All that said, Justification is a Forensic act. Manermaa seems to forget the objective nature of this. Even if we say He is completely right about the ontological presence of Christ int he believer, in faith, is it not still true that any union with Christ can only happen because God has chosen to set his wrath at rest. Objectively, prior to any “ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor 5), God has chosen to no longer recon sinners, but instead to deliver them life in Christ. Again, this does not diminish the Christocentric nature of the Christian life, but must not even Manermaa recognize, that one’s being united to Christ, assumes, presupposes, that God has chosen to cease accusing with the Law, and rather to reconcile Himself. Perhaps Manermaa has given us some great insight into how we can speak of subjective justification, and sanctification in the Christian life; but nonetheless, objective justification is still a forensic act. Manermaa doesn’t seem to give an account of this.

Perhaps the greatest danger is to pit subjective-union with Christ, against forensic justification. Why not simply say that the act of totally free divine iniative, which even a Meyendorf or Schmeman recognizes, is objective justification, the ground of any theosis? The two do not have to be in opposition. Surely, only God is true and righteous; if he makes us true and righteous, He makes us to be as He is (1 John); but that act is not exclusive of His objective decision from all eternity, to cease counting our sins against us, and rather to deliver us the ministry of reconciliation in His Son. Hence, “where the Word of God is, there is ‘life’ AND ‘salvation’…

Objective justification is not a contradiction of theosis, but rather the ground thereof.

But yeah, I’m totally with you on how theological posture influences gospel proclamation (I just came up with that – really…) :) … Your talk of gains and losses is a very helpful way of talking about it. Cheers!

-d-

When I reflect on a doctrinal interpretation such as Mannermaa’s I actually have preaching in the back of my mind. I am thinking about how the decisions we make doctrinally influence our proclamation of the Gospel – such as how we talk about the Son and the Spirit relative to salvation and the Christian life. What is motivating me then isn’t so much my desire that Mannermaa say everything all the time (an impossible task) but that what he gains in his interpretation of union with Christ may entail certain losses regarding his capacity to talk meaningfully about the Spirit. So, instead of saying Mannermaa’s doctrine of justification is bankrupt I am simply trying to walk through the process of assessing theological and doctrinal gains and losses that attend his position and which will inevitably influence our preaching on salvation and the Christian life.

Does that make sense?

Perhaps, soteriologies that trade heavily on union with Christ as deification can likely still make much of the Spirit in the Christian life if (and this is something I don’t see in Mannermaa’s treatment of Justification) it is regulated and disciplined by a robust doctrine of God and the Trinity.