I got some questions on this N.T. Wright business last night that made me think of a couple things, things that should be tossed into the theological hopper. So here goes.
The first is that the theological criticisms I have made of the “union with Christ” model as a stand-alone model for imputation are criticisms that don’t work nearly as well in a baptistic context. My criticisms have assumed that there is a kind of scriptural union with Christ that is not ultimately salvific — i.e. the union that the reprobate member of the covenant has. The baptist, for whom union with Christ is just plain old union with Christ, can just shrug at my counterexamples, and say, “That’s your problem, Wilson, which you fully deserve for deciding to baptize babies in the first place.”
This is just an observation, followed up by two more. The fact that my theological argument doesn’t rattle the baptistic advocate of the union-model is okay, because he is still left with the exegetical problem of John 15, Romans 11, and a number of my other happy verses. But second, the union-with-Christ advocates who are paedobaptist should sit up and take note. It may well be that there is an internal logic to this position that will drive one to a baptistic solution. Note that I am not saying that all baptists need adopt the union-with-Christ model instead of the classic imputation model (what is being called in this discussion the “transfer” model) — it is just that the baptist position provides a plausible answer to one of the objections that can be raised against it.
All that said, I need to clarify something about my position. I believe that the status that results from the declaration of justification and the imputation involved in justification are distinct but inseparable. One is the act of declaring, the other is the result of the declaration. The former says that the obedience of Jesus Christ, your federal head, is now reckoned to be your obedience. The latter is that you now have the status of one who was obedient. A man and wife have to be declared husband and wife before they have the status of husband and wife, and before that status can be lawfully consummated.
A side note. Richard Gaffin has a place of honor in the OPC so he can talk about these things with impunity, but the rest of us peons have to be careful. I recognize what he says about the ordo salutis being the kind of thing that we cannot time with a stopwatch — we are talking about logical order, not necessarily chronological order. And theologians do sometimes have to talk this way, although wise theologians never like it. As Paul would say, I am out of my mind to talk like this . . . but, like Joe Walsh, sometimes I still do.
The problem with union being the logical basis of the imputation is that a just Christ would have to be united with an unjust people. It happens, and as a result God speaks to fix the remaining problems. But I think the order has to be scripturally different. God speaks, and then it happens. Let there be light, and then there is light. Let there be a just union, because I have reckoned my Son’s obedience as theirs, and so it came to pass that there was a just union.
One last comment. Just as we don’t have stopwatches that are up to nano-second justification timing, so we don’t have minds that can follow all the logical issues involved. So discussion of these issues should always be characterized by us walking through these discussions in all humility. Do justice, love mercy, and walk gingerly.