Okay, Steve has been reading a book that was published a couple of years before I went to seminary and one that was widely read as Christology books go. His observations are well worth reading. Here are some quotations he posts:
When Martinius of Bremen unwittingly proposed Christ as foundation of election on the floor of the Synod of Dort, the conservative Gomarus challenged him to a duel! … Hence, Barth’s criticisms have force from the seventeenth century on but before that time they are wide of the mark. Nevertheless, since his discussion of the question no sensible treatment of election can fail to address the en Christo dimension. In Ephesians 1:4, for instance, we should see Paul’s comments in the light of his regarding the whole of salvation, as he defines it in verses 3-14 and 2:1-10, existing in Christ (note the constant repetition of the cryptic phrases en auto, en ho or en Christo). Thus, our entire salvation is received in Christ, election included. (pg. 55)
Our union with Christ is grounded on his union with us. We can be one with him because he made himself one with us. As always, the divine comes first. Christ’s union with us took place in his incarnation. (pg. 77)
The birth of Jesus thus marks a new creation, a new beginning, equally due to the creative energies of God… In becoming man, Christ united himself with the human race… At the same time, he marked a new beginning for the race. (pg. 79)
Justification, sanctification, adoption and glorification are all received through our being united to Christ. (pg. 80)
Where union with Christ surfaces in our experience, repentance and faith are always present. In that sense, without repentance and faith, union with Christ does not exist. (pg 81)
Union with Christ exists in faith but it is also connected in the New Testament with baptism. One reason for this is that baptism marks the start of the Christian life. In the New Testament baptism was administered at the point at which a person was regarded as a Christian. (pg. 81)
Hence, to separate election from union with Christ, as both Hodge and Berkhof did in their volumes of systematic theology, is a departure from the perspective of Scripture… The problem for both Hodge and Berkhof stemmed from the loss of a christocentric doctrine of election in Reformed theology. (pg. 86)
Steve makes some startling observations in addition to these quotations, but I will invite you to read them on his blog. My point is simply to add my testimony for those too young our out of the loop to know it for themselves.
When I went to seminary, Letham’s book had all the buzz. It was considered the best recent book on that aspect of theology with a lot of great insight to offer. No one considered it subversive or requiring refutation. No one claimed Reformed theology was under attack.
No one claimed the book was revolutionary either; Letham simply solidified thinking that had been going on for years in conservative Evangelical circles.
Mark —
I think I see what you’re getting at here, regarding the idea that in FV/AA thinking that there is an objective standard for being en Christo, that being baptism, and that has more breadth than what the other Presbyterians are willing to admit. Even a flabby baptist like me can see the importance of the Christocentric nature of election even if I do not take it as far as you do.
Isn’t it a fair question, however, to ask if this is an equivocation — that is, confusing two separate meanings of a word or phrase? My question is this: if one admits that the elect are elected en Christo, and one admits that one is en Christo if one is inside the church, does one have to say, out of logical necessity, that one who is in the church is in the elect? Doesn’t the en Christo of election mean something different than the en Christo of church fellowship/membership/inclusion? Isn’t the latter of a different class and meaning?
This is where you gents in the FV/AA section of reformedom go off the rail, I think. You do a lot of work to demonstrate how the WCF and the Bible point to the covenant nature of God, but then something like this — which is a rather uncomplicated mistake (IMO) — creeps up on you.
But again: I’m a Baptist. I think all of you guys need an actual baptism before you can get the rest of this off the ground. 🙂
Grace and Peace …
Frank,
1) You are my favorite baptist.
2) I did get a proper baptism at the age of 8
3) How would we know when Paul meant the baptismal/covenantal definition of en Christo as opposed to the “proper” or “systematic” definition? Those arguing for a Christological election will allow for a decretal one. It has been my experience that the critics will only allow for one type- the decretal. What is our standard to know the “proper” definition of election as opposed to the accidental references that might appear in Scripture.
sorry…. I need to add a ?
Steven —
You’re linked by the infamous Doug Wilson, so I’ll take being a “favorite” as a good thing.
I think you misunderstand me on the “en Christo” thing. I don’t think there’s a “proper” “en christo” and an “informal” “en christo”. I think there’s a -soteriological- “en christo” and an -ecclesiological- “en christo” which have different scopes.
The Soterio EC covers things like justification and salvation; the ecclesial EC covers things like fellowship and sacraments. And we see that in the contexts.
My friends at work are calling me to Hot Wings and Beer, so I’ll leave that as an unsubstantiated assertion for you to consider — and I’ll ask you not to turn me in to the Deacon Board for having a Sam Adams with dinner (if such a thing can be had in these here parts).
Peace and Grace.
Yeah, I don’t know how, but it seems that Wilson has given me instant street-cred by adding me to the ranks of men like yourself and Mark Horne. I guess this makes me a “keyboard theologian” now. Whoo-hoo.
As for your proposal, I understand it and think that this is where the really substantial split should occur between the Presbyterians and the Baptists. I also think, and this is where I might lose the “let’s all get along” status, that one of these two views is probably incompatible with historic Christianity.
In my mind Christology connects soteriology and ecclesiology because both only exist in Christ. I take the Church as “body of Christ” to mean that our ecclesiology needs to be consistent with our Christology. We shouldn’t have two churches, nor should our church only appear to be visible or earthly with its “real” nature being invisible. All things will be brought together in Christ, and the Church has an established definition of who Christ is. We need to beware of ecclesial Nestorianism and Docetism.
A good illustration of where these three theological loci come together is the Eucharist. The Reformed doctrine of the Eucharist, as I know it, requires the person of Jesus to be present, the church as body of Christ to be present, and our faith to receive the grace conferred in it. If you remove one of these components then you have trouble.