http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/01/07/historical-claims-concerning-union-with-christ/#comments

http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/01/07/historical-claims-concerning-union-with-christ/#comments

Throughout this discussion I have yet to see clarification (from those in agreement with Tipton) in properly answering this question…………..Besides Horton being Lutheran and semi-Pelagian in “structural primacy” are you also suggesting that Dr. Horton would disagree with this statement……“Reformed theology and Reformed principles are true insofar as they are biblical. Period.” Are you Tipton supporters saying that Horton would disagree with that fact?

Do you have to be a professional theologian to ask questions on this site? If so I will keep my place as a reader. Just wondering so that I do not speak out of turn.

Thanks for this Bill. Maybe this would be a good place to confess that I’ve always struggled with the canonicity of Romans 6:3-7 (to much sanctification and all that). I mean, see for yourself: “3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7 for he who has died is freed from sin.” All this talk about walking in newness of life – gimme a break. The real Paul would just stick to the gospel!

Throughout this discussion I have yet to see clarification (from those in agreement with Tipton) in properly answering this question…………..Besides Horton being Lutheran and semi-Pelagian in “structural primacy” are you also suggesting that Dr. Horton would disagree with this statement……“Reformed theology and Reformed principles are true insofar as they are biblical. Period.” Are you Tipton supporters saying that Horton would disagree with that fact?

The total depravity of man was described by Luther in his famous “sin boldly”, which Rome and the enemies of grace never understood in its context. Here’s below how Luther described the total depravity of man, and his famous sin boldly but believer more boldly!

Luther:
“If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong (sin boldly), but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign.”

Sin boldly, Bill, sin boldly!

And let us be clear, my spiritual non-christian former boss was proud how he overcame drugs and alcohol, it was a non-christian testimony of personal transformation. My yoga teacher friend has more positive energy, is more productive, and harder working than most people I’ve seen. She used to do drugs and be involved in promiscuous sex, today she’s overcome all that. A testimony on the power of yoga to change lives some might say. Gandhi is one of the most charitable and peaceful leaders of the 20th century, a testimony of the power of hinduism to produce good works. And I can go on and on, but the bottom line is that personal transformation is not the hallmark of christianity, justification by grace alone through faith alone is. Christianity is all about imputed righteousness, not good works or inherent righteousness. For anything that is not of faith is sin, no matter how good the works appear on the eyes of men. And anything that is of faith God will accept, because the tree is good, so the fruit is good as well. The tree is made good by the imputed righteousness of Christ, apprehended by faith..

Charlie,

Brilliant! Because Tipton everywhere says that we’re justified by works! It’s all coming together for me now. Thanks… that was so helpful and productive. I’m glad you wasted… err… took the time to copy and paste that.

We can always be served by lengthy treatments, and in-context discussions!

Don’t these guys know that Reformed essentially means agreeing with our former Reformers on every subject and jot and tittle? Tipton is clearly not Reformed with all the exegetical talk. He is totally a nuance revisionist extraordinaire. You’re right Charlie, I have never heard him agree with Calvin, Turretin, Bavinck, Owen, Edwards, Hodge, Warfield, or Luther. He hates those guys. He is all “Paul says this…” and “Peter said this …” or “John writes this…”. What an emergent neo-orthodox nut case. He’s all “the gospel is primarily a person … Christ” (crazy!). We all know that Jesus never talked about himself being the way, the truth, or the life. Jesus was all “salvation is noetic assent about abstract truths, hence Babies and people with Alzheimer disease are clearly not saved.” Well done soldier. Keep it Jazzy …Ray

Amen & amen.
(I erred on another Ref-Forum page in confusing Lane’s videos on the subject of union with the material here!)
Maybe some trouble stems from shorthand, sound-bites, and shortcuts we take in conversations and on blogs?
Since we are condensing hundreds of years and thousands of pages of theology into very brief bits, might these bits easily confuse and aggravate?

Camden,

If I can pursue this a little further, I’m trying to gain some further insight into this question of whether the forensic or the renovative aspects of salvation have the priority by considering the nature of the atonement. I’ve just skimmed through the section in the first part of Murray’s Redemption Accomplished and Applied entitled “The Nature of the Atonement,” and though he doesn’t explicitly say so, it seems clear by his treatment that the forensic aspects of the atonement are far more in the forefront of his mind than the renovative aspects. Here’s what I mean: Murray deals with the nature of the atonement under the four categories of sacrifice, propitiation, reconciliation, and redemption. Of these four categories, the first three are entirely forensic. They all clearly have exclusive reference to what Christ does to procure our justification and have nothing to do with what He does to procure our sanctification. Only the fourth category, redemption, has reference to both forensic and renovative categories, in that Christ redeems us from both the guilt and the power of sin. Regarding Christ’s freeing us from the power of sin, Murray devotes just one paragraph in his entire treatment of the atonement, the rest of which focuses exclusively on the guilt of sin. So it seems to me that if Murray’s presentation is accurate, then it would seem that the Bible places far more emphasis on the forensic aspects of the atonement than on its renovative aspects.

Thoughts?

Camden,

In the interests of trying to better understand, I have some questions about the atonement and historia salutis. Based on what I’ve been hearing from you guys, I think you would argue that there are both forensic and renovative aspects to the atonement, and that neither of those aspects has the primacy in terms of importance, am I correct?

If so, then I have the following questions: What is the relationship of the merit of Christ to the forensic aspect of the atonement? (Are they equivalent and if not, then what is the relationship?) Moving to the ordo, What is the relationship between the merit of Christ and our sanctification?

I am asking these questions because it seems to me that while the atonement has been touched upon in these discussions, it hasn’t explicitly figured into them to the same degree as the resurrection. If you can point me to some reading material, I’d be grateful. It seems to me that Murray touches on this a little, and Gaffin also gets at it a bit in “Atonement and the Pauline Corpus” in the “five views” book. Where else can I look?

Again, just wanting to better understand. Thanks.

Charlie,
In addition, Robert Letham’s book on the history of the Westminster Assembly bears out your assertion regarding the roots of the Westminster Confession/Catechisms being firmly in the English Church’s Articles of Religion, Lambeth Articles, and Ussher’s Irish Articles.

Only someone blind to church history could possibly say that Lutherans and Calvinists do not have some affinity on the doctrine of justification by faith alone and imputed righteousness. The appropriate sections of Calvin’s Institutes bear this out. Also, compare that to the Consensus of Tigerinus and one cannot help but notice that Calvin himself sought a consensus on doctrinal essentials with both Lutherans and Zwinglian Reformed theology.

Hey, why not invite R. Scott Clark or Carl Trueman to discuss the historical and theological roots of the Westminster Confession? Who is really the revisionist here?

Charlie

Second of all, to confuse the forensic justification imputed to the believer with infused sanctification is to deny the very Gospel itself. Even Charles Hodge was not so blind as to confuse imputed righteousness with the imperfect, filthy rags of sanctification. Of course we obey the moral law out of gratitude to Christ for what He did for us on the cross and for His perfect and sinless life. But that obedience is not now nor will it ever be part of our ground or basis for salvation. It is a “result” of a credible profession of faith but not the cause of salvation.

Even the late Archbishop Thomas Cranmer got this. The 39 Articles, Articles 11 and 12, on justification and good works say this:

Article XI
Of the Justification of Man
We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort; as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

Provenance

Based on the Confession of Würtemberg.

Article XII
Of Good Works
Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of God’s judgement, yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.

If anything, to emphasize sanctification above justification by melding the two together in a new sine qua non of the “gospel” in the doctrine of union with Christ is to commit the error of Osiander where justification and sanctification become infused. In fact in your earlier discussion with Lane Tipton the heading said, “Transformative aspects of justification.” This is the Roman Catholic position. There are no “transformative aspects of justification”! Justification is imputed and forensic and without that forensic, declarative justification there is no salvation and no acceptance of good works as pleasing to God. The 39 Articles of Religion refutes good works as acceptable before justification and the Articles also refute the idea that there is some sort of higher life of total sanctification, i.e. supererogatory works through “union with Christ” or any other such compromise with Rome. (See Articles 13 and 14).

If union with Christ is essentially sanctification and obedience then the implication is that new believers need to prove themselves before the judgment. That begs the question, “Is faith alone enough to justify the believer?” If not, then new believers, death bed conversions, and others who simply accept the Gospel are in for a hell of a time. My contention is that Tipton’s view–along with Norman Shepherd, the theonomists and reconstructionists and a whole host of other neo-legalists–has more in common with Rome than with Geneva or Canterbury or Wittenberg.

Charlie

You’re right, that makes sense. Thanks for the interaction! Good to hear your thoughts.

Dr. Tipton said the following in the Reformed Forum interview:

“What I think Horton and others have done, is kind of give a traditional Reformed ordo salutis a Lutheran make-over, and replace the centrality of effectual calling and the union that it effects with justification. And so, it’s in his work that I see—the most charitable way I can put it is—a kind of unstable disequilibrium, or a dialectic between Lutheran and Reformed motifs with the Lutheran getting the structural primacy.”

I didn’t mean to say that Tipton’s argument is about Horton as a person or his theology as a whole. So, I apologize if my language was ambiguous and/or misleading in that regard. It’s my contention that Tipton characterizes Horton’s soteriology specifically as something other than Reformed, and essentially/necessarily Lutheran as over against Reformed.

Very true. But I say these things as one who’d be classified as belonging to the “Gaffin school.” I appreciate Tipton, and I almost entirely agree with him on the theological particulars. As such, I’d assume it’s a given that I disagree and take issue with mischaracterizations and pejorative labels from the other side.

Jonathan, I direct you to my previous, previous post. Whatever you may have heard in class or in private conversations with Dr. Tipton is besides the point. What he said *on the show* was a critique of the structure of one aspect of Horton’s soteriology, not the man himself. Nor, his theology as a whole. Tipton was actually pretty careful and guarded in how he said what he said, in my opinion.

As an aside, Van Til was treated in a similar way in his day. His criticism were leveled against particular aspects of other men’s theology, but evangelicals painted him uncharitable thinking that he was condemning the objects of his critiques. And that was itself, ironically, an uncharitable read of VT.

I think if you’re going to use that knife it needs to cut both ways. Mark’s right; the “Gaffin-school” language Fesko uses is unhelpful and inaccurate. If the discussion is about a charitable read, the degree to which one finds Tipton uncharitable is the degree to which a few others are as well. My point in bringing this up is not mud-slinging, but an attempt at balance for this particular “charitable read” question. And a critique that claims an opposing view is wholly innovative is not the same as a critique that claims the opposing view is not innovative but more consistently at home within a similar, neighboring tradition.

Ok, Jim. I don’t see where or how I’m being uncharitable. I hear/read Tipton saying that Horton’s soteriology is not Reformed but essentially Lutheran. Are you saying that’s not what Tipton is saying? I’m open to correction. Point me to where Tipton says that Horton’s soteriology has a place in the Reformed tradition and isn’t essentially and distinctively Lutheran, and I’ll gladly go back on what I’ve said.

I’ve heard much from Tipton on this (as he was one of my seminary profs–I’m going on what I’ve heard from him in class). And I’ve tried hard, but I can’t help but hear in his critique of Horton the idea that Horton is theologically Lutheran and *not* Reformed. Maybe it’s just hyperbolic rhetoric and Tipton would like to qualify that contention more. But I haven’t heard that qualification from him.

And the point isn’t that there’s no connection with Lutheran soteriology. There is. But that connection is also embedded in the German Reformed tradition, and in the Heidelberg catechism. And the point’s that just because there’s a connection doesn’t mean that Horton’s soteriology doesn’t have a place in the Reformed tradition. It’s like me saying, “Jim, since I see a connection between your view of inspiration and Al Mohler’s, you must be a closet Baptist.”

Jared,

I’d agree that the way WTS Philly parses all out the details is more in line with the *majority* of the Reformed tradition, and that that majority is more clearly distinct from Lutheran dogmatics than the other stream of thought, which wants to draw a sharper disctintion between Law and Gospel. But this latter, (in my view) minority stream of thought was never confessionally *rejected*–there was always room left for it in the tradition. And I admit I could be mistaken, but in my reading of the history, this particular issue hasn’t been until fairly recently (in the grand scheme of things) a point of significant conflict.

And if we define the Reformed tradition in terms of ecclesiastically recognized confessional documents rather than what particular theologians have said, it really does seem that Horton would be entirely in line with Heidelberg. And Heidelberg is a Reformed confessional document and not Lutheran at all–it’s recognized and confessed by Reformed churches, and it still is.

My concern is that we not define things too narrowly. We’re members of the same house, sincerely trying to honor the same history while being faithful to the same revealed word of God. This discussion really ought to take the form and tone of brothers seeking mutual understanding and eventual concord. There, of course, *is* a place for drawing lines in the sand. But this isn’t one of them.

Just to be fair to Dr. Tipton, I did not hear him label Horton himself with “Lutheran.” He did say that his theological formulation with regard to just and union is structurally Lutheran. The connections to Lutheran dogmatics is there and documented in Tipton’s article in “Justified in Christ.” Furthermore, he never called Horton semi-Pelagian. He asked a question: If justification occurs outside of union, then how does faith not precede regeneration? Yet one more point. Tipton tied a semi-Pelagian anthropology to Lutheranism, not to Horton. So, we not only have to be careful in our critiques of other men in the same house, but we also need to be careful in our critiques of our brothers’ critiques!

Jonathan, great points, sincerely. Would it be fair to say that there could be a case made where the original Lutheran position in its (rightly) historical emphasis on justification in opposition to Rome was then nuanced and progressed to the point where the forensic aspect had historically been addressed and the structure of soteriology and its foundation in union with Christ could then be worked out within the Reformed tradition? Some genuine, card-carrying, unequivocally-termed Reformed thinkers may have continued in a more justification-focused soteriology, which is more characteristic of the Lutheran tradition than some of their brothers within the Reformed tradition who were continuing to fine-tune soteriological structure beyond a justification-centric model. In other words, if there is a difference between Lutheran and Reformed soteriology and they are not identical, I would think it would be this. The degree to which they are similar is another question.

Mark,

I’m with you there. Like I said, I’m entirely on the WTS Phila side with regard to the substance of the discussion (centrality of Union). So, I understand the temptation to go tit for tat with the labels. I’m just hoping that one side in this discussion will take the route of being reviled without reviling in return, and that that will lead to eventual concord.

Hey Jonathan,

I agree with you whole heartedly that labelling can be unhelpful. I only point out that in any human interaction there is never one side to the story.

Mark,

I understand that such labels predate this particular discussion. And of course there are significant differences.

But that’s not the point. The point’s that even with those differences, the interlocutors in this discussion do in fact belong to the same confessional/ecclesiastical tradition. And that’s the case because it is possible (contrary to what seems to be the prevailing opinion) to have two difference positions or emphases on certain matters (and this is one of them) and still both be “Reformed” in the historical/ecclesiastical sense. The ambiguity that allows such is embedded within our tradition (considered broadly). So the argument here shouldn’t be about who is “in” and who is “out” of the Reformed house. It should be about what Scripture says, and each side seeking progress, mutual understanding, and concord in our understanding of the Word of God as Reformed believers who’re united by a common history and a common confession. But until it’s recognized and freely allowed that we all belong to the same house, albeit with different theological emphases, the discussion will get bogged down in things like “Calvin v. Calvin,” “Calvin v. Berkhof,” “Westminster v. Heidleberg,” ad nauseam.

Now, that hasn’t proven very productive. But it will remain absolutely necessary as long as one side keeps insisting that the other has no place in the tradition.

Amen to Camden’s desire to move the discussion in covenantal directions. Since we all like throwing around Berkhov (and other’s) quotes here is another. “Calvin repeatedly expresses the idea that the sinner cannot share in the saving benefits of Christ’s redemptive work, unless he be in union with Him, and thus emphasizes a very important truth. As Adam was the representative head of the old humanity, so Christ is the representative head of the new humanity. All the blessing of the covenant of grace flow from Him who is the mediatior of the covenant. Even the very first blessing of the saving grace of God which we receive already presupposes a union with the Person of the Mediator.”

It is only the sovereign person and work of Christ who transfers dead us from the realm of the first Adam and into life in the realm of the eschatos Adam.

I believe the labelling of certain views as “Lutheran” and others as “Reformed” predates the Tipton/Horton discussion with respect to union with Christ. It has been claimed/suggested, for example, that the “Gaffin school” is something “new” (read between the lines, i.e., not Reformed), the New Perspective on Calvin, FV and influenced by Shephard. These are attempts at labelling Gaffin et al., heterodox and unreformed.

From Berkhov, “Lutherans generally treat the doctrine of mystical union anthropologically, and therefore conceive of it as established by faith. Hence they naturally take it up at a later point in their soteriology. But this method fails to do full justice to the idea of our union with Christ, since it loses sight of the eternal basis of the union and of its objective realization in Christ, and deals exclusively with the subjective realization of it in our lives, and even so only with our personal conscious entrance into this union. Reformed theology, on the other hand, deals with the union of believers with Christ theologically, and as such does far greater justice to this important subject. In doing so it employs the term ‘mystical union’ in a broad sense as a designation not only of the subjective union of Christ and believers, but also of the union that lies back of it, that is basic to it, and of which it is only the culminating expression, namely, the federal union of Christ and those who are His in the counsel of redemption, the mystical union ideally established in that eternal counsel, and the union as it is objectively effected in the incarnation and redemptive work of Christ.”

One side claims the other is more “Lutheran” than “Reformed” at some points. The other claims that any differences are exagerated and thus pointing them out is “uncharitable.” If there are really no significant differences why get offended at being called either Lutheran or Reformed? It’s all the same. Behind the ecclesiastical claim is a theological claim for which “Lutheran” is shorthand.

It ought also to be noted that, while WTS Philly is always fond of saying (rightly) that the locus of the debate needs to be the exegesis of Scripture, it is Tipton himself who *shifts the locus of the debate* to historical theology. Because the charge that Escondido and Horton are “Lutheran” is a historic/ecclesiastical claim, *not* a biblical/exegetical one.

It ought also to be noted that, while WTS Philly is always fond of saying (rightly) that the locus of the debate needs to be the exegesis of Scripture, it is actually Tipton himself who *shifts the locus of the debate* to historical theology. Because the charge that Escondido and Horton are “Lutheran” is a historic/ecclesiastical claim, *not* an exegetical/biblical one.

I hear you, Jared, insofar as Scripture is the final authority and that must be the center piece of the discussion. And I’m with WTS PA on Union.

However, I believe there comes a problem when Tipton claims that Horton is working from Lutheran principles. This leads to the necessity of Horton and those who agree with him to defend themselves and locate Reformed antecedents for their position.

And the bottom line is: they do have those antecedents. Do you want to throw the whole German Reformed tradition off the Reformed bus? What do you do with the Heidleberg Catechism, and Ursinus’ statement in his intro. that the “entire doctrine of the church is the distinction between Law and Gospel.” Here we have not merely a private theologian, but a confessionally sanctioned Reformed ecclesiastical document. If that doesn’t count in the discussion of what “is” and what “is not” Reformed, then I don’t know what does.

Of course, that doesn’t settle the substance of the debate–which is, “What is true? What does Scripture say?” But it should at least lead to a toning down of the rhetoric with regard to who is and who is not Reformed. Both Tipton and Horton are Reformed theologians working from Reformed principles. And that’s the case because the Reformed tradition is, from its very inception in the 16th century, variegated on these issues. So we ought to be treating each other as brothers within the same confessional house, because that’s what we are. Let’s stop pointing at each other while shouting the claim that our brother is “of a different spirit” (to use truly Lutheran language).

Darryl,

If we are to speak about the overall context of the problem of sin and salvation, wouldn’t “federal” or “covenantal” be a more appropriate term rather than “forensic”? I’ve wanted this discussion to go in this direction from the beginning. You are quite correct that the law and disobedience to it brings about the problem of sin. But many, including myself, use the categories “forensic” and “renovative” in the way the Westminster Standards use “act” and “work.” Both God’s acts and works are necessary to resolve the two-fold problem of sin. And I fail to see how one is primary in the light of the overall solution in God’s plan of redemption. Here is some context on my thoughts pertaining to justification as forensic:

We speak of justification as forensic because it doesn’t change you intrinsically. It does not transform the sinner into one with personal righteousness. Rather, it imputes an alien righteousness. To speak of a declaration of justification that is a work/renovative/intrinsic change is to compromise its very forensic character and to commit the error of Rome.

Moreover, to speak of a declaration of righteousness in the ordo salutis without at the same time speaking of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness by faith is to posit the existence of a legal fiction. Justification of this sort is empty because it has no grounds. This is where some fall into the problem of presumptive regeneration.

But to come back to the question of overall covenantal context—regeneration, sanctification, and glorification are not forensic. Yet they equally are solutions to the problem of sin that arises out of disobedience to the Covenant of Works. Covenant is not exhausted by the forensic and neither is the solution to sin: Christ’s life, death, resurrection, and ascension.

Through about 6 hours (so far) of lectures by Dr. Tipton, I really like his emphasis on union with Christ from a devotional and pastoral point of view. As a polemic against Horton, Luther, Melancthon, et. al., it’s less convincing. In particular, the differences seem exaggerated more than substantial, kind of like a scholastic dispute. I have a few more hours of stuff to listen to, so maybe I’ll eventually get it.

David,

Great point point here: “But it seems clear to me that if Horton is “Lutheran,” then Vos, Warfield, and Berkhof are also Lutherans in terms of the clear priority they all give to the forensic over the renovative.”

G. Vos from “Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation” page 384:
“In our opinion Paul consciously and consistently subordinated the mystical aspect of the relation to Christ to the forensic one. Paul’s mind was to such an extent forensically oriented that he regarded the entire complex of subjective spiritual changes that take place in the believer and of subjective spiritual blessings enjoyed by the believer as the direct outcome of the forensic work of Christ applied in justification. The mystical is based on the forensic, not the forensic on the mystical.”

Redemptive History is the ground of our existential experience in Christ. Horton’s discussions regarding speech act and covenantal ontology helps to explain the application of Christ’s “for us”, within us.

I would add that I think the only way that justification can logically precede regeneration is in the redemptive historical sense of Christ being “raised for our justification.”

Gaffin appears to prioritize the forensic in the historia (if not in the ordo):

“On the antecedent forensic basis of Christ’s atonement, his wrath-propitiating obedience unto death, God, by the faith-creating call of the gospel effective in the power of the Spirit, unites sinners to Christ now exalted to his right hand and, in so doing, gives them a share in the benefits that flow from that spiritual union, both forensic and renovative, without confusion and without separation.”

(from “A Response to John Fesko’s Book Review”)

How about the book of Romans.

Jared, let’s play back the tape. Union advocates claim to be not simply biblical but Reformed. Being Reformed is a historical claim and invites comparisons to older Reformed sources. It gets more historical when unionists make claims about Pelegianism and Lutheranism. It is entirely responsible and reasonable for those deemed Pelagian or Lutheran to look to the past to see what older Reformed voices have said. They are not saying that history is more important than Scripture. They are responding to a historical claim.

Now if you don’t want to use the words, Reformed, Lutheran, or Pelagian, and simply talk about the Bible, then I guess the point about Horton is that he is not biblical. Seems like a warranted conclusion from your argument since you say that Reformed equals biblical. If Horton is not Reformed, what does that leave?

Book 3 chapter 11 section 1 of the Institutes of the Christian Religion:

“1. I TRUST I have now sufficiently shown how man’s only resource for escaping from the curse of the law, and recovering salvation, lies in faith; and also what the nature of faith is, what the benefits which it confers, and the fruits which it produces. The whole may be thus summed up: Christ given to us by the kindness of God is apprehended and possessed by faith, by means of which we obtain in particular a twofold benefit; first, being reconciled by the righteousness of Christ, God becomes, instead of a judge, an indulgent Father; and, secondly, being sanctified by his Spirit, we aspire to integrity and purity of life. This second benefit–viz. regeneration, appears to have been already sufficiently discussed. On the other hand, the subject of justification was discussed more cursorily, because it seemed of more consequence first to explain that the faith by which alone, through the mercy of God, we obtain free justification, is not destitute of good works; and also to show the true nature of these good works on which this question partly turns. The doctrine of Justification is now to be fully discussed, and discussed under the conviction, that as it is the principal ground on which religion must be supported, so it requires greater care and attention. For unless you understand first of all what your position is before God, and what the judgment which he passes upon you, you have no foundation on which your salvation can be laid, or on which piety towards God can be reared. The necessity of thoroughly understanding this subject will become more apparent as we proceed with it.”

Yes, Jared, that was entirely satisfactory interaction with the Reformed tradition [insert eye roll]. Here’s what you come off sounding like:

“We are more reliable exegetes than the Reformed luminaries who preceded us. We are the gold standard of what is and isn’t Reformed. We are frustrated by the fact that you fail to recognize our exegetical greatness. Perhaps down the road we might honor the Reformed luminaries of the past with the privilege of being our conversation partners, but until then, shut up and stay out of our way.”

You’ll forgive me if I’m not persuaded….

Great quote Bill! Here is another Calvin quote !!!!

“But since the question concerns only righteousness and sanctification, let us dwell upon these. Although we may distinguish them, Christ contains both of them inseparably in himself. Do you wish then to attain righteousness in Christ? You must first possess Christ: but you cannot possess him without being made partaker in his sanctification, because he cannot be divided into pieces. Since therefore, it is solely by expending himself that the Lord gives us thee benefits to enjoy, he bestows both of them at the same time, the one never without the other. Thus it is clear how true it is that we are justified NOT WITHOUT WORKS yet not through works, since in our sharing IN CHRIST, WHICH JUSTIFIES US, sanctification is just as much included as righteousness.”