Thread by @ronhenzel

𝟏/𝟑𝟐 In the wake of the #PCAGA, Kevin Twit (@kevinjtwit) argued that “union with Christ language” is superior to “identity in Christ language,” thus setting them at odds with each other & alleging that the latter unduly focuses on believers more than on Christ.

𝟐/𝟑𝟐 This was a sequel to his suggestion on the floor of the GA that those who interpret 1 Cor 6:9-11 as ruling out a “gay Christian identity” subscribe to a Keswick/Wesleyan view of sanctification (Thursday Closing Business Session, start at 2:05:33.) livestream.com/accounts/85219…

𝟑/𝟑𝟐 Working from Twit’s argument, Greg Johnson (@PcaMemorial) argued that “‘identity in Christ’ theology” is “quite recent,” called it a “theological fad,” & associated it with the non-Reformed sanctification teaching of Neil T Anderson, Miles J Stanford & Keswick theology.

𝟒/𝟑𝟐 All these are attempts to discredit amended GA Overture 23, which reads in part, “Those who profess an identity...that undermines or contradicts their identity as new creations in Christ...are not qualified for ordained office,” & focuses on terms like “gay Christian.”

𝟓/𝟑𝟐 I contend that all of Twit’s & Johnson’s arguments are entirely fallacious. To begin with, in Reformed theology, 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝐶ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝐶ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒂𝒎𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒈.

𝟔/𝟑𝟐 In response to Twit: O23 builds on the report from the Ad Interim Committee on Human Sexuality which sees no dichotomy between “identity” language & “union” language but explicitly identifies them with each other.

pcaga.org/wp-content/upl…

𝟕/𝟑𝟐 According to the report, “…our 𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑎𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝐶ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡 does not eliminate our experiences of living as sinful people in a sinful world,” (p 26, lines 24-25, italics mine). So, it clearly sees identity in Christ 𝑎𝑠 union with Him.

𝟖/𝟑𝟐 This agrees with the report’s earlier statement: “Christians ought to understand themselves, define themselves, and describe themselves in light of their 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑜𝑛 with Christ and their 𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑦 as regenerate, justified, holy children of God…” (p 11 line 12-14).

𝟗/𝟑𝟐 Clearly here our “𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑦 as regenerate, justified, holy children of God” describes what we are in our 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑜𝑛 with Christ. This is basic Reformed theology “Identity language” is not incompatible with “union with Christ language” but represents the same thing.

𝟏𝟎/𝟑𝟐 In response to Johnson: “Identity/identification” language applied to the believer’s relation to Christ was never the exclusive property of Keswick-type theology but has been used in a manner consistent with Reformed theology since at least the 19th century.

𝟏𝟏/𝟑𝟐 Commenting on Ps 18, Alfred Edersheim, explained union with Christ in terms of mutual identification between Christ & believers. (𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝐺𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑒𝑛 𝐷𝑖𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝐽𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐵𝑜𝑜𝑘 𝑜𝑓 𝑃𝑠𝑎𝑙𝑚𝑠 [1866] 175.)

𝟏𝟐/𝟑𝟐 Commenting on Rom 6, Marcus Rainsford explicitly equated union with Christ & identification with Christ. (𝐿𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑛 𝑅𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑠 𝑉𝐼 [1870] 5.)

𝟏𝟑/𝟑𝟐 Commenting on 2 Tim 2:11-13, AC Hervey equated union with Christ with three ways believers are identified with Him. (“The Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy,” 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑃𝑢𝑙𝑝𝑖𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑦, HDM Spence & Joseph S Exell, eds [1887] 29.)

𝟏𝟒/𝟑𝟐 Much more recently, in 𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑜 𝑐𝑢𝑚 𝐶ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜 (January 1, 2019, 205), Peter Lillback, interviewed Christopher Yuan, author of 𝐻𝑜𝑙𝑦 𝑆𝑒𝑥𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐺𝑜𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑙 (2018), who said, “Identity in Christ is correlated with union with Christ.”

𝟏𝟓/𝟑𝟐 This is not the same as equating the two, but then Yuan went on to say “Our identity in Christ restores that image of God distorted by the fall…” which actually describes a function of union with Christ, so he equated them functionally if not verbally.

𝟏𝟔/𝟑𝟐 More in keeping with traditional Reformed usage is the entry for “union with Christ” in the 𝑃𝑜𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑡 𝐷𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑅𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑑 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛, which begins, “Also called identification with Christ…” (Kapic & Vander Lugt [2013] 122.)

𝟏𝟕/𝟑𝟐 Of course, none of the above has anything in common with Keswick theology, which says we merely “reckon” ourselves dead to sin to achieve a “victorious Christian life,” as seen here in Miles J Stanford’s 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑒 𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝐿𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 (1983) 148.

𝟏𝟖/𝟑𝟐 Keswick/Higher Life/Victorious Christian Life (K/HL/VCL) theology is cruel because it tells believers they can overcome the sin that remains in them without a fight, without the painful, perpetual ordeal in this life of putting to death the deeds of the body (Rom 8:13).

𝟏𝟗/𝟑𝟐 But it’s also cruel to tell believers that in spite of their fight with indwelling sin they should expect no meaningful change over time in their sinful desires because, they allege, those desires spring from an unchangeable inward orientation.

𝟐𝟎/𝟑𝟐 This cruelly denies the fullness of the present reality that “…we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.” (2 Cor. 3:18 ESV)

𝟐𝟏/𝟑𝟐 Furthermore, it's cruel to accuse those who support O23, which faithfully applies the AIC’s Sexuality report, with holding to K/HL/VCL theology. This betrays a deep cynicism lacking any basis in fact & is brutally destructive to the purity, peace, & unity of the church.

𝟐𝟐/𝟑𝟐 And to aggravate this cynicism by accusing Reformed believers who make proper use of our “identity in Christ” of “weaponiz[ing]” it “against gay people who followed Jesus” is beyond the pale.

𝟐𝟑/𝟑𝟐 No, the “identity in Christ” language of the Sexuality report & O23 reflects sound biblical & Reformed theology. And contrary to Kevin Twit, it doesn’t unduly focus on believers more than on Christ because it refers to our identity 𝑖𝑛 𝐶ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡, not in ourselves.

𝟐𝟒/𝟑𝟐 “Identity in Christ” is based on the fact 𝑎𝑛𝑦 identity we have in ourselves, i.e., in who & what we are apart from Christ, counts for nothing. It takes our eyes off ourselves & puts them on Christ, the precise opposite of what Kevin Twit accuses it of doing.

𝟐𝟓/𝟑𝟐 Meanwhile, “gay Christian” language does precisely what Twit accuses “identity in Christ” language of doing: It takes our eyes off Christ & puts them on ourselves, defining who & what we are in no small part by our remaining bondage to sin, even declaring it incurable.

𝟐𝟔/𝟑𝟐 It’s difficult to see how this doesn’t contradict Paul’s declaration: “For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.” (Rom 6:14 ESV) How does capitulating to sinful “orientations” as “incurable” differ from giving sin dominion?

𝟐𝟕/𝟑𝟐 Also contrary to Twit, to say the “identity in Christ movement [whatever he means by ‘movement’] resists any negative self-talk as ‘worm theology’” isn't true when competent Reformed Christians refer to identity in Christ, as Sinclair Ferguson showed when he wrote...

𝟐𝟖/𝟑𝟐 “We must say both: God has given me a new identity with a glorious destiny; in myself I am utterly defiled and deserve only death.” (“The Reformed View,” 𝐶ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑛 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦: 𝐹𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑉𝑖𝑒𝑤𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 [1988] 67.)

𝟐𝟗/𝟑𝟐 Users of “identity in Christ” language don’t “resist any negative self-talk,” to use that infelicitous phrase. They affirm that we should not speak of the new creation identity we have in Him without also speaking of our struggle with the remnants of sin within us.

𝟑𝟎/𝟑𝟐 But while affirming the truth of 𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 sin, the Reformed view of sanctification doesn’t downplay the truth that sin as a 𝑟𝑒𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 power in the believer’s life has been destroyed as “gay Christians” do…

𝟑𝟏/𝟑𝟐 …when they say they have an unchangeable orientation. It is they who have abandoned the biblical & Reformed doctrine of sanctification, not those who properly speak of our identity in Christ.

𝟑𝟐/𝟑𝟐 cc: @presbycast; @wresbyterian; @seal_da_zeal; @demyronhaynes; @andy_schreiber; @OddDeacon; @MOREinPCA; @LigonDuncan; @Nick_Batzig; @campusevangel; @KenShepherd; @dfriederichsen; @DavidCa10177549; @silent_topher; @cswilliams63; @gsmonkus; @D_B_Harrison; @DrOakley1689.