Union with Christ is of the first importance for any assessment of the Christian’s position in God’s sight; no pronouncement can be made which does not take account of it:

Look, Father, look on His anointed face, And only look on us as found in Him.

In virtue of this oneness with Christ we share in the righteousness of His complete obedience, and the relationship has also in it the pledge and potency of that sanctification whereby our immature, undeveloped righteousness eventually becomes what is actual in Him.  Discipleship is growth in ‘putting on’ Christ, and has for its goal the stature of His fulness.^[1]  Life in Christ here and now, rudimentary though it is, as St. Paul well knew, is nevertheless the hope and guarantee of our final likeness to Him.

St. Paul’s conclusion on the ultimate result of God’s redemptive intervention in Christ is the unqualified victory of His saving love; Christ’s rule must continue to spread until God has brought all things into harmony with His mind and purpose.  The Son’s supreme offering to the Father is His perfected work, a ransomed creation.  The position of Christians is that they are the beginning of the end of this all‑inclusive movement of redemption, and, by anticipation, the blessings of the glorious consummation are already theirs.^[2]  This is the ground and strength of the Apostle’s claim: ‘there is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus’.^[3]

Life in Christ through His indwelling presence, by which we are acceptable to God, comes of faith, which also determines  the character of Christian righteousness.  But what precisely is the nature of the faith that leads through the initiation of Baptism to union with Christ?  There is general agreement that the object of faith is the Gospel, the ‘good news’ of God’s saving action in Christ and of His free offer to men of all the benefits of His achievement.  And faith itself is the grateful acceptance and commitment to the truth of that message.  Yet a further question requires consideration: Is the Christian message addressed to all, is it open to every person to consider it, and adopt it or reject it?  Or, on the other hand, is it meant only for those known to God alone and who by His eternal decree on hearing it would inevitably embrace it?  In this connection it is necessary to distinguish between divine foreknowledge and decree.  It has been said that God’s knowledge of what men will do is the same as determining that they will do it, and that therefore divine foreknowledge and human freedom are incompatible.  But if psychologists from a limited knowledge of a person's inner make‑up and disposition, and without undue influence, can predict with a reasonable degree of accuracy how he will behave in particular circumstances, it is not easy to see why God’s foreknowledge should be inconsistent with human freedom.  ‘Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who it was should betray Him’, but Judas was nonetheless held responsible for his actions and his treachery was condemned.^[4]

The Article, while commending the teaching of the Homily of Justification does not explicitly contain it.  It merely excludes ‘our own works, or deservings’ as a reason for being ‘accounted righteous before God’, whereas the Homily allows no place whatever for personal decision in response to the Gospel.  This is against the whole motive behind evangelical preaching.  Did any missionary ever think that in proclaiming the Christian message he was in a single instance working against God’s appointment; that there was one soul divinely intended to refuse his appeal?