The Ordo revisited

[Scott Bushey]

I have been thinking deeply lately about the ordo. According to reformed orthodoxy, justification comes after conversion. This means that it is possible that men can be regenerated & converted without yet being justified. Matt's chart on the order shows conversion as a process. Within the formula (conversion), justification occurs. This seems more to me as realistic.

Thoughts?

 

[Arch2k]

Easton's Bible Dictionary:

Conversion
The turning of a sinner to God (Act_15:3).
In a general sense the heathen are said to be "œconverted" when they abandon heathenism and embrace the Christian faith; and in a more special sense men are converted when, by the influence of divine grace in their souls, their whole life is changed, old things pass away, and all things become new (Act_26:18). Thus we speak of the conversion of the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:19-34), of Paul (Acts 9:1-22), of the Ethiopian treasurer (Act_8:26-40), of Cornelius (Acts 10), of Lydia (Act_16:13-15), and others. (See REGENERATION.)

I've always thought of conversion as including both repentance and faith (consequently justification also).

This means that it is possible that men can be regenerated & converted without yet being justified.

In a logical sense yes. In a chronological sense, I would say that regeneration and faith (conversion) happen simultaniously in time. Pink uses the illustration of a blind man's eyes being opened for the first time. As soon as his eyes are opened (regeneration), he sees (faith). Logically, it must occur in this order, but chronologically it is simultanious. Justification would occur in a like manner following the gift of faith.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Easton's Bible Dictionary:

Conversion
The turning of a sinner to God (Act_15:3).
In a general sense the heathen are said to be "œconverted" when they abandon heathenism and embrace the Christian faith; and in a more special sense men are converted when, by the influence of divine grace in their souls, their whole life is changed, old things pass away, and all things become new (Act_26:18). Thus we speak of the conversion of the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:19-34), of Paul (Acts 9:1-22), of the Ethiopian treasurer (Act_8:26-40), of Cornelius (Acts 10), of Lydia (Act_16:13-15), and others. (See REGENERATION.)

I've always thought of conversion as including both repentance and faith (consequently justification also).

This means that it is possible that men can be regenerated & converted without yet being justified.

In a logical sense yes. In a chronological sense, I would say that regeneration and faith (conversion) happen simultaniously in time. Pink uses the illustration of a blind man's eyes being opened for the first time. As soon as his eyes are opened (regeneration), he sees (faith). Logically, it must occur in this order, but chronologically it is simultanious. Justification would occur in a like manner following the gift of faith.

Jeff,
Are you saying that the ordo is instantaneous? Chronology implies time.

Whatever the case, as I said, the refomed view is that regeneration and conversion happen before justification; this is where I am struggling.

[Edited on 5-15-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[fredtgreco]

Scott,

I think we have been over this before - it is NOT a chronological order, but a logical order.

Conversion = faith + repentance

As soon as one repents and has faith in Christ, he is justified. It is instantaneous (in that respect).

 

[smhbbag]

ditto to Fred.....I view it much like the approach we all take to the infra/supra debate - it's about logical order, not necessarily chronology.

As soon as one repents and has faith in Christ, he is justified. It is instantaneous (in that respect).

nail on the head

and I first typed a long post talking about Pink's illustration of spiritual sight - then I saw Jeff had referenced the same much more succinctly. Note to self: read the thread before writing

 

[Scott Bushey]

Fred,
Sorry to belabor the point. Still working through this in my mind.

Maybe I am thinking too much; trying to redefine the wheel..........

[Edited on 5-15-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Scott,

I think we have been over this before - it is NOT a chronological order, but a logical order.

Conversion = faith + repentance

As soon as one repents and has faith in Christ, he is justified. It is instantaneous (in that respect).

Fred,
But scripture shows instances of chronology, i.e. John the baptist and the statement by Christ in John 3.

Is a man saved before he is glorified? If so, is that chronological?

[Edited on 5-15-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Scott,
Without trying to be too pigheaded about it, I would say that the logic of the order implies a kind of succession (or chronology). But it's not the succession of extended time; it is the a single process, as Matt describes. With regard to regeneration and faith, the second folows necessarily from the first, like sight happens when the eyes are first opened. The eyes open and then one sees. There is succession there, chronology if you will, but its not like one gets regenerated, and then down the line sometime faith and repentance happen along, taking their sweet time. The first implies the second necessarily.

The same is true with conversion and justification. The second happens when the first does, but the second doens't happen without the first. Again, succession and chronology are present, but not time and gaps. They are like bricks or blocks set next to one another. The next stage of the process is not arrested after the prior has been completed. Thus, it never occurs that a converted person is not immediately justified. That would invove a distinct change in the function of the process. It would be a different process from the one to which we are accustomed. I don't think it ever happens (or has happened) differently. At least, that's the way I see it...

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
Scott,
Without trying to be too pigheaded about it, I would say that the logic of the order implies a kind of succession (or chronology). But it's not the succession of extended time; it is the a single process, as Matt describes. With regard to regeneration and faith, the second folows necessarily from the first, like sight happens when the eyes are first opened. The eyes open and then one sees. There is succession there, chronology if you will, but its not like one gets regenerated, and then down the line sometime faith and repentance happen along, taking their sweet time. The first implies the second necessarily.

The same is true with conversion and justification. The second happens when the first does, but the second doens't happen without the first. Again, succession and chronology are present, but not time and gaps. They are like bricks or blocks set next to one another. The next stage of the process is not arrested after the prior has been completed. Thus, it never occurs that a converted person is not immediately justified. That would invove a distinct change in the function of the process. It would be a different process from the one to which we are accustomed. I don't think it ever happens (or has happened) differently. At least, that's the way I see it...

Bruce,
What Matt meant is that the term conversion compartmentalizes all the ingredients. Not that they can't happen without any extended time.

[Edited on 5-15-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Scott, perhaps a little volume by John Girardeau would be helpful called, Federal Theology, It's Import and Regulative Influence.

In that book, he argues that the Ordu is grounded first of all in the federal headship of Christ. We are first justified "virtually" in Christ as our covenant head, and then "actually" in time when faith is produced. Regeneration and faith and therefore actual justification are grounded in and naturally follow that virtual justification in our covenant head. That's a very short summary, but it's all I have time for at the moment. Check out the book though.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Scott,
My questions would be (and I know I'm not "getting" your point exactly; I'm sorry): regarding regeneration, an event, one moment you're dead, the next alive, right? There's really no "inbetween" is there?

Regarding Conversion (repentance & faith), once you can see (have new life), won't you see? Where's the gap? Is your question one that asks, "Does this faith/repentance component sometimes take time to complete, or develop to the point where Justification is warranted?"

Regarding Justification, once you have life and are actively seeing spiritually (i.e. believing), Why might God refrain from announcing pardon? What purpose would that serve? Isn't that assurance of pardon the sweet blessing of conversion?

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

To make it even more confusing, all of these things are decided and "true" and "real" in eternity past. I was justified thousands of years ago, in Christ, eternally speaking. Makes your head spin!

 

[Craig]

Weren't we justified before the foundation of the world?

Justification is something we were decreed...are declared, then truly are made upon glorification. The ordu is how we understand conversion/justification. Isn't it most helpful in avoiding error, not in showing a progressive experience? If not, then the "process" would become a work...people would try to recreate the process to become justified.

[Edited on 5-15-2005 by Craig]

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Craig
Weren't we justified before the foundation of the world?

Justification is something we were decreed...are declared, then truly are made upon glorification. The ordu is how we understand conversion/justification. Isn't it most helpful in avoiding error, not in showing a progressive experience? If not, then the "process" would become a work...people would try to recreate the process to become justified.

[Edited on 5-15-2005 by Craig]

Craig,

The Confession is very helpful here:

God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, (Gal. 3:8, 1 Pet. 1:2,19"“20, Rom. 8:30) and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sins, and rise for their justification: (Gal. 4:4, 1 Tim. 2:6, Rom. 4:25) nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them. (Col. 1:21"“22, Gal. 2:16, Tit. 3:4"“7)

The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XI, 4

The ordo is about the actual experience of justification. Eternal justification is an error, and a dangerous one.

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Craig
Weren't we justified before the foundation of the world?

Justification is something we were decreed...are declared, then truly are made upon glorification. The ordu is how we understand conversion/justification. Isn't it most helpful in avoiding error, not in showing a progressive experience? If not, then the "process" would become a work...people would try to recreate the process to become justified.

[Edited on 5-15-2005 by Craig]

Craig,

You are confusing virtual justification, with actual justification. Virtual justification is the DECREE to justify, while actual justification is the PRONOUNCEMENT of justification, or the decree coming to pass.

All decrees are in the mind of God before the foundation of the world, and all his decrees then come to pass in a moment in time. Important to distinguish.

For more discussion, check out THIS thread on eternal justification:

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Scott,

I think we have been over this before - it is NOT a chronological order, but a logical order.

Conversion = faith + repentance

As soon as one repents and has faith in Christ, he is justified. It is instantaneous (in that respect).

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
Scott,
My questions would be (and I know I'm not "getting" your point exactly; I'm sorry): regarding regeneration, an event, one moment you're dead, the next alive, right? There's really no "inbetween" is there?

Regarding Conversion (repentance & faith), once you can see (have new life), won't you see? Where's the gap? Is your question one that asks, "Does this faith/repentance component sometimes take time to complete, or develop to the point where Justification is warranted?"

Regarding Justification, once you have life and are actively seeing spiritually (i.e. believing), Why might God refrain from announcing pardon? What purpose would that serve? Isn't that assurance of pardon the sweet blessing of conversion?

Bruce,
Correct. But between those components, Gods decree, the outward call, regeneration, justification, there may be an obvious time frame that occurs, as in Johns example. What I said about Matt was that Matt acknowledges the idea of a gap as well as him seeing all these components as a process known as conversion. This is different from the typical reformed view as in that view, they see conversion as an actual component with justification following conversion. This is my contention.

[Edited on 5-15-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Jeff,
Same question I posed to Fred, I will pose to you:

Is a man saved before he is glorified? If so, is that chronological?

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Jeff,
Same question I posed to Fred, I will pose to you:

Is a man saved before he is glorified? If so, is that chronological?

A man is ALWAYS converted (logically AND chronologically) before he is glorified. However, there are many parts of the ordo that DO happen with a time gap seperating them. Sanctification is a life long process for the Christian.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Jeff,
The reason I am asking you is because you ditto'd Freds statement:

I think we have been over this before - it is NOT a chronological order, but a logical order.

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Jeff,
The reason I am asking you is because you ditto'd Freds statement:

I think we have been over this before - it is NOT a chronological order, but a logical order.

In the area of regeneration and conversion (faith + repentance), I do not believe there is a time gap between them. As soon as one opens the eyes, they see.

This is not to say that every element in the ordo is that way. Some obviously have a time gap.

Also, I ditto Fred, because the ordo is developed as a logical order, not chronological.

The ordo answers the question:

In what order MUST the steps of salvation play out in the christian life?

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Scott,

I think we have been over this before - it is NOT a chronological order, but a logical order.

Conversion = faith + repentance

As soon as one repents and has faith in Christ, he is justified. It is instantaneous (in that respect).

Fred,
But scripture shows instances of chronology, i.e. John the baptist and the statement by Christ in John 3.

Is a man saved before he is glorified? If so, is that chronological?

[Edited on 5-15-2005 by Scott Bushey]

Scott,

Just because one aspect of the ordo admits of a chronological order, does not mean that the entire ordo must be chronological. Would you say that there is a time when man has faith in Christ and yet is still bound for hell?

Also, I have said this before, it is VERY dangerous to try and make a normative Biblical case from the extremely scanty and exceptional nature of the experience of John and Jeremiah.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
Scott,
My questions would be (and I know I'm not "getting" your point exactly; I'm sorry): regarding regeneration, an event, one moment you're dead, the next alive, right? There's really no "inbetween" is there?

Regarding Conversion (repentance & faith), once you can see (have new life), won't you see? Where's the gap? Is your question one that asks, "Does this faith/repentance component sometimes take time to complete, or develop to the point where Justification is warranted?"

Regarding Justification, once you have life and are actively seeing spiritually (i.e. believing), Why might God refrain from announcing pardon? What purpose would that serve? Isn't that assurance of pardon the sweet blessing of conversion?

Bruce,
Correct. But between those components, Gods decree, the outward call, regeneration, justification, there may be an obvious time frame that occurs, as in Johns example. What I said about Matt was that Matt acknowledges the idea of a gap as well as him seeing all these components as a process known as conversion. This is different from the typical reformed view as in that view, they see conversion as an actual component with justification following conversion. This is my contention.

[Edited on 5-15-2005 by Scott Bushey]

Scott, you are getting overly technical here.

Let me give another example:

The typical reformed ordo clearly distinguishes between justification and adoption. Does that mean that there can be a time gap between the two? A time when a sinner is justified by God but not good enough to be his child? No. mh. ge,noito

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Scott,

I think we have been over this before - it is NOT a chronological order, but a logical order.

Conversion = faith + repentance

As soon as one repents and has faith in Christ, he is justified. It is instantaneous (in that respect).

Fred,
But scripture shows instances of chronology, i.e. John the baptist and the statement by Christ in John 3.

Is a man saved before he is glorified? If so, is that chronological?

[Edited on 5-15-2005 by Scott Bushey]

Scott,

Just because one aspect of the ordo admits of a chronological order, does not mean that the entire ordo must be chronological. Would you say that there is a time when man has faith in Christ and yet is still bound for hell?

Also, I have said this before, it is VERY dangerous to try and make a normative Biblical case from the extremely scanty and exceptional nature of the experience of John and Jeremiah.

Fred,
I am not saying that in every case, the ordo is chronological. What I am saying is scripture validates my premise. The ordo does allow for chronology and to reject the idea is error.

You ask:

Would you say that there is a time when man has faith in Christ and yet is still bound for hell?

In the divided sense, they are. In the compound, they are not!
Was John the baptist justified while in the womb? No! However, via Gods decree, these men whom are elected to justification will fulfill that decree.



[Edited on 5-15-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Scott Bushey]

In the area of regeneration and conversion (faith + repentance), I do not believe there is a time gap between them.

Jeff,
The scriptures disagree with you. We have John, Jeremiah and Sampson as examples.

Show me scripture to refute the premise.

[Edited on 5-15-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Scott, you are getting overly technical here.

The problem with the church today, Fred, is that its undertechnical.

Everyone, take a little time and read Van Mastrichet's "copy" of Turretin's ideas, which are "copies" of Calvin, et. al. Edwards thought Van Mastricht was THE BEST book outside the bible. Van Mastricht demonstrates MOST EFFICIENTLY that the ordo is time oriented, and that can remain a gap within the order of salvation at different points.

It would be crazy to assume that "justification and glorification" are instantaneous. They are most definitely chronological. To wonder whether adoption and justification happen at the same time is simply to ask if adoption can HAPPEN (i.e. time oriented question) before "justification" if you say NO, then they are time faceted.

We are not speaking here about decrees. We are speaking about the redemption of a man in..........TIME.

[Edited on 5-15-2005 by webmaster]

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

In the area of regeneration and conversion (faith + repentance), I do not believe there is a time gap between them.

Jeff,
The scriptures disagree with you. We have John, Jeremiah and Sampson as examples.

Show me scripture to refute the premise.

[Edited on 5-15-2005 by Scott Bushey]

I guess I do not understand how they are examples. Can you explain? Is this because they were regenerate from the womb? If so, you might throw David in the mix. I guess I assume that they had the gospel preached to them and they were regenerated and believed like anyone else, but I could be wrong.

Is your question involving if regeneration happens mediately or immediately? I believe that the Word of God is always the instrument God uses to regenerate a sinful soul. It is sharper than any two-edged sword and able to raise the spiritually dead to life!

Even if this is not the case with these four individuals, I would appeal to a miricle such as these (immediate regeneration) as the exception, and not the norm.

WCF 5:3
God in His ordinary providence maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them at His pleasure.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Jeff,
Yes, let's add David. These are examples of individuals whom were regenerate, possibly before birth. For instance, John was regenerate in the womb. Saving faith and repentance had not yet occured to complete the process. John was elect, hence the decree was that John would in fact live a full life. That life was ordained in that John would be converted later under the preaching of Gods word.

[Edited on 5-15-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
For instance, John was regenerate in the womb. Saving faith and repentance had not yet occured to complete the process.

Do we have any scriptural evidense that he didn't have saving faith until later? Or was he born with saving faith? Is it possible that John's mother spoke the gospel to him and he had faith in the womb?

Psa 22:9 Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother's breasts.
Psa 22:10 On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother's womb you have been my God.

 

[fredtgreco]

No one has yet to produce any Scriptural evidence or an example of a space in time between faith and/or repentance and justification. That was what started the ball rolling.

The distinction between glorification and justification, and the possible regeneration of some very few in the womb are not germane to that discussion.

Of course, I would agree (as Matt posits) that to state that two things happen at the same time is to make a statement of a temporal nature. But it is a massive leap to say that because I can speak of two things in a temporal nature, that there is necessarily the possibility of a gap.