Patrick Ramsey has a short piece on union with Christ at Meet the Puritans. Some brief comments:
It is possible to speak of a union between Christ and the elect in terms of the decree and the federal headship of Christ. But these senses are quite different from an actual or mystical union and are not under our purview.
This refers to the standard three-fold distinction of union with Christ referring to three points in time: eternity, the cross, and conversion. The problem, however, is that we are not federally united with Christ until conversion. Prior to that we are federally “in Adam” and you can’t be both “in Adam” and “in Christ” at the same time. Separating “actual” union from federal union is a tremendous, but very common mistake. Owen does a good job of explaining that Christ and the elect are united at the cross only in the plan and intention of God (via the Covenant of Redemption). Christ does not become our federal head/representative/surety until we enter the Covenant of Grace.
An actual union with Christ refers to the moment when a sinner is united to Christ at his conversion, or in the words of the Westminster Larger Catechism, in his effectual calling (Q&A 66-67).
This is another very important point. In Redemption Accomplished and Applied, John Murray states
It is calling that is represented in Scripture as that act of God by which we are actually united to Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 1:9)… [S]alvation in actual possession takes its start from an efficacious summons on the part of God and that this summons, since it is God’s summons, carries in its bosom all of the operative efficacy by which it is made effective. It is calling and not regeneration that possesses that character.
In the effectual call we are federally united to Christ and all the benefits he earned become ours because the effectual call is God making the Covenant of Grace (New Covenant) with us. In his commentary on Hebrews 8:6-13, John Owen explains
[I]n the description of the covenant here annexed, there is no mention of any condition on the part of man, of any terms of obedience prescribed unto him, but the whole consists in free, gratuitous promises…
It is evident that there can be no condition previously required, unto our entering into or participation of the benefits of this covenant, antecedent unto the making of it with us.
However, many argue that union with Christ is established through faith, after the effectual call. This leads to a significant logical dilemma: where does faith come from if it does not come from our union with Christ? Owen explains
(1.) God’s reckoning Christ, in our present sense, is the imputing of Christ unto ungodly, unbelieving sinners for whom he died, so far as to account him theirs, and to bestow faith and grace upon them for his sake.
This, then, I say, at the accomplishment of the appointed time, the Lord reckons, and accounts, and makes out his Son Christ, to such and such sinners, and for his sake gives them faith, etc. Exercising of love actually, in the bestowing of grace upon any particular soul, in a distinguishing manner, for Christ’s sake, doth suppose this accounting of Christ to be his; and from thence he is so indeed, — which is the present thesis.
And, — (2.) This may be proved; for, — [1.] Why doth the Lord bestow faith on Peter, not on Judas? Because Christ dying for Peter, and purchasing for him the grace of the covenant, he had a right unto it, and God according to his promise bestowed it; with Judas, it was not so. But then, why doth the Lord bestow faith on Peter at the fortieth year of his age, and not before or after? Because then the term was expired which, upon the purchase, was by the counsel of God’s will prefixed to the giving in the beginning of the thing purchased unto him.
What, then, doth the Lord do when he thus bestoweth faith on him? For Christ’s sake, — his death procuring the gift, not moving the will of the giver, — he creates faith in him by the way and means suited to such a work, Ephesians 1:18,19, 2:1, etc. If, then, this be done for Christ’s sake, then is Christ made ours before we believe. Else, why is faith given him at this instant for Christ’s sake, and not to another, for whom also he died? That it is done then, is because the appointed time is come; that it is done then for Christ, is because Christ is first given to him. I cannot conceive how any thing should be made out to me for Christ, and Christ himself not be given to me
Union must precede faith. Ramsey attempts a nuanced remedy.
The Catechism’s definition of effectual calling is broad, however, and it includes both the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit and the sinner’s personal act of faith. It thus allows for one to place union in connection with regeneration or with faith or with both. Since union involves a reciprocal relationship or what Reynolds called a mutual act, wherein “Christ exhibiteth himself unto us, and we adhere and dwell in him,” it is theologically legitimate to do all three.
This is fine if we first understand all that has been argued above and then understand faith’s role in terms of covenant “restipulation.” All covenants require a response of some kind. Nehemiah Coxe notes
If the Covenant be of Works, the Restipulation must be, by doing the things required in it, even by fulfilling its condition in a perfect obedience to the Law of it…But if it be a Covenant of free and soveraign Grace, the Restipulation required, is an humble receiving, or hearty believing of those gratuitous Promises on which the Covenant is established. (9)
So union with Christ can be said to be through faith insofar as reception through faith is our restipulation to the New Covenant (Covenant of Grace). But it must be understood that the union is established by God prior to our restipulation. Owen concludes
Let it be granted on the one hand, that we cannot have an actual participation of the relative grace of this covenant in adoption and justification, without faith or believing; and on the other, that this faith is wrought in us, given unto us, bestowed upon us, by that grace of the covenant which depends on no condition in us as unto its discriminating administration, and I shall not concern myself what men will call it.
[T]he covenant of grace does not first arise as a result of the order of salvation but precedes it and is its foundation and starting point. While it is true that the believer first, by faith, becomes aware that he or she belongs to the covenant of grace and to the number of the elect, the epistemological ground is distinct from the ontological ground.
In the second place, therefore, regeneration, faith, and conversion are not preparations that occur apart from Christ and the covenant of grace nor conditions that a person has to meet in toto or in part in his or her own strength to be incorporated in that covenant. Rather, they are benefits that already flow from the covenant of grace, the mystical union, the granting of Christ’s person. The Holy Spirit, who is the author of these benefits, was acquired by Christ for his own. Hence the imputation of Christ [here I would say “our legal New Covenant union with Christ] precedes the gift of the Spirit, and regeneration, faith, and conversion do not first lead us to Christ but are taken from Christ by the Holy Spirit and imparted to his own.
Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Sin and Salvation in Christ, p. 524
Union with Christ is the New Covenant, which God makes with the elect in the effectual call. All redemptive blessings earned by Christ flow to the elect sinner through the New Covenant as the backbone of the ordo salutis.
For a much more detailed discussion, see New Covenant Union as Mystical Union in Owen.
18 thoughts on “Union with Christ is the New Covenant”
Hey brother. What would you understand to be the relationship of Christ and His elect, prior to their conversion?
Would you think of a form of union supposed in the covenant of redemption) that precludes federal headship (which is supposed in the new covenant/ CoG)?
How would you understand texts like Ephesians 1:4?
This post goes into more detail on that question. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/10/09/new-covenant-union-as-mystical-union-in-owen/ It includes quotes from a paper written by Mason explaining Owen’s view. He summarizes
So Ephesians 1:4 refers to election in the intention and will of God. We are chosen not on our own account, but only considered in Christ. But it is not an actual union until we enter the Covenant of Grace.
LikeLiked by 1 person
See also pages 231-251 here for Owen’s explanation of the difference between our relationship with Christ in the Covenant of Grace vs the Covenant of Redemption http://www.prayermeetings.org/files/John_Owen/Owen_V05_The_Doctrine_of_Justification.pdf
Just to understand, would you then say that regeneration is a benefit of union just as justification and sanctification is?
Yes, certainly (Heb 8:10).
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think you misunderstood me. I agree that everyone in the NC is regenerate. That’s not my point.
I am just trying to understand how regeneration is a benefit in the same way that justification and sanctification is.
I don’t if this helps, but if we were to make a logical order, you would then agree with this: 1: effectual call, 2: union, 3a: regeneration, 3b: justification, 3c: sanctification. 3a, 3b and 3c being benefits of union and happen at the same time (3c being definite sanctification).
I didn’t misunderstand you. You misunderstood my reply 🙂
Since the New Covenant is union with Christ, and regeneration is a benefit of the New Covenant (per Hebrews 8:10), then regeneration is a benefit of union with Christ.
However, just because two different things are benefits of union with Christ does not mean they are received simultaneously. There is still a logical order, and some benefits are conditions of other benefits (i.e. faith is a condition of justification).
1. Effectual call/union/new covenant 2. regeneration 3. faith 4a. justification 4b. sanctification, etc
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perfect. Thanks. That cleared it up for me and I now understand your point 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark Jones– “The position that faith followed imputation was not typical of Reformed thought in his day but rather was associated with antinomianism….Any view that posits faith as a consequence of imputation (John Cotton) is not the typical Reformed position.
Evans: Thus Bruce McCormack takes Calvin to task for saying that justification flows from mystical union with Christ. This, according to McCormack “would seem to make justification the effect of a logically prior ‘participation’ in Christ that has been effected by the uniting action of the Holy Spirit.” This, he says, is a problem from a truly Reformational standpoint in that “the work of God ‘in us’ is, once again (and now on the soil of the Reformation!) made to be the ground of the divine forgiveness of sins.” (Bruce McCormack, “What’s At Stake in the Current Debates over Justification,” in Justification: What’s at Stake in the Current Debates, ed. Mark Husbands and Daniel J. Treier [IVP, 2004], pp. 101-102, 113-117).
Evans: It is this effort to protect the doctrine of forensic justification by means of an extrinsic soteriology that helps to account for the use that Scott Clark’s colleague Mike Horton is now making of McCormack’s theological ontolog (Covenant and Salvation [WJK, 2007], pp. 200-204). For Scott Clark, the crux of the matter is his conviction that the doctrine of forensic justification demands extrinsic relationship between Christ and the Christian …
Scott Clark: On what basis does God accept us? Who earned that righteousness? How does a sinner come into possession of that righteousness? Where is that righteousness to be found relative to the sinner, within us or without? Evans may scoff at the doctrine of an “extrinsic” doctrine of justification but Paul himself asked these questions and historically the only alternative to extrinsic (alien) righteousness is a “proper” or “intrinsic” ground of divine acceptance and in that case we’re right back in the medieval soup or, to switch metaphors, moving in with Andreas Osiander.
Pingback: Some Disagreement with Coxe on Galatians 3:17 | Contrast
Pingback: Re: Did The Covenant Of Grace Begin In The New Covenant? | Contrast
Pingback: Keach on Union with Christ | Contrast
Pingback: Samuel Renihan on New Covenant Union | Contrast
Bavinck–“When the Scriptures say of justification in “a concrete sense” that it takes place by and through faith, then it does not intend to say that it is produced and wrought through that faith, since Jesus Christ is all our righteousness and all benefits of grace are the fruits of his labor and of his labor alone; they are entirely contained in his person and are not in any need of any addition on our part.
The terminology, that active justification takes place unto and passive justification by and through faith may have some value against nomism; but the Scriptural language is entirely adequate provided it is understood Scripturally. Saving faith directs us from the very beginning away from ourselves and unto God’s mercy in Christ. Many have in later years, when the confessional power of the Reformation weakened, entered the way of self-examination, in order to be assured of the sincerity of their faith and their salvation. Thus was the focus shifted from the promise of God to the experience of the pious.”
Pingback: Robert Rollock’s Treatise on Justification | Contrast
Pingback: Kline’s Abrahamic Covenant of Works 6: 1689 Federalism | Contrast
Pingback: Re: New Geneva Podcast on Baptism | Contrast
Pingback: Podcast: Responding to Reformed Forum on 2LBC 8.6 @ The Particular Baptist – Contrast