RSSRE: Latitude
If we are taking about the Gospel being at stake, I agree. I have not suggested otherwise. What I have suggested, and I think Jeff and Peter have been a bit vague in their responses, is that if you are agreeing with the substance (i.e. recieving the whole of Christ’s perfect righteousness as our sole and perfect righteousess before God) I think they have not endangered the gospel. If they are simply speaking the language of the tradition in its earlier stages, fine.
Still, I am fully convinced (and I think the historical theologians would back me up) that Calvin, Ursinus, and other believed in the substance of the active obedience of Christ when they affirmed (as the WCF does) that justification was based on BOTH Christ’s obedience and death…. and obedience and satisfaction.
But if that were the case, why not point to Calvin and Ursinus and say I fit into the tradition and I affirm the substance of the gospel and the Reformed understanding of justification.
More likely, they are pointing to Piscator, Gadaker, and Twisse as representatives of an actual denial of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. The did so for a reason. They sought to take a stand against antinomianism. I suppose that the tradition also includes the neonomianism of the early 18th Century Church of Scotland. The Marrow was condemned by the COS but vindicated by the AP and RPC traditions. Here would be an area of friction but we would know what we were dealing with.
No such defense has been clearly asserted. I am left wondering. Does the FV (sans Wilson) affirm a view of justification tinted with nomism or does it only quibble with words?
James Jordan
October 1st, 2007 at 9:49 am
The FV is interested in what the Bible says. The Bible says nothing about any covenant of meritorious works in Adam — there is nothing Adam was ever told to do so it’s impossible that he was supposed to earn anything. This has been pointed out for well over a century in Reformed circles. Plus, the notion that a Father makes His son earn blessings is so abominable that I cannot fathom how such a horror could ever have come into play, save that it seems to be a pagan hangover from the time when people bribed their gods with gifts and demanded payment. Also, the Bible says nothing about any “imputation of active obedience.” So, since neither of these mutually supportive notions is found in the Word of God, we’re NOT INTERESTED in them. They safeguard nothing. They are unnecessary. There is no apophatic truth that they protect. And they get in the way of understanding what the Bible does say. Things like: resurrection and glory in the Spirit in union with Christ, which I’ve brought up half a dozen times here and which has yet to be taken up.
W.H. Chellis
October 1st, 2007 at 10:08 am
James: No one has dealt with union with Christ because no one denies its centrality. The FV has no corner on the market here. As you will note, Richard Gaffin, not one to ignor the importance of union with Christ signed the OPC report against the FV.
The battle is not here, unless I am missing something?
James Jordan
October 1st, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Well, most of us think IAO is unnecessary because we receive the totality of who Jesus is by virtue of our union with His post-resurrection existence. If that is true, then IAO is unimportant and unnecessary. So most of us would maintain.
Anthony Cowley
October 1st, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer.
Okay - I sent Bill a long, long post earlier today, and got back an email saying it was apparently lost.
It was brilliant, it was devastating. Now its lost. So, I’ll cut to the chase and let some other folks demonstrate how brilliant my humble insight really is.
I have three things to say:
1. The Cross
2. The Flesh
3. The Priesthood
But, first an -
INTRODUCTION
This post has to do with the IMPUTATION of the Active Obedience of Christ (IAOC). By way of explanation, I have preached this doctrine a number of times. It was a regular feature of expositions I did on Psalm 32 in Covenanter Communion services. While I didn’t often use the technical jargon of IAOC (at least not more than twice), I did cite the story of the Machen Telegram, having been very moved when I read the Banner of Truth issue on the life of John Murray. I emphasized the grace of God in not merely forgiving us, and leaving us with a blank slate, but he adopted us and regenerated us (I’ve preached this out of 1 John too!) and IMPUTED to us the positive Righteousness of Christ. We are new creatures. I STILL PREACH THIS. And, in preaching this heretofore I thought I was preaching the I-AOC. And, structurally, I was. Like Doug Wilson, I think I believe it - but maybe I’m being converted from it due to the discussion here, for I now see what Meyers and Jordan and others (Lusk is not here, and I didn’t get it when I read him, to be honest) have been saying. While I didn’t see the problem the way the RCUS, OPC or PCA study committees have framed things (it didn’t ring true to what I heard the FV guys as saying), I sympathized with their concerns about the I-AOC question. For, Bill - I am a Marrow man, a free offer man. I love aBrakel and I also love to steal Thomas Boston’s Human Nature in Its Fourfold State paradigm: posse/non posse peccare; non-posse non peccare; posse peccare/posse non peccare; non posse peccare. I look forward to, and rejoice in the coming inability to sin. But, I mostly rejoice in what Jesus has given us, his own righteousness. But, here is what I wonder about:
1. THE CROSS –
The work of Christ as centered upon the Cross-through Resurrection complex of events. Jesus said that the new age was breaking in ever since John the Baptizer’s ministry. The Law and the Prophets were to and through John the Baptist. Jesus came not to destroy the Law & Prophets, but to fulfill them. His active obedience to his father was the fulfillment of the Law. He established the Lord’s Supper in the Last Supper, proleptically, the night he was betrayed, giving his body and blood to his disciples and setting up the framework for the new kingdom that was being born. (Just a Moses was given Passover the night of Passover, so the very event to be commemorated thereafter was first celebrated the night it happened).
The work of Christ is sandwiched in the Synoptic Gospels with his baptism/ordination on the one side, then the wilderness temptation in the desert – then the Garden temptation in the city after the Last Supper, but before the Death/Burial/Resurrection. Jesus threw down the gauntlet to Satan in the Wilderness, but Satan was too chicken to take it up again until the Garden, when like the Trojan Horse, Jesus gave Satan what he thought he wanted, and so crushed his head and crashed the gates of hell. Though He was a Son, He learned obedience through the things He suffered. God gave him the victory.
When we speak of the IMPUTATION of the Active Obedience of Christ, we are speaking at least of it as the pre-requisite of his substitutionary, vicarious atonement. If he had not been obedient, he could not have given his life in our stead. But, the concerns of those who are against FV because of the I-AOC are more than this. They believe it necessary that the righteousness of Jesus in his work as our Mediator up to the cross – his righteous deeds, good works, positive holiness and law-keeping – be imputed to us.
But, is there not a sense in which the Pre-Cross/Resurrection work of Jesus differs qualitatively from his Post Resurrection work? Does anything go through the death of the cross and come out the other side Untransformed? The Covenant of Works and the Mosaic Covenant were both fulfilled and set aside, abrogated-by-way-of fulfillment through the crowning achievement of the Cross. Grace upon grace is given us in Christ. The work of the Law and Moses was different than the work of Christ, who fulfilled the Law and brought a new Covenant – a new Creation. Certainly the law-keeping work of Jesus is pre-requisite to the Cross-work of Jesus. But, does his pre-cross life get transferred over the crisis of the Cross? This brings me to the second point:
2. THE FLESH –
As I looked over the use of the word for imputation I found 40 verses and 41 hits for logizomai (to count, reckon, impute, think, consider). I was looking for the most direct support for the I-AOC I could find. In fact, I would be interested in Bill, or anyone else, giving us the exegetical foundation for the I-AOC. I’m a learner and not a partisan on this issue.
Here is what I found out of those 41 that were pretty obviously verses having to do with IMPUTATION in the more technical sense (it is not really that long of a list):
THE GOSPELS
And the Scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered3049 with the transgressors. (Mar 15:28)
For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned3049 among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. (Luk 22:37)
ROMANS
Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted3049 for circumcision? (Rom 2:26)
Therefore we conclude3049 that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. (Rom 3:28)
For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted3049 unto him for righteousness. (Rom 4:3) Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned3049 of grace, but of debt. (Rom 4:4) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted3049 for righteousness.(Rom 4:5) Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth3049 righteousness without works, “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; (Rom 4:6-7) Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute3049 sin. (Rom 4:8) Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? For we say that faith was reckoned3049 to Abraham for righteousness. (Rom 4:9) How was it then reckoned?3049 when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. (Rom 4:10) And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that , he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed3049 unto them also: (Rom 4:11)
And therefore it was imputed3049 to him for righteousness. (Rom 4:22) Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed3049 to him (Rom 4:23) But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed,3049 if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; (Rom 4:24)
Likewise reckon3049 ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.(Rom 6:11)
As it is written, For thy sake , we are killed all the day long; we are accounted3049 as sheep for the slaughter. (Rom 8:36)
That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted3049 for the seed. (Rom 9:8)
2 CORINTHIANS
To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing3049 their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. (2Co 5:19)
GALATIANS
Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted3049 to him for righteousness. (Gal 3:6)
HEBREWS
Accounting3049 that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure. (Heb 11:19)
JAMES
And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed3049 unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. (Jas 2:23)
The big emphasis is first upon the non-imputation of sin to the believer. There is a switch from one to the other in Rom 4, where my uninformed take is that Paul carried the concept of imputation not only from the non-imputation of sin (negative imputation?) to the term “Sins are covered,†into “covered with what? – the Righteousness of Christ. A positive imputation of righteousness. But, note a couple of things. 1. It is FAITH that is counted for righteousness. We rightly see behind this the fact that faith does something, is instrumental in a transactional atonement. Faith, as it were, stands in for righteousness. 2. It’s all talking about Abraham and David. He’s talking about how all this imputation is going on not just PRE-Christ, but PRE-Circumcision! Whatever we may say about God’s work above time, historically there was not yet a perfectly mature and righteous and sinless Christ. God was imputing back, we may say, the righteousness of Christ. Okay – the Lamb Slain before the foundation of the world. What about time?
Here is the ESV of Luke 22:37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.”
Fulfillment, end, here is TELOS. We cannot avoid thinking historically as well as covenantally about this fulfillment. The Law had its TELOS in Christ. The preceding context is the Passover Jesus Celebrated with the disciples: “And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” “ (Luke 22:15-16)
Here is Jesus, in the “days of his flesh†(Heb. 5:7) speaking about the fulfillment in the coming, near-future, “kingdom of God.†Some sort of major transition is on its way. Now, one of the more powerful passages about imputation is found in the following passage:
2Co 5:14-21 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; 15 and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised. 16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
What does that interesting turn of phrase, “Even though we once regarded (know-ginomai) Christ according to the flesh†saying? I’m not sure. But it comes in the context of NEW CREATION. Because we are in New Creation in Christ, and the OLD has passed away – might not knowing Christ “according to the flesh†be speaking of how the disciples knew Jesus prior to the resurrection? Would the pre-resurrection works of righteousness of Christ not be part of the package of the OLD creation (though it was the beginning of the breaking-in of the new thing Jesus was doing? This takes us to the third consideration -
3. THE PRIESTHOOD
Hebrews emphasizes the transition from the Old Covenant to the New. It has a lot to say about Melchizedek, and Jesus as the New Melchizedek Great High Priest – he liveth ever to make intercession for us —
Heb 5:6 as he says also in another place, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.” 7 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. 9 And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, 10 being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.
Notice what it says: “And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation.†There is a special sense, in which Jesus was learning obedience and was being made perfect. He was not, in this sense, perfect. When did he get ‘made perfect’?
The author to the Hebrews (why not Paul?) returns to his theme of Melchizedek after warning the Hebrews of the great dangers of apostacy. He writes, citing Psalm 110- Heb 6:17 So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, 18 so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us. 19 We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain, 20 where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.
And, in Chapter 7 it is all about Melchizedek. Read the whole, but here are selections:
Heb 7:1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham … 2 and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, *king of righteousness*, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of *peace*. … Heb 7:11 Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? 12 For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. 13 For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15 This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, 16 who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life.
Pause and note this power of indestructible Life. Didn’t Jesus die “after the flesh.†Is not his circumcision his death, putting off the flesh? And, note too Jesus / Melchizedek is the King of RIGHTEOUSNESS – so if we are talking about the imputation involved in Justificaiton, we are talking about King Melc/Jesus! But, going on…
Heb 7:17 For it is witnessed of him, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.” 18 For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness 19 (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God. 20 And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath, 21 but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever.’” 22 This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant. 23 The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, 24 but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever.
He Continues FOREVER. It is Christ PRESENT ministry as High Priest of Righteousness and Peace that counts most!
Heb 7:25 Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. 26 For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. 27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. 28 For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.
Again, back to the PERFECTION of Jesus as our Priest. The Priest who is the Sacrifice and the one who gives us righteousess and brings us to maturity as well.
Heb 8:1 Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. … 6 But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. 8 For he finds fault with them when he says: “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.” 13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Here were are back to 2 Cor. 5 – the OLD has passed away. The New has come. It is present in the reigning King, Jesus.
Heb 9:24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
Well, I have to conclude, but cannot leave out the following:
Heb 10:7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’” 8 When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), 9 then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second.
Here is that transition again! Here also is the ACTIVE OBEDIENCE of Christ in its proper place – but it’s crowing achievement was his once offering up of himself a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice!
Heb 10:10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
NOTE, by a SINGLE SACRIFICE. It was the crowning achievement of his works. God raised him triumphant, because of his piety and righteousness. Death could not hold him. Jesus triumphed over death, and did much more – his ONCE for all offering PERFECTED for all time those who are being SANCTIFIED. Where is the NECESSITY of the pre-cross work of Jesus to be somehow abstracted and transferred to us in some separate and unique imputation?
Heb 10:15 And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying, 16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,” 17 then he adds, “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.” 18 Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin. 19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
The cleansing is complete. We have the New Creation in Messiah Jesus.
Do we really NEED a distinct imputation of his pre-resurrection righteousness? If we are in him, by faith, his current holiness ought to do the job.
We don’t need to turn back to knowing Christ according to the flesh. We have the risen Savior, his present perfection.
What say you?
James Jordan
October 1st, 2007 at 6:59 pm
To put it another way:
Well, first, I’m certainly sorry Gaffin signed on to the OPC nonsense, which was a melange of both FV and NPP (which are not at all the same), and which fairly well distorted both. I could sign it too, provided it was understood that in the main the report was dealing with something non-existent. I mean, hey, I’m against wife-beating. I just deny the charge of being a wife-beater.
(I add again that you guys here have shown a courtesy that the OPC nowhere showed to anyone it looked into, and we appreciate it.)
But to the main point: What’s being safeguarded? Are there those who think that I’m forgiven by Jesus death for me PLUS imputation of all the good deeds He did into my account? I don’t believe such a notion. I’m forgiven mine and Adam’s sin by Jesus’ suffering, which is His obedience (and was both “active” and “passive,” as all obedience is by definition), is His righteousness, and is His satisfaction of the Father’s demands. That’s it.
So, what’s being safeguarded? Are my good deeds after I’m forgiven WHOLLY mine, done apart from faith and without the power of the Spirit and outside of union with Christ? Surely not. Who teaches such a thing? Nobody I’ve ever heard of.
So, from what I can tell, the difference is this: Certain people evidently hold that my righteous life stems from Jesus’ pre-cross obedience imputed to me. Clearly, an imputation of that obedience (which was both active and passive, as all obedience is by definition) has nothing to do with my forgiveness, for the death of Christ FULLY satisfies for all my sins (Heid. Q 1). Hence, this obedience must be related to my own faithful life.
But that’s just what makes no sense to me. My faithful life is not lived because of some legal imputation of Jesus’ pre-cross innocence to me, but is lived in union with His resurrection power by the Spirit. It’s the same Jesus, of course, so being in union with Him is being in union with His innocence.
Actually, though, I’m not given His innocence, His blamelessness. I’m given His maturity and perfection. Not initial righteousness but perfected (matured, glorified) righteousness is given me in Christ. Jesus’ blamelessness qualified Him to be the appropriate offering for sin, but is not transferred to me. What would be the point of that?
As we’ve asked a few times over the past several years: Where in the ritual does the animal put its blameless paw on the sinner? Nowhere. That’s not the nature of the event. The animal dies for my sins (in a type) and then carries me into the glory-fire (in a type). There’s no transfer of innocence. There’s no reason why there should be, is there?
With this in mind, what is the point of IAO? Where does it fit in theology? What does it do? What is safeguarded by the doctrine that is not covered by union with the glorified Jesus?
That’s the question I’ve been trying to raise.
And I’ve said already, I think that the reason many Reformed theologians hold to IAO is because of a really undeveloped notion of glorification in Western theology. The doctrine of union with Christ did not function effectively in the Reformation — find a developed Offertory in any Reformation liturgy. It’s the 20th century liturgical movement that, building on union with Christ, renewed the Offertory. Calvin’s sursum corda and union with Christ theology was short-circuited in Reformed history.
Well, that’s enough. I hope I’ve managed to communicate how I think union with Christ intersects (and renders nugatory) the notion of IAO. If I have, perhaps you can reply where you think I’m wrong.
Jason J. Stellman
October 1st, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Mr. Jordan,
Though you said that no one has taken up the issue of our union with Christ, you and I did begin this very discussion a couple days ago, but alas! it seemed to have gotten buried amid a flurry of comments that were coming in at the same time (and the fact that it takes my comments quite a while to show up doesn’t help. Is it just me?).
I think one the the crucial questions here is, What kind of union determines our standing with God?
If you are referring to the “real and inseparable” union of the Westminster Standards, that’s one thing. But if “the efficacy of the merit [pardon the expletive] and intercession of Christ,” and the “imputation” of his “obedience and death,” which comprise his “proper, real, and full satisfaction to the Father’s justice,” are being replaced by a “union” that is covenantal and loseable, well that makes a big difference, does it not?
So which union are we talking about? The kind is certain and secure, or the kind that is covenantal and could result in our losing all those benefits that we thought were ours?