly and consistently advocate the position you articulate in your second sentence.

To add to what Brandon1 said;

"justification is not an inert but a living Word, on a par with creation ex nihilo" (Covenant and Salvation: Union with Christ 247, with an appeal to Rom. 4:17 and Ps. 33:6)

"justification should be seen more clearly not merely as ontologically different from inner renewal, but also as the ontological source of that change" (198, italics original)

justification is nonetheless the source of that matrix, "the fountain of union in all of its renewing aspects" (143)

"Regardless of whether union temporally preceded justification, Calvin is clear that the latter is the basis for the former" (147)

At the very least, Horton seems to be quite confusing on the issue.

 

[Brandon1]

Just a point of clarification in my post.

Horton does not want to deny that there is an ontological or existential union. He just places the basis for this union in justification. Some of the quotes above by Mr. Padgett demonstrate that.

 

[SolaScriptura]

To be nuanced, he places the judicial basis for union with Christ in justification.

---------- Post added at 12:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:45 PM ----------

What I find frustrating is that little work seems to be occuring to interpret the whole of what he's said. He states explicitly that justification is a benefit of union with Christ, and that the judicialbasis of union with Christ is justification.

 

[DMcFadden]

The issue of the relationship of law and grace is a hot point for the discussions of "Lutheranized" Reform theology. The third use of the law, the role of imperatives to indicatives, and the charge of antinomianism accompany this discussion.

 

[Douglas P.]

He states explicitly that justification is a benefit of union with Christ, and that the judicialbasis of union with Christ is justification.

How can justification be a benefit of union, while at the same time be the basis of union? Or as Gaffin puts it in his critique "How can justification be the ground of the union of which it is a result?"

 

[SolaScriptura]

He states explicitly that justification is a benefit of union with Christ, and that the judicialbasis of union with Christ is justification.

How can justification be a benefit of union, while at the same time be the basis of union? Or as Gaffin puts it in his critique "How can justification be the ground of the union of which it is a result?"

How about reading Horton to find out?

 

[jogri17]

WLC 69 makes it clear that union produces justification and not sanctification. That being said, The 3 forms of unity to not address this question. So, this is a small area of theology where the Reformed and Presbyterian confessional traditions show a difference. HC&Belgic ends the 1st period of Orthodoxy (out of the 4 in Richard Muller's analysis); but the Westminster Standards were produced in the period of High Orthodoxy. This debate proves the importance in analyzing Reformed thought as a living tradition and not as a stale voice.

CR: Carl Trueman, John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man.p. 6-7.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

WLC 69 makes it clear that union produces justification and not sanctification.

Whaaaaatttttt??????

Q. 69. What is the communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ?
A. The communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ, is their partaking of the virtue of his mediation, in their justification,[SUP]283[/SUP] adoption,[SUP]284[/SUP]sanctification, and whatever else, in this life, manifests their union with him.[SUP]285[/SUP]