John Flavel On The Priority Of Union With Christ: Further Historical Perspective On The Structure Of Reformed Soteriology

By William R. Edwards

[William R. (Rob) Edwards is the pastor of Mercy Presbyterian Church in Forest, Va.]

I. Introduction

A relatively small but significant debate continues within a segment of the Reformed community regarding priority within the structure of soteriology. Although there is a much longer history, the context for the current debate reaches back most immediately to various critiques of the New Perspective on Paul and the Federal Vision. These movements emphasize union with Christ while objecting to the doctrine of justification as historically understood within Reformed theology. In particular, the role of imputation, whereby Christ’s righteousness is attributed to the believer, is openly questioned.

The response from Reformed circles defending the traditional formulation of the doctrine of justification has, generally speaking, followed along two lines. One response continues to assert the central role of union with Christ as the overarching principle in the application of redemption while arguing that imputation is an essential aspect of this union when properly conceived.[1] The other response places greater emphasis on the priority of justification for the entire structure of salvation and uniquely distinguishes this forensic dimension in relation to the other benefits of redemption.[2]

These two responses in defense of the historic Reformed doctrine of justification, with their differing emphases, have brought to the fore deeper structural differences, which has become the occasion for this broader debate about theological priority within Reformed soteriology. It should be noted that both positions vigorously maintain that justification is God’s forensic, or legal, declaration of a believer’s righteous status dependent entirely on the imputed righteousness of Christ and received by faith alone. This is not at question. The debate is about the broader structure of salvation, specifically the relationship between union with Christ and justification, along with the other benefits of redemption, particularly sanctification.[3]

These differences include divergent readings in the area of historical theology as well. Both positions appeal to the Reformed tradition, laying claim to Calvin and the trajectory of Reformed theology as it developed into the seventeenth century. Individuals such as Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Lane G. Tipton, Mark A. Garcia, and William B. Evans argue that union with Christ is the organizing feature in Calvin’s soteriology and the context within which all the benefits of redemption, including justification and sanctification, are comprehended and applied. Indeed, the various benefits are to be distinguished but are never separated and are bestowed together in union with Christ. Others, including Michael S. Horton, John V. Fesko, W. Robert Godfrey, and David VanDrunen, have argued that there is greater distinction within Calvin regarding the doctrine of justification and that it is given a certain priority among the other benefits and functions as a basis for the outworking for the whole of salvation, claiming that this distinction is reflected in subsequent Reformed theology as well.

This article will further explore these historical-theological questions through the writings of John Flavel (1627–1691), for whom union with Christ was a significant theme. Flavel was influential in his own time, both through his preaching and in his published works, and his importance is evident through the following century on both sides of the Atlantic.[4] Flavel was writing a century after Calvin and a generation after the work of the Westminster Assembly. Although his published work is primarily in the form of sermons, and is pastoral rather than polemical, the changing theological environment of the late seventeenth century is evident in his work, allowing us to see more clearly the function of union with Christ in his soteriological framework. Flavel’s proximity to Westminster, together with developments within his own theological and ecclesiological context, make his work a valuable vantage point from which to examine the differing conclusions about the role of union with Christ in the Reformed tradition.

In what follows, I will first survey the historical-theological claims of each position in the current debate in order to appreciate better the value of Flavel for the discussion. Second, aspects of Flavel’s historical context will be explored along with what may be gathered concerning his own perspective regarding his standing within the Reformed tradition. Third, the function of union with Christ in the application of redemption will be examined in his works, focusing in particular on the relationship between redemption accomplished and redemption applied, and the relationship between justification and sanctification. Finally, some concluding observations will be made concerning ways Flavel’s understanding of mystical union contributes to the current historical-theological dispute, with the aim of showing that those emphasizing the priority of union with Christ find a precedent in John Flavel.

II. Appeals To The Reformed Tradition

As stated above, both parties are confident that Calvin and the general thrust of Reformed theology in the subsequent century supports their differing positions. The one finds union with Christ to be the central soteriological reality constituting the context for the application of every benefit of redemption. The other points to evidence that justification is the key feature historically in Reformed soteriology and seeks to demonstrate that it maintains priority in relation to the other benefits of redemption. In this section, the arguments for each will be outlined together with support garnered from the primary sources, beginning with those arguing for the priority of union with Christ.

1. The Priority Of Union With Christ In Reformed Soteriology

Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., has written a number of articles that focus particularly on Calvin and the work of the Westminster Assembly.[5] Several other scholars, including William B. Evans, Mark A. Garcia, and Lane G. Tipton, have also made contributions arriving at similar conclusions regarding the role of union with Christ in the development of Reformed soteriology.[6] The opening paragraph in Book 3 of Calvin’s Institutes is frequently quoted, that “as long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value to us.”[7] For Gaffin, and others who follow him, this is a significant statement at the start of Calvin’s comprehensive section on the application of redemption titled, “The Way in Which We Receive the Grace of Christ.” Gaffin claims, “It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of this sentence for Calvin’s applied soteriology as a whole.”[8] It indicates from the start that apart from union with Christ there are no benefits received from Christ. Pointing to this same statement, Tipton claims, “Union with Christ therefore organizes the core of Calvin’s soteriology and supplies the nuclear theological structure for the application of redemption.”[9]

Mark Garcia, in his detailed study, addresses what he calls various “strata” of union with Christ evident in the correspondence between Calvin and Peter Martyr Vermigli.[10] Calvin concurs with Vermigli’s description of three unions: the hypostatic or incarnational union, the mystical union, and the spiritual union. These three strata are interrelated aspects of union with Christ, encompassing redemption in its accomplishment, its application, as well as its outworking in the Christian life. In the hypostatic union, Christ shares our nature and secures our redemption, but it remains unapplied apart from the other strata of union. The mystical union, standing between the hypostatic and spiritual unions, Garcia understands as “the definitive engrafting into Christ by faith through the work of the Holy Spirit,”[11] and it is this “engrafting which forms the context of the communication of Christ’s benefits.”[12] In other words, the mystical union is the starting point for the application of redemption. Following this, the third stratum is a “spiritual union” described as the “fruit and effect of the former” mystical union within which, in Garcia’s reading of Vermigli, the benefits are communicated, including justification and sanctification.[13]

Thus, union is central throughout the entire soteriological structure, beginning with Christ’s union with our nature in the accomplishment of redemption, followed by a mystical union wherein Christ and an individual are joined together by the Spirit through faith, and consequently the sharing of the various benefits of redemption in what is described as a “spiritual union.” Garcia believes these various strata demonstrate the distinction made by Vermigli and Calvin between the accomplishment of redemption in the union of Christ with our humanity, as well as the necessity of its application in the union of the believer with Christ by the Spirit and through faith, which then is the context in which the believer receives everything from Christ for salvation.

Important to note here is the emphasis on the person of Christ who is possessed by faith, not his benefits directly. According to Calvin, it is when Christ is “possessed by us in faith” that in “partaking of him, we principally receive a double grace” understood in terms of justification and sanctification.[14] Therefore, Evans argues that for Calvin, “Both justification and sanctification are subsumed under a more comprehensive reality—union with Christ.”[15] This is further demonstrated where Calvin uses the language of “mystical union” specifically in relation to justification, describing how Christ “makes us sharers with him in the gifts with which he has been endowed,” not in that “we contemplate him outside ourselves from afar in order that his righteousness may be imputed to us but because we put on Christ and are engrafted into his body.”[16] Thus the relationship established between Christ and the believer in the mystical union is the basis for imputation, and consequently, imputation serves as the ground for justification.[17]

However, while this mystical union is prior to and the basis for sharing in every benefit of redemption, Calvin carefully differentiates between justification and sanctification within this union. Regarding this double grace of justification and sanctification, Calvin says, “Although we may distinguish them, Christ contains both of them inseparably within himself.”[18] These distinctions are described in his commentary on 1 Cor 1:30, a verse which Garcia identifies as Calvin’s “biblical short-hand for his unio Christi-duplex gratia soteriology.”[19] Here, regarding justification and sanctification, Calvin describes how “these fruits of grace are connected together, as it were, by an indissoluble tie” yet “are conjoined in such a manner as to be, notwithstanding, distinguished from each other.”[20] Calvin concludes with the comment, “What, therefore, Paul here expressly distinguishes, it is not allowable mistakingly to confound.”[21] While justification and sanctification remain inseparable in that both are received in union with Christ, one must never be confused with the other as both are distinct benefits, the one addressing the need for imputed righteousness due to the guilt of sin, the other the need for a new nature due to the corruption of sin. Thus Calvin preserves the distinction between the forensic and the transformative, while maintaining that both are inseparable as aspects of union with Christ. In sum, Gaffin claims, “This, at its core, is Calvin’s ordo salutis: union with Christ by Spirit-worked faith.”[22]

It is further argued that this soteriological framework built upon union with Christ is not unique to Calvin but remains the emphasis in Reformed theology as it developed into the seventeenth century. It is “not only what Calvin but subsequent Reformed theology has always taught.”[23] In particular, Gaffin argues the same fundamental structure is found in the Westminster Standards, especially as expressed in the catechisms.[24] This is evident most clearly in the Larger Catechism where Q&A 66 speaks of “the union the elect have with Christ . . . whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ.”[25] Following this, Q&A 69 outlines “communion in grace” in terms of “justification, adoption, sanctification, and whatever else, in this life, manifests their union with him.” Important to note here is the relationship between “communion” and “union.” They are not to be conflated. Communion is defined in terms of the various benefits, including justification, adoption, and sanctification. Yet underlying this communion in grace is a union with Jesus Christ. Hence, sharing in these benefits is a manifestation of this prior union with his person.

This distinction between union with Christ and communion in grace corresponds to the distinction Garcia finds in Vermigli between the mystical union and spiritual union described above. Both refer to the relationship between the believer and Christ in terms of a mystical union. But what is described in Vermigli’s correspondence with Calvin as a “spiritual union,” understood as the participation in the benefits of redemption, the Larger Catechism calls “communion in grace.” The point to note is how both describe a union with his person that comes prior to the application of the various benefits. Gaffin believes, “Those multiple benefits are in view as functions or aspects of union,” and concludes that “in the Westminster Standards the heart of the application of salvation, underlying all further considerations of ordo salutis questions, is being united to Christ by Spirit-worked faith.”[26]

2. The Priority Of Justification In Reformed Soteriology

In contrast, those maintaining the priority of justification in the structure of Reformed soteriology raise serious questions regarding the above formulation of Calvin’s doctrine of union with Christ, believing it does not appropriately distinguish the uniqueness of justification in relation to the other benefits of redemption, and particularly sanctification. Fesko refers to a peculiar “Gaffin-school of reading of Calvin” with its overarching emphasis on union with Christ, which he describes as “an idiosyncratic reading of Calvin.”[27] Others have raised similar concerns. Godfrey and VanDrunen refer to this as a “new interpretation of Calvin on union” and believe it to be “historically suspect.”[28] R. Scott Clark observes that Calvin’s “discussion of union with Christ as a locus proper is very brief” and finds this “remarkable given the elaborate constructions given to his doctrine of union with Christ in some recent scholarship.”[29] Though union with Christ is an important theme, it should not be made “the singularly determinative element of Calvin’s soteriology.”[30]

Instead, Horton contends, “Regardless of whether union temporally preceded justification, Calvin is clear that the latter is the basis for the former.”[31] According to Horton, therefore, justification holds the position of primacy in Reformed soteriology. He argues that even as the Reformers spoke of the mystical union with Christ, they “still regarded imputation as the judicial basis of the entire ordo salutis, refusing to collapse imputation into an essential union.”[32] In fact, Horton sees parallels between Osiander, whose view of union with Christ Calvin vigorously opposes, and anyone who would “make this incorporation the basis for justification rather than vice versa,” because, he says, “they always end up eliding the crucial distinction between Christ for us and Christ in us.”[33] The concern is that prioritizing union with Christ inevitably leads to a distortion of justification through its intermingling with the other benefits of redemption when subsumed together under the category of union with Christ. What is in the forefront throughout the Reformation, it is argued, is justification by faith, which Calvin describes as the “main hinge on which religion turns.”[34]

To support this claim, Horton references Calvin’s commentary on Eph 3:17 where he discusses the relationship between faith and the fellowship, or union, we have with Christ.[35] Here Calvin says, “Most people consider fellowship with Christ, and believing in Christ, to be the same thing; but the fellowship which we have with Christ is the consequence of faith.”[36] Although Calvin is not specifically discussing justification in this passage, his comment concerning faith is understood by Horton as a reference to justification as it is uniquely possessed by faith. Thus Horton points to what he believes is a distinction in Calvin between justification and union with Christ, where faith and its consequence in justification is the foundation for the fellowship, or union, we have with Christ.

Distinguishing justification in this way also has implications for its relationship to sanctification. Rather than envisioning justification and sanctification together as distinct yet inseparable aspects of union with Christ, justification is separated out as the ground for sanctification. It depends on the prior declaration of righteousness in justification as its starting point. Horton points to Calvin’s commentary on Rom 6:23 where, according to Calvin, “clothed with the righteousness of the Son,” a reference to imputation, “we are reconciled to God, and we are by the power of the Spirit renewed unto holiness.”[37] In this statement, Horton believes Calvin is conveying a dependent relationship, not only where imputation functions as the basis for justification, or reconciliation with God, but also operates instrumentally in sanctification.[38] Horton finds here a clear order that must be maintained, with imputation providing the judicial ground for reconciliation, as well as functioning dynamically in a way that empowers sanctification.

Fesko also takes issue with Garcia’s reading of the correspondence between Vermigli and Calvin described above. While there is no question concerning the role of the hypostatic union, he challenges Garcia’s understanding of the mystical and spiritual unions. As noted above, Garcia believes the mystical union joins the believer to the person of Christ while the spiritual union conveys the benefits of redemption, including justification and sanctification. However, Fesko contends that the mystical union in Vermigli is the proper setting for justification while the spiritual union corresponds to sanctification. He follows Duncan Rankin who “correlates the mystical and spiritual unions in Vermigli as well as in Calvin to justification and sanctification respectively.”[39] Thus, in Fesko’s view, these distinct benefits are related to distinctions in union with Christ. In this reading of Vermigli, mystical union is “a definitive event and therefore corresponds to the doctrine of justification” while “the spiritual union corresponds to the doctrine of sanctification.”[40] The concern with Garcia’s reading, which places justification and sanctification together within the spiritual union, is that it leads to an undifferentiated relationship between these two benefits.[41]

In this approach, union with Christ is only truly understood in relation to the various benefits. These benefits define union with Christ, and their distinctions are displayed in union with Christ. This is also seen in Fesko’s article on William Perkins. Rather than distinguishing between union with Christ and communion in grace with his benefits, Fesko believes that for Perkins, “union with Christ is the ordo salutis.”[42] The two are not distinguished. To talk about union with Christ is simply to talk about the ordo salutis and the various aspects of salvation within it. Indeed, they are described as “synonymous” and “one and the same.”[43]

Similarities are found in Godfrey and VanDrunen’s discussion of the Westminster Standards. In contrast to Gaffin’s claims that union with Christ is the “heart of the application of salvation” in the Westminster Standards, they point out that “no chapter in the Westminster Confession of Faith is given to union with Christ.”[44] In reference to the Larger Catechism’s treatment of union with Christ, so important for Gaffin, Godfrey and VanDrunen demur: “If anything, WLC 69 warns us against starting with an abstract doctrine of union. . . . If we want to understand union, then, we must look to our justification, adoption, and sanctification. . . . These blessings show us what our union with Christ is.”[45] Again, the various benefits define the union, and justification holds the position of priority in relation to them all. Godfrey and VanDrunen reference the Confession’s statement that “good works . . . are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith,” taking faith here as a reference to justifying faith, and understanding good works within sanctification as an effect of faith, and hence of justification.[46]

Fesko challenges those who maintain the priority of union with Christ to provide better evidence demonstrating their claims, particularly regarding the relationship of justification and sanctification within this union. If the reading of Calvin emphasizing union with Christ as the organizing feature in his soteriology is valid, it must also be clearly shown in subsequent formulations as the Reformed tradition continued to develop into the seventeenth century.[47] The remainder of this article will address this concern through the writings of John Flavel.

III. John Flavel’s Doctrine Of Union With Christ In Historical Context

John Flavel pastored, preached, and published during the rapidly changing political, ecclesiological, and theological environment of the later seventeenth century. His own career was marked by these shifts, from an established Presbyterian minister during the Interregnum, to his ejection at the Restoration under the Act of Uniformity of 1662, later licensed as a Congregational minister after the Declaration of Indulgence in 1672, and finally in the last years of his life and ministry experiencing the greater liberty that came with the Glorious Revolution.[48] Although his status frequently changed, his convictions did not. Flavel continued to maintain the trajectory of the Reformation throughout his ministry.

Two of his later works particularly demonstrate this. One is his Exposition of the Assembly’s Shorter Catechism, written just prior to his death and published posthumously in 1692 in which he further expounds upon its teaching and draws out its practical implications.[49] This work was initially used with his congregation in Dartmouth in 1688 at his return there after the Indulgence of 1687. The second work, containing sermons delivered in 1688–1689, is England’s Duty Under the Present Gospel-Liberty.[50] Here Flavel addresses fellow ministers of the gospel in the new era of freedom, exhorting young and old to seek unity while also faithfully adhering to the doctrines of the Reformation. As will be further described below, both of these works include substantial statements concerning union with Christ in the application of redemption.

Union with Christ has been described as the “nerve of puritan piety.”[51] That nerve was struck in 1674 when William Sherlock, who at the time was rector of St. George’s in London, wrote A Discourse Concerning the Knowledge of Jesus Christ, and Union and Communion with Him. Sherlock argues that the metaphors in Scripture describing union with Christ refer to nothing more than the relationship Christians have with the church. He writes, “to abide in Christ is to make a publick and visible profession of Faith in Christ, to be the members of his visible Church” and “the Union of particular Christians to Christ consists in their Union to the Christian Church.”[52] According to Sherlock, what is primary in union with Christ is not the personal and soteriological but the public and ecclesiological. Union with Christ does not describe the manner of personal application of redemption but the outward association of the individual with the visible church.

Sherlock is quite clear in his rejection of a union with Christ in which a believer receives anything directly from Christ’s person. He describes Christ’s own perfections but claims, “These personal perfections cannot pass out of his person to become ours.”[53] There is no room for either imputation or impartation. Union with Christ is “political” and “consists in our belief in his Revelations, obedience to his Laws, and subjection to his Authority.”[54] Sherlock’s work reveals the shifting theological landscape and the development of Latitudinarianism in the Restoration church.[55]

The struck nerve elicited an immediate response from individuals such as John Owen, Vincent Alsop, Henry Hickman, Samuel Rolle, Thomas Danson, and Robert Ferguson.[56] Another to respond was Edward Polhill, who of Sherlock’s book said, “When I read it, I thought my self in a new Theological World; Believers appearing without their Head for want of Mystical Union, strip’d and naked for lack of imputed Righteousness; the full treasures of Grace in Christ . . . emptied out of his person, and transfused into the doctrine of the Gospel; as if according to Pelagius all Grace were in doctrine only.”[57] Polhill’s sense of shock and his description of this environment as a “new theological world” are telling and point to the essential function of union with Christ in Reformed soteriology. It is worth noting in his list the various aspects of salvation lost apart from this mystical union: there is no participation in the covenant of grace as believers are separated from their head, there is no imputation of righteousness, nor any other benefit of grace, as all of these are found in his person. As evidenced in the overwhelming reaction against Sherlock among nonconforming ministers, this rejection of mystical union was believed to be destructive to the entire theological system and a radical change from the trajectory of the Reformation.

Although John Flavel did not engage in the controversy with Sherlock, there are points where he directly addresses this new theological environment. This is particularly evident as he discusses union and communion with Christ. Flavel argues that this union is not just an “empty notion” or a “mere mental union . . . but really exists extra mentem” although “the atheistical world censures all these things as fancies and idle imaginations.”[58] In England’s Duty, as he discusses communion with Christ, he similarly claims, “This atheistical age scoffs at, and ridicules it as enthusiasm and fanaticism . . . but the thing is real, sure, and sensible.”[59] He argues that this union is “a very great mystery, far above the understanding of natural men.”[60] Although Scripture provides metaphors for this union, Flavel says they neither individually nor jointly give a full account of it.[61] In regards to the mystical union believers have with Christ, “There are no footsteps of this thing in all the works of creation.”[62] It should be no surprise that there are aspects of redemption that remain mysterious. In the end, “Thus saith the Lord is the firm foundation upon which our assent is built . . . though we cannot understand these things by reason of the darkness of our minds.”[63] It is clear that Flavel agreed with the assessment of Polhill and others regarding the rejection of union with Christ and its implication for the structure of Reformed soteriology. Indeed, Flavel states, “Destroy this union, and with it you destroy all our fruits, privileges and eternal hopes at one stroke.”[64]

The details of Flavel’s exposition of the Westminster Shorter Catechism further reveal how he envisions his relationship to the Reformed tradition. Prior to addressing matters related specifically to the application of redemption, he demonstrates the centrality of union with Christ as he discusses Q&A 16 of the catechism regarding the covenant as it relates to the fall of Adam. One of the inferences he draws from the universal fall of humankind in the sin of Adam is the “wisdom of God in sending Christ in our nature” and the “necessity of our union with Christ, in order to our participation of his righteousness and redemption.”[65] Here are two themes Flavel returns to on a number of occasions, examined further below, namely the relationship between the hypostatic union and the mystical union. Following this, he gives the subtitle “Of our Union with Christ” to a series of questions and answers he provides to express more thoroughly the meaning of Q&A 30 of the catechism concerning the Spirit’s application of redemption.[66] The Spirit accomplishes the application, according to the catechism, “By working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling.” Flavel puts forth twelve more questions and answers to further convey the sense of this application in union with Christ.

In these, Flavel stresses that “Christ’s redemption cannot profit us, except we are in him.”[67] It is a union that is by “the Spirit on God’s part” and “faith on our part.”[68] According to Flavel, it is only this union that “makes Christ and all that he hath purchased become ours,” and becomes the “foundation and root of all our spiritual and acceptable obedience.”[69] In these answers Flavel is referring to both justification and sanctification, each as a “property of this union,” distinct yet inseparable in that each is had in union with Christ.[70] In fact, as he comes to Q&A 32 of the Shorter Catechism, which lists justification, adoption, and sanctification as the various benefits, Flavel refers to these as “concomitants of vocation.”[71] In other words, Flavel does not describe this list as an order of salvation but as “concomitants,” or as the several benefits that accompany the union with Christ effected in God’s call.

The point to note is that in Flavel’s outline of the application of redemption described here, he is simply explicating his understanding of the Westminster Shorter Catechism. He sees himself as maintaining the trajectory of the Reformed tradition, and union with Christ is the central feature that provides the organizing structure in its soteriology. One can also discern echoes of John Calvin’s opening paragraph of Book 3 of the Institutes in Flavel’s remark that this redemption accomplished by Christ “cannot profit us, except we are in him.”[72] At this point, Flavel provides 1 Cor 1:30 as a prooftext, that God has made Christ “our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.” The importance of this verse for Flavel in his discussion of union with Christ is another similarity with Calvin.[73] It is the text for Flavel’s opening sermon in The Method of Grace, his most thorough treatment of union with Christ, and is found frequently in subsequent chapters.[74] The significance of this verse, according to Flavel, is that it provides both “an enumeration of the chief privileges of believers, and an account of the method whereby they come to be invested with them.”[75] That method is union with Christ. In referencing Calvin’s commentary, Flavel leaves no doubt as to the connection with Calvin at this point.[76] Flavel clearly believes there is deep continuity between his theological formulations, with his emphasis on union with Christ in the application of redemption, and those of the preceding generation at the Westminster Assembly, and stretching back further still into the previous century, as he worked to uphold the same soteriological framework in his own changing theological environment.

IV. Union With Christ In The Works Of Flavel

In considering Flavel’s works more broadly, union with Christ is a theme found in his earliest to his last published sermons.[77] It is never far from his mind as he considers the work of Christ and its application. This is seen not only in the area of soteriology, but in his discussion of ecclesiology as well. In contrast to Sherlock’s reduction of union with Christ to one’s relation to the church, Flavel understands the ecclesiological imperative to unity as rooted in the indicative of the union believers have with Christ by the same Spirit and a common faith.[78] Flavel says, “Union with Christ is fundamental to all union among the saints.”[79] It is also union with Christ that provides the focal point for ministry. According to Flavel, “The great aim and scope at all Christ’s ordinances and officers, are to bring men into union with Christ, and so build them up to perfection in him.”[80] Though present in many of his writings, his most thorough treatment of union with Christ as it relates to the structure of soteriology is found in The Method of Grace (1681).

There are a few important observations to make about this work. The first is where it stands in relation to an earlier work by Flavel, The Fountain of Life Opened Up: Or A Display of Christ in His Essential and Mediatorial Glory (1673). These works are related to one another as redemption accomplished and redemption applied, as can be discerned from their titles. Flavel writes in his epistle to the reader introducing The Fountain of Life that “it was my purpose at first to have comprised the second part, viz. The application of the redemption that is with Christ unto sinners, in one volume . . . but that making a just volume itself, must await another season to see the light.”[81] This volume concerning application is The Method of Grace published eight years later. Similarly, in its introductory epistle Flavel writes, “It contains the method of grace in the application of the great redemption to the souls of men, as the former part [referring to The Fountain of Life] contains the method of grace in the impetration thereof by Jesus Christ.”[82] The significance of this is that Flavel’s work on the application of redemption is not intended to stand alone. His earlier treatment of the accomplishment of redemption focusing on Christ’s person and work has theological priority. In other words, the true method of grace begins with Jesus himself, as seen in Flavel’s comments above.

A second thing to note is the fuller title of this second work on the application of redemption. It is The Method of Grace, In bringing home the Eternal Redemption, Contrived by the Father, and accomplished by the Son through the effectual Application of the Spirit unto God’s Elect; being the Second Part of Gospel Redemption: Wherein The great mysterie of our Union and Communion with Christ is opened and applied. Lest there be any doubt, Flavel makes clear that this work on application has both the eternal plan and the redemptive-historical accomplishment in view, going so far as to call the application the “Second Part of Gospel Redemption,” secondary to its accomplishment as described in his previous work. Yet secondary does not mean any less significant. Flavel is clear that “union with Christ by faith is as necessary, in the place of an applying cause, as the death of Christ is, in the place of a meritorious cause.”[83]

Another item to note in Flavel’s title is his use of the word “method.” As he describes the central features in the application of redemption, his concern is not to present an order of salvation, an ordo salutis, although he deals extensively with the various benefits of redemption such as justification, adoption, and sanctification throughout the work. His overarching concern is to explain the method of application, the method of grace, or the modus salutis summarized in the title as “union and communion with Christ.”[84] This is similar to Flavel’s discussion of the Shorter Catechism, where union with Christ is the focal point and the various benefits are referred to as “concomitants of vocation.” Again, the central feature is union with Christ and the various benefits are the associated blessings. Numerous summary statements throughout The Method of Grace make this plain. Flavel says, “The effectual application of Christ principally consists in our union with him.”[85] Later he states, “Union with Christ is, in order of nature, antecedent to the communication of his privileges.”[86] Flavel stresses regularly that “Christ and his benefits go inseparably and undividedly together” and that none can “receive his privileges, who will not receive his person.”[87] Flavel’s method of application places the person of Christ constantly in the foreground.

1. The Hypostatic And Mystical Unions: Redemption Accomplished And Redemption Applied

This emphasis on Christ’s person is also seen as Flavel discusses the hypostatic union and its relation to the mystical union. According to Flavel, “The greatest honour that was ever put upon the human nature, was by its assumption into union with the Son of God, hypostatically; and the greatest honour that can be done to our persons, is by our union with Christ, mystically.”[88] Flavel is careful to distinguish the two. The believer does not become one person with Christ as the two natures of Christ are united in one person.[89] Yet he is also clear about the essential relationship between them. Flavel describes the “reciprocal nature of that communion which is between Christ and believers; we do not only partake of what is his, but he partakes of what is ours.”[90] He states that “participation in Christ’s benefits, depends upon the hypostatic union of our nature, and the mystical union of our persons with the Son of God; in the first he partakes with us, in the second we partake with him.”[91] The hypostatic union is related to the mystical union as redemption accomplished is related to redemption applied. As the hypostatic union of Christ’s two natures in one person is the central feature in securing salvation, the believer’s union with Christ’s person is key to its application. There can be no saving union with the person of Christ without Christ being this person who is both God and man.[92]

Yet, while there is a certain priority given to the hypostatic union, Flavel emphasizes the more immediate redemptive significance of the mystical union. In fact, he believes the hypostatic union itself displays this intent in that “his personal union with our nature shows his desire after a mystical union with our persons.”[93] Thus the hypostatic union cannot fulfill its purpose apart from the mystical union. In The Fountain of Life, he says of the hypostatic union that “by this union with our nature alone, never any man was or can be saved. Yea, let me add, that this union with our natures is utterly in vain to you, and will do you no good, except he have union with your person by faith also.”[94] Similarly in The Method of Grace, Flavel writes, “That honour which is done to our nature by the hypostatical union, is common to all, good and bad, even they that perish . . . but to be implanted into Christ by regeneration . . . is a peculiar privilege . . . and only communicated to God’s elect.”[95] Through this emphasis on both the hypostatic and mystical union, Flavel does not lose sight of either the historical accomplishment of redemption or the necessity of its personal application. He maintains a balance while also preserving a focus on the person of Christ.

It is also important to note the role of the federal union in Flavel’s discussion. He envisions the federal union, when considered in the application of redemption, to be an aspect of the mystical union. Rather than functioning as the primary category in which union is understood, the federal or covenantal dimension of union with Christ only becomes operative within the mystical union established between Christ and the believer. He says of the mystical union, “Though it is beneath the hypostatic union, yet it is more than a mere federal union.”[96] He continues, “Christ’s coming into the soul, signifies more than his coming into covenant with it.”[97] Thus the mystical union entails something greater than covenantal representation as it joins a person to Christ. He speaks similarly elsewhere regarding the federal union, that “such a union indeed there is betwixt Christ and believers, but that is consequential to and wholly dependent upon this,” referring to the mystical union.[98] For Flavel, limiting the concept of union to the federal or covenantal detracts from the fullness of what is received in the mystical union. It reduces salvation to representation and fails to capture the fullness of what he describes as communion with Christ. The federal, or representative, union is one benefit among others stemming from the mystical union.

Flavel continues to stress the person of Christ as he discusses the role of the Spirit and faith in effecting this union. Flavel describes the mystical union as “an intimate conjunction of believers to Christ, by the imparting of his Spirit to them, whereby they are enabled to believe and live in him.”[99] Thus he refers to the Spirit and faith as the “only two ligaments, or bands of union betwixt Christ and the soul.”[100] As Flavel describes faith he repeatedly stresses its focus on the person of Christ rather than upon his benefits. It is Christ who saves and therefore faith must apprehend him above all. “No saving benefit is to be had by Christ without union with his person, no union with his person without faith.”[101] Thus, he says, faith “primarily confers their right to his person, and secondarily to his benefits.”[102] According to Flavel, this is why “union with Christ is, in order of nature, antecedent to the communication of his privileges.”[103] Before all else, it is Christ that is received by faith. “First,” he says, “it is the bond of union.” And then, “Secondly, it is the instrument of our justification.”[104] Faith is not primarily understood in relation to justification, or any other benefit, but always first and foremost as that which unites one to Christ.

Thus for Flavel, faith is never reduced to its function in relation to a particular benefit, but must be understood in relation to Christ’s person. And it is because of who he is as a person that faith conveys the right to the privileges he possesses, such as his righteousness for justification. The reason this is important for Flavel is that it makes his benefits indivisible in our reception. As Flavel says, “Christ is offered to us in the gospel entirely and undividedly . . . and so the true believer receives him.”[105] To focus exclusively on one benefit, such as justification, to the exclusion of others, is “to separate in our acceptance, what is so united in Christ, for our salvation and happiness.”[106] Faith properly understood as the bond of union, receives “first his person, then his privileges.”[107]

2. The Relationship Between Union With Christ, Justification, And Sanctification

As faith unites the individual to Christ, it also brings one into communion with his privileges, including justification and sanctification. For Flavel, union and communion with Christ are distinct categories. The mystical union is the relationship between persons, the believer and Christ, by the Spirit and through faith. Communion with Christ then describes the participation in his benefits that follows this union. Union must be prior to communion: “Take away union and there can be no communion.”[108] Again, this distinction keeps the person of Christ in the foreground. Salvation is first and foremost found in him.

Flavel describes the broader structure of salvation with “the design and end” being “the communication of his benefits.” In other words, the application of salvation is not complete apart from the various benefits bestowed. Yet he continues, describing how this end is achieved: “All communication of benefits necessarily imply communion, and all communion as necessarily presuppose union with his person.”[109] The order is clear. The mystical union is prior and establishes a state of communion within which the various benefits of redemption are communicated to the believer.

The greatest of these benefits to which Flavel regularly returns are justification and sanctification. He describes these as “two of the most rich and shining robes in the wardrobe of salvation.”[110] Where he discusses one, he soon describes the other.[111] This emphasis on justification and sanctification is for two reasons. First, it is because of what Flavel describes as the “two bars betwixt you and all spiritual mercies, viz., the guilt of sin, and the filth of sin.”[112] The two foremost consequences of sin require this emphasis. But secondly, it is due to the manner in which some seek to divide justification from sanctification. To those Flavel replies, “Surely it is the greatest affront . . . to separate in our acceptance, what is so united in Christ.”[113] It is because of who Christ is that these two benefits cannot be divided from one another. Justification and sanctification are united in him, and in union with Christ both are received through the communion we have with him. According to Flavel, “The hypocrite . . . is for dividing,” but as these “are undivided in Christ, so they are in the believer’s acceptance.”[114] The structure of salvation, which begins with union and entails communion, will not permit the severing of justification and sanctification.

Due to this order of salvation, with communion in his privileges following union with his person, Flavel stresses not only the inseparability of the benefits, but that they are also received immediately and simultaneously. He says, “by our union with his person, we are immediately interested in all his riches.”[115] As he lists the various benefits of redemption, including justification and sanctification, he says, “they are all included in this general, the applying and putting on of Christ.”[116] Again, similarly, they “are all truly and really bestowed with Christ upon believers.”[117] The structure of Flavel’s soteriology will not allow for their separation in reception any more than Christ himself can be divided. At the moment one is united to Christ, all that is Christ’s is possessed in communion with him.

This does not mean, however, that the benefits themselves become indistinguishable. Although the manner of reception is the same, through union and communion with Christ, the benefits themselves remain distinct and must not be confused. Flavel is careful to make clear distinctions between justification and sanctification. In regards to justification, the believer has communion with Christ in his righteousness, but this righteousness is “not inherent in us, as it is in him; but it is ours by imputation . . . and our union with him is the ground of the imputation of his righteousness to us.”[118] Flavel believes this forensic dimension, which includes imputation, is an aspect of the relationship established in the mystical union as expressed in the analogy with marriage, where “Christ and believers are considered as one person, in construction of law” as are husband and wife.[119]

Immediately Flavel turns to sanctification, which he describes as a “communion with Christ in his holiness.”[120] The difference is that in conveying sanctification, Flavel says, “he takes a different method, for this is not imputed, but really imparted to us.”[121] Both justification and sanctification are had only in union with Christ, but they are communicated “differently and diversly, as their respective natures do require.”[122] Justification by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is in answer to the guilt of sin, whereas sanctification through the imparted renovating work of the Spirit of Christ is in response to the filth of sin.[123] Although both come in union with Christ, each is communicated in a way that addresses the particular dimension of sin it counters.

Flavel makes a further distinction between justification and sanctification that corresponds to this difference between imputation and impartation. “All believers are equally justified,” he says, “but not equally sanctified.”[124] Through faith, believers are brought “into a state of perfect and full justification.” Yet “it is not in our sanctification, as it is in our justification.” Sanctification remains incomplete in this life. Although “our justification is complete and perfect . . . the new creature labors under many defects.”[125] This distinction, however, is related to the benefit: the one addressing our standing before God and the other the presence of sin in our lives. The overall method of grace through union with Christ remains the same, though the particular manner of application depends on the nature of the benefit and the aspect of sin it addresses.

Flavel recognizes that although sanctification is imperfect, in contrast to justification, it has a definitive aspect that comes immediately upon union with Christ. He refers to both “initial and progressive sanctification,” along with justification, as examples of “all spiritual good things” that are found in Christ.[126] Flavel says, “Jesus Christ frees all believers from the dominion as well as the guilt of sin.”[127] Although these are distinct benefits with differences in application, Jesus accomplishes them all and each is possessed in union with him.

It should also be noted that these distinctions between the benefits leads Flavel to describe differences in the way they are experienced as well. In particular, he singles out justification as “the sweetest mercy.”[128] He refers to it as “a privilege of first rank,” even calling it “the ground of all our other blessings and mercies.”[129] Yet in context it is clear that Flavel is not implying that justification has a different setting than the other benefits in the structure of salvation. The difference is in the experience of it. He is not describing theological priority but the particular confidence, hope, and joy found in justification. Flavel provides several reasons for calling it “the richest of all mercies.”[130] It is due to the method of pardon, through the blood of Christ, that we might have forgiveness for sin. Also, because of “the subjects of this privilege” whom he describes as “the most base, despised, poor, and contemptible among men.” Another reason is found in “the latitude and extent of the act of grace” in justification, as it follows innumerable sins.[131] Flavel freely magnifies the nature of justification, not because it functions uniquely in the order of salvation, but because of the way it addresses us as great sinners and provides full and immediate pardon.

These experiences are aspects of what Flavel calls “the act of communion” in which we are participants in the grace found in Christ. The act of communion depends on the “state of communion” in which we are granted the right to all that is Christ’s through union with him.[132] Here is found the larger structure of Flavel’s soteriology. He summarizes the whole, saying, “This communion or participation in Christ’s benefits, depends upon the hypostatical union of our nature, and the mystical union of our persons with the Son of God; in the first he partakes with us, in the second we partake with him.”[133] Communion in every benefit of redemption depends on union with his person for the application of redemption, as the union in his person with our nature is the ground for the accomplishment of redemption. Flavel demonstrates consistency throughout his works. Union with Christ is the bond between redemption accomplished and redemption applied, that which brings one into communion with his person and allows for participation in his privileges. Application is necessary, the various aspects of salvation are essential, but the person of Christ remains central throughout.

V. Observations Concerning Flavel And The Current Debate

John Flavel’s extensive discussion of union with Christ provides needed perspective in the current debate regarding priority in Reformed soteriology. His own reading of the Reformed tradition as it came to him in the late seventeenth century corresponds with those emphasizing the role of union with Christ as the nexus between redemption accomplished and redemption applied. The relationship established with Christ in this mystical union is the central feature of soteriology. The benefits of redemption are each necessary, remain distinct and must not be confused, but are secondary to union with Christ in the application of redemption. Faith is directed to Christ, the person who became one with our nature; and in this relationship established by the Spirit, all of his blessings become ours.

Flavel’s emphasis on union with Christ is not unique. The way in which he frequently returns to this doctrine demonstrates that he is heir to a tradition that shares the same perspective. Other examples leading up to Flavel include Joseph Hall’s Christ Mysticall; Or, The Blessed Union of Christ and his Members (1647). Soon afterwards, John Brinsley, Presbyterian minister at Yarmouth, wrote Mystical Implantation: Or, the great Gospel Mystery of the Christian’s Union, and Communion with, and Conformity to Jesus Christ, Both in His Death and Resurrection (1652). Another is Thomas Lye’s sermon titled “The True Believer’s Union with Christ Jesus” delivered in 1659 in which he states, “Salvation for sinners cannot be obtain’d without a purchase; this purchase is not significant without possession; this possession not to be procured without application; this application made only by union.”[134] After the Restoration, treatises on union with Christ continued to appear, such as Rowland Stedman’s The Mystical Union of Believers with Christ (1668), Edward Pearse’s The Best Match: Or the Soul’s Espousal to Christ, Opened and Improved (1673), John Lougher’s A Treatise of the Soul’s Union with Christ (1680), and Edward Polhill’s Christus in Corde: Or, The Mystical Union Between Christ and Believers Considered (1680).

Some have recently suggested what seems to be too great of a divergence between Calvin and the Puritans of the seventeenth century regarding union with Christ. For instance, Evans states that “Calvin’s stress on the substantial union with the incarnate humanity of Christ increasingly drops out,” and he believes that a devotional emphasis on communion with Christ eclipses the theological significance of union with Christ in Reformed soteriology.[135] However, in view of Flavel and others, such as those mentioned above, this appears to overstate the case. Indeed there is development, including implications for the devotional life, but the central soteriological function of union with Christ remains clear. Also, it should be noted that the category of communion with Christ itself was not first a matter of piety but descriptive of the manner in which the benefits of redemption came to be applied and then experienced by the believer, being the direct result of the mystical union with Christ’s person.

One other predecessor to Flavel worth citing is William Ames. Both Horton and Fesko point to Ames and his influential work The Marrow of Theology as an example in support of their emphasis on the priority of justification. For instance, Horton quotes from Ames’s chapter on justification, with its broad description beginning with God’s eternal decree, then in the work of Christ, also as it is pronounced at the moment of faith, and lastly in our consciences through the testimony of the Spirit.[136] Horton sees in this sweeping vision of justification evidence that for Ames, “justification is not simply one doctrine among others; it is the Word that creates a living union between Christ, the believer, and the communion of the saints.”[137] Similarly, Fesko quotes Ames’s description of sanctification as “the real change, wherein justification is manifested and its consequences, so to speak, brought into being.”[138] Fesko believes Ames’s statement gives priority to justification over sanctification in that the former is described as the cause of the latter.

Neither draws out, however, the broader structure of Ames’s soteriology that corresponds with what is found in Flavel. Prior to his description of the benefits, Ames discusses calling at the start of his section on the application of redemption, saying, “The parts of application are two, union with Christ and partaking of the benefits that flow from this union.”[139] This brings to mind Flavel’s distinction between union with the person and communion in his privileges. Ames calls this “the first consideration in the application of redemption.”[140] Not justification, but union. Also, in his chapter on justification he is clear as he states that those who have faith in Christ are “justified by the union.”[141] Ames describes justification as a “relative change” in that it concerns the believer’s standing relative to God in contrast to the “real change” that is sanctification. Yet as the “relative change” of justification is based in union with Christ, the “real change” of sanctification is no less one of “the benefits that flows from this union,” where what is declared in justification by virtue of union with Christ is made evident in sanctification.[142] Once again, the benefits are distinct, but both are similarly applied in the context of union with Christ. As one considers the various parts, this larger framework must not be overlooked.

Finally, in view of Flavel’s doctrine of union with Christ, there is one overarching concern to highlight regarding those who aim to distinguish the primacy of justification. In reading Flavel, the emphasis throughout is on the person of Christ. This is seen in the many statements from Flavel quoted above. It is also clear in the arrangement of The Method of Grace displayed in the totius operis that begins the work and presents a diagram of its structure.[143] The first eight chapters provide an overview of union and communion with Christ. Then Flavel begins the second section with seven chapters on the person of Christ with motivations to come to him. Only after focusing on drawing people to the person of Christ does Flavel detail the various benefits received from Christ by those who come to him in faith. In the current discussion, this focus on the person of Christ is in danger of being eclipsed by those who prioritize the benefit of justification in the ordo salutis rather than union with Christ himself.[144]

This potential to obscure the person of Christ is evident in three ways in the present debate. First, at points the manner in which justification is emphasized potentially confuses the distinct line between redemption accomplished and redemption applied. For instance, as Fesko discusses Perkins he finds that the “mystical union is grounded upon the imputed obedience of Christ.”[145] The forensic always has theological priority, Fesko argues, because Christ’s obedience has priority in the accomplishment of redemption. Thus justification, as forensic, must have ultimate priority in the structure of salvation even over the mystical union with the person of Christ. In Fesko’s reading, this means “justification secures salvation.”[146] However, this description of justification tends to push it out of the realm of redemption applied into the orbit of redemption accomplished.[147] Of course, it is not justification that secures salvation but Jesus. No doubt Fesko would entirely agree. But in the attempt to prioritize justification in this manner, the danger is that it becomes elevated in a way that actually distracts from Christ and the fullness of what he has accomplished for salvation. In Flavel’s scheme, the weight of his discourse remains on the person of Christ as the one who justifies, sanctifies, and bestows all other benefits in communion with him.

Secondly, this tendency for the person of Christ to be eclipsed in the prioritization of justification is evident in the description of faith. As seen above, Flavel explains faith “first” as “the bond of union” which “primarily confers a right to his person.”[148] However, among those emphasizing the forensic aspect of salvation in the current debate, faith is expressed primarily, almost exclusively, as it relates to justification. For example, VanDrunen says that “faith alone, defined as an extraspective trust in Christ and his atoning work, justifies” and that obedience “inevitably flows from justifying faith.”[149] The point in question is not whether faith is the alone instrument in justification. The issue is whether this is the alone function of faith. The depiction of faith by those emphasizing the priority of justification appears to lead one to this conclusion. For instance, Horton claims, “When considering the relation between faith (justification) and the renewing gifts (sanctification) . . . [the Reformers] treat the former as the basis for the latter.”[150] Faith is reduced to its function in justification. Again, the danger is that Christ himself is no longer the central concern of faith, but the benefit received from him. However, this stands in contrast to the role of faith as understood by Flavel who clearly describes it as receiving “first his person, then his privileges.”[151]

Thirdly, a last way this emphasis on justification tends to overshadow the person of Christ is in the manner union and communion with Christ are conflated. As described above in the Larger Catechism, communion in grace is defined in terms of the benefits received from Christ, including justification, adoption, and sanctification, and “whatever else, in this life, manifests their union with him.” This communion in the benefits presupposes a union with his person. This is similarly seen in Flavel who distinguishes the mystical union from the communion in his privileges. However, this distinction is lost by those emphasizing the priority of justification. In fact, union with Christ is no longer understood primarily in terms of the relationship established with his person but becomes synonymous with the ordo salutis and the various benefits of redemption.[152] Hence, Godfrey and VanDrunen claim, “If we want to understand union, then, we must look to our justification, adoption, and sanctification.”[153] The danger is that the benefits become primary and the person of Christ to whom we are united by faith recedes into the background.

VI. Conclusion

While not diminishing the significance of the above concerns, those prioritizing justification are rightly vigilant to maintain the distinctiveness of this benefit in relation to the others within the application of redemption. It is essential not to confuse justification with sanctification or faith with works. Both positions share the same definition of justification, that it is grounded on the imputed righteousness of Christ and received by faith alone. Yet it appears that in the attempt to maintain this important distinction, some of the nuances of the Reformed tradition regarding the broader structure of soteriology have been misread, as demonstrated through the examination of Flavel and his emphasis on the mystical union. And this is not without considerable implication, particularly seen in the tendency to overshadow the person of Christ in the application of redemption when the benefit of justification is singularly distinguished as described in the current debate.

Granting priority to union with Christ in historic Reformed soteriology does not, as has been argued, turn it into a central dogma inconsistent with the theology of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.[154] The soteriological structure within which the mystical union functions is more complex. The whole cannot be reduced to the mystical union with Christ. As seen in Flavel, the hypostatic union has priority as redemption accomplished has priority over redemption applied. The mystical union follows, which preserves the focus on Christ’s person in the application of redemption. Then contingent on the mystical union comes communion with Christ in the various aspects of salvation. All three are essential interlocking aspects of Reformed soteriology as evidenced in Flavel. It might be said that this constitutes the true order of salvation on the larger scale: the hypostatic union of the eternal Son with our humanity, the mystical union between Christ and the believer established by the Spirit, and the communion in grace with all his benefits, justification, and sanctification together included. Reformed soteriology does not begin with justification, or any other benefit, but with Jesus and therefore requires union as well as communion with him. In both accomplishment and application, the privileges are secondary to his person.

This appears to be no new reading of Calvin, or a school of thought beginning with Gaffin and associated with a few who follow him. Instead, those maintaining the priority of union with Christ are standing well within the Reformed tradition, evidenced not only in Calvin but stretching through the seventeenth century as clearly found in the writings of John Flavel. As Flavel was a consistent advocate of the Reformed tradition in the changing theological environment of the late seventeenth century, so are those currently who maintain union with Christ as the primary feature in the application of redemption, not to the exclusion of the various benefits of redemption with their essential distinctions, but that each might be rightly understood in relation to the person of Christ from whom we receive them all.

Notes

1. See Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., By Faith, Not By Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation (Waynesboro, Ga.: Paternoster, 2006); Mark A. Garcia, “Imputation and the Christology of Union with Christ,” WTJ 68 (2006): 219-51; Philip G. Ryken, “Justification and Union with Christ” (paper presented at the meeting of The Gospel Coalition at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, May 23, 2007).
2. See the essays in R. Scott Clark, ed., Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry: Essays by the Faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary California (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2007); John V. Fesko, “A More Perfect Union? Justification and Union with Christ,” Modern Reformation 16, no. 3 (2007): 32-35, 38, online at http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=printfriendly&var1=Print&var2=7 (accessed July 21, 2011).
3. For examples of these exchanges, see Mark A. Garcia, “Review Article: No Reformed Theology of Justification?,” Ordained Servant Online, http://opc.org/os.html?article_id=66 (accessed July 25, 2011); along with W. Robert Godfrey and David VanDrunen, “Response to Mark Garcia’s Review of Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry,” Ordained Servant Online, http://opc.org/os.html?article_id=80 (accessed July 25, 2011). See also John V. Fesko, “A Tale of Two Calvins: A Review Article,” Ordained Servant 18 (2009): 98-104; together with Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., “A Response to Fesko’s Review,” Ordained Servant 18 (2009): 104-13. Also William B. Evans, “Déjà Vu All Over Again? The Contemporary Reformed Soteriological Controversy in Historical Perspective,” WTJ 72 (2010): 135-51; along with the response from J. V. Fesko, “Methodology, Myth, and Misperception: A Response to William B. Evans,” WTJ 72 (2010): 391-402; and a reply by William B. Evans, “Of Trajectories, Repristinations, and Meaningful Engagement of Texts: A Reply to J. V. Fesko,” WTJ 72 (2010): 403-14.
4. Increase Mather, then president of Harvard, writes in his preface to Flavel’s England’s Duty Under the Present Gospel Liberty, that Flavel’s “other books have made his name precious and famous in both Englands” (Increase Mather, “To the Reader” in England’s Duty Under the Present Gospel Liberty, by John Flavel [vol. 4 of The Works of John Flavel; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1997], 16). Archibald Alexander, first professor of Princeton Seminary, said, “To John Flavel I certainly owe more than to any uninspired author” (James W. Alexander, The Life of Archibald Alexander [New York: Charles Scribner, 1854], 47). His influence has been noted on individuals such as George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards, who frequently quotes Flavel in The Religious Affections (see Iain Murray, “John Flavel,” The Banner of Truth, no. 60 [September 1968], online at www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?1377 [accessed Nov. 16, 2011]).
5. See the following by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.: “Biblical Theology and the Westminster Standards,” WTJ 65 (2003): 165-79; “Union With Christ: Some Biblical and Theological Reflections,” in Always Reforming (ed. A. T. B. McGowan; Leicester: InterVarsity, 2006), 271-88; “Justification and Union with Christ,” in A Theological Guide to Calvin’s Institutes (ed. David W. Hall and Peter A. Lillback; Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2008), 248-69; “Calvin’s Soteriology: The Structure of the Application of Redemption in Book Three of the Institutes,” Ordained Servant 18 (2009): 68-77.
6. William B. Evans, Imputation and Impartation: Union with Christ in American Reformed Theology (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2009), 7-38; Mark A. Garcia, Life in Christ: Union with Christ and Twofold Grace in Calvin’s Soteriology (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2008); Lane G. Tipton, “Union with Christ and Justification,” in Justified in Christ: God’s Plan for Us in Justification (ed. K. Scott Oliphint; Ross-shire: Christian Focus, 2007), 23-49.
7. John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion (ed. John T. McNeill; trans. Ford Lewis Battles; 2 vols.; LCC; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 1:537 (3.1.1).
8. Gaffin, “Calvin’s Soteriology,” 70.
9. Tipton, “Union with Christ and Justification,” 39.
10. Garcia, Life in Christ, 185-90, 273-87.
11. Ibid., 282.
12. Ibid., 277.
13. Ibid.
14. Calvin, Institutes, 1:725 (3.11.1); emphasis added.
15. Evans, Imputation and Impartation, 39.
16. Calvin, Institutes, 1:737 (3.11.10); emphasis added.
17. See Gaffin, “Justification and Union with Christ,” 261-62.
18. Calvin, Institutes, 1:798 (3.16.1).
19. Garcia, Life in Christ, 219.
20. John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians (trans. John Pringle; vol. 20 of Calvin’s Commentaries; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 93-94.
21. Ibid., 94.
22. Gaffin, “Justification and Union with Christ,” 259.
23. Gaffin, “A Response to John Fesko’s Review,” 111.
24. Gaffin, “Biblical Theology and the Westminster Standards,” 174-75; Gaffin, “Union with Christ: Some Biblical and Theological Reflections,” 280-82; Gaffin, “Calvin’s Soteriology,” 71.
25. Also see Shorter Catechism Q&A 30, which describes the “Spirit working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ,” as the starting point for the application of redemption, after which the various benefits, including justification, adoption, and sanctification, are listed.
26. Gaffin, “Union with Christ: Some Biblical and Theological Reflections,” 82.
27. Fesko, “A Tale of Two Calvins,” 103; and Fesko, “Method, Myth, and Misperception,” 394. For a similar and even more critical assessment see Thomas L. Wenger, “The New Perspective on Calvin: Responding to Recent Calvin Interpretations,” JETS 50 (2007): 311-28.
28. Godfrey and VanDrunen, “Response to Mark Garcia’s Review of Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry.” Similarly, Wenger notes that in Calvin “none of his disputationes deal primarily with union with Christ, nor is there a single chapter devoted to it in the entire Institutes” (Wenger, “New Perspective on Calvin,” 327-28).
29. R. Scott Clark, “Do This and Live,” in Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry, 261 n. 103. See also Horton’s lengthy footnote concerning Garcia’s reading of Calvin (Michael Horton, The Christian Faith [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011], 594 n. 11).
30. Fesko, “A Tale of Two Calvins,” 103.
31. Michael S. Horton, Covenant and Salvation: Union With Christ (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007), 143.
32. Ibid., 198.
33. Ibid., 147. For more on Calvin’s interaction with Osiander, while maintaining the priority of union with Christ, see Garcia, Life in Christ, 197-252.
34. Calvin, Institutes, 1:726 (3.11.1).
35. Horton, Covenant and Salvation, 143.
36. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians (trans. William Pringle; vol. 21 of Calvin’s Commentaries), 262.
37. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (trans. John Owen; vol. 19 of Calvin’s Commentaries), 243. Horton quotes from another translation of Calvin’s Romans commentary which reads, “since we are clothed with the righteousness of the Son . . . we are reconciled to God and renewed by the power of the Spirit to holiness,” communicating the sense of a causal relation between justification and renewal (John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans and Thessalonians [ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance; trans. Ross MacKenzie; vol. 8 of Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964], 138; quoted in Horton, Christian Faith, 594 n. 11); emphasis added.
38. Horton, Christian Faith, 594 n. 11.
39. J. V. Fesko, “Peter Martyr Vermigli on Union With Christ and Justification,” RTR 70 (2011): 40.
40. Ibid., 44.
41. Ibid., 42.
42. John V. Fesko, “William Perkins on Union with Christ and Justification,” Mid-America Journal of Theology 21 (2010): 30; emphasis added.
43. Ibid., 30 n. 38, 34.
44. Godfrey and VanDrunen, “Response to Mark Garcia’s Review.”
45. Ibid.
46. Ibid. See WCF 16:2.
47. Fekso, “Methodology, Myth, and Misperception,” 394.
48. For biographical information on Flavel see James William Kelly, “Flavell, John (bap. 1630, d. 1691),” in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), online at http://www.oxforddnb.com/index/101009678/John-Flavell (accessed Feb. 14, 2007). Also see Anonymous, The Life of the Late Rev. Mr. John Flavel, Minister of Dartmouth (vol. 1 of The Works of John Flavel), xv.
49. John Flavel, An Exposition of the (Westminster) Assembly’s Shorter Catechism (vol. 6 of The Works of John Flavel), 138-317.
50. John Flavel, England’s Duty Under the Present Gospel Liberty (vol. 4 of The Works of John Flavel), 3-306.
51. R. Tudor Jones, “Union with Christ: The Existential Nerve of Puritan Piety,” TynBul 41 (1990): 186.
52. William Sherlock, A Discourse Concerning the Knowledge of Jesus Christ, and our Union and Communion with Him (London: J. M., 1674), 148-49.
53. Ibid., 212.
54. Ibid., 156.
55. For an account of Latitudinarianism see Gerald R. Cragg, From Puritanism to the Age of Reason (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950); Isabel Rivers, Reason, Grace and Sentiment: A Study of the Language of Religion and Ethics in England, 1660-1780 (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 1:25-88; Dewey D. Wallace, Puritans and Predestination: Grace in English Protestant Theology, 1525-1695 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1982), 158-90.
56. For a summary of this controversy see Wallace, Puritans and Predestination, 170-73. The following works are in response to Sherlock: John Owen, A Vindication of Some Passages in A Discourse Concerning Communion with God (vol. 2 of The Works of John Owen; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1997), 275-364; Vincent Alsop, Anti-Sozzo, sive Sherlocismus Enervatus: in Vindication of Some Great Truths Opposed, and Opposition to Some Great Errors Maintained by Mr. William Sherlock (London: Printed for Nathanael Ponder, 1675); Henry Hickman, Speculem Sherlockianum, or, A Looking-Glass in which the Admirers of Mr. Sherlock may behold the Man, as to his Accuracy, Judgement, Orthodoxy (London: Printed for Thomas Parkhurst, 1674); Samuel Rolle, Justification Justified: or The Great doctrine of Justification, Stated according to the Holy Scriptures, and the Judgment of Protestant Divines. By which several Fundamental Truths, always owned by the Church of England, since the Reformation, are Explain’d Confirm’d, and Vindicated from the Errors of Mr. William Sherlock. Also a Discourse in Answer to him concerning Acquaintance with the Person of Christ (London: printed for the author, and are to be sold at B. Billing. at the Printing-Press in Corn-hill, 1674); Thomas Danson, A Friendly Debate between Satan and Sherlock Containing a discovery of the unsoundness of Mr. William Sherlocks Principles in a late book entituled A Discourse Concerning the Knowledge of Jesus Christ &c., by this only Medium, that they afford the Devil the same grounds for his hope of Salvation, that they do Mankind, and so subvert the Gospel, and transform Christianity into Mahumetanism (London?: S.N., 1676); Robert Ferguson, The Interest of Reason in Religion with the Import & Use of Scripture-Metaphors, and the Nature of the Union betwixt Christ & Believers; (with Reflections on Several Late Writings, especially Mr. Sherlocks Discourse concerning the Knowledge of Jesus Christ, &c.) Modestly enquired into and stated (London: Printed for Dorman Newman, 1675).
57. Edward Polhill, An Answer to the Discourse of Mr. William Sherlock, Touching the Knowledge of Christ, and our Union and Communion with Him (London: Ben Foster, 1675), “To the Reader,” unnumbered page.
58. John Flavel, The Method of Grace in the Gospel Redemption (vol. 2 of The Works of John Flavel), 35, 38.
59. Flavel, England’s Duty, 236.
60. Flavel, Method of Grace, 150.
61. Ibid., 34.
62. Ibid., 150.
63. Ibid., 107.
64. Ibid., 40.
65. Flavel, Exposition of the Shorter Catechism, 171.
66. Ibid., 191.
67. Ibid.
68. Ibid., 191-92.
69. Ibid.
70. Ibid., 192.
71. Ibid., 194.
72. Ibid., 191. See Calvin, Institutes, 1:537 (3.1.1).
73. Garcia notes, “When Calvin wishes to clarify the distinct-yet-inseparable character of the saving benefits . . . that come in union with Christ, he cites or refers to the language of this verse with striking regularity” (Garcia, Life in Christ, 219).
74. Flavel, Method of Grace, 15, 36, 39, 40, 42, 85, 144, 146-47, 188, 216, 233.
75. Ibid., 16.
76. Ibid.
77. See John Flavel, Husbandry Spiritualized: Or, the Heavenly Use of Earthly Things (vol. 5 of The Works of John Flavel), 141-49. This work was first published in 1668 and contains two chapters, together with two poems, on the agricultural metaphors for union with Christ. His later works where union with Christ find clear expression are An Exposition of the (Westminster) Assembly’s Shorter Catechism and England’s Duty mentioned above, as well as Gospel Unity Recommended to the Churches of Christ (vol. 3 of The Works of John Flavel), 592-608; and A Coronation Sermon (vol. 6 of The Works of John Flavel), 545-63. Both were initially published in 1689.
78. Flavel, Gospel Unity Recommended, 592.
79. Ibid., 595.
80. Flavel, Method of Grace, 20.
81. John Flavel, The Fountain of Life: A Display of Christ in His Essential and Mediatorial Glory (vol. 1 of The Works of John Flavel), 24; emphasis original.
82. Note the error in the Banner of Truth edition which has “interpretation” rather than “impetration” (Flavel, Method of Grace, 12). The first edition has “impetration” (John Flavel, The Method of Grace In bringing Home the Eternal Redemption, Contrived by the Father, and accomplished by the Son, through the effectual Application of the Spirit unto God’s Elect; being the Second Part of Gospel Redemption: Wherein The great mysterie of our Union and Communion with Christ is opened and applied [London: M. White, 1681], b3; emphasis original). All other references to this work will be from the Banner of Truth edition unless noted otherwise.
83. Flavel, Method of Grace, 313-14.
84. Similarly, Gaffin argues that in Calvin’s title to Institutes, Book 3, “The Way in Which We Receive the Grace of Christ,” the “concern is with ‘the way’ (Latin: not ordo, but modus, ‘mode,’ ‘manner,’ ‘method’)” (Gaffin, “Biblical Theology and the Westminster Standards,” 170).
85. Flavel, Method of Grace, 49.
86. Ibid., 112.
87. Ibid., 17. See also 67 and 103-4.
88. Flavel, Coronation Sermon, 557.
89. Flavel, Fountain of Life, 75.
90. Flavel, Method of Grace, 151.
91. Ibid., 145.
92. Ibid., 331-32.
93. Flavel, England’s Duty, 115. Elsewhere Flavel says, “What was done upon the person of Christ . . . was also intended for a platform, or idea, of what is to be done by the Spirit actually upon our souls and bodies” (Flavel, Method of Grace, 18).
94. Flavel, Fountain of Life, 83.
95. Flavel, Method of Grace, 90. See also Flavel, Coronation Sermon, 557.
96. Flavel, England’s Duty, 212.
97. Ibid.
98. Flavel, Method of Grace, 38.
99. Ibid., 37.
100. Ibid., 39, 84, 116. See also Flavel, Fountain of Life, 192, 452, 512.
101. Flavel, Method of Grace, 67.
102. Ibid., 103; emphasis added.
103. Ibid., 112.
104. Ibid., 116.
105. Ibid., 110.
106. Ibid., 111.
107. Ibid., 112.
108. Ibid., 35-36. Similarly, Flavel states, “Union with Christ is fundamental to all communion with him. All communion is founded on union; and where there is no union, there can be no communion” (Flavel, England’s Duty, 239).
109. Flavel, Method of Grace, 33.
110. Flavel, Fountain of Life, 192.
111. Ibid.; see also Flavel, Method of Grace, 19, 24-27, 92-93, 118, 146-47, 149, 210.
112. Flavel, Method of Grace, 210.
113. Ibid., 111.
114. Ibid., 110. A similarity with Calvin may be noted in the language and imagery. Calvin says, “Let then the faithful learn to embrace him, not only for justification, but also for sanctification, as he has been given to us for both of these purposes, lest they rend him asunder by their mutilated faith” (Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, 294. See also Calvin, Institutes, 1:725 [3:11:1]).
115. Flavel, Method of Grace, 41; emphasis added.
116. Ibid., 19; emphasis added.
117. Ibid., 24; emphasis added.
118. Ibid., 146.
119. Ibid., 36 and 146.
120. Ibid., 146.
121. Ibid., 25; emphasis original.
122. Ibid., 24.
123. Ibid., 24-25, 36, 92-94.
124. Ibid., 91.
125. Ibid.
126. Flavel, Fountain of Life, 192.
127. Flavel, Method of Grace, 273; emphasis original.
128. Flavel, England’s Duty, 215.
129. Flavel, Method of Grace, 252 and 146.
130. Ibid., 254.
131. Ibid., 255.
132. Ibid., 144.
133. Ibid., 145; emphasis added.
134. Thomas Lye, “The True Believer’s Union with Christ Jesus,” in The Morning Exercise Methodized; or Certain chief heads and points of the Christian religion opened and improved in divers sermons, by several ministers of the City of London, in the monthly course of the morning exercise at Giles in the Fields. May 1659 (ed. T. Case; London: printed by E. M. for Ralph Smith, 1660), 377-78.
135. Evans, Imputation and Impartation, 80-81. See also Jonathan Jong-Chun Won, “Communion with Christ: An Exposition and Comparison of the Doctrine of Union and Communion with Christ in Calvin and the English Puritans” (Ph.D. diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1989), 351; quoted in Evans, Imputation and Impartation, 78.
136. William Ames, The Marrow of Theology (trans. John Dykstra Eusden; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 161.
137. Horton, Covenant and Salvation, 138.
138. Ames, Marrow of Theology, 167; quoted in Fesko, “Methodology, Myth, and Misperception,” 400.
139. Ames, Marrow of Theology, 157.
140. Ibid.
141. Ibid., 162.
142. Ibid., 167-68.
143. This Totius Operis is found in the first edition of The Method of Grace (London: M. White, 1681), unnumbered page just prior to the first sermon.
144. Gaffin expresses this concern in several places (Gaffin, “Biblical Theology and the Westminster Standards,” 168; Gaffin, “Union with Christ: Some Biblical and Theological Reflections,” 280; Gaffin, “Justification and Union with Christ,” 252-53; Gaffin, “Calvin’s Soteriology,” 72).
145. Fesko, “William Perkins on Union with Christ and Justification,” 27.
146. Ibid., 32.
147. This confusion of categories where justification is potentially pushed into the realm of redemption accomplished is seen as Fesko correlates the relationship between justification and sanctification to the relationship between the “legal-forensic work of Christ” and the “transformative work of the Holy Spirit.” This makes it appear that justification and sanctification are bifurcated at the point of the work of Christ in the accomplishment of redemption and the work of the Spirit in its application. In fact, he explains that justification is the ground of sanctification in the same way that “apart from redemption accomplished, there can be no redemption applied” (emphasis original). This is not to say that Fesko would argue that justification should be understood as an aspect of redemption accomplished, but his formulation tends in this direction. (See Fesko, “A More Perfect Union?”)
148. Flavel, Method of Grace, 116 and 103.
149. David VanDrunen, “Where We Are: Justification under Fire in the Contemporary Scene,” in Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry, 49; emphasis added.
150. Horton, Covenant and Salvation, 198. Also, as noted above, see Horton’s interaction with Calvin’s commentary on Eph 3:17, where as Calvin discusses faith, Horton believes he is speaking of justification (Horton, Covenant and Salvation, 143).
151. Flavel, Method of Grace, 112.
152. John V. Fesko, “William Perkins on Union with Christ and Justification,” 30 n. 38, 34.
153. Godfrey and VanDrunen, “Response to Mark Garcia’s Review.”
154. Fesko, “William Perkins on Union with Christ and Justification,” 22.