unio mystica
Unlike Barth who frequently qualifies and cautions against using the
terminology of unio mystica Bavinck approaches this topic with much greater
confidence. He asserts that the origin of “the mystical union between Christ and his
church, existed long before believers were personally incorporated into it--- or else
Christ could not have made satisfaction for them either.”^112 Further, his
understanding of unio mystica was consistent with that of Bernard, Calvin, and the
Puritans. He defines it as a “most intimate union with God by the Holy Spirit, a union
of persons, an unbreakable and eternal covenant between God and ourselves, which
cannot be at all adequately described by the word ‘ethical’ and is therefore called
‘mystical.’”^113 Bavinck reveals another distinction from Barth by frequently
emphasizing the Holy Spirit’s role in uniting the individual into union with Christ.^114
Additionally, Bavinck continues that this “union of persons, [is] not only in will and
disposition but also in being and nature.”^115
However, Bavinck is quick to qualify and maintains that union with Christ “is
not a pantheistic mingling of the two [Christ and the individual], not a ‘substantial
union,’ as it has been viewed by the mysticism of earlier and later times, nor on the
other hand is it mere agreement in disposition, will, and purpose, as rationalism
understood it and Ritschl again explained it.”^116 Bavinck then immediately declares
that what “Scripture tells us of this mystical union goes far beyond moral agreement
in will and disposition” and then lists numerous biblical grounds for union with Christ
(^112) Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics (^) , 4:214.
(^113) Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 3:304.
(^114) Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 1:570; 4:89, 251, 541, 577-8 and Bavinck, Our
Reasonable Faith 115 , 398.
116 Bavinck, Bavinck, Reformed DogmaticsReformed Dogmatics, 4:577., 4:250.^