Does anyone else have trouble explaining already/not-yet?
I don't know why I know so many people who doubt their salvation, but one thing they all have in common is that they don't accept theological jargon without questioning what that really means. I got pulled apart on 'already/not-yet' recently.
When I talk about already/not-yet I think usually end up doing away with the tension and either saying:
- Its already fully but not yet revealed.
- Its already partly but not yet completed.
- Its not already at all, although we say it is (as some kind of legal-fiction) because it is certain that in the not yet it will be really true.
One ambition for 2010 is to tighten up my understanding on this. Any thoughts on books, bible verses, illustrations, etc which would help would be gratefully received.
Reflecting on union with Christ helps. Part of the tension between the now and not yet is to do with salvation being located in Christ (he is risen to the right hand of the Father, he has received the Father's approval ['justification'], he is glorified, he is accepted into the heavenly sanctuary [sanctified]), and therefore located in me only in so far as I am located in him.
ReplyDeleteBut, let's remember that the bond is covenantal, like Adam's headship, and not just legal therefore - it is also Spiritual (forged by the Spirit) - there is a reality to the union ontologically speaking which means the language of us having what Christ is and has is not just a legal fiction.
And this also means that union with Christ means regeneration, and progressive sanctification, all as part of the now.
Calvin is good on this in the institutes I think. For him, union with Christ is the big deal. From it flow both justification and regeneration (which for Calvin is a process that starts with 'regeneration' and flows on into 'sanctification').
You might not be surprised, either, to know that I think now/ not yet is an oversimplification since it can sometimes imply there are only 'two tenses' to salvation, when there are actually three.
ReplyDeleteI prefer to use the language of the kingdom - inaugurated, progressive, consummated.
Wow. I had a good conversation with my housemate about it this evening and the conclusion we came to was that we had to realise more how it is question that is about Christ as our representative, and that the Spirit was what made it not a legal fiction. And as the bullet point in my post perhaps suggest, I had already begun thinking that three tenses are better than two.
ReplyDeleteLots of overlap with what you're saying. Very helpful though.
We noted that Christ's exaltation and rule is also already-completed/partially-completed/not-yet, so the tension is not just one in our lives, but in some sense Christ's life too (at least in his relation to creation).
I have a question about your point that the "bond is covenantal". You say that it is therefore also Spiritual. But was the covenantal bond with Adam Spiritual? Perhaps you could say that our ontological covenantal bond with Adam is physical instead?
Basic conclusion seems to be the standard one, that I so often forget. Keep all three persons of the Trinity in view and don't forget Eschatology and you won't go too far wrong.
Having said that, do you think your "inaugurated, progressive, consummated" does full justice to the fact that it is already COMPLETED? My housemate and I reflected on the flaw of the D-day landing illustration being that it didn't fully capture how much victory had already occurred. Perhaps though, we can't do much better than how you have outlined it.
Yeah, some of that depends on what you mean by inaugurated. I take it to mean not just 'begun' but 'established' and 'become a matter of fact.' So long as we take the three tenses as representing something real in themselves then I think we're ok. They're incomplete because salvation is positional, ethical and physical, but (for e.g.) the first tense gives us the whole of salvation positionally speaking. I think...
ReplyDeleteOn Adam, yes I think I'd say physical. The thing that's true of both our union with Christ and our union with Adam is that they are in some way 'ontological' as well as legal. In Adam that is rooted in our being related to him physically, in Christ that is by being related to him Spiritually - or even better, it's a matter of the first birth and the second birth. Or something like that. Not got it all sewn up by any means.
All makes perfect sense to me.
ReplyDeleteVery well put. I ought to do some more thinking about God creative (ethical, physical) word of justification (positional).
The old/new birth thing is obvious once you think about it. It always amazes me how simple theology is really, and yet we find it so complicated at the same time... or at least I do.