Trinity Controversy Omnibus

[Updated 7/8/16]
(*) = Essential Posts.

Earlier today I found myself trying to explain to a friend what has been happening in the Reformed world in terms of the latest discussions regarding the Trinity and the Eternal Functional Subordination of the second person of the Trinity. The trickiest part about explaining it to him was keeping all the different posts straight. In order to help out both myself and anyone else who is either trying to keep up, or get caught up I have compiled (chronologically) this list of links which I believe to be helpful to anyone who is interested. I plan to keep this updated as things progress. This will be an ever evolving post. The earlier entries are articles that have laid the groundwork for where we find ourselves now, and they are certainly relevant. As readers pass along more information and relevant pieces of information I will add them to the timeline, so this list may be worth checking in on periodically.

2004
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, September 2004
"Toward a Biblical Model of the Social Trinity: Avoiding Equivocation of Nature and Order" by J. Scott Horrell
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/47/47-3/47-3-pp399-421_JETS.pdf

2006
Book: Jesus and the Father, by Kevin Giles
https://books.google.com/books?id=ACwJIt_bpn4C

2013
International Journal of Systematic Theology, April 2013
"The Obedience of the Eternal Son" by Scott Swain and Michael Allen
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijst.12009/full

"'Eternally Begotten of the Father' An Analysis of the Second London Confession of Faith’s Doctrine of the Eternal Generation of the Son" by Stefan T. Lindblad
http://s3.amazonaws.com/churchplantmedia-cms/arbca_carlisle_pa/2013-eternal-generation-of-the-son---full.pdf

2015
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society:
*"Eternal Functional Subordination and the Problem of the Divine Will" by D. Glenn Butner, Jr.
https://www.academia.edu/11771377/Eternal_Functional_Subordination_and_the_Problem_of_the_Divine_Will

May 22, 2015
Rachel Miller:
https://adaughterofthereformation.wordpress.com/2015/05/22/continuing-down-this-path-complementarians-lose/

Review of One God in Three Persons by Steve Holmes
http://steverholmes.org.uk/blog/?p=7507

May 31, 2015
Alistair Roberts:
https://alastairadversaria.wordpress.com/2015/05/31/the-eternal-subordination-of-the-son-social-trinitarianism-and-ectypal-theology/

June 1, 2015
Response to Holmes' Review by Fred Sanders
http://scriptoriumdaily.com/generations-eternal-and-current/

May 28, 2015
Rachel Miller:
https://adaughterofthereformation.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/does-the-son-eternally-submit-to-the-authority-of-the-father/

June 3, 2016
*Liam Goligher:
http://www.mortificationofspin.org/mos/housewife-theologian/is-it-okay-to-teach-a-complementarianism-based-on-eternal-subordination#.V1syV_krIuU

June 6, 2016
*Liam Goligher:
http://www.mortificationofspin.org/mos/housewife-theologian/reinventing-god#.V1syRfkrIuV

June 7, 2016
*Carl Trueman:
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/fahrenheit-381

June 8, 2016
Michael Bird:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/06/the-coming-war-nicene-complementarians-vs-homoian-complementarians/

June 9, 2016
*Bruce Ware's Response:
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/god-the-sonat-once-eternally-g.php

*Carl Trueman's Rejoinder to Ware:
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/a-surrejoinder-to-bruce-ware

*Wayne Grudem's Response:
http://cbmw.org/public-square/whose-position-on-the-trinity-is-really-new/

Carl Trueman's Rejoinder to Grudem:
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/a-rejoinder-to-wayne-grudem

Mark Thompson:
http://markdthompson.blogspot.com.au/2016/06/ers-is-there-order-in-trinity.html

Michael Bird:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/06/more-on-the-calvinist-complementarian-divide-on-the-trinity/

*Denny Burke:
http://www.dennyburk.com/a-brief-response-to-trueman-and-goligher/

Jeff Waddington:
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/some-thoughts-on-the-current-c.php

June 10, 2016
John Calvin/Carl Trueman:
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/a-guest-post

Mark Jones:
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/1517/why-did-the-son-become-incarnate-because-he-submitted#.V1roHfkrIuU

Darren Sumner (for a Barthian's perspective):
https://theologyoutofbounds.wordpress.com/2016/06/10/some-observations-on-the-eternal-functional-subordination-debate/

*Mike Ovey:
http://oakhill2.ablette.net/blog/entry/should_i_resign/

Scott McKnight
(read the comments section, especially for interaction between Alistair Roberts and McKnight):
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/06/10/the-battle-rumbles-along/

June 11, 2016
Mark Jones:
http://newcitytimes.com/news/story/gods-will-and-eternal-submission-part-one

Steve Hays:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/06/fahrenheit-381.html

*Donald Macleod:
http://www.donaldmacleod.org.uk/dm/subordinationism-out-of-the-blue/

June 12, 2016
Michael Bird:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/06/even-more-on-the-complementarian-calvinism-debate-on-the-trinity/

Steve Hays:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/06/gender-and-trinity.html

June 13, 2016
*Michael Bird/Michel Barnes:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/06/patristics-scholar-michel-r-barnes-weighs-in-on-the-intra-complementarian-debate-on-the-trinity/

*Michael Bird/Lewis Ayres:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/06/patristics-scholar-lewis-ayres-weighs-in-on-the-intra-complementarian-debate/

Todd Pruitt (Reflecting on Barnes/Ayres):
http://www.mortificationofspin.org/mos/1517/barnes-and-ayers-weigh-in#.V16rRPkrIuU

Andrew Wilson (a nice article summarizing the issues):
http://thinktheology.co.uk/blog/article/submission_in_the_trinity_a_quick_guide_to_the_debate

Owen Strachan:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thoughtlife/2016/06/the-glorious-godhead-and-proto-arian-bulls/

Aimee Byrd:
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/housewife-theologian/a-plea-to-cbmw

Derek Rishmawy:
https://derekzrishmawy.com/2016/06/13/on-trinitarian-controversy-why-its-not-always-terrible-and-how-to-go-about-it/

Denny Burke:
http://www.dennyburk.com/the-obedience-of-the-eternal-son/

*D. Glenn Butner, Jr.:
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/eternal-submission-and-the-sto.php

Fred Sanders:
http://scriptoriumdaily.com/18-theses-on-the-father-and-the-son/

Mark Jones:
http://newcitytimes.com/news/story/eternal-subordination-of-wills-nein

June 14:
*Liam Goligher Responding to Mike Ovey:
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/housewife-theologian/dr-liam-goligher-responds-to-dr-mike-ovey

Carl Trueman:
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/motivated-by-feminism-a-response-to-a-recent-criticism#.V2C6ZvkrIuU

Paul Helm/B.B. Warfield:
http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2016/06/warfield-on-trinity.html

Mike Ovey:
http://www.credomag.com/2016/06/14/can-michael-bird-read-my-mind-alas-it-seems-not-mike-ovey/

Mark Jones:
http://newcitytimes.com/news/story/biblicism-socinianism-and-arid-scholasticism

June 15:
Alistair Roberts:
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/the-eternal-subordination-of-t.php

Andrew Moody:
https://australia.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-ordered-godhead-1

Michael Bird (response to Fred Sanders):
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/06/fred-sanderss-18-theses-on-the-father-and-the-son/

Mark Jones:
https://calvinistinternational.com/2016/06/15/propositions-questions-fred-sanders-trinity/

June 16:
Darren Sumner:
https://theologyoutofbounds.wordpress.com/2016/06/16/what-is-the-immanent-trinity-a-clarification-for-the-eternal-subordination-debate/

Caleb Lindgren (Christianity Today):
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/june-web-only/gender-trinity-proxy-war-civil-war-eternal-subordination.html

Matthew Barrett:
http://www.credomag.com/2016/06/16/better-late-than-never-the-covenant-of-redemption-and-the-trinity-debates-matthew-barrett/

John Stevens:
http://www.john-stevens.com/2016/06/are-we-all-heretics-now-reflections-on.html?m=1

June 17:
Mike Riccardi:
http://thecripplegate.com/making-sense-of-the-trinity-efs-debate/

Alistair Roberts:
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/the-eternal-subordination-of-t-1.php

Mark Jones:
http://newcitytimes.com/news/story/subordination-in-the-pactum-and-the-irony-of-ess

June 18:
Keith Johnson:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/is-the-eternal-generation-of-the-son-a-biblical-idea

June 20:
Andrew Moody:
https://australia.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-ordered-godhead-2

Wayne Grudem:
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/another-thirteen-evangelical-t.php

Owen Strachan:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thoughtlife/2016/06/wayne-grudem-critiques-liam-golighers-historical-theology/

Mark Jones:
http://newcitytimes.com/news/story/wayne-grudems-historical-theology

Liam Goligher:
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/housewife-theologian/a-letter-to-professors-grudem-and-ware#.V2mJ-1d8XzI

June 21:
Carl Trueman:
http://www.mortificationofspin.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/once-more-unto-the-breach-and-then-no-more-a-final-reply-to-dr-grude

Michael Bird:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/06/update-on-the-complementarian-trinity-debate/

Luke Isham:
http://thinkingofgod.org/2016/06/subordination-dust-observations-complementarian/

June 22:
Wyatt Graham:
http://thecripplegate.com/the-complementarian-trinity-debate-a-summary-of-its-beginning/#more-88886

June 23:
Christopher Cleveland:
https://mereorthodoxy.com/trinitarian-controversy-inevitable/

Mark Baddeley:
https://australia.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-ordered-godhead-3

June 24:
Christ the Center Roundtable Discussion of the Trinity Controversy:
http://reformedforum.org/ctc445/

Jamin Hübner:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/06/24/subordinationism-some-major-questions/

Carl Trueman:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2016/06/the-ecumenical-consequences-of-the-peace

June 25:
Matthew Crawford:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/06/matthew-crawford-clarifying-nicene-trinitarianism-with-cyril-of-alexandria/

June 28:
Albert Mohler:
http://www.albertmohler.com/2016/06/28/heresy/

Carl Trueman (response to Mohler):
http://www.mortificationofspin.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/a-reply-to-dr-mohler-on-nicene-trinitarianism#.V3NPtbgrIuW

Ian Hamilton:
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/the-trinitarian-debate-some-re.php

Liam Goligher:
http://www.mortificationofspin.org/mos/housewife-theologian/on-the-word-heresy#.V3ULa7grIuV

June 29:
Bobby Grow:
https://growrag.wordpress.com/2016/06/30/maximus-the-confessors-response-to-the-efs-in-the-trinity/

June 30:
Matt Emerson:
https://secundumscripturas.com/2016/06/30/an-attempt-to-arbitrate-the-trinity-debate/

July 1:
Lewis Ayres:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/07/lewis-ayres-on-the-meaning-of-nicene-orthodoxy/

July 4:
Bruce Ware:
https://secundumscripturas.com/2016/07/04/knowing-the-self-revealed-god-who-is-father-son-and-holy-spirit/

July 5:
Mark Jones:
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/a-fulfilled-prophecy-and-another-guest-post-from-mark-jones#.V3xvZbgrIuU

Liam Goligher:
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/housewife-theologian/we-cannot-but-speak#.V3xvTrgrIuU

July 6: 
Mark Baddeley:
https://australia.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-ordered-godhead-5

Andrew Wilson:
http://thinktheology.co.uk/blog/article/complementarianism_in_crisis

July 7:
Todd Pruitt:
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/1517/lets-all-be-nicene#.V35Rq6JQSvR

Darren Sumner:
https://theologyoutofbounds.wordpress.com/2016/07/07/the-heart-of-the-matter-for-eternal-subordination/

July 8:
Bruce Ware:
https://secundumscripturas.com/2016/07/08/an-open-letter-to-liam-goligher-carl-trueman-and-todd-pruitt-ontrinitarian-equality-and-distinctions-guest-post-by-bruce-ware/

Best Christological Hymn Of All Time

In his Pillar New Testament Commentary on the Gospel of John, D.A. Carson includes the following hymn at the close of his discussion of John's prologue (1:1-18). I've never heard this hymn before and so am grateful that he chose to include it.

Thou art the everlasting Word,
The Father's only Son;
God manifestly seen and heard,
And Heaven's beloved one.
Worthy, O Lamb of God, art Thou
That every knee to Thee should bow.

In Thee most perfectly expressed
The Father's glories shine;
Of the full Deity possessed,
Eternally divine:
Worthy, O Lamb of God, art Thou
That every knee to Thee should bow.

True image of the Infinite,
Whose essence is concealed;
Brightness of uncreated light;
The heart of God revealed
Worthy, O Lamb of God, art Thou
That every knee to Thee should bow.

But the high mysteries of Thy name
An angel's grasp transcend;
The Father's only - glorious claim! -
The Son can comprehend
Worthy, O Lamb of God, art Thou
That every knee to Thee should bow.

Throughout the universe of bliss,
The center Thou, and sun;
The eternal theme of praise is this,
The Heaven's beloved One:
Worthy, O Lamb of God, art Thou
That every knee to Thee should bow.

Josiah Condor (1789-1855)

The Spectrum of Christological Heresies

Denying Christ's Divinity	Ebionitism
	Subordinationism
	Adoptionism
	Arianism/Semi-Arianism
Denying Christ's Humanity	Docetism/Gnosticism
	Apollinarianism
	Monothelitism
Confusing the Two Natures	Monophysitism/Eutychianism
Dividing the Two Natures	Nestorianism

[Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology Page 475]

Jesus in Every Book of the Bible

King and Servant Show 27

Jonathan discusses the hypostatic union and how this profound truth serves as a model for Christian humility.

For Whom Did Christ Die: Three Views

Michael Bird has a series of interviews on his blog that attempt to answer the question, for whom did Christ die. The three views represented in this series are: Arminianism (Ben Witherington), Amyraldianism (Michael Jensen) and Calvinism (Paul Helm). These short concise answers are helpful to give an introduction to the three main way Christians have atepted to answer this question. As most of our readers will know, the bloggers here at Bring the Books believe that the Calvinist view of the atonement best articulates the teaching of the Bible, as a whole. I would commend these posts for your reading.

The Abiding Presence of Christ

The Ligonier blog has a new post up by R.C. Sproul titled, "The Presence of Christ." This short post is a helpful reminder that Christ is always with his bride even though he is at the right hand of God the father. The articles opening paragraph (below) has a useful way of explain this.

"The Heidelberg Catechism states, in the answer to Question 47, "Christ is true man and true God. With respect to His human nature He is no longer on earth, but with respect to His divinity, majesty, grace, and Spirit He is never absent from us." This statement tried to do justice to Jesus' own teaching before He left this planet. On the one hand, Jesus said, "I shall be with you a little while longer, and then I go to Him who sent Me" (John 7:33). On the other hand, He said, "Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matt. 28:20b). Jesus announced a real departure and also a real abiding. Therefore, historic Reformed theology says Jesus has departed in His human nature. His human nature is at the right hand of God in heaven, and we won't see that human nature again until He returns or until we go there. But in respect to His divine nature, Christ is still present with us."

Type of Christ Alert! Gran Torino

It may seem pretty obvious to anyone who's seen Gran Torino that Walt (played by Clint Eastwood) is a type of Christ (*spoiler alert*), what with his personal sacrifice and laying down his life so that his neighbors could live. But Josh Walker just pointed out to me the other day something a little more insightful.

According to Josh, not only is Walt a type of Christ, but Walt's prized 1972 Gran Torino Sport is a type of salvation. Consider that early in the film Thao tries to steal the car by his own effort. By his own work, he wants to bypass Walt and take the car for himself. But he can't. The only way for Thao to really receive the car without getting simple charity is for Walt to die. Even then Thao receives the car as a gift; not because he deserved it (indeed, he tried to steal it!), but because Walt was pleased to leave the car to him.

Another point which Walker made me aware of was that Walt left behind a "comforter" of sorts by leaving his dog to remain friends with Thao and remind him of his presence. At the end of the film we see Thao driving off in this car, with his new comforter, Daisy the dog, in the passenger seat.

Counting Heads

It is often argued that since so many Christian throughout the history of the Church have disagreed on the relationship between divine sovereignty and human responsibility, then five point Calvinism and full Arminianism must both be wrong. This sentiment has recently been set forth by noted New Testament scholar Dr. Craig Blomberg in his article titled "Why I'm a 'Calminian'," on the Zondervan Blog, in these following words.

"If either pure five-point Calvinism or its consistent repudiation in pure Arminianism were completely faithful to Scripture, it is doubtful that so many Bible-believing, godly evangelical Christians would have wound up on each side. The former wants to preserve the Scriptural emphasis on divine sovereignty; the latter, on human freedom and responsibility. Both are right in what they want and correct to observe in Scripture the theme that they stress."

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it fails to take into account that Christians can be and often are wrong about their theology. A notable example of this is the controversy over the deity of Christ in the early part of the Church. Athanasius stood for the biblical teaching of the deity of Christ, even in the face of great resistance. Athanasius Contra Mundum, Athanasius against the world was his take on his situation. If Athanasius used the above line of reasoning he would have said, "Well, so many godly men believe that Christ is not divine, so I must be wrong." But he did not use this reasoning and neither do we on the issue of the deity of Christ.

Even in our own day there are many who are far more pious than I who believe that Jesus is a created being or who hold that Jesus was adopted as the son of God. But we do not do theology by counting heads. Rather, we do theology by rigorous and thorough exegesis. I am sure that Dr. Blomberg would agree with this point even though he begins his article with this less than persuasive line of reasoning. The issue over Calvinism and Arminianism is fought on the pages of the sacred Bible and not in the halls of higher thinking.

Why Did Jesus Have To Die?

Typical Baptism and the Baptism of Jesus

I had the privilege to teach a Bible study on 1 Peter 3:18-22 and Matthew 3 on Baptism at New Covenant Presbyterian Church for Nick Batzig. The audio of the lesson can be found here. I have been interning with Rev. Batzig for almost a week now. I have really enjoyed my time and learned tons. Thanks Nick!

Jonathan Edwards learned it, John Piper learned it, and so did John Owen

I couldn't help but be reminded of Jonathan Edwards' famous sermon on Divine Light while reading John Owen today. John Owen writes:

Moreover, be not contented to have right notions of the love of Christ in your minds unless you can attain a gracious taste of it in your hearts; no more than you would be to see a feast or banquet richly prepared and not partake of it for your refreshment. It is of that nature that we may have a spiritual sensation of it in our minds; whence it is compared by the Spouse to apples and flagons of wine. We may taste that the Lord is gracious; and if we find nor a relish of it in our hearts, we shall not long retain the notion of it in our minds. Christ is the meat, the bread, the food of our souls. Nothing in Him is of a higher spiritual nourishment than His love, which we should always desire.

In this love He is glorious; for it is such as no creatures, angels or men, could have the least conception of, before its manifestation by its effects; and, after its manifestation, it is in this world absolutely incomprehensible. (1:338)

Jonathan Edwards 50 years later would write:

Thus there is a difference between having an opinion, that God is holy and gracious, and having a sense of the loveliness and beauty of that holiness and grace. There is a difference between having a rational judgment that honey is sweet, and having a sense of its sweetness. A man may have the former, that knows not how honey tastes; but a man cannot have the latter unless he has an idea of the taste of honey in his mind. So there is a difference between believing that a person is beautiful, and having a sense of his beauty. The former may be obtained by hearsay, but the latter only by seeing the countenance. There is a wide difference between mere speculative rational judging any thing to be excellent, and having a sense of its sweetness and beauty. The former rests only in the head, speculation only is concerned in it; but the heart is concerned in the latter. When the heart is sensible of the beauty and amiableness of a thing, it necessarily feels pleasure in the apprehension. It is implied in a person's being heartily sensible of the loveliness of a thing, that the idea of it is sweet and pleasant to his soul; which is a far different thing from having a rational opinion that it is excellent.

Christ is Everything!

Batzig Top 15

A good friend of mine, Nick Batzig, posted a top 15 list of books on the cross and left out the greatest single book (outside the Bible) on the cross. Head over to his post and see if you can figure out what book he left out.

The Unio Mystica and the Duplex Gratia in the Soteriology of John Calvin

This is part one of a series of posts on Calvin's theology of union with Christ and it's relationship to the two-fold grace of justification and sanctification. I have not forgotten the posts on the Mosaic Covenant, but they will have to wait until this paper is done. These are posts are only drafts of my paper, and thus any feedback would be encouraged.

Introduction
No one reading John Calvin’s theological treatises can read him without seeing the absolute necessity of both justification and sanctification (or typically “regeneration” in Calvin’s language) in the Christian’s life.[1] However, the question of how these two soteric blessings of the ordo salutis[2] relate to one another has not only been an area of disagreement between Christian theologians (e.g. Catholic vs. Protestant) but even among those seeking to discern Calvin’s own position. Although most Calvin historians have generally agreed upon the importance of both the forensic (e.g. justification) and transformative (e.g. sanctification/regeneration) aspects of redemption in Calvin’s theology, Calvin scholars have disagreed on how justification and sanctification relate both to each other and how these two benefits relate to Calvin’s doctrine of union with Christ.[3] Thus Cornelis Venema writes, “Perhaps the single most controversial question, however, in the interpretation of the “twofold grace of God” [i.e justification and sanctification] is that of the relation between justification and sanctification.”[4]

In what way does sanctification relates to justification and in what manner does justification and sanctification relate to Calvin’s theology of participation into Christ? These are the primary questions this paper seeks to address. Consequently, I will seek to place Calvin’s doctrine of sanctification and justification in proper perspective to the unio mystica as well as inquiring into the nature of the relationship justification and sanctification in Calvin’s soteriology. In this paper, I will argue that Calvin’s ordo salutis, or application of redemption, cannot be properly understood without first recognizing the architectonic principle of the unio mystica as the means of the believer’s receiving Christ and subsequently the principal grace of justification and sanctification. Secondly, I will argue that for Calvin, justification does not have some sort of “power” to bring about sanctification in the believer; rather, only through our union with Christ’s person and work can a person be sanctified. In fact, without first properly understanding how justification and sanctification relate to the unio mystica, the subsequent question of the two benefits relationship to one another, cannot be properly answered. To put it as bluntly as possible, if you misunderstand the duplex gratia’s (the two-fold grace of justification and sanctification) relationship to the unio mystica, you will inevitably misunderstand the relationship that justification and sanctification have to one another in Calvin’s thought.[5] In other words, Calvin’s ordo salutis cannot be understood without recognizing how it relates to the historia salutis.[6]

The Unio Mystica in Calvin’s Theology
Princeton seminary professor David Willis once wrote:
Calvin’s doctrine of the union with Christ is one of the most consistently influential features of his theology and ethics, if not indeed the single most important teaching which animates the whole of his thought and his personal life.[7]

Other Calvin scholars have also recognized the important role union with Christ plays in Calvin’s theology.[8] Calvin himself testifies to this importance explicitly when he writes in the Institutes, “That joining together of Head and members, that indwelling of Christ in our hearts—in short, that mystical union [unio mystica]—are accorded by us the highest degree of importance, so that Christ, having been made ours, makes us sharers with him in the gifts with which he has been endowed.”[9] As we shall see, the way that the unio mystica functions in Calvin’s soteriology explains to a large degree the nature of the union. This is a point that seems to be overlooked by those who claim that some Calvin scholars have overemphasized Calvin’s doctrine of union with Christ.[10] The importance that Calvin places with respect to the believer’s union with Christ cannot be overemphasized; rather it is of the “highest degree of importance.”

In seeking to understand the nature of this unio mystica, we must first discern its function in Calvin’s theology. In book three of the Institutes entitled, “The Way in Which We Receive the Grace of Christ: What Benefits Come to Us from It, and What Effects Follow”, Calvin suggests at the outset that “First, we must understand that as long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us.”[11] In other words, Calvin would have the believer understand that it is not enough for Christ to have accomplished salvation pro nobis (for us) in redemptive history. Although according to Calvin “we steadfastly hold that in Christ’s death and resurrection there is righteousness and life for us” if Christ remains extra nos or outside ourselves, what Christ did in the cross and resurrection is of no value to us.[12] We may put it in these terms: What God accomplished by Christ’s death and resurrection (historia salutis) is useless to man (ordo salutis) if Christ remains extra nos. The question that book three of the Institutes proposes can be states thus: What is the relationship between the historia salutis or the history of redemption and the ordo salutis or applied redemption. For Calvin it is clear, the only way one can receive the benefits of Jesus’ death and resurrection is through our being made partakers of Christ’s body and blood which is nothing else but the unio mystica. Calvin forcefully puts it this way, “And indeed, I do not see how anyone can trust that he has redemption and righteousness in the cross of Christ, and life in his death, unless he relies chiefly upon a true participation in Christ himself. For those benefits would not come to us unless Christ first made himself ours.”[13]

At this point is should be clear enough—Calvin believes union, participation, or partaking of Christ, in short the unio mystica, is logically prior to the Christian’s reception of the benefits of redemption. The unio mystica is the bond which connects the Christ pro nobis to the Christ in nobis. Note as well that this logic cannot be reversed. Participation in Christ is not the result of the benefits of redemption but rather it is the means of receiving the benefits of “righteousness” and “life.” For Calvin, there is no salvation for the Christian without the unio mystica. The reason seems quite evident, namely, the Gospel’s substance is Christ’s person and work. The effects of partaking in the substance of Christ’s person are “redemption, righteousness, sanctification, and eternal life, and all the other benefits Christ gives to us.”[14] The fine Calvin scholar, Francois Wendel, summarizes this point well when he writes,

[According to Calvin] No doubt Christ, by his death, has obtained for us the possibility of effectually receiving the benefits that God intended for us, but this, according to Calvin, is as yet no more than a kind of potential grace, which man, while he is a sinner and therefore separated from Christ and a stranger to him, cannot receive automatically. The benefits that the Christ won on our account do not remain abstractions. Contact with God can be established only on the personal plane and by the inter-mediation of Christ. It is therefore indispensable for us to begin by entering into relations with Christ…[15]

Now that the function of the unio mystica has been explicated, one is now able to discern its nature.[16] In letter correspondence between Calvin and the Italian Reformer Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499-1562) during March and August of 1555, Calvin affirms Vermigli’s distinction of three types of union with Christ.[17] The first type of union is a “very general and feeble” incarnational union.[18] Calvin in response to Vermigli affirms this type of union with no further comment when he writes, “that the Son of God put on our flesh in order that he may become our Brother, partaker of the same nature…” although it is not his intention to discuss this type of union any more in his letter to Vermigli, suggesting its generality and “feebleness.”[19] This incarnational union, however, is important to take note insofar as it is the ground of the subsequent communion the believer has with Christ. Although all men without exception participate in Christ’s flesh in this “incarnational” manner, it is not until the “moment we receive Christ by faith as he offers himself in the Gospel, [becoming] truly members in his body,” that Christ’s person and work becomes effectual in the believer.[20]

This definitive, that is immutable, second intermediate or mystical union, thus grounds the “life” which “flows from him [Christ] as from the head.”[21] This, flowing of Christ’s life into the believer, is something that occurs subsequent to this “intermediate union” and is ongoing in the life of the believer. This succeeding third union with Christ can thus be termed a “Spiritual union.” It is Spiritual because it is through the Spirit of Christ that we commune with Christ’s person in heaven. Both this intermediate (mystical union) and subsequent ongoing participation in Christ (Spiritual union) is described variously in Calvin’s writings as the relationship between the head and its members[22], a husband and wife[23], the corner-stone and subsequent stones built upon the chief corner-stone[24], the first-born among many brethren[25], and the vine and branches[26]. All of these metaphors point to both the definitiveness of this union with Christ that believers have by faith (mystical union) and the subsequent participation (Spiritual union) they have in Christ’s person and work.

In short, the nature of this unio mystica (including both the mystical and Spiritual union, see footnote 16) can be summarized as that Spirit-wrought ingrafting into Christ by faith, grounded in the union which the believer has in the flesh with Christ, whereby all of the benefits of Christ’s person and work are communicated to the believer, resulting in an ongoing fellowship and communion with Christ who is in heaven.[27] Calvin would more than likely add that this unio mystica is a profound mystery which on the one hand ought to be marveled rather than inquired into more deeply, and on the other hand ought to be sought after for the sake of “feel[ing] Christ living in us.”[28]


[1] It ought to be granted that “the Reformers all but universally agreed that conversion brings both justification and sanctification” A. N. S. Lane “Twofold Righteousness: A Key to the Doctrine of Justification?” in ed. Mark Husbands and Daniel J. Treier, Justification: What’s at Stake in the Current Debates (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 216. Note as well Ronald S. Wallace’s very chapter structure (Chapters 1-3) at the beginning of his book Calvin’s Doctrine of the Christian Life (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock,1997).
[2] The term ordo salutis can and has been used in various ways. I will be using it in its broader sense as synonymous with applied redemption as opposed to its more narrow sense of the logical or sometimes even temporal logic of the individual blessings of applied soteriology (e.g. regeneration, adoption, justification, sanctification, glorification)
[3] E.g. some have argued for a relative priority of justification as it relates not only to the transformative benefit of sanctification but also to union with Christ itself. Michael S. Horton argues this very thing in his book Covenant and Salvation: Union with Christ (Louisville/London: Westminster John Knox, 2007). Horton writes, "Regardless of whether union temporally preceded justification, Calvin is clear that the latter is the basis for the former" (pg. 143) Cf. J. V. Fesko in Justification: Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2008) where he writes, “[For Calvin], justification, not union with Christ, is the foundation upon which the believer’s salvation is established.” (pg. 279) Suffice it to say, I think this view of Calvin is a Lutheranizing of Calvin instead of a proper understanding of Calvin.
[4] Cornelis Venema, Accepted and Renewed in Christ: The "Twofold Grace of God" and the Interpretation of Calvin's Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 23.
[5] I would suggest that most of the problems in Calvin studies related to the issue of the relationship between justification and sanctification occur because of a defective view of the role of the unio mystica in Calvin’s theology.
[6] The term historia salutis, first coined as far as I can tell from the Dutch Reformed scholar Herman Ridderbos, refers to the history of redemption or redemption accomplished in contrast to the ordo salutis or redemption applied. Thus, Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection would be considered historia salutis whereas the believer’s appropriation by faith of Christ’s person and atoning work would refer to ordo salutis.
[7] Quoted in W. Duncan Rankin’s article “Calvin’s Correspondence on our Threefold Union with Christ” in ed. Robert L. Penny, The Hope Fulfilled: Essays in Honor of O. Palmer Robertson (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2008), 233.
[8] See for example Mark A. Garcia, Life in Christ: Union with Christ and Twofold Grace in Calvin’s Theology, Studies in Christian History and Thought (Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2008); Marcus Peter Johnson, “Eating by Believing: Union with Christ in the Soteriology of John Calvin” (PhD diss., University of St. Michael’s College, 2007); Wallace, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Christian Life, where the whole book is structured around the believer’s union with Christ as the ground of the Christian life (see particularly pages 17-27).
[9] Calvin, Institutes, 3.11.10.
[10] This opinion has been supported particularly by Thomas Wenger, "The New Perspective on Calvin: Responding to Recent Calvin Interpretations," JETS 50/2 (2007): 311-28.
[11] Calvin, Institutes, 3.1.1.
[12] Calvin, Institutes, 3.11.12.
[13] Calvin, Institutes, 4.17.11.
[14] Calvin, Institutes, 4.17.11.
[15] Francois Wendel, Calvin: Origins and Development in His Religious Thought (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1963) 234. Italics added.
[16] Calvin does not often delineate between “mystical union” and “spiritual union”. These are often used as synonyms. However, Calvin does distinguish the two in the letter correspondence with Vermigli which is discussed in this paper. Thus, after discussing this letter, I will not continue differentiating the two unless noted.
[17] In the foregoing discussion of the letter correspondence between Vermigli and Calvin, I follow very closely the discussion in Rankin, “Calvin’s Correspondence”, 232-250; Garcia, Life in Christ, 273-287; B.A. Gerrish, Grace and Gratitude: The Eucharistic Theology of John Calvin (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 1993) 128-129. Because of the deficient English translations of the letter (cf. Rankin, “Calvin’s Correspondence”, 236), I will be quoting from Rankin’s, Garcia’s, and Gerrish’s English translations from the original Latin works.
[18] This is Vermigli’s language found in Garcia, Life in Christ, 281.
[19] Calvin quoted in Garcia, Life in Christ, 284.
[20] Calvin quoted in Gerrish, Grace and Gratitude, 128.
[21] Ibid. 128.
[22] Calvin, Institutes, 3.1.1, 3.1.3; John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians, trans. William Pringle, in Calvin’s Commentaries Vol. XXI (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 286-287.
[23] Calvin, Institutes, 3.1.3, 2.8.18; Calvin, Galatians and Ephesians, 318; John Calvin, A Sermon of M. Iohn Caluine vpon the Epistle of Saint Paul, to Titus, trans. L.T, (London: G. Bishop and T. Woodcoke, 1579) n.p, http://www.covenanter.org/JCalvin/titussermons/srmtts11.htm, accessed Tuesday, ‎April ‎14, ‎2009.
[24] Calvin, Institutes, 3.15.5; Calvin, Galatians and Ephesians, 245.
[25] Calvin, Institutes, 3.1.1, 3.1.3; John Calvin, Epistle of Paul to the Romans, trans. Henry Beveridge, in Calvin’s Commentaries Vol. XIX (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 318.
[26] John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John, trans. William Pringle, in Calvin’s Commentaries Vol. XVIII (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 106-107.
[27] I did not have time to emphasize the role of the Holy Spirit and faith in the unio mystica. See Garcia, Life in Christ, 163-165, and William B. Evans, Imputation and Impartation: Union with Christ in American Reformed Theology, Studies in Christian History and Thought (Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2008) 14-16.
[28] Calvin, Galatians and Ephesians, “For my own part, I am overwhelmed by the depth of this mystery, and am not ashamed to join Paul in acknowledging at once my ignorance and my admiration. How much more satisfactory would this be than to follow my carnal judgment, in undervaluing what Paul declares to be a deep mystery! Reason itself teaches how we ought to act in such matters; for whatever is supernatural is clearly beyond our own comprehension. Let us therefore labor more to feel Christ living in us, than to discover the nature of that intercourse.” 325; Cf. Calvin quoted in B.A. Gerrish, Grace and Gratitude, “…the sacred unity by which the Son of God engrafts us into his body, so as to communicate to us all that is his. Thus we draw life from his flesh and blood, so they are not undeservedly called our “food.” How it happens, I confess, is far above the measure of my intelligence. Hence I adore the mystery rather than labor to understand it.” 128.

Gift Ideas and Christmas Wishes

As Christmas approaches, we figured our readers were eager to get the employees of Bring the Books a gift or two. So, I wanted to give you some help to ensure that you know what to get us. We are all very simple men. We have really one like in this world...Books!!! Since this is the case, our Amazon wish lists, which are located on the left side of the blog, would be the best place to look for gift ideas. When you get us a book on our wish list, Amazon ships the books directly to the person you are buying it for. Amazon makes it very easy!

On a more serious note, all the employees of Bring the Books would like to wish you and your family a very merry Christmas. Our prayer is that God will use this time of year to turn your focus to Jesus Christ. May we remember his humbling act of being born as a human baby. Our God is a great God. Let us all worship him this year in truth and spirit. Amen!

Sacraments and the PCA GA

This year at the PCA general assembly there was a culoquium (an academic "get-together") on the Sacraments. The audio for all five sessions can be found here. All and all the papers that were given were good (a few points that I did not agree with, but they were addressed in the Q & A time) and the atmosphere was very Christ exulting.

During the Question and Answer section of the culoquium Dr. Ligon Duncan made a passing remark about the nature of the sacraments. He said that the sacraments, baptism and the Lord's supper, are not "justificational;" rather they should be understood as "sanctificational" (as a side note, one of the coolest things about theologians is the fact that they get to make up new words!). This language and understanding of the sacraments is a good way to understand the efficacy (the "working-ness") of the sacraments. However, some do not think the sacraments are "simply concerned with 'sanctification.'"

Those who want to understand the sacraments as more than sanctification agree that there is an aspect of justification to the sacraments.

Baptism does not just convey the message of “You are holy.” It does not only say, “You are set apart from the world.” It also says, “Your sins are forgiven.” So too with the Eucharist. “This is my body, broken for you.” “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for the remission of sins.”

Those are “justificational” ideas.

The problem, as I understand it, with this view is it misses the role of justification in our sanctification. If you notice in the argument that our "sins are forgiven." This is in the past. In other words, baptism reminds us, if we have faith and repent of our sins, that we are forgiven. This is not properly understood as justification, but rather as reminding us of our justification, which is sanctification. It seems to me to be misunderstanding that fact that part of sanctification is being reminded, daily, that we are justified. This is not the same thing as saying that sanctification has aspects of justification in it. It is right to say that these are "justificational" ideas, but it still remains that the the sacraments are dealing with sanctification, and not justification proper.

Not about You

The Bible is not about you, it is about the king Jesus Christ.

Transubstantiation and Jon 6.

I am not a huge fan of posting link to other blog articles. I guess if you wanted to read other blogs, you would go to them on your own and read them. However, I opened up my RSS reader this morning and found a really good article on Transubstantiation and John 6 on one of the blogs I subscribe to, Parchment and Pen. This blog is in the broad stream of Evangelicalism and often has good articles. This particular article about the Roman Catholic understanding of John 6 and Transubstantiation had a very good exegetical feel to it (I think that is the main reason I liked it as much as I did). One of the points that I thought was most interesting was this excerpt, mainly because I never point this point together in my own mind.

Another important factor that Keating and other Catholic apologists fail to take into account is that John does not even record the central events of the Last Supper at all Obviously if we took the Catholic interpretation of John 6 and believed John included this passage to communicate that believers must eat the literal body and blood of Christ in order to have eternal life, you would expect John to have recorded the events that it foreshadows. You would expect John to have a historical record of the Last Supper, the inaugurating meal of the Eucharist. But John does not. What an oversight by John! In fact, John is the only Gospel writer that did not record the Last Supper. Therefore, it is very unlikely that in John’s mind, a literal eating and drinking of Christ body and blood are essential for salvation. Remember John wrote the only book in the NT that explicitly says it is written for the purpose of salvation and he does not even include the Lord’s Supper.

Bavinck on the perfect Savior

If Jesus is truly the Savior, he must also really save his people, not potentially but really and in fact, completely and eternally. And this, actually, constitutes the core of the difference between the proponents and the opponents of particular satisfaction (atonement). This difference is defined incorrectly or at least far from completely when one formulates it exclusively in the question whether Christ died and made satisfaction for all humans or only the elect...The real issue concerned the value and power of Christ's sacrifice, the nature of the work of salvation. To save, said the Reformed, is to save truly, wholly, for eternity...Those whom God loves and from whom Christ made satisfaction are saved without fail.

Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics vol. 3 p. 467