Written by Andy H. |
Wednesday, September 22, 2021
Justification is not progressive, it is instantaneous. It doesn’t change our nature or our condition. It changes our status or our legal record. It is not something that we produce. It is something outside of us. It is not our own righteousness. It is the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

As we’ve been surveying the various steps in the order of salvation (from Effectual Calling to Glorification), we have covered Effectual Calling, Regeneration, and Conversion in previous articles. In this article, we will be surveying Union with Christ and Justification.
As soon as a man believes in Christ, certain wonderful things immediately transpire as well. First of all, he is united to Jesus Christ personally, spiritually, and experientially. Second of all, he is immediately and instantaneously justified by the grace of God, through faith. Third of all, he is instantly and immediately definitely or positionally sanctified—free from the bondage of sin. And fourth of all, he is immediately, legally, spiritually, and experientially adopted into the family of God. All of those truths cluster around and are the immediate blessing and result of conversion. When a man repents and believes, he is immediately spiritually joined to Jesus Christ.
This is the big big subject. The Bible talks about our union with Christ, and directly or indirectly mentions our connection to Jesus Christ, over a hundred and fifty times in the New Testament. You know the term, “in Christ,” “in Jesus Christ,” “in him.” The vine is connected to the branches, the branches to the vine; the husband to the wife; the building to the foundation. These are some of the ways that the Bible illustrates our union with Christ. But when the Bible talks about union with Christ, it talks about it in four stages. Union with Christ is the deep subterranean truth and taproot of all blessings in the Christian life. All blessings in the Christian life come forth from our union with Christ. But when the Bible talks about union with Christ, it talks about it in four stages.
But, all blessings of the spiritual life flow out of our union with Jesus Christ. This verse (1 Corinthians 1:30) was one of Calvin’s favourite verses, and I encourage you to read Calvin. I believe it is volume two in regards to the issues of the application of salvation and justification and sanctification and union with Christ. “By his doing, not our own, by God’s doing, we are in Christ Jesus who became to us the wisdom from God and that wisdom produced righteousness and sanctification and redemption.” We have a twofold aspect of that union. One is legal by representation and the other is spiritual by regeneration. The former gives us a new position, the latter gives us a new condition. The former deals with the guilt of sin, the latter deals with the power and pollution of sin. The former is the source of our justification, our legal union. The latter is the source of our sanctification in our growth in Jesus Christ.Let me review them very quickly. First of all, We are united to Christ and in Christ in eternity past.
Read More

Reaching back beyond current debates and controversies to learn from the way that others in the past have understood this passage is particularly helpful. It brings a different perspective that help us to see things in a clearer way. We are not the only generation to seek to understand the Scriptures and if we are prepared to learn from other Christians in our own day then why not from the past too? The following is therefore drawn from the way that David Dickson and James Durham understood 1 Corinthians 9:22. In this verse Paul says “I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some”. We need to understand these words in their context, not just repeat them as a slogan.
Paul Is Speaking about His Personal Conduct
Paul has been speaking about financial support for the ministry in verses 7-14. He then speaks about his own practice amongst the Corinthians in verses 17-18. If my preaching is “voluntary, it shall have a reward” he says “but if against my will, I must still discharge it, because of the dispensation committed to me by the command of God” (Dickson). Paul contrasts this with those who “unwillingly preach the gospel” and “exercise their ministry, not out of any love to God and desire of converting souls but for filthy lucre’s sake or out of vain-glory” (Dickson). But Paul chose to deny himself what he was entitled to by not seeking financial support for his ministry in this context. He chose to “make the gospel of Christ without charge” (v18).  If he had sought financial support, those who opposed him would have used it against him and he would have “abused the gospel” (v18) and “abused his liberty” (Dickson).
James Durham says that Paul’s taking wages in Corinth would have harmed the edification of the Corinthians because it would have given confirmed the suspicion that he was self-seeking. It would only strengthen the slanders he received from his opponents. It would have been unedifying for Paul to accept financial support because it would have stirred up groundless suspicion. The spiritual edification of our brother is of more value than our temporal rights. Thus we may have to forbear lawful things that we are inclined to do if doing it would harm the edification of others.
Paul has a liberty (v19) but he is willing to give up his personal benefit if it will get in the way of spiritual service to others. He is willing to do this in “all sorts of things that are indifferent” so as not to serve “himself but rather others so that he might gain them” (Dickson). There are three ways in which he gave up his entitlements in this way (verses 20-22).

Jews. He conformed himself to the Jews who considered themselves bound to keep the ceremonial law. If necessary in particular times and places, he was willing to observe the ceremonies appointed under Moses. He did this as though he was under the yoke of ceremonies. He did this according to the verdict of the Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15:22-29) which left the Jews (such as Paul) who had been born under that yoke free to use the ceremonies for a time. In no way was this the case for the Gentiles (Acts 21:21, 25).
Gentiles. When amongst the Gentiles who were without obligation to the ceremonial law, he laid aside the use of such ceremonies, as though he was without obligation to that law. He makes it clear, however, that he did not mean the moral law or the law of love. This is the perpetual law of God and Christ, from which he could not be freed. He was indeed he freed from the ceremonial law so that he might freely, for the advantage of the gospel, either use of abstain from using such ceremonies.
Weak Believers. Paul conformed himself to those who doubted whether they were free to abstain from lawful things.

It should be clear that Paul is not speaking about a positive requirement to adopt a culture but rather in relation to whether certain practices are positively commanded by God or indifferent. He is speaking about personal conduct rather than providing a full-blown missionary strategy or church planting methodology.
Read More

We are, it seems, losing our grip on what it means to be human. In an age where all aspects, once cherished and considered sacred, fundamental to our humanity are fuzzy shadows of our parent’s outdated ideas, we stand to lose something central to human flourishing.

We are now seeing seismic shifts in perception about sex, gender, and marriage.
You might think this has been occurring for some time now, and you wouldn’t be wrong about that. But, granting that as truth, the shift seems especially pressing in the last several years where fundamental, traditional assumptions about these issues are being reinvisioned.
The plausibility structure of the gender binary is losing its grip on contemporary consciousness. And, it’s not just in contemporary culture writ large, but we are seeing and experiencing shifts in the Church. For these reasons alone, we ought to pause and think afresh about a couple of things: 1. What does it mean to be gendered and how is this related to sex? 2. How do these views impact our life? Otherwise, we come closer to abandoning traditional belief altogether.
If you doubt that massive shifts have and are occurring, then just consider a few things with me. There’s certainly nothing wrong with having a bit of healthy skepticism about cultural shifts both in and outside the church, but it is a problem when those shifts are staring us in the face, out in plain sight, and, as you may have heard, hidden in plain sight.
Consider the shift in perceptions about the nature of marriage since 2015 with the Federal legalization of marriage between same-sex couples. Consider also the uptick in discussions about polyamory (not polygamy mind you, but polyamory really is just an egalitarian version of what ancient civilizations once considered acceptable). Consider, even more, the uptick in discussions about sexual plurality. This isn’t just occuring in contemporary culture, either. It’s also occurring in the pews and longstanding liturgical practices. In a recent study, the laxity on pornography use has expanded, but, more surprising, is that the perception on pornography use between couples has become almost normalized amongst many couples who profess Christian belief.
You might think that gender and sexual practice are not strictly related, but the demand and attention simultaneously suggest that both are related. And, that shouldn’t really be all that surprising, as historic practice has often tied sexual practice to gender expression in the context of definitions about marriage. They are interrelated, and cannot be cleanly separated.
More fundamental still, many are even beginning to wonder if there is anything to be made of the traditional view that genders are fixed in any way. I recall a conversation several years ago with a theology professor of one of the most prominent evangelical schools confessing some confusion about gender fixity of being either male or female. I realized quite pointedly then that this wasn’t going away. You’ve, no doubt, probably heard of the discussion on transgenderism on the famous Dr. Phil show where Matt Walsh challenges gender fluid advocates with one simple question: What does it mean to be a woman? This is now a live discussion in our culture, and it has made its way into the church.
Holding such views has impacted our society in a variety of ways. We can’t, as a result, avoid it.
Judith Butler once famously stated: “There is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender.” I wish I could say that this statement would be met with looks of perplexity by the common man on the street, but there appears to be a growing number of people for whom this statement seems so obviously true that it cannot be denied. To deny it is tantamount to oppression. In other words, it is harmful both to believe and practice the fact that there is a gender binary (i.e., male and female). In varying ways, challenging gender essentialism is becoming quite common in Christian circles, despite its permanence in most of Church history. Others will go so far as to claim that science settles the fact that gender has no fixed connection to biology, but, unfortunately for gender activists, this has not been accepted science. If you are a Christian, then a commitment to the essential nature of being both male and female is part of a package. To deny it is to effectively lose our grip on essential Christian doctrine.
Read More
Related Posts: