What is the whole union with Christ debate?

[MW]

So, are we saying that Warfield is wrong, assuming his quote remained as his final stance on the issue?

The quotation comes in the context of an examination of another writer's presentation. In order to understand what Warfield was saying one needs to know to what he was replying. He had just quoted Jellinghaus to the effect that "the New Testament does not (“mostly”) teach justification through faith and sanctification through faith, but
justification and sanctification through faith." Warfield's concern was with the conceptual conflation which was being made by what he calls "the mediating theology." This theology claimed that the New Testament does not make the sharp conceptual distinction which is made in Lutheran and Reformed theology. Warfield's response, then, must be seen as a concern to maintain this conceptual difference. His statement gives priority to justification. This is a just reflection of Reformed theology. Justification, adoption, sanctification, is the order of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. He then makes a statement, which he does not go on to explain, declaring that sanctification depends on justification. "Conceptually" -- the context of the statement -- this is true. Faith appropriates Christ's righteousness for justification as a matter of priority. Faith's appropriation for sanctification depends upon this "legal" priority. Nevertheless, Warfield does insist that faith relies on Christ for sanctification, that this is the same act of faith which relies on Christ for justification, and that salvation is unitary. His view is well summarised in what follows:

For the main matter, however, Jellinghaus’ expositions of the Scriptural material are not only true, but both obvious and important. It is not exact to say that the New Testament makes no conceptional distinction between justification and sanctification. But it is true to say that it is absolutely impatient of their separation from one another, and uniformly represents them as belonging together and entering as constituent parts into the one, unitary salvation which is received by faith. The significance of Jellinghaus’ exposition of the Scriptural material is that by it it is made perfectly clear that no support from the New Testament can be obtained for separating them and representing them as two distinct benefits which may be obtained apart from each other by separate acts of faith.

With this affirmation Warfield parts company with those who are quoting him as an advocate of their justification-only gospel.

 

[MW]

Yes I didn't think about that distinction, thank you for showing it to me. This teaching only. I have no doubts that they are over all Reformed. I know that in the interviews I mentioned that Horton sees the Lutherans and the Reformed teaching the same thing with regards to this teaching. I guess I would ask is that true?

On this teaching they have strayed from the Reformed faith. As noted in my first post in this thread, it is contrary to the Confession and Catechisms and has its roots in the Antinomian movement of the 17th century.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Calvin on Rom 6:2

Who have died to sin, etc. An argument derived from what is of an opposite character. “He who sins certainly lives to sin; we have died to sin through the grace of Christ; then it is false, that what abolishes sin gives vigor to it.” The state of the case is really this, — that the faithful are never reconciled to God without the gift of regeneration; nay, we are for this end justified, — that we may afterwards serve God in holiness of life. Christ indeed does not cleanse us by his blood, nor render God propitious to us by his expiation, in any other way than by making us partakers of his Spirit, who renews us to a holy life. It would then be a most strange inversion of the work of God were sin to gather strength on account of the grace which is offered to us in Christ; for medicine is not a feeder of the disease, which it destroys.

6:5

Ingrafted, etc. There is great force in this word, and it clearly shows, that the Apostle does not exhort, but rather teach us what benefit we derive from Christ; for he requires nothing from us, which is to be done by our attention and diligence, but speaks of the grafting made by the hand of God. But there is no reason why you should seek to apply the metaphor or comparison in every particular; for between the grafting of trees, and this which is spiritual, a disparity will soon meet us: in the former the graft draws its aliment from the root, but retains its own nature in the fruit; but in the latter not only we derive the vigor and nourishment of life from Christ, but we also pass from our own to his nature. The Apostle, however, meant to express nothing else but the efficacy of the death of Christ, which manifests itself in putting to death our flesh, and also the efficacy of his resurrection, in renewing within us a spiritual nature.

 

[jwright82]

On this teaching they have strayed from the Reformed faith. As noted in my first post in this thread, it is contrary to the Confession and Catechisms and has its roots in the Antinomian movement of the 17th century.

Thank you, that makes sense.

 

[moral necessity]

So, are we saying that Warfield is wrong, assuming his quote remained as his final stance on the issue?

The quotation comes in the context of an examination of another writer's presentation. In order to understand what Warfield was saying one needs to know to what he was replying. He had just quoted Jellinghaus to the effect that "the New Testament does not (“mostly”) teach justification through faith and sanctification through faith, but
justification and sanctification through faith." Warfield's concern was with the conceptual conflation which was being made by what he calls "the mediating theology." This theology claimed that the New Testament does not make the sharp conceptual distinction which is made in Lutheran and Reformed theology. Warfield's response, then, must be seen as a concern to maintain this conceptual difference. His statement gives priority to justification. This is a just reflection of Reformed theology. Justification, adoption, sanctification, is the order of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. He then makes a statement, which he does not go on to explain, declaring that sanctification depends on justification. "Conceptually" -- the context of the statement -- this is true. Faith appropriates Christ's righteousness for justification as a matter of priority. Faith's appropriation for sanctification depends upon this "legal" priority. Nevertheless, Warfield does insist that faith relies on Christ for sanctification, that this is the same act of faith which relies on Christ for justification, and that salvation is unitary. His view is well summarised in what follows:

For the main matter, however, Jellinghaus’ expositions of the Scriptural material are not only true, but both obvious and important. It is not exact to say that the New Testament makes no conceptional distinction between justification and sanctification. But it is true to say that it is absolutely impatient of their separation from one another, and uniformly represents them as belonging together and entering as constituent parts into the one, unitary salvation which is received by faith. The significance of Jellinghaus’ exposition of the Scriptural material is that by it it is made perfectly clear that no support from the New Testament can be obtained for separating them and representing them as two distinct benefits which may be obtained apart from each other by separate acts of faith.

With this affirmation Warfield parts company with those who are quoting him as an advocate of their justification-only gospel.

Thanks for your reply, Rev. Winzer. Context of quotes is a necessity. I'll look into what you're saying here.

Blessings!

 

[Jeffriesw]

Yes I didn't think about that distinction, thank you for showing it to me. This teaching only. I have no doubts that they are over all Reformed. I know that in the interviews I mentioned that Horton sees the Lutherans and the Reformed teaching the same thing with regards to this teaching. I guess I would ask is that true?

On this teaching they have strayed from the Reformed faith. As noted in my first post in this thread, it is contrary to the Confession and Catechisms and has its roots in the Antinomian movement of the 17th century.

Thank you for the clarity on the issue Rev. Winzer. it sort of also would seem to tie back in somewhat to the Lordship debate that raged through the 80's and 90's.

 

[KMK]

Charles Hodge, from "Discussions in Church Polity"

As to the bond by which the saints are united so as to become a Church, it cannot be anything external, because that may and always does unite those who are not saints. The bond, whatever it is, must be peculiar to the saints; it must be something to which their justification, sanctification, and access to God are due. This can be nothing less than their relation to Christ. It is in virtue of union with him that men become saints, or are justified, sanctified, and brought nigh to God.

 

[jwright82]

I just found this. Monergism :: Union with Christ.
I hope it helps anyone, I know it has me.