Comments on: Johnson’s “One with Christ” Overcomes the Signal-to-Noise Ratio

By: Mark G

Mark G — Thu, 27 Mar 2014 20:04:38 +0000

Thanks Camden. Sounds like an interesting book.

It’s more helpful to stick to the legal analogies. A legal declaration (justification) in and of itself has no effect and no functional (organic) connection to an effect. The reason a legal declaration is effective is that it has the rule of law behind it (union). The judicial ground of being freed from prison is not the judge’s declaration but the law upon which both the judge and prisoner stand.

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 27 Mar 2014 18:54:31 +0000

Writing a paper on this exact topic now. This is precisely what I needed to get moving again. Thank you! excellent portion of the book!

By: Andrew Myers

Andrew Myers — Thu, 27 Mar 2014 17:19:11 +0000

Being relatively green in this discussion, I too could use a little more explanation on that point. It seems to me that a cause-effect relationship precisely is a way of distinguishing rather than confusing the two benefits.

By: Brian Lund

Brian Lund — Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:53:58 +0000

Quote:
This kind of language is confusing because if justification “effects,” “grounds,” “produces,” “brings in its wake,” or “actualizes” sanctification, in what way is this different from saying that justification “includes” sanctification?
/Quote

So just to spell this out for those (still?) not getting it, do the following examples work?

A high castle tower is “grounded” by the foundation. Both the foundation and the tower are apart of the castle, but it seems nonsensical to insist that the foundation “includes” the high tower. I would understand this analogy to be foundation = justification, tower = sanctification, and castle building = salvation (union?). But I don’t sense any danger in confusing the foundation with the tower.

Or to use the language of effect. A judge pronouncing the defendant innocent has “the effect” of taking off the prison-orange jumper, unlocking the handcuffs, and the person going free. The verdict “effected” the result, but the judge never breathed a word about handcuffs, etc. The judge did not “include” the handcuffs in his verdict. There is a logical connection, but not confusion.

Where am I getting this wrong?

Just to be clear, does embracing the mystical union model mean rejecting the connections of “the Golden chaine” by Perkins and others?

By: Richard

Richard — Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:38:58 +0000

Camden,

Thank you for this review. I have purchased the book and look forwarding to receiving it soon.