OK, I know it’s Christmas and all, but this is on my mind. Oh wait. This is about christology…. so Christmas is entirely appropriate.
I’d love to read Garcia’s article if someone wants to send it my way. Right now, I can only comment on this blog post on its own merit. And it is entirely misleading and wrongheaded. Here’s the giveaway:
Calvin attacks Osiander’s doctrine of justification because he makes justification to be grounded upon an essential union between the believer and Christ (particularly, with his righteousness in its divine essence).
Yes, this was exactly Calvin’s problem with Osiander and it could not have less to do with Lusk. Union with Christ and justification in Lusk is union with Christ as justified by the Spirit by being raised from the dead (1 Tim 3.16, etc). The righteousness of Christ here, is the righteousness he has as a human being–the nature that was raised from the dead. We can talk all day long of how the divine nature must also be involved by virtue of the hypostatic union, but that is not anything Lusk bothers with.
For Lusk, union with Christ is parallel to union with Adam. He commonly frames his whole discussion as involving the question of the first and second Adam. So there is no reason to bring questions about the nature of the hypostatic union into this. It is simply an unnecessary detour into confusion for anyone who is concerned about what Lusk actually wrote.