Two quotes from Calvin on Union with Christ (or Unio Mystica):
First, we must understand 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 for us. Therefore, to share with us what he has received from the Father, he had to become ours and to dwell within us.
— Institutes III. 1. 1 cited by Charles Partee, The Theology of John Calvin, 40
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. 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.
Institutes II. 16. 19 cited by Charles Partee, The Theology of John Calvin, 41
Both of these quotes illustrate something that stands at the heart of an ‘Evangelical’ approach to Calvinism; and that is the vicarious life of Christ. If we aren’t ‘really’ brought into His life, in the Incarnation and Atonement (both of these being inextricably linked), then salvation only ends up dealing with the symptoms (murders, lying, stealing, lusting, blaspheming, etc.) — the external problems — and not with the “heart problem” (where the murders, lying, etc. flow from). If Jesus didn’t get into our skin, and thus we into His, then we end up with a half baked salvation . . . which really is no salvation. More to come . . .
October 7, 2009 at 7:12 am
What do you think is the basis of the mystical union in Calvin? What is it that makes me united to him?
Big G
October 7, 2009 at 12:27 pm
The Holy Spirit, Faith . . .
I feel like I’m taking a test. Did I pass prof G?
October 7, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Big G – are you asking what is the ultimate cause or what is the immediate cause? Or both? For Calvin it is clear, as you know, the Holy Spirit unites us to Christ and he does so upon the basis of Grace. But here EC says that grace is actually not a thing but a person, Jesus Christ, thus the Spirit unites us to Christ because Christ has aready united humanity to divinity through his incarnation. I suspect though, you are asking about the ultimate cause – and want something like, the divine decrees. Am I right? If so (and fair enough), this gets to something of the heart of EC – while we affirm the divine decrees we don’t use them as logico-causal clubs and work all doctrines out from there – not because this can’t be done (patently) and not even because it is necesarily theologically wrong (there is debate), but because it is not evangelical.
Does that make sense?
October 8, 2009 at 1:47 am
Hi Myk
Thanks – actually, no, I was asking more about the immediate cause. Because in my understanding not all humanity is united to Christ by virtue of his incarnation. The only humanity united to Christ hypostatically is his own (as BG agreed in a different comment thread); the only humanity united to him in any other way are the elect united to him through God-given (decreed) faith by the Spirit. So my question was still trying to probe how it is that Bobby/EC-ers talk of Christ’s carnal union with all humanity. You’re welcome to do so of course but I don’t think Calvin holds this. In the other comments thread I referred to Bobby cited some texts and spoke there of Christ’s priestly mediation to all – again, you may do so if you want but will you not look in vain in Calvin for a concept of Christ’s priestly mediation that is not limited to his elect?
When you say things like ‘for EC grace is not a thing, but a person’ … well, do you mean this to be in line with Calvin’s conception of grace or is it your own idea?
October 8, 2009 at 4:11 am
Yes, I totally agree with Myk; we think of Grace in relational terms, not in “substance” or “quality” terms (i.e. “Thomas’ ‘created grace’).
October 8, 2009 at 4:08 am
“G” you said:
. . . the only humanity united to him in any other way are the elect united to him through God-given (decreed) faith by the Spirit.
and Paul says:
and the author of Hebrews says:
How do you define in the “likeness of sinful flesh” in Rom? And how would you parse “He might taste death for everyone” in Heb?
When I said He assumed humanity, His own, enhypostatically, this is not to say that His particularity excludes the rest of humanity (except the elect-per your view), on the contrary, it is to say that as the 2nd Adam all humanity (even the 1st Adam) is brought into Him as the ‘firstborn over all creation’. He is the organic head in whose image, imago Christi, humanity is “recreated” or reoriented to God (Col 1:15ff). So in other words, His humanity becomes ours, simply by His taking our humanity into His assumptio carnis.
Have you read TFT’s “Scottish Theology,” Big G? It doesn’t look like you have.
October 8, 2009 at 5:42 am
Hi Bobby,
Well, there you go again – asking me what I think of particular verses. But I am the thorn in the flesh of your evangelical CALVINISM not your evangelical BIBLICISM. I don’t want to tell you what I think of those verses because that ‘aint why I joined the party. Look: I’m classically Reformed so you know and I know that we’re going to be exegeting limited atonement when we get down to it – but that isn’t my beef just yet. What I do want to do is to keep the focus for now on Calvin. You’re the one with his name in your blog. But he’s the one who doesn’t hold to, you know, stuff like grace is just a person not a thing; that even the 1st Adam is brought into the 2nd Adam as the firstborn over creation; that his humanity becomes ours simply by his taking our humanity into his – where does Calvin hold anything like these things?
You say you uphold the enhypostasia but really you equivocate: ‘his particularity does not exclude the rest of humanity’ – well, I don’t get it. ‘He is the organic head in whose image, imago Christi, humanity is “recreated” or reoriented to God (Col 1:15ff)’ – which humanity? All of it? Show me where Calvin holds this?
Nope, haven’t read Scottish Theology … do you think I should?
Big G.
October 8, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Hi “G,”
Yes, of course I think you should read Scottish Theology, and any and all TFT you can get your hands on 😉 .
I know you’re classically Reformed. I know you’re trying to give me “Calvin in Context,” but Steinmetz already did 😉 . Seriously, I do appreciate having you here, a real life “Calvin scholar,” and with your pedigree is helpful . . . you put my feet to the fire (and it hurts, stop it 😉 ). I think the problem is, is that what you think counts as Calvinism and what I do is obviously at odds. I don’t really feel the need to defend my usage, except to say that I think it should be clear that ‘our’ appropriation of Calvin certainly moves within his themes. I know you think Muller has nailed it down, I don’t . . . I think it is ad hoc and self-serving to delimit “other Calvinists” in such ways. I think it is an argument from silence to say that Calvin would’ve exclusively identified the WCF, for example, as “His” theology. I also know that we could argue this forever, and I don’t want to . . . you’ll probably kick my butt in the end (ding, ding). But my focus here is to introduce EC to folks who have never heard or thought much about it before. My intro admittedly, and “up-frontly” says that I am a follower of TFT, and Barth indirectly (I’m going to redo that intro to include Calvin, though).
As far as enhypstasia, I think how we define “personhood” is all important at this point . . . I think Gunton and others Trinitarian points are good on this front. I never said Calvin held to any of this, that’s not my beef. I guess I think appropriating Calvin allows for more expansiveness than you do.
Thanks for all the interaction, “G!”