Which comes first, union or imputation?
Some seem to suggest that God couldn’t be united with us until we had been justified, because he couldn’t unite himself with something that wasn't holy; others seem to suggest that God couldn’t impute Christ’s righteousness to us unless we were united with him first, just as the imputation of Adam’s sin depends on our union with Adam.
So, I’m puzzled! Anybody out there got an answer?
So, I’m puzzled! Anybody out there got an answer?
posted by Daniel Hill | 6/15/2006 07:29:00 pm
4 Comments:
I wouldn't say that I have a complete answer, as it's really a big question. I have found Richard Gaffin's work on the ordo salutis to be particularly helpful in understanding the relationship of union with Christ to the other aspects of the ordo.
He poses an interesting question in the conclusion to Resurrection and Redemption:
"If at the point of inception this union is prior (and therefore involves the possession in the inner man of all that Christ is as resurrected), what need is there for the other acts? Conversely, if the other acts are in some sense prior, is not union improperly sub-ordinated and its biblical significance severely attenuated, to say the least?" (Pg. 138-139).
Speaking of the ordo, he says, "Paul views them [justification, regeneration, etc. - IHC] not as distinct acts but as distinct aspects of a single act. The significant difference here is not simply that Paul does not have the problem that faces the tradition ordo salutis in having, by its very structure, to establish a pattern of priorities (temporal? logical? causal?) which obtains among these acts." (Pg. 138).
I'm now in the process of trying to understand the ordo along the lines that Gaffin is arguing to see if he's correct. Thus far, it would seem so.
Thanks very much for this, Ian. I haven't read Gaffin's work, I'm afraid. I don't really understand his question: my view is that the union is prior, and that 'the other acts' are basically mere consequences of the union. The 'possession in the inner man of all that Christ is as resurrected' just is the sequence of 'other acts'. So it's not as if there is a separate need for them, different from the need for the union with Christ; they flow from the union with Christ.
It's a fine question whether they really are distinct acts or distinct aspects of a single act: when I type am I performing ten acts, one with each finger, or am I performing one act with ten aspects? Be that as it may, I don't think it makes any difference: none of the Reformed wants to establish temporal priorities in the ordo salutis, and, even if there is only one act, we do want logical priorities defined among the aspects of that act.
Hey Daniel,
The thrust of what Gaffin is getting at is what you are saying. He is arguing in R&R that the traditional ordo salutis needs to be tweeked, so that the events all flow from union with Christ. In my readings on this issue, I was delighted to see that this is essentially the ordo that can be found in Calvin, in particular Book III of the Institutes.
Here are two lectures by Gaffin on the relationship between the ordo salutis and historia salutis that you might find helpful.
http://two-age.org/online_sermons/kerux_2001/gaffin1.ram
and
http://two-age.org/online_sermons/kerux_2001/gaffin2.ram
I probably should have put Gaffin's quotes in better context. I highly recommend Resurrection and Redemption!
Thanks for this, Ian. I'm puzzled, though, as to why Gaffin thinks that the traditional 'ordo salutis' needs to be tweaked. As you say, Calvin holds that all the benefits of our redemption flow from union with Christ. This is also the position of John Murray and, it seems to me, most of the Reformed.
My original question, however, which wasn't very well expressed, was designed to ask which depended on which: the imputation of our sin to Christ on the cross in AD 33, or our union with him two thousand odd years later.
Post a Comment
<< Home