Often here at The Evangelical Calvinist I refer to the language of union with Christ, and Calvin’s “mystical union” (unio mystica). This is the stuff that makes ‘EC’ go round; that is pressing this Pauline idea of ‘in Christ’ theology as the key of our soteriological framework. In line with Thomas Torrance, and through his development of Scottish Theology, in his book “Scottish Theology;” I often pick up on the way this was developed, contra the Westminster development of Calvin that takes hold of Calvin’s theology of the Law, and its relation to understanding salvation. J. Todd Billings says that either one of these streams misses Calvin’s theology as a whole, and thus distorts Calvin if we try to emphasize either his relational over and against his juridical (legal), or vice versa. Billings writes:
[T]here is an ‘Anti-Legal School’ in Calvin scholarship that tends to emphasize Calvin’s distance from scholasticism, his fluidity in the use of 
image and metaphor, and his rich Trinitarian theology. Language about forensic transaction is generally treated with suspicion, in preference for the more organic images of transformation. In reaction to this school, the ‘legal’ aspects of Calvin’s thought tend to be emphasized by others, particularly his distinctively Reformed concerns for the doctrines of justification and imputation. Accounts of one school of thought tend to either ignore or deny the other side. . . . I will argue that the place of the human is illuminated in Calvin’s theology of participation by seeing a Trinitarian account of the duplex gratia as the framework for participation. For Calvin, participation in Christ must emphasize the legal and the transformative language in the ‘double grace’ of justification and sanctification. In prayer, believers act in ascetic struggle to pray rightly, yet the foundation for their active struggle is a recognition of God’s free pardon. Likewise, in the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, believers act in response to God’s justifying act in a way that incorporates them into a Trinitarian soteriology: the Father is revealed as gracious and generous through his free pardon of believers in their union with Christ; this union also involves the activation of believers by the Spirit—toward a life of piety and love, requiring ascetic effort and activity. Believers are made active in the ecclesial and social community. A participatory, Trinitarian account of the duplex gratia plays an important role in Calvin’s theological account of the sacraments. ‘Participation’ in baptism is so realΒ that it is almost biological. Celebrating the Lord’s Supper involves participating in Christ’s ascension to heaven to feed on his life giving flsh and blood. Calvin’s theology of prayer and the sacraments is a theology that is theocentric, but also participatory, activating believers in love of God and neighbour as the body of Christ. [J. Todd Billings, Calvin, Participation, and the Gift: The Activity of Believers in Union with Christ, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 105-06]
This serves instructive for noting a certain reality; one that Billings is not intending to address here, but one that I believe is constructively available through the present thesis that Billings will proceed to develop throughout the rest of his chapter. What I want to highlight is the fact that both lines of thought—union with Christ/relational and forensic—are present in Calvin. Consequently, all things being equal, both strands can be found developed and emphasized within the tradition that bears Calvin’s name. This is precisely what we seek to elucidate and alert folks to with our forthcoming book on Evangelical Calvinism, and what I, personally, have been doing here with my blog (at points). Calvin’s nose is very “waxy,” and thus it should be expected that given the various predispositions of people in general; that aspects of Calvin’s corpus will be developed over and against other aspects—and this shaped by various socio-cultural constraints present throughout Calvinism’s history and development.
Billings’ point is that to negate one aspect of Calvin from his other side is to misread and misunderstand Calvin’s full bodied theological thrust. Nevertheless, the reality is, is that Calvin has been read through various foci and lenses; the history bears this out. This takes us back to Richard Muller’s thesis that Calvin should not be seen as the touchstone of what it means to be a Calvinist. In some ways this is true, there is a difference between being Calvinian (which is what Billings is developing in his book—Calvin’s theology)Β and Calvinist; I would suggest though that a theologian could only ever be a Calvinist (Evangelical, Westminster, Spiritual Brethren, et al) if in fact she has a shred of Calvinian in her first. My point, Calvin’s nose is wax; and I would say that this is a good thing, precisely because we are as Reformed Christians, people who interpret and re-interpret Calvin and any teacher through Scripture. Those who appreciate Calvin, and try to appropriate him constructively through Scripture; will almost necessarily end up being a Calvinist (vs. Calvinian), and, of course, I would propose that the best of us will end up an Evangelical Calvinist! π
I just read Muller’s essay dealing with the question of was Calvin a Calvinist. Extremely well done and informative.
Obviously, Calvin saw himself as one among many seeking to Reform the church back to a more biblical faith.
I think too, that we tend to read scripture with certain emphases in mind and often then elevate out of proportion one or another aspect of Christ’s work. The effort to remain fully biblical in our theological understanding requires constant diligence and scrutiny.
I personally resonate with the themes and emphasis of union with Christ. Something I intend on studying more fully in various traditions.
Muller’s essay is here. http://www.calvin.edu/meeter/lectures/Richard%20Muller%20-%20Was%20Calvin%20a%20Calvinist.pdf
I also tend to like Richard Muller’s more historical theology, it is here too that we cannot separate the Reformation completely from a certain Catholic history and understanding. We should note here too that Ratzinger or Pope Benedict is a more classic Augustinian, note here Luther.. and too I think Calvin.
@Jon,
Yes, Calvin was part of a company of Reformers; albeit, even among them he stood out to them as a prominent voice. Union with Christ is a powerful Pauline theme, and Calvin makes it a center-piece (vs centraldogma) of his theology (think of his “double-grace”). Indeed, we all do elevate one thing over another, at points; that’s why its so important for each of us to constantly be enveloped and saturated in the Scriptures on a daily basis!
@Fr Robert,
A good book you might like, don’t know if you’ve read it yet, is: Stephen Strehle’s The Catholic Roots of the Protestant Gospel: Encounter Between the Middle Ages and the Reformation . He provides good coverage on the very issue you bring up (as his title highlights).
@Jon,
A excellent book that develops Calvin’s Theology on union with Christ is Charles Partee’s: The Theology of John Calvin see here . And then the one from Billings that I take the quote from.
Interestingly, Muller references Partee’s book on Calvin twice in footnotes and both with a negative connotation. Notes 3 and 19. His criticism if of those who would develop Calvin’s theology solely from the Institutes rather than the larger corpus of his writings and also the milieu in which he wrote and those with whom he interacted.
@Jon,
I agree, that Calvin has been pressed and bent almost everywhere, his corpus of work should always be read. Btw, the Banner of Truth publication: Tracts and Letters (7 vol.) is a fine read! The historical-theological Calvin I think can be seen in his handing of the Books of Holy Scripture thankfully. And just speaking for myself, I really liked the bio of Calvin by the Frenchman, Bernard Cottret. I have actually read it several times, and use it as a historical backdrop often. I also have Partee’s book myself.
@Bobby,
I was not aware of Strehle’s work, I will have to check it out, thanks.
@Jon,
Yes, Partee is in the cross-hairs of Muller; Muller would consider Partee as part of the “older scholarship,” along with TFT, Barth, and many others. The charge is that these guys have read Calvin through a “centraldogma,” meaning emphasizing “union with Christ,” and an anti-legal frame — as Billings notes. Partee is a contributor to our book, along with Julie Canlis; both have been labeled as those who read Calvin through the anti-legal lens. I follow Partee contra Muller; Muller oversimplifies in his critique of Partee. Ultimately the issue isn’t being faithful to Calvin but Scripture; I think “Scripturally” that Calvin’s “mystical union” theology gets it! Which is why I appreciate Scottish Theology, as well as folks like Richard Sibbes, John Cotton et al.
@Fr Robert,
Yeah, it’s good; just really spendy!
Spendy indeed! Only three books are mentioned in this post and yet to buy them new from Amzn totals $249.40. Yikes! Don’t these academic publishers want anyone to read these books?
I would really like to see an econometric model that compares these exorbitant prices vs. a more modest pricing structure with nothing over $50. With the right marketing they might make more money if the prices were lower.
I know, Jon, it is frustrating! All the reason to start a blog; once you do, you can request review copies for your blog . . . that’s what I’ve done. University Oxford Press and T&T Clark both have provided me with review copies of books that are over $100 each (I still need to review a couple, one of those was “After Calvin”).
Hey that’s great, thanks for the encouragement. I was thinking I could start by posting some thoughts as I read through Scottish Theology. I’ll have to work on the theme and all the fancy things that dress it up and make it look pretty!
I am thinking WP over Blogger.
Jon, definitely, go with WP; I’ve tried to go with blogger, my first few blogs were blogger (years ago now), and they have gotten much better. But personally, I still like WP better. Let me know when you get it going.
Hey Bobby, I Finally looked up wax nose. I figured that wrong. I thought it was like teflon coating. When you told me that Augustine had a wax nose, I thought you meant he was so respected as to be uncriticisable. No, your saying he has been interpretted, molded, to support the Aquinas Model. And likewise, of the volume of material Calvin has written, one will emphasis what appeals to their particular theology. (The light comes on)
Duane, really, simply, it’s just the idea that Calvin (or whoever) can be turned and moulded whichever which way the respective interpreters might want to take them (i.e. constructively). Of course at a certain point we cease working with Calvin’s nose, Augustine’s et al; the moment we fail to actually identify a legitimate stream of thought within respective theologian’s over-all corpus. I think in order to use the wax nose analogy, we need to at least be talking about something that Calvin or whoever talked about etc.