So far, it looks like my earier comments (one, two) were dead on. The move to Christology is utterly arbitrary and unrelated to anything. Union with the first Adam and union with the second do no raise the sort of questions in Christology which Garcia wishes to treat as central.

Garcia writes of D. A. Carson’s “vigorous defense of imputation.” Carson’s defense was excellent. It was no different in substance from Rich Lusk and Peter Leithart. I highly recommend it–except for the deceptive pretense that this represents some great stand against enemies of imputation. That is simply a tribal rationale for warfare, not anything remotely related to the substance of what Dr. Carson articulated.

Here are some things I have written on Carson and the essay which Garcia sites:

• “Garver on Wright”: talks about both why Carson is so good and so bad (good: rational and exegetical on imputation/ bad: barbaric to the level of a blogger in dealing with Don Garlington.
• “Impute means Ascribe, Reckon, Regard, Attribute”: touches on Carson.
• “Seed Imputed from an Alien Source”

More as I read.