Union With Christ And Justification Sola Fide

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've appreciated this thread. One note is that I think it odd that Gaffin and Tipton implicitly employ a " Calvin vs. the Calvinists" model as if the normative "Reformed" understanding comes from an interpretation of Calvin as the fountainhead. It's not as if later Reformed orthodox formulation "departed" from Calvin, but they seem to employ the model of taking certain comments by Calvin and then either not being aware of or deciding to differ from Federal Theology on this critical component of federal theology.

I think that if we decide what the Presbyterian/Reformed view is, we need to look at post-Reformation Reformed dogmatics and the mature development of Federal theology in the Westminster Standards. Even Irons tends to quote Bavinck or Berkhof instead of focusing on the Puritans themselves. It's not as if there is a substantive difference there, but the real way to understand the Westminster Standards is to look at the Puritans as confessing the mature fruits of the Reformation.

I think you are right about federal theology. The new emphasis on faith-union doesn't fall into place and justification comes out looking like something else.

I've tried to steer clear of the history, especially since Dr. Fesko had to write a whole volume to cover the subject. There are just too many qualifications that need to be made to understand the issue historically.

May I ask precisely what is the "forensic element"?

That is the legal basis for salvation. It is distinguished from the renovative, renewing element in regeneration and sanctification.
 
Yes, federal union precedes both aspects of justification. Obviously Gaffin and Tipton acknowledge this, but they don't seem to me to grasp the fact that this makes the forensic element prior to the real. I say, "seem to me" because I may have missed it. But whether they see it or not it is a reality that must be factored into the conversation. The real benefits are dependent on a prior forensic judgment, which means sanctification is a fruit of justification. It also means that justification "stands alone" as it were as the chief blessing of the gospel. I've been critical of the "justification-only" gospel, and still maintain it is an error; but I have to equally maintain that to diminish the magnitude of justification in the gospel is also an error.
Can you clarify or simplify what you've written here?

I ask because I was also confused by your usage of forensic, specifically in this context.

You seem to place the forensic element as something both prior and subsequent to union with Christ.

Additionally, stating that real benefits are dependent on a prior forensic judgment, and calling sanctification a fruit of justification seems to be different than the Westminster Standards presentation of Justification, communion in grace (WLC 69), and even its definitions of Justification and Sanctification. Where in Scripture and the Standards is this idea?

I think simplifying or clarifying would be helpful!

Thanks in advance!
 
You seem to place the forensic element as something both prior and subsequent to union with Christ.

Our sins were imputed to Christ. He wrought righteousness for us. That is forensic. He wasn't really made a sinner. It was a legal relation He bore in our place. We are united to Christ by faith on the grounds of His work.

Additionally, stating that real benefits are dependent on a prior forensic judgment, and calling sanctification a fruit of justification seems to be different than the Westminster Standards presentation of Justification, communion in grace (WLC 69), and even its definitions of Justification and Sanctification. Where in Scripture and the Standards is this idea?

Romans 5:12-21. V. 19 clearly states, "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." 2 Cor. 5:21, "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

WCF 10.4, "This office the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake, which, that he might discharge, he was made under the law, and did perfectly fulfill it."

WCF 10.5, "The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he through the eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father, and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him."

WCF 11.1, "Those whom God effectually calleth he also freely justifieth; not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous: not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top