Hi Camden,

No that’s not what I meant. I understand the confessions as you described them and was just looking for a qualification, which you provided. I would expect that there should be some consistent synergy between a subject covered by the confession and a work addressing that same subject. For example if the book is contradicting a position on Adoption defined by the confession that would be a problem.

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.

justin andrusk,

Hi again 🙂

It seems to me that you are missing the point of the confessions, they are simply meant to summarize what we believe about the Christian Faith. They aren’t meant to be an exhaustive explanation of all the doctrines that they speak of. In any case, The logical implications of what you are saying would be against the use of Systematic theologies, historical theological works , biblical theological works, etc., these are the works that expound the nuances of the doctrines, presupposing Reformed Christian Theism as summarized by the confessions. Hopefully that isn’t what you mean to be doing.

Blessings

Does that imply then that the WCF and the other reformed confessions are deficient in content for those said subjects? I have heard it said that the confessions expound the Scriptures and these books expound the confessions?

Justin, by that logic should we not write books on justification or sanctification then?

James,

I don’t think we ever said that our justification comes from our adoption. In fact, we would deny that outright. Our adoption and our justification come from our union with Christ. Jesus is our righteousness. We are “counted, reckoned” righteous in Him as we have His righteous record imputed to us legally. This is what makes us very NOT Romans Catholic. We would unequivocally deny that our adoption or our sanctification affect our justification contra Rome. Furthermore, I personally believe that the Scriptures teach that justification has a logical priority to adoption in the ordo salutis. We are taken from the Law court (in justification) to the living room (in adoption). That being said, what I was seeking to emphasize is that the whole of the Christian life can be most fully enjoyed (all of the other saving blessings being associated with it) in our adoption through union with Christ. This is not the same as saying what Rome has said in the statements above. We deny a condign, as well as a congruous merit for justification contra Rome. We believe that Jesus merited all the righteousness we need for a right standing before God.

Although I think these guys have valid concerns it seems to me that they may be addressed within traditional reformed categories of union, sanctification, adoption and teachings such as the church as the bride of Christ, adoption, sonship, the body of Christ, etc. However, it may have value so long as one does go universalist, pantheistic (maintains creator/creature distinction), retains forensic justification, etc. Gaffin, Tipton and others seem to dealing along the same lines in their teaching on union & resurrection.

Thinking more about what was said about adoption, I don’t wish to say that “what you said about adoption is exactly…” Rather, I just want to affirm that there are many significant similarities. Adoption and union with Christ is essential to understanding Catholic’s teaching on justification and sanctification. Taking the Thomistic tradition as an example, grace is a participation in the life of God. Grace imprints in the powers of the human person a participation in the perfection of God’s own self-knowledge and love, intensifying the Imago Dei in man. With St. Paul we can say, “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives within me.” Because grace is like an accidental form which inheres me, I can be a true principle of a super-natural act of love. I truly act with a supernatural perfection, by grace alone, meriting God to grant me. In your talk, you made a sharp divide between a forensic justification and a subsequent sanctification, which appears to me as superfluous. But, I’m not commenting here to cause divisions, just to demonstrate that I do appreciate the differences between our theologies, and maybe stimulate discussion.

Also in total depravity there is much similarity: “This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends entirely on God’s gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself. It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every other creature” (CCC 1998).

Also many parallels in what you said about the Eucharist. I also liked what you had to say about the ‘Jesus and me spirituality.’

If you want to do more research about union with Christ, study Thomistic moral theology!

One that I found interesting deals with Calvin’s theology of deification (“United to God through Christ: Calvin on the Question of Deification,” Harvard Theological Review ) which you can find here:

http://www.jtoddbillings.com/Billings-HTR.pdf

Which part of this sounded Barthian/neo-Orthodox?