Comments on: John Flavel and Union with Christ

By: Drew

Drew — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 15:50:02 +0000

During the show ya’ll mentioned a general bibliography on the Union with Christ controversy. Are you still planning to post that?

By: Mark G

Mark G — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 17:02:48 +0000

…and a rebuttal from Rob Edwards

http://reformedforum.wpengine.com/john-flavel-on-union-with-christ-a-response-to-john-fesko/

By: Jeff Waddington

Jeff Waddington — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 12:37:25 +0000

In reply to Rupert, REC.

Rupert

Tu quoque!

How about you also do your homework. As far as I know no one here affirms occasionalism. Nice try though. Besides, while I hold Muller in high esteem I do not treat him like the latest writer of the Bible and reserve the right to disagree with his assessment of things.

Thanks for your channeling…

By: Rupert, REC

Rupert, REC — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 06:20:01 +0000

Too bad we don’t listen to Richard Muller concerning the Occasionalism and Enlightenment capitulation seen in Jonathan Edwards. We would be able to recover Reformed causality and you all might begin understanding Union with Christ. Just a thought. See Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics and Muller’s recent lecture on Edwards and his forthcoming book on Calvin and Union. Decimates Garcia, Tipton, Gaffin, et al I hear.

We might end the parochial central dogma theories and the inbreeding at WTS with its sub-par biblicism which it calls biblical theology.

By: David Morgan

David Morgan — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:20:06 +0000

There’s some discussion of the same article in the latest Office Hours, which may be of interest:

http://wscal.edu/resource-center/resource/beyond-calvin-fesko (it starts at about 36 or 37 minutes, although some of what’s said makes more sense if you’ve listened to the whole thing)

By: Mark G

Mark G — Sat, 15 Sep 2012 12:54:57 +0000

Thanks for this program. This along with paper sheds significant light on the discussion. I enjoyed the sketch of John Flavel’s theology of union with Christ, perticularly the relationships between hypostatic union, mystical union and communion.

I wonder how this relates to the idea that believers participate in some way in the intratriniatarian love between the Father and the Son. I have not read Billings book but it seems to me that such an idea would have to be contained within such a structure and not outside of it.

I hope this program and the paper moves the “debate” forward in a positive way. It seems to put to rest the trash talk regarding Gaffin’s teaching being something new and foreign to reformed theology; e.g., “Gaffin School” and “New Perspective on Calvin.”