The Upper Register

Justification and Union with Christ, Part 5

WSC’s Response to Garcia’s Review of CJPM

In the December 2007 issue of Ordained Servant, W. Robert Godfrey and David VanDrunen wrote a response to Mark Garcia’s critical review of CJPM. Godfrey and VanDrunen point out that what lies behind Garcia’s critique is his position on union with Christ: “Garcia is part of a rather new Reformed theological approach that wants to focus all of Reformed theology on union with Christ.” Garcia evidently thinks “Calvin’s doctrine of union with Christ is the sledgehammer with which to crush CJPM.”

They divide their response into sections:  first, Garcia’s historical argument; second, Garcia’s theological argument.

Garcia’s historical argument is that there is no such thing as “pan-confessionalism,” that is, a doctrine of justification held in common by both the Lutheran and the Reformed theological systems. In reply, Godfrey and VanDrunen point out that the Lutheran and Reformed theologies do have significant differences in various areas, such as Christology and the sacraments, but they are in agreement on the doctrine of justification, and on the priority of justification to sanctification. They quote the Formula of Concord, which makes the same point as the Reformed confessions that “good works always follow justifying faith, and are most certainly found together with it … for true faith is never alone, but hath always charity and hope in its train.” (Cp. Westminster Confession’s affirmation that faith “is the alone instrument of justification; yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love” [WCF XI.2].)

Godfrey and VanDrunen argue that Calvin himself was a pan-confessionalist with regard to justification. He signed the Augsburg Confession. He had friendly letter exchanges with Melanchthon. He wrote a letter to the Lutheran ministers of Saxony and Lower Germany in 1556 in which he affirmed his agreement with the Lutherans on the doctrine of justification by faith. True, in the 1559 edition of the Institutes (3.11.5-12), Calvin did forcefully engage in polemics with the Lutheran theologian Osiander, who had argued that in justification we receive God’s essential righteousness. But this doesn’t make Calvin a critic of the authentic Lutheran doctrine of justification. The only way to read Calvin as critical of the Lutheran doctrine of justification is if one takes Osiander as the only consistent Lutheran—which is what Garcia argues. But this is an “astounding” claim in view of the fact that Osiander’s views were explicitly and officially rejected by the Lutheran churches themselves in the Formula of Concord.

In sum, “Garcia represents Calvin’s attitudes to Lutheranism as consistently negative, which is simply not true.” Calvin formulated his doctrine of justification in harmony with, not in opposition to, the Lutheran doctrine. If, by grounding justification in union with Christ, Calvin was establishing the doctrine of justification on a fundamentally different theological footing than in Lutheran theology, he didn’t seem to be aware of it.

What about Garcia’s theological argument that, in union with Christ, the two benefits of justification and sanctification are simultaneous and non-prioritized? Godfrey and VanDrunen affirm the doctrine of union with Christ, but the difference is that they understand and formulate the doctrine of union with Christ in such a way as to maintain the priority of justification over sanctification, whereas Garcia exalts union with Christ as an “abstract doctrine.” They write:

We would appeal to Garcia to uphold this sense of the priority of justification to sanctification in the ordo salutis. This is not a doctrine to be embraced in place of union with Christ, but our theology of union must be compatible with this doctrine. We ought not begin with an abstract doctrine of union, conceived independently of the concrete blessings of justification, adoption, and sanctification, and then deduce from this abstract doctrine the idea that justification, adoption, and sanctification must be received simultaneously through union without a defined relationship to each other.

This issue, for Godfrey and VanDrunen, is of vital importance. “The very character and identity of the Christian life are at stake.” Why is that? Because “there is no such thing as the moral life for the non-justified.” A person who is not justified is not at peace with God, and is constantly confronted with his guilt before God due to his failure to keep the law. Therefore, a non-justified person who seeks to live a moral life can only do so in the vain attempt to secure God’s approval on the basis of his own works of righteousness. But for the justified person, the moral life looks completely different. For the justified person, he “pursues holiness not in order to be right with God, but as a response to God’s gracious declaration that he already is right with him.”

There is an order in the economy of salvation: justification precedes sanctification, not only in the obvious sense that justification is an instantaneous act of God at the outset of the Christian life, whereas progressive sanctification is a life-long process. Rather, justification precedes and grounds sanctification in the spiritual sense that, as Godfrey and VanDrunen write, “people progress in their Christian lives as those who are justified.” We are justified by faith alone. God justifies the ungodly (Rom 4:5). And then having been justified by faith alone, saving faith produces good works as the fruit and effect of justification by faith. This was the issue at the time of the Reformation, the point of difference with the Roman Catholic Church. If we put the order the other way, and say that we are justified only as we are sanctified, then we have fallen into the Roman Catholic view and we have lost the gospel.

Godfrey and VanDrunen engage in some helpful exegesis at this point as well, showing that this order (justification prior to sanctification) is taught in the Scriptures. They appeal to Luke 4:47, where Jesus says that the sinful woman’s love was the expression and evidence of that fact that she was forgiven and justified. They also point out that in Gal 5:13 Paul says we have freedom in Christ, that is, as those who are justified and adopted we have been set free from the law as a covenant of works, and so as those who are free, we are free to love. “We love as those who have been freed through our justification.” Paul says much the same thing in Rom 6:14 and 7:6. “The reality of justification is the foundation for the sanctified Christian life.”

I mentioned in the previous post that Garcia made the charge that WSC’s position on justification as having priority over sanctification “attribute[s] to justification a generative, transformational quality (in that sanctification is generated or produced by justification),” thereby compromising the purely forensic character of justification. Godfrey and VanDrunen respond to this charge by stating that the contributors to CJPM never said that justification “causes” sanctification. It is not the position of WSC that justification has a “generative, transformational” power, as if justification itself (rather than the Spirit) accomplishes the work of sanctification in us. Rather, WSC is keen to defend the idea that “the good works produced by believers in their sanctification are the fruits of justifying faith and that in the ordo salutis justification has a certain priority to sanctification.” Garcia misunderstands the WSC position.

They quote from the OPC Report of the Committee to Study the Doctrine of Justification (2006) to flesh this out more. The priority of justification over sanctification is not that justification is more important than sanctification, nor is it a temporal priority, for all who are justified are also being sanctified. Rather the point is this:

While justification is the necessary prerequisite of the process of sanctification, that process is not the necessary prerequisite of justification. It is true to say that one must be justified in order to be sanctified; but it is untrue to say that one must be sanctified in order to be justified. Justification and sanctification bear a relationship to each other than cannot be reversed (pp. 60-61).

Finally, Garcia may be correct that Calvin taught a “union-double benefit” construction of the ordo salutis. But Calvin did not follow this through to Garcia’s conclusion that the two benefits are equally basic and non-prioritized. Godfrey and VanDrunen make this point, quoting the famous statement by Calvin that justification is “the main hinge on which religion turns … For unless you understand first of all what your position is before God … you have no foundation on which your salvation can be laid, or on which piety toward God can be reared” (Institutes 3.11.1).

Justification and Union with Christ, Part 4

Mark Garcia’s Critique of the WSC Position on Justification

In 2007, the faculty of Westminster Seminary California (WSC) published a collection of essays titled Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry (hereafter referred to as CJPM), edited by R. Scott Clark. The essays grew out of a conference that the seminary held in 2003 in response to recent controversies over justification, most notably the Federal Vision, which had just then broken onto the American conservative Presbyterian and Reformed scene.

In response to the publication of CJPM, Mark Garcia wrote a review article titled “No Reformed Theology of Justification?” published in Ordained Servant in October 2007. Garcia’s review article included some comments about another book on justification, The Way of Salvation by Paul Rainbow, but the inclusion of the Rainbow book did little to conceal the fact that the review was intended primarily as a polemical piece against CJPM. At the same time, Garcia was not identifying with the Federal Vision in every respect, and in fact distanced himself from it in upholding the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. Yet, strangely, he felt more of a burden to engage in polemics against WSC’s defense of sola fide, than to join hands with WSC in refuting the Federal Vision’s denial of sola fide!

Mark Garcia earned a Master’s degree at WTS in 2000 and did further postgraduate study at WTS in 2001. He earned his Ph.D. at the University of Edinburgh in 2004, and his dissertation, titled Life in Christ: Union with Christ and Twofold Grace in Calvin’s Theology, was published by Paternoster in 2008. Garcia dedicated his book to Dr. Gaffin, and in the preface, he explains that Gaffin’s “influence on my thinking [on the topic of Calvin and union with Christ] is reason enough to dedicate this project to him.” The influence of Gaffin on Garcia is evident throughout Garcia’s published writings.

It is evident that Garcia is committed to the whole set of concepts that make up the Gaffin thesis. For example, in his dissertation, Garcia writes:

In Calvin’s framework … the life of obedience or sanctification by the Spirit does not flow from the imputation of Christ’s righteousness but from Christ himself with whom the Spirit has united believers. In other words, for Calvin, sanctification does not flow from justification. They are not related as cause and effect. Rather, together they are ‘effects’ or, better, aspects of union with Christ (Life in Christ, 146).

He says the same thing in his review of CJPM: “Sanctification does not result from justification, but is an aspect, like justification, of our union with Christ.” It is from this point of view that he critiques the WSC position:

Despite the clear witness in the texts of the tradition, especially but far from exclusively in Calvin (see especially his commentary on 1 Cor. 1:30), that justification, sanctification, and any other graces of salvation are distinct, inseparable, and simultaneously bestowed aspects of union with Christ, the contributors to CJPM argue otherwise, and do so with evident passion. They prefer instead the classical Lutheran construct in which sanctification flows from justification.

Notice the language of “distinct, inseparable, and simultaneous” benefits. That is Gaffin’s language. The point of it is to say that union with Christ is primary. From union with Christ flow two benefits (the forensic and the renovative, justification and sanctification) that are distinct, inseparable, and simultaneous. Therefore, justification does not have priority over sanctification. It is not the cause of sanctification.

There are a number of inter-related claims here. Garcia is arguing the following:

• Calvin taught the “primacy of union, twofold non-prioritized benefit” view. Garcia directs readers to his dissertation for that case.
• Saying that sanctification flows from justification (i.e., prioritizing justification as the cause or legal ground of sanctification) is a Lutheran, not an authentically Reformed, construct.
• There may be some parts of the Reformed tradition that have Lutheranizing tendencies (such as the Heidelberg Catechism and the WSC faculty), but these are not authentically Reformed. Calvin’s view is the authentic Reformed view.

And with that we come to what may be the heart of Garcia’s concern. Garcia writes: “There is in fact no such thing as a ‘Reformational’ or pan-confessional theology of justification” shared by both the Lutheran and the Reformed systems of theology. Garcia thinks the Reformed system is, at a basic level, distinct from the Lutheran system. He thinks the differences between the two traditions are fundamentally incommensurate. The differences are in fact “systemic,” due to their different understandings of the place of union with Christ. In the Lutheran system, justification has controlling priority, and union with Christ and sanctification are effects of justification. In the Reformed system, according to Garcia, union with Christ has controlling priority, and justification and sanctification are distinct, inseparable, simultaneous, and non-prioritized effects of union with Christ.

The reason this is important for Garcia is that it impacts how one grounds sanctification, good works, and obedience in the Christian life. If one follows the Lutheran construct, then good works and obedience are merely the fruit of faith, or, to quote R. Scott Clark, “merely evidence of sanctity and nothing more” (CJPM, 253). But Garcia wants to argue that this “merely evidence” construction is “unable to do full justice to the multitude of imperatives in the New Testament that are clearly ‘Gospel,’ i.e., that commend (imperatively) obedience in some form as a condition for eternal life.”

Both Garcia and WSC believe in the necessity of good works, but they have a different view of the reason for the necessity of good works. For WSC, sanctification and good works are the result of a justification freely given and freely received. For Garcia, sanctification and good works are necessary, not as the result of justification, but as a result of union with Christ. This follows from his starting point regarding the distinct, inseparable, simultaneous, non-prioritized twofold benefit. “Calvin makes clear,” Garcia writes, that “this necessity [of good works] is not grounded in justification but in the reality of union with Christ.”

Near the end of his review, Garcia adds an important point that needs to be addressed. He thinks that the Gaffin formulation (primacy of union, twofold non-prioritized benefit) is the only formulation that truly safeguards the doctrine of justification against the Roman Catholic error:

If we argue, with CJPM, that justification is the cause of sanctification, then we attribute to justification a generative, transformational quality (in that sanctification is generated or produced by justification) and thus, ironically in view of the driving concern in CJPM, compromise the purely forensic character of justification. This is the liability of the Lutheran model, but it is a liability that is entirely avoided in the Reformed model according to which justification and sanctification come to us as distinct, inseparable, simultaneous benefits of union with Christ, rather than one coming from the other.

Justification and Union with Christ, Part 3

Gaffin’s Interpretation of Calvin

In my previous post, I mentioned that I would summarize Gaffin’s essay, “Justification and Union with Christ.” This is Chapter 11 in A Theological Guide to Calvin’s Institutes, edited by David W. Hall and Peter A. Lillback (P&R, 2008) (hereafter cited as TG, for Theological Guide, followed by the page number). It is an important essay that covers much of the same ground as the Always Reforming essay, but with a more explicit focus on expounding Calvin’s teaching on justification and union with Christ.

Gaffin’s assignment in this essay was not to cover Calvin’s doctrine of justification as a whole (in his commentaries, sermons, and other writings), but to discuss his treatment of justification in the Institutes, Book 3, chapters 11-18. This chapter is therefore almost like a commentary on that section of the Institutes, dealing not only with the literary development of the Institutes in its various editions from the first edition in 1536 to the final edition in 1559, but also summarizing and expositing the flow of Calvin’s argument here. 

At the outset of this essay, Gaffin grants Calvin privileged status. He sees Calvin as “an important fountainhead figure,” whose treatment of the doctrine of justification is “unsurpassed” within “the tradition of confessional Reformed orthodoxy” (TG, 248). The status of Calvin within the Reformed tradition is an important question that the WSC school answers differently (cp. the title of Fesko’s book, Beyond Calvin).

Gaffin establishes that Calvin’s applied soteriology has a “union-twofold grace” structure. Union with Christ, of course, means vital union, the union that we have with Christ as Christ is grasped by faith. “Union … does not exist apart from or prior to faith but is given with … faith” (TG, 259). “Union with Christ … is forged by the Spirit’s working faith in us …. Faith is the bond of that union” (TG, 259). Then, having grasped Christ by faith, we partake of a twofold grace, justification and sanctification. Gaffin says this “union-twofold grace” structure “determines the framework” of Calvin’s thinking with regard to redemption applied (TG, 253). “This, at its core, is Calvin’s ordo salutis: union with Christ by Spirit-worked faith” (TG, 259).  

Gaffin makes two observations on Calvin’s view of the relationship between “union” and “the twofold grace.” First, “union with Christ has precedence in the sense that the twofold grace is rooted in union and flows out of it” (TG, 253). Second, the two benefits of union with Christ, justification and sanctification, are distinct and inseparable.

Not only are they distinct and inseparable, they are also not causally prioritized with respect to one another, according to Gaffin’s reading of Calvin. He makes this point by pointing to a “noteworthy feature” of the structure of Book 3 of the Institutes. That noteworthy feature is the fact that Calvin treats the twofold benefit in an order that might seem “counterintuitive” (TG, 254) to our Reformed instincts—Calvin treats sanctification at length (chs. 3-10) before justification (chs. 11-18). Gaffin acknowledges that one factor is polemical. The Roman Catholic Church had repeatedly brought up the charge that the Protestant doctrine of justification leads to indifference to the pursuit of sanctification. Calvin responds to the charge of Rome “by showing that faith … entails a disposition to holiness without explicit reference to its sole instrumental function in justification” (TG, 255). Sanctification and the concern for godly living follows justification in time, “but it is not simply a consequence of justification” (TG, 255). Gaffin argues that Calvin “can proceed as he has in this fashion, treating sanctification at length before justification, because for him ‘justification and sanctification were given to faith simultaneously and inseparably, thought also invariably, so that the order of their presentation was discretionary’” (quoting George Hunsinger, “A Tale of Two Simultaneities: Justification and Sanctification in Calvin and Barth”) (TG, 255).

In other words, discussing sanctification before justification wasn’t just a polemical strategy on Calvin’s part. It stemmed from a positive theological conviction. “Calvin knows nothing of a justification that is first settled and then is only subsequently followed by sanctification” (TG, 256). Calvin would acknowledge that justification is prior to progressive sanctification in the obvious sense that the former is an instantaneous declaration at the moment of effectual calling and the latter is a lifelong process. “But this is not the same thing as saying, what Calvin does not say, that justification is the source of sanctification or that justification causes sanctification” (TG, 256). The source or cause of both justification and sanctification, without giving causal priority to one over the other, is vital union with Christ.

How does Gaffin deal with Calvin’s statement that justification “is the main hinge on which religion turns” (praecipuum … sustinendae religionis cardinem) (Institutes 3.11.1)? Calvin seems to assign some sort of priority to justification over sanctification. To begin, Gaffin thinks the translation “turns” is misleading. Gaffin thinks this translation is better: “the principal hinge by which religion is supported.” Note, however, that Gaffin does not question the translation of the noun cardo as “hinge.” Furthermore, he acknowledges the use of the “foundation” metaphor in the next sentence. Translation matters aside, Gaffin argues that we ought not to lift the “hinge” and “foundation” metaphors out of context, because, as Gaffin has already shown, Calvin has made clear that union with Christ is the cause and foundation of the twofold benefit of justification and sanctification. Sure, justification is the principal hinge on which religion is supported, but “the ‘hinge’ of justification … is not a ‘skyhook’” (TG, 257); it is anchored securely in vital union with Christ.

In the remaining section of the essay, Gaffin deals with the relationship between imputation and union with Christ. He argues that, for Calvin, justification involves two divine actions: first, God imputes righteousness to us; then, on the basis of that imputation, he reckons us as righteous (TG, 261). But both actions, the imputation and the reckoning, take place within vital union with Christ. Vital union is prior to and the precondition for both the imputation and the reckoning of righteousness (TG, 261-62). This might seem to make imputation somehow nonforensic (as George Hunsinger seems to suggest), but Gaffin resists that reading of Calvin and demonstrates that Calvin maintained that “union is Spirit-forged, a pneumatic reality, but the imputation given with that union is not” (TG, 264).

Gaffin finishes the essay with several pages examining Calvin’s critique of Osiander who had argued that the righteousness of Christ’s divine nature, his “essential” righteousness, is communicated to us by some sort of infusion or transfusion. Calvin’s critique of Osiander is “so unsparing” because he saw it as essentially the Roman Catholic view in different garb, that is, the view that our justification depends on Spirit-wrought righteousness resident in the believer rather than solely on the imputed righteousness of Christ (TG, 267).

Justification and Union with Christ, Part 2

Gaffin’s Thesis on Union with Christ

To understand this debate, we have to start with Dr. Gaffin and seek to understand his position on union with Christ. In this post, I am making my best effort to provide a fair and impartial description of his view as I understand it. Hopefully, if Dr. Gaffin or anyone who studied under him and agrees with his view were to read this description, they would say it is an accurate summary of his thesis on union with Christ. At least that’s my hope! If any readers think I have misrepresented his view, I would like to hear from them. They can use the comment section below.

For this description, I’ll be relying primarily on this article by Gaffin: “Union with Christ: Some Biblical and Theological Reflections,” in Always Reforming: Explorations in Systematic Theology, edited by A. T. B. McGowan (IVP, 2006). Hereafter I’ll refer to it as AR (for Always Reforming), followed by the page number. If you don’t have access to the AR book, Gaffin’s 2002 Inaugural Address, available online, is substantially the same, being an earlier version that he later edited and shaped into the AR essay. However, the original version doesn’t contain the critique of Federal Vision advocate Rich Lusk (which I mention below).

(Some of my readers will clamor that I shouldn’t ignore the more recent chapter contribution by Gaffin that was published in 2008: “Justification and Union with Christ,” in A Theological Guide to Calvin’s Institutes. Don’t worry, I’ll address that important essay in the next post. In this post, I want to get Gaffin’s central theological thesis on the table, before looking at the secondary issue of whether and to what extent Calvin supports it.)

We should start by defining what Gaffin means by “union with Christ.” This is a major terminological issue that surfaces repeatedly and can be a source of confusion unless we keep Gaffin’s definitions in view. Gaffin distinguishes three aspects of union with Christ (AR, 275): (1) predestinarian union, (2) redemptive-historical union, and (3) existential union.

Predestinarian union is just what the term implies. It is a union in the mind and decree of God, as Paul himself says: we were “chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world” (Eph 1:4). Redemptive-historical union has to do with the fact that when Christ died and rose again, he did so as our representative, and so Paul can say we “died with Christ” (Rom 6:8) and were “raised with Christ” (Col 3:1). Redemptive-historical union has to do with our involvement in redemption accomplished. Of course, our involvement is still at this point based on the decree of God and Christ’s appointment as our representative who died and rose again for us. We did not yet exist, but were contemplated in God’s mind so that Christ’s death and resurrection were reckoned as ours.

But now we come to existential union. Existential union is the union (or that aspect of the broader union) that has its inception at effectual calling and marks the beginning of the application of redemption to the elect. The distinction between redemption accomplished and redemption applied is very important to Gaffin. He even refers to the third aspect of union as “applicatory” union. The distinction between redemption accomplished and applied is firm, yet these are not three different unions but three aspects of the same union. But the third aspect of union with Christ, referred to as existential, mystical or vital union, is the one that is of the greatest concern to Gaffin.

As in many theological debates, it is critical to be clear in our use of terminology, otherwise confusion is inevitable. In this particular debate, when the phrase “union with Christ” is used without qualification, you have to ask yourself which aspect or historical moment of union is in view. More often than not, especially for Gaffin and his colleagues, the term is being used in a restricted sense to denote the third aspect of union—the existential, applicatory, vital or mystical union.

(An additional complication is that in historical usage going back to 17th century, the term “mystical” can sometimes be used in a broader sense, rather than in the narrow existential sense that is Gaffin’s focus. For example, John Owen speaks of Christ and the church/elect, coalescing into “one mystical person.” But he is using that phrase to refer to what Gaffin would call the redemptive-historical union. This is clear because Owen goes on to argue that this union is the foundation for the imputation of the sins of the elect unto Christ so that on the cross he might satisfy the justice of God. See his famous treatise, The Doctrine of Justification by Faith, chs. 8-9, in Vol. 5 of his collected works.)

Let’s zero in on this narrow third union or aspect of union. What is existential union according to Gaffin? Existential union is defined as a Spirit-wrought faith-bond. The Spirit unites us to Christ in a vital bond of union and communion that is experienced in time by each individual elect person beginning the instant they are effectually called. One piece of exegetical evidence for this existential union (which I have heard Gaffin quote in audio lectures) is Rom 16:7. In this verse, Paul extends his greetings to Andronicus and Junia and notes that they “were in Christ before me,” implying that prior to their conversion they (and Paul) were not “in Christ,” but after their conversion, by the Spirit’s effectual working, they became united to Christ in a mystical, vital, and existential faith-bond. The key phrase for Gaffin is “union with Christ by Spirit-wrought faith.”

Having defined what Gaffin means by “union with Christ,” Gaffin then makes the claim—and this is the crux of his thesis—that all the benefits of salvation, summarized as forensic and renovative benefits, i.e., justification and sanctification, are enjoyed by believers only in terms of existential or vital union with Christ. A key proof text for this interpretation is 1 Cor 1:30: “Because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption.” The two benefits, justification and sanctification, are distinct yet inseparable and simultaneous, and both flow from union with Christ.

Further, there is no prioritization, whether chronological or logical, between the two benefits. Priority is given to union with Christ, but within that union the benefits themselves are equally basic. Gaffin writes that faith “entails a disposition to holiness without particular reference to justification, a concern for godliness that is not to be understood only as a consequence of justification.” He goes on to say that, for Calvin, the relative order or priority of justification and sanctification “is indifferent theologically,” because union with Christ by faith is prior to both and has “controlling soteriological importance” (AR, 284).

We must acknowledge that for Gaffin the two primary benefits of salvation in Christ, though equally basic, inseparable, and simultaneous, are in fact distinct. Justification is a forensic benefit granted by imputation, and sanctification is a renovative benefit in which the Spirit both breaks the dominion of sin (definitive sanctification) and transforms us into the image of Christ (progressive sanctification). Justification involves the imputation of the righteousness of Christ on the legal ground of the active and passive obedience of Christ, as well as a declaration of righteousness that has the righteousness of Christ alone in view. Sanctification, by contrast, is a change wrought in us by the Spirit. By making this distinction between justification and sanctification, Gaffin wants to maintain a Protestant position on justification and wants to put clear water between his view and that of the Roman Catholic Church, which denies forensic imputation and essentially collapses justification and sanctification into a single renovative and progressive work of the Spirit within us.

In his AR essay, Gaffin is very clear about this. He strongly criticizes Federal Vision advocate Rich Lusk, who had argued that union with Christ “makes imputation redundant.” Gaffin takes Lusk to task for this and argues that this is “troubling and, I judge, more disturbing to a biblically sound doctrine of justification than the view which ignores or obscures union.” He thinks Lusk’s view is more disturbing because “it leaves us unclear about what is absolutely essential to our justification,” namely, the truth that Christ’s finished, imputed righteousness, established by his obedience unto death, is “the exclusive ground” of our acquittal before the bar of God’s justice. By saying it is the “exclusive” ground, Gaffin means that even “Spirit-worked righteousness,” though integral to our salvation, is excluded from being the ground of our acceptance before God. (See AR, 286-87).

Nevertheless, as clear as Gaffin is on this, he insists on granting mystical union priority over justification. And so, as a result, he argues that the forensic imputation of righteousness is something that takes place “within” vital union with Christ. “There is no imputation without union or antecedent to union” (AR, 286). He adds, imputation is “realized in union with Christ” (AR, 286) and is “a facet” and “an integral aspect” of that union (AR, 287). Going back to my opening comments about the importance of defining our terms, it is crucial to keep in mind that although Gaffin does not add the descriptor “vital” or “existential,” that is what he is referring to when he says “there is no imputation … antecedent to union.” There is no imputation antecedent to vital union, that is, the Spirit-wrought faith-union.

(If there is any doubt about this, his former student and now successor to the Krahe Chair, Lane Tipton, made it clear when he said in his 2012 Inaugural Address, “No aspect of forensic justification comes to believers (logically or temporally) prior to union with Christ by faith” [WTJ 75 (2013): 10].)

Justification and Union with Christ, Part 1

Introduction

For the last 10 years there has been a debate, largely being carried on between certain faculty members of the two Westminster Seminaries, over justification and union with Christ.

On the east coast, there are a number of individuals associated with Westminster Theological Seminary (WTS) in Philadelphia. The principal architect of this position is Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., who since 2008 has been emeritus professor of biblical and systematic theology at WTS. Gaffin’s former students like Lane Tipton (who currently holds the Charles Krahe Chair of Systematic Theology at WTS), Mark Garcia, and William B. Evans are continuing his thought.

On the west coast, there is Westminster Seminary California (WSC), with John Fesko, Michael Horton, and R. Scott Clark as the primary interlocutors. They are critical of Gaffin’s construction of the ordo salutis and have attempted to provide a different interpretation of Calvin and of the Reformed tradition on the issue of union with Christ.

The debate arguably has antecedents, but Mark Garcia’s 2007 sharply critical review of Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry (a collection of essays written by the WSC faculty and edited by R. Scott Clark) seems to have been the spark. Robert Godfrey and David VanDrunen wrote a response to Garcia’s review. After that initial 2007 exchange, John Fesko and Michael Horton seem to be the most active published debate partners from the WSC side. Dr. Fesko has written by far the most on the topic and is a vocal critic of Gaffin and Evans, particularly of the way they read Calvin in relation to the entire Reformed tradition. His marvelous book Beyond Calvin (V&R, 2012) brings together many of his previously published peer-reviewed journal articles and mounts a forceful response to Gaffin, Garcia, and Evans.

The debate centers on the relationship between union with Christ and the double benefit of justification and sanctification. Gaffin has singled out the mystical, vital, or existential union with Christ and elevated it to a level of priority, primacy, and all-embracing significance for the ordo salutis. The debate is complex because it involves not only exegesis but also different interpretations of Calvin and the historical development post-Reformation Reformed dogmatics.

It should be acknowledged that there are different nuances held by the various scholars in each camp. On the WTS side, for example, William B. Evans has been a vocal critic of federal theology. In a manner reminiscent of the Torrance brothers, Evans argues that 17th century federal theology is a declension from Calvin due to the way it allegedly “bifurcates” forensic/federal union and vital/mystical union. It is hard to tell how much the others affiliated with WTS sympathize with Evans, but I have not seen Gaffin and Tipton attack federal theology in their published writings the way Evans does. In the WSC camp, there is likewise not perfect homogeneity of theological formulation. Michael Horton, for example, is unique, as far as I can tell, among the WSC faculty in advocating speech-act theory to explain the forensic foundation of union with Christ.

It’s also not clear how unified the two seminaries are among themselves with regard to this discussion. WSC seems more unified than WTS, but that could just be my subjective impression. Some faculty members at both schools haven’t participated in the debate in terms of publication. For example, the position of Carl Trueman is a mystery to me. He did write a contribution to the WTS book Justified in Christ (Mentor, 2007), but his focus was on John Owen’s doctrine of justification and he didn’t directly address the issues under debate.

Justification and Union with Christ Bibliography

“There is an ongoing debate between the Westminster campuses in California [WSC] and Philadelphia [WTS] as well as among some of their graduates on union with Christ and the ordo salutis, particularly the relationship between justification and sanctification. The difference of opinion has for the most part been cordial, but at times there have been pointed exchanges.”

So writes Dr. John Fesko in Ordained Servant in March 2009. Although there were antecedents, it seems to me that the current debate started in 2007 when Dr. Mark Garcia wrote a critical review of Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry (CJPM) by the WSC faculty. Since Dr. Fesko wrote those words, many more exchanges have taken place. I thought it would be helpful to provide a bibliography, with links where available. 

Perhaps the best place to begin is with the overview provided by a Baptist who is not affiliated with either WTS or WSC. He ultimately sides with the WTS school, but the first half of the article is an excellent summary of the debate, at least up to 2013:

Miller, Timothy. “The Debate Over the Ordo Salutis in American Reformed Theology.” DBSJ 18 (2013): 41-66.

 

The WTS School

I now proceed to provide the literature from both sides, starting with the WTS school of thought founded by Dr. Richard Gaffin.

Gaffin, Jr., Richard B. Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul’s Soteriology. P&R, 1987.

__________. “Biblical Theology and the Westminster Standards.” WTJ 65 (2003): 165-179.

__________. “Union with Christ: Some Biblical and Theological Reflections.” Pages 271-288 in Always Reforming: Explorations in Systematic Theology. Ed. A. T. B. McGowan. IVP, 2006.

__________. By Faith, Not by Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation. Paternoster, 2006. Second Edition: P&R, 2013.

__________. “Justification and Union with Christ.” Pages 248-269 in A Theological Guide to Calvin’s Institutes. Ed. David W. Hall and Peter A. Lillback. P&R, 2008.

__________. “Calvin’s Soteriology: The Structure of the Application of Redemption in Book Three of the Institutes.” Ordained Servant (Nov 2009).

Carpenter, Craig B. “A Question of Union with Christ? Calvin and Trent on Justification.” WTJ 64 (2002): 363-386.

Edwards, William R. “John Flavel on the Priority of Union with Christ: Further Historical Perspective on the Structure of Reformed Soteriology.” WTJ 74 (2012): 33-58.

Evans, William B. Imputation and Impartation: Union with Christ in American Reformed Theology. Wipf and Stock/Paternoster, 2008.

__________. “Three Current Reformed Models of Union with Christ.” Presbyterion 41 (2015): 12-30.

Garcia, Mark. “Imputation and the Christology of Union with Christ: Calvin, Osiander, and the Contemporary Quest for a Reformed Model.” WTJ 68 (2006): 219-251.

__________. Life in Christ: Union with Christ and Twofold Grace in Calvin’s Theology. Paternoster, 2008.

__________. “Imputation as Attribution: Union with Christ, Reification and Justification as Declarative Word.” IJST 11 (2009): 415-427.

__________. “Debating Justification Productively: A Review Essay.” Review of Justification: Five Views, ed. Beilby and Eddy. SBET 31 (2013): 211-226.

__________. “Union with Christ, the Reformed tradition, and Research: Reading Fesko.” Response to Beyond Calvin, in a series of blog posts dated Dec 2013 through Jan 2014. 

Gospel Reformation Network, “12 Affirmations & Denials on the Gospel and Sanctification” (May 2014).

Hunsinger, George. “Justification and Mystical Union with Christ: Where Does Owen Stand?” Pages 199-211 in The Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen’s Theology. Ed. Kelly M. Kapic and Mark Jones. Ashgate, 2012.

Tipton, Lane G. “Union with Christ and Justification.” Pages 35-50 in Justified in Christ: God’s Plan for Us in Justification. Ed. K. Scott Oliphint. Mentor, 2007.

__________. “Inaugural Lecture: Biblical Theology and the Westminster Standards Revisited: Union with Christ and Justification Sola Fide.” WTJ 75 (2013): 1-12.

Waddington, Jeffrey. Review of Union with Christ by Todd Billings; Covenant and Salvation by Michael Horton; and Life in Christ by Mark Garcia. The Confessional Presbyterian 5 (2009): 256-269.

 

The WSC School

We come now to the WSC school of thought, presented in alphabetical order by each scholar. It is obvious, however, that Dr. Fesko has written by far the most on this topic and is the most prolific critic of Dr. Gaffin and his colleagues.

Clark, R. Scott. Caspar Olevian and the Substance of the Covenant: The Double Benefit of Christ. Reformation Heritage Books, 2008.

Clark, R. Scott, ed. Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry: Essays by the Faculty of Westminster Seminary California (=CJPM). P&R, 2007.

Fesko, John. “Calvin on Justification and Recent Misinterpretations of His View.” MJT 16 (2005): 83-114.

__________. “A More Perfect Union? Justification and Union with Christ.” MR 16/3 (2007): 32-35, 38.

__________. “Paul on Justification and Final Judgment.” Ordained Servant (Oct 2007): 66-72.

__________. Justification: Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine. P&R, 2008.

__________. “John Owen on Union with Christ and Justification.” Themelios 37.1 (2012): 7-19.

__________. “Vos and Berkhof on Union with Christ and Justification.” CTJ 47 (2012): 50-71.

__________. “Union with Christ: A Review Article.” Review of Union with Christ by Robert Letham and Union with Christ by Todd Billings. Ordained Servant (Oct 2012).

__________. Beyond Calvin: Union with Christ and Justification in Early Modern Reformed Theology (1517—1700). RHT 20. V&R, 2012.

__________. “Romans 8:29-30 and the Question of the Ordo Salutis.” JRT 8 (2014): 35-60.

__________. The Covenant of Redemption: Origins, Development, and Reception. RHT 35. V&R, 2016.

__________. The Trinity and the Covenant of Redemption. Mentor, 2016.

__________. “Reformed Orthodoxy on Imputation. Active and Passive Justification.” Perichoresis 14 (2016): 61-80.

__________. “Union with Christ and Reformed Orthodoxy: Calvin vs. the Calvinists?” Ordained Servant (Jan 2017).

Horton, Michael. Covenant and Salvation: Union with Christ. WJK, 2007.

__________. The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way. Zondervan, 2011. (Chapter 18: Union with Christ)

__________. “Traditional Reformed View.” Pages 83-111 in Justification: Five Views. Ed. James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy. IVP, 2011.

__________. “Calvin’s Theology of Union with Christ and the Double Grace: Modern Reception and Contemporary Possibilities.” Pages 72-94 in Calvin’s Theology and Its Reception. Ed. Todd Billings and John Hesselink. WJK, 2012.

 

Support for the WSC position

Herman Bavinck, A. A. Hodge, and John Owen cannot be considered members of the WSC school, obviously, since they pre-date the debate, yet they clearly provide support for the same basic position. I find these three items to be incredibly helpful in the clarity they bring to these issues, especially the important distinction between active (or objective) and passive (or subjective) justification.

Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics. Ed. John Bolt. Trans. John Vriend. Baker, 2008. (See 3.523, 583, 591; 4.214-22)

Hodge, A. A. “The Ordo Salutis.” The Princeton Review 54 (1878): 304-21.

Mason, Matthew W. “John Owen’s Doctrine of Union with Christ in Relation to His Contributions to 17th Century Debates Concerning Eternal Justification.” Ecclesia Reformanda 1 (2009): 46-69.

Muller, Richard A. “Union with Christ and the Ordo Salutis: Reflections on Developments in Early Modern Reformed Thought.” Pages 202-243 in Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation. Baker, 2012. 

 

Exchanges

Here are the main exchanges that I have found. After the overview by Timothy Miller, these exchanges provide an excellent entry point into the debate.

Garcia, “No Reformed Theology of Justification?” Review of CJPM. Ordained Servant (Oct 2007).
Godfrey and VanDrunen, “Response to Garcia’s Review of CJPM.” Ordained Servant (Dec 2007).

Wenger, Thomas L. “The New Perspective on Calvin.” JETS 50 (2007): 311-28.
Johnson, Marcus P. “A Reply to Thomas Wenger.” JETS 51 (2008): 543-558.

Fesko, “A Tale of Two Calvins.” Review of Life in Christ by Garcia. Ordained Servant (Mar 2009).
Gaffin, “A Response to John Fesko’s Review.” Ordained Servant (Mar 2009).

Fesko, “Sanctification and Union with Christ: A Reformed Perspective.” EQ 82 (2010): 197-214.
Cunningham, “Definitive Sanctification: A Response to John Fesko.” EQ 84 (2012): 234-252.

Evans, “Déjà vu All Over Again?” WTJ 72 (2010): 135-151.
Fesko, “A Response to William B. Evans.” WTJ (2010): 391-402.
Evans, “A Reply to J. V. Fesko.” WTJ 72 (2010): 403-14.

Tipton’s critique of Horton, Christ the Center, Episode 200 (10/28/2011)
Horton’s response, Christ the Center, Episode 207 (12/16/2011)
Tipton and Horton conversation, Christ the Center, Episode 213 (1/20/2012)