Thomas Boston: Union With Christ and Communion

I came across an interesting argument for union with Christ in the writings of Thomas Boston. In the course of his two-volume work An Illustration of the Doctrines of the Christian Religion, Boston makes many compelling arguments against the Lutheran understanding of justification with respect to the discussion of the doctrine of union with Christ. One of the more novel and fascinating arguments that Boston makes has to do with the Calvinistic understanding of the Lord's Supper.

If this union be not a true and real one, but a mere relative one, the sacrament of the supper is but a bare sign, and not a seal, exhibiting and applying Christ to believers. For without this real union, the feeding on Christ's body and blood truly and really in the sacrament cannot be; which yet is the doctrine of the scriptures, and of our Larger Catechisms, proved from the words of institution, 'Take, eat, this is my body.' For if there be a true and real feeding, there must be a true and real union, as there is betwixt the food and our bodies into which it is incorporated.

The only way in which we truly take the Lord's body and blood is spiritually. As Boston points out, communion involves taking Jesus into us and being spiritually united to him. If we are not truly united to Christ by faith, then, Boston is arguing, we cannot be said to spiritually partake of Jesus in communion, either, in any true sense.

Calvin's Duplex Gratia Deus: No Justification Without Holiness

"But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption" (1 Cor. 1:30; NASB).

According to Lane Tipton, this is Calvin's favorite verse regarding the issue of union with Christ. I decided, based on this comment, to take a look at Calvin's actual commentary on the verse, and I did not come away disappointed. In these verses, Calvin sees with clarity the functions which Christ fulfills when we stand in union with him. Calvin sees here a duplex gratia Deus (a twofold blessing of God) which one receives when brought into union with Him. By being placed into Christ by God's doing, Paul says, Christ becomes to us wisdom, expressed through his becoming to us justification and sanctification. Regarding Paul's statement that by union with Christ, he becomes to us righteousness:

[H]e says that he is made unto us righteousness, by which he means that we are on his account acceptable to God, inasmuch as he expiated our sins by his death, and his obedience is imputed to us for righteousness. For as the righteousness of faith consists in remission of sins and a gracious acceptance, we obtain both through Christ.

Calvin then comments on his statement that through union, Christ becomes for us sanctification:

he calls him our sanctification, by which he means, that we who are otherwise unholy by nature, are by his Spirit renewed unto holiness, that we may serve God. From this, also, we infer, that we cannot be justified freely through faith alone without at the same time living holily. For these fruits of grace are connected together, as it were, by an indissoluble tie, so that he who attempts to sever them does in a manner tear Christ in pieces. Let therefore the man who seeks to be justified through Christ, by God's unmerited goodness, consider that this cannot be attained without his taking him at the same time for sanctification, or, in other words, being renewed to innocence and purity of life.

We then see that Calvin most clearly believes this to be a 'checkmate' against the charge of Rome that our understanding of justification is a "legal fiction" as well as the charge of anti-nomianism.

Those, however, that slander us, as if by preaching a free justification through faith we called men off from good works, are amply refuted from this passage, which intimates that faith apprehends in Christ regeneration equally with forgiveness of sins.

Lest any accuse Calvin of bringing together justification and sanctification:

Observe, on the other hand, that these two offices of Christ are conjoined in such a manner as to be, notwithstanding, distinguished from each other.

So for Calvin, there is no separating justification and sanctification, but there is also no confusing the two, either. They are distinct works, and they always will be.

Finally, we see that we don't need to take Lane Tipton's word for it that this is Calvin's favorite verse regarding this subject, because he tells us himself:

In fine, of all the blessings that are here enumerated we must seek in Christ not the half, or merely a part, but the entire completion. For Paul does not say that he has been given to us by way of filling up, or eking out righteousness, holiness, wisdom, and redemption, but assigns to him exclusively the entire accomplishment of the whole. Now as you will scarcely meet with another passage of Scripture that more distinctly marks out all the offices of Christ, you may also understand from it very clearly the nature and efficacy of faith. For as Christ is the proper object of faith, every one that knows what are the benefits that Christ confers upon us is at the same time taught to understand what faith is.

For myself, as I have spent the last several days studying the doctrine of union with Christ as expounded by Calvin, I can't help but sense my focus shift from the doctrine of justification to the person of Jesus Christ himself in a greater degree. Whereas before, I held a more Lutheran understanding of justification, it becomes clearer and clearer to me that if, in fact, justification is the entire story, then our focus becomes the doctrine which gives root to all the benefits of salvation. In the Reformed understanding as I see now that Calvin taught it, our focus is on a person, and all the gifts that we enjoy result from our union by faith in Him. In that respect, I see tremendous pastoral benefits related to better understanding the nature of the Christian's union with Christ.

Union with Christ and Justification

Last year, during the Gospel Coalition, Phil Ryken gave a wonderful talk on union with Christ and justification. The audio from this talk can be found here. He has, in this article, summarized union with Christ in these words.

To summarize, the great doctrinal realities of justification and union with Christ are closely inter-connected. Justification is one of the leading benefits of being united to Christ. The faith that justifies does so only and precisely because it also joins us to Christ. The very people who are united to Christ are the ones who are also declared righteous. This is part of what prevents justification by faith alone from being merely a legal fiction, as it is so frequently and so inaccurately alleged. Union with Christ is logically prior to justification by imputation. The declaration of our righteousness has a proper juridical basis in our true and covenantal connection to Jesus Christ. Indeed, union with Christ is the matrix in which imputation occurs. It is on the basis of our spiritual and covenantal union with Christ that our sins are imputed to him and his righteousness is imputed to us.

From the Horses' Mouth

Life in Christ

Based on the description, this book should be a good read.

Scholars have concluded that union with Christ is centrally important to Calvin's thought. But how does this idea actually function in his theology? In three wide-ranging case studies Mark A. Garcia explores this question.

After a discussion of historical and theological background, Garcia explains the way Calvin understands the Apostle Paul to connect good works to eternal life in the context of union with Christ. The next study then turns to the relationship of Christology and pneumatology in sacramental union or communion with Christ. In the third study the author investigates the role of Christ, the Spirit, and the Eucharist in Calvin's critique of Andreas Osiander's views of justifying union with Christ. The result is a comprehensive and yet focused analysis.

This book attempts to explains not only the distinctive nature of Calvin's response to Rome on justification, but why this response must be carefully distinguished from that of his Lutheran counterparts. The fruit of these investigations is the first extensive demonstration that Calvin's exposition of union with Christ in relating justification and sanctification points to an emerging Reformed theology of justification that diverges from the Lutheran tradition. Calvin's exegetical and theological model of union with Christ accents the importance in the early Reformed tradition of the relationship between Christology and salvation.

How the Benefits of the Gospel relate to Christ in Calvin’s Theology: Part Two

A couple of remarks are in order before the post:

1. This is the second part of my Senior paper at the Moody Bible Institute. Part one can be found here.

2. Note how Calvin is not afraid to sum up the gospel as "repentance" (sanctification) and "forgiveness of sins" (sustification). This is the duplex gratia; but it was never intended to exclude other graces such as adoption, glorification, or any other ordo salutis category. For Calvin, all of these other benefits could be subsumed under the two chief benefits, one being regenerative and the other forensic. Thus, for Calvin, there is no need to remind people of the other benefits of the Gospel, for when we say justification or forgiveness of sins, we mean to include adoption. And when we talk about the grace of regeneration or sanctification, we mean to include glorification. I, for one, find this extremely helpful both pastorally and theologically. It really does take into account the interpenetration of the different benefits of Christ's person and work as well as the inseparability of the the forensic and regenerative categories taught in Scripture.

The Duplex Gratia and its Relationship to the Unio Mystica

For Calvin, the gospel benefits can be boiled down to one two-fold grace, justification and sanctification. Calvin expressly sets this down when in Book Three of the Institutes, following his discussion of the way the believer receives the grace of Christ, begins to discuss the grace we actually receive from Christ. Calvin writes,

Even though we have taught in part how to possess Christ, and how through it we enjoy his benefits, this would still remain obscure if we did not add an explanation of the effects we feel. With good reason, the sum of the gospel is held to consist in repentance and the forgiveness of sins (Luke 24:47; Acts 5:31). Any discussion of faith, therefore, that omitted these two topics would be barren and mutilated and well–nigh useless. Now, both repentance and forgiveness of sins—that is, newness of life and free reconciliation—are conferred on us by Christ, and both are attained by us through faith.[1]

Again, Calvin sums up the benefits of the Gospel later in book three,

I believe I have also explained what faith itself is, and those benefits of God which it confers upon man, and the fruits it brings forth in him. Let us sum these up. Christ was given to us by God's generosity, to be grasped and possessed by us in faith. By partaking of him, we principally receive a double grace [duplicem gratiam]: namely, that being reconciled to God through Christ's blamelessness, we may have in heaven instead of a Judge a gracious Father; and secondly, that sanctified by Christ's Spirit we may cultivate blamelessness and purity of life.[2]

Thus, it is not a stretch to affirm that for Calvin the benefits of the Gospel are principally justification and sanctification. Justification is “that being reconciled to God through Christ's blamelessness” and sanctification is being “sanctified by Christ's Spirit [that] we may cultivate blamelessness and purity of life.” The point must not be missed—for Calvin, the Christian life and the Gospel, for the Christian, consists in nothing more than receiving Christ and thus the two benefits of the duplex gratia. To put it more theologically, there is an aspect of the believer’s redemption which is forensic (justification) and that which is regenerative or transformative (sanctification).

A second point must be taken into account, namely, the bond of this duplex gratia. The bond by which the Christian receives the duplex gratia is union with Christ. In fact, this is precisely what we would expect after determining the nature and function of the unio mystica. It would be nonsensical to expect Calvin to speak any differently, because it is only though participating in Christ’s death and resurrection by faith resulting in union with Christ can the Christian receive the duplex gratia. Thus, Calvin scholar Mark Garcia suitably writes, “it appears both the formal and the functional importance of Calvin’s union idea within his soteriology is better reflected if his framework is referred to as an unio Christi-duplex gratia rather than simply a duplex gratia framework.”[3] The duplex gratia, or for that matter any Gospel benefit, ought not to be spoken of in Calvin’s theology without relating it to both the unio mystica and the historia salutis connected to it! For Calvin, no Christ means no justification or sanctification.

There are other implications one might expect the duplex gratia to have in its relationship to the unio mystica at this point. That is, if the Christian receives Christ by faith at the initial ingrafting into Christ (intermediate mystical union), then doesn’t the Christian receive all the benefits of redemption simultaneously? In other words, if Christ, not the benefits, is what the Christian is united to, then would not all the grace that Christ was and is for us in his death and resurrection becomes ours? Of course, Calvin notes the distinctiveness of both justification and sanctification, but are they simultaneous and inseparable as one would expect?

First, note that for Calvin, that the two-fold grace of justification and sanctification is exactly that, “a grace.” In the Latin the phrase duplex gratia is singular because both justification and sanctification find their ground in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

The inseparability of both graces can be seen not only in the very grammar that Calvin uses but also in his various comments found in his commentaries. In his commentary on Jeremiah 24:7 Calvin writes, “But these two things, the reconciliation of God with men and repentance, are necessarily connected together, yet repentance ought not to be deemed as the cause of pardon or of reconciliation, as many falsely think who imagine that men deserve pardon because they repent.”[4] Although Calvin is quick to point out that repentance is not the cause of our justification, he is not afraid to speak of the inseparability of both justification and sanctification.[5] Calvin will “never separate” them “as some inconsiderately do.”[6] The inseparability of both benefits of redemption is emphasized again and again in Calvin’s writings.[7] Although they are inseparable benefits, for Calvin, it is a chief concern not to mix the two benefits. Thus in his commentary on 1 Cor 1:30 he writes,

“Those, however, that slander us, as if by preaching a free justification through faith we called men off from good works, are amply refuted from this passage, which intimates that faith apprehends in Christ regeneration equally with forgiveness of sins. Observe, on the other hand, that these two offices of Christ are conjoined in such a manner as to be, notwithstanding, distinguished from each other. What, therefore, Paul here expressly distinguishes, it is not allowable mistakenly to confound.”[8]

Justification and sanctification, although tied together by the bond of union must be kept distinct because, according to Calvin, Paul himself distinguishes the two benefits in the passage commented on.

Not only are these benefits inseparable, but they are simultaneousness as well. Calvin argues this simultaneity of the reception of the duplex gratia in his commentary on 2 Corinthians 7:10 noting,

“God accomplishes in us at one and the same time (simul) two things: being renewed by repentance, we are delivered from the bondage of our sins; and, being justified by faith, we are delivered also from the curse of our sins. They are, therefore, inseparable fruits of grace, and, in consequence of their invariable connection, repentance may with fitness and propriety be represented as an introduction to salvation, but in this way of speaking of it, it is represented as an effect rather than as a cause.”[9]

Calvin, in this comment particularly emphasizes the simultaneousness of being delivered from the bondage (transformative/sanctification) and the curse (legal/justification) of sin. At this point, it may be helpful to remind the reader that Calvin does not see these benefits as unrelated to Jesus himself.

In various places Calvin argues that to separate one of the benefits from the other is to tear Christ asunder. This phrase of “tearing Christ to pieces” has rich heritage in Reformation theology among both Protestants and Catholics.[10] Calvin uses the phrase quite often, especially when discussing the inability of separating justification and sanctification.[11] In response to the Lutheran Andreas Osiander (1498-1552), Calvin’s apparent antinomianism leads him to retort against Osiander saying,

“To prove the first point—viz. that God justifies not only by pardoning but by regenerating, he asks, whether he leaves those whom he justifies as they were by nature, making no change upon their vices? The answer is very easy: as Christ cannot be divided into parts [, so the two things, justification and sanctification, which we perceive to be united together in him, are inseparable. Whomsoever, therefore, God receives into his favor, he presents with the Spirit of adoption, whose agency forms them anew into his image.”[12]

The use of this metaphor points to the larger theological picture, namely, the fact that Christ is both our justification and sanctification. This is why, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 1:30, Calvin speaks of justification and sanctification as the “two offices of Christ” corresponding with the offices of Priest and King, respectively. Thus, those who argue that a Christian can be justified without sanctification inevitably dethrone Christ who cannot be torn apart! In more contemporary language, “You can’t have Christ as Savior without him being your Lord.”[13]

To summarize thus far, then, according to Calvin, the benefits of the Gospel are chiefly justification and sanctification. Both the forensic aspect of salvation (justification) and the transformative aspect (sanctification) are intimately bound in an indissoluble tie which cannot be broken because Christ himself would have to be torn apart. This two-fold grace is thus only received when the believer is first engrafted into Christ.

---

[1] Calvin, Institutes, 3.3.1.

[2] Calvin, Institutes, 3.11.1.

[3] Garcia, Life in Christ, 3.

[4] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah and the Lamentations Volume Third trans. John Owen, in Calvin’s Commentaries Vol. X (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 231.

[5] E.g. Calvin, Institutes, 3.16.1

[6] Ibid., 336.

[7] Cf. Calvin, Commentary on Romans, 277.

[8] John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians trans. John Pringle, in Calvin’s Commentaries Vol. XX (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 93-94.

[9] John Calvin, Commentary on Corinthians, 275.

[10] Gracia, Life in Christ, 228-241.

[11] Cf. Calvin, Commentary on Romans, 217; 290; 294.

[12] Calvin, Institutes, 3.11.6.

[13] Of course, Calvin would not have been dealing with the same “Lordship” debate that raged in the 80’s and 90’s between John Macarthur, Charles Ryrie, and Zane Hodges, but surely there is application in what he says for the debate.

Bucey on Modern Reformation

I found this article by Camden Bucey on Feeding on Christ to be interesting, so I wanted to pass it along. It does seem interesting that Modern Reformation, which is associated with Mike Horton, would have a Roman Catholic write an article on a view of Calvin's doctrine of union with Christ that is seemingly different than Horton's. I was wondering if they were trying to paint Richard Gaffin's view, set forth here, as Roman Catholic, which makes one wonder.

William Tyndale on Imputation and Union with Christ

I mentioned over at my other blog that I was reading Carl Trueman's dissertation on the Early English Reformers. Anyhow, I came across this marvelous quote by William Tyndale in his 1527 Parable of the Wicked Mammon. It shows a profound awareness of the inseparability of union and imputation (and might I add, union with Christ does not diminish or make unnecessary the need for imputation but rather allows it!) I take the second sentence as the cause of the first sentence. Here is Tyndale:

and by thy good deeds shalt thou be saved, not which thou hast done, but which Christ has done for thee; for Christ is thine, and all his deeds are thy deeds. Christ is in thee, and thou in him, knit together inseparably. Neither canst thou be damned, except Christ be damned with thee: neither can Christ be saved, except thou be saved with him.

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.

Lord, Lord...I Never Knew You!

Two verses (not just these two) seem to do massive damage to the Federal Vision: 1 John 2:19 and Mathew 7:22-23.
I would like to comment briefly on the Mathew passage here (and I will comment on the 1 John passage in the future).

On that day many will say to me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?” And then will I declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.”

The context of this passage is the Kingdom of God and how we know who is in and who is not in this Kingdom. Jesus declares that you will know who is in by their fruit (v. 20). Then here, Jesus tells us that some, on the last day, at the judgment, will argue with him. They will argue that they should be numbered among God’s people. Jesus’ response to these false professors is that he never knew them.

Now, if the FV is right, Jesus’ response does not seem right. If the FV is right, Jesus should have said, “I knew you, but only in a sense.” But that is not his response. Jesus says that he never knew them. As is, there was no time in which I knew you. These men had all the outward evidence of being one on the “in.” They prophesy, they cast out demons and they do many mighty works. This group surely would have been part of the “visible” Church. Those who had all the outward signs of being ‘in’ Christ, but the Lord Jesus Christ tells them that he never knew them.

Gaffin on Union with Christ

At the same time, however, various considerations already adduced point to the conclusion that Paul does not view the justification of the sinner (the imputation of Christ’s righteousness) as an act having a discrete structure of its own. Rather, as with Christ’s resurrection, the act of being raised with Christ in its constitutive, transforming character is at the same time judicially declarative; that is, the act of being joined to Christ is conceived of imputatively. In this sense the enlivening action of resurrection (incorporation) is itself a forensically constitutive declaration. This does not at all mean that Paul qualifies the synthetic character of the justification of the ungodly. The justifying aspect of being raised with Christ does not rest on the believer’s subjective enlivening and transformation (also involved, to be sure, in the experience of being joined to Christ), but on the resurrection-approved righteousness of Christ which is his (and is thus reckoned his) by virtue of the vital union established. If anything, this outlook which makes justification exponential of existential union with the resurrected Christ serves to keep clear what preoccupation with the idea of imputation can easily obscure, namely, that the justification of the ungodly is not arbitrary but according to truth: it is synthetic with respect to the believer only because it is analytic with respect to Christ (as resurrected). Not justification by faith but union with the resurrected Christ by faith (of which union, to be sure, the justifying aspect stands out perhaps the most prominently) is the central motif of Paul’s applied soteriology.

Richard Gaffin
Resurrection and Redemption, p. 132

Can it Get Sweeter to Your Reformed Ear?

The whole question, therefore, concerns simply the purpose of God in the mission of his Son. What was the design of Christ’s coming into the world, and doing and suffering all He actually did and suffered? Was it merely to make the salvation of all men possible; to remove the obstacles which stood in the way of the offer of pardon and acceptance to sinners? or, Was it specially to render certain the salvation of his own people, i.e., of those given to Him by the Father? The latter question is affirmed by Augustinians, and denied by their opponents. It is obvious that if there be no election of some to everlasting life, the atonement can have no special reference to the elect. It must have equal reference to all mankind. But it does not follow from the assertion of its having a special reference to the elect that it had no reference to the non-elect. Augustinians readily admit that the death of Christ had a relation to man, to the whole human family, which it had not to the fallen angels. It is the ground on which salvation is offered to every creature under heaven who hears the gospel; but it gives no authority for a like offer to apostate angels. It moreover secures to the whole race at large, and to all classes of men, innumerable blessings, both providential and religious. It was, of course, designed to produce these effects; and, therefore, He died to secure them. In view of the effects which the death of Christ produces on the relation of all mankind to God, it has in all ages been customary with Augustinians to say that Christ died "suffcienter proomnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electi," sufficiently for all, efficaciously only for the elect. There is a sense, therefore, in which He died for all, and there is a sense in which He died for the elect alone. The simple question is, had the death of Christ a reference to the elect which it had not to other men? Did He come into the world to secure the salvation of those given to Him by the Father, so that the other effects of his work are merely incidental to what was done for the attainment of that object?

Charles Hodge
Systematic Theology, p. 545

Current Distortions of Biblical Justification

How disheartening it is to see both of these saving doctrines misunderstood or even denied in the evangelical church today. I refer in part to evangelical leaders who embrace a doctrine of justification that is hard to distinguish from the Roman Catholic position that we are accounted righteous by infusion rather than imputation. I refer also to advocates of the New Perspective on Paul who believe that the Reformation doctrine of justification was mistaken in fundamental ways. To use J. I. Packer’s analogy, Atlas has shrugged.

These distortions take a number of different forms, which I mention only briefly. Some evangelicals are simply saying that justification is by grace, and leaving it at that. By avoiding saying that justification is based on grace alone or received by faith alone, they are able to make common cause with Catholicism, which has always said that justification is by grace. Other evangelicals want to say the same thing about Judaism at the time of Christ. It was not a religion of legalistic works-righteousness, they say, but a religion of grace. Therefore, the Reformers were mistaken to see Paul as standing against a religion of works rather than faith. Others are saying that justification is not so much about our standing before God as it is about our relationship to the church as a covenant community. Or they say that justification does have something to do with our standing before God, but our real and ultimate justification will only take place on the last day, when our good works will serve as part of the basis for (and not simply the evidence of) our righteousness before God. Thus our present justification is only provisional, which has the unhappy result of turning salvation into probation.

It is sad that these misunderstandings of biblical justification are having an influence on the church, especially at the seminary level, where any theological confusion will be multiplied many times over. It is sad but also strange—strange because these theologians are setting justification in opposition to union with Christ, whereas the Reformation position has always been that these doctrines are inseparable.

As a case in point, consider John Calvin, who said that our union with Christ “makes us sharers with him in the gifts with which he has been endowed. We do not, therefore, contemplate him outside ourselves from afar in order that his righteousness may be imputed to us but because we put on Christ and are engrafted into his body—in short, because he deigns to make us one with him. For this reason, we glory that we have fellowship of righteousness with him.” In other words, for Calvin it is the doctrine of union with Christ that provides the very context for justification by imputation. Calvin made this explicit when he said that God does not absolve us “by the confirmation of our own innocence but by the imputation of righteousness, so that we who are not righteous in ourselves may be reckoned as such in Christ.” John Owen said the same thing more succinctly, but equally emphatically: “The foundation of imputation is union.”

This is taken from Justification and Union with Christ by Phillip Ryken.

A Love for Union with Christ

As important as justification is, it is not the only fundamental doctrine of our salvation. And if there is any doctrine I love as much as justification, it must be the magnificent doctrine of union with Christ.

For me this doctrine was one of the marvelous discoveries of my seminary education. I had at least some familiarity with the several doctrines of soteriology—the so-called ordo salutis, or order of salvation. I had certainly heard of election and regeneration, of justification and sanctification, and perhaps of adoption and glorification. I had also read—or at least skimmed over—those two little words that appear so frequently together in the New Testament: in Christ. Yet no one had ever articulated for me the doctrine of union with Christ, the spiritual and theological reality that holds together the various benefits of salvation.

Many theologians view this doctrine as one of the keys to understanding the message of salvation. John Murray called union with Christ “the central truth of the whole doctrine of salvation.”...

To summarize, the great doctrinal realities of justification and union with Christ are closely inter-connected. Justification is one of the leading benefits of being united to Christ. The faith that justifies does so only and precisely because it also joins us to Christ. The very people who are united to Christ are the ones who are also declared righteous. This is part of what prevents justification by faith alone from being merely a legal fiction, as it is so frequently and so inaccurately alleged. Union with Christ is logically prior to justification by imputation. The declaration of our righteousness has a proper juridical basis in our true and covenantal connection to Jesus Christ. Indeed, union with Christ is the matrix in which imputation occurs. It is on the basis of our spiritual and covenantal union with Christ that our sins are imputed to him and his righteousness is imputed to us.

This is taken from Justification and Union with Christ by Phillip Ryken.

More On Union With Christ and N. T. Wright

N. T. Wright insists that if we maintain the imputation of righteousness in this verse then “we must also be prepared to talk of the imputed wisdom of Christ; the imputed sanctification of Christ; and the imputed redemption of Christ.”

This does not follow, however. Paul is simply listing the several benefits of our union with Christ, each of which bears its own connection to his saving work. We receive sanctification by the Spirit setting us apart for the holy service of God. We receive redemption by the purchase of blood. How then do we receive righteousness? To be more specific, How do we receive Christ’s righteousness? (for that is the righteousness in view). It is clear from the context that we receive this righteousness from God himself. And it is clear from other places in Paul that this righteousness is not something God works into us by infusion, but something he imputes to us on the basis of faith. All of that is not fully spelled out here in 1 Corinthians 1. What is spelled out, however, is that we have possession of the very righteousness of Christ

This is taken from Justification and Union with Christ by Phillip Ryken.

Union with Christ and justification

The very people who are united to Christ are the ones who are also declared righteous. This is part of what prevents justification by faith alone from being merely a legal fiction, as it is so frequently and so inaccurately alleged. Union with Christ is logically prior to justification by imputation.

This is the abstract for Phillip Ryken's new article at Reformation 21.