It seems to me that the main issue at stake in the debate on the place of union in the ordo salutis is the nature of justifying faith.
Some (Shepherd, FV, et al.) are understanding union in a way that others see as undermining the distinction between justifying faith and obedience, justification and sanctification. For them, practically speaking, union is a link in the chain preceding justifying faith. Therefore the faith that justifies is essentially obedient, making faith and obedience logically concurrent. Some have even gone so far as to say that, because of our union with Christ, the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us is redundant.
Others have reacted to that theory, seeing it as undermining crucial distinctions that are central to the gospel. Their understanding is that justifying faith is NOT essentially an obedient faith but is only a trusting (i.e. notitia, assensus, fiducia) in Christ's obedience. This is the historic Protestant tenet sola fide. It is not the character but the object of faith that justifies. The understanding that love is an essential aspect of justifying faith (as is held by Shepherd and the FV) is wholly different from the understanding that love necessarily follows justifying faith (the historic Reformed understanding).
I was thinking about this yesterday and came to a conclusion. If union is an overarching salvation principle and not simply a link in the ordo salutis chain, then we must understand it to have different facets in keeping with each link in the chain; otherwise it loses its overarching character. In other words, simply put, "union" is another way of saying the relationship between God and the sinner at each stage of the application of redemption, a relationship that changes along the way. It has certain characteristics at points that it doesn't have at other points, looking something like this:
Some (Shepherd, FV, et al.) are understanding union in a way that others see as undermining the distinction between justifying faith and obedience, justification and sanctification. For them, practically speaking, union is a link in the chain preceding justifying faith. Therefore the faith that justifies is essentially obedient, making faith and obedience logically concurrent. Some have even gone so far as to say that, because of our union with Christ, the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us is redundant.
Others have reacted to that theory, seeing it as undermining crucial distinctions that are central to the gospel. Their understanding is that justifying faith is NOT essentially an obedient faith but is only a trusting (i.e. notitia, assensus, fiducia) in Christ's obedience. This is the historic Protestant tenet sola fide. It is not the character but the object of faith that justifies. The understanding that love is an essential aspect of justifying faith (as is held by Shepherd and the FV) is wholly different from the understanding that love necessarily follows justifying faith (the historic Reformed understanding).
I was thinking about this yesterday and came to a conclusion. If union is an overarching salvation principle and not simply a link in the ordo salutis chain, then we must understand it to have different facets in keeping with each link in the chain; otherwise it loses its overarching character. In other words, simply put, "union" is another way of saying the relationship between God and the sinner at each stage of the application of redemption, a relationship that changes along the way. It has certain characteristics at points that it doesn't have at other points, looking something like this:
- Effectual Call (union in the sense that God salvifically communicates to us his love for us in Christ, meaning he convicts us of sin so that we die with Christ and then raises us to new life in Christ [i.e. regeneration])
- Saving Faith (union in the sense of trusting in God's love for us in Christ, which is Christ's obedience on our behalf, the gospel)
- Justification (union in the sense of our sins being pardoned and Christ's righteousness being credited to us unto reconciliation with God)
- Adoption (union in the sense of our loving God as obedient children, which is communion with him as our heavenly Father)
- Sanctification (union in the sense of his progressively nourishing, disciplining, and growing us into more conformity with his character, putting indwelling sin to death that we might live unto him)
- Glorification (union in the sense of the consummation of the establishment of God's dwelling place with man forever so that we are purified and no impurity may ever enter again)
Rather than something like this:
- Union (being united to Christ by his Spirit, which includes love for God)
- Saving Faith
- Justification
- Adoption
- Sanctification
- Glorification
Understanding union rightly, as an overarching principle in the ordo salutis, doesn't militate against sola fide. But understanding union as its own link in the chain can create problems.
Is this accurate or have I constructed a straw man?
2 comments:
Seems close to John Murray's understanding. His chapter on union in "Redemption Accomplished and Applied" seemed to say it was not an element of the ordo, but a foundation or overarching principle. I buy that.
I need to go back and read Murray on this again.
Post a Comment