Edwards writes about a confusion of “the eternal decree, which indeed includes imputation with its actual application in time.” But we need to make a distinction between God’s decree and both the accomplishment of redemption and the imputation of that redemption. God decrees that the elect will be effectually called, but that calling is in time. God decrees to impute what Christ will accomplish, but that IMPUTATION IS ALSO DONE IN TIME. But Edwards seems to assume that imputation is not “actual imputation” because he continues to assume that “union caused by the mutual indwelling” is the “actual” application. But this is the very issue in question!

Edwards knows good and well that neither John Fesko nor John Owen is advocating eternal justification or eternal imputation. But his allegiance to the Gaffin/Evans/ Garcia/ Letham consensus will not allow him to think of the possibility that God’s legal imputation is that which unites the elect to Christ so that Christ’s Spirit will be given to these then justified sinners.

I don’t disagree. However, I greatly appreciated Rev. Edwards’ article on Flavel and criticisms of his work required a response. Perhaps the appropriate place for the criticisms would have been along the lines of a letter to the editor in the journal where those criticisms should get an appropriate review & if valid a response. Since the criticisms were made online they needed to be addressed online. Maybe the criticisms couldn’t withstand professional scrutiny.

Agreed