Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be considered to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, we must profess of the books of scripture that they teach with certainty, with fidelity and without error the truth which God wanted recorded in the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.

The Catholic doctrine of sanctifying grace is contained in the declarations of the Council of Trent.  Here it is stated, against the Reformers’ conception of justification, that justification truly blots out a man’s sins, so that he ceases to be a sinner and becomes just, and that solely by God’s deed in the grace of Christ which can never be exacted and never merited… This forgiveness effects an interior transformation and sanctification of a man; grace and the gifts really become his own (which does not mean that he can do what he will with them), so that this grace is called “infused”, “inherent”, and this *justice of God is the only formal cause of justification…  The theological *virtues are either identical with sanctifying grace or connected with it.  Being truly “infused” into man and gratuitously produced by God’s “efficient causality” it is considered to be a “created” quality and is thus contrasted with uncreated grace.

I found it interesting that Rahner and Vorgrimler use the language of “effecting” when relating the forgiveness found in justification to the grace of sanctification.  Though the undergirding conception of grace is vastly different from the reformed, it seems that even post-Vatican II theologians were interested in discussing their relation.

This is a wonderful phrase to describe democracy, but as I pondered its meaning, I realized it is a terrible way to describe the Trinity.  As orthodox Christians, we must not prioritize the one over the many nor the many over the one.  This is true not only for priority of place, but also for temporal priority.  The oneness of God does not arise out of the many persons.  Neither does God’s plurality of persons flow from his one essence.  God is fundamentally simple, that is, not comprised of parts. He is eternally and most basically both one and many.

Gregory of Nazianzen famously said that whenever he thought of the one, his mind was inevitably drawn to the many.  And whenever he thought of the many, his mind was likewise drawn to the one. This is perhaps the best way to describe how we ought to think of our incomprehensible Triune God. While the founding fathers of the United States have many great lessons to teach us, a Trinitarian lesson from U.S. currency is not one of them.

This year’s conference is on the church and mission. And a fascinating conference it has been. Today is day two of the conference and we’ve heard several very stimulating lectures. The overall theme, I might deduce, is that mission needs to be understood in a Christ-centered way. And to be sure, Barth himself understood the mission of the church in such a way. As with all his theology, Christ must be at the center.

In fact, the lecture by John Flett made clear that the mission of the church needs to be understood in light of the mission of Christ as the eternal elected man and electing man who comes to us in humility but also in resurrection power. “Christ is Risen! He is risen indeed!” is the announcement of the church that Christ himself has accomplished the mission of God and has witnessed to God himself. In fact, Christ is himself THE witness of God.

So, what are we to make of this? To be sure, Christ is himself the prophetic voice of the church. Furthermore, and as such, there can be no false dichotomy between the church as institution and the church as mission. With this we cannot but help to agree.

However, some problems remain. First, there is an abiding nominalism here in Barth’s ecclesiology. It is Christological and Christocentric to a fault. The mission of the church loses any real meaning as mission if Christ is himself – as the incarnation God-Man from all eternity – the missio dei. If God in Christ is the mission and this mission takes place – along with reconciliation – in eternity past, then what exactly does the church need to do today? Witness to the witness? Or imitate the witness by being an agency of reconciliation with its neighbors through acts of mercy? If so, how is this really different from the older liberal view of missions? It was suggested in the conference that the best way to shut down a mission field is to write a book saying how missionaries are raping the indigenous cultures of the mission field. True that. However, a better explanation as to why missions is in such a poor state in the PCUSA is because of a lack of motivation. What I mean is this: if mission and reconciliation is already established by the being of God in Christ from all eternity, why do missions today? There is one thing that is not different between Barthian view of mission and a liberal view: missionaries are only to declare what is already the case with the indigenous people to whom they preach and never actually seek to convert them. After all, as we saw in last year’s conference on Barth and the Religions, Christianity is to seek dialogue with other religions and not confront or challenge them in their unbelief.

Rather, according to Scripture, we are to preach Christ and him crucified. We are to show the world’s religions that they worship idols, that they need to repent, and become Christians. This is not colonization, it is biblical evangelism. And with out it, mission can never truly have Christ at its center.

If you are interested in learning more about Barth, I can recommend this book, this book, and this book. His theology is still worth knowing and reading, even if you do not agree.

Q. 69. What is the communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ?
A. The communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ, is their partaking of the virtue of his mediation, in their justification, adoption, sanctification, and whatever else, in this life, manifests their union with him. (Westminster Larger Catechism, Q. 69)

And then Calvin:

I confess that we are deprived of this utterly incomparable good [justifying grace] until Chirst is made ours.  Therefore, that joining together of Head and members, that indwelling of Christ in our hearts – in short, that mystical union – are accorded by us the highest degree of importance, so that Christ, having been made ours, makes us sharers with him in the gifts with which he has been endowed.  We do not, therefore, 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 – in short, because he deigns to make us one with him.  For this reason, we glory that we have fellowship of righteousness with him. (Institutes, 3.11.10, emphasis mine).

Now there are differences among the Reformed regarding the precise relationship between the benefits of salvation, but the importance given to union is evident.  At the most fundamental level, the Scriptural testimony describes the benefits of salvation happening in Christ.  Being in Christ is none other than being united to him.

J. Ligon Duncan, President of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, spoke for a few minutes regarding the Alliance, Tenth Presbyterian, and Phil Ryken, who will be leaving Tenth to become the President of Wheaton College in Wheaton, IL.  Dr. Ryken read from Revelation 1:9-20 given us a foretaste of the material yet to come in the conference.  We then we proceeded to sing Glorious Things of Thee are Spoken and My Hope is in the Lord, another majestic hymn.

At this point Sinclair Ferguson came to the pulpit to deliver his evening message. He clued us in to the fact that he was a substitute.  He proceeded to speak of the fact that he had declined Rick Phillips’ original invitation, but Friday’s speaker had backed out. There was much joking and much laughter, especially between Rick Phillips and Ligon Duncan seated behind Dr. Ferguson. Rick Phillips even became a “supererogator in merit” apparently telling Dr. Ferguson just how much he had done for Sinclair, his church, etc.

Needless to say, Dr. Ferguson agreed. When asked what was the given topic, Rick Phillips told him he could do anything, so long as it was related to Christ. Ferguson said he’s not going to do “anything” but “everything” in this message. And that he did. Using Genesis 3:15, the proto evangelium as his entry point, Ferguson led the attendees through a guided tour of God’s overarching plan of redemption throughout history.

Ferguson then shifted to Luke 24 and the account of the road to Emmaus. The disciples experienced Christ expanding the Scripture to them. As he unfolding this amazing account, Ferguson said that he has become more and more convinced that Jesus would have started this Scriptural tour with Genesis 3:15.

The reason the Son came into the world was to destroy the works of the devil (cf Col 2; Heb 2). And analogous to how the history of philosophy is a footnote to Plato and Aristotle, the whole of the Bible is a series of footnotes and expressions on the victory pronounced in Gen 3:15. And we see this played out again. Satan returns in Revelation as a giant serpent, a red dragon. This picture in Gen 3:15 is colorfully caught up in showing to us Christ, and one day this victory will be visible from sea to sea. The history of redemption demonstrates that Christ is its meaning, king and lord.

1) Jesus Christ is the Meaning of History

This passage projects us into a deep understanding that Jesus Christ is the meaning of history. History is His Story (Michael Jackson?). The whole of human history is seen through the lens of these two powers/seeds (Kline?). There is the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent; the contrasts between Seth/Cain, David/Goliath, Church/Roman Empire – there is a clear leitmotif.

Similar themes of reset and provision appear.  Eve’s statement “I have gotten a man with the help fo the LORD” anticipates Noah (which sounds like the Hebrew “rest”) and points forward to Isaac.  Isaac asked “where is the sacrifice?” only to find God’s provision in the hour of need.  The sacrifice is a type of Christ, the priest after the order of Melchizedek will come.  All of Biblical history contains hints of Jesus Christ, the greater realization.

Hebrews 1 testifies that in these last days God has spoken to us in His Son. Christ is the meaning of history. Brilliant minds have searched to no avail, but the simplest reader of Scripture has the answer.

2) Jesus Christ is the King of History

Jesus had come to consummate his kingdom; to reserve the kingdoms of the world. This is precisely what Satan tempted him with. The king has come to reclaim his territory, but it must be done in his time according to his plan. We see the enemy at work throughout history trying to thwart this plan. At the climax of history, Christ’s death/resurrection, the demonic presence was in unprecendented measure. All the forces of the present evil age were moving to curtail what the king of history had come to do. But they could not stop him and he demonstrated not only his kingship, but also that he is history’s lord.

3) Jesus Christ is the Lord of History

What does it mean that Jesus is the Lord of history? One implication is that his word of gospel grace must to be proclaimed to the ends of the earth.  His lordship also speaks to his present activity in bringing his good work to completion. Our Lord has not imagined that the crushing of the serpent is the end of the battle. Indeed it is the guarantee of victory, but Christ continues to build his church. And he will return to judge the powers of this age

One of the most hopeful pictures in the New Testament is that found in 1 Cor 15:20ff. Paul speaks about the hope of the resurrection and the glorified bodies that await those united to Christ.  And though we look to that hope and are guaranteed of its arrival, we don’t yet see all things under his feet. We await the consummation. Therefore we must look to Christ. And at this point, Dr. Ferguson said that he thinks his congregation may not believe he knows how to finish a sermon – simply because they all end in the same way. “Don’t you think it is the greatest thing in the world to be a Christian?”

[Paul] says that Christ is made unto us righteousness, by which he means that we are on his account acceptable to God, inasmuch as he expiated our sins by his death, and his obedience is imputed to us for righteousness.  For as the righteousness of faith consists in remission of sins and a gracious acceptance, we obtain both through Christ.  But Paul also calls Christ our sanctification, by which he means that we who are otherwise unholy by nature, are by His Spirit renewed unto holiness, that we may serve God.  From this, also, we may infer that we cannot be justified freely through faith alone without at the same time living holy.  For these fruits of grace are connected together, as it were, by an indissoluble tie, so that he who attempts to sever them does in a manner tear Christ into pieces.  Let therefore the man who seeks to be justified through Christ consider that this cannot be attained without his taking Him at the same time for sanctification. (Calvin, Commentary on 1st Corinthians, 1 Cor 1:30)

Calvin again is on his point that Christ cannot be divided or torn into pieces.  The salvation we have in Christ is just that – in Him.  And because it is found in union with Him, we possess all that He has secured for us.  I hope it is understood by readers that this quote from Calvin demands a definitive view of sanctification (unless we want to say he is a proto-Phoebe Palmer).  While the exact nomenclature is not employed, Murray wasn’t the first to incorporate a definitive aspect into sanctification.

Christ the Center treated the subject a while back with Rick Phillips.

But since the question concerns only righteousness and sanctification, let us dwell upon these.  Although we may distinguish them, Christ contains both of them inseparably in himself.  Do you wish, then to attain righteousness in Christ?  You must first possess Christ; but you cannot possess him without being made partaker in his sanctification, because he cannot be divided into pieces.  Since, therefore, it is solely by expending himself that the Lord gives us these benefits to enjoy, he bestows both of them at the same time, the one never without the other.  Thus it is clear how true it is that we are justified not without works yet not through works, since in our sharing in Christ, which justifies us, sanctification is just as much included as righteousness. (Calvin, Institutes, 3.16.1 p. 797-798)

Once again, Calvin is quick to remind us that Christ cannot be divided into pieces, which is to say we cannot treat salvific benefits independently of each other.  That being said, there are clear distinctions between the benefits (justification and sanctification in our immediate purview).  Though we distinguish them, both are received simultaneously and inseparably in our sharing in (i.e. union with) Christ.  Moreover, union comes prior to justification and the other benefits.  We may say, union is the proper context for receiving the benefits since we “must first possess Christ.”

It is indeed true, that we are justified in Christ through the mercy of God alone, but it is equally true and certain, that all who are justified are called by the Lord, that they may live worthy of their vocation.  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 these purposes, lest they render him asunder by their mutilated faith (Romans 8:13).

As Christ  cannot be torn into parts, so these two which we perceive in him together and conjointly are inseparable – namely, righteousness and sanctification. (Calvin, Institutes, 2.11.6, p. 732)

Calvin provides a helpful reminder that Christ cannot be rent asunder or torn into parts.  Salvation necessitates that believers are united to the person of Jesus Christ who becomes wisdom and righteousness and sanctification (1 Cor 1:30).  Salvation comes from Christ who in his totality is the person of salvation.  Treating any salvific benefit individually to the exclusion of the others is in effect to render him asunder.