"Already, but not yet." Being "in Christ", Our Identity is Christ's.

[makesends]

I wish I knew how to convey the thought I believe in, but that is difficult to the temporal mind.

Our Identity is Christ's. We are not our own.

Often we arrange our ordo salutis with a careful separation between what God does, and what we do, and rightly so. But we fail to observe the hierarchy to its full extent. (No, I'm not saying we are able to do so, but, in fact, that is the point, here.) God is that much above us that even what we do is by his establishing it so, and whatever good we do is God doing it in us. For those of us who are 'in Christ', he is our very identity before God. I will not say we ARE him, but we are OF him. We are the body of Christ. THAT is what he sees---not just Christ's righteousness, but Christ's body.

Am I taking a figure, an analogy, a symbol, too far? I don't think so. There's too much scripture specific to the terminology of what we are, who we are, as God's creation, for this to be a figure of speech or any of the usual ways we have of separating ourselves from the need to understand what at first seems beyond our comprehension. Our body is a temple, he lives in us, we are not our own, we live in him, (and the list goes on and on.)

I see this even without my usual attempt of demonstrating God's point of view ---that he spoke the finished product into existence. (But that does kinda affirm this, that we do not belong to ourselves.)

Thoughts?

 

[John Bauer]

Our identity is Christ. We are not our own. … I will not say we ARE him, but we are OF him. We are the body of Christ. That is what he sees—not just Christ's righteousness, but Christ's body.

I think you are, indeed, taking an analogy too far, leaning toward theosis.

I would say our identity is Christ’s—that is, we are his body and possession—but not that our identity is Christ. The Creator–creature distinction is not softened by union, let alone erased. It may be said that “we are of him” analogically and covenantally, but not ontologically. As you put it, our identity before God is “in Christ.” That is true, orthodox, and beautiful. But union with Christ is not identification with Christ.

It is true that we are not our own. “From him and through him and to him are all things.” But let our language maintain that Creator–creature distinction (which union itself presupposes).

… even without my usual attempt of demonstrating God's point of view …

I think that may be where a lot of your posts get into trouble. When we try to reason from “God’s point of view,” rather than thinking after him as creatures bound to revelation, analogies tend to escape their biblical boundaries.

 

[makesends]

I think you are, indeed, taking an analogy too far, leaning toward theosis.

I would say our identity is Christ’s—that is, we are his body and possession—but not that our identity is Christ. The Creator–creature distinction is not softened by union, let alone erased. It may be said that “we are of him” analogically and covenantally, but not ontologically. As you put it, our identity before God is “in Christ.” That is true, orthodox, and beautiful. But union with Christ is not identification with Christ.

It is true that we are not our own. “From him and through him and to him are all things.” But let our language maintain that Creator–creature distinction (which union itself presupposes).



I think that may be where a lot of your posts get into trouble. When we try to reason from “God’s point of view,” rather than thinking after him as creatures bound to revelation, analogies tend to escape their biblical boundaries.

I agree my words sometimes do go too far, maybe by way of hyperbole, to get a point across. Thanks for the correction. I have attempted to edit it to that effect, that "our identity is Christ's", though I read that to sound like we have the same identity he does (which I disagree with).

Note, though, I specifically say we are not Christ. And I think I did emphasize that we are his body. And I think that is literal, though his body there is not what we think of here. I do disagree with theosis. In Rev 21, for example, they remain His People, and He remains Their God. But there we see the principle, "God with us", (in a way that here is only, "not yet").

FWIW, and sooner or later no doubt I will post this theme more specifically, probably in the Doctrinal Explorations forum. The reason I put this where I did, (Doctrines of Grace), is by way of explaining the nature of that Grace. The fact of God's view of things being the only exact and thorough view is important here. And something I keep seeing believers, including myself, do, separates the duties in such a way that WE are to be credited with our own well-doing, as though he is not. It is done in spades concerning "accepting the Lord", with the Pelagian, but even with the Reformed, concerning Sanctification. What God sees in Salvation is Christ's righteousness, but also, during Sanctification. Where God places us is 'in Christ'. And there is our identity. I don't mean that it ever changes, but I meant to point at, to emphasize, that position before God.

Also, FWIW, I think that trying to see things from God's POV, while impossible to do to the full, gives us an inkling of what we habitually get wrong and misunderstand. But ok, I'll admit it can be presumptive and dangerous. It bothers me when we write something to narrow our view of the facts to close definitions, from only our creaturely POV. We way too often think in one dimension, as though we are closer to the truth than something else, or even there at the truth. But the truth is what it is, without reference to anything we think. It's not only on 3 dimensions different, but even a different sort of thing, from our thinking. The change of regeneration, where our minds and hearts are raised from death to life, is indicative of this, (I think).

I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that apart from Him, we are nothing.

 

[makesends]

I think you are, indeed, taking an analogy too far, leaning toward theosis.

I would say our identity is Christ’s—that is, we are his body and possession—but not that our identity is Christ. The Creator–creature distinction is not softened by union, let alone erased. It may be said that “we are of him” analogically and covenantally, but not ontologically. As you put it, our identity before God is “in Christ.” That is true, orthodox, and beautiful. But union with Christ is not identification with Christ.

It is true that we are not our own. “From him and through him and to him are all things.” But let our language maintain that Creator–creature distinction (which union itself presupposes).

I think that may be where a lot of your posts get into trouble. When we try to reason from “God’s point of view,” rather than thinking after him as creatures bound to revelation, analogies tend to escape their biblical boundaries.

BTW I really do appreciate your comments here. I struggle to understand, sometimes, how you, and specially @Josheb , can post so confidently as though your words represent absolute fact, when to me it is obviously drawn on not mere Scripture (as quoted) and pure reason, but interpreted scripture and inevitably biased presupposed argument.

Lol, maybe this should go somewhere under Hermeneutics. We are indeed, as you said, Creatures bound to revelation, "but we have the mind of Christ."

 

[John Bauer]

I agree my words sometimes do go too far, maybe by way of hyperbole, to get a point across. Thanks for the correction. I have attempted to edit it to that effect, that "our identity is Christ's", though I read that to sound like we have the same identity he does (which I disagree with).

You know what? I knew exactly what I meant when I wrote that—our identity is found in being his possession—but when I came back to it later, I saw it as you described here: Our identity is Christ’s identity? What? No!

So, hey, we all suck at this words thing sometimes, even us professional writers.

Note, though, I specifically say we are not Christ.

I did take note of that, and I did mention it—in an earlier draft of my response to you. For some reason that I no longer remember, that was one of the things that didn’t make it into the final draft that was published. But I promise that I did notice.

(My first drafts are typically way, way longer. I edit them down to a more digestible size.)

And I think I did emphasize that we are his body. And I think that is literal, though his body there is not what we think of here.

That word literal is a bit tricky. To say we are literally his body can convey the idea that we are his body ontologically. I don’t think you mean that.

I do disagree with theosis.

For what it’s worth, the reason I put this where I did (Doctrines of Grace) is by way of explaining the nature of that grace. (Sooner or later, no doubt I will post this theme more specifically, probably in the Doctrinal Explorations forum.) The fact of God's view of things being the only exact and thorough view is important here. … It bothers me when we write something to narrow our view of the facts to close definitions, from only our creaturely POV. We way too often think in one dimension, as though we are closer to the truth than something else, or even there at the truth.

I realize that. But we do not (and cannot ever) have access to God’s archetypal view of things. We must remain satisfied with God’s arrangement of accommodated revelation that is ectypal and analogical—and be content to use it. God himself surely finds it adequate and suitable for his purposes. Our only access to God’s perspective is the incarnate Word who perfectly revealed God to us, an accurate and adequate record of which is contained in Scripture.

And something I keep seeing believers do (myself included) separates the duties in such a way that WE are to be credited with our own well-doing, as though he is not. It is done in spades concerning "accepting the Lord", with the Pelagian, but even with the Reformed, concerning Sanctification. What God sees in Salvation is Christ's righteousness, but also, during Sanctification. Where God places us is 'in Christ'. And there is our identity. I don't mean that it ever changes, but I meant to point at, to emphasize, that position before God.

This idea is exactly why I wrote that opening post, What If the Judgment Seat of Christ Is Not a Human-Centered Award Ceremony?

I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that apart from him, we are nothing.

That, on the other hand, is quite literally true.

By the way, I really do appreciate your comments here. I struggle to understand, sometimes, how you … can post so confidently as though your words represent absolute fact …

I think that reflects your inference more than my intent. I do not write as though my words represent absolute fact. More often than not, my words represent only what I understand, believe, or know. Sometimes I will assert factual things, such as the earth being basically spherical in shape or what this theologian wrote in that book, but in every case—including when it comes to what I believe—I write as though my words are relative fact. Remember, I am the supralapsarian who is constantly harping about our knowledge being ectypal and analogical and ever subordinate to Scripture.

What matters is not the tone or style of my writing (e.g., confident) but whether or not what I write represents or conflicts with Scripture. If you ever think that it conflicts with Scripture, make that case. I am open to correction, and have stood corrected many, many times.

 

[JesusFan]

I wish I knew how to convey the thought I believe in, but that is difficult to the temporal mind.

Our Identity is Christ's. We are not our own.

Often we arrange our ordo salutis with a careful separation between what God does, and what we do, and rightly so. But we fail to observe the hierarchy to its full extent. (No, I'm not saying we are able to do so, but, in fact, that is the point, here.) God is that much above us that even what we do is by his establishing it so, and whatever good we do is God doing it in us. For those of us who are 'in Christ', he is our very identity before God. I will not say we ARE him, but we are OF him. We are the body of Christ. THAT is what he sees---not just Christ's righteousness, but Christ's body.

Am I taking a figure, an analogy, a symbol, too far? I don't think so. There's too much scripture specific to the terminology of what we are, who we are, as God's creation, for this to be a figure of speech or any of the usual ways we have of separating ourselves from the need to understand what at first seems beyond our comprehension. Our body is a temple, he lives in us, we are not our own, we live in him, (and the list goes on and on.)

I see this even without my usual attempt of demonstrating God's point of view ---that he spoke the finished product into existence. (But that does kinda affirm this, that we do not belong to ourselves.)

Thoughts?

Just as long as we do not press this so far to get into the Greek orthodox position that somehow we literally became partakers of his deity in some sense

 

[makesends]

Just as long as we do not press this so far to get into the Greek orthodox position that somehow we literally became partakers of his deity in some sense

We are his body. What that means may have a LOT to do with how God sees things. But all I get is hints like that. Can't write doctrine from that.

And we know that we are made in his image in some special way that even angels are not. What that means, I don't know. But I see wordplay on that all through scripture. I look forward to smacking my forehead in amazement, that it was right there in front of me to understand, plain as day, and I didn't get it.