I highly recommend Geerhardus Vos' discussion on the vexing issue of the relationship of justification to union with Christ. It is found in Reformed Dogmatics, 631-634, one volume edition. As I'm not sure about the propriety of posting the whole thing I will give some of the more pertinent points.
The main question is stated as follows: "Put more precisely, the question is this: Why does grace work from now on in the sinner from Christ and only in union with Christ?"
Vos immediately seeks "to guard against a great misconception. Many continue to propose that the bond with the Mediator is the legal basis on which God permits His merits to benefit the individual sinner." "Union with Christ is, so it is thought, therefore the indispensable juridical basis for the justification of sinners."
According to Vos "it falsifies the fundamental element of the Christian doctrine of salvation: the element of justification by free imputation. Justification is always and everywhere in Scripture a declaration of God, not on the basis of an actually existing condition of our being righteous, but on the basis of a gracious imputation of God that is contradicted by our condition. While we in ourselves are unrighteous, God’s judgment acquits us. Justification is a paradox. The old theologians, therefore, always rightly stood for the proposition that the sinner is justified ... as sinner, as godless."
He then shows that justification on the basis of union with Christ would be an act of justice, not an act of grace. It would entail God declaring a righteous man to be actually righteous as an act of justice on the basis that he is in Christ. So the New Testament idea of a gratuitous justification will be forfeited. As far as the New Testament is concerned, "justification is an act of grace insofar as it concerns himself, not an act of justice. If, then, we must assume that it occurs on the basis of his actual being in Christ through mystical union, then it could only be a declaration of what really is, a taking note of the actual condition, and the element of grace would be lost."
Wherein lies the error of grounding justification on union with Christ? "It reverses the relationship between grace in the justice of God and grace in the life of the sinner; it makes the former rest on the latter. This cannot be." To explain this. Grace in God undertook to meet His own claims of justice by requiring satisfaction from His Son. Placing this in the sphere of union with Christ removes it to the life of the sinner, so that what happens in the sinner now becomes the basis of what God does for him. At this point, grace is no longer grace; it becomes an act of justice in the sinner himself.
I would commend a study of Rom. 3:23-26 to clarify this important point. Paul clearly locates the act of grace in justification in the objective work of redemption outside the sinner and in what Christ has done for him.
Vos insists, "The mystical union is not the basis on which I appear just before God but a gift that is extended to me from God’s justification." Justification is "logically" prior to union because it forms the forensic basis for the enjoyment of such a gift. Reversing this order only creates problems. "If all the actions of grace following upon the mystical union become mine on the basis of this union, the question must still always be asked: On what basis do I share in the unio mystica with Christ Himself? If it is true that no grace can come to me on the basis of Christ’s merits as long as I am not in Christ, how is it ever possible that I would be implanted in Him?" The hypothesis of a priority of union before justification begs the question as to how a sinner can be united to Christ? Vos is clear: "The legal basis for all grace lies in being reckoned in Christ by the judgment of God." But if union is prior there is no legal basis why God should reckon the sinner as being in Christ.
The fact is, God could have imputed righteousness to us without "effecting a life-union between Christ and believers." Vos observes that this would only have revealed grace to the consciousness. It would not have left an "imprint" on the life of the believer. By ordaining that all grace should flow to us in union with the living Christ, God has provided that the experience of the believer will itself be transformed by all the benefits of Christ, including regeneration, sanctification, and glorification, as well as justification.
It seems to me that Vos is here asserting the necessity of the mystical union, not for the sake of justification, but for the sake of those other benefits which have a real, transformative effect upon us. If this is the case, the "transformationists" are doing themselves a disservice when they insist on the priority of union with Christ. In giving priority to the "real" benefits over the "legal" benefits, they remove their transformative power as "gifts of grace." Meanwhile, Vos has guaranteed justification will not be abused as a gift because it is given in connection with these transformative benefits. As he says, "The legal fellowship reflects itself in a fellowship of destiny. All that the sinner receives flows from the living Christ. The result is that the sinner not only knows as an idea that he will receive everything for Christ’s sake but also experiences in life how everything comes from Christ. He is regenerated, justified, sanctified, glorified, but all this is in the closest bond with the Mediator."
But it comes back to legal priority in order to ensure the gracious nature of the gift. "The receiving of life from Christ reminds at every moment that that life is earned by Christ." This is "the best means of protection against salvation by works."
The main question is stated as follows: "Put more precisely, the question is this: Why does grace work from now on in the sinner from Christ and only in union with Christ?"
Vos immediately seeks "to guard against a great misconception. Many continue to propose that the bond with the Mediator is the legal basis on which God permits His merits to benefit the individual sinner." "Union with Christ is, so it is thought, therefore the indispensable juridical basis for the justification of sinners."
According to Vos "it falsifies the fundamental element of the Christian doctrine of salvation: the element of justification by free imputation. Justification is always and everywhere in Scripture a declaration of God, not on the basis of an actually existing condition of our being righteous, but on the basis of a gracious imputation of God that is contradicted by our condition. While we in ourselves are unrighteous, God’s judgment acquits us. Justification is a paradox. The old theologians, therefore, always rightly stood for the proposition that the sinner is justified ... as sinner, as godless."
He then shows that justification on the basis of union with Christ would be an act of justice, not an act of grace. It would entail God declaring a righteous man to be actually righteous as an act of justice on the basis that he is in Christ. So the New Testament idea of a gratuitous justification will be forfeited. As far as the New Testament is concerned, "justification is an act of grace insofar as it concerns himself, not an act of justice. If, then, we must assume that it occurs on the basis of his actual being in Christ through mystical union, then it could only be a declaration of what really is, a taking note of the actual condition, and the element of grace would be lost."
Wherein lies the error of grounding justification on union with Christ? "It reverses the relationship between grace in the justice of God and grace in the life of the sinner; it makes the former rest on the latter. This cannot be." To explain this. Grace in God undertook to meet His own claims of justice by requiring satisfaction from His Son. Placing this in the sphere of union with Christ removes it to the life of the sinner, so that what happens in the sinner now becomes the basis of what God does for him. At this point, grace is no longer grace; it becomes an act of justice in the sinner himself.
I would commend a study of Rom. 3:23-26 to clarify this important point. Paul clearly locates the act of grace in justification in the objective work of redemption outside the sinner and in what Christ has done for him.
Vos insists, "The mystical union is not the basis on which I appear just before God but a gift that is extended to me from God’s justification." Justification is "logically" prior to union because it forms the forensic basis for the enjoyment of such a gift. Reversing this order only creates problems. "If all the actions of grace following upon the mystical union become mine on the basis of this union, the question must still always be asked: On what basis do I share in the unio mystica with Christ Himself? If it is true that no grace can come to me on the basis of Christ’s merits as long as I am not in Christ, how is it ever possible that I would be implanted in Him?" The hypothesis of a priority of union before justification begs the question as to how a sinner can be united to Christ? Vos is clear: "The legal basis for all grace lies in being reckoned in Christ by the judgment of God." But if union is prior there is no legal basis why God should reckon the sinner as being in Christ.
The fact is, God could have imputed righteousness to us without "effecting a life-union between Christ and believers." Vos observes that this would only have revealed grace to the consciousness. It would not have left an "imprint" on the life of the believer. By ordaining that all grace should flow to us in union with the living Christ, God has provided that the experience of the believer will itself be transformed by all the benefits of Christ, including regeneration, sanctification, and glorification, as well as justification.
It seems to me that Vos is here asserting the necessity of the mystical union, not for the sake of justification, but for the sake of those other benefits which have a real, transformative effect upon us. If this is the case, the "transformationists" are doing themselves a disservice when they insist on the priority of union with Christ. In giving priority to the "real" benefits over the "legal" benefits, they remove their transformative power as "gifts of grace." Meanwhile, Vos has guaranteed justification will not be abused as a gift because it is given in connection with these transformative benefits. As he says, "The legal fellowship reflects itself in a fellowship of destiny. All that the sinner receives flows from the living Christ. The result is that the sinner not only knows as an idea that he will receive everything for Christ’s sake but also experiences in life how everything comes from Christ. He is regenerated, justified, sanctified, glorified, but all this is in the closest bond with the Mediator."
But it comes back to legal priority in order to ensure the gracious nature of the gift. "The receiving of life from Christ reminds at every moment that that life is earned by Christ." This is "the best means of protection against salvation by works."
Last edited:
