Rules of Canonicity

Rules for Deciding Canonicity

Canonical Rule #1

Does the scroll (book) speak of Christ? Is it prophetic?

"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself...And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. " (Luke 24: 27, 44 KJV)

Which books of the Old Testament did NOT speak of the Messiah?

Clearly Esther does not.

Levels of Inspiration or Canonicity

Think of a circle with clearly defined rings (boundaries). In the "inner circle" of "inspiration," for the Old Testament, are the five books of Moses, the Penteteuch, or Torah, or "law of Moses."

In the second circle, we would have "the prophets." What books would this include? And, let not our answer be based upon some "canon" that was supposedly being used by Christ, and universally recognized and codified, but solely upon the descriptive title given by Christ.

What books can we put safely into the category of "the prophets"? Surely the ones known as the "twelve." The only questionable ones, besides the ones named above, would be Judges, Kings, Chronicles, Ruth, Daniel, Job, Ezra, and Nehemiah.

First, it is easy to put Daniel and Job into the category of "the prophets," is it not? Jesus called Daniel a prophet (Matthew 24: 15) and certainly Job prophesied of the coming Redeemer (Goel) who would redeem him from death. (Job 19: 23-27)

Next, we can place Judges and Ruth with Samuel, who no doubt authored these books. Further, we can also put Samuel's stamp of approval, along with David's and Solomon's, upon the inspiration of the books of the Kings and Chronicles. Many of these books, in many Jewish collections, were viewed as one book. Further, one can find allusions to the Messiah in the above books.

The book of Joshua could also be placed among the books of the prophets, for he was certainly a prophet and his writings contain both law and prophecy, as well as history.

Also we find their veracity verified by New Testament writers.

Christ, though he put the Psalms in a category all by itself, in the above passage, yet could have placed it in the category of "the prophets," for David is also identified, in scripture, as being a "prophet." Christ no doubt had a reason or reasons, for so doing.

First, not all the Psalms were written by David, but included those written by Moses and Solomon, the former being a prophet, while the latter was not. Also, not all the Psalms were messianic or prophetic. Since Christ put the Psalms into a category all its own, so, we will make the Psalms to be the third circle of inspiration.

This leaves only Ezra and Nehemiah, which were often viewed as one book (as did Josephus, who, like many Jews, believed that there was to be only 22 books, for there are only 22 letters to the Hebrew alphabet).

This really brings us to the fourth circle of inspiration, which we will call "the holy writings," or the "other writings," or sometimes as simply "the writings." These would include the inspired historical books of Kings and Chronicles, and of Ezra and Nehemiah, but they will also include what may be appropriately called the "Wisdom" and Romance books.

The Wisdom literature takes in two of the writings of Solomon, excepting his psalm writing, which are the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. His contribution to the "Romance" category would be, of course, his "Song of Songs." Some would put Ruth and Judges into the category of either historical or romance, but I think they should be placed into the prophetic, into the messianic, being properly part of the entire prophetic writings of Samuel.

None of these historical books can be strictly called "messianic." They are much like the books of Kings and Chronicles, and properly called "historical." They are to be seen as accurate and trustworthy histories and are in this sense "inspired" or "of God," but still not of the kind or level of inspiration as the prophetic books which all speak of the Messiah. The same is true for the "Wisdom" and "Romance" writings. These historical books, together with the "Wisdom" and "Romance" books, are to be received as composing the fourth circle.

Then where would we put the book of Esther? Is it historical? Is it an inspired novel? Certainly it is not messanic and therefore would not pass the first test of canonicity, given by Jesus above. Would we put it in the same circle with the other historical and romance writings?

There are those who have, historically, sought to place other books into these various circles of inspiration. These would include books called "Apocryphal."

How can we judge the inspiration, truthfulness, correctness, and reliability of these books? How do they stand up to the first rule of inspiration and canonicity? The messianic rule?

3. Reliable manuscripts

What is the first criterion for deciding full inspiration or canonicity? It is the Messianic criterion (which would include what some called the "prophetic" test or criterion).

Does the book speak of Christ? In my previous chapter, I showed from Luke 24: 27, 44 that Christ made this a rule for calling something "scripture."

In this chapter I will enlarge upon the "messianic test (rule)" and show that "the scriptures" are defined by this rule.

"But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?...But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled." (Matthew 26: 54, 56 KJV)

"Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." (Luke 24: 45-47 KJV)

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (John 5: 39 KJV)

"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ." (Acts 17: 2, 3 KJV)

"For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ." (Acts 18: 28 KJV)

"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures." (I Corinthians 15: 3, 4 KJV)

"Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen." (Romans 16: 25-27 KJV)

From these verses we are given a further description and definition of what constitutes "scripture."

Scripture testifies of Christ. Whatever does not testify of Christ is not "scripture." It discusses repentance and remission of sins. Thus, "content" or "theme" is a sub category within the "messianic rule."

From "the scriptures" one may learn of Christ and the gospel. None of this, however, can be learned from the Book of Esther.

We also learn that "scripture" may be "fulfilled." This makes "scripture," by biblical definition, "prophetic," whether outright or by way of symbolism and analogy. Strictly "historical" and "romance" books of Hebrew literature, are not capable of being "fulfilled."

Canonical Rule 2 - The Profitability Test (criterion)

"For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." (Romans 15: 4 KJV)

"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (II Timothy 3: 15-17 KJV)

1) Does the book produce a "hope" of salvation through Christ?

2) Does the book "instruct in righteousness," being "profitable" thereunto?

3) Does the book "correct" errors in doctrine and righteousness?

4) Is the book "profitable for doctrine"? If so, what doctrines?

5) Is the book "profitable for reproof"? If so, how or in what way?

6) Does the book "perfect" the faith of the "man of God"?

7) Does the book "make one wise unto salvation"?

Scripture here is defined as what makes one wise unto salvation in Christ. Does the Book of Esther do this? Does it pass the test of "profitability"?

Canonical Rule 3 (no private interpretation)

Thus far we have given the first two paramount rules of judging inspiration and canonicity, the "Messianic Rule Test," and the "Profitability Test." In this chapter I introduce the next rule, the "no private interpretation rule," or the --

Privacy or Origination Test

This rule would include the issue of divine "authority."

Those who wrote scripture were not self authorized men, or men who were authorized by groups of uninspired men, but men who were chosen and appointed by God, men who were sent and authorized by him, and taught by him what to say and teach.

"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (II Peter 1: 19-21 KJV)

In discerning inspiration and canonicity, we should ask such questions as these:

1. Who authored the book?

2. What was the content, subject, or main teachings of the book?

3. How did the book come into being?

4. What of its origination?

5. Is it "prophetic"?

6. Does it reveal the nature and workings of God and Christ?

7. Does it instruct in righteousness and doctrine?

All Apocryphal books are in the category of books that arose from the "will of man," being an artful and cunning device, meant to deceive. The books of genuine inspiration, however, arise from the "will of God," by the working of his Spirit.

The phrase, "private interpretation," translates the Greek phrase, idios epilupsis. Idios is defined as, “pertaining to one’s own self” or “personal.” Epilupsis is defined as an unloosing and is used metaphorically in this verse to mean interpretation, as in loosening the meaning of the verse.

"Who is as the wise man? and who knoweth the interpretation of a thing? a man's wisdom maketh his face to shine, and the boldness of his face shall be changed." (Ecclesiastes 8: 1 KJV)

Wise ones, or "scientists," are those who are able to "explain a thing," to "make sense of things," to "interpret" things in nature.

Scripture is not like other books of knowledge. It is not like a book on Mathematics or Physics or Chemistry. These latter books owe their immediate origin, their "interpretations" or "explanations" of things, to the will and learning of a man, to his own initiative in education and learning, and to his own skillful advances in it.

But, the things the prophets and holy men wrote about were not truths that they "figured out" by the use of reason, logic, and scientific discovery and investigation.

Thus, an inspired book is not only a "prophetic" book, but a book that is "revelation," that which is directly imparted to the mind and understanding of the chosen seer, and which is truth that he could not have "figured out" or "discovered" by ordinary methods of learning.

The books of inspiration are not like works of secular knowledge.

Books of secular knowledge are produced by self willed authors who made a choice to learn all about a topic and then write something profound about it. They are therefore the results of a man's will and efforts, of his own scheming and planning, of his own efforts at discovery.

Can we read the books of Scripture, the books of the Apocrypha, and all the other many books professing inspiration, and discern whether they originated with the will of man, versus the will of God? And discern whether it is knowledge given miraculously by revelation, or knowledged acquired by the efforts of human discovery?

Did the Book of Esther, or Book of Enoch, or the Book of Judith, Book of Maccabees, etc., originate with the will of an uninspired Jewish man or with the will of God? Did the Book of Esther, etc., give a man's uninspired views of things, or the views of God? We might ask the same of the writings of Solomon.

Look at how Paul the apostle and prophet received his revelation and inspiration. He wrote:

"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1: 11, 12 KJV)

Here Paul contends against the idea that his prophetic writings were a violation of Peter's rule about "private interpretation," about "self production." What was the "source" of Paul's gospel knowledge and revelation? Was it at the feet of Gamaliel? Was it in the schools of the Rabbis? No, no. It was the gift of miraculous revelation of truth to Paul by the personal appearing and instruction of the Lord Jesus Christ.

To know that a book is thus a "revelation" or "oracle" from God, and not a self production, requires that we know something about the author and how he received his revelation.  Of course, above all it requires the inner witness of the Spirit for anyone to recognize inspiration. 

Are there any books of the Bible where we do not know who are the authors and the manner in which they received their divine communications?

Peter says that the authors of the inspired prophecies were "holy men." Do we know that the author of the Book of Esther was a "holy man" who was "moved by the Holy Ghost"?

No "private interpretation" probably includes the idea that no particular prophecy, or book of prophecy and inspiration, is to stand by itself, but should show harmony, if not direct stated support, with other prophets and inspired books.

Paul gave us the rule of "comparing spiritual things with spiritual," which would include the hermenuetic rule to "compare scripture with scripture." (I Cor. 2: 13 KJV)

Questions to ask about particular books

1. Does the book lack authenticity?

2. Does it have faulty historical information?

3. Does it contradict other more authoratative works of inspiration?

4. Does it contradict itself?

5. What is the "spirit" and "tenor" of the writing?

6. What is in the heart and mind of the writer as he writes?

7. Who is his audience?

8. What does he hope to effect by the publishing of his writing?

9. Does the book "breathe" inspiration and divinity?

10. Can you sense the divine profoundness and style of the writings?

"And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream." (Numbers 12: 6 KJV)

The authors of inspiration meet this test. Does the author of Esther?

"Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart." (Jeremiah 14: 14 KJV)

The false prophets are the uninspired ones. They spoke not by the Lord and Holy Spirit, were not "moved" and "inspired" by him, but spoke by their own moving and by their own authority and wisdom. Their teachings originated in their evil hearts and minds, not with God's inspiration.

"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the LORD...How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart." (Jeremiah 23: 16, 26 KJV)

Notice how the words of the false prophets, and false writers of "scripture," are they whose message comes "from" their own selves, not "from" the Lord. Lack of a valid source to the revelation is a reason to reject the pretended revelation.

"For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Let not your prophets and your diviners, that be in the midst of you, deceive you, neither hearken to your dreams which ye cause to be dreamed." (Jeremiah 29: 8 KJV)

This is a clear example of "private interpretation" and of what it means for a "prophecy (revelation) of scripture" to "come by" the "will of man," and not "by" the "will of God."

"Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel that prophesy, and say thou unto them that prophesy out of their own hearts, Hear ye the word of the LORD; Thus saith the Lord GOD; Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing!" (Ezekiel 13: 2, 3 KJV)

Here again is a picture of an "uninspired" prophet and of his prophecy and pretended revelations, and of his presumed authority and inspiration, of his "private interpretation" and "self revelation."

"Then answered Amos, and said to Amaziah, I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet's son; but I was an herdman, and a gatherer of sycomore fruit: And the LORD took me as I followed the flock, and the LORD said unto me, Go, prophesy unto my people Israel." (Amos 7: 14, 15 KJV)

Here we see how Amos did arrive at the knowledge of God, as expressed in his writings, in his divine "interpretations" or "explanations" of things, and see how it was not what originated in his own heart, by his own will, and by his own moving of himself, and how it rather originated with God, being that which God gave it to him in a miraculous manner, by revelation, and so not the result of Amos' own self ambitions and educational achievements.

"For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him." (Acts 13: 27 KJV)

Here scripture is defined as being part of the collection of writings which the Jews read weekly in the Synagogue and which were messianic. Also, scripture is defined as being the production of "prophets." Every Old Testament book is the "voice" of a "prophet" of God. Was the author of Esther a prophet of God?

"But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets." (Acts 24: 14 KJV)

Notice how Paul believes only those books that are either of Moses or of a prophet are authoritative and inspired.

"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10: 43 KJV)

What a canonical rule for judging inspiration! What does the book, claiming inspiration, speak about? Does it speak of God and Christ? Of the forgiveness of sins? Of faith?

Three rules have been given thus far for determining inspiration and canonicity.

1) The Messianic rule (test)

2) The Profitability rule (test)

3) The Privacy rule (test)

A popular Conservative web site gives these rules for "Tests of Canonicity."

"Specific tests to consider canonicity may be recognized."

(1) Did the book indicate God was speaking through the writer and that it was considered authoritative?

(2) Was the human author recognized as a spokesman of God, that is, was he a prophet or did he have the prophetic gift?

(3) Was the book historically accurate? Did it reflect a record of actual facts?

There are some 250 quotes from Old Testament books in the New Testament. None are from the Apocrypha. All Old Testament books are quoted except Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon."

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=697

Citations from another bible writer, particularly from a prophet, apostle, or from Christ, is included under canon rule #3, under Peter's rule that said no inspired prophetic work was of any "private interpretation." This will then be an enlargement upon that rule.

No inspired writing (or verbal message) by a prophet (or apostle, but really, all the apostles were prophets too) was capable of self production but was immediate revelation of God. It had to have "come by" the "will of God" and not "come by" the "will of man." The writing must have "come by" the "moving" of God's "Spirit," and not "come by" a self "moving" spirit of man.

Inspiration connects with authority and authority with revelation. A "scripture" or "inspired writing" must have God and his miraculous working as the sole cause of the revelation in order for the "source" to be valid.

According to Peter, if the source be not with God and his will and moving, then it is what is a "personal interpretation," a mere scruple that has no substance of truth to it, and what has arisen from a man's own spirit and imagination.

This third rule for judging canonicity and inspiration, or divine authority for written works of professed revelation, includes the confirmatory "interpretations" and "attestations" given by the prophets themselves to other fellow prophets and to their writings, and of Christ and his apostles, and of those who were companions of the apostles, and recognized leaders among the apostles.

This third rule for inspiration and canonicity, as I have said, includes the "prophetic rule."

Peter referred to all of Old Testament scripture as being prophetic, being revelation from a God sent prophet.

Hebrews 1:1 says, "God, who at various times and in different ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets. . . ."

What prophecy or revelation is in the Book of Esther?

"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10: 43 KJV)

What a canonical rule for judging inspiration! What does the book, claiming inspiration, speak about? Does it speak of God and Christ? Of the forgiveness of sins? Of faith?
Does the Book of Esther give this "witness" that all the prophets give? Is Esther a "prophetic" book?

"...unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3: 2 KJV)

What are the "oracles" of God? Are all books of a particular "bible" the "oracles" of God? Can we call a particular book, claiming inspiration and canonicity, the "oracles" of God?

Can the Book of Esther be properly called the "oracles" or God? When it has no utterances of God in it?

The three rules I have presented thus far are a trinity that, when taken together and applied, leads one to a correct faith knowledge of inspiration.

Canonical Rule 4

Does the professed sacred scroll contradict itself? Does it have errors? Doctrinal, theological, historical, grammatical, etc.?

Jesus said "the scripture cannot be broken." (John 10: 35 KJV)

"The scripture(s)" is synonymous with "word(s) of God." And, the "word of God" is the same as "word of truth." (II Timothy 2: 15 KJV)

"And now, O Lord GOD, thou art that God, and thy words be true, and thou hast promised this goodness unto thy servant." (II Samuel 7: 28 KJV)

"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." (Psalm 119: 160 KJV)

"But as God is true, our word toward you was not yea and nay." (II Corinthians 1: 18 KJV)

"And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful." (Revelation 21: 5 KJV)

"As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless." (II Samuel 22: 31 NIV)

"The word of the Lord is flawless." (Psalms 12:6 NIV)

"As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless." (Psalm 18: 30 NIV)

"Every word of God is flawless." (Proverbs 30: 5 NIV)

"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." (I Thessalonians 2: 13 KJV)

The inspired books are infallible and without error. They are inerrant. Though there are seeming contradictions in the holy books, yet these are not real, but may be shown to harmonize.

Not only must an inspired scroll not contradict other sacred books, but it must not contradict itself or contain other verifiable errors in fact. Though the bible is no history or geography book, yet the things it says about these subjects are truthful and error less.

Canonical Rule 5

Thus far we have discovered four cardinal rules that determine inspiration and canonicity.

1. Messianic Test - does it witness to Christ per John 5: 39, Luke 24: 27, 44?

2. Profitability Test - Does it do the things scripture is said to do per II Tim. 3: 15, 16?

3. Origination Test - Did it originate by divine initiative and revelation? Is it cited by other scripture writers and consistent with other scripture? Is it from a prophetic or apostolic source? (Per II Peter 1: 20?)

4. Consistency or Truth Test - is it free of error and contradiction? (Per John 10: 35?)

5. Does it contain the oracles or utterances of God per Rom. 3: 2?

"This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us." (Acts 7: 38 KJV)

"What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3: 1, 2 KJV)

"For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God..." (Hebrews 5: 12 KJV)

"If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God..." (I Peter 4: 11 KJV)

Strictly speaking, no accepted inspired book of the Bible contains only the oracles of God. For instance, all of the Book of Genesis is not the direct verbal utterances of God, or his "oracles." It does contain God's verbal utterances. Yea, the very first oracle is the one given to Adam and Eve, which announced to them the coming "seed of the woman" and his victory over the "seed of the serpent." But, the other parts of Genesis are the words of Moses in commentary, explanation, and narration. Yes, these are true and inspired, but they are not the utterances of God.

Genesis is inspired because it contains the oracles or very words of God spoken to a prophet by the mouth of God. Thus the prophets were often recorded as saying, "the word of the Lord came unto me" or "thus says the Lord," or "these be the words God has given me," etc.; And, where these divine utterances are recorded, they become his written oracles. But, strictly speaking, they are different from other parts that are not the express utterances of God. Can we say that the chronologies and genealogies in the Old Testament books are the utterances or oracles of God? We can say they are truthful and accurate, as a result of God's providence, but can we say they are the "oracles" of God? No, clearly not.

But, if a book contain an "oracle" or "thus says the Lord," or other such markers of inspiration and revelation, then it passes this test of inspiration and canonicity.

On The Priority Of Union With Christ

There is much debate between Arminians and Calvinists over the arrangement of the "ordo salutis" and I have chimed in on this debate many times over the years. The debate focuses on whether faith precedes the new birth or follows it. Let me say here at the outset that I get very agitated when men on both sides say - "Calvinists believe that regeneration precedes faith." Many times I have had to say to both Arminians and Calvinists that such is not true. That some Calvinists or "Reformed" theologians put regeneration before faith is not doubted. But to put all Calvinists into that category is a gross falsehood. In my writings I have cited many Calvinists, such as Calvin and Booth, who did not aver that regeneration precedes faith. I am Calvinist but I do not put regeneration or the new birth before faith and conversion.

Let me also say that the older Calvinist writers did not make conversion something different from regeneration, seeing rather that evangelical conversion is regeneration. A man was not viewed as regenerate or born again before be believed in Christ.

In all the writings of those on this issue, over the past several hundred years, I have noticed a gross inconsistency by those who affirm that regeneration precedes faith. How so? Because even those who espouse such will often affirm that 1) union with Christ is the first requirement, preceding all other graces and aspects of salvation, and that 2) "vital union" is "by faith." Now, if these two propositions are true (and they are), then regeneration, rebirth, justification, forgiveness, sanctification, etc., must all follow this union; And, faith must be before these things, for it is what unites the soul to Christ. Therefore, union with Christ by faith must precede regeneration, justification, etc. Don't you see?

So, with that in mind, we cannot but hold to this order:

1. Faith
2. Union with Christ
3. Justification
4. Regeneration
5. Sanctification

Now let me cite from some Calvinists on the priority of union with Christ by faith.

The following citations can be found (here) and all emphasis is mine:

On this subject Dr. John Gill wrote:

"In a word, union to Christ is the first thing, the first blessing of grace flowing from love and effected by it; hence, [it] is the application of all others. “Of Him are ye in Christ Jesus”—first loved and united to Christ—and then it follows, “who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption” (1Co 1:30). So Dr. Goodwin observes that “union with Christ is the first fundamental thing of justification and sanctification and all. Christ first takes us, and then sends His Spirit; He apprehends us first; it is not my being regenerate that puts me into a right of all these privileges; but it is Christ takes me, and then gives me His Spirit, faith, holiness.”"

In "FAITH UNITES US TO CHRIST," William Cunningham (1805-1861) wrote:

"LET us now…shortly consider the effect of faith as uniting us to Christ, and thus saving the soul. There is a great deal spoken of in Scripture on the subject of faith—of its great importance and of its indispensable necessity to salvation. We read, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mar 16:16). It is faith that makes a man a Christian, that produces all those things that accompany salvation, that salvation which is the turning point of a man’s existence, that salvation which delivers him from the authority of the devil and translates him into the kingdom of God’s dear Son.

Faith occupies this important place in our salvation because it unites us to Christ. We are expressly told this by the Apostle in Ephesians 3:17, where it is written, “That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith.” This union of believers to Christ, effected by faith, is indeed frequently spoken of in the New Testament. The nature of it is set before us by every mode of expression and description fitted to convey the strongest impression of its closeness and its importance.

Now when a man believes in Christ, he is, according to God’s appointment, united to Him. There is a union formed between them. God regards him as if he were Christ and treats him as if he had suffered the punishment for his sins that Christ endured in his room—as if he had in his own person performed that full and perfect obedience to the Divine Law that our Savior's conduct exhibited. It is this imputation of Christ’s sufferings and of His righteousness, or, as it is often called, His active and passive obedience—it is this communion of suffering and of merit in which the union of believers with Christ mainly consists. This union and communion with Him is the foundation of their salvation in all its parts and in all its aspects. When they believe Him, God regards them as one with Him—as if they had offered what He has suffered, as if they had done what He has done, as if they had paid the penalty for their sins and had gained a title to His favor.

Viewing them thus as united to Christ—as one with Him—God bestows upon them the blessings that Christ purchased for all who should believe on His name. They obtain through faith the forgiveness of their sins, acceptance with God as righteous persons, the renovation and sanctification of their natures, and, finally, an inheritance among them that are sanctified. Christ is the great Head of influence: all spiritual blessings are the fruits of His purchase. It is only by abiding in Him that we are enabled to bring forth fruits unto eternal life; as it is written, “I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit” (Joh 15:5).

You see now the great importance of faith in the salvation of sinners. It is the instrument by means of which we receive everything necessary to our peace. None can be saved without it, and everyone who has it will assuredly be saved. It is connected in the statements of God’s Word with almost every blessing that is mentioned as important and valuable, as the origin from which they are all derived, the instrument by which they are all received. It is the Holy Spirit that forms the union between Christ and believers, and faith wrought in their hearts by His almighty power is the tie that connects them together and forms the bond of union.

While salvation is thus through faith, it is, at the same time, “by grace” (Eph 2:5, 8). It is to be traced wholly to God’s free and unmerited favor. There is nothing whatever in faith as a grace or virtue, as an act of ours, to merit anything at God’s hands [or] to deserve anything for us…Faith, viewed as a work or act of ours, could not itself procure for us the pardon of sin any more than repentance, if that too were in our power. Far less—[even if] we could believe by our own strength—could it ever merit for us any reward at God’s hands.

It is not indeed, then, as a work or a grace that faith saves: it is merely the instrument of uniting us to Christ. His work is the sole ground of our salvation and of all that is connected with it. We owe it all to Him. He purchased it for us by His own sufferings and obedience, and He bestows it upon us by His Spirit. Therefore, we must beware, friends, of giving to our own faith, in the work of salvation, the place that belongs only to Christ. When salvation is ascribed to faith, this is so far from attaching merit to faith that it is just expressly renouncing it. We are saved indeed by faith, but it is faith in Christ Jesus. Our faith is that which carries us out of ourselves to Christ, transferring our whole dependence, as it were, from our own doing to what He has done and suffered for us. And it is a constant act of trust, a confidence in Him for everything pertaining to another world. It bears at all times upon it a declaration of our utter inability to do anything for ourselves. Hence, not only is salvation by faith quite consistent with being by grace, but further, as the Apostle tells us, it is of faith that it might be by grace. Not only are they consistent with each other, but the one affords the most striking illustration of the other. Nothing could have more fully established or more clearly illustrated the free grace of the Gospel than making our salvation depend upon faith; for faith, besides being originally God’s gift, is a constant appeal to His agency: it is both in form and in substance a casting [of] ourselves entirely and unreservedly upon His mercy through Christ and resting upon Him alone. We believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and are saved."

These are my sentiments exactly.

In "JUSTIFIED IN CHRIST" Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) said:

"This relation or union to Christ, whereby Christians are said to be in Christ (whatever it be) is the ground of their right to His benefits. This needs no proof: the reason of the thing, at first blush, demonstrates it. It is exceeding evident also by Scripture: “He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life” (1Jo 5:12). “But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us…righteousness” (1Co 1:30). First, we must be in Him, and then He will be made righteousness or justification to us. “He hath made us accepted in the beloved” (Eph 1:6). Our being in Him is the ground of our being accepted. So it is in those unions to which the Holy Ghost has thought fit to compare this. The union of the members of the body with the head is the ground of their partaking of the life of the head. It is the union of the branches to the stock that is the ground of their partaking of the sap and life of the stock. It is the relation of the wife to the husband that is the ground of her joint interest in his estate.

As there is nobody [who will not agree] that there is a peculiar relation between Christ and His true disciples by which they are in some sense in Scripture said to be one, so I suppose there is nobody [who will not agree] that there may be something that the true Christian does on his part, whereby he is active in coming into this relation or union…Now faith I suppose to be this act.

I do not now pretend to define justifying faith or to determine precisely how much is contained in it. [I will] only determine thus much concerning it: [justifying faith] is that by which the soul, which before was separate and alienated from Christ, unites itself to Him. [The soul] ceases to be any longer in that state of alienation and comes into that forementioned union or relation to Him. Or, to use the Scripture phrase, it is that by which the soul comes to Christ and receives Him. This is evident by the Scriptures using these very expressions to signify faith.

God does not give union with or an interest in the Savior to those that believe as a reward for faith, but only because faith is the soul’s active uniting with Christ. [Faith] is itself the very act of unition on their part. God sees it fit that in order to a union being established between two intelligent active beings or persons, so that they should be looked upon as one, there should be the mutual act of both that each should receive [the] other as actively joining themselves one to another. God, in requiring this in order to a union with Christ as one of His people, treats men as reasonable creatures, capable of act and choice.

It is [in this way] that faith justifies or gives an interest in Christ’s satisfaction and merits and a right to the benefits procured thereby, that is, as it thus makes Christ and the believer one in the acceptance of the Supreme Judge. It is by faith that we have a title to eternal life because it is by faith that we have the Son of God by whom life is. The Apostle John in these words, “He that hath the Son, hath life,” (1Jo 5:12) seems evidently to have respect to those words of Christ of which he gives an account in his Gospel: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him” (Joh 3:36). And where the Scripture speaks of faith as the soul’s receiving or coming to Christ, it speaks of this receiving, coming to, or joining with Christ as the ground of an interest in His benefits. To as many as received Him, “to them gave he power” to become the sons of God. Ye will not come unto me “that ye might have life.”

Can I get an amen?